A (17:00)

Thank you. Thank you. Enjoy it.

D (17:06)

First day letter, my signature, and it's not the way I speak, and anybody that's covered me for a long time, no, that's not my language.

A (17:14)

It's nonsense. And frankly, you're wasting your time. All you do is trying to get off the great success of D.C. and.

D (17:21)

About 200 other things we've done that are so successful. If only the reporters would stop questioning Trump about his obvious, brazen, defiant lies and ask him about, oh, sir, the streets are so clean. The National Guard did such a nice job mulching, sir. Is that weird? How did you choose black mulch? We love it. If it weren't for that, then we would be far better off, says Donald Trump, if it weren't for the reporters asking about the Epstein thing. Now, there's a couple of different things to consider here. And we've got the letter, the drawing. We're going to put it up on the screen. There's sort of like three elements here. There is the text, there is the signature, and there is the silhouette of a woman or girl, depending on your perspective. The signature very clearly seems to be Donald Trump's. We're going to hear from a handwriting expert in a moment. The drawing, I mean, I don't know. Trump is a known doodler, generically, so it doesn't seem completely implausible. And then this sort of, you know, the writing, I don't really. I don't really know as far as the writing goes. You know, it says Donald or voiceover. There must be more to life than having everything. Donald. Yes, there is. But I won't tell you what it is. Epstein. Nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald we have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey. Yes, we do, come to think of it. You know, to me, it is kind of the way it is written, in the way that Trump speaks. Trump uses the phrase, come to think of it, Trump. It seems to me that it's plausible that this is Trump's writing. Now, you do have to get to one of these sort of like, what is more likely scenarios. Is it more likely that someone created this, making it look retroactively as if it was sent at the time, planted it, and Trump neither signed his name to it nor drew it or wrote it or sent it, and it is some big conspiracy with all of the risk that comes with the fact that I spoke to a lawyer yesterday who said that publishing this, like the Wall Street Journal publishing this, doesn't seem to have any kind of criminal issue. Trump can sue for defamation, which he claims that he is doing, but criminally, the Wall Street Journal publishing this isn't an issue. But the person who created this, if they did make it up, as Trump claims, might have criminal liability. Does it make sense that someone would do something for which they would have potential criminal liability? Or is the most likely explanation the simplest one, which is, Trump did do this, and that's all Trump did do. This explains why Trump's signature is on it. It explains the reporting, it explains the release of this document. It explains the publicity around this document. It explains a lot of things. The simplest, the sort of casual Occam's Razor, or are we going into it, was created by someone at significant risk that it would be find out, be found out. We know Trump is litigious. We know Trump would do everything he could legally, criminally, civilly, if this was completely fabricated. And it would require so much advanced planning and. Or did Trump just do it? Now, let's focus in specifically on the handwriting aspect of this. There are three elements, as I mentioned, to the Trump Epstein letter, to kind of analyze. There's the writing on the letter, there's the drawing on the letter, and there's the signature on the letter. I doubt you need to be convinced that it's Trump's signature, since we have already seen contemporaneous examples of Trump's signature. They're all exactly like this. Just to be thorough. Just to be thorough, let's hear from a handwriting expert on the signature.

E (21:21)

My professional opinion, the chances of this not being his signature are too minuscule to talk about. The signature that came up last night purported to be Donald Trump. I can absolutely say it is Donald Trump, but it's very much the signature that Donald Trump had in the early 2000s as opposed to his signature now, because it's changed really quite a lot since he's become president. If we can compare it, this was purported to have been written in 2003, I believe, and this is 2000. So it's only three years apart. So it's relatively recent. If we look at the final stroke there, there's a very gentle going down of the stroke and then a long horizontal stroke, and it's exactly the same formation in this letter of 2000. We've got the very tall, pointed upper zone strokes of the L and the D and if we examine these under a microscope, which I have done, you would see that they were exactly the same. And the idea that it could be forged would be almost impossible. When I'm analyzing somebody's handwriting, somebody's signature, the whole text, it's how they are at that time. It's if you like a snapshot of the personality in time. And we do change over time. Sometimes we change in minuscule ways. Even during the day, we can feel more tired or more upset about something. And I can see minor changes in the handwriting. However, with Donald Trump, they've been huge changes over the last 20 years. And the reason why it's changed now is he has had to become far more aggressive, far more adamant, far more absolutely assertive in every single thing that he says and he does, hence the total angularity of his writing.

D (23:13)

I don't really.

A (23:15)

I.

D (23:17)

It's interesting that even Trump's signature changes, according to this expert, and I will be the first to tell you that this, this handwriting science stuff, there are elements of it that are very objective and hard and fast. The stuff about personality, I think is considered more, you know, a little bit speculative. According to this handwriting expert, the changes to Trump signature over time reflect the changes to his personality that we have observed publicly. So, listen, I think we can put to bed the argument that it's not Trump's signature. After my conversation with Dan Pfeiffer, we are going to hear Caroline Levitt's explanation, which is, no, we've got experts who say it's absolutely not Trump's signature. You can evaluate and see who you believe the handwriting expert or Caroline Levitt will. We'll evaluate that for ourselves. But at least as far as the signature, I think we can move on and say it's definitely Trump's signature. You then would have to argue, well, Trump's signature, it was almost like copy pasted onto the document. It is. That'll be the next step, right? It is Trump's signature from that period of his life. But he didn't sign or make this document. They just placed his signature on it. They photoshopped it or something like that. So let's take a break. We're going to talk with Dan Pfeiffer and then we will hear from Caroline Levitt. Our sponsor. Magic Spoon has been with us a long time. They do the high protein, zero sugar cereals and treats, 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. The link is in the description I had a great conversation with Dan Pfeiffer from Pod Save America on my Substack Live. Make sure you're subscribed@substack.david pakman.com so you can actually watch these live as they happen. Let's check out that conversation now.

B (26:07)

I am here today with Dan Pfeiffer from Pod Save America, a bestselling author in his own right with numerous campaign credentials in his storied, storied past. It's really good to have you. I'm glad to talk to you today.

A (26:23)

It's great. I've been a big fan of yours for a long time. So we said to do this. Oh, thank you.

