The David Pakman Show - 6/21/23: Trump incriminates himself, Biden shouldn't pardon him

Episode Date: June 21, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Producer Pat Ford fills in for David -- Donald Trump admits to multiple crimes during his Fox News interview with Bret Baier -- Hunter Biden accepts a plea deal in his case regarding tax crimes and a gun charge -- Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr calls his former boss a "consummate narcissist" who puts "his own ego above everything else" -- Why Joe Biden should not pardon Donald Trump -- Republican presidential candidates Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson take issue with the RNC's pledge to support the party's eventual nominee -- Ron DeSantis says he wishes he was one of Jesus's disciples -- On the Bonus Show: Republican approval of same-sex marriage plummets, Elon Musk on Biden's plan to tax the rich, and much more... 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get 25% OFF with code PAKMAN at https://www.ounceofhope.com/ 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman 📖 Buy the book “Confessions of an Indian Immigrant” at https://davidpakman.com/confessions ✅ Parcil Safety: Get 25% off with code PAKMAN at https://davidpakman.com/safety 💻 Get Private Internet Access for 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/David 🏠 Watch David’s “Replace Your Mortgage” interview at https://replaceyouruniversity.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Hey everyone, welcome to the David Pakman Show. I'm producer Pat Ford filling in for David today as he is traveling in California. We're going to have guest hosts for the remainder of the week. So some pretty big news on the Donald Trump indictment front happened over the weekend. Donald Trump was interviewed by Brett Baier on Fox News, and he couldn't get through the 20 minute or so exchange without incriminating himself multiple times, admitting to doing the very things that he's been accused of in this federal indictment. Donald Trump has been doing media interviews. He's been doing these rallies wherein he talks about the criminal charges and basically admits to the fact that he had these classified documents in his possession and obstructed justice thereafter.

This is, of course, a terrible idea for any criminal defendant. Any counsel, defense lawyers would advise you not to speak about the case. But what he's been doing really is giving himself more and more rope to hang himself with. And that's because generally speaking, the prosecution can use such statements that you make in the media to establish your guilt or to try to undermine your defense arguments. And legally, it can get more complicated, of course, because you get into a conversation about what is and what isn't admissible in court, what does and what doesn't qualify as hearsay. But there's a strong case that these media interviews, like the one we're about to look at, by Trump will end up being used as exhibits in his upcoming trial. So the bottom line is, told Donald Trump to stay silent on this matter, he would disregard them thinking that he was smarter than all of them.

And then MAGA would use that as justification to vote for him because they would think that that's some sort of qualification for being president, even though that would actually make him the worst possible choice to be president. Zeroing in on the most damaging things that Donald Trump said during this interview, Trump admits to taking the documents down to Mar-a-Lago with him and that he had these boxes of documents in his possession, that they were interspersed with his personal possessions. And this is all going to the charge of willful retention of national defense information. He's admitting to the whole thing here. Let's take a look at the clip. Why did you have this very sensitive national security defense documents, like the war plans for a strike on Iran? So like every other president, I take things out.

And in my case, I took it out pretty much in a hurry, but people packed it up and we left. And I had clothing in there. I had all sorts of personal items in there, much, much stuff. I have every right to have those boxes. This is purely a Presidential Records Act. This is not a criminal thing. In fact, the New York Times, of all, had a story just the other day that the only way NARA could ever get this stuff, this back, would be, please, please, please, could we have it back? And they asked for that. Because they have no... They did ask for it.

No, and I gave them some, and we were talking. And then they said they went to DOJ to subpoena you to get them back. Which they've never done before. But why not just hand them over then? Because I had boxes. I want to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out. I don't want to hand that over to Nara yet. And I was very busy, as you've sort of seen.

Yeah, but according to the indictment, you then tell this aide to move to other locations after telling your lawyers to say you'd fully complied with the subpoena when you hadn't. But before I send boxes over, I have to take all of my things out. These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things. Golf shirts, clothing, pants, shoes. There were many things.

