PDB Situation Report | February 8th, 2025: Trump Takes A Wrecking Ball To USAID & Declassifies JFK Files

Summary

Podcast Summary: The President's Daily Brief Episode: PDB Situation Report | February 8th, 2025: Trump Takes A Wrecking Ball To USAID & Declassifies JFK Files
Host: Mike Baker
Guest(s): Former Congressman Jim Renacci, Author Gerald Posner
Release Date: February 8, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief, host Mike Baker delves into two significant actions taken by the Trump administration: the aggressive restructuring of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the declassification of long-held records related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (JFK), Senator Robert F. Kennedy (RFK), and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Former Congressman Jim Renacci and author Gerald Posner join the discussion to provide insights and analyses.

---

Trump Administration’s Restructuring of USAID

Overview of USAID Changes

Mike Baker opens the discussion by highlighting President Trump's executive order aimed at dismantling and restructuring USAID. The administration announced massive layoffs and the integration of USAID's remaining functions into the State Department. This move has sparked debate over USAID's effectiveness and role in American diplomacy.

Jim Renacci's Perspective on USAID

Former Congressman Jim Renacci provides a critical analysis of the Trump administration's approach to USAID. He emphasizes the lack of Congressional oversight over USAID’s expenditures and operations.

• Wasteful Spending: Renacci criticizes expenditures that do not directly benefit U.S. taxpayers. For instance, he points out "condoms for the residents of Gaza" as an example of what he considers misuse of funds. (02:55)

• Historical Context: Renacci underscores USAID's original purpose during the Cold War to promote U.S. friendship abroad against Soviet influence, asserting that while parts of its mission remain relevant, oversight has significantly waned. (04:02)

• Congressional Oversight Failures: He laments the absence of annual budgets and appropriations bills for USAID, highlighting that "Congress hasn't done that probably for 25 to 30 years." (06:00)

Discussion on Government Efficiency

Mike Bacon probes further into the inefficiencies and lack of oversight within USAID, questioning how such an agency could operate without proper budgetary controls. Renacci responds by outlining the responsibilities Congress has neglected, such as passing detailed budgets and appropriations bills to regulate agencies like USAID.

• Legislative Shortcomings: Renacci explains, "Congress isn't doing that. And at the same time, we should be passing a budget that says, hey, USAID, what are you doing?" (06:50)

• Presidential Overreach: He acknowledges that Trump's actions may overstep legal boundaries but suggests that the administration is taking matters into its own hands due to Congressional inaction. (07:50)

Potential Impact of USAID Restructuring

The conversation shifts to the implications of folding USAID into the State Department. Renacci believes this could provide better oversight but stresses that without Congressional approval, such moves are legally contentious.

• Future of USAID: "They do think we have to have an agency that's under control of the State Department... And then you ask, you know, the Secretary of State to monitor, oversee those expenditures..." (10:21)

---

Declassification of Assassination Files

Trump’s Executive Order on Assassination Records

Mike Baker transitions to discuss President Trump's executive order to declassify all remaining federal records related to the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. This decision aims to enhance government transparency but has elicited mixed reactions regarding its potential outcomes.

Interview with Gerald Posner

Gerald Posner, an investigative journalist and author specializing in assassination investigations, shares his insights on what the public can expect from the release of these files.

• Expectations from Declassified Files: Posner expresses skepticism about uncovering new, groundbreaking information. He anticipates that the files may not provide the "smoking gun" many conspiracy theorists hope for. (33:04)

• Historical Surveillance of Lee Harvey Oswald: Posner discusses Oswald’s interactions with Soviet and Cuban missions in Mexico City, highlighting that while the CIA monitored him, there is no substantial evidence linking these agencies to the assassination plot. (35:04)

• Martin Luther King Jr. Files: The release of MLK's files is expected to stir controversy due to previously revealed illegal FBI surveillance aimed at discrediting him. Posner notes, "the MLK's family came out and said, we'd like to see the files beforehand..." (50:29)

Jim Renacci on Assassination Files

Renacci provides additional context, emphasizing that while the CIA monitored Oswald, there is no credible evidence to suggest they orchestrated the assassination.

• Cold War Context: He explains the tense environment of the Cold War, suggesting that while agencies like the CIA had their eyes on individuals like Oswald, there is no indication they were involved in the assassinations. (38:09)

• Jack Ruby’s Motives: Renacci delves into Jack Ruby's background, portraying him as an individual seeking notoriety rather than someone connected to larger conspiracies. He asserts, "there has to be something more of this when you actually investigate Ruby," but finds that Ruby acted largely on personal impulses rather than orchestrated plans. (43:27)

---

Broader Implications and Speculations

Impact on Public Perception and Conspiracy Theories

Both Renacci and Posner agree that the declassification of these files is unlikely to quell conspiracy theories. They anticipate that even mundane revelations will not satisfy those who believe in deeper, hidden motives behind the assassinations.

• Persistent Skepticism: Posner remarks, "No matter what the files show, you're going to get RFK Jr asking Trump to form some type of commission to look for files elsewhere." (54:20)

Government Overclassification Issues

The discussion touches upon the chronic problem of overclassification within government agencies, hindering transparency and public trust.

• Example of Overclassification: Renacci cites instances where documents related to foreign intelligence activities were unnecessarily redacted, undermining the purpose of declassification. (52:16)

---

Conclusions and Future Outlook

Call for Government Accountability

Renacci emphasizes the need for balanced budgets and term limits to enhance governmental accountability and reduce wasteful spending. He advocates for legislative reforms to ensure proper oversight of agencies like USAID.

• Balanced Budget and Term Limits: "We need to require a balanced budget... and we need to require term limits... It will be an amazing change for our country." (24:17)

Ongoing Investigations and Public Engagement

Both guests acknowledge that the release of these files is just a step towards greater transparency. However, they caution that true accountability requires continuous public engagement and legislative action.

