5/14/25: Trump bows down to Saudi Crown Prince, AOC pounds MAGA on Medicaid

Summary

Podcast Summary: The David Pakman Show Episode: May 14, 2025
Title: Trump Bows Down to Saudi Crown Prince, AOC Pounds MAGA on Medicaid

---

1. Medicaid Reform Critique by AOC

Timestamp: [00:07] – [03:24]

David Pakman opens the episode by highlighting Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) sharp criticism of the Republican Party's Medicaid reform proposals. AOC challenges the Republicans' claims about reducing Medicaid coverage for undocumented immigrants, revealing inconsistencies in their numbers.

• Pakman: "AOC went nuclear on House Republicans yesterday because the numbers simply don't lie... the new proposal from Republicans based on the estimates we looked at yesterday would push between 13 and 14 million people off of Medicaid." ([01:58])

• AOC: "And why are they trying to cut 13.7 million Americans off their health care?" ([02:14])

Pakman argues that the Republicans' stated goal of removing undocumented immigrants from Medicaid is undermined by their plan to cut far more individuals, suggesting ulterior motives behind the policy. He praises AOC for her data-driven approach and pragmatic stance within the Democratic Party.

2. Donald Trump’s Controversial Interview with Sean Hannity

Timestamp: [03:24] – [28:20]

Air Force One and the Qatari 747

Pakman shifts focus to former President Donald Trump's recent interview with Sean Hannity aboard Air Force One. The centerpiece of the controversy is Trump's acceptance of a $400 million Boeing 747 from Qatar, raising significant legal and ethical questions.

• Trump: "Thank you very much. Okay. By the way, we're on a beautiful Air Force One." ([08:10])

Pakman criticizes Trump's emphasis on the plane's aesthetics over national security, pointing out that the $400 million gift from Qatar far exceeds any previous foreign gifts to American presidents.

• Trump: "The plane that you're on right now is almost 40 years old... with the United States of America, I believe that we should have the most impressive plane." ([09:15])

Pakman underscores the potential legality issues, specifically referencing the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits presidents from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval.

Trump’s Behavior During the Interview

The episode criticizes Trump's demeanor during the interview, highlighting moments where he appeared unfocused and disengaged.

• Pakman: "Trump can't think of any reason... he just cannot stay awake in a room full of Saudis handing him oil deals on a silver platter." ([19:15])

He contrasts Trump's behavior with how similar actions would be perceived if conducted by President Biden, emphasizing the double standards in political criticism.

Praise for AOC’s Stance

Returning to AOC, Pakman commends her for effectively dismantling Republican Medicaid narratives and staking out a pragmatic position within the party.

3. Interview with Ned Price on the Qatari 747 and Legal Implications

Timestamp: [31:10] – [47:16]

David Pakman welcomes Ned Price, an intelligence and national security professional with extensive experience at the CIA and the National Security Council, to discuss the implications of Trump's acceptance of the Qatari 747.

Legal Concerns and Emoluments Clause

Price explains that accepting a $400 million gift from Qatar is unprecedented and likely violates the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

• Price: "President Trump himself can continue to use it when he's no longer president. He is leveraging our military, our armed forces, to really be this slush fund for him so that he can accept this $400 million from the Qatari government." ([34:09])

He elaborates on the lack of historical precedent and the potential for this gift to be perceived as a bribe, emphasizing the necessity for congressional approval to legitimize such actions.

National Security Risks

Price delves into the national security risks associated with the gift, beyond just surveillance concerns.

• Price: "Air Force One is a flying fortress... it has to be able to withstand all of these things." ([39:11])

He criticizes Trump's prioritization of comfort and aesthetics over the stringent security requirements essential for the presidential aircraft.

Historical Context and Trump's Motivations

Price provides historical context, noting Trump’s previous stance on Qatar and suggesting personal or business motives behind the acceptance of the aircraft.

• Price: "When President Trump goes to these countries and says, it's all about business, it's all about deals, it's all about the bottom line, the question we have to ask ourselves is, whose bottom line?" ([35:23])

He posits that Trump's actions blur the lines between national interests and personal/business gains, undermining the integrity of presidential duties.

4. Impeachment Articles Introduced Against Trump

Timestamp: [47:16] – [55:00]

Pakman discusses the introduction of seven articles of impeachment against Donald Trump by Representative Sri Thanadar. These articles cite obstruction of justice, bribery, corruption, and authoritarian overreach among other charges.

• Pakman: "Representative Sri Thanadar introduced seven articles of impeachment citing obstruction of justice, bribery, corruption, straight up authoritarian overreach." ([47:16])

He debates the significance of these articles, balancing their performative nature against their potential to inspire political engagement and hold the president accountable.

• Pakman: "I think the House has a responsibility... to say, I believe that these are impeachable offenses." ([51:00])

Despite acknowledging that a Senate conviction is unlikely, Pakman emphasizes the constitutional duty of the House to act when warranted.

5. Trump’s Statements on China Trade Deal

Timestamp: [55:00] – [56:52]

In a lighter segment, Pakman critiques Trump's recent statements on a supposed trade deal with China, highlighting the vagueness and lack of substantive progress.

• Trump: "Yeah. How did that happen that quick? Well, they met on Saturday and Sunday and they had a deal pretty much from the beginning." ([56:13])

Pakman mocks the superficiality of claiming a trade deal without concrete details, comparing it to having a "concept" rather than an actionable agreement.

6. Conclusion and Teasers for Bonus Show

Timestamp: [56:52] – End

Pakman wraps up the episode by teasing the bonus show, which will cover topics such as the Republican tax and immigration bill, the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans, and a Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship.

• Pakman: "A divided Supreme Court is going right into a hearing on birthright citizenship. These three stories of significant consequence..." ([56:52])

He encourages listeners to subscribe and engage with the show's content for more in-depth analysis.

---

Key Takeaways:

• AOC's Critique of Medicaid: AOC effectively dismantles Republican Medicaid reforms by exposing inflated claims about undocumented immigrants on Medicaid, revealing the disproportionate impact of proposed cuts.

• Trump’s Qatari 747 Controversy: Trump's acceptance of a $400 million Boeing 747 from Qatar raises serious legal and national security concerns, potentially violating the Emoluments Clause and reflecting misplaced priorities over national security.

