Marjorie Taylor Greene (24:25)

They're a critical part of securing our supply chains.

David Pakman (24:29)

And while they contribute to national strength across all kinds of energy industries, from

Sean Spicer (24:35)

energy to agriculture to defense and aerospace, America's big manufacturers rely on these producers.

David Pakman (24:42)

Producers and their skilled workers.

Sean Spicer (24:44)

And that's why President Trump's economic agenda means Made in America is coming back, and it's coming back fast. There.

David Pakman (24:55)

And the clapping snapping Trump back awake here, dear God, he is standing up and falling asleep. At another point, an incredibly disoriented Donald Trump, roused from a dream state, says that he could end employment with the swipe of a pen, which shocked people in the room. They are silent because I guess what Trump means is he could end unemployment. But Trump goes, I could end employment with the swipe of a pen. This man is not well, jobs.

Donald Trump (25:32)

And, you know, I could make. I could. With one swipe of the pen, I could say, let's have no employment and I'll hire a million people. Or 2 million people. Must say, we just hired a million people and we have absolutely no employment. And that's what they would do. They'd have bad numbers coming up, so they'd hire a couple of hundred thousand people and the numbers would look okay with me. It's the exact opposite. We terminate a lot of federal jobs that are unnecessary, and they don't like me for doing It. But a year later, they like me because they end up having a much better job, oftentimes in a place where they'd much rather live. Know they go to the place that they want to go. They're not stuck in Washington or someplace.

David Pakman (26:14)

I mean, it's. This isn't coherent. This is not even remotely coherent. And of course, I think what Trump means is he could end unemployment by just hiring 15 million people to work for the federal government. But he says I could end employment. What Trump then joking about getting out of office eight or nine years from now? I think we should not take the bait on this. That's my instinct.

Donald Trump (26:40)

And this way, when I get out of office in, let's say, eight or nine years from now, I'll be able to use it. I'll be able to use it myself.

David Pakman (26:53)

I'm just not even going to take the bait. Guys, he is trying to bait us. Let's not even do it now. Where I will take the bait, which I don't think is really taking the bait, is that Donald Trump continues to brag how often he's taking cognitive tests. And he says no other president is taking. Has taken cognitive tests. This isn't the flex he thinks it is because for some reason he keeps being administered cognitive tests. How many tests does he need to take?

Donald Trump (27:23)

In my opinion, anybody running for president or vice president should take a cognitive test, and no president has ever taken one except me. I've taken three of them. Why aced each one? One in the first administration, two over here. And whenever they get a little sassy, like, does he still have it? Does he still have what it takes? I say, all right, I'll take another one. And they are hard. There are many people in this room I know that are smart. They're not going to ace them. There are many people standing back there, the fake news media. I'd like to have them. You know, the first question is very easy. And they always show. The first question is, you have a lion, a bear, an alligator, and a. What's another good. A squirrel. Okay. Which is the squirrel. So they show that question, and then the first four or five questions are. They get a little more difficult by the time you get to the middle. They're tough by the time you get to the end. I don't want to be insulting, but there won't be. I'm not going to do what Gavin Newsom said. He saw him. He said, everybody in here stupid. And he's stupid. When he. I think it was the worst political interview I've ever seen.

David Pakman (28:34)

He said, yeah, you know, it's a brain injury screening test, a dementia screening test. The fact that Trump is constantly being cognitively tested and finds the test really difficult is a major red flag. What Trump is effectively saying is I'm the only president who doctors have felt needed cognitive tests so often that that's another interpretation of what Donald Trump is saying. And by the way, the tests are really tough. I guess they're right to be cognitively testing. Trump, this is not something I would be bragging about now. Final clip. I'm not going to subject you to the full eight minutes because that's torture. I, I believe that it would violate the Geneva Convention and would constitute a war crime. Trump's brain just rambling for eight minutes about the reflecting pool project. Aimless wandering of his brain. I won't play all of it. Okay? Just, I'm giving you a little flavor,

Donald Trump (29:34)

give you just one little anecdote. We have a beautiful, potentially Beautiful Built in 1922, it's a long time ago Reflecting pond in between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. It's the long, it's 2,500ft long. That's taller than I think any building in the world. That would be if you lay it

David Pakman (29:56)

sideways, I don't know why you would do that, but if you did two

Donald Trump (29:59)

Empire State Buildings more than that and very wide, 167ft. And for years they've wanted to fix it, rebuild it. It's granite. The stone is good. Granite's great. But it was leaking because it's little piece.

David Pakman (30:15)

All right, so anyway, he does eight minutes of that and then finally, finally Trump trying to wrap up and completely unable to coherently stay on topic, are

Donald Trump (30:26)

really, this is the golden age of America. I really believe it. Last year we were scoffed at. I told, I tell the story often that the king of Saudi Arabia year, a year and a half ago, when I was over there, he said, you know, America was a dead country. We didn't think we'd be investing. We didn't think it would be appropriate to invest there. We were a dead country. And now, president, you have the hottest country anywhere in the world. That was seven or eight months ago. We're a lot hotter than we were then. We had to do this little excursion. But the excursion is the stock market's higher now than it was when I, I, I assume the market would be down 25% and that was worth it to get rid of lunatics that would have nuclear weapons that can wipe out countries with the push of a button, you can't.