• Continued Vigilance: Posner concludes that without significant changes, public frustration with governmental inefficiency and secrecy will persist, necessitating ongoing efforts to hold officials accountable. (54:45)

---

Notable Quotes

• Jim Renacci on USAID's Overspending:
  "Anything that doesn't relate to a requirement to benefit the United States government taxpayers, in my mind, is an egregious situation." (02:55)

• Jim Renacci on Congressional Oversight:
  "Congress hasn't done that probably for 25 to 30 years." (06:00)

• Jim Renacci on Presidential Actions:
  "He probably doesn't have the authority to do some of the things he's doing... But I think he learned from 2017 to 2020 that if he doesn't do this, Congress won't do it." (07:50)

• Gerald Posner on JFK Files:
  "What I'm interested in is I don't think there will be a smoking gun there." (33:04)

• Jim Renacci on Assassinations:
  "There's only a month and a half when he's in Dallas before that assassination. That's what I always challenge everybody to do." (43:27)

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of The President's Daily Brief offers a critical examination of the Trump administration's strategies concerning USAID and historical government transparency. Through informed discussions with former Congressman Jim Renacci and author Gerald Posner, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding governmental reforms and the enduring quest for clarity in historical events.

For those interested in governmental accountability, historical investigations, and the interplay between politics and intelligence agencies, this episode provides valuable perspectives and underscores the ongoing challenges in achieving effective oversight and transparency.

Transcript

[Mike Baker]

This episode is brought to you by Meundies Underwear. Drawers are like the Wild West. You never know what you're gonna pull out or what shape it's in. So upgrade your collection with the buttery, soft comfort of Meundies. Meundies signature fabric is as soft as a warm hug from your favorite sweater. Plus, it's breathable and oh so comfy, making it ideal for all day wear. Get 20% off your first order, plus free shipping at MeUndies.com Spotify with code Spotify. That's MeUndies.com Spotify code Spotify.

[Jim Raci]

They would be just about to.

[Mike Bacon]

Welcome to the PDB Situation report. I'm Mike Bacon, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We'll begin today's show with the Trump administration's efforts to reform the federal government. Well, good luck with that. And specifically its targeting of usaid. That's the agency ostensibly responsible for administrating civilian foreign aid. Former Congressman Jim Raci will join us to give his insight on that later in the program. President Trump issued an executive order last month to declassify records related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, former Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Now author Gerald Posner, he's spent a lot of time researching these assassinations. He'll stop by to explain what we should and shouldn't expect to learn in the coming days. But first, today's PDB Spotlight. President Trump and Doge are taking a sledgehammer to the United States Agency for International Development, announcing massive layoffs and then folding that remnants of USAID into the State Department. To some, USAID was a pillar of American soft power, providing aid, shaping global influence and furthering US Interests abroad. To others, well, it was a taxpayer funded boondoggle. And when was the last time you heard the word boondoggle? Propping up far left pet projects, including DEI initiatives worldwide. So what's the reality? Is USAID an essential tool for diplomacy or is it bureaucratic waste or is it something in between? Well, joining me now to break it down is former Ohio Congressman Jim Bernice. Congressman, thank you very much for taking the time to join us here on THE SITUATION report. Well, let's start out with how would I refer to this? It could be a salacious question, but if you wouldn't mind, You've spent a lot of time looking at the issue of government spending of USAID and waste and fraud and government. What are the most egregious cases of wasteful spending that You've seen in your.

[Jim Raci]

Experience with usaid, anything that doesn't relate.

[Jim Renacci]

To a requirement to benefit the United States government taxpayers, in my mind, is an egregious situation. Whether you're buying condoms for, you know, one country or, you know, all these things that we're hearing, they're all egregious because in the end, what we really want to have is we want to. That entity was formed in 1991, and the goal really was to make sure that other countries around the world realized that the United States was a friend. Because if we remember back then, we had a Cold War and we had Russia doing the exact same thing. So that was the purpose. Now, the purpose of the organization still should be doing some of them. And remember, China today is the enemy. That is doing a little bit of that around the world, too. So anything that relates to making sure that other countries realize that the United States is a, you know, as far as I'm concerned, is, Is, you know, we're trying to build our relationship. That's a positive thing.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, I, I think just for the benefit of, of, of our Situation Report viewers, the reference to condoms is. We talked about this on the pdb. We highlighted it as a, as a story, believe it or not. I think it was actually the first condom story we've done on the pdp. But there apparently was upwards, depending on who you talk to, upwards of $100 million set aside for a health initiative that included tens of millions of dollars of condoms for the residents of Gaza. So I thought we'd just, we'd get that out on the table. So I, I take your point, And I agree 100%. Look, there's, there's a real need for what, however you want to refer to it, a tool of diplomacy, the use or the extension of soft power from America. And that was. You're absolutely right. That was a key element of this, the, the driver behind USAID at the outset. How did it change? Right. What, at what point is it too much autonomy with usaid? So is this a matter of not shutting it down, but reimagining it perhaps as a, as an element of a different organization?

[Jim Renacci]

It's one of the reasons I left Congress. I was so frustrated. Here I'm a successful businessman. You got to look at your expenditures. We weren't doing it. Congress has no oversight on these agencies. Congress has not doing a budget on an annual basis. Congress is not doing all of their spending reviews. All of this is a normal job of the United States Congress. We have appropriations bills that are supposed to be passed. We have budgets that are supposed to be passed. Most of your listeners don't realize we haven't done that probably for 25 to 30 years. If you go back to where we've really done both, that's going to shock.

[Mike Bacon]

A lot of people. How could they not have oversight of expenditures from an organization like usaid? Or how could they have just dropped the ball on, on their other responsibilities in terms of audits and efficiency? When Congress holds the purse strings, they.

[Jim Renacci]

Do hold the purse strings. But what they should be doing is they should be passing a budget, and then they should be passing appropriations bills. The appropriations bills would say, usaid, you only have this much money, and this is what it's supposed to be spent for. We're not doing that. Congress isn't doing that. And at the same time, we should be passing a budget that says, hey, usaid, what are you doing? And let's zero base this out and determine what you should be doing. Those are the real inner workings of Washington that aren't getting accomplished and aren't getting completed.

[Mike Bacon]

But why not? I guess that's the big question that I have, and I suspect a lot of people have, listening to you talk about this.