• Legal and Security Implications: Expert Ned Price highlights the unprecedented nature of the Qatari gift, emphasizing the need for congressional approval and the risks of compromising Air Force One's integrity.

• Impeachment Articles: The introduction of impeachment articles against Trump serves both as a constitutional duty and a symbolic stand against his actions, despite low prospects for Senate conviction.

• China Trade Deal Skepticism: Trump's vague claims about a trade deal with China are criticized for lacking substance, reflecting a pattern of making unfulfilled promises without providing actionable solutions.

---

This episode of The David Pakman Show provides a critical analysis of current political maneuvers, emphasizing accountability and the importance of upholding constitutional and national security standards.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

You know, I have to tell you, AOC Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, she has been laser focused on zooming in as to what all of this right wing posturing is really about and has done an excellent job as good as anybody in the Democratic Party at this point of really uncovering what is the true goal of all of this stuff. You know, and what, what there is here that is not always obvious is that as observers of politics we see behavior and policies and claims that they don't, they don't really make sense to us. Oh, Doge is all about government efficiency, yet they cut the mechanisms which allow departments to function more efficiently. That doesn't really make any Sen. And there's a deeper truth as to what things are really about. And AOC went nuclear on House Republicans yesterday because the numbers simply don't lie. The Republican Party has been screaming, screaming about so called illegals on welfare for months. Obviously for years, but for months. But even if you buy their number, which is that there's for example, a million undocumented immigrants getting Medicaid, the new proposal from Republicans based on the estimates we looked at yesterday would push between 13 and 14 million people off of Medicaid. So if the stated goal is get undocumented immigrants off Medicaid, but the way you're going to do it is by kicking off 13 to 14 times more individuals than the number you've said are receiving Medicaid, it must be about something different. And this is exactly what AOC took on yesterday. Take a listen to this.

[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]

And the math is not adding up. They're trying to convince people that they are cutting millions of undocumented people from payroll, from, from Medicare, acting as though this is what's going to save even by the, even if you believe Medicare.

[David Pakman]

And Medicaid, by the way, everything that.

[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]

Republicans have said today, one, they are identifying 1 million their claim, which I dispute. But if you believe them, their claim is that 1 million undocumented people are on Medicaid. So why are they trying to cut 13.7 million Americans off their health care? Right by the Republicans own energy and commerce tweet this morning, their claim is 7.6 million people are somehow ineligible for health care. So why are they cutting 13.7 million Americans off their health care? They've asked us to read this bill and we have. This bill bans the people that they kick off of Medicaid from even buying their own insurance from the Affordable Care act exchange. So once you are kicked off Medicaid, you then can't even buy your own health insurance. It increases costs for people who they deem eligible and who are low income and forces them to pay even more. And if you have a private insurer, don't worry, you're getting screwed over too.

[David Pakman]

So this is worse than just kicking people off. Because what Republicans are pushing to do is change the program with cuts such that a lot of people will lose Medicaid coverage and will lose elements of Medicare coverage. But then they also get banned from buying insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. So really understand the cruelty of this. This. If you get cut from access to coverage under the current plan, you're not allowed to buy your own insurance in the market marketplace. You're just out. So that's not cutting waste. There's just, there's no waste that's being cut. It's just targeted cruelty. And for people who do still qualify for Medicaid, their costs are going to go up. Private insurance premiums expected to spike. Nobody escapes this thing without getting gouged. So what is the real impetus behind this? The truth is that Medicaid is one of the most effective government programs we have. Republicans hate that. It's popular. It works. It helps lower middle working class people, especially in red states. They don't want that because this is the same party that tried to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times. It's the same party that called health care a privilege rather than a right. It's the same party that voted to slash Medicaid while giving the ultra wealthy another tax break and the making permanent of 2017 tax cuts if they can get that done. So they say it's about fraud. It's not. They say it's about saving money. It's not. This is about punishing poor people while pretending to protect taxpayers. Not very populist, despite all of the populist rhetoric. So good for aoc, doing what all Democrats should be doing, which is saying the math doesn't work. It's a scam. They're either wrong about the numbers and even if they're right, they. They're wrong about the conclusions and refusing to let this be framed as anything other than a full scale war on health care targeted at older folks and at lower income people. Good for aoc. I was just on a call the other day with, with some, what would I call them? I was on a call with some sort of like creator adjacent observers of the space that we are in and they noticed with tears in their eyes, they were sobbing. They said, david, your view on AOC has Changed what. What happened? And I explained at the beginning of aoc his career, I found that she lacked a lot of the practical, empirical foundation for a lot of what she was pushing. She has changed that. She has become one of the most savvy and, I believe, pragmatic folks that is getting attention in the Democratic Party. And it is so good to see her call this crap out for what it is. Donald Trump invited Sean Hannity to travel with him to the Middle east. And last night on Air Force One. This is not. This is not the Qatari Force One that Trump is being gifted. Not yet. This is the normal Air Force One. Sean Hannity was granted an interview with Donald Trump. Now, it's very important to understand that the entire framing here is that this was supposed to be a softball interview. This is. This was supposed to be an easy interview. A comfy sit down, literally and figuratively with Sean Hannity, Trump's human security blanket on Air Force One. Somehow, even the world's softest interview, it's like a wet noodle. It turned into a pathetic meltdown from Donald Trump. Now, really understand that this is access journalism. Hannity's there as Trump's friend, and he's there to make him look good. He's not there to ask hard questions or figure out, why are you accepting a $400 million plan from Qatar, who you previously called terrible human rights abusers. Why are you talking about how hot Saudi Arabia is, not literally, but figuratively as a country and bowing down and sucking up to the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, despite the fact that he had a journalist dismembered? That is not what Hannity is there to ask. But there are some interesting things to look at in this interview. Interestingly, the interview begins with Hannity talking about how beautiful Air Force One is, and Trump agrees. This would normally be a throwaway moment from the interview, but it's relevant because of the other plane that Trump is under fire for accepting. So listen to this president.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you very much. Okay. By the way, we're on a beautiful Air Force One. Not a bad plane. Not bad at all. Not bad at all. It's a beautiful plane, and we're doing a lot of business. We have a lot of good things happening.