David Pakman (31:13)

All right, so he's just completely off script. For those not concerned about Trump's cognitive health, how do you explain that? Terrifying and globally humiliating and I would argue a national security risk. Because when foreign leaders and foreign intelligence agencies see that the President is this Mayo brained mayonnaise up there, maybe a little Dijon. They know that he can be taken advantage of. And he can be. We've seen it time and time again. A lot of people put on music while they work, assuming it helps them concentrate. But in practice, familiar songs, lyrics or constantly changing tracks often will take attention away from what you're working on rather than supporting attention. And that's where Brain FM comes in. Our sponsor Brain FM is a music app designed to support focus, relaxation or sleep with music created by human musicians working alongside neuroscientists. Instead of generic playlists, Brain FM offers task specific modes like deep work, creative and motivation, depending on what you're trying to do. What makes Brain FM different is the science behind it, because it's the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. Based on their unique audio technology designed to influence brain activity associated with focus, Brain FM also has published peer reviewed research showing their technology supports attentional performance. They even have an optional ADHD mode for people who benefit from additional stimulation. But the app really is built for anybody looking to reduce distractions and stay engaged with their work. You can try Brain FM totally free for 30 days by going to Brain FM Pacman. 30 days is a long free trial. Go check it out. The link is in the description. 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. I have two of these. 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 that's what you want. 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 Matte frame. Go to Aura Frames.com use the code PACMAN. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in the description. I am joined today by Sean Spicer, former Trump White House Press Secretary, host of the Sean Spicer show, and also author of the new book Trump 2.0, the Revolution that Will Permanently Transform America. Sean, I really do appreciate your time. I know you're a very busy guy.

Sean Spicer (34:36)

Well, there's no one I'd rather spend my, my morning with than you, David. So I'm excited for this conversation, and I know you're probably to agree with me on most things.

David Pakman (34:45)

Well, listen, I don't want to make this about tit for tat. Like, listen, I think that Trump straight up just lost in 2020. I know you may not necessarily agree with that, and we could make it about that, but I may be more interested in getting your perspective on, you know, I've spoken to other people who have worked for Donald Trump in a similar communications capacity to you. I've spoken to Anthony Scaramucci. I've spoken to Sarah Matthews, who was deputy press secretary at one point. I'm curious whether your experience mirrors theirs now that you're out of that role, where there was this sense of pressure to give Trump only good news, to go out and say things you didn't necessarily believe were true, whether it's about crowd sizes or whatever, or did you feel like you were coming up with that stuff on your own? Like, what was the dynamic in that office?

Sean Spicer (35:37)

Well, it's interesting. I mean, so a couple things, if I take it step by step, yeah, I brought him bad news all the time. I mean, you did. Usually wasn't pleasant. Sometimes he get mad. My job was to deliver to him the, you know, the information, and then he would say, I don't like that, or here's how I want you to communicate it. And one of the mistakes that people make is they'll say, you should have said this or that. The job of a spokesperson is to speak in lieu of the principal, no matter whether you're the organization of the, you know, the Parent Teacher association or the president's, you know, the White House press secretary for the president. And so I would give him my advice. I have my counsel, my thoughts. And sometimes he'd take it, sometimes he wouldn't. But my goal wasn't to share with people my thoughts, which I do now on my show. I mean, I enjoy, after decades of doing it for other people, being able to share with people like what I think. But, I mean, I've dealt with people like this for 30 years, who would say, no, I don't agree with you, I want to say it this way, or I think that that analysis is incorrect and here's why. And then my job was to say, okay, if that's what you think, based on how I've presented this to you and maybe the strategy that I'm presenting it, ultimately, I have to represent your thoughts. So I don't. I know personally, I gave him news all the time that some of it he enjoyed, some of it he didn't. And then I went out there and communicated to the best of my ability, not always perfectly, what he believed the message should be or his thoughts, how he wanted his thoughts or views communicated.

David Pakman (37:16)

I guess, to some degree, though, even though I understand being a spokesperson for the principal. There are other press secretaries who have worked for Trump who felt that they needed to put some limits down. Like, I'll give you an example. There's been this reporting about Kayleigh McEnany, who, during the period where Trump really wanted her going out there saying, hey, Trump won the 2020 election, she was avoiding him because she thought that talking about that in that way would violate the Hatch Act. So that was something she decided. And she said, I'm not going to just go out and represent what Trump says.

Sean Spicer (37:44)

Well, and you see Caroline talking about, when she gets asked about certain endorsements, again, there's a, there's, there's aspects of the law that we have to follow, right?

David Pakman (37:51)

Yeah.

Sean Spicer (37:52)

And you say, I am prohibited by law from speaking about that. We dealt with a lot of the Russia hoax during my tenure, and there were times when I answered the question, I'd say, you know, I've been advised by counsel that I have to defer all the questions. So the president may have wanted me to say things. I say, Mr. President, let me get the counsel's office in here. Because they're saying that, one, I can't legally do that or do. We'll have some kind of legal exposure if I say something. And so here's the strategy. And there's. That's. But that's, that's sort of a. Again, that's more of a strategic thing, and that's the law. There were some things, you know, and there are some issues that, that you have to deal with, whether it's the Hatch act or commercial interest, that you can say, you know, I'm. We dealt with this at the beginning with it say, you know, you're not allowed to speak to certain things that aren't within the Purview of the United States government.

David Pakman (38:43)

With the Day One crowd size thing, Was that a moment where you counseled him? Hey, the facts don't really point to this being the biggest crowd ever. And he goes, no, but I say it. And you went out and said it. Or what was the counsel you gave there?

