5/21/25: Economic update, habeas corpus collapse, a new Golden Dome

Summary

The David Pakman Show
Episode: 5/21/25: Economic Update, Habeas Corpus Collapse, a New Golden Dome
Release Date: May 21, 2025

---

1. Economic Update Under Trump's Second Term

Host David Pakman begins the episode by emphasizing the importance of tracking a comprehensive set of economic indicators to evaluate a presidency objectively. He contrasts the economic performance during Donald Trump's second term with Joe Biden's administration, focusing on several key metrics:

• Unemployment Rate:

  • Biden's End: 4.1%
  • Trump's Current: 4.2%
  • Insight: Unemployment remains virtually unchanged, despite concerns that Trump's tariff policies might lead to job losses. Pakman notes, "Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and economists have said... higher unemployment [is possible], but we don't have it yet" ([00:07]).

• Inflation:

  • Biden's End (2024): 2.9%
  • Trump's Current: 2.3%
  • Insight: Inflation has decreased under Trump. Pakman states, "Inflation has declined under Trump. These are just the facts" ([00:07]).

• Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

  • Last Quarter Biden: 2.3% growth
  • First Quarter Trump: -0.3%
  • Insight: The GDP saw a decline in Trump's first quarter, the first drop in years, attributed partly to inventory stocking in anticipation of tariffs.

• Interest Rates:

  • 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rate:
    • Biden's End: 7.04%
    • Trump's Current: 6.81%
  • Insight: A modest decline in mortgage rates makes homes slightly more affordable, though home prices may rise inversely.

• Stock Market:

  • S&P 500: Down less than half a point since Trump took office.
  • Insight: The market remains flat, defying some predictions of prolonged declines due to tariffs. Pakman remarks, "The stock market flat... it depends on your expectation" ([00:07]).

• Consumer Sentiment:

  • Biden's End: 71
  • Trump's Current: 57
  • Insight: A significant decline reflects growing economic concerns among consumers.

• Gas Prices:

  • Biden's End: $3.11 per gallon
  • Trump's Current: $3.16 per gallon
  • Insight: Gas prices remain essentially flat, with only a marginal increase, falling short of Trump's promises of substantial reductions.

Conclusion: While some economic indicators like inflation and mortgage rates show improvement under Trump, others like GDP growth and consumer sentiment raise concerns. Pakman summarizes, "Expectations are that people are very worried the economy is going in the wrong direction" ([00:07]).

---

2. Trump's Press Briefing and Policy Announcements

Pakman critiques Trump's performance during a recent closed-door press briefing with House Republicans, highlighting his evasive and deflective responses to substantive questions:

• Health Insurance Guarantees:
  When asked if Trump can guarantee that voters won't lose health insurance under a new bill, Trump responds by shifting focus to drug price cuts:

  Donald Trump ([10:21]): "Not only that, remember, I'm cutting drug prices by 85%... we're now going to pay the lowest in the world." ([10:21])

  Pakman's Analysis: "Trump gives only the most minor... No one will lose health care coverage. But then very quickly moves on to the issue of the pharmaceutical prices that he's going to cut" ([10:49]).

• Food Assistance Cuts:
  Upon questioning the rationale behind cutting food assistance, Trump attributes it to decreased grocery prices:

  Donald Trump ([12:02]): "The cut is going to give everybody much more food because prices are coming way down... Gasoline is now buying. They're buying gasoline now for $1.99." ([12:02])

  Pakman's Critique: "Trump regularly lying about gas prices... his promises seem completely not based in fact."

• Obsession with the Golden Dome:
  Trump announces the "Golden Dome missile defense shield," a policy Pakman views as unrealistic and fiscally irresponsible:

  Donald Trump ([27:47]): "We're going to have it at the highest level... fully operational before the end of my term." ([27:47])

  Pakman's Commentary: "This ideal defense system... makes no sense whatsoever at this point in time... an entirely fantastical promise."

• Evasive Responses and Authoritarian Tendencies:
  When pressed on policy details, Trump deflects or provides misleading information:

  Donald Trump ([33:24]): "The USA, by the way, very important... Declaration of Independence." ([33:24])

  Pakman's Observation: "Trump is reluctantly acknowledging superficial questions while avoiding substantive answers, showcasing a move towards authoritarian behavior."

---

3. Republican Stance on Habeas Corpus and Civil Liberties

The episode delves into a critical discussion on civil liberties, focusing on Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's misunderstanding of habeas corpus, a fundamental constitutional right.

• Pressing Questions on Habeas Corpus:
  During a hearing, Senator Maggie Hassan questions Secretary Noem:

  Senator Maggie Hassan ([40:44]): "What is habeas corpus?"
  Kristi Noem ([40:44]): "Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country." ([40:44])

• Clarification and Correction:
  Pakman explains the true meaning of habeas corpus:

  Satatus Massie ([40:55]): "Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people... separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea." ([40:55])

  Noem's Flawed Interpretation:
  Instead of recognizing habeas corpus as a protection against unlawful detention, Noem incorrectly states it as a presidential power to remove individuals from the country.

• Implications:
  Pakman warns that such misunderstandings signal a "Republican war on civil liberties," where fundamental protections could become negotiable and subject to presidential discretion.

  Pakman: "This is a window into how authoritarianism grows. You fill positions of power with people who are ignorant and loyal... the most fundamental protections... start to become negotiable." ([58:14])

---

4. Internal Republican Conflicts Over Fiscal Responsibility

Pakman highlights internal tensions within the Republican Party, particularly regarding fiscal policies:

• Thomas Massie's Critique of Trump's Tax Plan:
  Massie, a libertarian Republican, opposes Trump's tax plan citing its potential to balloon the deficit:

  Pete Hegseth ([46:44]): "We're going to add $20 trillion to debt over the next 10 years..." ([46:56])

  Pakman's Analysis: "Thomas Massie is not a moderate... it's about loyalty, not fiscal responsibility. If you deviate, you become persona non grata." ([47:14])

• Trump's Response to Dissent:
  Pakman illustrates how Trump prioritizes loyalty over policy correctness, suggesting that any criticism of his tax plan leads to calls for removal from office.

  Pakman: "If you deviate even one iota from the Trump line... 'you're a traitor. You're done.'" ([47:14])

---

5. The Decline of Elon Musk's Political Involvement

The episode briefly touches on Elon Musk's reduced engagement in political spending:

• Musk's Withdrawal from Political Contributions:
  After significant investments in Trump's campaigns, Musk announces a decrease in political spending, citing blowback from his actions:

  Caroline Levitt ([51:20]): "I'm going to do a lot less [political spending] in the future." ([51:36])

• Impact on Musk's Reputation:
  Pakman discusses how Musk's political involvement has alienated half the country, damaging his brands like Tesla, and notes Trump's apparent relief at Musk stepping back.

