← The David Pakman Show
The David Pakman Show
3/19/25: Putin embarrasses Trump, Elon's nutty interview
01:09:42
-- On the Show: -- Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) joins David to discuss the growing constitutional crisis created by the Trump administration, and much more -- Russian President Vladimir Putin humiliates Donald Trump, keeping him waiting an hour...
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:07]
David Pakman
Welcome, everybody. You know, you would think that after all these years of licking Vladimir Putin's boots, Donald Trump would have earned himself a little bit of respect, but you would be wrong. Once again, we see that Putin owns Trump like an obedient little lackey. And this time he expressed that by making him sit by the phone like a desperate intern waiting for a callback. For an hour while Putin sat on stage laughing, Trump called Putin, I guess, to push for a cease fire in Ukraine. Big, important call, Girthy, powerful phone call, stakes very high. But Putin seemingly could not care less. And instead of taking Donald Trump's call on time, he was schmoozing with his Russian oligarch buddies and cracking jokes and making it clear he's not really in any rush. At one point, and we're going to watch this here, Putin's event host checks his watch and reminds Putin. Peskov is telling us that Trump is waiting. And what does Vladimir Putin do? He laughs and he waves it off like, I'll get to that when I feel like it. Okay? This is, of course, in Russian. It's subtitled for those who are watching Trump familiar. Because an hour later, an hour later, Putin finally saunters over and takes Trump's phone call. Just imagine that for a moment, the former leader of the free world, waiting like the beta male they claim to despise for his Russian master to grant him an audience. And it doesn't stop there. Once we got to the phone call and to the subject matter, Trump wanted a full cease fire in Ukraine, not because he cares about the substance, but because he wants to claim victory. What did he get? A partial one, maybe. On Vladimir Putin's terms. Putin agreed to stop hitting Ukraine's energy grid for now, but an actual cease fire was rejected. And on top of that, Putin demanded Trump cut off military aid to Ukraine. After keeping him waiting for an hour, Putin tells Trump stop helping Ukraine to defend itself. Now, the White House conveniently did not include that little detail in the readout of the call, but the Kremlin did, because they know that they have the upper hand. This is embarrassing. This. This is absolutely humiliating. Putin is running circles around Trump. Trump spent years defending Putin, calling him a strong leader, bending over backwards to the extent that Trump is able to bend over to appease him. And what he gets in return is a big, steaming pile of humiliation. And Trump is so desperate for a deal that he has already signaled that he's open to recognizing Crimea as being Russian territory. He's talking about divvying up Ukraine's land and power plants, like he's negotiating a real estate deal instead of standing up for a sovereign democracy or not. Which appears to be the case. And this is what Trump does. He idolizes strong men like Putin, thinking that he's one of them, except he's not, because every single time that he actually interacts with them, they own him. They make him wait. They dictate the terms. They play him like a fool. Remember Kim Jong Un? Trump came away from the Kim Jong Un meeting saying, look at all of these concessions I got from Kim. And of course, anyone who knows history knows that these are the exact same faux concessions that North Korean leaders have made in the past. They never follow through. They never stick to them. And the. The maybe sickest tragedy of it all, or irony, depending on your perspective, is that while MAGA is obsessed with Trump being the alpha male and projecting strength and all of it, he just got dunked on again by the actual strongman that they claim to be, that they claim to fear. But will they care, is the question? Of course not. They will spin this. Trump is playing 4D chess. Putin doesn't even get why Trump tricking him into making Trump wait for an hour. He got played like a fiddle. Trump's got him right where he wants him. And of course, it never is the case. Now, in this context of sort of bizarre, confusing authoritarianism, we are increasingly asking the question, what would it take for Americans to really get out and protest in the streets? And that is what I want to talk about. That's the question. What would it take for Americans to protest in the streets, if not right now, when Donald Trump is creating a constitutional crisis by ignoring direct court orders, then when? Now. My book comes out next week. We have just six days ago, six days to go. And leading up to it, I am using parts of the book to make new critiques of what's going on today. These aren't repeats from the book, but it's applying principles from the book to what we see today. In the Echo Machine, I talk about how real activism, real mass mobilization that forces political changes. It doesn't just happen because people are angry. It happens when people feel like they have no other option left. And right now, in 2025, we are watching the country slide further into Donald Trump's authoritarian vision. And yet, where are the mass protests? We've seen inklings, right? But think back to when Donald Trump first took office. In 2017, millions poured into the streets for the Women's March. Protests against his Muslim ban shut down Airports. George Floyd's murder in 2020 brought the largest demonstrations in a very long time. But right now, despite everything that we are seeing, the attacks on the justice system, the blatant retribution against his enemies, the dismantling of democratic norms, it feels like a lot of the country is just watching it happen. And one of the biggest challenges to mass protests today is desensitization. Because we've been dealing with this crap for almost a decade. Americans have been conditioned to expect the worst. And what at one point would have been earth shattering scandals, you know, a president openly threatening political opponents, weaponizing the Justice Department, purging government agencies, now feels like just another Tuesday. And the sheer volume and scope of the authoritarian moves from Trump has numbed people into a sort of inaction. This is what the echo machine warns about in my book. I talk about the danger of constant crisis without any resolution. The result is a sort of protest fatigue. It's not just exhaustion from marching or organizing. It's, it's exhaustion from caring. And that is exactly what authoritarians want. This is a critical aspect to understand. They don't need people to support them. They need people to stop resisting so they can do what they want. And there's another harsh reality. Protesting in America is expensive. It's costly. There's an opportunity cost. In the past movements like the civil rights protests or the labor strikes of the 1930s, they were driven by people willing to sacrifice everything for change. In 2025, for millions of Americans, that's not an option. That, that kind of sacrifice is just not an option because we've got a country where so many people live paycheck to paycheck. If you miss work to protest, it's not just inconvenient. It could mean you don't have money for rent. It could mean you don't have money for groceries. It could mean you lose your job altogether. Companies are ever more aggressive about cracking down on political activism. And many workers simply can't afford to take the risk. In many other countries where health care is a public service, you can go and protest without worrying that at the tail end of it, you lose your health coverage. In the United States, most people have health insurance tied to their job. You lose your job protesting, you could lose your ability to see a doctor or afford your prescriptions or cover a medical emergency. And the right has worked aggressively to criminalize protesting as well. The anti protest laws, surveillance, police crackdowns, ending up on some list. So it is riskier