Sean Spicer (38:56)

So it actually is, I take it, a step back. I mean, my initial thing was, let's not start on this foot. Right? I mean, look, to be blunt, I don't mean to make sound like a sixth grader here, but there were two things that happened in the preceding 24 hours, never mind the preceding 24 months. I mean, there was a ton of us who had been, you know, I'd been on the campaign, I had worked with them, and we had felt like we were constantly being demeaned and diminished in terms of our capabilities, our win, etc. So that was sort of A, the mindset. But B, if you think about the preceding 24 hours, number one, Zeke Miller of the. Then Time magazine lied about whether or not there was a bust of Martin Luther King that had been removed from the Oval Office, which. Which was demonstrably false and only said to inflame racial tensions. Right. And once the genie was out of the box. So we had started off with that. No one checked with us, no one asked. It was clearly there. It wasn't removed, which I frankly found to be completely silly to begin with. When presidents change administrations, the Oval Office is cleared. So I actually initially thought probably wasn't there. Like, because that's how it works. They take the rug out. They take. I mean, generally they keep the desk. Because most presidents in modern history have used the Resolute desk, but they changed the curtains. The. So who knows? I mean, I was like, this is silly. But then I went and looked and I was like, wow, it's actually there. And it was that no one had even checked. So. So, number one, that's going on. Number two, the President was, and I think rightly so. You wake up and you see a couple roundtables after a historic first day in office, being told that, like, no one was there and it was. Which was silly. I mean, like, there were. I dealt with personal issues with my own family having trouble getting past some of the security checkpoints in the mags. And I was like, this is dumb. My personal take on it was, we should have just said this is silly. Like, let's focus on what the President's doing to fulfill his promises. I think, look, he was pissed and I get it. Like, if you have this big win and remember the night of election, we were told was like 97% New York Times and others saying, we're not gonna win that. And then kept. And that was just that. I mean, kept overcoming hurdle after hurdle after hurdle.

David Pakman (41:10)

But, Sean, with all due respect, it sounds like you're saying. Because other things that were said were untrue. You were like, okay, going out and saying this was the biggest crime.

Sean Spicer (41:19)

I'm sorry. Fair enough. But that's not what I'm saying, though. What I'm saying is I want you to understand the context. And I'm not excusing anything. I'm just giving you a sense that, like, so he sees this, and I'll get to this, because here's the dirty little secret. David that's not talked about a lot. He didn't. The media love to. The spicer was directed to go to this. That's not true. The timeline is the following. He called me and said, this is B.S. what's happening? Da, da, da. Go out and correct it. I got with my staff. I met with a ton of people that were like, give me some statistics. It was a Monday. The federal government was closed. We were trying to piece together different ways in which we could articulate that there was significant interest in it. I called him at one point. He said, hey, when are you doing this? And I said, I'm going out to correct my biggest mistake that day. David was actually not running it all by him. When I called, he called me and said, are we getting this done? Are you going to go out there and correct it? I said, yep, I got it. And because what had happened is, on January 6th of that year, Buzzfeed had gone out and done this whole dossier thing. And I had sort of retaliated about how they had presented it, and the president had liked that. He said, you did a really good job that day. So I thought, okay, I get this guy. He wants me to go out and come at these guys, you know? And so the biggest mistake that I made that day was, and I learned it real quick, was not going to him and saying, okay, you want me to correct it? Here's how I'm going to go do this. He was pissed. When I got off, I expected that phone to ring in the press secretary's office, and it did. And I thought he'd be like, hey, great job. You kicked him in the teeth. And da, da, da. He was furious. He's like, what the hell was that?

David Pakman (42:59)

But he was mad because he knew the claim wasn't true.

Sean Spicer (43:02)

He was mad at how I presented it. He was like, that's not. And to be honest with you, at that point, we've never, to this day, ever gone back. And I was like, okay, how do I move? I literally thought I was getting fired that day.

David Pakman (43:15)

Was that. Is that your biggest regret from your time? Or, like, for example, Hitler didn't use chemical weapons might be high on my list as well. Like, what's your biggest regret from that tenure?

Sean Spicer (43:26)

Well, again, I'd say those are probably up there, but let's back up and dissect two, because we have a second one is I've made it very clear that I would love a mulligan on that first one. I don't think we, like, beyond the. And again, I don't want to get. If you want, I can get in the nuances, because here's what I did. I called around and I talked to everybody from, like, C Span to online sources and tried. And if you actually parse what I said, which was that it was the largest audience to witness, the idea was to make a claim that was like, when Barack Obama was inaugurated, there was physically a lot of people there, no question about it, but the online capabilities didn't exist the way they did today. The technology hadn't evolved. Right. So I actually thought I was in fairly strong ground.

David Pakman (44:15)

Interesting.

Sean Spicer (44:16)

Because it's like George Washington. You know, no one watched his on television. Right. And so you'd be like, you thought. I thought. How can I phrase this in a way that encapsulates all the people that watch it on platforms like Twitter that didn't exist in terms of the video capabilities back when some of these other people were inaugurated. So I was trying to make a claim that was, like, beyond refute, not focus on the number of people on the mall.

David Pakman (44:42)

I got you.

Sean Spicer (44:42)

Clearly, that didn't come across well. Since you brought up the other one, here's what I'll tell you. Like, and I wrote about this extensively on my first book, which, you know, you can go out and buy as well. Obviously, I'd rather you read Trump 2.0.

David Pakman (44:54)

Yep.