I would say much, much more. Not that I know of, but not that I know of. So it's hard not to laugh when Trump is talking about his golf shirts and his shoes that he had to take out before sending the boxes back from NARA. But I think that the key takeaway from the entire statement here is that he does admit to taking the documents. He admits that he was in contact with NARA about sending them back. And his defense was essentially that he was too busy. He didn't have time to get around to it, even though he was subpoenaed in this case. And once you receive a subpoena, you're supposed to realize, oh,

this is actually serious. If the fact that you were in contact with authorities before the subpoena wasn't enough of a message to take this thing seriously, the subpoena should have done it for you. But he decided to continue to ignore it and to have his lawyers lie to the authorities about what exactly he had in his possession. Remember that key in this case is the charge of willful retention of national defense information. That's what 31 of the 37 counts hinge on. And he's saying, yeah, I did it. It wouldn't matter if his golf shirts were also in there or if they weren't in there or if he had time to get around to it or if he didn't have time to get around to it, he seems to be guilty of these crimes. Now let's move on to the audio

tape. This is something that prosecutors have in their possession, tape of Donald Trump while he's showing a guest of his who presumably doesn't have a security clearance, classified material, and he admits that he could have declassified it while he was president, but he didn't. And now he doesn't have the authority to do so anymore. So therefore it is still classified. Trump's arguments surrounding his right to have these documents depend on him saying that he could have declassified whatever he wanted to as president telepathically even, right? Well, this isn't true because we've heard from experts about this. There's this process that you have to go through to declassify information, particularly when it comes to things like nuclear secrets and other top level confidential information that the government

has. But even if it was true, this tape that prosecutors have completely undermines the argument. Right. Because we know for sure that Donald Trump didn't even attempt to declassify the documents by declaration telepathically or otherwise. And now he can't because he's no longer president. He admits to this. So this is among the strongest pieces of evidence that the prosecution has. It's really what could end up doing him in. And Trump is doing himself no favors by talking about this very specific piece of information, of evidence that the prosecution has.

And he provides just the absolute worst defense that anyone could possibly come up with, falling right into the trap of talking about it because Brett Baier happened to bring it up. According to the indictment, you were here at Bedminster on July 21st, 2021, after you're no longer president. And you were recorded saying that you had a document detailing a plan of attack on another country that was prepared by the u.s military for you when you were president the iran attack plan you remember that ready you were recorded in a document okay i had lots of paper i had copies of newspaper articles i had copies of magazines

this is specifically a quote you're quoted on the recording saying the document was secret, adding that you could have declassified it while you were president, but quote, now I can't. You know this is still secret, highly confidential. And the indictment cites the recording and the testimony from people in the room saying you showed it to people there that day. So you say on this, on tape- It says just the opposite. That you can't declassify it, so why have it?

What I said, what I said that I couldn't declassify so why have it when i said when i said that i couldn't declassify it now that's because i wasn't president i i never made any bones about that when i'm not president i can't declassify that's what you said you didn't declassify i said no no i said i couldn't do it but that wasn't a document brett there was no document that was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document. I didn't have a document per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories, and articles. I'm just saying what the indictment said. Trump does not deny that the recording exists or that the conversation happened, which is interesting because I've been hearing in many right wing circles on right wing programs that the audio tape was clearly artificial intelligence. They can't come up with any sort of reasonable excuse for why Trump would be saying this. So they're saying, OK, it must have been a deep fake.

You can do a lot with AI these days. But Donald Trump himself is not using that excuse. Right. He's not even disputing the fact that the conversation took place. He's disputing what the conversation was about, but he's not disputing that it happened or that that was him in that conversation. So we can put to bed now this weak excuse that the right has come up with that that must have been AI and not actually Trump on the recording. Furthermore, Trump says that these weren't documents that he was showing his guests, but instead they were newspaper clippings and articles. And I don't know how

Brett Baier didn't pick up on this in real time, but this is a totally nonsensical statement, right? How could newspaper clippings and articles be considered government classified documents? By their very definition, newspaper clippings and articles are meant for public consumption, whereas government secrets are kept as these private documents. And Donald Trump says on the tape, it's classified. I'm not supposed to be showing you this. So Donald Trump really just digging himself his own grave. And he's had plenty of time to come up with a proper defense when it comes to the audio tape specifically. That's the most damaging piece of evidence seemingly against him. And this is all he can do, just kind of stumble around.