B (26:26)

Likewise. It's mutual. Well, listen, I mean, to start with, you know, I recent scandals notwithstanding, I've been more and more concerned and displeased, I think are the words I would say with what I'm kind of seeing from the Democratic Party over, over the last year. And I did a piece recently where I kind of said, you know, I was kind of optimistic after the failure in 24 offices from, you know, mayors all the way up to President Biden, actually have been engaging more with independent media, trying to figure out what went wrong. Cautiously optimistic and like, I'm not super impressed with what's going on. It's still kind of like what I've identified as the same tired risk aversion and sort of lack of understanding for how to work with us. Not that independent media is how Democrats are going to win elections. But my point is after everything that's happened, I'm feeling like not really that much has kind of changed and Democrats are potentially just pointing in the same direction for 26 and, you know, 28 further away. Let me just open it to you. Like what, what are you seeing?

A (27:34)

Yeah, I think, I think you're right. Like there was this moment where and I think it was an oversimplification of the election and it's sort of almost a crutch for political parties to be like, the problem was we didn't do enough podcasts, we knew enough YouTube shows. We do engage with independent media and content creators because if you pick that as the main. And I think that's all true. Like I think our media strategy was outdated, we needed to do more, we got dominated in the information space. That's all true. What I what that when you pick that as a primary reason, it allows you to align more challenging questions about like what you actually stand for. Do you have anything to say when you go on the go on independent media? Like, I think that's one of the problems. Like I've done, I spoke, I've been to meet with the House caucus, I've been to meet with the Senate caucus, I've talked to a bunch of politicians and I'm going in, I'm doing like presentations on podcasts and presentations on YouTube and like how YouTube's new, the new TV and all of that. And like there is. They get it theoretically, like they hear it. Some of them are truly shocked. Like I did one presentation and I pointed out just pretty simply that an individual episode of Pod Save America has twice the primetime audience of CNN and literally you would heard a pin drop in the room. So they're like trying to get it. But I think the thing that is missing, and some of them are better than others, right? Like sort of a younger generation of people who really get it. There's some people with presidential ambitions, like Newsom who are really aggressively doing some of the strategies is you kind of got to have something to say, you got to be willing because you can't just take your CNN MSNBC talking points and bring them to a three hour interview with flagrant or to talk to you or to talk to us because that's not what the audience is looking for. And so yeah, I do worry that we are like appending on this new thing like, which is like we're going to do podcasts, we're going to do YouTube, we're going to talk to tiktokers, but we're adding it to this old playbook we've still had before, which is about more than just like where you say it. It's what you say and how you say it.

B (29:29)

Yeah, there's a degree to which it's sort of like saying you're going to write a strongly worded letter.

A (29:36)

Yes.

B (29:37)

It's not going to work that much better on independent podcasts than it works anyway. It's sort of, I think, what you're getting at.

A (29:42)

Yeah. Are you.

B (29:43)

I'm interested because you've clearly had more conversations from the point of view of like, presenting than I have. I've had some conversations with members of the House and their staffs off air, for example, where I try to explain why it doesn't work for a not particularly well known member of the House to come on my show and go through six topics in 12 minutes and then say, I gotta run. And part of it is I don't think my audience really connects with that in an authentic way. It's just sort of like, let me go through my bullet points. But also, I think a big aspect of what Trump and the right did really well in 2024 is it didn't feel as much as though there was a political agenda during some of these appearances, even though it obviously is political. There's a point here. We're running elections, but like, when Trump went on with the Nelk boys, it was an atrocity from the standpoint of like, did he say things that were true and were they good ideas? But it seemed sort of unscripted, which it probably was. It seemed like authentic. Trump, he talked about things that weren't political. There was just something about it that connected with voters who are not already in the hyper political space, which I think is also like another aspect of this, which is I can figure out 10 different ways to talk to my audience, but most of the country doesn't listen to political, overtly political content. And it seems that that's an area that the Democrats haven't yet really cracked.

A (31:09)

Yeah, there's a real, like, one of the things that I try to tell Democrats is one, like I said, like, you can't do your CNN thing on independent media. Like, that does not work and you can't. And if you sound like a politician, like, these are people who are. It's not just people listening or watching us. It's people, you know, are on some of these, you know, barstool, Nelk boys, more further left stuff, cultural stuff. These people have already opted out of the traditional way of getting their news. So they already bring to bear some sort of skepticism of politics and institutional, sort of the institutions around politics. And so if you just sound like a politician, you're not going to succeed. So I try to tell people sometimes when you're going to do. And this is a thing that Trump, I think does. Well, I don't think it's a plan. It just happens is just like find like what are the things you care about that are not just politics that you can find a way to talk about, right? That could be sports, it could be reality tv, it could be movies, it could be books, it could be painting. Just where you can try to connect with people like on a human level. And this isn't rocket science because I always say that when I worked for President Obama every year, no matter how busy we were, the thing he was sacrosanct on the schedule was we were going to do his March Madness bracket on ESPN because it was a thing he liked doing, it was authentic to him. He loved basketball. And he was doing it at a time in which everyone around the country was also doing their brackets, whether they're serious sports fans. They're just like doing the office pool or the family pool. And it's like you seem like a human and you got to find ways to seem like a human. And if you're just reading these like pull tested talking points, you're not achieving anything. You're just reminding people why they don't like politics.

B (32:44)

I'm curious if you have specific thoughts about the right. I don't know if it's language, talking points or messaging that maybe Democrats are going to have to adopt, but to give some examples of what I'm identifying, that isn't working. Well, you know, you think about Kamala Harris's campaign and her ideas for the economy. When I ask people what were her ideas for the economy, almost no one can say anything. Some people do remember this idea she had about we're going to have, it's either a tax credit or deduction, I don't even remember, against expenses when you start a new business. So it's like sort of convoluted and it only applies to a small portion of the population. So when I have elected officials on, they say no, well, we have to have a clear economic message and it has to be abundant, clear that we are the ones that are here for the middle class and here's how we're going to do it. But like, what exactly does that look like in your mind? Is it more of a language thing? Is it a policies thing? Like, here are the three specific things because the exit polling did show what Bernie Sanders said, which was overall, the feeling wasn't. When I think about Harris and Trump, I feel really strongly that Harris has my back as a middle class person.

D (33:52)

Voters didn't buy that.

B (33:53)

So, like, what do you think actually needs to be said?