Sean Spicer (44:55)

But. But that, like, go back and look at what I said, Right. I was going out and saying, bashad Alice, like, that this guy was a, you know, Assad was a horrible, horrible guy. And let me tell you how bad this guy is and the despicable nature of what he has done to his own people. And if you go back and look at what Hitler had done, who's a horrible, horrible person, I was trying to say this guy so much like he's up there in that category of despicable, right? So if you actually go look at what I said, it was trying to describe how horrible one person is.

David Pakman (45:31)

And it was like, Assad is so bad that even Hitler hadn't used some of the weapons Assad used. Was the point you were trying to

Sean Spicer (45:38)

make who is an equally despicable, if not more despicable person. And again, it was inarticulate because if you technically go back and I've re litigated this in my entire first book about, you know, if you parse the words about what Hitler did, it was stupid. In media training I used to say to folks, never use an analogy that deals with rape or Hitler. It never ends well. And here I was doing something that I had counseled people to never do.

David Pakman (46:06)

And I guess the problem was that while the chemical weapons weren't used in warfare, the entire gas chamber concept is the use of a chemical weapon, Correct? Yeah.

Sean Spicer (46:16)

And so the nuance mattered. But to get to your point, I should have never even gone there. I should have let it stand on its own. And if you go back and look at what happened that day, I think I had been asked the same question literally 12 times. I documented it in my first book, the Briefing. And finally on the 12th iteration, right, I'd been asked over and over again about Assad and how what a horrible person he was and why the President was doing what he did. And I finally went, guys, you're not getting this. Here's how bad this guy really is. If I just stuck to the same previous 11 responses, none of this would. And but to your question, right, When I look at things that I did that I'd want to do over it, the reason that that one. So the crowd sized one was horrible because here I was, first day representing the President United States and I was like, I let the guy down, right? When I look at the Hitler comment, it really was difficult for me because that was a holy day for Jews. And I looked at it like, oh my God, there are people out there that are dealing with a very difficult day to begin with. And I may have just made this a more difficult day. And that was clearly not my intent. And anybody who watched it and watched the briefing and knows what I was getting at, which again the transcript is very public, knows what I was trying to do, which is to describe how horrific somebody was and the despicable nature on which they were committing heinous acts upon their own people and trying to basically say, this is the league they're in. Right, right. And yet the way it was portrayed, I think, made a bunch of people who were celebrating a holy day question my motives, my intent. And that hurt from the standpoint of knowing that, like, when you are trying to describe something and knowing that somebody's hearing the second third hand might actually believe that the goal was to minimize the impact of such a horrendous and impactful event on people who are still feeling those effects today. It just. It killed me inside to be like, wow, there are people who think that I would actually say something like that. Watching the comments online, knowing that, that. That anybody would think that that was intentional was, you know, just made me think, oh, my God. I mean. And again, it just didn't represent the President well, which is what your goal is supposed to be.

David Pakman (48:43)

Sean, in Trump 2.0, you attempt to build the case for Trump's success so far in the second term. Now, one of the things I've been critical of the Bide for was that there was a lot of insistence that everything was great, which didn't translate. In other words, people sitting at home would say, here's what my credit card statement and bank account look like, and here's the Biden administration saying everything's great. That didn't work. It doesn't work unless people feel it. And I think there's some similarity to that with what's going on right now, where the President is getting out there almost daily and saying, this is the best economy we've ever had. It's the best stock market we've ever had. Americans are doing better than ever. And number one, when you poll people, they say no, 80% think we're going in the wrong direction. 80% think it'll be even worse a year from now. So we've got the opinion side. And then on the factual, gas prices will be down 50%. Well, they're up 55%. That's an objective measure. The price level was going to come down. That only happens if inflation's negative, Inflation has been positive. The price level is up. Now, we could go back to the promise, but let's talk about what is. Why do you think if things are as good as the President says, and as you say, that it's not reflected in data nor in public opinion.

Sean Spicer (50:04)

Yeah. So. So let me go back to the premise that I'm making. There's two things in the book that are important to understand, okay? One is the number one objective that I set to make out in Trump 2.0 is answer this question about why. Why is Trump 2.0 historically different and more consequential? And the simple answer is the spade work that was done in the four intervening years. I have said this to the president. I'll say it to you and your audience now. President Trump would not be doing the things that he's doing had he been sequential, like every other president except one. The four intervening years have given him the ability and his team the ability to plot and plan a lot of how to do things. They wouldn't be doing so many of the various things they're doing have they not had time to reflect.

David Pakman (50:49)

I agree.

Sean Spicer (50:50)

Go so fast, right? And so if you think about the book and the chapters that are in there, whether it's NATO, trade dei, you know, education, the border, cultural issues, they. They wouldn't be. Trump didn't go to the Kennedy center in once, in his first four years. Now he's renamed the building and he's literally moderating the Kennedy center honors. Okay. Like, total change. That would not have happened, in my opinion. But to get to your point, I will say this. The one area of common ground that women have is, I believe a much more effective answer for people like, in this case, President Trump is to say, I'm working hard, we're making progress, and it's not there yet. Right. Especially on the economy. There are several things. Now, if we look post, you know, Iran conflict versus pre. There's. There's a little bit of a nuance there, but I even think that the question on Iran, like, I would like to see him communicate more effectively on the fact that, like, I am one of these people, that I do believe, and I've. I've seen it firsthand over the last three decades, Iran has poses a threat to us. There's no question about it. Politicians of both sides have agreed on this. So I actually think what he's doing there, but when he sells it short, I don't think that that's helpful to the American people. Meaning that if he says we're winning and da, da, da. Well, in any scenario, when you're winning something, then you don't, you know, you think, great, it's over, or I don't need to work as hard. We need to communicate effectively to the American people what Iran's threat is and why we're prosecuting it. And on the affordability issue, whether it's gas or anything else, again, I think depending on what the product is that you're talking about, like, I'm a Pretty cheap guy. I grew up frugal. So, like, I look at the gas every single day that I drive past this gas station. We've got two at the top of our street. I will go out of my way to go to the one that's 2 or 3 cents cheaper just by nature. And so when it's going up to your point, that's demonstrable. I mean, you can look at it and go, okay, was it more or less than the day before?

