B (3:52)

Yeah, what was that? Getting land, oil rights. Whatever we had, they took it away because we had a president that maybe wasn't watching, but they're not going to do that. We want it back. They took our oil rights with a lot of oil there, as you know. They threw our companies out, and we want it back.

A (4:12)

You know, in some sense, it's wild to see a president just come out and say he might like to wage a war for oil. And the reason I say that, in general is that we're supposed to hide, that we expect presidents to hide. If that's really the motivation. We're supposed to say it's about democracy or it's about human rights or whatever. But in a sense, in a sense, if Trump is simply being honest, well, I welcome that. And now we can criticize the idea because Donald Trump said that the United States will stay out of new conflicts and get out of of existing ones if he becomes the president of the United States. But there's another layer to this. I don't know that this is really the reason Trump wants to go after Venezuela. Maybe it is, but I want to propose to you that there's a possibility that this is actually about regime change and this is about getting Nicolas Maduro out. I would respect Trump a lot more if the reason that he wants to go to war with Venezuela is not about oil, but about getting Nicolas Maduro out. I would respect him more if he just said it now. I Wouldn't support it as. As terrible as I think Nicolas Maduro is. And you all know that I was not a Chavez guy either. I don't support the United States doing regime change in Latin America. I, as an Argentinian, know a little bit about the history of the United States getting involved in Latin American regime change to know it's a terrible idea, it doesn't work out well. Putting in puppet leaders for the United States as part of the removal even of bad leaders rarely works out well. But from the standpoint of just honesty, if Trump came out and said, hey, you know what? I'm sick of this Maduro guy, he's a disaster. And it's not even really about the Venezuelan people. It's just I don't like the guy and I want to be a bigger and stronger boy and I'm going to get him out. At least he would be honest. If that's the case. Now, it is of course possible that the real reason Trump wants to do this is the oil. In which case I go back to the anti war president. The winner of the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize is going to start a new war, especially for oil. How many Americans do you think would support a war against Venezuela at this point in time? How many parents would say, if my kid signs up to fight for this one, that would be a really valuable contribution to America's becoming great internationally or whatever? Or is it the last thing I want my kid to do is sign up to die for this orange clown's war games that he can't seem to get away from. Now, I think there's another aspect of this that's important to consider, and I hope that this is sort of useful and feels relevant to you, which is that even if you didn't have a moral problem, there's sort of like 10 layers here, right? If you believe that the real reason Trump wants to do this is oil, and if you don't have a moral problem with that, there might be people who go, oh, if it is for oil, that's a totally legitimate reason to go and invade a country. Okay, let's then go to the specifics. The United States is extracting more crude oil than any other country in history. And we have talked about this. As, you know, these are just numbers. When it was Biden and Trump said, oh, energy production is down. I told you, no, actually, we are extracting more oil than ever and natural gas put together. And now that it is Trump, we are still doing that. This is maybe the point in American history at which we would least need to go through any special effort to recover or gain oil from abroad, because we are producing more than any of it, more of it than we have ever before ourselves right now. And so even if you have no problem with Trump going to war for oil, even if you have no problem taking countries, oil, whatever, right. And the seizure of the tanker a couple of weeks ago, last week may have been a preview of this, why now? Because we've got more of the stuff than we know what to do with. Not to mention we are kind of some of us trying to get away from oil and fossil fuels, at least to the degree that is possible today. So it's all crazy. And it is the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize. Who would be doing it? Trump. Also. During this brief exchange with reporters after the bombshell Vanity Fair piece in which Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, revealed a number of very damaging beliefs and behind the scenes claims about the Trump administration, Trump was asked, is she going to stay as your chief of staff or might you be firing her? Here's what Donald Trump had to say.

B (9:09)

So thank you very much for being there. Yeah, she's doing a great job.

A (9:17)

