B (5:16)

And Mr. Speaker, for many here and for myself, the Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, That guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community. Having devoted a large part of my life to interface relationships and. Greater understanding, understanding, it is that faith in the triumph of light over darkness which I have found confirmed countless times through it. I am inspired by the profound respect that develops as people of different faiths grow in their understanding of each other.

A (6:26)

As you can see, a very different vision of interfaith understanding than that which MAGA has come to accept. And what's fascinating about this is that the United Kingdom has an official state church. The United Kingdom conceptually is much more about an establishment of religion as compared to the United States, which says we will not establish any one religion or even religion over non religion. And still, despite having an official church in the uk, King Charles still understands the importance of, of pluralism and religious diverse diversity and interfaith understanding and respect in a way that MAGA ism never has, and at this point I think probably never will. Then he gets to Naito and then it really gets interesting and he lays out alliances. Article five, shared defense. The kind of key core principles of NATO countries standing together, long term cooperation, respect for agreements that we get into. And you can see that this is a direct attack on Donald Trump's quite frankly, dilapidated and humiliating view on Naito. And we're getting to that after some applause.

B (8:14)

In the immediate aftermath of 9 11, when NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time and the United Nations Security Council was united in the face of terror, we answered the call together as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan, and moments that have defined our shared security. Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people.

A (8:55)

Wow. I noticed that even J.D. vance, J.P. mandel himself was standing and clapping for that, even though he recently bragged about one of his proudest achievements as part of the Trump administration being cutting off aid to Ukraine. And yet he still stood and he still clapped. We are seeing in that speech, we saw this direct contradiction to Trump's approach. Trump's approach is, let's be hostile to Naito. Let's kind of play coy with whether we would either come to the defense of our allies under Naito, but if we attack Iran and screw up the Strait of Vermouth, we will not hesitate to go and say, please, Naito, allies, help us, Naito, please help us. So put together King Charles's speech to a joint session of Congress. Limits on power. Trump doesn't believe in that respect. Across differences, Trump doesn't believe in that. And strong alliances, which Trump also doesn't believe in. A rejection by King Charles are one of our closest allies, at least in some generic sense. A rejection of the core instincts of Trump era politics. And it is sort of jarring when you have a literal king talking about the limits on authority, while Trump is posting stuff about being a de facto king in a country that's not supposed to have a king leaning into that and pushing in the opposite direction towards monarchy and theocracy and authoritarianism rather than democracy. Now, to be fair, this was not a perfect moment for King Charles. There is criticism. He was expected to acknowledge the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, and he did not. And he should have. Not a flawless speech, but a very clear message politically. Foreign dignitary comes to the US Capitol, very polite, very measured, lays out a vision that clashes with Trumpism on just about every level. And he never had to say Trump's name. Donald Trump did have one of the most uncomfortable public appearances you will ever see from a sitting president. Trump standing there with King Charles reading a speech, struggling to read it. And in the history of speeches being read off of sheets of paper, I don't know that I've seen a president struggle this badly with a paper speech. Let me just give you a little bit of the tone and the flavor, let's call it the texture. I'm going to show you the curvature of this speech and the girth of it and the length. As you see King Charles and Melania uncomfortably sitting aside.

C (12:10)

Majestic inheritance. Their veins ran with Anglo Saxon courage. Their hearts beat with an English faith in standing firm for what is right, good and true. In recent years, we've often heard it said that America is merely an idea. But the cause of freedom did not simply appear as an intellectual invention of 1776. The American founding was the culmination of hundreds of years of thought, struggle, sweat, blood and sacrifice on both sides of the Atlantic.

A (12:51)

Right, Trump really struggling. It's bad. And you know, it's funny, he says he doesn't need a teleprompter. He kind of does when he reads off of paper. It's just completely lacking in proper tonality and inflection. Just bizarre and then completely outrageous moment. Remember that Melania and Donald Trump have demanded that Jimmy Kimmel be fired for making the joke about essentially the age difference between Trump and Melania. And Melania being an expectant widow, in other words, that she's expecting that Trump is of course going to pre decease her. And Trump makes the same damn joke. They wanted Kimmel fired for this. And Trump goes, you know, dear, my parents were married 63 years. I don't think we're going to make it to that. I just. And Melania looks shocked.

C (13:47)

My wonderful mother, Mary McLeod. Mary McLeod was born in Stornoway, Scotland, the Hebrides. And that's what they call very serious Scotland. There's no question about it. Some places they say, well, it wasn't really Scotland, the Hebrides, that's real serious Scotland. That's where they had their greatest of warriors. Their greatest of warriors. She came to America at 19, met my incredible father. We loved him so much. We all loved him. We loved her, we loved him, Fred. And they were married for 63 years and. Excuse me, if you don't mind, that's a record we won't be able to match, darling. I'm sorry. Just not going to work out that way. We'll do well, but we're not going to do that.