David Pakman (52:49)

Right.

Sean Spicer (52:49)

I think when it comes to gas prices specifically, again, the president needs to communicate why it's happening. Right. We are trying to heal. He could actually put a domestic export ban on, based on the amount of oil reserves that we have in the United States and the Brent oil that we make here, and prices would drop. But.

David Pakman (53:06)

But to your point, Sean, I think when he tells people why it's happening, most voters don't buy it. Like, I'll give you an example of what I mean. He says we've done this excursion in Iran, which, by the way, I think he wants to say incursion, but doesn't know the word. So he's come up with excursion, which is a completely different thing. He says, we've done this excursion in Iran because they had or were about to have a nuclear weapon. And so that's why this. And I think most people are looking at it and going, yeah, I don't buy that. Slash, it's not worth it. It's 450A gallon now. So I don't. It doesn't seem to be convincing anyone. Right.

Sean Spicer (53:38)

Well, and I don't disagree with you on that to some extent, but I would say that we do. Look, here's part of the way I look at this. There's no upside politically of going into Iran. None. Like, no one. When people say to me, do you think that this will pay? No, I actually do believe that it was just the right thing to do. And so sometimes you actually, you'll see a politician do something for the right reasons instead of. For. Because of the political reasons. That being said, I don't think that we've made the case the way that we should have about the threat that they pose. There are service members that are dead. There are service members without limbs because of what Iran does. And the terrorists that they fund, they pose a threat to the United States. They chant death to America. Right. I don't think that it's. And you look at what Hillary Clinton has said, what Kamala Harris has said, what Barack Obama and Joe Biden, they've all agreed that Iran poses a threat. I just believe that Donald Trump's the first one that actually acted on it. I support this, but I do think that we need to message it more effectively, that if we left them unchecked, what would you say? Excuse me, to the politician who does nothing. And then when we get attacked, knowing that they could have prevented it, we did this in 9, 11. We had an entire commission that looked and said, what did we know? What should we have known? What should we have acted upon? I think that not taking Iran seriously would have paid serious consequences, would have resulted in serious consequences, maybe in a year, maybe in two years, maybe in five years, but it was going to happen.

David Pakman (55:12)

So you acknowledge they may have been five years from a nuclear weapon.

Sean Spicer (55:17)

I'm not in a position. I mean, maybe I'm not clearly in a position to assess that. That's not in any way, shape or form what I have the capability of doing.

David Pakman (55:25)

But you're. You're comfortable assessing it enough to say that they were a threat, that Trump should have gone in?

Sean Spicer (55:31)

Sure. But I also think that when every politician. Hillary Clinton's on, you know, she's on record saying it, so is Kamala. I mean, that not going in part. They're all in agreement, then Iran poses a threat to us that they are in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And if you actually look at the current negotiations, the one thing that they won't negotiate on currently is their. Their desire to enrich uranium in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, which I think, frankly, tells you everything that you need to know. They. The one thing, they're not even faking it. I mean, I get that.

David Pakman (56:03)

I agree with. No, listen, I'm a strong. My audience knows I'm a strong opponent of this regime. I'm against theocratic, extremist, extremist regimes. I just don't think it was in the interests of the United States to do this at this point in time. We clearly disagree on that.

Sean Spicer (56:16)

Right, right. Fine, fine. And I get that. But my question would be, when would it have been acceptable?

David Pakman (56:22)

Well, I am not convinced that there was this nuclear threat. I'm not convinced that the ballistic missile threat was actually legitimate because those wouldn't have the capability to reach the United States. Like, I agree that these regimes in general are threats, and I oppose them, but that doesn't mean the United States should be the one engaging in this in the way that Donald Trump has done. That's what I don't think makes sense.

Sean Spicer (56:45)

Well, I mean, their ballistic capabilities can reach Diego Garcia, which was a threat to most of Europe and clearly our bases, they've taken out the USS Cole. I mean, like they have funded a ton of terrorism that has clearly impacted us. Maybe not on our homeland, but definitely in our assets and our people.

David Pakman (57:03)

Well, that is, there is some dispute about that. I do think Diego Garcia is a fair point. I think the timing of it ended up making no sense in terms of what's best for the country. But let me ask about the next six months if I can, because I know you've got to run. Where we are right now, I think is a disaster for Republicans. I think that it is almost a guarantee that it is a disaster in the house. Like not five seats. I'm thinking 20, 40 or 50 seats. Senate is roughly 5050 right now in the polling and the betting markets. My understanding is that the issues that were highly emotionally salient during the campaign, for example, crowds got very up in arms about men and women's sports when the president would talk about that. I think these are dead issues as far as voting issues, I think come November, voters are going to look around and they're going to say, I was promised energy would be down 50%. It's not. I was promised gas would be down. It's not. I was promised groceries would be down, et cetera. And that it is going to be very bad. In terms of how people choose to vote for House and Senate elections, do you agree with that assessment and do you think I'm wrong about the voting impact of things like transports or gun safety, etc. Which I think all is just squashed by the economy?