All right. So as I told you over the last couple of days, this doesn't really mean anything in Trump world, but it is relevant. What I mean is Trump might be behind her today and firing her tomorrow. It's just okay, it's a point in time. But it is relevant that Trump hasn't yet given the go ahead for the full blown character assassination of Susie Wiles. Blame Susie Wiles. There's sort of two ways that when inconvenient media reports come out about the Trump administration, the Trump administration handle, handles it. The first one is you stand behind the individual in your administration. You attack the media. That's what they've been doing so far. We did a deep dive yesterday. There's lacking context for what Susie Wiles said and they didn't publish the nice things anybody said and all of that stuff. That's one option. The other is, you know, I hired him, but he became a loser and he's now criticizing me like a dog and all of this sort of stuff. We are not there yet with Susie Wiles. We may be, but we just aren't there yet. I want to ask you a question and I want you to take a beat and reflect before you answer it. When the administration of Donald Trump and Trump himself say, we brought in 10 trillion, 15 trillion, $18 trillion from overseas or from tariffs, when he says either of those do you believe Trump genuinely believes that, as ridiculous as it is, or do you think Trump knows he's lying and the people in his administration know it's a lie, but they say it because they think their followers will believe it? Okay, I want to talk about that lie. Donald Trump has variably claimed that he brought in trillions of dollars from his overseas trips and getting gifts from his Middle east buddies, and that he has brought in $18 trillion from his tariffs in the last 10 and a half months. Not over a period of decades, but just the tariffs have brought in $18 trillion. Not billions, but trillion dollars, 18 of them. Now, I want to put aside for a moment that the tariffs aren't really money that is being brought in, because it's money that is American money paid by American companies to the American government. You import steel from China. Well, you pay China for the steel, and then you pay the US Government for the tariff on that steel. The American company pays the American government. Put that aside for a second. Let's just talk about the scale. And this might be useful also, because it's good to conceptualize the size of the American economy. The American economy is about $27 trillion. If it were true that Donald Trump's tariffs have brought in $18 trillion, he could pay down a massive chunk of the national debt tomorrow. And, in fact, it would be a heroic thing. Remember that before Donald Trump's first term, he told us he's going to pay off the national debt within one term. In fact, he blew up the deficit and grew the debt faster, much faster than President Obama had. So either Donald Trump really has brought in $18 trillion and he's about to solve America's debt crisis, or this is nonsense and there is no one around Trump willing to challenge him on it. Or Trump knows he's lying, and he's lying because he thinks the people he's lying to are going to fall for it. Now, let's again look at the math. The federal government doesn't even collect $18 trillion from all taxes combined. Okay? Tariffs have, quote, brought in, and again, the money was already here. It's paid by American companies. Tariffs have represented $236 billion this calendar year, based on treasury data. Not 18 trillion, not 8 trillion, not 1 trillion, $236 billion over a decade. That would be expected to raise about $2.3 trillion for the federal government. But remember, paid by American companies, it's Nowhere close to $18 trillion to raise $18 trillion in a single year through tariffs. Imports would all need to be taxed around 600%. Now if you did that, it would be economic disaster. Imports would collapse, trade would stop, tariff revenue would basically go to zero because there would be no trade to put tariffs on. So the claim isn't just wrong, it is a mathematically and politically impossible claim. This gets us to the question I started with. Does Trump know this is a lie or does he actually believe it? Or is this something darker which is a test of loyalty? These are common in cults and these are common in authoritarian regimes. Everyone is expected to nod along to something they know isn't true. We talked about this in the aftermath of the 2020 election. We talked about it in the context of do Republican voters really believe that the election was stolen by Joe Biden and that Trump was the rightful winner? Or are they saying it to signal that they are part of the in group, part of the cult? Really common in cults and authoritarian regimes. Leader says something absurd, you show loyalty by repeating it uncritically. Not because it makes sense to you, because if you contradict it, you are saying that you are disloyal. So when Trump says we took in, he's quietly mixing tax revenue with private investment promises. Money that doesn't go to the government, money that doesn't reduce the deficit, money that doesn't even materialize. It's like claiming you got rich because someone said they were going to invest money in you or in your business at some point in the future. That that's what Trump is basically doing here. And even the White House's own tracker, their most generous spin, puts the number at 9.6 trillion. So even when Trump says 18, it's a number that is inflated, speculative, and not even the White House's own number. So again, I want to hear from you. Is Trump lying? Deeply confused, assuming his followers won't know the difference? Or worse, he knows they'll repeat it either way because they know loyalty is the currency that matters most right now. This matters specifically because tariffs are real taxes that raise prices and hurt people, justified with fantasy numbers. And if Trump really had 18 trillion bucks lying around, our debt would be shrinking quickly. It's not. And that tells you just about everything you need to know. The David Pakman Show Gear store is up and running david pakman.com/gear get your hoodies, T shirts, coffee cups, hats, all sorts of stuff. We're adding new items every day. David pakman.com/gear One of my close friends has a cat that I actually really like. I take a lot of heat for not being a cat guy. But this particular cat I really like. But this cat is a very picky cat when it comes to mealtime, I will admit. Turns up her nose to a lot of the store bought stuff. Then my friend tried our sponsor Smalls and the problem was gone. They even did a little test. Old food in one bowl, Smalls in the other. The cat went right for the Smalls. No hesitation, no delay. The first time that she saw her cat get excited about mealtime in a long time. Which this cat is picky folks. This cat is picky. This is because Smalls is real food for cats. It's protein packed recipes, real ingredients you would actually recognize from your own fridge. No preservatives, no artificial fillers, nothing mysterious. Just fresh premium meals for cats delivered right to your door on whatever schedule makes sense for you. That is why cats.com has named smalls the best overall cat food. Forbes happens to agree. Give your cat the food they deserve for a limited time. Get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you go to smalls.com/pacman the link is in the description Donald Trump in the White House announced that he would give a major national address at 9pm Eastern last night. The sort of thing where you might hear about some major change in American foreign policy or the president would announce that the country is going to be taking some different direction in some significant way. Whatever Donald Trump was hoping to accomplish with this national address, he failed to do it. Unless he was trying to make the country think that he's unhinged and clueless, in which case I would rate it an A. Plus plus plus plus plus. You know, sometimes I watch a Trump speech and I wonder, is Trump suffering from dementia? Sometimes I watch and I wonder, is Trump on drugs? Sometimes I watch and I wonder, is Trump kind of dumb? This speech doesn't clear up any of these questions, let me put it that way. It doesn't tell us whether those are or are not the explanations. And I'm sort of left wondering, whose idea was this speech? Did Trump come up with this idea on his own? Did someone sabotage Donald Trump? Because this was an absolute disaster, a sort of unforced error of brutal proportions, which both made Trump seem like he has no restraint or control over his emotions and thoughts whatsoever, which he doesn't. And it also served as a reminder, even to people who like Trump, that he hasn't actually accomplished any of the things that he said he would by talking about how this is Biden's fault or this other person screwed me. He's only shining a light on the fact that he is failing to do the things that he promised to do. So let's set the stage. Trump opens the speech by saying that he inherited a message from Joe Biden.

B (19:09)

Good evening, America. Eleven months ago, I inherited a mess and I'm fixing it. When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years and some would say in the history of our country.