[David Pakman]

There you go. It's a beautiful plane. They all agree. Except it's not good enough, because Donald Trump, I guess, has convinced himself that he needs a $400 million luxury plane given to him by. By Qatar, a plane reportedly worth more than every single foreign gift to an American president combined over the last 24 years. But air Force One is just not nice enough. And here is Donald Trump saying, listen, Air force one is 40 years old. It's getting a little long in the tooth. We need a nicer plane. And why wouldn't I accept it from the human rights abusing Qataris? Listen to this.

[Donald Trump]

The plane that you're on right now is almost 40 years old. And when you land and you see Saudi Arabia and you see UAE and you see Qatar and you see all this, and they have these brand new Boeing 747s mostly, and you see ours next to it, this is like a totally different plane. It's much smaller. It's much less impressive, as impressive as it is. And you know, with the United States of America, I believe that we should have the most impressive plan. So anyway, so they said to me, we would like to, in effect, we would like to make a gift. You've done so many things. And we'd like to make a gift to the Defense, Defense Department, which is where it's going. And I said, well, that's nice. Now some people say, oh, you shouldn't accept gifts for the country. My attitude is, why wouldn't I accept the gift we're giving to everybody else? Why wouldn't I?

[David Pakman]

Why wouldn't I accept a gift from a group that I've identified as terrible human rights abusers who certainly don't just give gifts with no expectation of what they might get. The thing would certainly be crawling with surveillance devices. Why wouldn't I accept that? Trump can't think of any reason. Well, even Republicans are turning against Trump over this plane. Then the topic of health care came up. It may not shock you to hear that Donald Trump did not delineate his health care plan in this interview. I guess it's still just a couple of weeks away and Trump now has figured out health care. He's not giving us the answer yet, but he's figured it out.

[Donald Trump]

I would fight so hard to get a half a point, and I actually had it down a half a point for one year, year. And I was so proud of myself because that never happened before. It was always going up. Drugs only went in one direction. That's up. And now after studying the industry, it's a very complex industry, but I figured it out and I said it's not going to happen. But the Democrats fought very hard to keep the prices of drugs very, very high. They really are to blame for this because they should have done something about it.

[David Pakman]

Trump figured it out and everything. That's not Working is the fault of Democrats. He figured it out. But when he promised a phenomenal health care plan in 2015 and 2016, it didn't quite materialize. When they finally came up with an idea in 2017, it was so bad it would have led to 24 to 32 million Americans losing health care coverage over the following decade that everybody abandoned it. And since that failed attempt in 2017, we're always two weeks away from a plan. In August of 2020, he told Chris Wallace on Fox that we're two weeks away from signing it into law. We still haven't seen the plan. In 2024, he still didn't have it. He said, well, I haven't been president, of course I don't have the plan, but I have concepts of a plan. And now all of a sudden we're to believe that he cracked it. Like this morning's wordle. The truth is, Trump has been promising this plan for years and there is no plan. There never was. He figured it out the moment it was an empty catchphrase and he didn't actually have to do any of the work. Big, beautiful replacement for Obamacare. He told. I think it was Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes when running for president the first time. And then we get to the weirdest part of the interview where Trump again fixated on the cost of Ozempic, talks about his overweight friend who wanted the fat shot drugs. And this is supposed to be. This is Trump's best interview. He can only look worse than this. And this is a disaster.

[Donald Trump]

A friend of mine who's slightly overweight, to put it mildly, went to a drugstore in London and he was able to get one of the fat shots. I caught the fat shot, the jabs that you lose weight, a lot of people laugh at that. Some people get offended by. I don't get offended by any. I'm just glad I didn't use his name. He's actually a very rich guy. He's a very successful. He's glad you didn't use his name. He's very happy. He knows exactly who I was talking about. He called, he said that was interesting. He said he was very concerned that I might use his name. It might slip. Now he doesn't have to worry. But he went to London and he bought this. Ozempic will go be one of those, I guess. Yeah. I'm not sure which one.

[David Pakman]

None of them really know what they're called.

[Donald Trump]

One of them, maybe Ozempic. And he bought it and he called me, he said, hey, Strange thing happened. I just bought a drug. Same company, same plan, same everything. Everything was the same. In one case, I paid in New York $1300 and in London, I'm paying $88.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Donald Trump]

He said, what's going on now? He knew nothing. He's a very smart guy. He's a very rich guy. His big problem is he's seriously overweight. But I don't think the drug worked okay, to be honest with you, but makes him feel good anyway. But so what happens is he just.

[David Pakman]

This was a friendly, prearranged Fox News fluff piece and Trump still could not manage to keep it together. And as we've talked about before, if you can't get through a friendly Hannity interview where he's just glad to be invited on Air Force One without sounding like a confused hotel guest ranting about airplane design and pharmacy trips, you probably shouldn't be near the nuclear codes. And the kicker, of course, as we go back to the Qatar plane story, it's not just that it's embarrassing. It might be criminal. We're going to dig into this later today. The Constitution forbids presidents from accepting gifts of value from foreign governments without congressional approval. It's called the emoluments clause. Might, might remind you of season one of the Trump presidency. His first term. Trump never cared. There have never been consequences. But by every reasonable assessment, this entire Qatari plane thing is illegal. Doesn't matter if there's no way to get you to follow the law anymore. Well, that's the question we're now up against. Our sponsor, Magic Spoon, has been with us a long time. They do the high protein, zero sugar cereals and treat nostalgically, reinventing some of my favorite childhood snacks. Many of you know for me cereal was not breakfast, it was a snack. And that is still the case. And what Magic Spoon has done is taken your favorite sugary cereals from when you were a kid and turned them into something you can feel good about. Magic Spoon is also launching a brand new high protein granola, true to the Magic Spoon promise, Packed with protein, crunchy 13 grams of protein, zero added sugars, and in delicious flavors like dark chocolate, almond, honey almond and peanut butter. They've got their high protein treats as well. Crispy, crunchy, airy, with 12 grams of protein in many flavors. And of course, if you don't love Magic Spoon as much as I do, and our team does, Magic Spoon will refund all of your money, no questions asked. Get $5 off your next order at magic spoon.com/pacman or look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store. That's magic spoon.com/pacman for $5 off. The link is in the podcast notes. As an independent media program, the David Pakman show depends directly on your support to do. What we do is no media conglomerate. There is no political party. There is no rich person who is funding this program. It's funded primarily due to small dollar memberships from folks like you who sign up@join packman.com we do an extra show every day for our members. We also provide commercial free audio or video, whichever you prefer. If you like listening in the car or at the gym, we've got the commercial free audio version for you. If you want to watch. We've got the commercial free video version for you made available hours before the show is published to everybody. You can sign up@join pacman.com Read about the benefits and if you would like a discount off of the normal membership prices, you can use the coupon code. This is all one word now, no spaces. It will end soon. It will end soon is the coupon code. I don't believe I have ever seen a more humiliating Middle east visit by an American president than what we are seeing right now with President Donald Trump put aside for a moment that he sucked up to the brutal Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a way I have never seen an American president do before. Desperate for his approval, desperate smitten with his authoritarianism. We'll get to that in a moment. But Trump fell asleep. He thankfully he didn't face plant onto the table. But here is Trump unable to stay awake in Saudi Arabia. Look at this. Read a lot of the material now out of Saudi Arabia. And Mohammed bin Salman is saying we need a resolution. There he goes. Oh my goodness.