Sean Spicer (58:18)

Yeah, so. So people vote for two main reasons. One, their personal security and their economic security. And what I mean by that is that both, in both cases, they are gut, visceral things. So someone can tell me all the time that inflation is up or GDP is this or that, but if I feel good, if I'm going to the store feeling like, hey, I can spend more money, I can go on a vacation or I can put some money away from my kids, then, then that's what matters.

David Pakman (58:43)

So agree.

Sean Spicer (58:44)

Statistics don't translate as much as what you feel. And maybe it's because your job is on shaky ground or whatever. Same thing with security. If you walk down the street and you don't feel safe, doesn't matter how many statistics your community puts out. Right. Conversely, if they put out a bunch of statistics and you go, I walk down the neighborhood, I feel great. And so the gut feeling matters. And I think you're right. Right now when I drive down the street, I look at a gas price, I go to the grocery store, you know, I buy lemons from time to time and I always look at what a lemon cost. Right. You know, the other day it was like 79 cents a lemon, which is insane. And so I think that you're right. The environment is very difficult. There's no sugar coating that for Republicans. The upside if you're a Republican is you go, okay, we are in the beginning of May. So, so, you know, there is some time. But generally speaking, people make up their mind about when and how they're voting in sort of late August. So this is not good for Republicans. But there's some time left. So that's, that's the plus side on that. The, the trans and subcultural issues. I agree. When you're voting for a, in a midterm election, it's a what I call a base plus issue. So you're voting on your member of Congress. Donald Trump can nationalize an issue or they can't. No one's thinking that your congressman is getting involved in this stuff. They need to make a specific case to what they're doing in their district to make their life better or not, full stop. Which leads you to my last point, like these races still have to get run, one candidate versus another. You look at the Senate, we have a three seat majority there. There's probably seven or eight Senate seats in play when you go through them. And this is where I think the national media makes a mistake, is they like to paint a broad brush and say, historically speaking, that's like saying generally on Tuesdays it rains, it's like, who cares? So look at the Senate races, Michigan, where I don't think we should be winning right now. Mike Rogers, I think is poised to win that seat because of the Democratic chaos. Conversely, I think we should have picked up Georgia, but Ossoff's put a ton of money away. We've got a late primary that's going to drain resources. I think Mike Collins will come out ahead in that primary, but he's going to come out without a ton of money. Does that mean we won't win it? No, but I think it's going to handicap them. So I think the Senate we're okay in. You got a three seat majority, seven seats in play. We could lose a seat or two. As long as we keep the majority, we're fine. And I think we're on. We'll end up winning Alaska, Ohio and Iowa. So that's good.

David Pakman (61:06)

What do you make of Maine and Texas?

Sean Spicer (61:08)

So in Texas, I think we're fine. Look, at the end of the day, Texas is always this sort of Lucy with the football. It's like how Republicans view New Jersey.

David Pakman (61:18)

We might get it this year and then it doesn't.

Sean Spicer (61:20)

Yeah, I mean, we've heard this. I was at the RNC for six years. We always hear this. I think, I believe that whoever right now, I still had. Paxton's probably going to win this primary. He'll be fine. It'll win by four or five points. It'll be closer, a ton of money. But Democrats have to. By the way, David, at some point they have to say, that's a lot of money, a lot of media markets to put in because you either go all in on Texas or you don't. You don't get kind of pregnant. And I think Democrats have to decide whether they want to spend $100 million to potentially pick up Texas when there's cheaper dates out there. Alaska is a cheaper date. Ohio's a cheaper date. Iowa's a cheaper date. Maine's a cheaper date. I have a feeling. And Talarico just. He doesn't fit Texas, he said a lot of crazy things. When they jam 15, 20 million dollars of oppo on him, I think you make him radioactive, people will come home. On the Republican side, If it's ultimately Paxton, I think we pull that Maine. Look, here's the thing on paper, Platner, if it wasn't Platner. I think if it was Janet Mills, it would make it a lot more competitive for Susan Collins. She always ends up eking these things out. I've done events in Maine before. Susan Collins is a well established, well known commodity in Maine.

David Pakman (62:35)

Right, but the polling said that Mills was easier for her to defeat.

Sean Spicer (62:39)

Yeah, but. But here's the deal. Go back and look at every one of Susan Collins's races. Everyone says she's down five to seven points. She ends up winning by five to seven. She's a known quantity. Here's the deal with Platner, and I talked about this on my show today, is I have a hard time. It's one thing to jam out Janet Mills because you can get the progressive base a little fired up. Are you going to tell me that with 10, 15 million of oppo about a guy who has a Nazi tattoo on his chest and said that sexual assault was, was, you know, women should be responsible for their own sexual assault is going to go over well with a good chunk of the independence that exist in Maine. I just like once, what's funny about

David Pakman (63:21)

that is if he were a Republican, oh my God. I think it wouldn't matter the same way it didn't. The grab him by the pussy didn't matter for Trump. But I think the problem is who is more likely to be in the electorate for Platner. I think it's a possible issue.