A (14:41)

Well, dear God. And remember that this is essentially the same joke that got them so Furious with Jimmy Kimmel that they said, we got to fire Jimmy Kimmel. We need to bring down the full weight of the presidency to get a late night talk show host fired because he made more or less the same joke and Trump recycles it. Except when Trump does it, it doesn't really seem like humor. It's just very uncomfortable. And finally, speaking of uncomfortable, Donald Trump saying that his mommy had a crush on Charles. A crush. What might she be thinking now? A classless, bizarre moment from Donald Trump.

C (15:22)

She really did love the family. But I also remember her saying very clearly, charles, look, young Charles, he's so cute. My mother. My mother had a crush on Charles. Can you believe it? Amazing how I wonder what she's thinking right now. But beneath the right.

A (15:50)

I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. And there were some reactions on Twitter that this is a reflection of Trump's cognitive decline. And it's like, yeah, everything kind of is. But I think that that's actually too simplistic an analysis. There's something else here, which is that Trump recognizes in the same way that much of why Trump despises Obama is because Obama's cooler and younger and a better speaker and more articulate and more confident. I think that there's a lot of that same insecurity around King Charles. King Charles is not a much younger man than Trump. A couple of years. But of course, King Charles is a much better speaker and more articulate and better able to sort of weave a narrative together. Trump doesn't like it, and that was evident and just a complete and total humiliation. We have something to report to you that sounds fake, but it's real. The Justice Department of Donald J. Trump has indicted former FBI Director James Comey again over a picture of seashells. And by the way, it took them six to 10 months to look at the picture to decide, are we going to try to indict. You may recall that James Comey posted a photograph some time ago from a beach showing seashells arranged as the numbers 8647. 86. The sort of restaurant code for we've got no more of it. 86. Challah. French toast. Means we're out of the hollow. French toast. It's gone, right? 8,000, 647. 47. Being the president of the United States, Donald Trump, now Trump allies immediately cried crocodile tears. It's a threat. It's threatening Trump. They want him dead. Kobe wants him dead. And that absurdity actually led to James Comey deleting the Post on that same day saying, I didn't think anybody would see it as violent. I just don't think Trump's a good president and we should remove him and I oppose violence. But regardless, instead of being the end of it, it became a federal criminal case where a grand jury has returned an indictment of James Comey for threatening the president. And because it was Twitter and you can see that in all 50 states, it was a threat against the president that crossed state lines. Here is FBI Director Cash Patel explaining. This was a big investigation, very complicated

D (18:44)

investigation, as you heard from the attorney general, the U.S. attorney, former FBI Director James Comey has now been indicted for two felony counts. While many of you may read this indictment and view this matter as a simple investigation, it is the farthest thing from that. Every single investigation this FBI and our partners at the Department of Justice undertake, especially those that involve the threats to harm or hurt or even kill individuals, whether they behold public office or civilians in our country, are met with the same measure of investigative prowess and tools and personnel in partnership with Department of Justice.

A (19:17)

So not much prowess.

D (19:18)

It sounds like anyone else. As the U.S. attorney indicated, James Comey will be afforded every matter of due process under the United States Constitution. And as the Attorney General indicated, this has been a case that's been investigated over the past 9, 10, 11 months.

A (19:32)

These cases take time, 9, 10, or 11 months to look at a picture of seashells to decide, is there a crime here? What is wrong with these people? Attorney General Todd Blanch says that the investigation into Comey's seashells required more than

E (19:53)

a year of work at a place where we can definitively say, to the extent we can definitively say, we will, we will let you know.

F (20:03)

Director Comey posted this almost a year ago. Why bring this case now? Did you always feel like this was a strong prosecution or did something change recently?

E (20:11)

This, this investigation just didn't come. Now, it's the result of, of, of a lot of work by law enforcement over the past year. We, why don't time when we bring, when we bring cases around anything other than when the investigation is at a place where we should go to the grand jury. And that's exactly what we did in this case as well.

A (20:30)

Yeah, we'll talk about the grand jury aspect of it, but what this essentially comes down to is, is the supposed advocates of free speech going after someone for what is, at the end of the day, a mean tweet. James Comey weighing in on this. Let's hear what he had to say.

G (20:47)

A picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago and this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be, not how

A (21:13)

it's supposed to be, but it is how it is under Donald Trump. I don't think a jury ever convicts on this. Getting a grand jury to return an indictment is one thing. Getting an actual jury to convict James Comey on this, I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I bet that there is never a conviction. By the way, this is the second time that the Trump administration has tried to prosecute rather James Comey in the last year. You remember that the first one was thrown out, but they came back with a new one anyway. They said they would try and they have. Legal experts are saying major problems here. You really need to prove that there was a real and serious threat here. A vague image with shells arranged as numbers is simply not going to meet that standard. And First Amendment scholars are understandably horrified. This is the Trump administration. If debt feels like it's draining your attention each month, multiple due dates, rising interest, balances that barely move, you are not alone. Our sponsor, PDS Debt, works with people facing credit cards, personal loans or medical bills. And they don't use a one size fits approach. They review your specific situation, connect you with custom options that are really designed to save you money and pay your debt off faster with no minimum credit score required. PDS Debt has helped hundreds of thousands of people and is A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau with thousands of five star reviews nationwide.