[Donald Trump]

Necessarily.

[David Pakman]

Trump is just asleep, struggling, his eyelids heavy.

[Donald Trump]

He had.

[David Pakman]

And there they go again. He just cannot stay awake during this thing. Oh boy. It wasn't just Donald Trump. Trump's Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessant. While Trump is speaking here, you will.

[Donald Trump]

Notice he's asleep, world watching when Saudi Arabia joins us. And you'll be greatly honoring me. And you'll be greatly honoring all of those people that have fought.

[David Pakman]

All right, so down goes Besant. And then Marco Rubio is yawning. And to Rubio's credit, Rubio manages to stay awake. But he's fighting.

[Donald Trump]

Their investments have been announced or are coming just since the election on November 5th. So think of that in a very short period of time.

[David Pakman]

So listen, I mean everybody's bored and everybody's jet lagged, I guess. But this is naturally not the greatest sign of respect. And consider if this were President Biden. Just think about that for a moment. When people say, oh, I don't know if it's a big deal that, like, they all were sleeping through this thing. If this were Biden, the right wing media machine would be in full defcon. One moment he's senile, he can't lead. And of course, in perfect Trump form, he finishes the first meeting by wandering off in the wrong direction and then has to be brought back. He was supposed to go to the desk that was three feet away, but he couldn't do it. Imagine if this were by signing on.

[Ned Price]

Behalf of the United States, the honorable Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.

[David Pakman]

And there goes Trump. And off he goes. And then he is turned around. Actually, the desk right next to you is where you were supposed to be, Mr. President. Whoops. And there he sits. Eventually puts pen to paper there. Listen, guys, we all know that if Biden did this, it'd be 247 panels on Fox News, heart rate monitors, neurologists, the whole lot. But it's Trump. He can fall asleep in a diplomatic meeting on live tv. And he did. And somehow we believe that it's presidential. And this is the guy that Republicans say is sharp, tough, and ready to stand up to China. He can't even stay awake in a room full of Saudis handing him oil deals on a silver platter. And this isn't the first time Trump fell asleep during the George H.W. bush funeral in 2018. He dozed off at multiple campaign events in 2020. If Biden had been doing this, they would say, coma, take him out of the office immediately. Trump could go into hibernation mid press conference and Newsmax would say he's smartly conserving his energy for when the energy is really needed. So we're going to get to how he sucked up to Mohammed bin Salman in a moment. But just based on this, the guy's not fit for the job. He's not physically up to it, he's not mentally up to it, he's not diplomatically up to it. He spends half his day rage posting and the other half nodding off at global summits. And the world is watching. The world is laughing. Let's now get to Ayea, the sucking up to Mohammed bin Salman. Donald Trump went to Saudi Arabia and he did everything except roll out a red carpet for Mohammed bin Salman because the Saudis had already rolled out a red Carpet for Donald Trump. What Donald Trump did instead was deliver a pathetic and humiliating public love letter to one of the most brutal authoritarian leaders alive today. Oh, what I do for the Crown Prince? Trump said, waxing poetic. That's a quote from the President of the United States to one of the most brutal authoritarians in power today. Let's look at this first clip. What an embarrassment this is. Not getting even a fraction of the attention that it deserves.

[Donald Trump]

Has already taken the first steps toward restoring normal relations between the United States and Syria for the first time in more than a decade. And I'm very pleased to announce that Secretary Marco Rubio will be meeting with the new Syrian foreign minister in Turkey later this week. And very importantly, after discussing the situation in Syria with the Crown Prince. Your Crown Prince.

[David Pakman]

Yeah. And look at Elon cheering in the background.

[Donald Trump]

And also with President Erdogan of Turkey, who called me the other day and ergonomic, asked for a very similar thing. Among others and friends of mine, people that I have a lot of respect for in the Middle east friends, I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness.

[David Pakman]

Another little authoritarian gift. And the crown Prince is pleased. You get to live. He says this degree of flattery towards Mohammed bin Salman by a president of the United States is globally and historically humiliating. Look at this. Okay, so now there's a standing ovation. That's why Trump isn't continuing. Is anyone else finding this vomitus? Trump then says, other than the United States, Saudi Arabia is the hottest country. Right, Mohammed? Right. You're hotter than I am.

[Donald Trump]

We are rock. And the United States is the hottest country. With the exception of your country, I have to say. Right. I won't. I'm not going to take that on. No, Mohammed. And I'm not going to take that on. Wouldn't that be a terrible thing if I made that full statement? But I will not do it. You're hotter. At least as long as I'm up.

[David Pakman]

Here, you're hotter, Mohammed. You're so hot, I'm melting in my huge boxer shorts. There is no greater crush in the world. There is no more. You know, the Leo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet in Titanic has nothing on Trump's love affair with authoritarians. And of course, this is the same crown prince that ordered the murder and dismemberment of that dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. But Trump's unfazed. Actually, he's not even unfazed he's smitten. It's beyond diplomacy. It is a full on crush. And then Trump starts flirting with, with the Crown Prince. How do you sleep at night with the job you're doing?