Sean Spicer (63:33)

Right, right. I mean, look, I think Maine is always going to, if it wasn't for Susan Collins, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I mean, she's the only Republican that can hold this. But I think there's a big difference with getting over the fact like when real oppo gets jammed at you. And remember, electorate there is very cheap. It's a lot of money that's in digital, a lot of money in mail, a lot of door to door money. Like so you're still playing a little in the Boston media market. As I said, when I say relatively speaking, it's a cheap date. And Platner, I think there's a point at which it's unsustainable. I think you have a small electorate there. Susan Collins, known quantity. And there's enough oppo to write itself. I think she squeezed, pulls this one out.

David Pakman (64:16)

All right. We've been speaking with Sean Spicer, former Trump White House Press Secretary, one of the many who have been in that role. The book is 5 Trump 2.0, the Revolution that Will Permanently Transform America. Thanks for your time, Sean.

Sean Spicer (64:29)

You bet, David.

David Pakman (64:31)

The David Pakman show is an audience supported program and the best, most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member. @join pacman.com you'll get the daily Bonus show, the daily commercial free show and plenty of other great membership perks. Get the full experience of by signing up@join pacman.com Former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene now says that Donald Trump implicitly threatened her son, saying, if you are no longer loyal to me, if your son gets hurt, you will only have yourself to blame. This is low even for Donald Trump. We're going to take a look at a couple of the videos. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who of course broke with Donald Trump, chose not to run for reelection, left Congress and has now become one of the strongest critics of Donald Trump. But remember, not a friend of the left, not a progressive, not an ally, just someone who had a falling out with Donald Trump. She explains, Trump texted me that if my son gets killed, I deserve it because I was a traitor to him. This is the form I believe then former, maybe already President of the United States Once again, President of the United States.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (65:50)

I sent them to all these people. I got no response from Susie Wiles. None. And she's a mother and a grandmother and a woman. I got no response from James Blair because he only cares about making money on campaigns. I did hear from Cash Patel, he said on it, but I haven't heard from him since. I don't know what he's on. JD Vance was very nice to me, compassionate and kind, and reassured me that he would do everything we could to find out what's going on. And then I heard back from Donald Trump. Uh, oh, and I've saved these text messages. I'd probably get put in jail if I released them publicly, but I saved them where Donald Trump proceeded to tell me that it was my fault and that I deserve it if my son gets killed. I deserve it because I was a traitor to him. That is our President of the United States. That's the man that says MAGA is whatever he wants it to be.

David Pakman (67:06)

This is disgustingly low, even for Donald Trump. And I think that, by and large, Marjorie Taylor Greene is a terrible person. Terrible person. But bringing her son into this in this way and saying, listen, when you're no longer loyal to Trump, crazy things can happen, and you would be deserving of those crazy things happening because you became a traitor. Now, I would love for her to release the text messages she says she has. She says she would go to jail if she did. I don't know that that's necessarily true. I mean, listen, it's, it's possible that they'll try to, for punitive reasons, just for revenge, try to make her life a living hell. That's what this administration does. But Pete Hegseth has done much worse as Secretary of Defense than releasing some texts that Marjorie Taylor Greene has. This is incredible and disgusting stuff. And if you present the, the hardcore Magaz with this, they just go, oh, she's lying. She had a falling out with Trump. That's why she's doing this. This is. None of this stuff is true. It's just a lie. You can't believe any of it. There's another clip where Marjorie Taylor Greene straight up says, Trump told me we shouldn't release the Epstein files because it will hurt people at Mar? A Lago, which, if we believe this. And listen, I, I, my views of Marjorie Taylor Greene are not particularly positive. I don't think she's making this up. If that's true, it blows a hole wide open in the explanation for why Donald Trump is covering up the Epstein File.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (68:42)

Forget it. I was in my office in the Rayburn Building, and I got a phone call from the president, and he was at the White House, and he wanted to talk to me about the discharge petition that I'd signed my name on. And he said, marjorie, you're going to have to take your name off that discharge petition. The. These. We can't let. This is a hoax. We can't carry this. This is a hoax. It's a Democrat hoax, and we've got to just put this away and stop doing this. And he said, my friends are going to get hurt. He said his friends would get hurt if we released the Epstein files. He said, marjorie, these are good people. These are people, you know at Mar Lago, people in Palm Beach. They're going to get hurt by this. And I said, Mr. President, people have been hurt. These women have been hurt. I said, have you talked to them? I said, you should talk to them. You should have them in the Oval Office. Mr. President, you have everybody in the Oval Office. You have sports teams, you have world leaders. You have Al Qaeda terrorists that are now leading Syria. You have Mom, Donnie. I mean, you have everybody in the Oval Office. Surely you can have these women who were raped as teenagers talk to them. I talked to them all the time. As a matter of fact, many of them voted for you. That's what I told them. They voted for you. Epstein victims voted for Donald Trump and he wouldn't have anything to do with them. And he told me his friends would get hurt. And I said, not taking my name off the discharge petition.

Donald Trump (70:22)

Thank you.