H (22:47)

Instead of juggling statements and guessing on next steps, they focus on clarity, a

A (22:52)

realistic timeline and practical guidance you can actually use. The process starts with a quick, simple free assessment which will match you to the best path forward today. Waiting can cost more in interest and

H (23:06)

fees over time, so don't wait another month.

A (23:09)

Take back control in 30 seconds.

H (23:11)

Get your free personalized assessment at PDS debt.com/pacman.

A (23:17)

The link is in the description.

H (23:19)

Scams and identity theft rarely start with a hacked password. They usually start when your personal information

A (23:26)

is easy to find online.

H (23:28)

Your address, phone number, relatives, employment history. That information lives on countless data broker sites on the Internet, accessible to almost anyone unless you actively remove it. Our sponsor, Incogni is a service that

A (23:40)

handles that for you.

H (23:41)

Incogni doesn't just focus on one category of sites. It works to take down your personal data wherever it appears online, reducing the raw material scammers used to impersonate you

A (23:52)

or target your family.

H (23:54)

Incogni will automatically handle removals across hundreds of known sites. But the most powerful feature is custom removals, which is included with the unlimited plan.

A (24:02)

If you find your info anywhere, even

H (24:04)

an obscure directory, a business database, something new, you paste the link into Incogni, their team will work to get it removed. That level of coverage really matters. Even a single exposed profile can lead to fraud, harassment, identity theft. Incogni removal process is independently verified by Deloitte and you can get 60% off when you go to incogni.com/pacman and use the code Pacman.

A (24:31)

The official story of the shooter at the White House Correspondent's Dinner seems to have just completely collapsed with the revelation that the shooter may not have been been a shooter at all. I will explain. I want to be clear about what we know what's still investigated. We need to separate fact from fiction. Now. Let's start with the primary sort of bullet point, which is the shooter ran past security and fired a bunch of rounds before being stopped alive by Secret Service and police. That's the official story we started with. Over the last couple of days, a very different possibility has emerged. And I have to tell you, from the beginning, I found it sort of strange that if the shooter really fired five or six rounds, that he would be caught alive, that he wouldn't be killed. Especially when by the standards that our law enforcement is expected to abide by, it would be completely legitimate in the eyes of the law to shoot dead a suspect that has gotten five or six rounds off, especially in that chaotic situation. I found it weird. It now appears as though the shooter may have fired one round or maybe even zero rounds and would have been a potential shooter had he gotten close to Donald Trump, but not an actual shooter as was described. Todd Blanch was asked about this, the Attorney General, and he was asked, have you been able to determine whether the gunman fired any shots? And Blanche says, well, that is something we are still looking at. He is unable to say definitively that the shooter shot at all.

F (26:17)

Have you been able to determine whether the gunman fired shots, if so, how many shots he fired and who exactly whose bullet hit the agent?

E (26:27)

We're still, we want to get that right. So we're still looking at that. We, it appears, and I don't want to to Overstate, because we are still looking at this, that there were five, five shots that law enforcement fired.

A (26:39)

We are law enforcement fired.

E (26:42)

We have all the evidence is being examined very carefully and expeditiously. And we'll know more soon. We do believe that as the complaint lays out, that the suspect, that the defendant fired out of his shotgun, and we know that that happened. But as far as getting into exacting ballistics, I'm not going to do that today because it's still being being looked at and finalized.

A (27:03)

Now, one of the fascinating things is that while he kind of throws in there, oh, yeah, we do know that the gunman did fire a shot. I guess we are also hearing that they haven't found the bullet casings for any rounds fired by the shooter. And it was brushed off as it's crazy. You don't always find that kind of a key piece of forensic evidence. Here is one more clip of Todd Blanche talking about this.

E (27:33)

I don't have anything further to talk about with the ballistics that are still being analyzed. And I said it yesterday. And every law enforcement member who is speaking on this issue is saying the same thing as they should, which is that this is an ongoing investigation investigation with really, really smart experts trying to understand what happened in that shooting and where the bullets went and ended up and where the bullets came from. And once that is at a place where we can definitively say, to the extent we can definitively say, we will, we will let you know.

A (28:05)