And again, all of this stuff can be used against him in court, presumably. So obviously this is a unique case. I don't think he's going to take a plea deal or anything like this because he has to show that he's a true fighter. But with all this stuff and with all the damaging things that he's said to the media, all the times that he's implicated himself, that would be the best course of action for him. He's not going to go through with that. Most likely he's going to go to trial. And I'm sure he's banking on the fact that he has this right wing judge that he appointed presiding over the case and the possibility that because the trial is being held in South Florida, there'll be enough Trumpists on the jury to get him the not guilty verdict or maybe give him a hung jury. I think that's what he's trying to do here.

And I understand how he feels as if he has to talk about the case because of the politics of it, because he's running for president again and he has to look like a fighter. But it's just not good strategically from a criminal prosecution standpoint if you're trying to stay out of prison. And one more clip I wanted to show you from this Brett Baier interview. Brett Baier talked about how Trump has to bring new voters into his camp in order to defeat Biden in 2024. And so Brett Baier asked the question, if you're speaking one-one to an independent voter, how are you going to convince them to vote for you in 2024 if they didn't vote for you in 2020? And without missing a step, Donald Trump goes right into conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. The question

wasn't even about the 2020 election specifically and whether Trump won or lost, but Trump has to jump right in and say that he actually won the election, even though this was not being disputed at the time by Brett Baer. So let's take a look at this. And so to the female independent voter in the suburbs who struggled with family financing because of inflation,

she's now against Biden, disapproves of Biden, but wasn't with you in 2020. And so far is a hard no for you in 2024. But what do you say to that? You're not looking at the right polls. What do you say to that female independent suburban voter who feels that way, to win her back? First of all, I won in 2020 by a lot, okay?

Let's get that straight. I won in 2020. You know that this- And if you look at all of the tapes, if you look at everything that you want to look at, you take a look at Truth to Vote, where they have people stuffing the ballot boxes on tapes or let's go to recent. Wait a minute. Let's go to recent FBI Twitter. Let's go to recent. The 51 agents, all corrupt stuff. Understand about the election. But that's cheating on the election. You lost the 2020 election. Brad, you take a look at all of the stuffed ballots.

You take a look at all of the things, including things like the 51 intelligence agents. There were recounts in all of the swing states. There was not significant widespread corruption. We're trying to get recounts, real recounts. There were investigations of widespread corruption. There was not a sense of that. There were lawsuits, more than 50 of them, by your lawyers, some in front of judges, judges that you appointed. Look at Wisconsin. That came out with no evidence. Wisconsin is practically admitted it was rigged. Other states are doing

the same right now, and it's continuing. There have been reviews of every potential case of voter fraud in six battleground states, and they found fewer than 475 cases. You know why? Because they didn't look at the right things. Okay, are you going to be- They were counting ballots, not the authenticity of the ballot. The ballots were fake ballots. You had, this was a very rigged election. Are you going to go, this is how you're going to tell that independent suburban woman voter to vote for you? No, no, no, we're off to winning an election, and I think we're winning very well.

I got a poll just recently, I have it here. I'd show you. Okay, so it's not even worth going through Donald Trump's claims there one by one. We've done that ad nauseum over the years, and Brett Baier does a decent job at fact-checking him in real time. But I thought that Baier especially did well at the end there by emphasizing the fact that his question was about how do you win over an undecided female independent voter who didn't vote for you in 2020. And your response has been to complain about voter fraud, even though the public is tired of hearing about this issue. It's not a winning issue for you. It's not a voting issue for people, independents especially. It's not policy. You're not being convincing when you talk about this. It's uninspiring. And then Trump tries to course correct. But instead of doing it in the standard

way of talking about, you know, the normal policy issues, the economy, the border guns, even culture war stuff, if you want to get into it. Instead, he diverts into talking about how he's winning in all the polls. So people should vote for him because he's winning. Like, how does this add up? How does this follow logically? So Trump's appeal to the independent voter who didn't vote for him in 2020 is number one, the election was rigged in 2020 and it was unfairly stolen for me. Therefore, I deserve another term. And number two, I'm winning in the polls already. So you should vote for me because I'm winning. So I got to say this guy doesn't look like his normal self. He seems a little bit rattled. I'm sure he's worried about the possibility of

serving time in prison. I'm sure he's worried about the possibility of not winning an election again because it devastated him so much the last time that happened. Maybe I'm looking too much into the body language. Maybe I'm looking too much into the facial expressions. But to me, this seems like a very concerned man who doesn't have the poise and the confidence that he normally does. That's Donald Trump for you right now. Not feeling his best, I got to say, and not getting the best end of this exchange with Brett Baier. All right, we're going to go to a break now. We'll be back with much more of the David Pakman show on the other side. don't. And it can really impact how you feel. Our sponsor, Athletic Greens, makes it super easy. I mix one scoop of AG1 from Athletic Greens into water. It tastes great. I get all of the high