  Pakman: "He's done enough damage... He has done enough buying his way into an administration wreaking complete and total havoc." ([52:15])

---

6. Investigations and Political Maneuvering

Pakman concludes with updates on ongoing political investigations and their potential motivations:

• Justice Department Investigation into Andrew Cuomo:
  Speculation arises that the investigation may be strategically timed to undermine Cuomo's bid for New York mayor.

• Bonus Show Preview:
  Pakman teases a bonus show discussing conflicting reports about Qatar's alleged plane gift to Trump and other unfolding political scenarios.

---

Key Takeaways

• Economic Indicators: Mixed results under Trump's second term with some improvements and notable declines.
• Authoritarian Behaviors: Concerns over Trump's evasive responses and Republican officials' misunderstandings of fundamental legal principles.
• Party Loyalty vs. Policy: Internal conflicts highlight a prioritization of loyalty over substantive policy debates within the Republican Party.
• Reduced Political Spending by Influencers: Figures like Elon Musk are distancing themselves from political contributions due to negative repercussions.
• Ongoing Political Investigations: Strategic timing of investigations suggests potential political motivations beyond sheer legality.

Notable Quotes:

• David Pakman ([00:07]): "Let's put aside our opinions about the president... let's just track how economic indicators have changed under the current president versus the previous one."
• Donald Trump ([10:21]): "Not only that, remember, I'm cutting drug prices by 85%... we're now going to pay the lowest in the world."
• Senator Maggie Hassan ([40:55]): "Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people."
• Thomas Massie ([46:44]): "We're going to add $20 trillion to debt over the next 10 years..."
• Donald Trump ([27:47]): "We're going to have it at the highest level... fully operational before the end of my term."

---

This comprehensive summary captures the essential discussions and insights from "The David Pakman Show" episode aired on May 21, 2025, providing listeners with an in-depth understanding of the topics covered.

Transcript

[David Pakman]

Welcome to the show, everybody. One of the, I believe, most useful things that we can do, at least to create a baseline for evaluating a presidency, is to really keep track of a bundle of economic indicators. And we've talked about before how I, of course, have personal views and opinions and biases, but that at least as a starting point, I may have an opinion about gay marriage, for example, but at least as a starting point, it's a good thing to look at 5, 6, 7 economic metrics and say, let's put aside our opinions about the president, let's put aside for a moment our views on social issues, and let's just track how economic indicators have changed under the current president versus the previous one. In this particular case, what we're saying is how does the Trump administration second term now four months in compare economically with what we saw during Joe Biden's presidency? One of the, I think, relevant things to understand about the tariff program is that the announcement of tariffs and then the suspension of tariffs, all still, for the most part, not yet started. Even though there are some tariffs on China, they really affect futures markets. The stock market is a futures market the day you announce tariffs, especially if they are to take effect at some future point, nothing changes that day about the profitability of a publicly traded company, but its share price may go down because it reflects beliefs about the future profitability of that company. So all of this being said, we can simultaneously understand how blanket tariffs on every country would be bad for American companies, small businesses and individuals, but recognize that not all of that takes effect right away and maybe isn't reflected in economic indicators. So that being said, where are we right now with regard to the primary metrics that we track to evaluate a presidency? Well, let's start with unemployment. The unemployment rate at the end of Joe Biden's term was 4.1. Right now, four months into Trump's presidency, it's at 4.2. It's essentially unchanged now. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and economists have said if the full scope of Trump's threatened tariffs become real and then the effect of that trickles down through the economy, you're going to get higher unemployment. We don't have it yet. Right now, unemployment is basically unchanged from where it left off with Joe Biden. Okay, let's continue to inflation. A year over year inflation at the end of Joe Biden's presidency, let's say for 2024, which includes the last full month that Biden was president, year over year, inflation was 2.9% after three months. After four months really, under Donald Trump, that is now down to 2.3%. We're going to get, we have the latest April number, rather, 2.3%. So inflation has declined under Trump. This, these are just the facts. And I know that there are people who will be furious at me, furious about numbers. This is where we are. Is it the case that Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman and every serious economist have said, if Trump's tariffs go at the full rate and they continue, it's going to drive inflation? Yes, that's absolutely true. Are we seeing it yet? The answer is no. Now, of course, anecdotally, or if we want to break these numbers down into constituent parts, we can certainly find some industries that are starting to see some additional price inflation. But so far, inflation is down now from where it was when Donald Trump took over GDP. GDP is a sign of concern. What we saw, the Q4 number, which was the final quarter that Joe Biden was, was president, annualized to 2.3% growth for the economy in the first quarter of Donald Trump's second term, January, February, March of this year, we saw a decline in GDP of 0.3%. This was hugely significant. This was the first time that GDP declined in the United States in years. So although unemployment is basically flat, inflation is slightly down. We did see a GDP decline in the first quarter of this year. That's not a good indicator. And of course the part, one of the reasons for that is that anticipating tariffs, many companies stocked up on inventory, meaning they imported more, which contributes to the GDP decline in these numbers. Okay, so that's where we are interest rates, which Donald Trump promised to bring down. Typically when we say where are interest rates? We look at the 30 year fixed rate mortgage. At the end of Joe Biden's presidency, the 30 year fixed rate mortgage was at 7.04. Right now it's at 6.81. So we've seen a modest, maybe about, you know, a quarter point decline point to three, in fact, decline in mortgage rates under Donald Trump. Significant, not really a decline. Yes, it's a decline. And of course, declining mortgage rates make homes slightly more affordable, although at the same time, mortgage rates and home prices tend to move in opposite directions. So you would, you would expect to see a slight increase in home prices to account for the decrease in the 30 year mortgage rate. The stock market, this has been maybe one of the most critical ones because after the announcement of the Liberation Day tariffs, quote, unquote, Liberation Day tariffs, we saw significant market shakiness and massive declines. As we spoke about Yesterday with JL Collins, some said the United States is not going to recover these stock market losses for years. And it could be a decade. It could be years. It's recovered. We. The stock market is now essentially flat. The s and P500 down less than half a point since Donald Trump took over. As, as we spoke about yesterday with JL Collins, there are people saying, this is what we call a dead cat bounce, and the stock market will decline 10, 20, 30% from where it is now as the tariffs take their full effect. Others said, no, that's it. It's over. The calamity is over. I have no idea. I don't pretend to know. I don't think I'm smart enough to predict that. But as of this moment, the stock market flat. Now, some would say, given how bad things were looking, flat's pretty good. Others would say flat means we're on track for zero stock market growth. In other words, if you take a.5% decline in four months, that's like a 1.5% decline over the course of a year. It's not a disaster, but it's a little bit of loss. So it depends on your expectation. But I think there is upside, which is it looked like we were going to be down 15% this year. And on the other hand, if we expect and desire an average of 7% stock market growth a year over the long term, we're falling very short of that. So interpret that yourself. On consumer sentiment, that is an area that is significantly declined at the end of Biden's presidency. Consumer sentiment was 71. This is indexed to 100. It was. So the numbers are sort of arbitrary, but the idea is think about 100 as being sort of neutral. We went from 71 in terms of consumer expectations about the economy down to 57, one of the lowest numbers we've seen for consumer sentiment, which just reflects expectations about the economy and a very long time. And then finally on gas prices. Gas prices, basically flat. 311 a gallon when Biden left office, a 316 a gallon. Right now it's a 5. It's like a 1% increase in gas prices. If we compare it to what Joe, what Donald Trump promised, which is massive 50% declines in the cost of energy and gas prices, well, he's certainly falling short there. If we compare it to a massive economic disaster, certainly not one. So what is the empirical picture about the economy? Expectations are that people are very worried the economy is going in the wrong direction. GDP decline, certainly a concern most other metrics Basically flat. That's where we are. The, the next step is to analyze, and we're going to delve more deeply into that tomorrow. Well, we saw yesterday what happens when Donald Trump is asked real, substantive policy questions, and it's not good. He doesn't like it. Donald Trump was asked about this new, big, beautiful bill. Can you guarantee that your voters will not lose health insurance under this bill? Intuitively, we know that they will if the bill comes to full fruition because of the cuts that are in the bill. If you think back to 2017, we all remember that when Trump actually had a plan, it was the plan Republicans decided not to go forward with in 2017, because somewhere between 24 and 32 million Americans would have lost health care coverage over the following decade. So they don't have exactly a good track record with this stuff. But needless to say, here is Trump answering the question, can you guarantee no one will lose health insurance? And Trump's like, yeah, no, they won't. And then he goes on to talk about completely unrelated things.