It is possible, ladies and gentlemen, that the shooter fired no shots, that law enforcement fired five or six shots, and that the Secret Service officer that was struck by a bullet might have been struck by friendly fire. Now, I'm going to tell you something else. When I heard that the shooter had fired rounds in a lobby on a different floor than Trump was at that moment, that also didn't make a lot of sense to me. Now, I said to myself, what is the possible explanation? Why would the shooter discharge five rounds when he's on a different floor from Trump in the lobby? And the only explanation I could come up with at the time was, listen, maybe the shooter realized he wasn't going to get anywhere near Donald Trump and decided in desperation, I'm not going to allow this to be for nothing. I'm going to start firing indiscriminately in the lobby. But it was weird. I had to sort of come up with an explanation for that. We are now learning the shooter may not have fired any rounds at all, which actually makes a lot more sense because he got Nowhere near his target, Donald Trump. He wasn't in the room. He wasn't even on the same floor. Now, prosecutors, again, they're still sticking on this. We believe the shooter fired at least one round instead of five or six. It is now a completely different situation, at least potentially completely different. And it may have been friendly fire, specifically a Secret Service officer shot, who then drew his weapon and fired multiple times, may have been shot by another officer. And this goes back to this entire the best defense is good guys with guns. And it's all better and it's all clearer and it's all more organized and everybody is safer. And it appears as though the injury that took place may have been, may have been the result of friendly fire from good guys with guns. Now everybody is saying we don't yet totally know, but it is a dramatic change from the original story. And to be frank, this explains a lot more than the original story. Given the growing perception of incompetence and these breakdowns within the Secret Service, it almost makes more sense that there could have been confusion and officers, officers firing at each other, police and Secret Service misidentifying one another. That makes more sense in a way than the shooter decided deciding to randomly fire in a lobby nowhere near the President of the United States. If the real story here is confusion and friendly fire, that is a different kind of failure than the one we were first told about. There were failures here regardless. And this leads us now to a broader conversation about Secret Service. There's a question that we have to ask. How is it that Secret Service was able to get through eight years with the first black president, Barack Obama, who received an unprecedented number of death threats without a single close call or notable incident. And now we already have at least three notable security incidents involving Donald Trump. How is that possible? Start with Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was nearly killed because Secret Service did not secure an adjacent rooftop. Security experts will tell you basic, basic stuff, basic failure. You check the high ground, you eliminate potential sniper vantage points. That didn't happen and Trump was almost killed. You then have the incident at Donald Trump's golf course where a would be shooter was able to get close enough by going sort of like around the back and was ultimately found setting up with a weapon near a fairway on the golf course. And then over the weekend in Washington, D.C. you had a gunman get into the lobby of the Washington Hilton during the White House Correspondent's Dinner simply by reserving a room a couple of days earlier. I can tell you something about that one. Personally, I was at The Washington Hilton, just hours before the shooting. There was certainly a veneer of security. What I mean by that is the block was closed off. You had officers with dogs, Secret Service, D.C. police, something else that looked like additional private security, although I'm not totally sure. National Guard or some kind of military presence. They were wearing fatigues. I had to walk a couple of blocks just to get picked up by an Uber equipment. Cases that were coming in were being checked, but at the same time, I was able to walk right through the same lobby without anybody asking me a single question, without anybody checking me in any way. I could have walked into that lobby with a gun just as easily as the alleged shooter did. And it wasn't minutes before Trump arrived, but it was a couple Hours before hour 40, something like that. And I was surprised at how easy it was. I've also heard from people who attended cocktail parties, like in the final hour before the dinner, in the same space, not even in the main ballroom, who said all I had to do was give my name. If my name was on the list, they let me in. No ID check, no security check. That's it. Simply, hey, I'm Joe Schmo. Ok, Joe Schmo is on the list. You're in. That's it. So something does seem to be happening here. Now, one explanation that's been offered is that under Donald Trump, and there have been, there's reporting about this, there's been this looser relationship between him and Secret Service, that he surrounds himself with people who are politically friendly, that there may be too much comfort, too much familiarity, too much informality between Donald Trump and his immediate Secret Service retinue, and that this could be hurting security. We know that with Trump, loyalty is the most important thing. So it's not a crazy theory, but I don't think that explains everything, because that kind of dynamic usually applies to the immediate people around the president, the people that move with Trump and are with them all day. It doesn't necessarily explain the failures of the advance team and the outer layers of security that are securing the venue rather than Trump. It's all supposed to be standardized and. And it's seeming like something weird is going on. So I think there's really two possibilities here. One is something has changed within the Secret Service itself, completely independent of Donald Trump. Something declined since Obama and, by the way, since Joe Biden as well, because we didn't have these incidents with Biden. The other is that Trump has done something, something about how Trump operates, how he interacts with security. That is Contributing to these repeat issues. Neither one of these explanations is particularly comforting. One points to institutional decline. The other points to a situation where the President is making himself less secure. Neither is ideal. And I think there's a couple other things that are worth considering here. One is the sheer volume and types of events Trump has done. He's not doing it now, but Trump has over the years done a ton of outdoor rallies, events at properties that he owns, golf courses. These are not purpose built security environments, so it's conceivable that part of that is a factor. Another factor is scale, because the modern kind of threat environment is different. You've got people radicalized online, you've got lone actors, individuals who don't need a network to plan an attack like this could have been. And that doesn't excuse the security failures, but it does make it a little more difficult. And then there's also the possibility of just resources being strained. The Secret Service has been stretched thin for years. There's more people that are being protected by secret Services. More travel, more events, total more complexity. And maybe there's a breakdown as a result of that, but it doesn't really explain why these very concrete risks weren't dealt with. The rooftop in Butler wasn't secured. The perimeter at Trump's golf course wasn't secured. Someone in a hotel lobby during the highest of high profile events who is able to get access with firearms simply by booking a room a couple of days before. Historically, you would expect the Secret Service to get this stuff right. So I don't know if it's institutional decline or what. It is a real pattern. It shouldn't be happening. And whatever you think about Trump, presidential security shouldn't be carried out in this ragtag, harebrained, haphazard fashion. Let me know what you think explains it, but something is up.