A (19:23)

Now we are going to get into the specifics. I know you've already heard a claim in there that isn't true about inflation. We're going to deal in more detail with the economic stuff separately. So I don't want to jump the gun on that, but I'm just giving you a flavor for the vibe of this speech. Trump. Maybe the most disgusting moment was Trump delivering a Nazi style xenophobic rant while clearly agitated. And remember that as we try to figure out in the complex of symptoms that Donald Trump is exhibiting, agitation plays a role in many of them. As folks get older and they seem agitated at times for no particular reason, that does inform where you might start thinking with regard to a diagnosis. Okay, this is not, we're looking at this more politically than medically. But still relevant here is Trump's xenophobic.

B (20:16)

Rant in driving up housing costs was the colossal border invasion. We have never been invaded. This is the worst thing that, frankly, in my opinion, the worst thing that the Biden administration did to our country is the invasion at the border. The last administration and their allies in Congress brought in millions and millions of migrants and gave them taxpayer funded housing while your rent and housing costs skyrocketed. Over 60% of growth in the rental market came from foreign migrants. At the same time, illegal aliens stole American jobs and flooded emergency rooms getting free health care and education paid for by you, the American taxpayer. They also increased the cost of law enforcement by numbers so high that they are not even to be mentioned. For the first time in 50 years, we are now seeing reverse migration as migrants go back home, leaving more housing and more jobs for Americans. In the year before my election, all net creation of jobs was going to foreign migrants. Since I took office, 100% of all net job creation has gone to American born citizens. 100%.

A (21:34)

Just the use of classic dehumanizing language, really ranting like a madman, spitting into the mic, popping peas, extraordinarily agitated. And the agitation, you know, you don't have to look at that and go, oh, it's agitation associated with dementia. It's agitation associated with Alzheimer's. You could just say it's agitation associated with the fact that Trump looks around and he sees that he's accomplishing nothing. That even MAGA allies are starting to turn that half of Republicans now say, we aren't maga, we are non MAGA Republicans. And Trump could just be agitated because of that. Donald Trump making an announcement. If there were any announcements made of substance, I guess the closest thing would be this, where Trump said that nearly a million and a half service members are going to get a dividend and that it is going to be 1700 $76. Oh, the imagery, the symbolism. Take a look at this.

B (22:33)

Because of tariffs, along with the just passed one big, beautiful bill tonight, I am also proud to announce that more than 1,450 thousand. Think of this. 1,450,000 military service members will receive a special we call Warrior Dividend before Christmas. A Warrior dividend in honor of our Nation's founding in 1776. We are sending every soldier $1,776. Think of that. And the checks are already on the way. Nobody understood that one until about 30 minutes ago. We made a lot more money than anybody thought because of tariffs, and the bill helped us along. Nobody deserves it more than our military. And I say congratulations to everybody.

A (23:28)

And by the way, now, of course, Trump's not paying for these bonuses, if indeed they are happening, and there are questions as to whether they really are. The American people are paying for those bonuses. And once again, the tariffs are money collected from American companies. The American companies pass on 50, 75% of that tariff to the consumer in order to recoup their additional expenses. What Trump is essentially doing is taking some of your money, some of my money that has been paid to the government through tariffs from the stuff we bought, and saying we're going to take a little bit of that and we are going to give it to the troops. This is almost $2.6 billion total. 1.45 million times $1776. I thought we didn't have money for anything. I thought we needed to be paying down the national debt, which of course, we can't because the deficit remains a deficit. There was a brief glitch interlude during the speech. No Trump speech is truly complete without a little bit of a glitch.

B (24:35)

That extra really just took the wealth from people.

A (24:39)

Yeah. So we've become used to that by now. It almost seems normal. If you've been watching Trump speak for years, and then finally, and laughably, in a sense, Donald Trump says in the New year, which, remember, is two weeks away. Everything's always two weeks away with these guys. Even the health care plan from July of 2020. Trump says that in the new year he is going to announce some of the most aggressive housing reform plans in history. Take a look at this.

B (25:07)

You will see this in the new year, I will announce some of the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history. A major factor in driving up.

A (25:16)

You know, if there is an area where Trump truly lacks even foundational knowledge, it is housing reform. And I know that some of his defenders might say, well, but he's a real estate guy. He knows about building. Trump does have experience building. And some of that experience seems to be doing, making a lot of mistakes from the process of building. But the idea that Trump has anything useful to put together about how to really deal with housing, which is an issue that relates to housing supply, who owns the units that are being sold or rented, zoning regulations, all of these different things, Trump has no idea. I would expect the health care plan before I expect a housing plan from Trump that he understands and actually has something useful. So if this speech served to do anything after the big announcement on Tuesday, that he would be addressing the nation and all this after all of it, and then Trump shows up agitated, spitting on the mic, ranting and raving and blaming Biden. I believe that this speech clearly made American voters less likely to support Republicans in 2026. Which, if we ask ourselves what was the point of this speech? I think number one with Trump is always ego and self aggrandizement. Some people aren't sounding like they like me. Let me see if I can do something to get them to like me. But the second aspect of this is that Trump realizes, even though he is a lame duck in the sense that he can't run again if the Democrats take the House in November, which is now just 10 and a half months away, Trump quite literally will get nothing done for the last two years of his presidency. And he will be isolated. He will be abandoned, I believe by Republicans if they lose. If Republicans lose in the midterms, there is no reason for them to stay. Buddy, buddy with Trump and you are going to see defections. The rats will be leaving the sinking ship. Donald Trump doesn't want you to fact check his economic claims. Donald Trump and the administration don't want you independently informing yourself about what it is that is truly going on in this economy, because if you did, you would know that he is lying to you. So we are going to go through the specific economic Claims that Donald Trump made in this deranged address to the nation last night, which served only to remind people this guy is incompetent. So we're gonna look at those specific claims, including this first one, because it's a good one to debunk. Trump says inflation, when he took over was the worst in 48 years.