than ever to go and protest. This is what we call the economic side of authoritarianism. It's not just about laws and power grabs. It's you want to keep people financially vulnerable so that they're too afraid to fight back. They can't take the risk of fighting back. In the book the Echo Machine, I lay out the types of activism that can achieve real change. But to get to that, it's also about an environment that allows for that to happen. And also we get to what does it really take to motivate people? One thing is a direct attack on people's lives. Protest movements tend to explode when people feel that their basic security is being stripped away. It might be wages, it might be housing, it might be health care, it might be other rights. Seemingly, we haven't gotten to that point yet. Overturning Roe v. Wade did send people into the streets because it wasn't theoretical. It was happening to them. Maybe if Trump bans abortion nationally or. Or actually goes through and destroys Social Security, maybe that would be a tipping point, but I don't know. Successfully stealing an election or a permanent power grab. If Trump were to make it clear he's not leaving office, we might be in a different situation where the real protesting starts. Republicans are testing it right now. They're seeing how far can we go. But if it becomes undeniable that elections are no longer real, maybe that would serve as a catalyst. And then, I don't know, maybe if Trump escalates his political retribution into something more violent and more direct. Mass arrests, violent crackdowns, political purges, showing up at my door and arresting me for doing my show and. And a lot of others, right? It's not just going to be me. Maybe that will get people to realize that watching from the sidelines isn't an option. So the takeaway here, the message, the danger is it's not just what Trump is doing, it's whether people will notice in time to actually go and stop it. Now, in terms of techniques that really work when mass protests start, I do have an entire chapter about it in my forthcoming book, the Echo Machine. We have just six days left until the book is out. I am told that most bookstores have the stock and they are going to start sending the books out this weekend. You can order the book anywhere books are sold and a few signed copies remain. At Brookline Booksmith, you can get a signed copy at David pakman.com/booksmith will take a very quick break and be back right after this.
- [12:29]
Sponsor
Lately, every day feels like a barrage of news that could keep you up at night. Rights under attack norms shattered chaos dominating the headlines. But we must get good rest. You can't stay in the fight for what's right if you're running on empty. And that's why I'm excited to tell you about something that that has worked really well. Dream Powder by our sponsor Beam. It is a delicious instant hot cocoa with a dose of Melatonin, clinically proven to help you stay asleep and fall asleep without the side effects you get from taking drugs to sleep. Dream Melatonin hot cocoa helps me sleep through the night. No more tossing and turning. Wake up feeling refreshed, not groggy. Keeping Dream Hot Cocoa in my cabinet has become a must. The best part is it comes in a bunch of delicious flavors with no sugar added. My favorite is cinnamon. Go to shop beam.com/pacman use the code PACMAN for 40% off. That's shop b a m.com/pacman. Then use code PACMAN for 40% off. The link is in the podcast Notes Data brokers are continually collecting extensive details about your online behavior. Address, phone number, email, financial information, even political political views. This sensitive information about you can easily be found on public data search sites by anybody. Could be an ex, could be an employer, and these brokers sell the data to other businesses and even government agencies like the FBI and NSA who can buy it in bulk to surveil Americans without a search warrant. Scammers and spammers also get your details from these lists and that's why you get the text messages and the calls and the emails. But you can stop it. Our sponsor Incogni will send removal requests to data brokers who are legally obligated to comply. If any of your information remains online, Incogni will follow up and ensure that it's taken down. Incogni keeps you informed every step of the way and it just saves you countless hours of work that would be nearly impossible to do on your own. I use Incogni and what they've managed to do is remarkable. Go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN for 60% off. That's incogni.com/pacMan for a huge 60% discount. The link is in the podcast notes.
- [15:01]
David Pakman
The David Pakman show is an independent media program. What that means is that there is no large media conglomerate that we are a part of that funds the show there. No matter what you see in the YouTube comments, there are no rich left wing billionaires dumping money onto the show. We primarily exist through your support through something called the membership program. You can read about it and sign up@join pacman.com we do an extra show every day for our members. So if the thought process is. If you like this show enough to support it, why don't we give you more show? That's the concept. You can read about it and sign up@join pacman.com in a wild truth social meltdown, the president Donald Trump attacked yet another federal judge, calling them a radical left lunatic, a troublemaker and agitator, and of course, making sure that we all know they were appointed by former President Barack Obama. Because to Donald Trump, the biggest crime a judge can commit is existing in a world where they don't see Trump as being above the law. Donald Trump is losing it again. But this time it is not just incoherent ranting. It is incoherent ranting, but it's more than that. It is a direct call for judges to be impeached. When they make a ruling that Trump doesn't like, he goes full dictator. Take a look at this quote. This radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected president. He didn't win the popular vote by a lot. He didn't win all seven swing states. He didn't win 2750 to 525 counties. He didn't win anything. I won for many reasons. In an overwhelming mandate. Remember, it's an overwhelming mandate in which more than half of the voters voted for somebody else. Trump continues. But fighting illegal immigration may have been the number one reason for this historic victory. I'm just doing what the voters wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached. We don't want vicious, violent, and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers, in our country. Make America great again. Three exclamation points. This is not about crime. This is not about immigration. This is about power. At a core level, Trump believes, and his followers are egging him on in this belief. Trump believes that any judge who doesn't rule in his favor should be removed. No checks, no balances, just blind loyalty to Trump. That is the core of Trumpism. You know, we often say there's really no principles here. A lot of the recent interviews I've been doing for my book, we talk about the chapter on how the principles that this party claims to subscribe to are thrown by the wayside and flushed down the toilet as soon as they're inconvenient. Oh, we're against government intervention in business until we're not. We are for fiscal conservatism and balancing the budget until we're not. And we want to spend a bunch of money on giving tax cuts to the rich. And so we say that there really is no foundational core to Trumpism. That's not totally correct. The foundational core of Trumpism is loyalty to Trump. And so when a judge says, I will evaluate the law and apply it to the facts, the Alien Enemies act doesn't really apply to deportations in the southern border. There has been no due process to these individuals who have been deported and sent to El Salvador. Turn the planes around. That's what. That's my ruling. Trump and MAGA go to their really only existing core principle, which is loyalty to Trump. Not law and order, not democracy, just raw power and loyalty. And as Ruth Ben Ghiat