H (36:49)

If you don't have the mattress that is best suited for you specifically, it can wreak havoc on your sleep. Our sponsor, Helix Sleep, makes it easy to stop the guessing. Find the mattress that is right for you. On the Helix website, you answer a few questions about your sleep style, body type, possible back issues. They will pair you with the mattress

A (37:12)

best suited for you.

H (37:14)

Before I got my Helix mattress, I took their sleep quiz, answered simple questions and Helix matched me with the mattress that was perfect for me. Even after having the mattress all these

A (37:26)

years, it just feels great. I love it.

H (37:29)

I sleep well. Helix mattresses ship free in the United States. Every mattress comes with a lifetime limited warranty and you get 120 nights to try it. So you can really make sure it

A (37:41)

is the right fit for you.

H (37:43)

Go to helix sleep.com/pacman and you'll get

A (37:47)

20% off site wide.

H (37:49)

The link is in the description there's

A (37:52)

something special about having real quality bread at home. Fresh from the oven. It elevates any meal and our sponsor Wild Grain makes it easy. Wild Grain is a baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries and fresh pasta. Everything arrives frozen, goes in the oven, no thawing, ready in 25 minutes or less. Wild Grain uses simple ingredients and slow fermentation to give their bread real depth of flavor. What I like most is the flexibility. I can keep sourdough loaves and croissants stocked in my freezer and bake what I need. No prep, no cleanup. Tastes like something you'd get at a small specialty bakery. But you don't have to spend an hour driving to the bakery and back or making them from scratch. Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. Along with the new variety box, there's the gluten free vegan and protein boxes. Wild grain is offering $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life. When you go to wildgrain.com/pacman or use promo code Pacman at checkout, the link is in the description There are few people with more direct access to Donald Trump's inner circle from outside of it than journalist Michael Wolf. And we talked about what is happening within the White House, Trump's fears and concerns as we get into the midterms, the cognitive decline question and so much more. You might remember the first time we spoke we had a disastrous connection problem. Michael returned graciously and we were able to have that conversation. It is great to have back on the program today. Michael Wolff, journalist, bestselling author. His latest book is all or Nothing How Trump Recaptured America. Michael, appreciate your time today.

I (39:41)

Thank you, thank you for having me.

A (39:44)

I want to start with your general impression of the degree to which Donald Trump is currently engaged in the day to day at the White House. And the context for this question is on the one hand, there is the story about Donald Trump's physical and cognitive health. On the other hand, there is the story about some areas of the presidency in which he is, quite frankly, not interested. They're just not interesting to him. And then thirdly, speculations about is it Stephen Miller, is it whoever that is, quote, truly in charge as the phrase sometimes goes. What can you tell us generally about?

I (40:23)

I actually can tell you specifically about this this is a White House of one. The idea that there are, that there are other people operating independently of the President of the United States is not true. With a slight critical understanding that he has all kinds of attention deficits and it's very possible that he wanders out of the room and loses interest, but with the caveat that when he recovers that interest, you are. And if you have acted in a way that he finds disagreeable in any sense, you're in trouble.

A (41:17)

So talk a little bit, Michael.

I (41:19)

Yeah, you know, so the, the, the effect is here is here is a government with this one person wandering around who has absolute power, considers and, and at all times considers that he has absolute power and will use this variously and capriciously.

A (41:45)

You've used the phrase, and I believe I'm quoting here, it is just little bursts, mini stroke, like bursts in his head. No strategy, no plan.

I (41:58)

You know, let me, let me say that I meant that as a metaphor. I have no idea about Donald Trump's physical health. I actually object to the many people who are, who are diagnosing on a speculative basis. I think you can look, however, at his behavior and see that it is unlike the way I would behave or you would behave or anyone else we know would behave. But I think that has, that has, that has been the condition for certainly as long as I have been covering Donald Trump. So whether that is a cognitive decline. Well, actually, I don't think it is a cognitive decline. I think he has always been this way. I think he is that his problems actually and his behavior transcend, let me say cognitive decline.

A (42:58)

What do you, That's a very interesting way of phrasing it. What do you mean? That there is something so unique going on that even cognitive decline would not mitigate it in some sense?

I (43:09)

I think, I think you can set cognitive decline aside or, or because I think that what he does is. Is, is. Is not. Is. Is comes from the heart, not from the, it's not a somatic condition. I think, I think he is as, as, as I said, you know, whatever word you want to use, mad. He is, he responds to the world in ways that, that, that, that we've, we've certainly never seen in a United States president and frankly, I've never seen in another human being that, that I agree with.

A (43:59)

I am, I've told my audience I don't expect the 25th Amendment to be invoked and I don't expect impeachment and conviction to take place. Do you agree that those conversations are simply non starters at this point?