[Jim Renacci]

Yeah, well, look, it's one of the reasons when I was there, we couldn't get a budget pass when we tried to cut costs. And that's why we get the CRs. I don't know if your listeners understand what a CR is, but it's just a continuing resolution. And that's the real problem in Washington. You can't like, and I was a member of Congress, but you can't blame President Biden. You can't blame Bush. You can't blame. If you're not doing your job, you've got to blame Congress for not doing enough oversight. Now, here's why I give President Trump a whole lot of credit. He probably doesn't have the authority to do some of the things he's doing, and that's what the Democrats are complaining about. They're saying he doesn't have this authority, he can't cut this cost. And it's probably true, and there'll be lawsuits about it. But I think he learned from 2017 to 2020 that if he doesn't do this, Congress won't do it.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, I want to circle back to, to USAID specifically. But before I do, I just want to drill down a little bit more because, I mean, I'm fascinated by this. I would have assumed that an organization such as USAID Every year would be required to submit a proposal for their budget and they would have line items. Now obviously there will be certain events that come up one offs and, and events of the moment that have to be dealt with in an ad hoc manner. But for the most part you would, I would imagine that they were proposing a budget and that Congress would then, whether it's OMB or whomever, would then be going through that budget and approving it sort of on a line item basis. That, and that doesn't happen from what you're saying?

[Jim Renacci]

No, it doesn't. And look, it may not even be a line item. They may say we're going to, we're going to spend, you know, $20 million in Africa, we're going to spend $10 million in this country. They should at least be doing that. And then Congress should be looking at what they're spending it on and that should be the oversight. So that's a twofold thing that should be done by Congress. Remember, that's also the number one goal of Congress, oversight. And we're not doing enough of that. So I really do blame Congress for a lot of this. If we pass budgets that said in total we're going to spend X amount of dollars and for aid to other countries, and then in appropriations bills, you say we're going to allocate $50 million or 50 billion or whatever the number is to USAID, but we want you doing X, Y and Z, then you approve all that and then you come back and you do oversight over what USAID is doing. That's the job of Congress.

[Mike Bacon]

I am just fascinated by the inability to, of Washington D.C. to just get crap done, do their job right. And look, I run a business and if we didn't, you know, question where every dollar went when somebody came to us and proposed a budget, or if our clients, you know, said, I don't worry about a budget, you spend what you need to, that'll be fine. Now, okay, to be fair, that would be a happy day from a business perspective, but it doesn't happen. But let's focus on USAID in particular. Do you imagine that what could happen? I know this is speculation, but do you imagine that what could happen is we end up with a much smaller entity that is placed underneath the control and management and oversight of the State Department.

[Jim Renacci]

They do think we have to have an agency that's under control of the State Department and that should be a division of the Secretary of State's office. These are, these are expenditures again to promote the United States around The world and the influence of the United States versus China versus Russia. That's the whole goal of usaib. But we've gotten away from that, and there's no oversight. So I think if you take that organization and you put it under the Secretary of State, which is what we have now, that's what President Trump has done. And then you ask, you know, the Secretary of State to monitor, oversee those expenditures, but you also have to have Congress to agree to spending. See, that's the key. And I know people get mad at this, but it's Washington. In Washington, it's Congress's job to authorize and approve expenditures. They have the power of the purse. The president does not have the power of the purse. And what we have now is the President saying, hey, you're not doing your job. I'm going to take some of that power away and I'm going to just cut it, and you're going to have to do your oversight and all those things, especially when it comes to usaid. But look, we could talk about every agency without a budget, without appropriation bills, any stream of spending, and no oversight.

[Mike Bacon]

Do you think the president has overstepped in terms of, again, just focused on usaid? Do you think he's overstepped his authority?

[Jim Renacci]

Well, I would tell you this. In 2017, the president tried to cut spending in USAID. And the. I think it's. The budget office came back and ruled that it was not proper for him to do that. It was the impounding act, impoundment control out. They said back then, President Trump, you can't do this. This is authorized by Congress. You. You're not allowed to do this. Now, Trump, President Trump oversees those agencies, so he should have some authority to oversee what they're spending. But this organization was set up back in 1961, authorized Congress, authorized by Congress to be an independent agency, which might be a problem, which means we might have to change that. So I think we got to look at all of these things, because here's the problem at Washington. What was good in 1961 might not be necessary in 2025. And I think we're running into some of that now.

[Mike Bacon]

Why was it set up as an independent agency? Why would it be given that sort of autonomy if, in fact, it is designed to be a tool of projection of US Diplomacy and power and influence?

[Jim Renacci]

At the time, President Kennedy was trying to show that he wasn't the person directing the funds, and there was an independent agency authorized by Congress to direct the funds. Again, could have been the right thing to do back then.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, I don't know that it takes a rocket scientist or anybody with any government experience to imagine that that's problematic to say you're going to set up an autonomous independent organization to spend money. I don't have any issue with, with the current administration, with the Trump administration saying we're going to take a fine tooth comb to every dollar that goes out, you know, every tax dollar that goes out that the US Government spends to ensure that it is in, in the best interests of the American taxpayer, of US national security, etc. How do you feel? Or, and again, I know this was a sort of soft science. I'm asking you for opinion rather than talking about facts, but how do you feel about how the Trump administration went after usaid? It was fairly, fairly, what should I say? Aggressive. Sort of a weekend purge of their offices in a way.

[Jim Renacci]

When you talk about Congress authorizing organizations, they do that all the time. They authorize the, the organization to oversee banks. They separated it. Congress has no authority over it. That was a law passed and all they have to do is fund it. Cheviot organization out there building buildings, paying for buildings, renovating buildings, overseeing our financial Systems after the 2007 collapse. And yet there's no oversight or accountability. So that organization is also set up as a separate, distinct organization. It can't be controlled by Congress now. It can be stopped, it can be eliminated when it comes out. President Trump did this. Look, I think he's just so fed up with the inability for Congress to do things. He is doing things quickly, he's moving very fast. I think he pauses after. This is probably one of those. He probably needed to pause before he did everything did. But again, I'm sure he is so frustrated and he wants to move the needle. He doesn't have a lot of time. President Trump's got four more years and probably only two more years, because we all know that two years into a current president term, they usually lose members of the House and members of the Senate. I'm not saying that's going to happen here, but I think if you look at history, it's going to. So this president has two years and he can't wait, and for that you have to applaud him. Now, there will be a tremendous amount of lawsuits and there'll be a tremendous amount of pushback, but in the end, this is a wake up for the United States Congress.

[Mike Bacon]

Do you think it's going to have any impact? I mean, it sounds like the US Congress has been fairly sort of an inert body for a long time. So even with this sort of shock and awe start to the Trump administration, do you think it ultimately makes any difference or are we just going to see continued dysfunction? I hate to sound so cynical and I don't mean to denigrate all the people who work hard up on Capitol Hill because there's a bunch of them, but I'm curious.