B (28:06)

Good evening, America. Eleven months ago, I inherited a mess, and I'm fixing it. When I took office, inflation was the worst in 48 years. And some would say in the history of our country.

A (28:20)

Inflation has essentially been bouncing between 2 and a half and 3% since June of 2023. Most of that time, Joe Biden was the President of the United States. More recently, it's been Trump. But Trump has not brought prices down. He has not reduced inflation. He hasn't done any of it. And speaking of prices, when Donald Trump's lies on inflation don't work, he goes to prices specifically.

B (28:43)

Take a look in those high prices down and bringing them down very fast. Let's look at the.

A (28:50)

Now, we all understand that if inflation is greater than zero, prices are going up. If inflation's 1%, prices are going up, but not that fast. If inflation's 3%, prices are going up a little bit faster. If inflation's 5%, prices are going up faster. We have always, through this period of time during which Trump has said he is bringing prices down, had inflation, meaning prices are actually going up. The example I give is if you're driving on the highway at 80 miles an hour, you slow down to 60. Well, you've reduced your speed, but you are still getting closer to your destination. You are still moving forward. As long as the inflation number is positive, you are still seeing prices go up. Now, what has fallen, going back to the beginning of Joe Biden's presidency, is the inflation rate. It hit a Covid era high in 2020, 2021, rather of 9.1%. And then it steadily declined, declined, declined to June of 2023, and has basically been relatively steady there. So Trump has not reduced prices. Trump was not handed the highest inflation in 48 years. The war on math continued during the speech, with Trump claiming that he is cutting drug prices by 600%, which is not mathematically possible. Take a look.

B (30:13)

I negotiated directly with the drug companies and foreign nations which were taking advantage of our country for many decades to slash prices on drugs and pharmaceuticals by as much as 400, 500, and even 600%. In other words, your drug costs will be plummeting downward. And I use the threat of Tariff.

A (30:35)

Now, intuitively, intuitively, many of you probably understand that prices cannot fall more than 100% without becoming negative, without it being that they give you something when you make a purchase, which is not really making a purchase anymore if you're getting money for it. This is not an economic achievement. This is not a pharmaceutical achievement. This is a math error that Trump is repeating after and after and after again, time and time again. Another economic claim that Trump made has to do with taxes on Social Security. Take a look.

B (31:12)

Foods, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security for our great seniors.

A (31:20)

So that is not in the bill. Trump keeps repeating. We've done no tax on Social Security for anybody. Of course the people receiving Social Security are disproportionately seniors. That is not. There is simply no provision in the bill that Republicans passed that eliminates Social Security taxes. It's a talking point. It is not policy. Now, just because I'm interested in being more full in my explanations, it is already true that Social Security benefits are taxed based on your income level. And there are lots of people who might pay very little income tax on Social Security benefits because of their tax bracket. But that has nothing to do with Trump. It has nothing to do with 2025 legislation. It has nothing to do with no tax on Social Security that Donald Trump claims is in the bill, but really is not. And then finally, and this is maybe the most hyperbolic and pathetic, and it is both. What's interesting about this one is it's both maybe more plausible because it's a little bit hazier in terms of what it means, but also impossible when you understand the numbers. Donald Trump talking about the trillions in investment he has secured.

B (32:36)

Eddie, I've secured a record breaking $18 trillion of investment into the United States, which means jobs, wage increases, growth, factory openings, and far greater national security. Much of this success has been accomplished by tariffs, My favorite word, tariffs, which.

A (32:57)