I (44:12)

Yeah, I mean, the 25th Amendment thing is complete and he may be impeached again depending upon what happens in the House of Representatives. He's already been impeached twice. So to be impeached three times, I see, is not a, not a particular. That would not be unexpected, nor would it be all that to Donald Trump disadvantageous whether he would be convicted. That would also be a. You know, I, I think, I think the Democrats have a reasonable shot at, at becoming the majority party in the, in the Senate, but conviction requires 2/3, so that would be remote.

A (45:04)

Do you, do you believe Epstein had blackmail material on Trump? Whether it's photos or stories, potential.

I (45:15)

Well, I mean, I believe that he had knowledge about Trump. That could have been devastating or that could have hurt Trump in a variety of ways, but I don't think it was blackmail. He didn't try to blackmail. I mean, I suggested as much to Epstein. I think Epstein was afraid of Trump and afraid of the threats that he might be in a position to make against Trump. And I think he was afraid of what Trump may have, that Trump may have suspected that he had or may have understood that he had this kind of material and that frightened, it frightened Epstein what Trump might, might do in that regard. So it was not Epstein threatening Trump, but Epstein thinking that Trump was, was at least perfectly capable of threatening him.

A (46:20)

You've been criticized by some for telling Epstein, I think you should let him hang himself or you could save him generating a debt. And if I understand the criticism correctly, I guess it's that it sort of was no longer a reporter type relationship, but it was, it was almost like a PR strategy relationship of sorts. What do you think?

I (46:40)

I think it's, I think it's ridiculous. I mean, what I was doing in that, in that I was trying to convince Jeffrey Epstein to go public with the information that he had on Trump. And I had a self interest in this because I was there as a journalist and that would have been obviously to my advantage. But I also think that it was to that anything that would have been a good idea for the country to have gotten rid of Donald Trump and

A (47:11)

you would have gotten the scoop. Is what you mean by you had an interest in it.

I (47:15)

Yes. And, but even if I hadn't gotten this, got gotten the scoop, I think it would be a, would have been a good thing to, to do. But I did not succeed in that because Jeffrey Epstein was frightened of Donald Trump.

A (47:32)

And when we have seen the kind of back and forth as to when ties were cut between Trump and Epstein just to catch my audience up on this, Donald Trump has stated a number of times that when he found out what Epstein was up to, he banned him from the club. And it seems as though the timeline does not match that.

I (47:52)

Yeah, also bullshit. I mean, first thing, anything that Donald Trump says, we ought to know by this point. If we do not know that at this point, something wrong with us, that he doesn't tell the truth. He has either no interest in telling the truth or is incapable of telling the truth, which also might be true. But his timeline on that. Is weird that it happened in 2000 or 2001, but we still know that he's close to Epstein until 2004. Anyway. I think Epstein's. Epstein's version of this is much. Is the more cogent version. They had a fight over real estate. It's the only thing that these guys really, really care about anyway. And that happened in 2004. At that point, they began to threaten each other episode Epstein with lawsuits against Donald Trump and threatening to reveal that he was laundering money. And then in Epstein's version, Trump threatening him by going to the police and say. And telling and telling the police about what was going on at his. At his house in Palm beach, vis a vis all of these girls coming and going.

A (49:12)

And so the, the sort of replacement story for the one that Trump originally told has become, oh, there was someone working at Trump's spa that Epstein stole. It sounds like you're saying that also is not. It really does seem to be real estate as far as you're concerned.

I (49:29)

I would be absolutely certain of that

A (49:33)

when it comes to the next couple of years. There's the sort of political question of what happens in the House of Representatives in November. What does that do in terms of House oversight investigations, as you talked about a possible impeachment, which would be separate from, from a conviction, from the point of view of this inner circle immediately around Donald Trump. If the House of Representatives is lost to Republicans in November, is your belief or expectation that there will be this kind of withdrawal of Trump to his golf courses or and away from the presidency for the final two years? Or might the opposite happen, which is he actually tries to do as much as he can from a legacy perspective?

I (50:14)

Well, I don't know from a legacy perspective, I'm not sure Donald Trump thinks in those, in those turns, in those terms, but I think that Donald Trump is, is a conflict junkie. So if you set that up with the House of Representatives coming after him again, I think he embraces that. And, and you know, the Democrats have mucked this up so many times that I think from Trump's perspective, he can, might count on them mucking it up again. You know, he, He. They give him a platform on which he then can be the. Can be the victim, which he loves and which succeeds for him. I mean, remember four criminal indictments. What did that succeed in doing? It succeeded, at least in part, in making him the President of the United States again.

A (51:12)

What do you make of how he has sort of gone erratically from giving you access to threatening to sue you?

I (51:21)

He's done this from the beginning of that. That's, that's just the Trumpian way. Carrot stick. Or, or. And that actually might imply a much greater plan. He gets up in the morning and he likes you or doesn't like you, and that's how it proceeds.

A (51:41)

You don't see it as a strategy where he says, well, let me give Michael access to see if he'll write something nice. And then you. Maybe you don't. And then that angers him. It's not that specific or calibrated.

I (51:54)

No. I mean, that may be, that may be part of it, but it's also also a sense of who has an audience, who is. Who is who. Who does he think that, that I, I mean, he, he's obsessed with the fact that I sell a lot of books. So then that seems separate from the fact that. That my book flattering toward him.