[Jim Renacci]

The American people are frustrated as well, and we keep putting people back in Washington doing the same thing over and over again. And if nothing else, I think this would be a wake up call to the voters that says, look, if these guys or women are not going to do their job, we got to replace them with people that will. And I think that will be the best thing that happens out of all of us.

[Mike Bacon]

Renee, see, if, if you wouldn't mind, we have to take a quick break, but if you'll stay right where you are, we'll be back shortly with the the, the next segment of THE SITUATION report. Thank you again for joining us.

[Gerald Posner]

Hey, Mike Baker here. Look, we've all been there, right? Feeling pressured to buy a whole new wardrobe as the seasons change because, well, frankly, most outerwear just doesn't last. You know what I'm talking about? And that's why the American Giant Classic Full Zip hoodie is a game changer, and I don't use that term lightly. It's designed to last a lifetime, offering unbeatable comfort, durability and quality year after year. Look, Slate magazine called it, quote, the greatest hoodie ever made. When was the last time you heard that? And once you try it, well, you'll see why. From the heavyweight fleece to the reinforced elbow patches, every detail is built to stand the test of time. And here's the best part. It's made right here in the usa with a commitment to supporting local communities, whether you're grabbing it for crisp mornings, chilly evenings or just everyday wear. Look, this is the hoodie that you'll reach for again and again if you're tired of clothes that wear out too soon. And who isn't? Well, the Classic Full Zip is the upgrade that you've been waiting for this season. Snag the hoodie that'll bring you comfort for life. It's the American Giant Classic Full zip. And save 20% off your first order at american-giant.com when you use code Baker. You didn't see that coming, did you, at checkout, right? The code is Baker B A K e R. That's 20% off your first order at american diant.com code baker.

[Mike Baker]

What makes a great pair of glasses at Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com welcome back.

[Mike Bacon]

To the Situation Report. Joining me once again is former congressman from the state of Ohio, the great state of Ohio, and of course, that would be the home of the Ohio state Congressman Jim Reni. Congressman, thanks again for, for sticking around. Very much appreciated. If you wouldn't mind, could you talk a bit about the, the current effort by the Trump administration to generate, what would we call them, buyouts, I guess from the federal workforce.

[Jim Renacci]

You got to think of it from this standpoint. The president doesn't have the authority to do that. And I saw that there's already been a court case thrown at him. And the authority is he's spending money that he's not allowed to spend without the approval of Congress. And those buyouts probably need to be approved by Congress. But in the end, I think he's sitting back saying Washington won't do this, Congress won't pass this. I'm going to test it. I'm going to keep doing these executive orders and I'm going to move as quickly as I can. We'll see if Congress catches up. But it will also shake up. I hope the voters will say, hey, wait a minute, this is probably something that should be gotten.

[Jim Raci]

Yeah.

[Mike Bacon]

I know it's not apples to apples, but it strikes me a little bit as if, I mean, it's a pushback as well. You don't have the authority to spend that money. You could say under President Biden, I know it's not apples to apples.

[Jim Renacci]

Well, President Biden was forgiving student loans. He didn't have the authority to do that either. That's a cost to the federal government. And you're right, these will be the same things. These will be lawsuits. And again, I see this as an awakening. And it's going to be awakening for the American voter, the American taxpayer to say, wait a minute, maybe the president should have that authority or members of Congress, you need to start doing your job.

[Mike Bacon]

I take your point. I think you're absolutely spot on in terms of the mindset in the White House. It's a very good point. I think they're just saying, look, we're going to, we're going to do these. We may get pushed back on some of them, and they already have on some of these executive orders. But I think they're just saying we're just going to keep, you know, putting them on the table and signing them. And if you want to push back, fine, but you know, we've got an agenda and we're going to pursue it. If you were in charge of doge, you know, the Government Efficiency Department, if you were in charge of that, what would you go after to have the most impact on the government? Waste?

[Jim Renacci]

If you look at the drivers of our debt, what is really driving our debt? We bring in about four and a half trillion a year into the treasury. We spend about 6 trillion a year. We spend about 4.5 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest. So we're approximately at a break even just paying for those programs. Then you have a million and a half or 1.5 trillion in deficit. Approximately every year after that is the military. So when you really start saying, how do I get this budget in place and fix it, number one, you got to start looking at the drivers. And look, nobody, it's an elected official wants to talk about that. But there is waste. And Social Security, there is waste. In Medicare, there is waste. And Medicaid, we need to look at all those programs because those are the biggest spending items. Now, this aid to other countries, I mean, it's about 40 billion a year on a $6.5 trillion spend. So it's money that needs to be looked at, but it's not enough to fix the problems. You started by asking me if I was totally in power. The answer would be, I require. There's two things we need to do in America, in the United States, to fix our federal system, we need to require a balanced budget. That would really shake things up. And then we need to require term limits, because those that stick around, they stick around because they like to keep spending the money. If everybody was termed out after so many years and you were required to balance a budget, we would fix all of these problems very quickly.

[Mike Bacon]

We are on the exact same sheet of music. I've been banging about term limits for I don't know how long. I don't believe that it's going to happen. I think there's too much self interest in Washington, D.C. but I think you're spot on until you get those term limits in place, whatever they may be. Extend the term for a congressman to four years, right. Nobody's rushing to get out of D.C. to go back to their farm. Right. So it's. Times have changed. So you know, maybe you get two four year terms as a Congressman, maybe you get two six year terms as a senator, but then you leave, you take that self interest out of there. And I think it has an amazing impact on people's ability to make bigger, bolder, braver decisions. They're not wrapped up in their own self interest of getting reelected on a constant basis.

[Jim Renacci]

I've said it. It should be eight years for members of Congress. If it should be two six year terms for Senate, we should put those term limits in place and we should require them to balance the budget. It will be an amazing change for our country.

[Mike Bacon]

What about the eligibility age for Social Security? I know I'm about to hit that third rail, but is that ever likely to happen? Because again, we want it. We want a benefits package that's going to stick around, right. That's going to be feasible and solvent going forward. So do you think that's something that, that Washington could ever approach? Because again, under your theory of like what was good in 61 when USAID was started may not be relevant today. Life expectancy and the time that people work and continue to work, that's changed. But do you think realistically that that's something that could be taken care of by Washington?