A (33:56)

I think it's a combination of things. One, it is. We have to have like more emotionally evocative language. Like, this is what Bernie does very well, right? Where it's like, you get it. People know Medicare for all. They probably know he wants to tax the rich. Maybe they know about a billionaire tax. But what they get is he thinks rich people and corporations are screwing you over and he's going to do something about it. And so just like being that clear, AOC did that very well in the fight for oligarchy tour they did together. So that's 1, 2. When we have policies, I think we have to have our policy. Like, this is going to drive my governing friends, my policy friends from the White House and campaigns insane. We need less serious policies. We need policies that are simpler, easy to understand. Like this is the beauty of Zora Mandani's campaign is people free buses and city run grocery stores do a couple of things. They're not going to solve all, obviously not going to solve all the affordability problems, but they're easy to understand. They send a message to people that he's doing something that they get and they're controversial enough that they piss off people so that then there's a conversation about it. Like if you just. I know all the people who wrote Kamala Harris's housing tax credits and her business tax credits and all of that, and they're as smart as can be. And they're the people you want in her White House when it comes time to save the economy. But it can't be a white paper. It's gotta be an idea that people get. Obama had this idea that he did in the State of the Union in 2012. It was called the Buffett rule, which was simply that no one could pay a tax, that Warren Buffett's secretary was paying a lower tax rate than he did. And we can't allow that to happen. And that people, she sat in the box from the State Union. That obviously doesn't solve our massively convoluted broken tax system, but it's something people got. And so we need some ideas that are simple. They get them the. They may not like pass all of the nerdy checks in from the policy wonks, but they send a message. I mean, that's with the wall at Bill. The wall is. It's an absurd policy, but it sent a very clear message to people. What Trump's priorities were, and we need some policies like that.

B (35:59)

You know, as you talk about that, I'm reminded of, I'm from Argentina originally. It's been a long time since Argentina had what I would call a good president. And one of the guys that wasn't good was this guy Makati, who's friends with Trump actually. And he had this very visible idea which was he built a rapid transit bus in like a very important, highly trafficked part of Buenos Aires. And so all of these disasters were going on, corruption and terrible economic policy. But there was this like emotionally salient thing about like on 9th of July Avenue, the, the widest street in the world. They've got different colored lanes and these brand new buses and they're zooming back and forth. And a lot of his defenders, who couldn't really defend, defend a lot of the stuff that he did, they would.

D (36:47)

Go, look at this bus.

B (36:47)

It's just phenomenal.

D (36:48)

It's fantastic.

B (36:49)

You can see it right there. And it seems that the, the emotional salience of some of this stuff seems highly relevant.

A (36:55)

Yeah, I think we just got to be more. We have to grab people's attention and you need policies that do that.

B (37:00)

You, you've worked for Al Gore, you mentioned working for Barack Obama. You've seen a lot of different campaigns. I would love to hear from you about. From the outside, there was this perception I had and some others had that like the first couple of weeks of Kamala Harris's campaign had a certain vibe or feel. And then after the two weeks, something happened and it got less good, less dynamic, less exciting, et cetera. What happens within a campaign, like when these shifts happen, is it that someone is brought in and they go, we got to do everything completely differently. Is it that there's a push pull for the candidates support or the candidate's confidence? And then the candidate goes, we're going to go more this way than that way. Like what causes these kind of shifts in campaigns?

A (37:52)

So I'm also looking at this from the outside now. I got a lot of friends who work there, but I don't have like all the inside detail. Give me this, give me the dirt. But I'd say a couple of things. One, every campaign is a reflection of a candidate. So if a candidate is risk averse, the campaign is risk averse. Like you just can't. If somebody's, if a candidate, politician, and most politicians, particularly Democratic politicians, are risk averse, they know no matter how brilliant the campaign team is, no matter how great the messaging is, you can't change that factor of it. Um, that was in the know and you saw some of that in her 2019 primary race. So that's 1, 2. I think when they first started, they really benefited from. They were playing with house money. Like one day she's vice president, next day she's in this race. Like, who knows what else can happen. I remember she went to headquarters right after Biden dropped out and she basically got the nomination. And she went there and she gave this great speech that seemed like off the cuff. There was no maybe she had some written notes, but it was not like put together by a team of 100 people. She just kind of did her thing and it was quite good. And then I think as you get more people and you get. And you're. You just. And you are naturally risk adverse. You and my friends who worked for John Kerry say, say the similar is that you can always find someone who will validate your risk aversion to avoid doing something. And so I think that sort of defaulted to the way she was. And I think, I mean, she was hampered in the sense that she took on this campaign. She kept most of the leadership of the old campaign. Then she added in her new people and that's not probably a particularly efficient way to make decisions quickly and that probably hampered them. But, you know, you kind of saw it in her media choices, right? She was very just risk averse in how much media she did. I mean, she did something like Call her Daddy was a, you know, a bold choice, I think even if it did read more like a, or seem more like a political interview than a Call her Daddy episode. But I think it just, they just, it was and they didn't. And I think the other thing I think is fair is she could never really articulate like why she was doing this, which did I say in her defense, she didn't choose to do it. Right. It wasn't like you're only. You have a year of the primary campaign and you're out there and you're talking to people, you're doing a million town halls, million interviews and you can like hone your rationale. She just had to do it from a standing start. But like that, that like, why me, why I'm doing this, why I'm the unique person. Like is critical to everything you do. It like is the framework for why you make every decision. And that seemed a little bit like unbeccu. Even if she did, I will say in her defense, deliver in big moments like the convention speech and the debate.

B (40:27)

Did for my context to know how to kind of frame this. Did you read either or both of Jake Tapper's book and Jonathan Allen's book?

A (40:36)

I read Jake Tapper's book. I have not read Jonathan Allen's book.

B (40:39)

Okay. There's some overlap in the two books about the degree to which there was a lot going on behind the scenes in the Democratic Party in terms of people who didn't seem that thrilled with the idea of Kamala Harris kind of being the default.

D (40:55)

You know, there's.