[Donald Trump]

Waste, fraud.

[David Pakman]

Can you guarantee that your voters supported the election?

[Mike Johnson]

Working class voters will not lose health insurance under this bill.

[Donald Trump]

Oh, they won't lose health insurance. Not only that, remember, I'm cutting drug prices by 85%. And right now I'm saving it. I'm saving the whole thing because I did something that nobody was willing to do. Other countries pay a tiny fraction what we do, and I instituted favorite nations. We're now going to pay the lowest in the world. We're going to be the equivalent of the lowest country in the world.

[David Pakman]

Notice how Trump gives only the most minor. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No one will lose health care coverage. But then very quickly moves on to the issue of the pharmaceutical prices that he's going to cut, even though it's not clear how. You might remember that the executive order he signed, whose legal mechanism mechanisms for reducing pharmaceutical prices we still don't understand, said 30 to 80%. Then Trump's been saying at least 50%. Now he even hyperbolically goes to 85%. What is the truth of it? We still have no idea what the mechanism is for reducing prices. But more importantly, Trump doesn't seem particularly concerned with the reality that indeed, people may lose health care coverage under this plan. Trump then asked an equally reasonable question. How is it a good idea to cut food assistance in this bill? You might recall, as I told you yesterday, that this tax bill includes additional requirements if you want to keep your food stamp benefits. It sounds like that would take food stamps Away from people. Trump goes, no, no, no more. People will have food thanks to what I'm doing. What you campaign on, lowering the price of groceries. How do you justify cutting food assistance in this country?

[Donald Trump]

Let me, let me just tell you. The cut is going to give everybody much more food because prices are coming way down. Groceries are down. Eggs, you told me about eggs. You asked me a question about eggs my first week. You said eggs. I said, I just got here. Tell me about eggs. And it was going through the roof. You know that. Eggs now way down. Everybody's buying eggs. Groceries down. Energy's down. Gasoline is now buying. They're buying gasoline now for $1.99.

[David Pakman]

Now, as we talked about earlier, Trump's regularly lying about gas prices. The truth is that gas prices are basically flat. I'm not here to tell you they're way up. Under Trump, they're up about 1%. It's essentially flat. And of course, gas prices are not the big kind of adjudicating factor as to the state of the economy that Trump likes to believe they are. But on every aspect of this, my suggestion is let's bookmark and then double check. Is no one going to lose health coverage? Is no one who needs them going to go without food stamps or without food? Because these promises seem completely not based in fact. Now, the topic of the Pope came up, and Trump weirdly says, one of the Pope's brothers. Well, kind of two. But one of the Pope's brothers is a big MAGA guy, and I'd like to give him a hug, but I.

[Donald Trump]

Think I like him. Yeah, I like the Pope and I like the Pope's brother. You know, one of the Pope's brothers, actually both of them, but one in particular is a major MAGA fan. Did you know that he lives in Florida? He's got maga, Trump, and I look forward to getting him to the White House. I want to shake his hand. I want to give him a big hug. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

[David Pakman]

All right, so Trump really wanting to hug the brother of the Pope. And then it really got wacky. Where you might have noticed hanging around here in the background, if you're watching the clips, is MAGA Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, and MAGA Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, goes on one of these. They came to me with tears in their eyes saying that Trump got multiple standing ovations during his closed door meeting with House Republicans. Now, I actually don't know if it's sad or if it's true or if it's false, I'll explain what I mean in a moment.

[Donald Trump]

And I think this was a tremendous session. You may want to say something.

[Pete Hegseth]

Yeah, it was a great meeting. The party is unified. The House of Poker conference is excited. Multiple standing ovations. They love this president. The people back home love what he's doing. It's historic. And everybody understands the scope and the meaning of this. If we do not accomplish this mission, every one of you, all the American people are going to have the highest tax increase that you've ever had. Among the debt ceiling clip that's approaching and all.

[David Pakman]

Now remember that the real highest tax increase would be the blanket tariffs on every single country. That's really the area of concern. That's the primary thing that we should be worried about. But no, it's the standing ovations for Trump in a closed door meeting that tell us how great he is. Now, I'll be honest with you. What's more embarrassing if Republicans really did give Trump multiple standing ovations in a closed door meeting where he just rants and gives his normal tirades, or if Mike Johnson is lying about it, I actually don't know which one would be more humiliating. In a sort of semi comedic interlude, although it's also darkly authoritarian, Trump gets a question he doesn't like from a reporter. He doesn't know. So he does the only thing he knows how to do, which is to say, where do you work? And then to say, I don't know what that is, therefore your question must not be valid. Andy Harris said that you didn't adequately convince enough people to vote for the House. Freedom.

[Donald Trump]

You mean after this speech?

[David Pakman]

After this feature?

[Donald Trump]

Well, what do we see at the voters? I think it was in great, great talk. Talk wasn't a speech. We talked about things. Who do you work for?

[Caroline Levitt]

Nurse.

[Donald Trump]

Who?

[David Pakman]

Nurse.

[Donald Trump]

I don't even know what the hell that is. Get yourself a real job.

[David Pakman]

Get yourself a real job. You know, this is one of those moments where I admit there's a funny aspect to it and then you realize, realize how darkly authoritarian it is and just how dystopian it is. The idea that the questions validity is based essentially on whether Trump knows or likes you or knows or likes the publication you work for, rather than the substance of the question. Trump then going into this auto pen conspiracy, you know, it's his new shiny object. It's the thing he's most obsessed with. The auto pen may disqualify everything. Biden ever did one for six months.