told us last week, if you're familiar with 20th century strongman authoritarian authoritarians, you understand that authoritarians do not believe in an independent judiciary. That is a principle of democracy, an independent judiciary, truly independent, that authoritarians don't believe in. They see the courts as an extension of their own will. We've talked about how in formerly Hugo Chavez and later Nicolas Maduro's Venezuela, the courts became an extension of the government's will. And when the courts don't obey and you're someone like Donald Trump, you do the natural thing. You go after the judges. That's what we are seeing here. It's not the first time. Remember that Trump has spent years attacking judges who rule against him, whether it's in fraud cases, in criminal trials, in cases where he's not personally involved, but it involves his administration, for example, he threatens them, he tries to delegitimize them. This goes all the way back to the first Muslim ban in Trump's first term, where he said that because a judge who ruled against him was of Mexican origin, if I recall correctly, the judge is American, but Mexican parents, he couldn't possibly be an unbiased arbiter when it comes to that issue. He tried to delegitimize that ruling now nearly a decade ago, and now he's outright saying these judges should be removed from office. This is how democracy breaks down. When politicians decide that the courts only count when they rule in Trump's favor, the whole system collapses. Because Trump doesn't just want to win cases. He wants a legal system that exists solely to serve him. That's what dictators want. That's what makes this so dangerous. And if we look at history, you look at the 20th century around the world, you look even at the 21st century in parts of the world. We've seen what happens when judge judges are stripped of their independence. We've seen it in Russia, we've seen it in hungary, more recently, 21st century. And we are starting to see attempts to do the same thing in the United States. Now, someone who is warning Trump this is not a road you want to go down is Chief justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts. But as you will see in a moment, Roberts has his own self serving reasons to be worried about this. Let's talk about it. Donald Trump just got a brutal warning from the Supreme Court. It's true, it's a warning and it is a brutal warning. Trump should have seen this coming. But I am going to suggest to you that the catalyst for this warning is mostly self serving for the Supreme Court. So here's what happened. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a very rare public statement, is saying that impeaching judges over legal rulings that you don't like isn't how it works. It's not how the American judiciary is organized. This is in response to Donald Trump's completely whacked out troth central rant saying that the judge who recently ruled against him with regard to the deportations should be impeached because Trump does not like the ruling. What justice, Chief Justice John Roberts said is that, quote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. And Roberts is right about that. He goes on to say the normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. So what John Roberts is saying to Trump is that when you get a ruling you don't like, you don't demand impeachment of the judge. We have an appellate process. You appeal the ruling to the next highest court. And Roberts says this is the way that it was has worked for hundreds of years. Roberts doesn't name Trump, but the timing makes it obvious what this is about. It comes right after Trump threw this tantrum over a federal judge blocking his mass deportation stunt. So Trump went on Truth Social and said the judge is a troublemaker, demanded impeachment. This is not, of course, the first time that Trump has attacked judges who rule against him. But here is the maybe most important thing about all of this. Trump doesn't care how things work. We know that. But John Roberts is only saying this now because the Supreme Court is slowly starting to realize they might be losing their own power when the Judge said, you can't do these deportations, turn the planes around. And Trump's administration said, no, we now have a situation where we are left to wonder, can courts really enforce their rulings? And as we said yesterday, are they going to arrest the pilots? Are they going to sanction members of the Trump administration? Are they going to go and bring back the deportees? Unlikely, since they've been imprisoned in El Salvador. And what John Roberts and the Supreme Court are starting to think about is, man, if these decisions did get to us and we issued a definitive ruling with a specific determination and the administration ignores it, what do we do? Can we do anything? Do we even really have power? And that is John Roberts, his primary concern here. Now, let's talk about, of course, the hypocrisy, because there always is one. Trump recently said it should be illegal to criticize judges when it came to people criticizing Judge Eileen Cannon, who was involved in one of Trump's criminal cases. When it came to others, Trump said it should be against the law to criticize a judge. Back in 2018, Trump pushed for laws to stop people from being even able to question the decision of a court. And now Trump is the one leading the charge to undermine the judiciary. And here is where Chief Justice John Roberts, his little warning falls apart completely. This Supreme Court gave Trump the very power he is now using against them. Now, hold on a second. The Supreme Court didn't say Trump and presidents can do whatever they want any time. They can ignore court orders whenever they want. They didn't say that. But months ago, they ruled that presidents basically have broad immunity, making it harder to hold Trump accountable. As Trump saw it. And that's what matters. As Trump saw it, they handed him unchecked power. And now Trump is saying, they've never stopped me from doing anything. I don't think they really can. At the end of the day, what are they going to do? Go and bring a pilot down to fly the deportees back? I'm just going to do whatever the hell I want. And now the very Supreme Court whose decision invigorated Trump's belief that he can do whatever he wants. Now that Supreme Court is shocked that he's using that power against courts. Even worse, Trump's vice president, J.D. vance, is now openly saying judges shouldn't even be able to check the executive branch at all. So this is not about Trump's legal troubles and his personal criminal cases. This is a full on attack on the entire judicial system. And I hate to say I, I don't like admitting this. I think that this is a battle that Trump might win. So Chief Justice John Roberts can try to sound tough, but it seems to be too late. The Supreme Court participated in enabling Trump every step of the way. They let him dodge legal consequences, they expanded executive power, Trump took it, and now Trump is turning on them. They wanted to empower the presidency and they've done it. And now they are realizing I don't think we have any tools to actually enforce orders that we or lower courts might issue. They are realizing that they might have made themselves irrelevant. So this is not about what a good guy John Roberts is. He's sticking by the Constitution and the power of independent judiciary. No, I mean, he might casually, incidentally be doing that. But the Supreme Court, much like Fox News, much like the Republican Party, they are realizing that they have lost control of the monster they helped to create. And the question we are left with is what next? I think the answer is not so good.
- [27:48]
Sponsor
Support our show by checking out our sponsor Brain fm. Focus Music. They're giving you free access to their app for a whole month@brain.fm./pacman Once you try Brain FM, you'll quickly understand why this has become my go to music app when I just want to focus on work. In addition to music music for focusing on work, they have modes specially designed for sleep, relaxation, meditation, all created by musicians working with neuroscientists.