Now, I've already explained this to you. When Trump goes to the Middle east, this is one of Trump's favorite ruses. When Trump goes to the Middle east like he did a few months ago, and some dignitary from Qatar or wherever says, oh, they say we might be interested in a trillion dollar investment. What they're saying is, over the next two, five, ten years, if you bring us relevant and interesting investment opportunities, we would be potentially willing to put this amount of money into these projects over a period of time. So imagine someone goes, we would do a trillion over 10 years. Trump gets on the plane and Says, I just got a trillion dollars. He's acting like they've got the cash in the belly of the plane, when what he has is a totally non binding theoretical commitment, not a real commitment of maybe 100 billion a year over 10 years. If Trump gives them the investment opportunities, which, by the way, it's been months since that trip and none of that has materialized. So when Trump talks about I got $18 trillion, he is, first of all, he's exaggerating the number. But he's taking, oh, Emirates said 600 billion and Saudi said 1.1 trillion. I'm making these numbers up. And even though they said theoretical over 10 years, maybe Trump goes, they just gave me 18 trillion bucks. I don't know that at this point anyone is falling for that one. Except then I watched some of the cable news shows and it seems that many of the panelists indeed have fallen for it. So now you know the truth of economic lie after lie after lie. Are these useful? Are these explainers useful? Let me know. A lot of people hit this point in December and realize I still need to find a thoughtful, genuine gift for someone on my list. And quickly. If that is you, Aura Frames can really help you out. Our sponsor, Aura, makes premium digital frames that beautifully display photos and videos. I've been using one myself for years. I've given Aura Frames to my mom, I've given them to my dad. So many people. I preloaded them with baby photos and they love it because they turn it on the first time and the pictures are there. Aura makes it really easy not only with the preloading of photos, but you can keep adding them throughout the year. With the app, there is plenty of time to get an Aura Frame shipped before Christmas and you'll get $35 off their bestselling Carver Mat frames. When you go to aura frames.com and use the code Pacman at checkout, the link is in the description. All right. Well, as I previewed to you earlier this week, Trump's FBI is falling apart. The firings, the layoffs, the resignations, whatever you want to call them are starting. And we have now learned that Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is leaving the FBI. Now, it was announced on the platform formerly known as Twitter, it's now called X. We used to call them tweets. Now we call them excretions. And in a particularly unhinged excretion, Dan Bongino announcing his resignation, posting, quote, I will be leaving my position with the FBI in January. I want to thank President Trump, AG Bondi and Director Patel, for the opportunity to serve with purpose. Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you. God bless America and all those who defend her. Now, there are a couple of possibilities here. Number one, this is a sort of firing. He was told it's time to resign, pushed out by Trump or others for continued incompetence. And indeed, there is plenty of incompetence to go around at the FBI. Don't you think that Cash Patel is going to be able to hog it all for himself? Bongino definitely gets his fair share of the incompetence. Now, possibility number two is that Bongino sees the writing on the wall and he is getting out as the dumpster fire is not yet a dumpster inferno. Now, of course, all of us who watched with great interest and horror, horror as Donald Trump selected his team for the second term. A low rent conspiracy podcaster like Dan Bongino is not likely to work out as your deputy FBI director. I think a conspiracy theorist cuckoo guy like Cash Patel is also unlikely to work out as your FBI director. That remains to be seen. Trump asked about this, sort of seemed a little bummed, but said, no, no, Dan is doing a great job. Dan did a great job. Spent past tense speaking already. But then check out what else Donald Trump says. Look at this.

B (37:56)

Oh, Dan, Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show.

A (38:03)

Yeah, he says, I think he wants to go back to his show. Trump mentions. You know, on the one hand, Trump is so full of himself that he operates under the paradigm or framework that working for him is the most prestigious and honorable thing anybody could do. Anybody would be thrilled and just overcome with joy and passion for anything Trump sets them up to do. Because there's nothing better than working for Trump. On the other hand, Trump just casually mentions, like quitting the FBI deputy directorship after a few months to go back to doing a podcast is a normal thing. But is that normal? Is that patriotic? Is that respectful to the president that gave you this opportunity to go back to doing a podcast at the end of the day, after being the deputy director of the FBI, is that a respectful action to the country? I mean, it's truly pathetic stuff. And as a reminder, here was Dan Bongino back in May, and we covered this. At the time, he was already clearly not enjoying it. Remember this?

B (39:13)

I mean, I gave up everything for this. I mean, you know, my wife is struggling and I'm not a victim. I'm not Jim Comey. It's fine. I did this and I'm proud I did it. But if you think we're there for tea and crumpets, I mean, cash is there all day. We share, our offices are linked. He turns on the faucet. I hear it. He's there at, he gets in like 6 o' clock in the morning. He doesn't leave till 7 at night. You know, I'm in there at 7:30 in the morning. I, you know, he uses the gym. I work out in my apartment, but I stare at these four walls all day in D.C. you know, by myself. Divorced from my wife. Not divorced, but I mean, separated, divorced. And it's hard. I mean, you know, we love each other and it's hard to be a part, but you're doing some great work. You're straightening out the FBI, you're moving buildings, There's a lot of change. I just got one more thing.

A (39:59)

Yeah, Poor, poor Dan, you know, he doesn't get to see his wife and it's just so, so difficult. And it's sort of funny and I guess also kind of depressing that there is so much talk among these people that they are truly the patriotic one. You know, if you're on the left and you want Medicare for all, it's such an unpatriotic, un American thing. If you're on the left and there's a military engagement that you say, I don't support that, not under my name, you aren't being patriotic. If you just don't say whatever Donald Trump is doing is great, they say you were not really patriotic. And then these are the very same people who get an opportunity. Jobs that are truly coveted jobs. I mean, for people in law enforcement, deputy director of the FBI, whether it's glamorous or not, in reality, I know a lot of these jobs end up being extremely bureaucratic on a day to day basis. That's not what this is about. If you get one of those opportunities, this is public service. This is the way to really give back to the country that they say gave them so much and the opportunity. And then you quit after a few months to go back and do your podcast. And so this is again, another reminder, not that we needed it. And I spoke about this a lot recently on podcasts I've been doing. Why don't I engage in philosophical debates with a lot of these right wingers? Because the philosophy and the principles matter only when they are politically convenient. If it is politically convenient to say when you are offered a job by the president, you take the job, you stay in the job, you do the best job you can. You don't quit to go back and do a podcast after a few months, then it's politically convenient. But when it's Dan Bongino and it's a disaster and he's getting clowned by everybody, probably sees the writing on the wall to a degree of the legacy that is going to be associated with people who work for this FBI. All of a sudden the principle that you work for your country and you serve the president and you, it doesn't matter because they don't really care. And we've seen this happen with endless principles. Oh, we were against intervention by the government in private businesses. Well, yeah, until you're not. And until you want to tell CBS what to do and you want to tell Twitter what to do and you want to tell Facebook what to do and you want to tell CNN what to do. We are for individual liberty. Yeah, until you want to start telling other people what they can or can't do with regard to parenting, with regard to vaccines, with regard to romantic relationships. And so that's why, as I wrote in my book, I think the foundational principles on which we base our politics are good for us to know so that we understand why do we come to conclusions on policy. But these endless black hole philosophical debates with people who will debate you about their supposed principles and then abandon them like a bad habit as soon as they're inconvenient, waste of time. Certainly not something that makes sense for me to get involved in. Do it at your own peril. Dan Bongino, you, you didn't really conquer. I guess you came and saw. I don't know. But he's going bye, bye. Former Donald Trump press secretary and current Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany went on air on Fox News and confidently declared something so misleading it almost seems like satire. According to Caylee, Donald Trump is the most popular president at this point in his presidency in the 21st century. Her evidence is the Real Clear Politics polling average, which says Trump's approval, is 43.7%. She then started talking about Obama's numbers. George W. Bush's saying they were both lower. All of this sounds very impressive until you slow it down. Think through what is she saying and what is the data. So let's take a look at what Kaylee said and then we will talk.