quality vitamins and minerals I need from whole food sourced ingredients. I don't have to fumble around with bottles, capsules, individual vitamins and things like that. I just don't have the time. You should see what's going on at my house. AG1 simplifies everything. I'm covering my nutritional bases for the entire day. Super easy, easy to stick to as well and dramatically more cost effective than getting all of these different vitamin supplements. Go to athletic greens dot com slash Pacman for a free year supply of vitamin D. I've talked about vitamin D many times, plus five free AG one travel packs. That's athletic greens dot com slash Pacman for a year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs. The link is in the podcast notes. In the middle of the A.I. craze of today, it's easy to forget the beginning years of the I.T. industry. Let me take you back to

1989. Imagine living in a world without the Internet and without mobile phones. Forget about smartphones. The I.T. business in India was in its infancy. One of the largest Indian I.T. companies, Infosys, was just starting offshore projects. Our sponsor, Ithal, is promoting his new nonfiction book called Confessions of an Indian Immigrant, Dawn of I.T. opportunities in the land of promise. It really takes us down memory lane, narrating his experiences, immigrating from Mumbai to New York and the culture shock. A company headquartered in New York hired him and it had given its first project to Infosys, which is now this multibillion dollar company with thousands of employees. And as the title suggests, the confessions.

The link is in the podcast notes. Welcome back to the David Pakman show. I'm producer Pat Ford filling in for David today while he's away. Some pretty big news broke yesterday, which is that Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has reached a tentative agreement with federal prosecutors to plead guilty to two minor tax charges and to admit to the facts of a gun charge. The plea deal will likely keep Hunter Biden out of jail, and it's subject to approval by a federal judge, which is likely going to happen. The proposed deal includes pleading guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges for failures to pay taxes in 2017 and 2018 with a combined liability of approximately $1.2 million. Prosecutors are going to recommend probation for the tax charges. And then the gun charge is going to be handled as a diversion case where

Hunter will be able to technically not have to plead guilty to the crime. And he'll be able to do so if he successfully meets the measures outlined in the diversion program the gun charge will ultimately likely be removed from his record so hunter biden's gun charge stems from a false statement that he made on paperwork while he was purchasing a gun he denied drug use or having a drug problem when in fact that wasn't true. Lying on gun purchase forms is only a small percentage of firearm related prosecutions and typically it's tacked on as a secondary offense and that seems to be what happened here. Hunter Biden's lawyer stated that he takes responsibility for the tax mistakes made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his

life. The full statement from his lawyer, Chris Clark, was, quote, Hunter will take responsibility for two instances of failure to file tax payments when due a firearm charge, which will be subject to a pretrial diversion agreement and will not be the subject of the plea agreement will also be filed by the government. I know Hunter believes it is important to take responsibility for these mistakes he made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his life. He looks forward to continuing his recovery and moving forward. The White House, for its part, has expressed support for Hunter Biden, stating that the president and the first lady love their son and support his efforts to rebuild his life. So I hear all this information and I think that, all right,

it looks like justice has been served. Hunter Biden clearly did some stuff wrong and he appears to have committed some crimes here. He didn't pay taxes that he owes to the federal government. That effectively is stealing from the rest of us. And so he should have to pay his fair share, just like anybody else. He did lie while going through the process of obtaining a weapon. And you can't say that you're not using drugs when going through that process when you actually are at the time. You may disagree about whether that should be illegal or not, but the law says that it is currently. And so sure, he should be held accountable for it. And I think that the correct agreement was ultimately reached here. He takes the plea deal. He gets a slap on the wrist with the probation. He doesn't have to go to jail or