- [28:20]
David Pakman
A peer reviewed study showed that Brain.
- [28:23]
Sponsor
FM's music boosts attention, especially for people with adhd tendencies. Brain FM's Focus Music is the only.
- [28:32]
David Pakman
Music made to support ADHD.
- [28:34]
Sponsor
Brains Brain Brain FM is the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. Because of their unique audio technology that changes the patterns in your brain, Brain FM has been an amazing tool when I just want to focus on work. In the past I've tried Spotify or YouTube. I end up distracted or can't find exactly what would be most useful for me. So at a certain point I figured silence must be the solution. Until I discovered this. Brain FM is personalized depending on your brain type.
- [29:05]
David Pakman
So if you want to improve your.
- [29:06]
Sponsor
Focus or relax, give Brain FM a try for 30 days totally free. Go to brain.fm pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. That's brain.fm/pacman. Once again, Donald Trump's cabinet picks are all about loyalty over expertise. Election denier Carrie Lake to lead Voice of America, the government funded broadcaster meant to report unbiased news. Ground News found hundreds of articles covering this story, which is an app I've trusted for years to help me critically analyze the news I consume. Our sponsor, Ground News, doesn't tell you what to think. They show you each news outlet's biases, credibility, financial incentives so you know who's benefiting from the spin they put on each story. You can even filter out certain sources you don't want so you can stay informed without getting buried in the noise. Trump is shaping our future in ways that will last decades. And if we're not paying attention, we will allow history to repeat itself. So stay engaged with Ground News, who is fixing what is breaking right in front of us, the trust and transparency in the media. Ground News is giving my audience 50% off the same vantage plan that I use. Go to Ground News. Slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes.
- [30:37]
David Pakman
It's great to welcome back to the program today, Congressman Jamie Raskin, Democrat representing Maryland's 8th congressional district. You know, Congressman, you're really the perfect person to have on today because the question that many of my viewers are asking relates to the limits of judicial authority in the context of these deportations to El Salvador. And a question many of my audience members have is what recourse do courts ultimately have if the current administration just says we don't care about directions to turn flights around, we don't care about improper use of the Alien Enemies act, we don't care about lack of due process. At the end of the day, what are the mechanisms available here to courts that might be relevant when dealing with this administration?
- [31:32]
Jamie Raskin
David, it's great to be with you. The first thing we got to think about is criminal contempt and civil contempt. Criminal contempt is an actual punishment where people get prosecuted for acting in contempt of court. Obviously, Donald Trump feels invulnerable. He thinks he acts with impunity and immunity because of the terrible Supreme Court decision giving him immunity for felonious acts committed under the putative auspices of his office. But that doesn't apply to anybody else who works for him. That doesn't transfer to people under him. Of course, he could pardon them if we're going to extend the, you know, extreme hypothetical here. That is true, which is why criminal contempt might not be totally satisfactory if we're really moving into a complete authoritarian shutdown kind of situation. After all, we do depend on the US Marshals Service, which is part of the Department of Justice, in order to arrest people for criminal contempt. But civil contempt is a whole different kettle of fish because civil contempt is within the unilateral authority of the court. But the court can slap fines on people it can place a lien on people's bank account and people can be threatened with a million dollars a day sanctions for refusing to comply with an order of court. So, you know, no executive branch officer should feel as if they somehow act with the sort of impunity and immunity which I know Donald Trump feels, even in his case, he has immunity for criminal actions that may have been undertaken under the core functions of his office. It doesn't apply to other official acts if it's not a core function of his office, like a criminal pardon, which is directly under the president. But if it's not an explicit grant to the president at that point, it becomes a balancing operation, even according to that decision in US vs Trump. And if it's just a private unofficial act, like a sexual assault, he does not operate with criminal impunity. So, and again, with respect to people around him, they should not assume that they've got any criminal immunity or impunity. So those things all operate within the judicial arsenal. I know when I go out to town hall meetings, David, people want to know, but yes, what if nothing works on them? What if they just continue to act like a dictator and they're this moves from constitutional law just to the history of democratic struggles against right wing coups and authoritarian takeovers. And the things that ultimately work are the power of civil society working in conjunction with legislative resistance and opposition. And so that comes down to things like general strikes, mass boycotts, mass civil disobedience against a lawless executive branch. But we're obviously a long way off or at least some distance off from stuff like that. It's probably not unhealthy for people to be thinking it through since we have embarked upon this lawless period of our history.
- [34:54]
David Pakman
You know, in a recent commentary, I talked about how we have a system right now that generates huge opportunity costs to protesting in exactly the ways that you describe. Where we have the vast majority of employees in at will situations where they can be their position can be eliminated at any time where health insurance is tied to employment all of a sudden, even if in another environment, you would be out in the streets right now, maybe your kids lose health insurance if you go out and miss a day of work to protest. And so it seems that there is this structural disincentive right now to engage in exactly those types of actions which seems to be a hallmark by the way of authoritarian regimes in the 20th century, which is make it extraordinarily inconvenient and unappealing to and take part in those actions. Do you worry about that infrastructure that is disincentivizing to people to get out there.
- [35:52]
Jamie Raskin
Well, you make a great point. The authoritarians want to make it as costly as possible for people to resist and oppose their lawlessness. And everybody has to figure out for herself, himself, for themselves, exactly where they exist on that spectrum of vulnerability to reprisal and retaliation. Obviously federal workers are in a delicate posture and anybody who's working for a pro authoritarian corporation is in a nerve wracking situation. On the other hand, I'm hearing from lots and lots of retired people who have gotten through their careers, they have some kind of stable pension and Social Security situation. They don't want to see the last chapters of their lives dominated by this kind of fascistic politics. And they're willing to act and they're willing to take a stand. And so, you know, there are people who can't report it this way. Not all of us can do everything, but everybody can do something. And, and because other people can't necessarily do what you can do, it's important that you do it. And, but we do have to think of it as a collective exercise. You know, there have been dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of public protests across the country in these pop up rallies that take place at city halls and county buildings and in front of federal offices, the Teslas and so on. But I think that we are probably moving much closer to a period of mass demonstrations and protests when people are going to come together. And obviously everybody wants to make sure that we're doing everything in our power to center nonviolent moral leadership, the clergy that want to be involved in this, and then also that we are protecting the security of people who participate against, you know, proud boys and Oath keepers who may be out there. We've seen what they like to do in provoking street clashes. So, but with that caveat that we have to make sure we're taking good care of everybody, I think people are getting into the mood of mass protest against these outrages.