A (52:24)

Right. I want to go back, if we can, a little bit to something you said earlier and kind of contextualize it with your recent commentaries about Operation Epic Fury that, that I've seen you do. A couple of things I have in my notes here that you've talked about is the way that Epic Fury has been handled by Trump is evidence of a lack of executive function. And then you also talked about the media rants making his decline all the more obvious and impossible to ignore. What I want to kind of focus in on a little bit is you said earlier that you're not really commenting about the cognitive elements of this, but it sort of sounds like those are comments about it, unless I just misunderstand them.

I (53:06)

Well, you. I don't exactly know what you're referring to, and you may be, you may be misunderstanding. I mean, I think, I think Trump is, you know, has a mind that's incapable of, of performing the, The. The information and analytic functions that are. That it would be otherwise necessary to perform to be a successful President of the United States, not to mention to wage a war. War is a very complicated process. It's a, probably one of the most complicated, most sophisticated management processes that you can assemble. And given Trump how his mind works and this is separate from a cognitive decline, this is how his mind has always worked. It's just far fetched to think that he would be the guy who can marshal all that information, maintain that information, analyze that information and, and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Now I, I should add that many presidents before much more capable in a traditional way than Donald Trump, have messed up the process of going to war. But given, given and that, I think that is just to say how difficult it is to wage war. What a complex, what a complex system of decision making is required, that even people who are much more, have a much greater background in, in the intellectual requirements of analyzing this, that kind of situation, screw it up. So suddenly you have Trump who doesn't have that at all, and he's in there trying to wage war unsuccessfully, as we've seen.

A (55:23)

Michael, last thing I want to ask you about the sources that you develop close to Trump. Is their motivation for talking to you, that they are appalled and want to tell someone what's happening or what. What do you believe is their motivation?

I (55:41)

Yeah, well, I'm not sure they would call it appalled. I think they're, they're often, they often find it as confounding as, as people outside of the White House and even non Trumpers find it. In addition to that, I think I have a relationship with these people. We're friends and, and we talk and they talk openly only with the, the, the only requirement being that I protect them. And so they're happy to, they're happy to gossip like we all are.

A (56:21)

We've been speaking with Michael Wolfe. His latest book is all or Nothing How Trump Recaptured America. Michael, I really appreciate your time. Thank you.

I (56:29)

Anytime.

H (56:31)

A lot of people fall into the same pattern every year for Mother's Day flowers, maybe brunch, maybe a gift card. It's nice. Doesn't last very long. This is why I love Aura frames as a different kind of gift. Our sponsor, Aura, makes digital picture frames that display your photos and videos in a way that looks like a real print. It's so easy. You can preload photos before the frame arrives. You can add a personal message. It shows up ready to go.

A (57:01)

I have two of these.

H (57:02)

I've given them to my mom, I've given them to my dad. And then when we travel like we are right now, I add pictures of the girls from my phone and they show up on all of the frames or only some of the frames, if

A (57:17)

that's what you want.

H (57:18)

Instead of giving a gift that disappears after a few days, give something that will keep the memories alive. Aura is giving my audience $25 off their bestselling carver mat frame. Go to Aura Frames.com use the code PACMAN. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description.

A (57:38)