C (44:02)

About it when you look at the report card. According to Real Clear Politics, as of Sunday, he is the most popular president at this point point in his presidency in the 21st century. Average of polls, 43.7%. Compare that to Obama this day in history, this point in his second term, 42.6% Bush, 42.5%. Though I believe Bush tied President Trump today. Nevertheless, President Trump, far more popular than President Obama at this point in his presidency, agreed that the economic messaging is very important. Unlike the Biden administration, you have to acknowledge the American people's pain because they are feeling pain. And I think the way to do it is to say I, I have made significant progress in cleaning up the Biden disaster, but there's still more to be done. Let's talk about that progress I've made. You heard Dana mentioned gas prices. 39 states now have gas under $3 a gallon. You look at the jobs report that came out yesterday, 121,000 private sector jobs, a decrease in 168,000 and public sector jobs. You look at purchasing power. That's when you compare inflation to wage growth. The purchasing power under the Biden administration went down by about $3,000. That's what workers lost. It is now up $1,000. Finally, you can get into eggs, rice, fresh fruit. Those have all come down. And then he needs to say, looking forward, here is what we are focusing on. The Trump accounts. That's one, no tax on tips hitting next year. No tax on overtime hitting next year. Boost to the child tax credit to 2,200 next year. Expanding the 529 savings accounts next year, doubling the standard deduction. That all happens next year. More to be done. The Trump economy has a tailwind behind it and it's going to continue. And that should be the message. The economy is the focus.

A (45:42)

So first and foremost, Real Clear Politics is not a poll. Real Clear Politics is an average of selected polls. And the selection matters. When we hear about a meta analysis of medical of a medical question, the component studies that you are meta analyzing really dictate the quality of the meta analysis. And similarly, Real Clear Politics has a long history of polling experts criticizing it for cherry picking which polls to include how long a poll remains in the average and when the updates are done. That doesn't make the numbers fake, but it does mean that this is not neutral gospel truth. Kayleigh McEnany presents this as if this is settled fact. Now, for comparison's sake, Gallup's presidential approval tracking poll has been around for decades. The methodology, although obviously there are cell phones now, there weren't at the beginning. Some of the technical details have changed. But the methodology and the basis for comparison has been there for decades. And There, Donald Trump is extraordinarily unpopular. In fact, Donald Trump's approval rating at this point in his presidency is surpassed only by Richard Nixon when he was facing the Watergate crisis. Now, secondly, what is Caylee doing? And I think it's very important to understand the games they play. Cayley's playing a very specific comparison game. She is comparing Trump's approval to Obama's second term numbers, not Obama's first term, not his peak popularity, and not in the same political context. Obama in his second term had a hostile Congress, was dealing with the post financial crisis fallout, and was continuing the natural approval decline that presidents see after years in office, which applies to every president, Republicans and Democrats alike. Trump, on the other hand, is being evaluated in the middle of nonstop right wing media protection, a fractured polling environment, historically low trust in institutions, and has the House and Senate doing everything they can, which isn't that much, by the way, to try to help them. So it's not even really an apples to apples comparison. It's like apples to whatever fruit makes Donald Trump look best. Thirdly, although Trump's approval is in the toilet, I actually do think you have to look beyond just approval to really look at the full story. You also need to look at disapproval. And Trump's disapproval is extraordinarily high. Meaning it's not just that there are a lot of people out there who aren't in a position where they can say I approve. There are a ton of people out there who feel comfortable saying I actively disapprove. And there are many polls where people disapprove of Trump by double digits more than they approve of him, which is absolutely stunning. A president with a really hardened base and massive opposition is not popular in any meaningful sense. What they are really is polarizing. And Kayleigh McEnany is leaving out that Donald Trump has been arguably the most polling polarizing president in fill in the blanks. Then comes a really funny thing. This claim that Kaylee makes conflicts directly with reporting from Fox News. Here is. I forget the guy's name. Stuart Varney, with a little different perspective on what the approval numbers are.

C (49:01)

We focused on the economy and maybe.

A (49:03)

He will weave in some foreign policy.

C (49:04)

Too after that blockade of sanctioned oil.