- [38:14]
David Pakman
No, I'm seeing the same thing along those lines. Is there an obvious leader or a couple of leaders of the Democratic Party right now in your eyes?
- [38:25]
Jamie Raskin
I think there are many leaders. You know, I was in Hamilton County, Ohio the other day. I spoke to the great Hamilton County Democrats at their dinner and I met a bunch of local leaders who were, you know, there. I, I was invited by Congressman Greg Landsman who's a, a real leader locally for the, the progressive forces there. And so I'm finding leaders all over the country. I mean, I Think it's kind of an artifact of our presidential system that we're always looking for, you know, one person who's going to lead us. I mean, that's that part of the danger and the fallacy embodied in what's happened in the Republican Party. I mean, you ask who their leader is and everybody says immediately, my leader is Donald Trump. I mean, that's just like a fascistic mentality and nobody can dissent. I mean, look what happened to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinziger and Mitt Romney. And anybody who tries to raise even the Constitution as a limitation to the, the ambitions of the President gets exiled. So I know that people want to see that we've got strong self possessed and strategic leadership on our side. And I think all of us have to aspire to fill that role when we're asked to play it. But to me, I'm not somebody who's freaked out that we don't know exactly who is going to be our presidential candidate. Canada in 2028. Let's let the next couple of years sort that out by seeing the kinds of judgments people make as we work to defend not just our party, but our whole country.
- [40:12]
David Pakman
I think it's so interesting that you say that because that mirrors something I've been talking about recently, which is, you know, when we think back to the aberrant tweets from, from Donald Trump about how Joe Biden doesn't have the bumper stickers or the people with the hats or the, the boat parades and this sort of thing. And there seems to be a fundamental difference where a lot of the Democratic voters I talk to don't really deify elected officials and presidential candidates in the way that the current Republican Party seems to, where it would never occur to them to get a bumper sticker or a hat or put a flag on their boat, if they have a boat, they vote and then they get back to their lives, their families and working in their communities. I think that that's a great thing about the left. But I also wonder, is there in this environment, is there a deficit also to not having a clear leader to point to? I don't know. I'm just kind of asking the question.
- [41:11]
Jamie Raskin
Well, I think that the times that we are in will yield the great leaders of our generation in the same way that the struggle against fascism in the 1930s and 40s produced people who seemed like the most unlikely leaders. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt, our first president, who was in a wheelchair, who had profound health problems, but had an extraordinary magnetism based on his sense of compassion and identification with people in struggle. Or look at Winston Churchill, who was not even a real liberal or a progressive in the way that Roosevelt was, but Churchill was somebody who had his eyes very firmly fixed on the defense of democratic institutions against fascism and authoritarianism, and broke with the conservatives to go over to the liberal side, then went back from the liberals over to the conservative side, but always insisted upon the defense of democracy, and woke up every single day just thinking about what could be done to defeat Hitler and Mussolini and Franco and the fascists. And he said, we will fight them in the air, and we will fight them in the seas, and we will fight them on the beach, and we will fight them everywhere. And he was somebody who emerged as a great hero for that period. When the war was over, of course, he ran for prime minister and lost. He was no longer the leader for the moment, but he was definitely the leader for that moment. So I'm not going to worry about that now. What we need is people to be passionately engaged in the struggles that we're in on a daily basis.
- [42:55]
David Pakman
One of the things that I hear from my audience that's maybe preventing some of that engagement right now is the lack of a feeling that the Democratic Party really knows what to do over the next couple of years right now. And when we spoke to Senator Adam Schiff a couple of weeks ago, he gave us an excellent breakdown of what's not functioning and the systems that are at risk, and even the degree to which he thinks individuals in the Democratic Party might become targets of this administration and, you know, painting an accurate, pretty black cloud picture of what's going on. Great. We understand what's going on. And so now what, what, what do Democrats do for the next two years? What's the justification other than waiting for this administration to screw up for November of 2026? Is there a game plan here?
- [43:46]
Jamie Raskin
Well, in terms of an electoral game plan, I think that's what our. Our denominated leaders really are focused on. And I'm not going to worry about that. We have Hakeem Jeffries and a great team and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee very focused on who's going to be running in the 7th district of Pennsylvania and who's going to be running in the first District of New York, and who are the people we're going to be putting up and how we're going to fight for them. That's what parties do best. Right. But. But I've invited historians and political scientists to come and talk to us. David, to defeat fascism, to Defeat right wing coups, to defeat authoritarianism. It is not enough to rely on your parliamentary leaders. That's not going to work. You need that. That's absolutely necessary, but it's not remotely sufficient. The only times it really works, and in most cases it will work, is when you have a cohesive legislative parliamentary opposition and you have a society that is fully engaged and vigilant and part of the process. You need them together. You need a civil society that is rising up. And so I'm perfectly willing to take all the questions about our leaders did this wrong, did that wrong, and we've made tons of tactical errors, starting with that, you know, state of the Union joint session where some people were boycotting and some people were waving little signs and some people were heckling and some people were walking out. We need game plans, right? You're looking at a washed up football quarterback from high school. You need to have a game plan and you need to have calls on every particular play if you're going in to win it. Okay, so I accept all of that. But it can't be all about just pointing fingers at the Democrats. We need an effective nationwide movement. That's what we need. A pro democracy, pro freedom, pro civil society movement. And that is coming into focus now. And that to me is just as exciting and actually more important to me than who's in the lead for the presidential polls in 2028. I mean, that seems like that's an infinity away from right now. What we need is a mass movement that can flex the muscles of civil society against this outrageous attack by the Silicon Valley billionaires and the right wing autocrats and theocrats of the Trump administration.
- [46:16]
David Pakman
As I, as I try to kind of distill down what might be a salient message right now if it were to be uniting, I sort of come across they're not really offering you anything in the sense of they don't really have a health care plan, they don't have a plan to get wages up, they don't have a plan to improve education. They have a plan only to contrive distractions like, quote, men and women's sports. I don't know, I don't think the message is exactly there, but I think something along those lines is maybe humbly maybe where we need to be thinking.