Melania Trump seems to just deeply despise Donald Trump. And I don't mean this as like some deep psychological claim or what. I'm just saying you look at her around Trump and she seems to find him unbearable to be next to. We have this video from the state dinner yesterday for King Charles. Yes. And Melania Trump visibly is trying to pull her hand away from the embrace of Donald Trump. And Trump sort of tries to get it back. And then you will see that she just is like, no. Now there's a reason I'm bringing this up. I don't see this as idle gossip. Take a look at this. She's pulling, pulling, pulling. Trump tries to get it back and she's just like, no, it's not going to happen. And the look on Melania's face, I mean, just, dear God, that is a look that is of, oh boy, what did I do now in terms of the humiliating moments before I get back to what I believe is the sort of like importance of this. Trump's behavior was just completely whacked out during this entire thing. And you see Donald Trump just cut in front of Queen Camilla to shake hands, barging through like it's a rally rope line. And this is not like, oh, he broke protocol with the, it's just Trump doesn't give a damn about anybody but himself. Here is that. And he just, the King is trying to shake people's hands and Trump could not care less about anybody around him. Dear God. So, okay, what is, what do I think is like the deeper, the deeper story here? There's a few layers to this. One of the things that I do, when I think about the character of people, I do consider how they treat others and how self centered and obsessed with themselves they are. And one of the things that you could say about, I'm going to include Republicans in this. Ok? One of the things that you could say about George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Joe Biden, just to pick the more recent presidents other than Trump, is that you sometimes agreed with their policies and sometimes you didn't. You oftentimes united major, major ethical disagreements with the entire premise of the Iraq war, for example. And I found the entire thing immoral and Unethical at a deep level. But there was no sense to me that on some fundamental level, George W. Bush, nor Barack Obama, nor Joe Biden just have this self centered mentality around friends, around family, of I am the most important thing person all the time. I don't give a damn about anybody else. It's me, me, me. And Trump has that, and he has it in a way that leads to him having these moments of clarity in the sense of what he truly believes. Like, for example, I've always wanted a Purple Heart. Give me a Purple Heart. And a veteran, you know, gives Trump their Purple Heart. And there's no recognition of the fact that like, hey, what is the Purple Heart for? The Purple Heart is for people who have actually been hurt doing something. You got a doctor's note to not have to do, serve in the military. And there is some deep level on which he just seems like a really horrible person. Now, at the same time, I know a bunch of people who have met Trump. In fact, in D.C. over the weekend, I spoke to some of the people that were recently invited to a thing at the White House with Trump. And I have other friends who have met with Trump in different circumstances. And they all kind of came away like, yeah, in some superficial way, he was just kind of laid back and forth, funny to be around, but not in a way that undercuts this deeply self centered nature. And the relevance to policy is the following. I've said for years, there is one prism through which you can understand everything Trump does. And let me explain why that's relevant. Sometimes you try to analyze why did Trump do this particular thing when it came to abortion, which seems to maybe not completely line up with what I thought was his perspective. Why did Trump behave in this particular way when it came to this foreign policy decision? And we try to analyze, well, it fits, but it doesn't. The prism that makes everything fit is what is good for Trump. And sometimes what's good for Trump is what's good for his perceived allies at that time. Not necessarily him per say, but how will he be affected if his friends get angry with him? And once you think about that prism, you can understand everything that Donald Trump has pushed for and the cutting the rope line and all that highly relevant to that, the Melania stuff. I just think it's important to consider that we have been sold a bill of goods about what it means to be a family man. It used to mean one thing and it came to be okay when you have multiple, multiple children with a bunch of different wives. Now, I don't personally care about that, but Trump is part of a movement that claimed to. And there was an incredible contrast in Barack Obama and Michelle Obama's clearly good relationship. They like each other. It really was emblematic of what the evangelical right would say is the best type of relationship. But they hated them both because it wasn't really about that. And then in comes Donald Trump, who contradicts every aspect of that sort of relationship that they told us is important and they don't give a damn. And they go, Trump's great and Melania's great and he's a good guy and he's a family guy when he violates every single premise of that. And so you just have to remember, like I have a chapter in my book about don't waste time arguing about principles with these people because they don't give a damn about their principles. As soon as it's politically inconvenient, those principles get abandoned. This is a reminder. Now, meanwhile, just as a quick note, Donald Trump, thick makeup yesterday during this event, caked on both hands. If this is the result of shaking hands, why on earth is he having this problem on his left hand? It doesn't make sense. It never made sense and it's not going to make any more sense if they keep repeating it. Donald Trump had a middle of the night meltdown during which he posted unhinged threats to Iran. At 4am he is up all night. Who the hell is running the country if he is up all night sitting on his bed or toilet or wherever putting out unhinged threats like this? Trump in the middle of an ongoing conflict with Iran, which by the way, gas prices up again now at their highest point in years today for 23 a gallon, Trump posts and says, Iran can't get their act together. They don't know how to sign a non nuclear deal. They better get smart soon. With an image that shows Trump wearing a black suit, holding a firearm with all sorts of explosions in the background in what I think is supposed to be a sort of stylized image of Iran. No more Mr. Nice Guy Trump threatening Iran with more violence. Now look at the timing. Conflict is escalating again because all of the things Trump told us are all set, aren't all set. Strikes, tensions, multiple countries are getting sucked in. Reports of this new peace proposal that we simply can't get over the line. And the messaging really matters here. What does Trump do? He posts an AI image of himself with a gun like he's an action star at 4:05 in the morning. What is going on? And the I'm reminded of the breathless Joe Biden can't do it anymore. Joe Biden shouldn't have run for reelection. Joe Biden has declined over the last 10 years. But Joe Biden knew what was going on in his administration. He knew the status of negotiations. He wasn't up at 4am posting a slop threats to foreign nations on any platform, never mind Truth, social or Twitter. Trump turns a geopolitical crisis into something that looks more like a campaign ad or a meme. And there is a difference between hey, we want to signal strength. We don't want to. We don't want to seem to be pushovers. And even pacifists would understand that it is not a good negotiating position to appear to be a pushover, to appear to be weak. Sure, that's fine. But there's a difference between that and this performative nonsense. The way that serious leaders signal strength strength is measured language, coordination, competence. The thing that projects strength the most is when other countries look in at the United States and go, wow, they're really operating competently. They really seem to know every one of our moves and they are soberly and rationally prepared. Seeing an unhinged orange guy posting AI threats at 4:05am does not communicate in any way that you are a serious administration. And unfortunately, this is not a serious administration. We have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. Australia moving to Tax matter, Google and TikTok. We'll talk about how they're going to do it. We will talk about the continued Homeland Security shutdown. And Trump's American Flag Blue Reflecting pool project is not thrilling people in Washington, D.C. all of those stories on today's bonus show. Two quick things. Sign up at join pacman.com get on my free substack@davidpakman.com substack.