B (40:57)

The books are sort of mixed in my mind now because I read them very close together, but the narrative about former President Obama resisting and resisting an endorsement and sort of working behind the scenes, maybe for a mini primary, and then this dramatic scene of Chuck Schumer going to Biden's Delaware home and basically saying, like, you got to do it, and he was crying on the way home. You know, all this, these sort of factions. Is your sense either from your experience working in the Democratic Party or from people you've spoken to or whatever? Right. You can tell us what it's based on. Is your sense that that is typical in every election or that there was something about these particular circumstances with Biden saying, I'm stepping back, and Harris looking for the delegates and getting them that.

D (41:43)

Generated that within the party?

A (41:45)

I think it's unique. Like, I would say it's primarily unique to this election. This is. Obviously, we throw around the term unprecedented a lot these days, but I think this is legitimately unprecedented. Unprecedented. You have the incumbent president, United states, drop out 107 days or whatever it is before the election.

B (42:01)

And I think there was, you know.

A (42:02)

People in that month period between the debate and when Biden actually dropped out, or three weeks, whatever it was, there were. I was part of a gazillion conversations not with anyone who was making any decisions, just really, like, idle shatter among Democratic operatives and staffers and politicians about, like, should he do it? Should Biden drop out? If he does drop out, is Kamala. Can Kamala Harris pull it off? Is she the right person? And, I mean, those conversations didn't amount to anything because what ultimately happened is no one else ran the question on, like, the mini primary. And all of that is. I think there was this sense among some people in the party, and I had some. Some of these conversations that was. You didn't. If other people wanted to run. Right. But that could be Gavin Newsom, it could be Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Wesmore, whoever else who decided they want to throw their hat in the ring. The Democratic Party needed a process. So it didn't look like, you know, it didn't look like you're just handing it to one person over the other, because that would be probably politically unwise and lead to a divided party. But then ultimately, no one decided. Much like the primary against Biden, that never materialized. No one wanted to run against Harris, probably because they recognized what most people did, which is she was probably going to win any sort of. Whatever that process was, she would win. So I think this one is unique. The closest analogous thing, I think is when Obama and Clinton, at least from my experience, were in this primary that would not end in 2008, and it was pretty clear that Obama was going to win. And then there were some real discussions behind the scenes from a lot of party players about how do we land this thing in a way that allows the party to reunite when the primary's over. Right. How can. Because it was, you know, you have a black candidate, you have someone running to be the first female president. How do you, you know, how does this process. The process play out in the right way? And that's the kind of things where, like the equivalent of the time where Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to Schumer and the others involved this time. And they got involved in a way, but they couldn't. You know, we don't. But they weren't like it was all sort of trying to just land the plane. I think that's what was happening here. I don't. I think that people were. This had no idea what to expect. And I think Kamala Harris knocked out of the park, as you mentioned, those first two weeks. And then people were like, this is what we're doing. We're on board. And there was this really added benefit that was very important, which was she could accept the Biden money that was raised in the Biden campaign machinery. Anyone else would have had to start from zero, which would have been a very hard thing to do in a short period of time.

B (44:27)

I want to talk a little bit about, I guess, 2028. It sounds so weird because it's 2025, but there are sort of some interesting and unique things that are going on right now. I've been starting to get emails from people, so let me back up. I've been talking about who's visibly fighting right now. Obviously, Gavin Newsom's fighting right now. Whether it's a fight that will make a difference in 26. Different people have different opinions. What's the math? What's the numbers but in terms of like visibly fighting right now, Newsom's definitely there. Wes Moore's name has become increasingly interesting. I find him formidable. I saw him speak in a, in a relatively small event a few months ago and was super impressed. He just said yesterday, I'm not running in 2028. Yeah, there's a pretty interesting bench. Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer are interesting. There's people in the Senate, there's people in the House. I mean, there's a lot of kind of names right now. But I'm starting to get emails from people who are saying the DNC has already decided it's Newsom. Moore's getting out of the way, he's clearing a path. It's just up to the dnc. Take the, take the scenario however you want. But to what degree does the DNC decide? And particularly like this early, the DNC decides nothing.

A (45:37)

I'll be very clear. There is no greater dissonance in American political discourse than the power people think the DNC has and the power it actually has. DNC does have one important role to play here, which is for the first time, we don't know what the calendar is going to be. We've been on this Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina thing for a couple decades now. That got tossed up in the air after the Iowa caucus meltdown of 2000 and 2020 and then Biden with the DNC under Biden moving South Carolina to the front of the line. That was a one time thing. So now it's an open question as to what's going to happen. That is a place where the DNC could theoretically put their thumb on the scale, but they won't. The people who make that decision, it's the Rules and Bylaws committee, they, they don't have or maybe it's been, maybe there's a subcommittee on nominee, but either way there's not. No one. We're not in a situation where this is like Hillary Clinton running or the sitting Vice President running where they control the dnc. It's really like, no, the DNC has no real influences. They're definitely not throwing it to Gavin Newsom there. You know, maybe if you, they came out and said the first primary was in San Francisco, the second primary was in Sacramento and the third primary was in la. You could say that. But in general they're going to try to come up with the thing that will be the best for 2028, both the primary and then helping in the general by having we've been in this thing where we spend all these money in states like Iowa, where that. And we organize the state to within an inch of its life and then we leave and never come back again for four years. And so that's why you may end up get like a Michigan or something near the front of the line this time. But the DNC really has no power to rig it for anyone. And I promise you, I promise anyone, they're not trying to. If they were trying to, they could not. And so, yeah, and there's no. There are no power brokers who pick who the nominees are, per. Especially now that people raise grassroots money so well from the Internet, so you can't even get a collective donors who can raise enough money to really, like, tip it for one person or else it's like the people will really get to decide here, especially since we change the super delegate rules too. So that's the one thing I'm not worried about, is like the Democratic. I mean, you're watching the Democratic parties. It looks like they can bring something right now. So. Yeah.

B (47:49)

So in that context, then, is your inkling that as early as it is, something really is happening with Newsom here or like, what do you make of the Newsom thing? Because his approval in California is up, his name recognition's up, his approval nationally is up.

A (48:06)

He's doing this.

B (48:06)

By the way, I'm participating in this fundraiser for the redistricting thing on Wednesday, which I think it's the only thing going on that I can really get behind the no Kings protests and that. So I'm doing what I can. What do you think about this as a play for 28?