- [46:52]
Jamie Raskin
I don't know, it sounds right to me, you know, and that, of course, course, is the history of authoritarianism and fascism. Never forget the freeze frame of how this all started with Donald Trump at the inauguration seated behind him. You got Jeff bezos And you got Mark Zuckerberg and you got Elon Musk, the three richest men in America. And behind them you have what passes as their connection to society, which is a cabinet of billionaires. So you're talking about a government that is serving much less than 1% of the people. And it's a war on everybody else through the destruction of public schools, the destruction of Medicaid, the violation of the First Amendment, complete indifference to people's economic security, and so on. So you're right, there's nothing in it for us. And people are coming to that conclusion on their own. People understand that they will campaign on something like inflation and then just laugh about it later. I mean, they don't take that seriously. The price of eggs has never been higher in American history. And the price of eggs Benedict is gonna be our whole democracy and our constitution. I mean, the Silicon Valley people believe that democracy is defunct. They think we're living in a post constitutional America. They're very willing to consign the people of Europe to their fate under Vladimir Putin and the people of Hong Kong or Taiwan or the Tibetans to Chinese totalitarian rule as long as they can govern in North America. A new techno state dictatorship. So that's why they keep talking about Greenland and Canada and Panama. They're not thinking about the United States anymore. They want a new dictatorial confederation. And I know Elon Musk loves that because he wasn't born in the United States. He can't be a president. But if we absorb Canada, where he was a citizen after South Africa, and we absorb Greenland and Panama, they'll create a new set of rules for us. So we got to defend American constitutional democracy with everything we've got. These people actually believe we're in the midst of regime change.
- [49:01]
David Pakman
Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks so much for your time. Really appreciate it.
- [49:06]
Jamie Raskin
Keep up your great work, David.
- [49:08]
David Pakman
Thank you guys in my audience.
- [49:11]
Sponsor
I know you're tired of the chafing with traditional underwear. Our sponsor, Sheath Sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn. If you're sick of the boxers that.
- [49:22]
David Pakman
Are too loose or the briefs that.
- [49:24]
Sponsor
Are too tight, Sheath is for you. Sheath Underwear is designed with two special.
- [49:30]
David Pakman
Pouches in the front.
- [49:32]
Sponsor
Keeps everything separate in its own compartment with extra confidence that you will feel throughout the day keeping things separate and comfortable. No more sticking and chafing. I was skeptical about the dual pouch, I admit it.
- [49:46]
David Pakman
But it is game changing.
- [49:48]
Sponsor
Everything stays where it is supposed to be extra useful when working out at the gym.
- [49:53]
David Pakman
And even if you don't want to.
- [49:54]
Sponsor
Use the pouches, you don't have to. It is still the most comfortable pair of underwear I have ever owned.
- [50:00]
David Pakman
It will blow your mind how soft and stretchy these are.
- [50:03]
Sponsor
Made with moisture wicking technology to keep you dry. If you were ready to take underwear.
- [50:08]
David Pakman
Comfort to a new place, a place.
- [50:11]
Sponsor
You didn't even know it could go, head over to sheath underwear.com/pacman and get 20% off with the code pacman. That's sh e A T H underwear.com/pacman use code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes.
- [50:31]
David Pakman
Donald Trump went over a cliff last night in an authoritarian nightmare gone wrong. As usual, meant to be a simple softball straightforward interview with friendly interviewer Laura Ingraham on Fox News. And Trump simply cannot control himself. The question from Laura Ingraham, would you defy a court order? And of course the answer is yes. We know that the Trump administration has. When the court said turn those planes around, you can't deport these people back to El Salvador. They haven't had due process. They haven't the legal justification being used, the Alien Enemies act doesn't apply. We haven't declared war. None of this makes sense. The Trump administration just kept on flying to El Salvador. Trump then demanded that judges ruling against him on this issue be impeached. So of course the answer is yes, I would defy a court order. Well, here is Trump saying, well, when you've got bad judges, you know, this is an authoritarian nightmare.
- [51:35]
Laura Ingraham
You say to that, are there circumstances where you would defy a court order?
- [51:38]
Donald Trump
Well, I think that, number one, nobody's been through more courts than I have. I think nobody knows the courts any better than I have. I would say the chief judge does, but nobody knows them better than I have and what, what they've done to me. I've had the worst judges. I've had crooked judges. I have judges that valued Mar a Lago at $18 million because that benefited his case, because he wanted to see me convicted of something.
- [52:04]
David Pakman
Remember that? That's a lie. This is about the difference between the market value of a property and the assessed value for tax purposes.
- [52:12]
Donald Trump
I have judges that were had relatives making millions and millions of dollars on the election, ruling on the election going forward. I have judges.
- [52:24]
Laura Ingraham
Would you defy a court order? Because that we all know that was out.
- [52:27]
Donald Trump
I never did defy a court order.
- [52:29]
Laura Ingraham
And you wouldn't in future?
- [52:30]
Donald Trump
No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges.
- [52:33]
David Pakman
We have very bad and who decides if the judge is bad enough that Trump gets to say, I'm not defying a court order? You know, the way that they often get around this is they go, well, no, I would never defy any legal court order. But if a bad judge issues an order that we deem to be invalid, that's a different story. But we're not defying a valid court order.
- [52:58]
Donald Trump
Judges, and these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think thing, I think at a certain point you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge. The judge that we're talking about, he's, you look at his other rulings, I mean, rulings unrelated, but having to do with me. He's a lunatic.
- [53:17]
David Pakman
There you go. There you go, folks. I, I don't know how else to say it, but this is the authoritarian nightmare that we were afraid of. Would you defy a court order? I didn't and I wouldn't. But there's bad judges, bad judges. And in that case, what do you expect me to do? Of course I'm not going to do what they say. You can't. You wouldn't follow an illegal order if given to you by a superior. And similarly, we wouldn't follow a bad order given by a bad judge. Now, one of the wackiest parts of this interview is that the final 5ish minutes were all about Trump continuing to argue that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. Continuing just the pointless belligerence. This is not a worthwhile conversation to have at all. But for the President of the United States to be so regularly focused on and obsessed with we. What about Canada becoming part of the United States? Laura Ingraham pointed out, and good for her. Laura Ingraham accurately pointed out Trump is being tougher on Canada than he is on some of our actual adversaries. And Trump goes, well, they should really be a 51st state.