anything like that. It doesn't seem to me like these amount to jail worthy crimes anyway. We can end it now, right? This is really not all that hard. And I don't look at this case and think, I have to defend Hunter Biden at all costs. I really don't care about Hunter Biden, right? I apply the same standard when it comes to anyone facing criminal charges. Right. Whether it's Trump, whether it's Biden, Hillary, whoever. If there's something to investigate, you should investigate. If there's something to charge, then you should charge. If it can be proven in court, then go ahead and prove it. And ultimately, if a sentence is warranted, whether that be sending someone to prison or otherwise, then sentence them appropriately. But with the MAGA folks, they pretend as though Hunter Biden this whole time has been like Al Capone or Charles Manson, when in reality, these are pretty minor charges. And at the same time, they defend Donald Trump, no matter what, when he's accused of keeping the nation's top secrets in his bathroom at Mar-a-Lago that anyone can just stumble upon if they knew their way around the resort. And he,

of course, refused to give the documents back after months and months of the National Archives asking. And that's just one of the multiple criminal investigations and now criminal prosecutions that Donald Trump is dealing with. Also relevant to this is the fact that Donald Trump was actually president and wants to be president again, whereas Hunter Biden, I hate to break it to you, but he's actually not the president. He just so happens to be related to the current president. He is the son of the president, but that doesn't mean that he is the president. He doesn't even work in his father's administration.

We've, of course, discussed this ad nauseum. But I suppose the question now is, how is the Republican Party going to react to the news of Hunter Biden taking this plea deal? Because they can do a couple of things, right? They can either act triumphant and say, look, he's technically pleaded guilty. So it proves that the Biden crime family narrative we've been pushing this entire time is true. It shows how Joe Biden, by extension, is unfit to be president or something like that. Or on the other hand, they could take the approach of saying, look how the prosecutors in this case treated Hunter Biden with kid gloves and they let him go free, not sending him to jail. Even though this is a very standard plea deal and Trump has had plenty of opportunities to cooperate with investigators, and it will probably be offered plea deals as well.

I just don't think he's going to take them. So in reality, the right-wing media is probably going to do a mix of both when talking about this Hunter story, depending on whatever serves them best at the time. But I do believe ultimately this is the best outcome for this case. Bill Barr, Donald Trump's former attorney general, continues to attack his former boss. You may remember that last week Bill Barr commented on the indictment having to do with the alleged mishandling of classified documents. When he went on Fox News Sunday and said that if even half of the indictment is true, then Trump is toast. He also rebuked Trump's legal team's claims that the matter

should fall under the Presidential Records Act rather than the Espionage Act. In full, Bill Barr said that if even half of it is true, then he is toast. I mean, it's a pretty, it's a very detailed indictment, and it's very, very damning. And these were big statements, of course, because of who they were coming from, the top prosecutor in the Trump administration for a time, Bill Barr. Trump then responded to Bill Barr's statements by calling him a gutless pig. Well, fast forward to this weekend, this past weekend, when Bill Barr was on Face the Nation on CBS and Barr is actually stepping up the criticism. He's not backing down. He's now calling Trump a consummate narcissist who will put his own interests, his own ego above everything else. He also calls Trump a defiant nine-year-old kid and a fundamentally flawed person who engages in reckless conduct.

So there's a couple of clips I want to play for you from this interview. The first has to do with the legal arguments. Barr decimates the idea that Trump had the right to take the records under the Presidential Records Act and could simply unilaterally declassify them without going through a process telepathically or otherwise. Bill Barr says that he had absolutely no right to do that and he had no right to possess the documents. The legal theory by which he gets to take battle plans and sensitive national security information as his personal papers is absurd. It's just as wacky as the legal doctrine they came up with for having the vice president unilaterally determine who won the election. The whole purpose of the statute, the Presidential Records Act, was to stop presidents from taking official documents out of the White House. It was passed after Watergate.

That's the whole purpose of it. And therefore, it restricted what a president can take. It says it's purely private, that had nothing to do with the deliberations of government policy. Obviously, these documents are not purely private. It's obvious. And they're not even now arguing that it's purely private. What they're saying is the president just has sweeping discretion to say they are, even though they squarely don't fall within the definition. It's an absurd argument. So Barr says it, the Presidential Records Act was meant to restrict

the rights of presidents, not to grant them immunity or give them more power. And it's not even relevant to this case because this has to do with national secrets, not just Trump's daily diary or anything innocuous. So it's not something that would fall under the Presidential Records Act. This falls under the Espionage Act. And then we get into the fun part. This is when Bill Barr talks about the possibility of Trump becoming the nominee and becoming president again and the impact that that would have on the country. Let's take a look at this. Trump has, you know, has many good qualities and he accomplished some good things. But the fact of the matter is he is a consummate narcissist and he constantly engages