A (48:19)

I would stipulate that I'm not just saying that fundraiser, but I think my podcast co hosts are, and we've been involved in it, and I've talked to them. I think that Newsom has done a very good job as being one of the only Democrats who's found a way to actually get attention in this moment. And it was happening before the redistricting thing. It's happening after the redistricting thing. I think the rise. And he also is speaking in a language, language that the base agrees with. And the base, I don't mean the left, I don't mean the center. I mean the people who are deeply engaged in politics who think Donald Trump is bringing our country to an end. And a bunch of Democrats are sort of, sort of fiddling Montrome Burns. And he is actually. He's saying Trump may not let there might not be election 28. He's he just is. He is, I think, reflecting how the base feels. And I saw someone make this point. I can remember who, which is when people want a Democrat who's fighting, the only Democrat they're seeing fighting is Newsom, because he's the only one who's breaking through. Whether that will last him until the first, you know, even as the election kicks off in early 2027, I'm kind of skeptical. But he. I think he. What he has shown, I don't think this boost will, like, carry him above anyone else, but it has opened doors for him, and it does show some inherent political media talent that people are going to be looking for in a candidate.

B (49:44)

There is. You know, one of the things I hear from the people in my audience who don't like Newsom is this guy's just. He's a centrist. He's center left or he's center, you know, whatever. Let me zoom out a little bit from that. There's been a very spirited debate within my audience over the last week or so about, you know, in the past, my view always was like, I'm not a socialist. I'm a social Democrat. That's a form of capitalism. It's sort of like Denmark. Okay.

D (50:12)

Everybody gets that.

B (50:14)

I've thought, for the most part, the socialists and I are kind of on the same page right now because our next stop is the same one. They want the bus to keep going. I want the bunch to get to my stop and sort of that's it. And so we're definitely working together here. But there's a growing section of my audience that is now kind of like, you know, some of these actual socialists, from them staying home rather than voting Harris over Trump, from them kind of being indifferent to the impact of the Supreme Court when it was Hillary v. Trump. Are we really part of the same movement? Do we really want the same things? I don't know. I think I'm kind of making clear the question as to how fragmented or united are these different parts of the left. What's your kind of view?

A (51:00)

I think we. I think the Democratic Party is quite divided. We're divided on every lane. We're divided ideologically. We are divided on issues. We're divided on which politicians are good. We're still. We're still, like, it happens in our audience, it happens online. We're still divided over Joe Biden's decision to drop out, Right?

B (51:19)

Oh, is that right? There are people who think you should have stayed in.

D (51:22)

Yeah.

A (51:23)

I mean, you saw that when Hunter Biden did his interview with Channel 5. And he came, he came very aggressively after me and my co host. Like, that was a thing that somehow because Biden Hunter made the point that, which I'm very sympathetic to, feeling this way about your own father, that if he had stayed in the race, he would have won. And so you. There is this people. Jamie Harrison, the former DNC chair, carries this point a lot, that the reason we lost is because Democrats melted down instead of sticking with Biden. Like, that's the conversation that goes on. Just kind of like we debated the 2016 primary for a decade, you know, sometimes still do, I guess. I, you know, we, I joke that we are, we're divided over Ezra Klein's latest book. Right. Like we're fighting over abundance versus populism and all that. I think I sort of, I tried to simplify this in like, in my own head, that the real division is not left. Right. It's not on any individual. Those are all real division on the issue. But the central divide is whether you think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, to our freedoms, to our rights to the countries we know it, or whether you think he is really, really bad but largely survivable. Like, that's how I think of it between Newsom and Whitmer. That's how I sort of think about the people who sat out because, or plan to continue to sit out because they didn't get their policy preferences that could be center, that could be left or whatever it is. And that's sort of the main, the vibe because it helps you sort of understand why Newsom takes this giant step to do the redistricting, which is putting a fair amount of skin in the game, and Schumer votes to fund the government in April or March, whenever. That was why Newsom's doing what he's doing. JB Pritzker is talking like he's talking. Merck talking when he's talking. And why Gretchen Whitmer is meeting with Trump to deliver for the state of Michigan. Right. It's just, it's like two understandings of the world that explain, I think the court. I think that's the division that is preventing us as a party organization from mounting a unified, vociferous response to Trump.

B (53:18)

Couple quick things in the last few minutes. We have one on Pritzker, one on Newsom, two people you just mentioned. Did you see the interview where Pritzker was asked whether he's on Ozempic?

A (53:27)

I, you know, I saw that the write of. I didn't see the actual interview what did he say?

B (53:32)

Well, he just said, you know, he's, he was very direct. He goes, you know, I don't think I'm going to answer that. And then he goes, because there are people who are taking the drugs and buh, buh, buh, buh, buh. I was very. I wanted to ask you about your take on it as a political answer because it seemed, I loved the directness where he goes, I'm not going to answer that. His explanation didn't really make sense. Like, the fact that some people are on it and some people aren't means he's not going to tell us. It was kind of like, oh, I guess he tries not to shame anybody one way or the other. But like, I was going to ask you whether it made sense from the standpoint of he was clearly prepared for the question. Did the preparation make sense?

A (54:07)

Yeah. That is a classic comms prep of a politician is we've decided we're not going to answer the question, so we're going to give you the best answer non answer possible, which is almost always unsatisfactory. Do I care if he's on his epic note? Does anyone, should anyone care? Probably not. Will people be annoying about it because he didn't answer the question? Probably right. Okay.

B (54:31)

Fair on Newsom.

A (54:33)

Yeah.

B (54:33)

If Newsom, if he loses, if, if California decides not to do the redistricting in the vote, which is sort of like Newsom loses it.

D (54:41)

Right.

B (54:42)

How damaging is that to his potential 28 run? Like, does the outcome of this November on that matter for his chances in.

A (54:52)

28, I think would not end if it were to, if, if his measure were to fail, it would not end his campaign. It would. I mean, he could bounce back from that. It would be a blow because it would say something about his political operation. It would say. It would be. He would get opportunity costs because if he actually passed it, he would get a boost. I don't think he's taking a risk by doing it. I really don't think it would, like, ruin his campaign. I think people actually appreciate him actually trying when others did not. But it would be, I think it'd be. I think it's hard to argue. It wouldn't be a blow of some kind of.