[Donald Trump]

And that was a very frightening thing because the Democrats have really hurt our country and we are going to go into very much. Remember what I said, the auto. This government was illegally run before your. Thank you very much, everybody.

[David Pakman]

Thank you very much. And you know, I, I would look at an espresso machine before the auto pen if I thought that there was a machine that had rigged an election and a presidency. The auto pen, maybe. But those espresso machines have me really, really suspicious. Trump obsessed with this at this point in time. And then finally, as usual, at the conclusion of this, Trump wandering almost into a wall and a police officer rather than walking down the hallway until MAGA Mike Johnson pointed him in the right direction.

[Donald Trump]

Thank you very much, everybody.

[David Pakman]

Whoops. All right, so maybe Trump went to the officer thinking they're going to do another mug shot. I must be getting arrested. Again, serious questions he doesn't like. Substantive questions he cannot answer. And after the break, after we deal with Caroline Levitt lying to little kids, I know we will get to a proposal from this administration for a golden, golden dome defense system which I predict will never be built. Very quick break. And then right back. I've been using Graza olive oil for years and I am super excited that Graza is now a sponsor of the show. Graza olive oil is always fresh. It's never blended. They use one olive from one region in Spain. No mysterious blends. It's a traceable and fresher product. And the packaging is super practical. None of these messy, drippy spouts. Graza oils come in easy to use, squeeze and spray bottles. They've got three types, super simple frizzle for high smoke point cooking, sizzle for everyday cooking, and drizzle, which is more for garnishes and dressings. I've been using Graza Oil in my house for years. I love everything about it and my audience gets 10% off the trio, which comes with all three of the varieties that they offer in a squeezy bottle. So you are all set for every style of cooking. Go to Graza Co and use the code Pacman. That's Graza Co. Use code pacman for 10% off the trio. The link is in the podcast notes. All right, so we all know Alexa listens to us, recommends products based on our conversations. Metta retargets us based on our browsing and engagement history. Have you wondered what ChatGPT and Claude are up to with your conversations? We feed so much of our information to these AI chat bots. Thoughts, dreams, sensitive questions, business ideas. They take the information, tie it to your identity and they can sell that to third parties and governments. ChatGPT has the former director of the NSA on their board right now. That doesn't feel awesome. It took us a long time to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data. We don't have to make the same mistake with AI. And that's why I've started using Venice AI, a generative AI platform that is private and permissionless. They don't spy on you, Venice. I won't censor the AI. They have a safe mode which you can turn off for both text and image generation. Messages are encrypted. Your conversation history is only stored on your browser. I love the Pro plan because I get upgraded features like uploading files, unlimited text prompts. Check it out. If you want to use AI without censorship or fear of handing over your most intimate thoughts to a corporation or the government, go to Venice AI/PACMAN and use code PACMAN to get 20% off their pro plan. That's Venice AI/PACMAN. Get 20% off with code Pakman. The info is in the podcast notes. The David Pakman show is of course an audience supported independent media program. I invite you to join the ranks of those supporting us. Really appreciate everybody who does. You can read about membership and sign up@join pacman.com of course you can also use the discount code coupon code. It will end soon. All one word, all lowercase to save about 50% off of the cost of your membership. You know, Caroline Levitt, of course, is one of the most disgusting and regrettable actors in this second iteration of the Trump administration. But the depravity really knows no Bottom I was watching sort of with minimal amusement, I guess. It was like bring your kid to the press briefing room yesterday at the White House and Caroline Levitt took questions from the kids. And even when taking questions from the kids, and I don't even know why I say that, because to be frank, the questions from the kids were better questions, more substantive questions, certainly more salient and relevant questions than what we heard from the new MAGA briefing room that Caroline Levitt held a few weeks ago. These kids asked relatively good questions, and even to them, Caroline Levitt lies and distracts and distorts. I'll give you some examples. How many people has Trump fired? Is the question.

[Kristi Noem]

How many people has fired?

[Maggie Hassan]

How many people has he fired thus far? Actually, we have not had anyone fired with the exception of one individual who did leave their job. But we have a great team here so far.

[David Pakman]

So yeah, of course, thousands, tens of thousands have been fired by Trump through his deputized Doge and Elon Musk. That's the true answer. I guess if you pushed her, Caroline Levitt would go, well, in these first few months, no one from the core White House team has been fired. But the reality is that Donald Trump has overseen one of the greatest mass firings in the federal government that we have seen in decades. These are kids. They are sort of stumbling upon real questions, and the answers they get are bullshit, quite frankly. Here is the next question. What is Trump's religion? She lies here as well.

[Maggie Hassan]

Remember your question.

[Kristi Noem]

Yeah.

[Maggie Hassan]

Okay, let's hear it.

[David Pakman]

What's the president's religion?

[Maggie Hassan]

What's the president's religion? The president is a Christian and he believes in Jesus.

[David Pakman]

That is a lie. We, as you all know, have understood for a decade now that this entire religious Persona that Donald Trump has developed was developed solely and specifically to run for office as a Republican. It's that simple. That's all it was. Asked to quote anything from the Bible, he can't. And visibly annoyed when at an event he goes to, the crowd bows its head in prayer. And Trump recently kind of rolling his eyes and looking around, annoyed. Every single one of these questions she is lying or distracting or distorting about. And I've got to give the kids credit, these are actually pretty interesting questions. Next, a kid asks, who's Trump's favorite president, other than himself? Which, of course, brilliantly gets right to Trump's egomaniacal narcissism. And Caroline Levitt even acknowledged, acknowledges it. Yeah, Trump's favorite president is himself.

[Maggie Hassan]

Nora, go ahead.

[David Pakman]

Which Trump's favorite president, besides himself?

[Maggie Hassan]

Good question, because it would be probably himself. No, I think that perhaps he would say George Washington. I know he speaks very highly of George Washington, who was, of course, the first president of our great country. And he has his big, beautiful portrait hanging in the Oval Office.

[David Pakman]

You know, I think Trump's shown himself to be much more of an Andrew Jackson guy, but even the press secretary can't help but acknowledge he is his own favorite president. What is Trump's favorite room in the White House? And this time, the topic of Trump's impossible obsession with unending obsession with gold plating comes forward.

[Maggie Hassan]

Go ahead, honey. Favorite room in the White House. I think his favorite room in the White House is definitely the Oval Office, because it's so beautiful, and he has decked it out in gold. It's now MAGA gold in there.

[David Pakman]

And just a reminder that no matter how much money you have you often cannot buy class. And Trump's obsession with gold plating. Everything is unending. Maybe the most substantive question, what is Trump going to do about climate change? A tough question for Caroline Levitt to answer, because Trump doesn't seem to believe in climate change. But let's see what she says.