[Donald Trump]

How, Mohammed, you sleep at night? How do you sleep just thinking what a job he tosses and turns like some of us tosses and turns all night. How do I make it even better all night. It's the ones that don't toss and turn. They're the ones that will never take you to the promised land, don't they? But you have done some job.

[David Pakman]

This is disgusting. This, this, this is not tough on terrorism, Trump. This is not America first. This is groveling for investment deals and oil. And we know Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner has deals with Saudi Arabia. And all the while pretending that brutal human rights abuse is to don't exist. There is no authoritarian that Trump isn't smitten by Putin. We know Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping Mohammed bin Salman again. And this is not new. You go back to 2018 when Khashoggi was murdered and the world demanded justice. And Trump bragged that he saved MBS by distracting the media and told Bob Woodward, I saved his ass. This is Trump who doesn't care if you kill journalists or crush dissent, as long as you're rich and powerful and willing to stroke his ego. That's the currency for Trump. Loyalty to power, loyalty to me. It's not democracy, it's not human rights. And meanwhile, at home he's talking about, maybe we'll suspend habeas corpus, maybe we will refer to journalists as enemy of the people. It is not admiration from afar, it's emulation. Trump wants to be these guys who rule with an iron fist. And just to cap off the absurdity, after the speech ends, YMCA starts pounding and Trump embraces the Crown Prince like they just closed on a beachfront condo together. Look at this.

[Donald Trump]

You have a tremendous future. Thank you very much and please pay my respects to your father. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[David Pakman]

And if you're, if you're just watching here, the Crown Prince is now walking around. He is just in love with Trump. He's gonna get on stage and then the love fest will begin. Look at this. And now they approach and they embrace. What a great day. Anyway, it's nauseating. I'm not going to continue. I don't believe I have ever seen some were calling this Trump revitalizing the art of self cuckoldry. I find that language aggressive. I don't I don't really want to delve into that, but that's definitely a phrase that Trump self cucked here. I'll leave that to the audience to decide. But not exactly a shining star or beacon for democracy. Not at all. And the trip will continue and we will continue to cover it. Make sure you subscribe to the YouTube channel. It costs nothing. And we will cover the entire fiasco of Trump's Middle east trip. Guys in my audience, I know you're tired of the chafing with traditional underwear. Our sponsor Sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I've ever worn. If you're sick of the boxers that are too loose or the briefs that are too tight, Sheath is for you. Sheath underwear is designed with two special pouches in the front. Keeps everything separate in its own compartment with extra confidence that you will feel throughout the day. Keeping things safe, separate and comfortable. No more sticking and chafing. I was skeptical about the dual pouch, I admit it. But it is game changing. Everything stays where it is supposed to be extra useful when working out at the gym. And even if you don't want to use the pouches, you don't have to. It is still the most comfortable pair of underwear I have ever owned. It will blow your mind how soft and stretchy these are. Made with moisture wicking technology to keep you dry. If you were ready to take underwear comfort to a new place, a place 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 th underwear.com/pacman use code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes. Today we welcome to the program. Ned Price, who's an intelligence and national security professional, spent more than a decade at the CIA, served that the White House's National Security Council, U.S. department of State, was deputy to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Really great having you on. Looking forward to this.

[Ned Price]

Likewise. Thanks so much for having me.

[David Pakman]

So let's start with this $400 million, just a little gift to 747 from the Qataris.

[Ned Price]

Appreciation. Yeah, yeah.

[David Pakman]

I mean, listen, maybe we just start with historical context, national security concerns, legal concerns. Have we ever seen anything like this before? Does it likely violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution? How should we be thinking about it?

[Ned Price]

Yeah. So to start with your first question, there really is no historical precedent. In fact, one analysis I saw showed that if you totaled up every single gift that every American president has received from a foreign government. And in recent decades, it would come nowhere close to the value of this one gift, and let's call it a gift in quotation marks. And we can come back to why we might do that. Yeah, but look, this is $400 million. It is not unusual for presidents to receive gifts that may be worth, you know, thousands of dollars, maybe, maybe more, especially from Middle Eastern countries like, like this. But there's a process through which those gifts are put. They are handled by the State Department's Office of Protocol. They're very carefully logged, they're valued, and in almost all cases, they are handed over to the United States government, and the United States government becomes the custodian of them. What's so interesting about this case is, you know, we'll come to the security concerns, will come to what, will come to the optics of it. But what President Trump apparently wants to do is to give the gift to the Department of Defense in a way to sort of launder it through the Department of Defense, at least until January 2029, when, lo and behold, he's no longer president, at which point it would go to his foundation. So the Department of Defense. I mean, think of it this way, it's sort of a pass through vehicle for this $400 million gift so that President Trump himself can continue to use it when he's no longer president. He is leveraging our military, our armed forces, to really be this slush fund for him so that he can accept this $400 million from the Qatari government. We've never seen anything like it. The only thing that really is on par with something like this is actually something else that the Qataris have done. They gave President Erdogan of Turkey a similar Boeing 747 valued at approximately the same range. Now, Turkey versus the United States, there's probably a different legal and ethical and historical framework. But President Trump, it seems, has no qualms with doing the same thing that his autocratic counterpart in Turkey has done by accepting this kind offer from our Qatari partners.

[David Pakman]

So let's get in a moment to the emoluments piece. But before we do that, on the one hand, there are people whose primary reaction has been, this is a very obvious national security risk. This thing has potentially who knows what kinds of surveillance devices. Whatever we've been told, well, the American government will go through that and kind of make sure that if there are any, that they are removed. But it's sort of like a strange thing to say, we'll take it. But we suspect that these are there and then we'll remove them. It's all sort of a bit odd. So there's that side of it. The other side is also, it's that Trump says it's a gift. Why wouldn't we accept a gift? It's not like I'm going to do anything for them. But even compared to what he said a few years ago when he said that the Qataris are serious human rights abusers, where that, that now is completely missing from any of the commentary that he's made. The idea that he simply wouldn't modify his behavior in any way, either directly with the Qataris or potentially with third parties where the views of the United States and the Qataris may differ and he'll have absolutely no change in view whatsoever. That's sort of hard to believe. Also of those two categories are both concerns. Is one more of a concern than the other.