David Pakman (70:23)

You know, Trump doesn't care about the victims. Just a few weeks ago, I covered for you. Donald Trump asked about the victims, talking about them as the victims or whatever. The victims or whatever, huh? That's not the language of someone who cares about the victims. Trump sees himself at the victim. This is what Marjorie doesn't understand. She's like, sir, there are victims and they voted for you. And how can Trump sees himself as the victim? He says nobody's been treated more unfairly. He's been. Even Abraham Lincoln, who was shot dead, wasn't treated as unfairly as Donald Trump. So Marjorie Taylor Greene is not our friend. She's not an ally of the progressive left. Quite frankly, she's out of her mind. But she stepped over a line that many Republicans aren't willing to step over, which is to call Trump out for what Trump is. And I do think she know. Here's the thing. I think 90% of these Republicans see Trump the way Marjorie Taylor Greene sees Trump as a self centered buffoon who doesn't really know what's going on and doesn't really care if it doesn't affect him or his priority is protecting himself and the people he believes he is strategically inclined to protect. I think most Republicans see Trump this way. She's willing to say it. A lot of the other ones aren't. But these are still people whose beliefs in general are absolutely disgusting. And we now need to make them pay for it in November. And that's what I want to talk about next. Did you know that this year, just months from now, Trump and Republicans could lose everything? We can take it all from them. We can take the House of Representatives, we can take the Senate, we can take investigative and oversight power. We can take the last two years of Donald Trump's presidency, making him the lamest of lame ducks, during which he will do nothing other than throw ketchup at the wall, proverbially and literally. Let me give you the latest numbers and remind everybody this depends on us. We have a huge role to play here. Now, we start with the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives, polling favors Democrats taking the House, and the betting markets favor Democrats taking the House. On Kalshee right now, 79% chance that the Democratic Party takes the house, 21% chance that the Republican Party keeps the House. Now, importantly for those who believe it's over and it's all in the bag, it's important to note that just a couple of weeks ago, there was an 85% betting market chance that Democrats take the House. That is now down to 79% and trending down. So while the most likely scenario is Democrats take the House of Representatives from Republicans, the odds of that happening have come down over the last couple of weeks. We then get to the Senate. Well, what's going on in the Senate? It's close to 5050 now, most notably in the Senate, where a handful of races are going to decide the entire thing at the end of the day. We had a situation in late 24, early 25, where there was a greater than 80% shot for Republicans to take the Senate. That jumped down to about 70% during much of 2025. And that came all the way down to one point about three weeks ago during which Democrats were all of a sudden the favorites with a 54% chance of taking the Senate. That is now reversed again, but it is very close to 5050. A handful of races will decide the entire thing. Now, if you zoom out for a second what you start to see is something Republicans are hoping you don't notice, which is that 2026 is shaping up to be a complete wipeout scenario for them if we get out and vote. And this matters so much, because if Democrats take the House and Senate in 2026, Trump is done legislatively that day. One of a Democratic House and or Senate sworn in. No major bills, no sweeping agenda, no second term legacy, nothing. It's going to stop on a dime. Secondly, the House controls what gets voted on and the Senate controls what passes. In a sense, that means no new tax cuts, no major policy changes, no immigration insanity or economic tax law chaos or none of it. Trump becomes the lamest of lame ducks. He will have two full years of being as lame as you can be. And when that happens, something else kicks in right away. Of course, the House has oversight power and they are going to bury the Trump administration and investigations and oversight for two full years until Trump's last day in office. But then there's something else also, which is that within the Republican Party, power starts to shift away from Donald Trump. If he can't get anything passed and he's as unpopular as any president in the modern era has been, why do we stick with Trump? Which leads us into the conversation of what happens in 2028. If Trump can't pass laws and he's so unpopular that he can't even pick the heir to the Maga throne for 2028, he is no longer the center of gravity. He is blocked and locked.

Sean Spicer (76:02)

And.

David Pakman (76:03)

And the part that people maybe are underestimating or you're sort of like, maybe I'll vote in November, maybe I won't. I don't know. Presidents who lose that kind of power often lose control of their own party completely. And at that point, Trump isn't picking a successor. This whole thing of, oh, Marco Rubio were JD Vans, he's trying to already turn it into some kind of reality show competition. That is done because it won't be up to Trump anymore. If we can damage him in the party so significantly this November, he will be competing with a bunch of Republicans who suddenly realize he has nothing to offer me anymore, I don't need him anymore. And so you go from a president completely in control of everything, controlling his party, controlling the legislative agenda, everything, to a guy who is irrelevant politically, loses power, loses the influence of the bully pulpit in a single midterm election. The media narrative will flip overnight. Right now, it's Trump's agenda, Trump's war in Iran, Trump's negotiations on tariff Trump, Trump's health care plan. That's two weeks away, which none of us believe, but some of them keep repeating. Overnight, it will be Trump rejected by voters. MAGA is done. Weakest president ever. Trump blocked. Trump cucked. You will even see some headlines. I would never do that headline. But some will do that headline. But it's up to us to make it happen. And if we say we don't really care that much about that, we're going to stay home, then it won't happen. And there's a lot of work being done here to try to preserve election integrity, which the Supreme Court, by gutting the Voting Rights act, is trying to destroy. There's a lot of work being done in terms of the redistricting efforts to ensure that Republicans cannot steal congressional seats simply on the basis of drawing wacky congressional districts. We're doing all of this stuff. Let's not make it be for nothing. That's my thought. Let's actually make it be for something. We will talk on today's bonus show about seven elections tonight that will test the power of maga. We will also talk about the Trump administration blaming Biden for the collapse of Spirit Airlines. Unfortunately, reality points a different direction. And are you sleeping enough? Most Americans are not. And we are going to go through why this is and the different schools of thought as to what helps. All of that and more on today's bonus show. Don't miss it. Sign up now. Don't wait. Now you can sign up at joinpacman. Com.