[Maggie Hassan]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

What is Donald Trump willing to do about climate change?

[Maggie Hassan]

What is Donald Trump going to do about climate change? Climate change? Well, that is a very good question. The President cares very much about our environment. He says all the time he wants to have the cleanest air, the cleanest water, the cleanest environment.

[David Pakman]

Is she saying Cletus? That's a weird, weird pronunciation.

[Maggie Hassan]

And for the world. He also cares very much about our energy independence and ensuring that we can keep the lights on in our homes at a very cheap rate. So we want to make energy here, here in the United States, because we do it cleaner and better than everyone. So.

[David Pakman]

And of course, the real answer is in that last part, he's not going to do anything about climate change because his big thing is, let's burn all the fossil fuels we can because that's America and that's freedom and that is the whole thing. So total confusion in the press briefing room as Caroline Levitt can't tell the truth to anybody. But we have to keep it in context and, and sort of less concerning is that than what happened just nearby the press briefing room in the Oval Office yesterday. And I want to talk about that next. Donald Trump held an event in the Oval Office yesterday to announce the Golden Dome defense system. This is going to be a defense system that can shoot missiles down no matter where they come from. They might come from the other side of the planet, they might come from space. Here is Trump struggling to explain what this is, why we're doing it. Do you want your taxpayer dollars going to this?

[Donald Trump]

Thank you for being here in the Oval Office. Great places of the world, as we make a historic announcement about the Golden Dome missile defense shield. That's something we want, and Ronald Reagan wanted to it many years ago, but they didn't have the technology. But it's something we're going to have. We're going to have it at the highest level. I want to thank Secretary Hegseth, who has been fantastic, and Secretary Rubio, and Space Force Vice Chief of Space Operations General Mike Guttlein. I also want to recognize Senators Dan Sullivan, Kevin Kramer and Jim Banks. Fantastic senators, great talents, great political talents and people that love our country. In the campaign, I promised the American people that I would build A cutting edge missile defense shield to protect our homeland from the threat of foreign missile attack. And that's what we're doing today. I'm pleased to announce that we have officially selected an architecture for this state of the art system that will deploy next generation technologies across the, across the land, sea and space, including space based sensors and interceptors. And Canada has called us and they want to be a part of it. So we'll be talking to them. They want to have protection also. So as usual, we help Canada do the best we can. This design for the Golden Dome will integrate with our existing defense capabilities and should be fully operational before the end of the my term. So I haven't done in about three years.

[David Pakman]

You know, if, if I were a betting man, and I'm not, I would say that this is not done by the end of Donald Trump's first term. Now, aside from the impossible promises on the timing, you know, we've got homeless veterans in this country, we've got hungry kids. And this is not a, we can only do one thing at a time. But the common sense of such a defense system, you know, it's often analogized to Israel's Iron Dome. Israel is a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by hostile countries. Whatever you think about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, the geographical situation is completely different. The United States with Canada to the north, Mexico to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. It's just a completely different environment. And sure you can say, well, if the missiles came from space, but this makes no sense whatsoever at this point in time. Not something I want my tax dollars going to that I can tell you. This entire event was a fiasco. Trump was asked a great question. Did the military commanders ask for this? I'm sorry, before we even get to that, what about the cost of this thing? Isn't this just really expensive? And Trump goes, no, I just got 5 trillion in the Middle east, so we can afford it.

[Maggie Hassan]

When you first announced this idea, critics said it would be prohibitively expensive, potentially ineffective, and could trigger an arms race in space.

[David Pakman]

What do you say to those critics about that?

[Donald Trump]

Well, the wrong is about as close to perfect as you can have in terms of real production. I told you cannot. Canada wants to be a part of it, which be, you know, fairly small expansion. But we'll work with them on pricing. We'll be dealing with them on pricing. They know about it very much. They've asked to be a part of it, actually, they've asked us to be a part of it. I think it's something that is great. If you can afford to do it, we can afford to do it. You know, we took in $5.1 trillion in the last four days. And the Middle east, and of course.

[David Pakman]

This is a lie. We did not take in any money in the Middle East. What Trump is referring to and what's being exaggerated and molded and pounded and stretched into a claim Trump can make, what we have are completely informal sort of ideas that the countries Trump visited might, over the next decade, make certain investments in joint ventures with the United States. So what happens is Saudi Arabia goes, yeah, you know, maybe we'd be in for 600 billion over the next 10 years if you bring us a proposal and something actionable. And Trump goes, they just gave us 600 billion. Of course they didn't. Oh, they might do 1.2 trillion. Yes, if you put together the proposals and get approval, and then that would be over a 10 or longer year period. So this entire we got 5 trillion thing is a complete and total farcical lie. Next relevant question. Is this even something that the generals asked for? Did military commanders say, let's do this golden, golden dome defense system? Trump goes, well, I kind of suggested it, and they did say it sounds pretty good.

[Donald Trump]

Very protective. I think you can rest assured there'll be nothing like this. Nobody else is capable of building it either.

[Maggie Hassan]

Military commanders ask you for. Did they ask you to do this?

[Donald Trump]

Well, let me put it differently. I suggested it, and they all said, we love the idea, sir. It's got to be.

[David Pakman]

They didn't exactly come to me and say, this is something we want neat or anything like that. But when I said it to them, what if we do a golden dome like Israel's Iron Dome? They said, yeah, sure, sounds good. We'll take it. Because as we know, military commanders working under a president regularly turn down stuff that the President is offering. Trump then got sort of disoriented and again started mumbling and jumbling. And he seems to think that the copy of the Declaration of Independence that he put in the Oval Office is real, which is really wild.

[Donald Trump]

The usa, by the way, very important. So it's something that I've been looking forward to for a long time. And I just notice you, too, Jim, you're standing there. Behind you is a very important document. Declaration of Independence.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Donald Trump]

And that was in the vault for many decades. Under. Right under this area, they have vaults with pictures on top. You have Abraham Lincoln. You see, that was the original Abraham Lincoln, the original Washington. And does Everybody know who the middle was? General Grant. And so it's very exciting. You look over here and above Ronald Reagan.

[David Pakman]

Anyway, I still don't know if Trump is only pretending to believe that that's the original Declaration of Independence or whether he knows that it's not and he's just kind of lying to everybody. All right. We then get to questions about the Russian buildup of troops on the border with Finland and Norway. Trump asked, are you worried about that? He goes now just, just not worried, Mr. President, on Russia. Are you worried about the report on.

[Donald Trump]

A military build up along the borders towards Finland and Norway? No, I don't worry about that at all. It's going to be very safe. Those are two countries are going to be very safe. And Mr. President, all of Russia, he's.

[David Pakman]

Just not worried, folks. We don't have to worry about it. Everything's completely fine there. And then finally Trump turns it over to Pete Hegseth and says, Pete, play us out here. And Pete Hegseth just groveling. The number of grown men groveling around this man Trump is wild to talk about this.