B (55:26)

Last thing I want to ask you, as we get closer to this primary, do you, on a personal level, do you think it's good? Slash, do you want independent shows like Pod Save and My show and Brian Tyler, Cohen and everybody, should we be coming out early in the primary and pushing one candidate over Another, like, do you want to hear? Do you think it would be good for people to go, okay, the Pod Save guys are behind this candidate and then David Pakman's behind that candidate? Or do you think that the movement is not well served by everybody coming out early and endorsing primary candidates?

A (56:04)

I think everyone should do their what they want to do. And if, if. Because like, what makes independent media and content creation work for people is the authenticity. So if like you or Brian were, decide you like this candidate or this candidate, like, I would probably encourage you to just go for it. We have not had any real detailed discussions about how we're going to handle 2028. In 2020, we interviewed every single candidate except Joe Biden, who didn't come on our podcast. And we wanted to be a forum where they could come on. We were doing special one hour episodes, around one hour episodes. We could have an extended conversation to introduce our audience to people. It was very beneficial for Pete Buttigieg did it very early in the process when no one knew who he was. And he did great. It was one of those things. It was in that moment where Pete was sort of taking off and our audience was like, who is this guy? And so I think, I'm assuming we'll probably do something like that again. We never got to a point in 2020 where you can see maybe as it narrows down and you get to the end and there's like two people and you have a strong feeling about one or the other you could possibly get involved. For us, there were four of us, so it may be weird if like two of us were like, we're for news and the other two were like, we're for Pritzker. But we haven't thought about a lot. But I think if people think somebody, you know, someone is good and they want to do it, you know, I, I would kind of encourage them to do it because I think it's probably, you know, it's what you're, you know, it's maybe challenging for your audience. We saw that in 2020 for us because there were people who, even if we didn't have our thumb on the scale when we like criticized a candidate or we're not happy with their debate performance. The supporters of candidate X were very always upset with us and like there was fair demand. But, you know, if you think someone really is the best chance to win and the best president, like probably go for it.

B (57:51)

I want to hear from, from our audiences too, like, would, are you interested in these shows all staking out who they are kind of supporting. It's an interesting question.

A (58:00)

Yeah, I think so.

B (58:02)

We've been speaking with Dan Pfeiffer. Dan, so good to talk to you. I really appreciate your time and I'd love to do this again.

A (58:08)

Yeah, this was so much fun. Great. Great to finally connect.

B (58:11)

All right, take care.

A (58:12)

You too.

D (58:13)

By Donald Trump has already packed his second term cabinet with loyalists. He's threatened deportation as political punishment. He's expanded executive authority in ways we have not seen in modern history. These are real changes that are happening right now. And what's even more alarming is that a lot of the media is either glossing over the worst of it or they're reframing it so it all sounds a little more palatable. And that is why I use Ground News. This is a news comparison tool, doesn't just feed you headlines, it shows you. Here's how different outlets, left, right, center, are covering the same story. And this is one of the few tools I know of that can really help you detect the political spin, the bias catch stories that your usual sources might downplay or not cover at all on everything from immigration policy to economic shifts. If you want to get a bigger picture, a broader picture of what's being reported, Ground News is an invaluable source to keep you informed. And Ground News is offering my audience 40% off their top tier vantage plan. You'll only pay five bucks a month. Go to Ground News, slash Pacman or enter the code Pacman in the app to get started. The link is in the description. After a very long absence from press briefings, Caroline Levitt is back, the White House press secretary, and she is just getting smothered with questions about the Epstein letter and Trump and the economy and foreign policy. She took an unexplained absence from press briefings during a time where things are not exactly going particularly well for this administration. And she was just peppered with questions. Here is a reporter saying, wait a second, you're arguing Trump didn't sign the letter, he didn't do anything. What's the theory as to where it came from? And this is a great question. It's a natural question. Are you saying someone just fabricated it? What exactly is the argument? Caroline Levitt, if you're looking for common sense and depth and coherence, doesn't exactly provide.

C (60:17)

If he didn't sign these, if you said he didn't sign the birthday card, he didn't do this. He also didn't do the check. Those were in documents from the estate. So what is the working theory as to why he's in. The President has one of the most famous signatures in the world, and he has for many, many years. You know that, Maggie. You've covered him for a long time, long before he assumed this office, when he was a businessman in New York. The President did not write that letter. He did not sign those documents. He maintains that position, and that position will be argued in court by his lawyers. The President is very confident he is going to win this case.

D (60:47)

If he didn't, you can maintain the position, but that doesn't make it true. And you really need to understand the context of that letter to realize how unlikely Caroline Levitt's version of the story is. Because if it's a forgery, they're not denying that the Epstein birthday book in total, is a forgery. Right. That birthday book contains letters, drawings and notes and cards from a whole bunch of people to Jeffrey Epstein. This letter from Trump was in the book. The book was provided by the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. So the theory would require that somehow, while the book is real, only Trump's letter was forged and inserted and then released at great risk, civil risk, and potentially even criminal risk, depending on what we were to find out about the hypothetical forgery. It just doesn't make any sense. And Caroline Levitt, I assume, must realize it. She was then asked more about the signature, and it was pointed out like the signature is being analyzed and it's Trump's signature she doesn't like about the Epstein case.

A (61:56)

Would the White House support a professional handwriting expert review of the document released yesterday to prove that it's not the President's signature?

C (62:05)

Sure, we would support that. And in fact, I have already seen many forensic analysts of signatures coming out. I believe it was the Daily Signal that published a piece with three separate signature.

D (62:16)

Analysts understand that the Daily Signal Signal is tied to the Heritage foundation, the originator of Project 2025, who said that.

C (62:25)

This absolutely was not the President's authentic signature. And we have maintained that position all along. The President did not write this letter. He did not sign this letter. And that's why the President's external legal team is aggressively pursuing litigation against the Wall Street Journal.

A (62:39)

And they will continue YouTube about the Epstein case.

D (62:43)

So I guess she says there is some handwriting expert that she can bring in. But of course, independent handwriting experts have already verified all of it. Next, she is asked about this oversized check that was given, like the purchase for a depreciated woman. I mean, just vile stuff. And Caroline Levitt says that's also Fake Caroline.

A (63:09)

One of the other documents released by.

B (63:10)

The House Oversight Committee contained a photo of Jeffrey Epstein holding an oversized check that was made out to him in the check from.

A (63:21)

From the president for $22,000 for a fully depreciated woman. I wondered if the President has any recollection of that or what you guys.