- [54:31]
Laura Ingraham
Any one of them tougher with Canada than you are with some of. Only because our biggest adversaries, only because.
- [54:36]
Donald Trump
It'S meant to be our 51st street. Okay, but, no, no, but listen to this for a second.
- [54:40]
Laura Ingraham
We need their territory. They have territorial advantage. We're not going to get close to China.
- [54:44]
Donald Trump
Look, I deal with every country indirectly or directly. One of the nastiest countries to deal with is Canada.
- [54:51]
David Pakman
They are a nasty, nasty country.
- [54:54]
Donald Trump
The people that. Now, this was Trudeau. The people that, that good old Justin, I call him Governor Trudeau. He was. His people were nasty and they weren't telling the truth. They never told the truth. You know that.
- [55:09]
David Pakman
What a nasty, nasty country. What a nasty, nasty person. Think about how upside down the world order is that Trump is sitting around for an hour while Putin keeps him on hold. And meanwhile Trump is attacking Canada, tariffing Canada, endangering our relationship with such a critical trading partner and geographic, geographically important country. It's all backwards. A lot of mag is love it. A lot of magas want the sort of global order to be put upside down. But shaking things up for no reason or shaking things up for really uninformed reasons is not really virtuous. Now, Laura Ingraham did ask Trump about Chief Justice John Roberts. His declaration that was clearly directed at Trump. Remember that? Trump posted to troth central. Hold on, do I have my thing?
- [56:03]
Donald Trump
Troth Central. I did everything right and they indicted me. I love Tesla.
- [56:09]
David Pakman
I love Tesla. Okay? Trump posted to troth central that the judge who ruled against him should be impeached. And then immediately Chief Justice John Roberts puts out a statement saying, impeachment is not the process. When you disagree with a judicial decision, an appeal is the right thing. Trump just plays dumb and goes, oh, my name wasn't mentioned in the statement.
- [56:32]
Laura Ingraham
Because we're going to, we're going to first hit the other big news of the day, which was the Chief justice of the Supreme Court issued what rare statement about your suggestion on truth that you posted earlier today that Judge James Boasberg should be impeached after he ordered those deportation flights to El Salvador halted, essentially turned around, the Chief justice said more than two centuries. We understood that essentially impeachment was for very rare circumstances and not an appropriate response to rulings you disagree with. What's your reaction to the courts stepping in to make a statement here? They didn't make a statement when Joe Biden, you know, decided to forgive all those student loans.
- [57:16]
Donald Trump
Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn't mention my name. But many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left. He was Obama appointed Obama.
- [57:28]
David Pakman
He was Obama, Obama. This is the, this is the game, right? I mean, some Republicans have figured this out. You can criticize something Trump has done, but just don't mention his name. And I guess since John Roberts didn't mention Trump's name, Trump is now just kind of like, it doesn't really have anything to do with me. Laura Ingraham, another sort of interesting moment. Trump Tries to play this game where he's big and tough and strong and a big boy, and that nobody defies him. But Laura Ingraham does point out China did cheat on Trump's 2019 deal. And this is how it went.
- [58:12]
Donald Trump
Things we rebuilt our military. Canada doesn't pay for military. They don't give. They give us nothing. And they are the worst people to negotiate with of everybody.
- [58:22]
Laura Ingraham
They are the worst. You finally got them around the edge on that, though.
- [58:25]
Donald Trump
You got. No, I got them there. And USMCA is good, but they cheat. You know, an agreement's good, but they cheat. And Mexico cheats also.
- [58:32]
Laura Ingraham
China cheated on your 2019.
- [58:33]
Donald Trump
Can I tell you what?
- [58:35]
Laura Ingraham
Phase one, they totally cheated and dropped it with Biden.
- [58:38]
Donald Trump
You had a great deal when Biden took over. He didn't push them. I would call up once every two weeks saying, you're not living up to the agreement. And they'd buy more corn, more this.
- [58:47]
David Pakman
They were just. But they had years of corn coming out of their ears when I would call. Remember that? Even things that Trump negotiated, when they go wrong, like now, Trump is acknowledging USMCA isn't really working out the way we hoped. But it's not because the deal is bad, is because not everybody's sticking to it. But of course, part of making a good deal is that it's a framework that others do stick to and that it's enforceable and that it has teeth. And Trump has gone from negotiating USMCA in his first term and telling us it's great to now saying, oh, the fact that USMCA isn't really working is why we need the tariff. So which is it? Was USMCA the right thing or the wrong thing? And if it's not enforceable in a way that does require you ultimately to put in tariffs, then was it really that good of a deal to begin with? It's a mess. If your head is spinning, it's because this is a complete and total mess. Finally, finally, Trump weighs in on the Tesla stuff, and he says that those protesting at Tesla showrooms are committing acts of domestic terrorism. Talk about protecting his friends.
- [59:58]
Donald Trump
And he backed me and he went and he got very much involved. He thought he actually would go around saying, if Trump doesn't win, our country is over.
- [60:05]
Laura Ingraham
But do you consider this an act of domestic terror?
- [60:08]
Donald Trump
I think I think so.
- [60:09]
Laura Ingraham
Why?
- [60:09]
Donald Trump
I think that if and when they catch the people, and I hope they do, the good thing is they have a lot of cameras in those places and they've caught some already. Having to do with that, I think that you will find out that they're paid by people that are very highly political on the left.