[Jim Renacci]

Let me tell you the real problems with Social Security that nobody really pays attention to. Number one, the program was designed 45 years ago assuming that people would die at age 65. That doesn't happen. So they're slowly moving the age limit up. But we're also taking all the funds that are going into this impress fund, which by the way, Congress is not allowed to touch. And we're only investing it in treasury bills. Now think about that. A Treasury bill is averaging about 1% or 2% a year and that's the only place you're allowed to put Social Security funds into. You got to go back to President Bush where he wound up put. He wanted to allow Social Security trust fund to invest in the stock market. Well, if you had invested in the stock market back when President Bush, George W. Was in office, we've averaged about a 10 or 12% return all those years versus about a 2% return. Inflation has averaged about 3 and a half percent. So our return is not even keeping up with inflation. So that's one issue there. But there's also other changes have been added to Social Security. Your spouse, either spouse may never have worked or put money into Social Security, yet the wife can collect or the husband can collect 50% of whatever that person that the one spouse put in. So think of that number we're not even keeping up to make up for the one spouse. And yet the other spouse, who may have never put a dime in, could collect 50%. There are problems inside the system that need to be changed more than just raising retirement age. That should be done, too. But I just named off three things that could make the system solvent if they were just looked at.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, I remember that, that moment in time when, when President Bush, his administration pushed the idea of investing in the stock market. And the pushback was fairly remarkable, particularly from obviously from the Democrats, you know, arguing that, oh, my God, you know, the White House wants to gamble with your savings and your, so yeah, I think a lot of people have the same feeling. And I again, that speaks to, in part why President Trump is now president. The frustration over inaction, the frustration over wasteful space, spending, lack of oversight, all of these things.

[Jim Renacci]

I was going to say, remember, President Trump has said he doesn't want to touch Medicare and Medicaid or Social Security. But let me give you another thing for your listeners to really think about Medicare. The reason Medicare we put in, the average couple puts in about 150,000 in their lifetime. They take out about 340,000. These are numbers you can find in the statistics. I was on the Budget Committee. But where does most of the spending occur? It occurs in the last hundred days of the individual's life. So when you bring that up, you cause a whole other issue. But it's something we need to look at. If the majority of spending is in the last hundred days of somebody's life, how do we change it so that right now we're spending twice as much as we're putting in in Medicare? It's another program. And the, and the driver of that is that last 100 days. Another touching subject, something nobody wants to talk about, but it's an issue we need to at least address. Yeah.

[Mike Bacon]

Well, no, if anybody up on Washington in, in on Capitol Hill goes after that, then they know that they're going to lose the next election. So that brings us back around the circle of life, brings us back around to term limits. Congressman Jim Renace, look, this has been fascinating and I very much appreciate your, your time. We've got a lot of other things we could talk about and I would love for you to come back and, and have another conversation with us on THE Situation report. All right. Coming up, President Trump, maybe you've heard about this. He's ordered the release of the remaining files on the jfk, the RFK and MLK assassinations. What's in them? Well, that's a good question that you should ask. And what might we finally learn? Is there a smoking gun in there or is it just going to be an unsatisfying release? Gerald Pozner, he spent a lot of time looking at these assassinations. He's the author of Case Closed, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of jfk. He stops by to share his insight on those how to have fun anytime, anywhere.

[Jim Raci]

Step one, go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it.

[Mike Bacon]

Step two, collect your welcome bonus. Come to papa. Welcome bonus. Step two. Step three, play hundreds of casino style games for free.

[Jim Raci]

That's a lot of games, all for free.

[Mike Bacon]

Step four, unleash your excitement.

[Jim Raci]

Woo hoo.

[Mike Baker]

Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade.

[Mike Bacon]

So claim your free welcome bonus now and live the chumba life.

[Mike Baker]

Visit chumbacasino.com conditions18/ welcome back to the Situation Report.

[Mike Bacon]

Within days of taking office from President Trump signed an executive order. Well, he signed a bunch of them, but he signed an executive order declassifying all remaining federal records related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Now the order directs intelligence agencies and the Justice Department to release these files in full, citing the public's right to transparency. For decades, records on these cases have been withheld or heavily redacted with previous administrations, including the first term for President Trump delaying full disclosure. Supporters say this move could finally put conspiracy theories to rest. Or could it? Revealing the full scope of government investigations. Skeptics argue that it might raise more questions than answers. And you can count me as one of the skeptics. So what should we expect from these long secret files and will they change our understanding of of these assassinations? Joining me now is Gerald Posner. He's a great author, he's an investigative journalist and he's written two great books, Case Closed, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of jfk and also Killing the Dream, James Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Gerald, thanks very much for joining us today. You know, honestly, we could spend a handful of hours talking about this. I got a long list of questions but I'm going to be mindful of of time. I just want to get one thing out of the way. If correct me if I'm wrong, you started. I don't want to say Conspiracy theorist. Because that, that I think sometimes makes light of people who have alternative views. But you started, you know, your, your belief system with JFK thinking that there was more to it than Lee Harvey Oswald, and that has evolved. Talk to me about that process.

[Jim Raci]

You're right, Mike. I. Look, nobody approaches a controversial historical subject without some prejudgment. Then you have to find out if you're right or not. So when I started looking into the Kennedy assassination in the early 90s after the Oliver Stone film, my inkling was that maybe the mob had some role in a conspiracy because of Jack Rubies, the nightclub owner from Dallas who murdered Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, 48 hours later in police custody. So you can look at that and not immediately think maybe there's something to that. Are they doing a silencing of the accused assassin? So I went in suspicious, but then you end up following the evidence. And what I returned to my publisher, Random House at the time with was whatever conspiracies might have been brewing against Jack Kennedy. There were people wanted him dead. Lee Oswald wasn't part of any plot. He got up in that window in the place that he worked in Dallas in 1963 for his own warped motivations. My publisher was pretty downcast at first. You know, they let me off for a year, year and a half to look into the case. And I came back and said, you know, the Warren Commission got a lot of things wrong. Ballistics can be updated, there's new evidence. But they got the basic conclusion right, that it was Oswald alone. They said, really? And that's sort of where the evidence takes you.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, I can imagine what that meeting was like when you, when you put that on their desk. Because again, I guess it's it, it's a, it's a theory, it's a conspiracy because it, it's got legs, right? It's. People want to believe that there was something more than just one individual who created such a world shaking event. In looking at the, this upcoming release, you know, hopefully it's a release, a full release of the JFK files. What do you expect to see out of this?