B (63:31)

Make of that photo that was included in those documents.

C (63:34)

Did you see the signature on that check? It is not Donald Trump's signature. It is absolutely not. The President did not sign that check.

D (63:41)

It's just not Trump. It is all made up. Every single bit of it is made up. Then Levitt goes on the attack, and we knew that she would do this. Levitt goes, oh, Democrats only care about this because they need to attack Trump with a new hoax. It's all made up by Democrats. And of course, remember that the birthday book was released by Epstein's estate. Are you saying Democrats interfered with the birthday book and inserted pages into it? None of it makes sense. It's sort of one of these. He didn't say it. If he did, he didn't mean it. If he meant it, you didn't understand it. And if you understood it, you didn't understand that it was a joke.

A (64:18)

Epstein files are back in the news because a lot of Americans feel that those that Jeffrey Epstein's victims never got justice. Is the president care about these victims? Do you think he can? Does he want to deliver more justice for them? And is he willing to meet with them?

C (64:34)

The President cares about victims of all crimes. And that's why Republicans and the Trump Department of Justice have done more in terms of transparency when it comes to the Epstein case than any prior administration. And why are the Democrats all of a sudden caring about this? It's because they are desperately trying to concoct a hoax to smear the President of the United States. We have seen this time and time again. Ro Khanna and all of these other Democrats, they could have cared about those victims four years ago when Joe Biden was in office. They could have pushed for transparency then. Unfortunately, the Democrats are using victims as political pawns to try to smear and to push a hoax against the President of the United States. And I will get you numbers on the amount of child predators that this administration and this FBI and this Department of Justice have locked up under President Trump's leadership. We have done more than any president to protect victims of crime, especially disgusting, heinous sexual crimes, and that includes the deportation of illegal aliens who are perpetrating these crimes against innocent victims in our country right now, today.

D (65:39)

And that so Caroline, desperate to talk about other things and says it's all been made up and crafted by Democrats stats. Does anybody believe that? Polling says people don't believe that. Even half of Republicans believe that there's a cover up here. Now, just one other note on the stuff that Trump has said and then something MAGA Mike Johnson has said. Caroline Levitt was asked about Trump's comment, which we played yesterday, where Trump goes, you know, it's so safe in D.C. that now if a man and woman have a little fight at home, they're saying it's a crime. It was seen as totally dismissive of domestic violence and Caroline Levitt attempting to clean that up as well.

C (66:16)

Yesterday, the president spoke about D.C. crime.

A (66:20)

And talked about how there was virtually none.

C (66:23)

And then he expressed frustration about things that take place in the home they call crying. He said, you know, they'll do anything.

A (66:32)

They can to find something.

C (66:33)

If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say, this is crying. See, now, I can't claim 100%. Exactly what crimes was the president referring to? He wasn't referring to crimes. That's exactly the point he was making. Weija, what the President is saying, and that is that these crimes will be made up and reported as a crime to undermine the great work that the federal task force is doing to reduce crime in Washington, D.C. and now I.

D (67:01)

Have to hand it to her. This is her best defense, spin attempt of all of this stuff, where she goes, no, no, no, no. That's his whole point. Things that aren't crimes, Democrats will seize on them and say, look, here's a crime because the real crimes have been diminished to zero. It's total horseshit. But it is her. It's her best planned attempt at spinning. And then finally, finally, before we move on to the economy, after MAGA Mike Johnson said Trump is an FBI informant on Epstein, Levitt goes, actually, he's not.

A (67:40)

You know, Mike Johnson came out and said that the president was an FBI informant. Do you know what he meant by that?

C (67:45)

If it's not true, I can affirm that is not true. I think the speaker was referring to the fact that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his Mar A Lago property for reasons that president has already discussed.

D (67:59)

All right, so Caroline Levitt resurfaces for a disastrous press briefing. Let's now focus in on the discussion with her about the economy. As the cracks in the economy become impossible to miss, a downward revision of nearly a million jobs over the last year, job hiring Numbers declining. Manufacturing index lowest in five years. The prices of groceries that were going to come down, not happening. Travel and tourism down dramatically. As all of this is happening in some circles, you're starting to hear talk of a depression. And a reporter brought this up yesterday to Caroline Levitt during the press briefing and said, all of this stuff Trump is doing, is there any concern that he is pushing us towards a depression? Here's how she answered.

A (68:55)

Thanks, Caroline. Following up on Ed, now that we have these revised jobs numbers, is the President concerned at all that price spikes stemming from his tariffs through the end of the year might actually be driving the country towards a depression or a recession? What I'm asking is, is he committed to these policies now that we know how faulty the jobs data was?

C (69:17)

The President is committed to his policies because his policies are working. Christian. And there have been a lot of people fear mongering about inflation in this room, but it just has not come to fruition on a monthly basis. CPI inflation has now come in at or below the market's expectation for six consecutive consecutive months. Every month that President Trump has been in office over overall inflation has run at a 1.9% average pace in the president's first six months in office. If I would have told all of you that in January, you would not have believed me. But those are the facts and those are the numbers. And we also see many other positive signs.

D (69:54)

And by the way, I apologize that the audio and video are out of sync here. I realize, I realize that it's some.

C (69:59)

It's just the clip in economic indicators, like real GDP. In the second quarter, it was revised up to 3.3% that beat the market's expectation. We know there's a capital spending boom right now, which we know is one of the greatest economic indicators of job growth. We know wages are increasing at a far faster pace than they were under the previous administration. We see productivity in the second quarter was also revised up to a strong 3.3%.