[Donald Trump]

How about you closing it out?

[Mike Johnson]

Yes, sir. I mean, like I said, without your vision, willing to say and do things when other people wanted to look away and pretend like the threat didn't exist or be focused on foreign adventurism, some other threat that we've been told is affecting us. When you looked at the data, sir, from Russia to the Communist Chinese and other, their capabilities, what they're trying to do to supersede us and threaten us, how do we find the best innovators, the best military leaders, the best companies and tech companies, as you mentioned, open architecture. That's exactly right.

[David Pakman]

Thank you, sir.

[Mike Johnson]

So multiple companies can pour into this, Sir, It's a layered defense. So if you miss that one, you catch at the next. And it integrates existing technologies that can speak to each other, so it moves quickly while also investing in further ranging space based interceptors. So our, our enemies, our adversaries are going to pay a lot of attention to this, just like they have to President Trump from day one. So you're defending the whole homeland, defending the American people. It's going to benefit my kids, grandkids, all of ours in this room. So thank you for your leadership.

[Donald Trump]

We're in charge.

[David Pakman]

Thank you so much for your leadership. You know, groveling aside for a moment, I mean, just pathetic groveling from Pete Hecseth. The idea that what Trump does is looks at data in detail, speaks to experts and makes nuanced, thoughtful complex decisions. We he's never once done that the entire time that he's been president. And we're now supposed to believe, thanks to the most unqualified Secretary of Defense in history, that that's how Trump is deciding what to do? Humiliating and pathetic and all over a golden dome system that simply will not be built while Trump is president. That was his promise. Let's hold them to it. Does anybody in my audience believe we're going to see that in the next three and two thirds years? 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 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 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 S H E A T H underwear.com/pacman use code PACMAN for 20% off. The link is in the podcast notes. It is not every day that you get to watch the Secretary of Homeland Security butcher one of the most basic legal principles in the American Constitution on live tv. Tv. But here we are. And it certainly is a more common occurrence in the current administration than in past one. We had a recent hearing involving Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Senator Maggie Hassan from New Hampshire asks the former South Dakota Governor Noem, now Secretary of Homeland Security, a very simple question. What is habeas corpus? In other times, we would consider this a rhetorical question or maybe a trick or leading question meant to no, we just don't think they know what it is. And Kristi Noem's answer in full confidence confirms that she doesn't know what it is. She says that habeas corpus means Trump can do whatever he wants. Oh boy, we're in trouble. Take a listen to this.

[Thomas Massie]

So, Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus? Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.

[David Pakman]

Swing and a miss.

[Thomas Massie]

Let me, let me stop habeas corpus. Excuse me, that's. That's incorrect, President. Habeas corpus. Excuse me. Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the live free or die state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents and to all Americans. So, Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides? That the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?

[David Pakman]

Not really.

[Thomas Massie]

Yet I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not. It has never. Let us be clear, it is never been done it has never been done without approval of Congress. Even Abraham Lincoln.

[David Pakman]

That's right. The president doesn't have that right unilaterally, that's for sure. Can we be surprised that. That they're violating court orders when they don't even know or are willing to admit what habeas corpus even is? This is not a presidential power. And it's not about deportation. It's not even about immigration. It is the right of a person to challenge unlawful detention in court. It's the foundation of due process. You have to get an explanation for why are you being detained or you must be let go. It's been the law, really, since before the United States even existed. So when Kristi Noem says Trump has the right to use habeas corpus to remove people, she's not confused. She's completely flipping it upside down. It's like saying the First Amendment gives the government the right to ban books. It's like, no, the First Amendment says the government shouldn't and can't be doing that. And yet these are the people that brag about defending the Constitution. They don't even understand it, never mind defend it. So it's not a surprise that the Trump administration and its allies have been floating the idea of suspending habeas corpus, because in their world, the government shouldn't have to explain arrests or detentions, just throw people in jail or deport them. No hearing, no lawyer, no court. And now we see why. They don't know what the law says in the first place, or they're not willing to acknowledge it. So, you know, I said at the beginning, in other environments, what is habeas corpus would be a rhetorical question, a trick question, a leading question. This isn't really a gotcha moment. It's a window into how authoritarianism grows. You fill positions of power with people who are ignorant and loyal in various combinations, and suddenly, even the most fundamental protections that we take for granted, like not being disappeared by the state, start to become negotiable. It's at the pleasure of the president that we have habeas corpus or don't have it. And so what we have here is a Republican war on civil liberties. That's not a secret. It's out in the open. They don't hide it. They say, we want to detain people without trials, we want to remove people without due process, without hearings. Brian Kilmeade on Fox and Friends a couple of weeks ago said, guys, it's just not practical. We can't give hearings to all of these People, we just got to get them out of here. Judicial oversight, a court that says, here's what you must do to comply with the law and we're going to ignore it. And so far they get away with it. And when you say, wow, there must be some legal theory behind this, you're doing so many things differently. Give me the legal theory. They give you gibberish like habeas corpus means Trump does whatever he wants whenever he wants it. And the truth is they don't need to know how it works because they don't care. All they need to know is who are we targeting? And let's reverse engineer a harebrained understanding of the law to justify it. If we keep treating it as merely incompetence, and I said it's incompetence and loyalty in proportion. I don't know if we treat it as incompetence alone. We don't necessarily acknowledge the march towards the authoritarianism. And then we'll end up waking up in a country where habeas corpus really does mean whatever the hell Trump wants. Terrifying stuff from Kristi Noemi and a nice job done there by Senator Maggie Hassan in explaining the absurdity of this. All right, let's go to one now that is not from a Democrat. Ok, Maggie Hassan, Democrat, she supports habeas Corpus Christi. Noem didn't. But that's a Democrat against a Republican. Let's step back for a second. Let's hear from Thomas Massie. Not the squad, not a disaffected Republican like Liz Cheney. This is a full blown libertarian, anti spending, anti tax Republican Thomas Massie, Congressman, going nuclear on Trump's new tax plan. Why? Because it blows up the deficit. This is something self described deficit hawks are against. Now, I don't agree with the principles that Thomas Massie believes in, but like Rand Paul over in the Senate, there are some Republicans whose principles are actually consistently held and applied to what's going on. I don't really agree with it with Thomas Massie. I think his libertarian anti spending thing is completely whacked and doesn't make any sense economically. But he is identifying the Trump tax plan will dramatically increase the deficit. Therefore it's not something that he would be in favor of. Let's take a listen to what he had to say. The audio is not great, but I think we'll do okay.

[Mike Johnson]

Allies for the MAGA base for voting now.

[Pete Hegseth]

No, actually I've got a lot of people in the MAGA base who realize that we could have done this differently. We could extend the tax cuts and paid for them. But instead, we're not. I mean, over here, the people in.

[David Pakman]

Favor of this bill say that under.