in reckless conduct that that puts his political followers at risk and the conservative and Republican agenda at risk. Would he put the country at risk if he was in the White House again? He will always put his own interests and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country's interests. There's no question about it. This is a perfect example of that. He's like a nine-year-old, defiant nine-year-old kid who's always pushing the glass toward the edge of the table, defying his parents to stop him from doing it. It's a means of self-assertion and exerting his dominance over other people. And he's a very petty individual who will always put his interests ahead of the country's his personal gratification of his, you know, of his ego. But our country, our country can't, you know, can't be a therapy session for,

you know, a troubled man like this. Blistering words there from Bill Barr. But let's put it all into perspective. Barr was also critical of Donald Trump when it came to January 6th and the allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election. He famously would not go along with the plan to try to overturn the election results. And he resigned a few weeks before the end of the Trump administration. But then he was asked if he'd vote for Trump over a Democrat. And he actually said, yes, that the threat of Donald Trump is not greater than the threat of a progressive being put into power. So Barr believes that Trump is like a nine-year-old child. He believes that he's a consummate narcissist. He believes that he's someone who puts his own interests in front

of the country, someone who is wrong on the law, wrong on the morals, someone who is presumably guilty of crimes. And yet Barr thinks that that guy is a better vote than boring old Joe Biden or someone else who is in the Democratic Party because of, I don't know, socialism or inflation or something like that. So I believe it's useful to bring up Bill Barr's statements when arguing these issues specifically with Trump supporters, because if you're in a discussion about classified documents and you can effectively bring up someone who worked in the Trump administration to rebuke Trump's own talking points, I think that that can actually maybe get you somewhere,

right? Because this is someone who actually was an ally of Trump who is just not willing to stand with him when it comes to this very issue. But that doesn't mean that we're rehabilitating William Barr here. It doesn't mean that we can point to him as someone who is morally upstanding and right about other things. It's really just like the same analysis that we have when it comes to George W. Bush, because Bush from time to time will criticize Donald Trump. And we acknowledge that Bush is capable of making coherent points when it comes to the damage that Donald Trump is doing to the country while not overlooking the damage that George W. Bush did to the country when it comes to the needless wars, when it comes to the war criminality and everything else that he did during his eight years.

So that's Bill Barr for you. Absolutely. He's no hero or anything like that. But he is someone that maybe you can bring up when it comes to this conversation about mishandling of classified documents. The fact that even Trump's own former AG is not standing by him when it comes to this issue. Let's go to a break and we'll be back with much more of the David Pakman show right after this. One of our sponsors today is Ounce of Hope, giving you 20 percent off. Ounce of Hope is a farm that delivers high quality cannabis products right to your door, including CBD, Delta eight THC and Delta nine THC. Unlike other companies selling these products, they do all of the THC extraction themselves. You know the safety and the quality of the product. They're top notch when you open the box. They're psychoactive. THC products do give you the effect we associate with marijuana, but their THC products do give you the effect we associate with marijuana, but

their THC products are derived from hemp, which means it's federally legal and they can ship it anywhere in the United States. There are so many cool things about this company. Ounce of Hope is an aquaponics cannabis farm, meaning they sustainably raise fish, use the water from the fish habitat, the fish poop to feed to the cannabis plants as fertilizer, completely organic. And then Ounce of Hope donates the fish to local homeless shelters and donate the extra fish poop as fertilizer to local farms and gardens. This is a small indoor farm. The focus is sustainability, giving back to the community. And they support the work

we do at The David Pakman Show. So support them. You'll get 20 percent off all of their high quality CBD and THC products when you go to ounce of hope dot com and use the code Pakman. That's O-U-N-C-E of hope dot com. Use code Pakman at checkout for 20 percent off. The info is in the podcast notes. Whether you're a carpenter, painter or just want to be prepared for emergencies, if you need a gas mask or respirator, go to our sponsor, Parcel Safety. As many of you know, I'm into emergency preparedness, not crazy prepping, but I want to have some food stored, some supplies. I've talked about water and multiple respirators are part of that because it's just a staple of being prepared.