D (70:25)

So, listen, she is rattling off numbers about productivity and other things. One of the things we learned during the Biden presidency was even if the economic indicators are good, if people don't feel that the economy is good, if polling shows that Americans overall believe the economy is going in the wrong direction, you're going to have a political problem. And one of the things that Caroline Levitt and the Trump administration are doing now, which is arguably the same mistake that the Biden people made, is believing that if you just insist that everything's awesome, people will believe that it is awesome. Now, there are people who will believe it when Trump says it, but not when Biden used to say it. Fine. I'm not talking about that. If you look at the fact that there are now more people looking for jobs than jobs available, that is a clear change from the way it used to be. That has to have an impact on people that they will notice. And so Caroline Levitt can kind of deflect. I can assure you that when somebody can't afford an unexpected $400 expense, they're not going to go, well, listen, it's fine because Caroline Levitt told me productivity is up at the national level. It doesn't work that way. And this is bipartisan. This was a problem for Biden, and it's becoming a problem for Donald Trump. Now. The other issue that they're having is they're going back and forth on, when can you even trust the numbers we talked about? Was it Besant or Kevin Hassett saying, you know, the downward revisions are really just not believable, but the August numbers aren't that bad, and you'll see when those are revised upwards. Wait, so we can trust upward revisions, but not downward revisions? That doesn't make any sense. Caroline Levitt was asked a relevant question. When will we be able to. When are we going to see the jobs numbers increase? And she goes, listen, we need truthful data here.

A (72:11)

Time frame.

B (72:11)

The President has said a year. Secretary Besson said maybe the fourth quarter.

A (72:15)

When can we expect these numbers to the increase?

C (72:17)

Well, first, we need accurate numbers. We need truthful and honest data, which is why the President took the monumental step to try and appoint and confirm new leadership at the bls, so we can have data that we can actually rely on. And that's what the President has been is doing. And we hope that his nominee will soon be confirmed.

D (72:33)

Charlie, let me translate that for you. We are still struggling to find someone who can cook the books enough so that the jobs picture looks good. Good. But isn't going to cook the books in such an obvious way that no one's going to believe it. They're worried about the direction of the economy. And you can tell from these answers, Donald Trump went to a D.C. restaurant last night and was brutally booed and heckled. The genesis of all of this was that the other day a reporter said to Trump, you know, you talk about everybody's going to these restaurants in D.C. and it's all awesome and the vibe is great. You've never gone out to a restaurant in D.C. for dinner since you've been President. And Trump goes, how do you know that? And of course, the answer is, well, we know that because the whereabouts and movements of the President are a matter of public record. So Donald Trump comes in and he decides, I'm going to go to a D.C. restaurant. Here he is entering Joe's. Yesterday, this really didn't go well. Let's. Let's go through it in sequence.

A (73:42)

Thank you.

D (73:48)

We have a safe city now.

A (73:50)

Great job. Can you imagine? We did it in 12 days, but.

D (73:54)

Now it's almost a month.

A (73:55)

We have a safe city, so that's good. Enjoy yourself. You won't be mugged going home. Okay, Have a good time, everybody. Yeah, I gave it to you. Nice stuff, I like to say. Where's your family? They're back in Atlanta. Oh, okay. Say hello. Have a good time.

D (74:16)

All right, so income. Now, as someone who is familiar with Joe Stone Crab. Joe Stone Crab was not struggling before this. In fact, I actually, I, I think it's the Miami one. I think I wouldn't be right if I say this about the DC One, but I think the Miami Joe Stone Crab is like the most profitable restaurant in the country or something like that. It's just a completely crazy. Joe Stone Crab in Vegas is doing fine. Joe Stonecrab in D.C. is doing fine. Trump showing up there and going, now that it's safe, we can all go to Joe Stonecrab. It's very stupid. If you know anything about, like, the whole space. There's some interesting. Actually, there's an interesting Harvard Business Review case about Joe's. I'm getting off track, but Joe's being busy is not exactly a testament to the safety or lack thereof of anything. But it got a little difficult for Trump where hecklers, who apparently were not cleared out by Secret Service hecklers, started yelling that Trump is the Hitler of our time. And then as you see that, maybe you can see it better in this other clip, Trump starts signaling with his hand for Secret Service to clear these people out. All right, so Trump doesn't like it. Trump wants them out. And protesters just chanting it relentlessly and brutally.

A (75:47)

Enjoy your dinner.

D (76:13)

All right? And then unfurling Palestinian flags, which I'm sure made a really big impression. Impression on Donald Trump. Now, the sort of ironic thing about this entire stunt is that Laura Ingraham went on TV last night and went, it's so safe now that the President can go to a restaurant. But see if you realize the absurdity of what she's saying. Fox News alert. Donald Trump is out on the town. Dinner with Members of his cabinet in D.C. showing it's safe to walk around the city after deploying the National Guard. Crime, as we know, has plummeted in the city. But President Trump talked to reporters just a few moments ago. Yeah, you know the irony. I get that it's the president. Okay. D.C. is so safe that Trump was able to go for five minutes to a restaurant with a full advance team prepping the, the prepping the location, full series, multiple concentric circles of Secret Service protection and then D.C. police. The entire two by two block radius around the place cordoned off and a dozen black SUVs blocking streets and sidewalks. It's so safe that Donald Trump is able to go under those circumstances. Now, I understand I'm kind of tongue in cheek, right? Because of course, presidents have security. The thing is that it doesn't really prove anything about the safety of DC One way or the other that in this way Donald Trump is able to go. The reason Trump Never went to D.C. restaurants before is because he doesn't want to. And because as a general thing, I think Secret Service sees it as a security risk to put him in those environments. But the idea that this proves the safety of it, pathetic and laughable. But Trump getting a very rude awakening there and saying, get the protesters out of here. We've got a great bonus show for you today. RFK Jr has a new idea for what causes mass shootings. Video games. We're back at it. We will also talk about soda marketing and sugar's effect on the brain. And we're also going to talk about the first state that is going to make child care free. The state is New Mexico. All of those stories and more on the bonus show. Sign up@join pacman.com get my substack@state substack David pakman.com See you then. Hi, I'm Chris Gethard and I'm very excited to tell you about Beautiful Anonymous, a podcast where I talk to random people on the phone. I tweet out a phone number. Thousands of people try to call. You talk to one of them, they stay anonymous. I can't hang up. That's all the rules. I never know what's going to happen. We get serious ones. I've talked with meth dealers on their way to prison. I've talked to people who survived mass shootings. Crazy funny ones. I talked to a guy with a.

B (78:56)

Goose sleep laugh, somebody who dresses up.

D (78:57)

As a pirate on the weekends. I never know what's going to happen. It's a great show. Subscribe today.

B (79:02)

Beautiful Anonymous hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast. I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% happier. The goal is to help you do your life better. The series is called Reset. It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life. Each week we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career. We're going to bring on top notch scientists and world class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice. It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality. 10% happier is self help for smart people. Come join the party.