[Mike Johnson]

The policies of this bill, we're going.

[Pete Hegseth]

To add $20 trillion to debt over the next 10 years, which is three and a half to $5 trillion more than would have been.

[David Pakman]

All right, so there is Thomas Massie. This is why Trump said yesterday, thomas Massie needs to be voted out of office. This is what it's really about, fiscal responsibility. Massie says he cares about fiscal responsibility. So does Trump. But the bill doesn't seem to care about fiscal responsibility as defined by them. Trump says he cares about the deficit, and Massie says he cares about the deficit. Except Trump is pushing a bill that will dramatically increase the deficit. And so what this is really about is loyalty, not fiscal responsibility. If you deviate even one iota from the Trump line, you dare to point out this is a budgetary dumpster fire. I'm so sorry, but it's a budgetary dumpster fire. You're a traitor. You're done. You deserve to be voted out. And this is what happens in authoritarian movements. Dissent is punished, even respectful, marginal dissent. The facts don't matter. Loyalty is the only thing that does. Thomas Massie is not a moderate. He's not some center right moderate. He has spent years railing against government spending, even government spending that is stimulative because it does valuable things. Trump is now proposing massive tax cuts for the rich and no real plan to pay for it. So Massie goes, oh, that increases the deficit. I don't like that. And so Trump says, we've got to vote this guy out. So the next time that you hear Trump talk about how he's going to balance the budget or pay off the debt or whatever, his own party's deficit hawks, who I disagree with philosophically are saying Trump's plan is a complete and total fantasy. And Trump's response is, shut up and fall in line. That's what they want you to do. And if you don't do it, you become Persona non grata. Good for Massey, I guess. Although it's his own political career that he's imperiling here. All right, awesome new sponsor to talk about Wild Alaskan company. They do sustainable seafood memberships. I got one of these boxes, and it is just phenomenal. The whole point with wild Alaskan seafood is that it's 100% wild caught, it's never farmed. It's from sustainably managed fisheries in Alaska, frozen at the peak of freshness and then delivered to you. They've got three curated boxes, the wild salmon box, the wild white fish box and the wild combo box. I got a box that had everything beautifully vacuum sealed. The fish comes in pre portioned fillets. We had crab, we had scallops. I know I should be saying scallops. I just, it's just not for me. I call them scallops. Ok? Delicious and sustainable. They have a sustainable, supply driven approach. They get products during the harvest season in a way that doesn't deplete the resources of Alaska's wild fisheries. I encourage you to go to wild alaskan.com/pacman and use the code PACMAN for $35 off your first box. That's wild alaskan.com/PACMAN use code PACMAN for $35 off. The link is in the podcast notes. We are rapidly approaching the end, it seems, of Elon Musk's political involvement in the United States. He did a couple of really interesting interviews here yesterday. And one of the things that Elon Musk now says is, you know, I think I've spent enough money on political campaigns. I don't know that I'm going to be doing quite as much spending. And the why is what's most interesting. As you know, elon dumped about 250 million into Trump's presidential campaign, about 25 million into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race that he lost. He has alienated nearly half the country who now see his brands, particularly Tesla, as toxic. They don't want anything to do with them. And here is Elon Musk explaining why he thinks his political contributions are going to be winding down.

[Thomas Massie]

I think.

[Caroline Levitt]

In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future.

[David Pakman]

And why is that?

[Caroline Levitt]

I think I've done enough.

[David Pakman]

Is it, is it because of blowback?

[Caroline Levitt]

Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it.

[David Pakman]

There you go. He's done enough. And you know what? I agree. He's done enough damage. He has done enough buying his way into an administration wreaking complete and total havoc. And then sort of notice how nobody talks about Elon anymore. Trump doesn't talk about him. Reports are that Trump's thrilled that he's gone. David Faber from CNBC also interviewed Elon Musk and kind of bottom lined it as was any of this worth it? Was that. Was the entire Doge thing at all worthwhile?

[Elon Musk]

My question is more about your work at Doge, for example, was that worth it? You know, to the extent you are now, Elon, you are somewhat divisive figure two years ago, but now you really are. I mean, there are people who love you, but there are a lot of people who dislike you, some of whom were your customers. And I. And I wonder, was it worth the undertaking at Doge and everything else that you've done and how outspoken you've been in terms of the things you believe in to antagonize so many potential buyers and or users of things like a robo taxi?

[Caroline Levitt]

Well, I mean, unfortunately, what I've learned is that legacy media propaganda is very effective.

[David Pakman]

You might be saying, wait a second, how does this answer the question? The answer is it doesn't believe things that aren't true.

[Elon Musk]

What would an example of that be?

[Caroline Levitt]

That I'm a Nazi, for example. And how many legacy media publications, talk shows, whatever, try to claim that I was a Nazi because of some random hand gesture gesture at a rally where.

[David Pakman]

All I said, you know, there's a bunch that could be said about this. On first and foremost, it's was everything he did at Doge worth it? And with no ability for introspection whatsoever, he just goes, you know, the media is so bad. The media just made me look terrible. But the substance of the question is, was doing all of this worth it on the merits and with regard to his brands and his businesses? And just all he can say is, they called me a Nazi and it wasn't true. And then he even goes on further and he goes, everybody's made that hand gesture. Every politician has done that try to.

[Caroline Levitt]

Claim that I was a Nazi because of some random hand gesture gesture at a rally where all I said was that my heart goes out to you. And I was talking about space travel. And yet the legacy media promoted that as though that was a deliberate Nazi gesture, when in fact every politician, any public speaker who's spoken for any length of time has made the exact same gesture. And yet there's still people out there. And I've never harmed, I've never harmed a single person.

[Elon Musk]

You know what, Elon?

[Billy Long]

I was.

[Caroline Levitt]

Now you asked for an example.

[David Pakman]

I was, I wasn't going to talk.

[Elon Musk]

To you about it because in fact, I have a number of people who are close to you and I called them afterwards and all of them to a person were like, no way, no way.

[David Pakman]

Of course, no, I called people ever. They said, elon's not a Nazi. This misses the point so dramatically that, that it is, it's beyond words. And I know that Elon Musk sometimes struggles to sort of really articulate how he feels But I don't think he's struggling here. I think he's making the connection when, when he is asked was all of this worth the money, the time, the cost to your reputation and all of it. His view is everything I did was awesome. But that damn media and people mean people on social media. It's just because of them that it ended up this way. If that's your ability to kind of look at what you did and, and self critique and evaluate, if that's the extent of it, then we're in real trouble here. But I think as far as the experiment goes, what a failed experiment. The entire Doge fiasco really was. Senator Elizabeth Warren put on a masterclass yesterday when speaking to nominee to be IRS commissioner Billy Long. She went directly at an important IRS issue because we know that when the number one currency is loyalty and Trump's the guy nominating you, the expectation is you're going to do Trump's bidding. And Trump's bidding right now is strip organizations. I don't like Harvard University, specifically strip organizations I don't like of their nonprofit status. Elizabeth Warren goes right at Billy Long and wants to know does Billy Long think it would be legal to do that? She's prepared. He's determined not to answer. Listen to this.