Respirator sales have been way up in recent years. Natural disasters, wildfires, polluted air, chemical plant accidents, unrest of different kinds, militarized police, all sorts of different reasons. You never know when a respirator or a gas mask from Parcel Safety might come in handy, and it could be when you least expect it. Parcel Safety respirators are also perfect for professionals, contractors, painters, people doing DIY projects at home. All of Parcel Safety's respirators come with a one year manufacturer's warranty. Every respirator or gas mask comes with a filter, competitive prices, large discounts for

organizations and outstanding customer service. To be totally honest, I've said before I'm using these for changing baby diapers. People think I'm kidding and then they come visit me and I really am not. It actually is very useful to other parents out there. I do recommend it. Go to David Pakman dot com slash safety. Use the code Pacman for 25 percent off your first order. That's David Pakman dot com slash safety code. Pacman saves you 25 percent.

The info is in the podcast notes. With Donald Trump getting federally indicted, there have been a number of people coming out of the woodwork to make the case that the best thing for the country right now would be for President Joe Biden to step in and pardon Donald Trump for the crimes that he's accused of. The arguments tend to center around this idea of healing the country or assuring people that the Department of Justice and law enforcement in this country apply the law equally and they're not operating in any sort of political fashion. There have been a number of people in media making this case, and I came across this

one op-ed in The Hill I wanted to rebut having to do with this topic. It's called the nine reasons Biden should pardon Trump. It's written by Chip Muir. So I thought it would be good to go through these arguments one by one to go through all of Chip's nine points and see if any of these arguments are convincing. So reason number one that Chip provides is that first historical precedence in the aftermath of Watergate suggests that a pardon would be the best outcome for the nation on August 9th 1974 President Nixon resigned the presidency in the wake of Watergate one on September 8th President Gerald Ford pardoned him the gesture curtailed the acrimony of over continued Watergate fallout and started the process of moving forward though Nixon felt he was innocent of criminal conduct and should not have to accept a pardon, the pardon ended his legal jeopardy and allowed him to acknowledge he should have

handled the situation better. In either case, a humbling yet gracious lifeline allowed America to move forward. Well, just because it happened once before that one president pardoned another, that doesn't mean that it has to happen again. And it certainly doesn't mean that it was the right move. It doesn't mean that it was right for Ford to do so. And also you have to remember that Ford and Nixon were in the same party. Ford was, of course, Nixon's VP for a time. So there was a political reason to pardon as well to protect the interests of the Republican Party at the time. Now, you can make the case that the pardon did allow the country to heal from Watergate and move forward. But I would argue that we would also have had that healing had Nixon been charged and gone through the criminal process,

whether he was found guilty or not. Then once it was all said and done, even though it would have taken a little bit longer, sure, then we could realize that, okay, justice has been served in this case. Nixon was treated just like any other criminal defendant would be. And the jury came up with their decision. The judge carried out the sentence and bam, justice has been served. Now we can move on as a country from this Watergate scandal that ultimately still would have happened. It may have taken a little bit longer, but that would have been a totally fine course of action in my mind. Also, we have to remember that Gerald Ford didn't win a term of his own. He lost to Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election, suggesting that maybe the American people wanted to see Nixon prosecuted instead of getting this pardon.

Then we continue. Second, it is historically unprecedented for an American president to prosecute his likely opponent. The U.S. has had six presidential election rematches, including the John Quincy Adams-Andrew Jackson rematch of an alleged stolen election. Regardless of personal belief over the legitimacy of the indictment, the action itself is unprecedented. Republicans are sure to and should use this indictment against Biden to show a weak and continuously weakening president trying to use his power to slant an election. A pardon takes away this talking point as Biden would be using his official pardon power to avoid handicapping his likely opposition. Well, I gotta say it's also unprecedented to have a president like Trump

who didn't care one iota about the rule of law in this country, who time and time again showed his depravity and his corruption. Biden also, for his part, is staying out of this. And he's saying that he's not going to talk about the case. It's the DOJ, after all, that is prosecuting him. There's no evidence that Biden himself has anything to do with the charging decision. And if Biden does pardon Trump, then Republicans ultimately are not going to be gracious and kind. They're just going to keep attacking him.

They're going to talk about the other issues like inflation and the culture war and the border and guns. And they'll continue to criticize Biden. It's, if anything, going to make Biden look like a pushover and like he's weak if he decides to do this and pardon Donald Trump. We continue. Third, Biden would appear magnanimous as a candidate. The Biden camp tried to paint him as looking presidential and restoring norms. Reality has painted a different picture from his underwater approval ratings, net minus 14 weakness among independent voters and video clips that routinely show confusion.