- [60:23]
David Pakman
Meanwhile, it's because now, of course, Trump makes that without any evidence, the allegation that the protesters against Tesla are being paid. I can assure you, everyone I know who has dumped their Tesla, not only are they not being paid, they're losing money, but they just want nothing to do with the brand whatsoever. So a disastrous interview meant to be a softball ended up being very much the opposite. And Trump comes away thinking that this interview is great. MAGA sees it and goes, oh, what a strong guy. He doesn't take any crap from Laura Ingraham. A different approach when Elon Musk was interviewed on Fox News last night. Let's talk about that one. Elon Musk went on Fox News understandably expecting a friendly softball interview. And instead he ended up sounding like a pathetic billionaire conspiracy theorist with a messiah complex. That's the sort of combination I have to sort of use Tim Walls, his phrase. This was a deeply weird interview that Elon Musk did on Fox News where Elon Musk whined how he's so nice and good, but not everybody likes him, that the Democratic Party used to be the party of empathy, that Elon has never done anything bad for anybody. He's only done productive, positive things. And for some reason he can't understand, people are still criticizing him. And thus there must be some larger force at play. There must be some conspiracy to take Elon down. The classic billionaire lament, why don't people love me anymore? Maybe it's the mass layoffs, maybe it's the disaster that he turned Twitter into, or the harassment scandals at Tesla, or using his platform to amplify bigotry and conspiracy theories, or starting to claim that he's going to have to do something about Social Security because of nonexistent fraud that he can never really find. It must be some conspiracy at work here. Is Elon saying, I've only done good things. Why doesn't everybody like me?
- [62:33]
Elon Musk
Yeah, I mean, it's really come as quite a shock to me that there is this level of, of really hatred and violence from the left. I thought the left, you know, Democrats were supposed to be the party of.
- [62:47]
David Pakman
So articulately explaining this by the way.
- [62:49]
Elon Musk
Of empathy, the party of caring. And yet they're burning down cars, they're firebombing dealerships, they're firing bullets into dealerships, they're just, you know, smashing up Teslas. Tesla is a peaceful Company. We've never done anything harmful. I've never done anything harmful. I've only done productive things. So I think we just have a deranged. There's some kind of mental illness thing going on here because this doesn't make any sense. Yeah, I think there are larger forces at work as well. I mean, I don't know who's funding it and who's coordinating it, because this is. This is crazy. I've never seen anything like this.
- [63:28]
David Pakman
You know, he's only ever done good things. And so it must be some combination of paid agitators, larger forces at work, and mental illness and Democrats that are doing all of this stuff. Now, of course, the last guy who blew himself up in a cybertruck was a Trump supporter. Remember that incident in Las Vegas? But what about all of the layoffs that Elon has participated in in his private life and in his involvement with Doge? What about cutting off payments to USAID and all of the pain that that led to and job losses? What about all of that? No, he's only done good things. Why are people being so mean to me? And you know what? Ellen has learned very much from Trump to make himself the victim. It's so sad. He's just it. Everybody's making me feel so bad. I'm the biggest victim, despite being one of the wealthiest people in the world. Now the topic of Mars did come up and I won't even just listen to what he had to say.
- [64:32]
Elon Musk
We are going to be able to take astronauts to Mars. In fact, we want to take anyone who goes to Mars and ultimately build a self sustaining civilization on Mars. That is the long term goal of the company. Make life healthy, planetary.
- [64:47]
David Pakman
I mean, that is a very bold vision. How long do you think that might take SpaceX to. To be able to accomplish?
- [64:56]
Elon Musk
I think we could do it in 20 to 30 years.
- [65:01]
David Pakman
Mm. So I should say if God blesses me with a longer life than I deserve, right?
- [65:07]
Sponsor
I could always.
- [65:09]
David Pakman
It's funny how like Hannity is so awkward. He has no idea how to talk to Elon Musk. So listen here. Here's my thoughts on Mars. And I've read, I've read a fair amount about Mars. I think there is great value in the entire Mars thing. Right. Scientific discovery. Studying Mars will understand planetary formation and climate history and the potential for extraterrestrial life in different environments. I am sure that in getting to Mars and establishing some kind of an outpost there, that there will be technology developed that by allowing humans to survive on Mars, we could Improve space travel and sustainability and all these things. For everybody thinking Mars is some kind of solution to any problem, it really doesn't seem like it. I mean, no air, no life support, no breathable atmosphere. Extreme cold will require constant artificial life support. Without a magnetic field like Earth's, astronauts would face deadly radiation if they went unprotected out into the planet. Mars has no natural food sources. You would have to grow food. We just don't know long term what happens if you try to grow food in such an environment. If you only eat food grown in such an environment. We just don't know. Would be overwhelmingly reliant on Earth for equipment, medicine, repairs for decades. Not forever, but certainly for decades. There are serious risks to low gravity over time. Now, could Homo sapiens develop over time? If humans start being born on Mars to the lower gravity, maybe. But for now, both the physical and psychological aspects of that are a big problem. You know, there's this terraforming idea. We could terraform Mars. That would take centuries, if it's even possible. And we also have no idea whether humans can really procreate. I mean, we, we, we just don't know, given how sensitive human reproduction is. We don't know what happens with conceptions that happen on Mars, with births that happen on Mars. We just don't know. So the point here is, for now, before the sun blows up and destroys the Earth, for now it's easier and more effective to fix our problems here rather than trying to see Mars as some kind of long term solution. And you know, when the sun blows up, Mars isn't going to be safe. Ultimately, the sun is going to expand into a red giant. It will likely engulf Mercury and Venus. It could reach Earth's orbit. Mars might survive temporarily because it's further from the Sun. It'll be scorched, It'll be stripped of its remaining atmosphere. And ultimately when the sun collapses from a red giant into a white dwarf, at that point it's sayonara. Okay, so the whole point here is long, long, long term, Mars is not going to save us. And short to medium term, Mars is also not going to save us. So I love it. I love all of it. Let's do it. But the people who are talking about Mars as this solution, it's really just not. And if we zoom out a little bit, the real danger here, of course, is that Elon Musk isn't just an eccentric rich guy with delusions of grandeur. His wealth and influence give him a lot of power and he's using the power to push reactionary politics and he's dismantling institutions. He's shutting down programs that help the average person. And he says, I'm such a victim. I've only done good things. Why are people being mean to me? This guy's pathetic. That's where we land. Let's make sure that you are subscribed at. Join pacman.com We've got a great bonus show for you today. Ashley Biden and Hunter Biden. Secret Service protection has been pulled by Trump. What does this mean? We also have seen the firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners. And finally, segregated facilities are no longer explicitly banned in federal contracts. What the hell is going on? All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. My book, the Echo Machine, out in six days. Preorder it. It's really just order it at this point because they'll start shipping in a few days. Order it on Amazon. Barnes and Noble. Signed copies at David pakman.com/booksmith will say more about it at the end of the week. See you on the bonus show.