[Jim Raci]

What I'm interested in is I don't think there will be a smoking gun there. By the way, all of these files have been seen before by a government organization in the late 90s, the Assassination Review Board. They then passed 35,000 over the National Archives with some type of redaction, some of them withheld in full. Now we're down to about 3,000 to 3,500. There's not a precise count. That's what everyone wants to see. About 500 of those are full, fully redacted. No one's seen a page of them. But guess what. 499 are tax files. Tax files of Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, the companies that Oswald worked for. So let's get the tax files out there. Then the rest of the documents. There are about 400 that have just a Social Security number redacted of somebody who worked for the Church committee in the 70s or somebody who worked for the Assassination Review Board it by the Congress in the late 70s. If you have a Social Security number and somebody's alive, you can keep it redacted, keep it away from the identity thieves. But for the most part, these files.

[Mike Bacon]

Can be released in full.

[Jim Raci]

And where I think they might show is that your former employer, the CIA knew a little bit more about Oswald's unhinged behavior six weeks before the assassination when he visited the Soviet and Cuban missions in Mexico City. And then the question is, did they do anything with it? And we know the answer to that is not. Do anything means pass it over to the FBI when he came back into the United States. But it's not how they do things.

[Mike Bacon]

Well, yeah, at that point in time, you know, kind of looking at the atmospherics of it all and the interplay between the CIA and FBI, they didn't play well together, you know, back in, in the 60s, 70s, you could argue in the 80s to some degree, in the 90s. So I think you're spot on. Right. And I've talked about this before that. Because there would seem to be. I take your point about a Social Security number. Yes, it always gets redacted. Fine. But it would seem to me that what we're going to see is going to be very unsatisfying for people, but it's going to speak to this idea that Oswald was on the radar from a counterintelligence perspective of the agency, of the CIA. And perhaps, you know, to some degree they had conversation with the FBI. But I think there's an element of, of embarrassment here that shows that they weren't proactive enough to prevent this tragedy from happening.

[Jim Raci]

I think you're absolutely right. As a matter of fact, it's very interesting because the FBI had an open investigation on Oswald. This CIA had him on the radar because he defected the Soviet Union in 1959. It was in the press. He comes back to the United States with a young Russian bride. He's handing out leaflets on the streets of New Orleans just months before he goes to Mexico City trying to get people to join his new pro Castro organization. And what's interesting is I think we have to remember this is the heart of the Cold War. Just a year earlier, we had the Cuban Missile Crisis in which the two superpowers came to a standoff that led us to the edge of World War 3. There are no Cuban diplomatic missions or embassies in the United States. We kicked them all out. The closest one to us, proximity wise, was in Mexico City. So the CIA definitely had eyes on both the Cuban mission and on the Soviets. Now, not many Americans walked into those two missions and asked for a visa to go and join Castro's revolution down in Havana. And now you get a guy who does it who had been a defector to the Soviet Union. And at one point, we know from the KGB agents who saw Oswald at the Soviet mission, who years later told their story. Oswald took out his.38 caliber revolver, slammed it on the desk at one point, when the KGB agents grabbed it, empties it up, its bullets. They have a meeting afterwards in which they view him as sort of, you know, unstable to say the least. The question is, what did the CIA have in terms of ears and eyes on those two embassies? Did we have a human asset inside one or more of them that we had turned? Did we have video surveillance? Did we have audio surveillance? Because afterwards Win Scott, who was the chief for Mexico City for the CIA, said, oh, well, we did catch somebody on video, but it turns out not to be Oswald. And the cameras weren't working all the time. And then when it came to sound recordings, there was a sound recording played for Warren Commission Council, and then later there were none that were ever found. So whatever the Agency had, it did not want to disclose how it had penetrated two of its enemies, the Soviet Union and the Cubans, the middle of the Cold War. So they didn't give any of that or commission.

[Mike Bacon]

Look, I, I, I, I know that this is for people listening, right? This is going to be again, I'll use the word unsatisfying. I, I don't know how many people have approached me or talked to me over the past many years who are certain of how you know he was killed. They just know it. Right? And there's a variety of different theories, but it always involves sort of a, a cabal, whether it's the mob and the agency, whether it's others. Look, Gerald, if you'll stay with us, we've got to take a quick break and then we'll Be right back. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is author Gerald Pozner. He's the author of Case Closed, Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of jfk, and also the author of Killing the Dream, James Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. General, thanks again for sticking around. Very much appreciated. We've got a lot to. To cover here and I don't think we'll be able to do it all in one episode, so I'm roping you into future episodes. Let's pick up on Oswald.

[Jim Renacci]

You.

[Mike Bacon]

You commented in our earlier conversation that he had visited the Soviet Embassy, the, the Cuban Embassy in Mexico. I can almost guarantee you that, yes, he was under surveillance by the Agency. From a counterintelligence perspective, that's exactly what would happen. I don't know to what degree they were sharing information with the FBI, but I do know from my time that sometimes that information sharing was seriously lacking and it certainly would have been worse back in the 60s and 70s when they didn't play well together. From your perspective, what are the chances? I mean, we always talk about, or people who look at this a lot, they, they talk about the mob involvement in this agency, involvement in it. What's the possibility that the Soviets and the Cubans. Because, look, Oswald was desperate to show his value to the revolution, right? I mean, he had an unsatisfactory living experience in St. Petersburg, but he was still keen to prove his worth basically to, to, to the, the Communist leaders. What's the chances that, that they saw that? And while they may have thought, as you pointed out, that he was somewhat unhinged, perhaps they saw him as someone they could turn and they did and, and used him to carry out the assassination. Do you think there's any merit in that?