[Ned Price]

It's hard to have a hierarchy of concerns. All of these things are flashing red lights. All of these things should be disqualifying. However, however you, you look at it, you know what's so interesting to me and you know, as President Trump is doing his grift tour of the Middle east, you raised Qatar and the president's views of Qatar before, and you're right, he has criticized their records on human rights. I think what many people have forgotten as we look at this episode is that early on in his first term, President Trump actually supported the economic blockade of Qatar that its neighbors imposed on it. Shortly after, President Trump went to Saudi Arabia for his first trip abroad, which may sound familiar because he's doing the same thing now. The Gulf Cooperation Countries mounted an economic blockade against Qatar. They cited Qatar's support for extremist ideologies. President Trump called Qatar one of the world's top funders of radical extremism. It wasn't entirely wrong in terms of some of the causes that the Qataris have supported over the years, but he went all in. And what was so interesting about that is that the United States has, you know, a very complex relationship with, with Qatar, but we do have shared interests. And I think what, what is what epitomizes those interests more than anything is the US Military base that we have in Qatar. It houses more than 10,000 troops. And so think of it. The President, United States in 2017 was supporting a blockade of a country that hosted thousands upon thousands of our service members. And to make matters even stranger, the Secretary of State at the time, a guy named Rex Tillerson, who didn't last very long on the job was against this. Others in the administration were against this because they were thinking in terms of the US national interest. President Trump, who knows why he supported it. But there's one theory that I think has at least some credibility that Jared Kushner and the Trump Organization felt spurned by Qatar because they failed to come through with funding for a large real estate project that Kushner had at the time, the infamous 666 Fifth Avenue project. So, again, whether it's today, with Trump in Qatar today, Saudi Arabia yesterday, or wind back the clock nearly eight years ago, you see this pattern, repeat, where President Trump is mixing his own personal, personal interests, his business interests with the national interests. And when President Trump goes to these countries and says, it's all about business, it's all about deals, it's all about the bottom line, the question we have to ask ourselves is, whose bottom line? Whose business is President Trump looking out for? I think more and more, it's very clear this is about his bottom line. It's about his business interests. And the national interest of the United States is really a secondary, if not.

[David Pakman]

Tertiary, thought on the security concerns. Is it as simple as surveillance devices on the plane, or do the concerns go way deeper than that?

[Ned Price]

Way deeper than that. I mean, yes, you know, we need to be mindful of listening devices, of tracking devices, you know, other, Other forms of electronic surveillance that any foreign government would want to implant on the presidential jet. And look, I don't want to just single out, I mean, there is basically no country on earth from whom we would accept an Air Force One without expecting, without inspecting it and really taking it down to the studs. But, you know, so we've got that. Air Force One is a flying fortress, and it's a flying fortress for a good reason. It is a presidential safe haven in the case, in the event of nuclear war, in the case of conventional war, a biological attack.

[Donald Trump]

And.

[Ned Price]

And it has to be able to withstand all of these things. It has to be able to withstand an electromagnetic pulse being in, at least in the vicinity of a nuclear blast. It has countermeasures where if missiles are fired at Air Force One, countermeasures come out to distract, to serve as decoys. President Trump seems to think that by finding a 747 with plush leather couches and nice interior, that that's more than half the battle, that that's really the long pole in the tent. Of course, that's not the case. Boeing has access to hundreds of 747s, 1000s of 747s around the world. The hard part is retrofitting it to make it suitable for the Commander in Chief to perform his, what should be his functions in time of peace or war, and to make it safe for him to do so. President Trump seems to think that what's most important is not our national security. But, but whether he has plush lie flat seats, whether his bed has Egyptian cotton sheets, you know, it is, it is just ridiculous that this seems to be the priority over our national security.

[David Pakman]

Isn't it also the case that there are two 747 that the Air Force has, which, whichever one is in use with the President is designated Air Force One, but that, that's actually part of the protocol as well, that there are two identical planes. And, and I don't know if that, if, if all of a sudden, I mean, we know they're only giving him one, I think. Unless there's actually they're giving him two. Doesn't that just by its nature also interrupt with another protocol element of having two of these planes available?

[Ned Price]

Yeah, redundancy is very much part of this. And you're right, there are two 747 that over the years have served interchangeably as Air Force One. Air Force One is really just the call sign for any aircraft that the President is on. So actually he sometimes flies, relies on a 757, especially if he goes to airports with shorter runways that are then called Air Force One. But yes, you're right. I mean, this is, it's not as simple as just accepting any 747 that someone might be able to scrounge up around the world, even one that has nice upholstery on it. There are all sorts of protocols that go into this that President Trump wishes he could throw out the window. So he might be a little more comfortable and flying perhaps, perhaps a little more in style.

[David Pakman]

Okay, briefly on the legality, and then I have a couple other things to ask about. Is it pretty cut and dry that this violates the emoluments clause?

[Ned Price]

Look, I, you know, there, there can be creative interpretations. And Pam Bondi, who, by the way used to work on behalf of the Qatari government before she came into her position of Attorney General, has, has found one. I think if you talk to most lawyers, most, most ethics experts, including ones who have served across administrations, they will tell you that unless Congress okays this, which is part of the process, if Congress okays it, then great. Congress okayed France's gift to the Statue of Liberty, that's fine. And if Congress wants to okay this, then fine, so be it. And here's a proposal. Let's put it before Congress. Let's make Republicans really put their, put their stamp on this. If they see no qualms with this, if they have no concerns with it, let's put it to a vote and let's let this vote live in infamy if they want to authorize this. Otherwise, look, they are going to find creative ways to say this is not an emolument. You know, they are, they are very clearly trying to use the Department of Defense as a, is a laundering mechanism, as one creative, devious way, I think is probably a better way to put it. But to the, to the naked eye, to any impartial observer, this is an emolument. This is a gift from a foreign monarch. This, I think, has the potential to be seen even more concerningly as a bribe.

[David Pakman]

All right, I want to talk a little bit about Signal Gate. And really what I'm curious to get your opinion on is whether the journalist who was added to that chat, Jeffrey Goldberg, handled the situation appropriately. My view sort of is, ok, he blew the whistle that he was included in that chat and then did not really share much about it until allegations came forward that he wasn't really added by Mike Waltz's phone. So then he publishes the screenshot that no, I actually was. And then Hegseth, or whoever says nothing specifically with regard to timing or equipment was shared. And then he says that's also not true. Do you think he, from a media standpoint, handled it appropriately or that he should have behaved differently?