A (49:06)

Tankers off of Venezuela. That's a big deal. Yeah, look at this. Got a new poll and it shows that Trump's approval rating is down to 39% percent, down 2 points from earlier this month. So there it is. They inflate selective numbers for political reasons when expectations need to be lowered. They acknowledge reality. The audience isn't supposed to notice the contradiction. On one show, it's about propagandizing how popular Trump is. On another show, it's about saying, this actually is a very low approval rating that the President has. And all of it is meant to speak directly to the choir to which they broadcast every day. Now, I think Kayleigh McEnany knows this. She's not dumb. She's doing what she was trained to do. Take a narrow slice of data or an average or what. Pick what you can, remove the context and sell it as. Wow, Trump is really dominating here. The takeaway shouldn't be Trump's approval rating. We can just look that up. We don't need a Fox host to tell us that. It's how aggressively right wing media still feels like they need to lie about how popular Trump is. If Trump were genuinely popular, they wouldn't need to be pulling these tricks. They would go, oh, look, Gallup presidential approval Trump record high. They don't have those numbers and that's why they're not doing it. But don't fall for it. During the holiday season, and especially when traveling routines can really fall apart quickly between family gatherings and late nights and being on the move. And it all adds up. And that's why I like to start my mornings with something similar, simple. No matter what the day throws at me, I can start with AG1, which is the daily drink that combines a multivitamin pre and probiotics, superfoods and antioxidants in a single scoop. It's just a simple thing, whether you've got nutrient gaps or to promote Overall Wellness. And AG1's Next Gen Formula includes even more vitamins and minerals than before. For this is just an easy habit to stay consistent with even through the chaos of the holiday season, AG1 is offering their best offer ever. Right now. If you go to drink ag1.com/pacman, you'll get a free welcome kit, a morning person hat, vitamin D3 and K2, the AG1 flavor sampler. And you'll get to try the new sleep supplement AGZ for free. Free, that is drink ag1.com/pacman for $126 in free gifts. The link is in the description. All right, let's talk about the ongoing scam that is Donald Trump's White House ballroom, because it just got even more absurd. Donald Trump is now saying the ballroom might cost $400 million. That is double the original estimate. Remember how it started? If you've been tracking it, it was going to be $200 million in July. Then it was $250 million, then it was $300 million. Now it is $400 million. And Trump is claiming at the same time that he is mocking Barack Obama over the cost of his presidential library and attacking the Federal Reserve for renovation costs, that everything is fine with a project that has surged from 200 million to $400 million. So when Trump's project go over budget, it's genius level building. If anybody else does it, it's a disaster. Now, here is the part that people keep forgetting. Trump already demolished the east wing of the White House, and it was done to make room for this monstrosity that he wants to build. It happened before the required preservation reviews were completed. And after the demolition, the architect working on the project was fired. Why? Well, we covered it last week. The architect told Trump what he wants to do is infeasible. Let that sink in. He tears down the White House. The architect says, this isn't going to work. You're trying to build something that's twice as big as the actual main White House. So Trump fires the architect and he keeps demolishing. This is not how a serious construction project works. And even if you doubt Trump's political capacity, isn't he a builder? Does he know how to build better than everybody? And yet he's not even doing this right. So now there is an active lawsuit from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They say Trump violated the law because he started demolition and construction without proper approval. Although, hilariously, there really isn't much construction going on. It's just demolition. A federal judge hasn't stopped the project yet, but even the judge warned that the government should limit construction to underground work. Do not lock in a final design while this case is ongoing. In other words, slow down. Slow down because you're pushing too far. Trump's response? We didn't want to get held up and delayed. Of course, losing your architect and having no construction plan is going to delay you when you are playing real estate developer with the White House. The law seems to be a mere inconvenience for Donald Trump. Now, I want to talk about the funding as well, because this is where another aspect of this, the scam, is really building. Trump keeps saying the ballroom is being paid for by donations from his friends. Okay, what are they getting in return? People don't donate on the order of $400 million for out of the goodness of their hearts. And why is a sitting president fundraising hundreds of millions of dollars to redesign a historic public Building in his personal image of the gaudy ballrooms that he has at Mar A Lago. This isn't Trump Tower. This isn't Mar A Lago. It's the White House. And the most revealing part of all of it is Trump's explanation for why we are now up to 400 million. He said he might end up doing it for less, but he's now saying it's going to be 400 million, just in case, because he predicts if he goes over by $3, the press is going to criticize him. Now, of course, the criticism is for the entire project. It's not really about three, three dollars. But this is also not how real budgets work. This is how someone talks when they don't really know what it's going to cost. So where we find ourselves today to kind of recap is East Wing demolished. Architect fired for saying the plan isn't feasible. Project skips required reviews and planning cost has doubled. Active lawsuit. Trump insists it's on time and under budget. And of course, it seems as though this is yet another one of Donald Trump's sort of crony, corrupt money laundering ideas. And at the end of the day, it's about a president that treats the White House like a branding opportunity. He bulldozes the White House and norms. He ignores experts, which he does in every aspect of his presidency. And he basically dares anybody to stop him. And, and I don't know that they're going to be able to stop him. That's the scariest part. He may actually end up getting away with this, which should horrify every single one of us. Now, as some of you know, I was recently in D.C. and I had this dinner at a rooftop restaurant adjacent to the White House. And it was 10pm and the demolition was actively going on. Now, what I didn't know, as disgusting as that was, what I didn't know at the time was that there was this big rush to demolish, not because there was a plan that they were about to start constructing. The rush to demolish was likely because Donald Trump knew that if he got stopped before the demolition is done, well, it might actually interfere with the project. So he just moves forward and keeps demolishing. And there were cranes. I mean, it was a crazy scene at 10pm at this restaurant, just watching this happen in real time. I. The saddest part of it is, you know, what should happen is the entire project should be stopped. Forget about the ballroom. You are still in the position then of having to rebuild what has been demolished, which in and of itself is likely a project that would take years. The level here of disaster that has already taken place is truly beyond belief. All right. After Donald Trump's disastrous speech last night, they brought out the usual suspects to say, that was awesome. And I want to go through some of them with you. They are as pathetic as they are wrong. Starting with Sean Hannity, who said, I don't think Biden would have been capable of that speech.