[Jim Raci]

I think there could be, Mike. On the Cuban end, on, on the Soviet end. The reason I say no is, you know, I was the first journalist to interview Yuri no Senko, the defector who James Jesus Angleton thought was fake. Defector Amy Long interviews. I talked to Neta Parenko, the Costa. The other KGB agents who ended up in Mexico City. Let me tell you, they had watched him when he had defected Oswald. He tried to kill himself. When they told him to leave Russia, they didn't want him there. Then they moved him out to Minsk. They kept all types of surveillance on. They knew he was unstable. And so if they wanted to do an operation that would involve taking a possible hit at the President of the United States, they couldn't trust somebody like him because if it unraveled, that was World War 3. The Cubans on the other hand, were willing to play a little bit more aggressive. And although they may not have said to him, go and try to find a job so you can kill the President, they may have given him some encouragement. That's why I believe everybody is looking at the US files in the National Archives. I'm wondering why we don't call. We have no relations with them. That's why we don't do it. But the Cubans could have information on this. But the others are the Mexicans. We do have a friendly relationship with the Mexican government. Mexican intelligence was watching these embassies as well as well as monitoring the US to see what we were doing. They wanted to make sure that although it was a nest of spies, everybody played by some rules so it wasn't playing out in violence on their, on their soil. So Mexican intelligence files have never been released from this period. They may well have had more intelligence on Oswald during his social time when he was outside the Soviet and Cuban embassies going to these parties where he was with other people than we actually picked up in terms of the American intelligence. So I'd love to see. But the Mexicans have, Yeah, I think.

[Mike Bacon]

That'S an intriguing point. I, I would be somewhat skeptical that they would have much to, to add. I don't know why I say that other than, I just think given that time period, I don't know that they had the capabilities from a intel service. But I, I think it's, it's definitely worth pursuing like everything else, right? I mean everything's speculation until we see everything that's out there. Which is one of the reasons I'm hoping this is a full release the remaining material for, for jfk. But with Oswal, let's, I, I, I, I want to keep kind of digging into this, right, because again there's this, this notion that, that, that there were forces at play and typically those forces of the mob and, and, and the agency, the CIA. Talk to me a little bit about one thing that always kind of stands out, which is how interesting an individual, if it was just Oswald, one individual goes out there and kills Kennedy and then one individual, Jack Ruby, makes his way in, gets close access and kills Oswald. So talk to me about Jack Ruby and, and what you, what your insight provides to us.

[Jim Raci]

Yeah, I mean Ruby's one of the, the major reasons, you know, that not only I was suspicious in the beginning, but a lot of people from the get go just say there has to be Something more of this when you actually investigate Ruby. I have more on a mid, I think in the book than anybody had published at that time. Sort of following him from before the assassination through every minute afterwards. He's really a guy who's a wannabe mobster. He's not a made man, he's not part of the mob. But he wants to be a tough guy. He throws people. He's his own bouncer at his club, his nightclub. He throws people out. He pulls a gun on him once in a while. And in Jack Ruby's world, this guy Oswald had killed the President of the United States and Ruby. When he gets the opportunity on a Sunday, he walks down the street and they're about to bring Oswald out and transfer him from the Dallas police over to the sheriff, he sees this rampway, walks down and when he pulls his gun out and kills Oswald, it's almost the spur of the moment. He thinks the people are going to clap him on the back and say, jack, you did the right thing. You cleaned the stain from the Dallas you. You that made the guy who killed the President. And when he's tackled by the cops, Mike, he says, hey, you know me. It's Jack. It's Jack. All the cops know him because they used to hang out at his club. He thinks he's going to get at the most what's called murder without malice. State Texas charge in the 1960s, maximum sentence five years, sort of like a manslaughter charge. He's stunned when he gets convicted of murder. You know, one last thing on Oswald, by the way, when you talk about, you know, being part of a. How he could have been. He took a bus ride down to Mexico City. That's how he got there. Three different buses takes him overnight. When he's traveling to Mexico City. Six weeks before the assassination, September 26th and 27th, that's when the White House puts out a notice for the first time that Kennedy is going to be visiting Texas in November. So every idea for a plot or time and place could not have happened before that announcement from the White House. Then Oswald tries to get to Cuba. He's rejected. A week and a half later, he comes back into Texas. So you have to look for a group, whether you want to say it's the mob, the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, whoever, they have to bring him into a plot. There's only a month and a half when he's in Dallas before that assassination. That's what I always challenge everybody to do. Show me a scrap of address. Show Me, something credible, a telephone call person, somebody reaching out to him. It's not like today when you can send a text, send a social media or direct message. You had to have some type of contact. So very narrow window. And that's where it really falls down, where you just can't find Oswald in contact with anybody other than his Russian wife and his friends were hosting her out in urban Texas.

[Mike Bacon]

Okay, that's, it's, it's, it's a very valid point. I, I know right now there's a lot of people watching this and, and throwing things at the, at the TV because it's, it's, you know, it's never going to be settled. My argument with the release of the documents is always the same, which is, okay, they got to release them, but don't imagine somehow that it's going to put all of this to rest because again, as you pointed out earlier on, there's, I don't think there's going to be a smoking gun. Let's, let's pivot real quick to Martin Luther King, because I've been fascinated with that assassination of MLK for some time. And, and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I, I usually have found over the years in terms of investigations, that once you do get the evidence in front of you, once you do find information, that tends to be a relatively straightforward answer. And oftentimes life's not as complicated as we might imagine. But with mlk, it's a little bit different. And I've thought for some time now that there's more here. And by that, I mean there are other factors at play now with James Earl Ray, you, how do you, how do you square this loop?

[Jim Raci]

Right.

[Mike Bacon]

How do you say that this was the act of an individual who couldn't even keep himself out of jail for petty crimes? Somehow he ends up looking like a university professor after dusting himself off or kind of going off the radar for a period of time. Then he ends up in, in Europe, where he gets arrested eventually. Talk to me about, about the MLK situation and what your perspective is on that.