[Ned Price]

Yeah. Look, my opinion is that the only person in this inglorious episode who handled it exactly how he or she should have is the journalist is, is Jeffrey Goldberg. And I say that because if you go through the other cast of characters, Mike Waltz, he created a signal chat where a signal chat should not have existed to discuss something this sensitive. Pete Hegseth, he shared what is almost certainly top secret information. And he, he did so in a way that he later tried to deny. Just as you said, he tried to cover it up. Of course, those are seen as the two protagonists. But everyone else who was in that chat who saw what Pete Hegseth sent, who, who didn't either themselves exit the chat or call Susie Wiles or call Mike Waltz and say, you know what, maybe we shouldn't have this on signal, maybe we've gone a little too far. Maybe we should move this to the high side. The high side being the colloquial term for the classified system. Anyone who didn't do that didn't handle this correctly. Look, I have worked in a number of jobs that required me to interact with daily with the media on sensitive issues of national security and foreign policy. And as you know, there's no, it's not a science as to what publications should or should not print when it comes to sensitive issues of national security. It's an art. And so much of the time you have to rely on the good judgment and in many cases the, the patriotism of the journalists you're working with, especially if they come across something that's extraordinarily sensitive, that could put lives at risk, that could put installations in danger. And Jeffrey Goldberg, by first exiting the chat when he concluded, okay, this is real, I'm sort of in the thick of it now, not just lingering in the background, but then responsibly publishing in the first instance the fact that there was a signal chat and there was all sorts of sensitive information that was sent around. And you know what, I'm not going to go into it, but it shouldn't have been there. That was exactly the responsible thing to do. And by the way, if Jeffrey Goldberg put a damper on these guys using signal as a means by which to relay to one another extraordinarily sensitive information, that is a service to our national security. So yes, I think he handled it perfectly. And look, when your reputation is impugned and when this government is engaged in what was very clearly concerted effort to cover this up, I think he had no choice but to provide the information that he initially withheld. It also helps that you know, the mission was over. The strikes that were detailed by Hexagon, excruciating detail was long over. It was, was days, if not weeks later. So I don't blame, I don't begrudge Jeffrey Goldberg at all. In fact, I applaud him for the way he handled this.

[David Pakman]

Ned Price is an intelligence and national security professional who spent more than a decade at the CIA and has a number of other credentials that we will include in our write up about the interview. Ned, thanks so much for your time and your insights.

[Ned Price]

Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.

[David Pakman]

Did you know that countless commercial databases and people search sites are storing your personal information? Anyone from an employer to a former partner can use these platforms to get details about your online presence, your home address, phone number, email, license plate, family members, financial information, even political views. Europe has laws that offer some protection, but in the US the data is widely accessible. Even the FBI will buy this information from companies to spy on people without a search warrant. Our sponsor, Incogni, provides a solution. It takes just seconds to sign up and Incogni will send removal requests to all of the major data brokers, legally compelling them to get rid of your data. Incogni keeps you informed throughout the process. You'll get real time updates. Who has complied, which ones are still pending. They'll handle follow ups, they'll handle appeals on your behalf. And this will save you hundreds of hours. Very few people have the time or resources to do this on their own. This service can also reduce the number of spam calls and emails you get, since many solicitors and scammers get your information from these very same sources. 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. We have news out of the House of Representatives. This is Trump getting hit with something that he definitely doesn't want to be dealing with again. And it is new articles of impeachment. Now, I know, I know. I've gone back and forth many times. Is this something that's worth putting time into or not? Is it performative? Is it merely performative? Is it, is it performative but for a reason? And is it okay to pair performance with action? We're going to get to that. Representative Sri Thanadar introduced seven articles of impeachment citing obstruction of justice, bribery, corruption, straight up authoritarian overreach. It is not merely a symbolic gesture because these were introduced as privileged resolutions. This means Congress has to act within two days. Republicans have to either vote on it or, or go on record saying we're going to kill it. So I want to analyze this for what it is. I'm calling it like a temperature check. Hear me out and then please write to me and tell me what you think. This is an opportunity to put every single Democrat on record. No hiding. If you vote and get against impeachment now, are you putting politics over country? Because Trump is facing more scandals than ever. More recently taking a $400 million plane from Qatar, but floating the suspension of habeas corpus while actively ignoring legal court orders and denying individuals entitled to due process, denying them that due process, threatening mass arrests of political enemies still under investigation. For everything under the sun. In his first 10 days, I found three impeachable actions by Donald Trump. It's now been about 110 days, but as soon as this was announced. We started hearing takes like, this is a stunt. We need real solutions. This makes us look like unhinged leftists. But you know what also made people look crazy? Not doing anything in 2016 and 2017 and 2018 while Trump blew through every norm and a lot of people said he's going to get bored, it's not going to be that bad now. You can't just do this sort of thing. Democrats need solutions now. There was a time when Democrats did run on. We have solutions for housing. We hear from some Democrats, here's how we should regulate AI, here's how we should deal with the national budget, and there are solutions that are available. Voters in November chose the convicted felon with no functional ideas. Okay, so number one, I think it's important to stop pretending that the people who voted Trump are hungry for serious policy proposals, because if they were hungry for that, they never would have voted Trump in the first place. And I don't know that serious policy proposals from Democrats are going to be what turns it around. They want someone who punches, they want someone who breaks things and will wreck the system on their behalf. Another response to this impeachment article filing has been Democrats don't need to file for impeachment. Democrats need their own version of Project 2025. Now that I think is a very risky and dangerous territory to get into, because Project 2025 is a plan to turn the US into a Christian nationalist oligarchy run by tech billionaires over grievances around white people being treated poorly, Christians being treated poorly, men being treated poorly, etc. You can't really make a better version of Project 2025. You just have to fight Project 2025. So my view on this impeachment play is that while it's obviously not going to work at getting Trump convicted in the Senate and removed from from office. Not going to happen. I don't see these impeachment articles as merely a performative distraction. After Cory Booker did his 25 hour speech, many of you wrote in and said, you know, David, this was just performative. And I said, well, it was performative. But to say it was merely performative I think misses the point of the inspirational mechanism that it may include to get people involved in the political system and working for things. So the impeachment articles are performative, but I don't see them as merely performative. If Trump breaks the law and is worthy of being impeached, I believe it's the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to decide. Did he? Is that worthy of impeachment? I believe the answer is yes. If Trump violates the Constitution, denies people due process, threatens democracy, then you need to do your constitutional duty as a member of the House and say, I believe that these are impeachable offenses. Of course it's not going to lead to a Senate conviction at the end of the rainbow. But I believe that the real mistake was would be sitting around focus grouping some technocratic response to what Trump is doing while the country slides into authoritarianism. So we don't need a better version of Project 2025. We need a robust opposition in every form, at every level. Right now, impeachment articles, when the president has done something worthy of impeachment, I think they are a requirement of the duty that the House has in terms of oversight and its investigative powers. But it can't stop there. It's merely performative. If it's all that Democrats do and what I'm hoping for, and we're going to see very soon, what I'm expecting and believe that we are going to see, is that this is only part of it. So I do support it, not because I think it's going to remove Trump via conviction in the Senate, but because the House has a responsibility. If the president does something worthy of impeachment, you must file articles of impeachment. I see it as that simple. And so I'm glad it's being done. But I don't believe that it's going to be the sort of panacea that brings us everywhere, that we necessarily need to be back again. Like a bad slogan is the term concept of a deal. This is not a bad fever dream. Once again, Trump is acknowledging we didn't exactly sign a trade deal with China late Sunday, early Monday. It's more of a concept. It's like a doodle on a napkin or something like that. This is so funny. This is from the interview that Sean Hannity did with Donald Trump yesterday on Air Force One. We looked at some of it at the beginning of the show, but I want to focus in on the trade aspect of it. Hannity fed Trump the line. You announced the deal with China. And even Trump acknowledges, well, it's, you know, temporarily suspending tariffs. It's not really a deal. It's just agreeing. We're just doing nothing. While maybe we will get a deal done. I have to hand it to Trump. At least he's being honest. But he's sort of reluctantly, sheepishly concedes it's a concept. It's not exactly a deal yet.