[Kristi Noem]

The statute, you've had three weeks to talk to the lawyers about it. So let's jump in. Mr. Long. Is it illegal for the President to direct the IRS to revoke a taxpayers non profit status status.

[Billy Long]

In the first place? He wouldn't do that. He's not going to say.

[David Pakman]

I've got to stop here. Okay, I'm not going to interrupt again during this clip but I have to stop there. Question, is this legal answer? Trump would never do that thing. We talked about John Yoo this week back when John Yoo was a lawyer for George W. Bush. Justifying the use of so called enhanced interrogation techniques. We know them as torture. There's a famous exchange that John Yoo has where he is asked during a similar hearing if the President believed that it made sense and thought it was correct to do so. Could the President order a detainee to be buried alive? And John Yoo's answer was I know the President. The President would never do that. This is a classic non answer. But Elizabeth Warren pushes through and it only gets worse.

[Kristi Noem]

Mr. Long, please don't start down.

[Billy Long]

Are we on section 7212 or 7226.

[Kristi Noem]

USC 7217, do I need to read it to you?

[Billy Long]

Prohibits any member of the executive branch to request The IRS to conduct or terminate an audit on a taxpayer.

[Kristi Noem]

All righty. So is it illegal?

[Billy Long]

I'm going to follow the law. And if that's the law, yes.

[Kristi Noem]

Okay, but I want you.

[David Pakman]

The problem is the if. Because even when the law is clear, people deserve due process. You've got to follow legal judicial orders. They reinterpret the law and they come up with novel interpretations or better, non interpretations. So it's really not as simple as I'm going to follow the law. And Elizabeth Warren knows that and she tries to push through.

[Kristi Noem]

It is the law.

[Billy Long]

Yeah.

[Kristi Noem]

So I just want to be clear. Is it illegal for the president into the United States to instruct the IRS to remove a taxpayer's nonprofit status prohibits.

[Billy Long]

Any member of the executive branch to request the IRS to conduct or terminate an audit of the taxpayer?

[Kristi Noem]

Is. Is that a yes?

[Billy Long]

I'd have to go to. I'd have to go to the lawyers at the irs. Tell me.

[David Pakman]

Hold on.

[Kristi Noem]

You just read it.

[Billy Long]

I know, but I don't see the. The instance that you're speaking about in there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see.

[Kristi Noem]

Look, it says it shall be unlawful for any applicable person, which in this case includes the president, to request directly or indirectly any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or term terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer. Is it illegal for the president to instruct the IRS to remove nonprofit status from a taxpayer?

[Billy Long]

I'm not going to have the answer that you need, and I apologize. But it.

[Kristi Noem]

Like I said, why are you not having the answer? You have three weeks to consult with lawyers. The statute is about as clear as plain English.

[Billy Long]

If I say I'm going to follow the law, why would you need to ask me the question?

[Kristi Noem]

Well, because I want to make sure that you understand what the law says. If you think follow the law means you just get to make it up.

[David Pakman]

On the spot, of course, that's what they believe then.

[Kristi Noem]

But you don't get to be the IRS commissioner. I said I would point here is to follow the law as it is written. And I'm asking what I think is a pretty simple question. Can the President of the United States legally tell the IRS to change someone's nonprofit status.

[Billy Long]

I'm not able to answer.

[Kristi Noem]

You can't read these words and tell.

[David Pakman]

He's not going to answer, Senator Warren. He's not going to answer. And she continued. And she tried to break it down into its component parts. Let's go word by word. We were one Step from going letter by letter. What is the meaning of is. And you're just not going to get it from him.

[Kristi Noem]

It mean to say that a person and apply an applicable person here. That's the President. Right?

[Billy Long]

Yes.

[Kristi Noem]

All right.

[Billy Long]

All right.

[Kristi Noem]

Cannot directly or indirectly. Right. Tell any officer or employee employee that would be you of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer. What part do you not understand here?

[Billy Long]

It seems to be a. Not a non.

[David Pakman]

He's shaking now. He's shaking.

[Billy Long]

Profit. I don't see exactly what any taxpayer.

[Kristi Noem]

To start an investigation of any.

[Billy Long]

If it's illegal. I'm not going to allow to happen in my IRS illegal. Me and you will be friends then. I want to be your friend anyway.

[David Pakman]

But I'm going to be my friend.

[Billy Long]

We will be. We will be on the same page. I'm going to follow the law and.

[Kristi Noem]

If that's point blank, understand the law to be saying about the president telling the IRS in his dealings with any potential particular taxpayer. What do you understand this law to be saying?

[Billy Long]

I think it sounds like it's saying what you're saying, but I don't. I've got a little bit of this.

[David Pakman]

Certainly not going to commit to it here section here.

[Billy Long]

And I looked at. I talked to attorney that used to be at the IRS and now going to maybe be back at the irs. And I'm sorry if I don't have the answer.

[Kristi Noem]

What you mean the lawyers told you they couldn't understand this?

[Billy Long]

The what the lawyers told you they.

[Kristi Noem]

Couldn'T understand understand this?

[Billy Long]

I didn't say that.

[Kristi Noem]

Well then tell me what part do you not understand? It says no person. And you said that's the president that you.

[David Pakman]

We can go. She goes over it again. I won't subject you to it. But by the way, this image here of this Billy Long guy and the two gentlemen sitting behind him. When you say oldboy network, it's hard. This is the. I think this is what chatbots would give you. If you said give me a picture of what an old boy network looks like. You're not going to get the answer. And Senator Warren's conclusion that this guy shouldn't be within a thousand miles of the directorship of the IRS is absolutely incompletely correct. The issue is not can they understand the words? They can understand the words. The issue is that they don't think that it applies to them. And so when they sort of fall back on this, whatever the law is, whatever the lie is, I'm going to follow it. We know that that's not the way that these people operate. We've got a great bonus show for you today. We now have sources contradicting each other about the story that Qatar offered the plane as a gift to Trump. There is now a different story, and it's an important one, which we will talk about on the bonus show. The Justice Department has also opened an investigation into Andrew Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo is running for mayor of New York again. And there is the belief, the concern that this is all meant to hurt Andrew Cuomo in so running. And finally, on today's bonus show, we will talk about. What else are we talking about? I guess it might just be that I don't even know. It's a. It's a great bonus show, let me put it that way. You can sign up@join pacman.com There are so many free ways to support the work we do. Subscribe on YouTube subscribe to the newsletter Share our content on social media. For those who have just a few bucks a month to do a little extra, I invite you. Go to join pacman.com get a membership. You'll get instant access to the bonus show, you'll get daily commercial, free audio and video feeds of the show, and so much more. We'll see you then. And I'll be back here tomorrow.