[Jim Raci]

Yeah. So, you know, it's interesting, by the way, because, you know, Oswald, when he killed Kennedy, was just turned 24 years old. We forget how young he was. And often, as you know, the people in their 20s might grow out of that feeling that they want to change the world through a bullet. And in their 50s, if it didn't happen, it might just be sitting around and watching all reruns on TV. Ray was 40. He was a year older than Martin Luther King. It's unusual all of a sudden at 40, to turn yourself on, to become an assassin. And I believe that Ray is more of an enigma, tougher case to solve. In the end, I'm convinced that Ray would have gone to prison and only stayed silent for one reason. That was to protect family. No one else. He would have turned anyone else in. He had two brothers who were also ex cons, and I think that they were looking for a payday out of a racist lawyer in St. Louis who was offering up to a $50,000 bounty. Doesn't sound like a lot to kill Martin Luther King Jr. When you think of what a life is worth. But for the raise, that was like hitting a lottery ticket. And Ray thought it was possible. And what was his goal? His goal was to get to Whiterun, Rhodesia or South Africa afterwards, because he knew, he thought he would have some safe haven there. So if you follow it, it's a small kitchen conspiracy. It is for money. And in the end, it's wider. But when I tell that to people or they read the book, they're disappointed, Mike, because when I say conspiracy, they want a deep state conspiracy. They want a conspiracy with Jake over behind a fence in a dress, shooting at Martin Luther King or something like that. They don't want the shorter story of, you know, an assassin doing it for payday.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, look, nobody wants J. Edgar Hoover in a dress. That's. That's. I, you know, thank you for that visual and all the viewers of the situation report, thank you for that visual. So. So you think essentially it was a. The act of an individual in a sense, right? It was. It was him going after this bounty as opposed to the involvement of the feds in any way.

[Jim Raci]

Yeah. And as a. Well, as a matter of fact, the feds were down the street that day in terms of Army Intelligence, FBI, the security divisions that were down the street in a firehouse not far. They had visuals on where King was staying at the hotel at the Lorraine Motel, but they weren't there to protect him. They were there to spy on him, as you know. And one of the interesting things I don't know if Trump was aware of when he signed the executive order that said, let's release the MLK files as well. MLK's family came out and said, we'd like to see the files beforehand. The reason they said that is in the late 70s, when the house Select Committee finished its work, the Black Caucus was the one that said, we don't want everything out because in those files are FBI surveillance tapes that were illegally obtained on King's private life, audio tapes and video recordings to show that he was a philanderer. J. Edgar over intended to embarrass him and disgrace him in public. So that material is in the files, clearly has nothing to do with the assassination and it should not be made public.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, I agree with the first part. I agree with the concept that the reason why they're concerned and likely what we'll learn from the release of those files are all sort of the atmospherics and the result of all that wiretapping and the surveillance that was going on on Martin Luther King. And so I understand why the family would be pushing back and saying, we want to see everything before you release it to the public. You know, I would, I would say this is, I think if we have another situation here. Look, it was, what was it, 2017 when President Trump said, let's, let's review. And then it turns out that he did keep things still classified. I think we go through that route again this time around, and there's, there's material that's held back. I, I don't even know how you, how do you explain that? Right. And if, and more the point, you would have to explain it. You would have to do a better job as a government to say, this is why after all this time, we are not releasing these pages or this material.

[Jim Raci]

You know, you're right. They put themselves into a corner on this because, I mean, you may have a different view of this, but one of the reasons. There are a number of reasons I don't think Pompeo is in Trump 2.0 is because Trump feels a little bit had on the fact that it was. Pompeo argued very, very well when he was running the CIA that some of the documents in 2017 on the Kennedy assassination should still be withheld for confidentiality reasons.

[Mike Bacon]

Any idea or insight or thought as to why that was the case? Why fight, you know, to keep these things classified? It can't just be because, you know, they don't want to release some Social Security numbers. Right. I mean, and if that's the case, we can say, you see that line right there? That's a Social Security number that we've redacted. So, so what is it from your perspective? Right, because everybody's got crazy ideas about why they're not releasing this material or what they would expect to find if they saw it.

[Jim Raci]

So you asked such a great question, and the answer is so unsatisfying. I'll give you just one quick Example, one of the things that I and others who have studied the assassination of Wanted for years was Angleton's testimony is before the church committee in 75. They had redacted large portions of that. Then they released some of it in 2017, some in 2018, some in 2022. So still Pompeo and others are saying there are parts of this that cannot be released and redacted. In 2023, we finally got the entire thing. And Mike, guess what? I happy like to send these to you. But you know what they actually are with acting? They're redacting the fact that the Romanian defectors defected to the Norwegians and apparently exposed a great deal of the intelligence activity of Romania against Norway. And then there are words that are redacted. For instance, on another page, we passed it along to the French. It was taken by two sources too. And here's the new words. French counterintelligence. It very clearly showed that redacted Romanian and Soviet services. And this is, I say to myself, you were fighting to keep this secret after 60 years when people look at it and think that you're hiding some secret about who killed Kennedy, that's crazy. And in my view, they over classified in these instances and then they held onto those classifications too long.

[Mike Bacon]

Well, that's been the history of, frankly of intelligence operations is overclassification. Right? I mean, that's just, you throw out a big net because, you know, okay, it's a human, you know, instinct. I think you want to, you want to be more protective than not. Right? You don't want to make a mistake. And so you tend to over classify. But it has been a problem and it's been a problem for decades. And, and so I think going into this, if they don't do a full, full release and just say, here you go, is everything. Because again, I don't believe there's a smoking gun in any of those files, RFK included. But I think it, I'm get that out there. Look, we've got a, we've got a lot more. I've got a book here with all my questions for you and we haven't gotten through 50% of them. So that means you got to come back, Gerald.

[Jim Raci]

No matter what the files show, you're going to get RFK Jr asking Trump to form some type of commission to look for files elsewhere. So if there's no smoking gun in the files that are released, not going to stop those who really believe that their government killed these political leaders and civic leaders, they're going to keep looking elsewhere. And so I just don't think that all of a sudden it's over. No matter. Even if the release turns out to be very, very mundane.

[Mike Bacon]

Yeah, no, I said this is not putting anything to bed. But I think it's time to get it all on the table. And then, yes, if there's other avenues to investigate, by all means, let's do it. Right. But anyhow, listen, Gerald, pause me. Thank you so much, man, for taking the time. And I hope you'll come back next time we call. Well, that's all the time we have for the PDB situation report for this weekend. If you have any questions or comments, you know what to do with them, right? Fax them to me or write them on a postcard and mail them to me or just email them or text, whatever. Or you could reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com because every month we, we take some of your best questions and comments and there's a lot of good ones in there. And we, we, we mush them all together into what we call our Ask me anything episodes. And keep it within reason. All right? Polite questions only or comments to listen to the podcast of this show ad free. Well, it's simple. Become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com. it couldn't be any simpler. I'm Mike Baker and until next time. Well, you know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.