[Donald Trump]

It was a week ago Friday, where I saw that China announced, quote, if the President is serious, we will be willing to negotiate with him. And Scott Bessant, your Treasury Secretary, met with their representatives in Geneva on Saturday. On Monday, you're announcing a trade. Well, actually, on Sunday, you announced a deal with China.

[David Pakman]

You announced a deal with China. Remember, that didn't happen, but good for Trump. He admits it.

[Donald Trump]

Yeah. How did that happen that quick? Well, they met on Saturday and Sunday and they had a deal pretty much from the beginning. The concept of a deal.

[David Pakman]

They had a deal pretty much from the beginning. Well, at least the concept of a deal. There it is. He's got the concept of a health care plan and he's got the concept of a deal with China. In other words, there is no deal. It's like saying, we're extremely close to being pregnant. Ok, so are you pregnant right now? Well, we have the concept. We've got the framework here for a pregnancy. Ok, so you were not currently pregnant, you do not currently have any kind of deal with China. And of course, two sides saying, we will pause the tariffs and retaliatory tariffs temporarily to allow negotiations. That is not a deal. That is the first precursor to getting people together to start having a conversation about what a hypothetical deal might look like. Very different things. This is not the first time he's done this. Back in 2018, Trump claimed to have an incredible new agreement with China that was fake. It just didn't happen. And then came the tariffs, the retaliation, the trade war that jacked up prices for American farmers, manufacturers, consumers. But the concept of it was really, really strong. Now, Trump on trade is an interesting kind of storyline because if you go back to 2015, when Trump came down the escalator, literally and proverbially, he focused significantly on trade. One of the areas in which he was able to kind of coalesce support was from voters who felt, rightly or wrongly, like part of their economic suffering was because of something China did, something foreign countries did, something sort of related to. And Trump insisted, I am going to fix this. But the reality is Trump has never really closed any major lasting trade agreement. You might think, well, what about USMCA replacing nafta? It was essentially the same, mostly written before Trump took office and just rebranded by Trump. And by the way, if NAFTA being replaced by USMCA was so good, why is it that those now doing what USMCA encouraged would be punished by Trump's new tariff scheme, which says, if you are jointly manufacturing vehicles, Mexico, Canada, U.S. which was what USMCA encouraged, you would be punished for that under Trump's new tariffs. How great could that deal have been if now you are punished for it if Trump gets his way with the new tariffs? So the playbook has been the same one for a long time. You declare a deal, you provide no details, you hope nobody reads the fine print or realizes that there is no deal. And then when it falls apart or something doesn't work work, you either blame Democrats or you blame the last Democratic president or you do whatever you can to get out from under it. So the real damage here is that Trump is spinning these fairy tales about concepts. There are other countries out there signing actual trade pacts. China is moving forward with other Asian countries, European and even African countries and saying, let's restructure the way we do trade to take the United States out of the middle of this thing. Do whatever you want. United States, we're figuring out a different way forward. We're not doing that in the United States. They are building real alliances. They're locking in and bolstering supply chains that the US Is getting shut out of. And meanwhile, Trump is going, well, let's pause the thing I did because clearly it's bad and I don't know, maybe Scott Besant, if he can stay awake long enough, is going to figure out some kind of a way to make a deal. That's the truth. And you got to hand it to Trump, even he said it's only a concept. Right now on the bonus show today, we are going to look at the Republican tax and immigration bill. What is in it is no tax on tips. Actually in the bill is tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor part of the deal. We're going to look at all of it. Secondly, a federal judge has said it is okay to use the Alien Enemies act to deport Venezuelans. What's the logic? What's the justification? We will discuss it. And finally, a divided Supreme Court is going right into a hearing on birthright citizenship. These three stories of significant consequence and could shape what could be a very different looking United States just months from now, six to 12 months from now. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Make sure you sign up@join pacman.com thank you to the hundred and ninety nine new members over the last couple of weeks. Welcome to every single one of you and remember that you can get our daily newsletter and get a hold of me directly by getting on our substack. You can find it atdavid pakman.substack.com you can sign up by entering your email address at the top of my website, David Pakman Dotcom. Or you can just shoot an email over to info@david pakman.com and say, hey, David, please put me on that newsletter and I gladly will. I'll see you on the bonus show. I'll see you back here tomorrow.