B (57:39)

The host of Outkick, and of course.

A (57:41)

The Clay and Buckshow Clay Travis.

B (57:43)

Wow, what a difference a year makes.

A (57:46)

Mr. Travis, I gotta tell you, I don't think Joe Biden would be capable of that speech. Your thoughts? Well, it was after his bedtime, so 100% he wouldn't have been capable of this speech. You know, sometimes these guys are right, but for the wrong reason. And Hannity is right in a sense. Biden wouldn't be capable of such a speech in the sense that Biden's personality would never see him suspending common sense. It would never see him allowing a narcissistic, egomaniacal drive to push him to give such a speech. And Biden doesn't have the willingness Trump has to rant and rave in this humiliating fashion. Trump's got it. So, yeah, Hannity is correct. Biden never would have given that speech. But that's a good thing, not a bad thing. There's a political commentator named Deborah Lee or Leah. She says that this was one of the most powerful and engaging speeches that Trump has given in a long time.

D (58:51)

I think we all know to be true, that if Donald Trump spent that entire address to the nation listing out all the childhood cancer that he's cured or anything of the sort, anything that's good and kind, the Democrats would still find a way to attack him and make him sound like a crazy man. I just watched that speech. Donald Trump was so kind. He was so calm. I think that was one of the most powerful and just engaging speeches that he's given in a very long time. And he wasn't trying to shout his accomplishment at Americans. He was trying to remind Americans about the truth of the economy. Because we've seen a concerted effort by the mainstream media to lie and say that this economy is worse than Joe Biden, that Biden inflation is worse. We've seen the gas prices come down, we've seen the egg prices come down. And it's very important that Americans understand the future of the economic policy. The tariffs were not an over overnight relief. It's going to take effect in 2026. And I'm very glad to give some more money to our military. And of course, the left will not recommend or not even mention that because they have no respect for our military. God bless President Trump. That was a very kind and compassionate speech.

A (59:45)

Meantime, you know, we, we watched the clips. We looked at the clips at the top of the show. Trump was kind and calm and engaging. He was ranting like a madman. He wasn't trying to shout. He did shout throughout the entire thing, popping peas and screaming into the microphone. What speech did she watch? And then maybe funniest of all of the commentaries came from Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the house starting in 1994. I believe it is. Gingrich said that discipline was what was exhibited by Donald Trump. Take a look at this.

B (60:22)

And I believe President Trump showed tonight that he's prepared to focus, to be disciplined, to communicate. And if I were a Democrat tonight would leave me very unnerved.

A (60:34)

You know, Trump showed no discipline. He showed no focus, and he displayed terrible communication skills. What Democrats should be worried about after the speech is how on earth did tens of millions of people in this country vote for Trump. That should really be the concern. Gingrich also went on and said, you know, 19 minutes of discipline. It was Reagan esque in some ways. Look at this.

B (61:01)

I see so many good things. But I'll tell you, we've known each other a long time. To watch President trump give a 19 minute disciplined speech that covered that many facts was worthy of Ronald Reagan. That was a good speech. It was an important speech. Someday people will say was one of the most important speeches of his career, because it set the table for the entire debate over the next year and laid out what Biden did to make the country a disaster. What Trump has already done and where we are going in general and why that's the right direction. I think it's a very, very important speech.

A (61:41)

You know, after seeing this commentary, I started to wonder, is Newt Gingrich suffering from the same thing as Trump? Whatever it is like, without even knowing what exactly it is that Trump is suffering from, because, and by the way, Reagan did have Alzheimer's during the end of his presidency. But I won't comment further. Let's. We'll leave that there. Whatever's going on with Trump, whatever's going on with Gingrich, Gingrich praising Trump and alluding to a comparison to a guy that we know had Alzheimer's during his presidency, Ronald Reagan. So listen, overall, a few of them did get in line and come out and praise Donald Trump. But overall, voters looked at that speech last night, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and wondered, what was that? What was the point of this? This was not inspirational, this was not uniting, and this was not communicating some specific future thing that the country is getting involved in that the president needs to notify us about. What was the point of the speech? Which gets us back to the question we started with. Whose idea was this? Did Donald Trump in a panic based on the reporting about his health and approval and what's happening with the economy? Did Trump say, I want to do this? Or did someone else come up with it as an idea for how to get Donald Trump, I don't know, placated in some way? What was the origin of this? Whoever thought it up, it was a very bad idea. We have a phenomenal bonus show for you today. Sign up@join pacman.com to get instant access. Remember to get my daily Substack newsletter. It's free. You can find it@substack.david pakman.com and the David Pakman Show Store is up and running@store.davidpakman.com T Shirts, hoodies. Do we have vests? I guess not yet. We should get vests. Coffee mugs, the whole thing. Dad hats. I didn't even know that was a term. Now I just knew it as a baseball hat. Now they're called dad hats. Can you imagine? Anyway, it's all on the David Pakman Show Store. We'll see you on the bonus show.

B (63:53)

Everyone deserves to be connected.

A (63:55)

That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces.

B (63:58)

Switch to T Mobile and save up.

A (64:00)

To 20% versus Verizon by getting built.

B (64:03)

In benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular stores.

A (64:11)

Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features and taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required.