Biden has failed to live up to find the most magnanimous candidate, they're already going to go with Joe Biden because they know who Biden is. He's an empathetic person. He cares about the average working class person, whereas Trump is seen as vindictive and this egomaniac type. If it's a battle about who is the most magnanimous, obviously Joe Biden is going to win that every day of the week. He doesn't have to pardon Donald Trump to get a reputation of being magnanimous or the better person when it comes to personal values. Fourth, Biden has his own

classified documents problem. He's had documents in his University of Pennsylvania office and classified documents in his garage near his Corvette, offering a pardon minimizes the accusations of double standards at play. This is a false equivalence. There is a world of difference when it comes to the types of records that both presidents had in their possession, the amount of documents and how serious they were, the level of classification that they had. And more importantly, Joe Biden cooperated. His lawyers turned over the documents and questioned immediately. No questions asked, whereas Donald Trump lied to the authorities repeatedly and refused to hand them back, even when faced with a subpoena. Fifth, Americans are rightfully concerned about the overreach of federal agencies and political matters. Expect President Trump to vigorously defend himself with accusations of political motivations at trial. While it may or may not help at trial, it will work as a political tactic with the electorate. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump should have pardoned Democrats like Hunter Biden, who were embroiled in scandal. Just pardon anyone that's being investigated is apparently the point that's

being made here. So it doesn't look like federal agencies are interfering too much in our politics. What would actually happen if this was the case was would be that we would create this sentiment where our elites are completely above the law. We already have that sentiment here in this country. You would exacerbate that and you would make it clear that there is a two tiered system of justice in this country. One for the elites who are getting pardons left and right and one for regular folks who have to go through the criminal process and maybe found convicted and sent to jail without the possibility of getting pardoned themselves because they're nobodies after all. Sixth, in the art of the deal, Trump discussed the antitrust suit his USFL brought against the NFL and specifically mentioned how important it was that the NFL on a daily basis gave interviews to win in the court of public opinion. President Trump will use every

day in the run-up to trial and at trial to rail against the corruption of Biden and his DOJ and FBI by offering a pardon and not providing Trump with the spotlight of a trial. President Biden would take away Trump's ability to demonstrate how unfairly without precedent he has been treated by offering a pardon. President Biden would take away Trump's most significant campaign opportunity, his trial. I got to tell you, Trump is going to be able to capture the media's attention no matter what, no matter if this trial is taking place or not, he is going to be able to use all of this stuff to his political advantage when it comes to his base, at least no matter what, even if this case is dropped, because you got to remember, he's also

going to have other trials to concern himself with, including trials that are outside the purview of President Joe Biden, like the one out of New York, for example, and the one out of Georgia that's likely going to come in the next few weeks. So even if Biden was to do this for the sake of not making the trial a focal point in the election, well, Trump could just talk about the other trials that he's dealing with. And you're not going to accomplish getting this out of the campaign focus just by pardoning Donald Trump is the point. Seventh, the converse of President Biden looking magnanimous and offering the pardon is that Trump would potentially look weak. Innocent men do not need pardons. The pardon is a lifeline and so on. And it's the same concern

that Nixon expressed during his month of purgatory after resigning. The pardon would make him look guilty when he wanted public exoneration. Accepting a pardon would be the logical and rational decision for Trump. But Democrats can spin it to say that Trump needed Biden's generous pardon to avoid a certain conviction and imprisonment. Now, this one, of course, is just silly because we know that if Biden pardons Trump, then Trump would just turn around and make the argument that, look, the Biden administration had this flimsy case against me. They knew that I was going to beat the charges so strongly in court that they had no choice but to pardon me. And his supporters will eat that up. They're not going to think that Trump is somehow weak and presumably guilty because he accepted a pardon. That's just not how Trump and his supporters operate. Also, Chip writes about how innocent men don't need pardons.

Well, innocent men also aren't convicted of crimes, at least not typically. Of course, there are some cases where that happens. But generally speaking, innocent men aren't convicted of crimes. So if you want to paint Trump as a criminal, and that's, I suppose, the strategy for going forward politically, just let the process play out because it looks like this is a rock solid case against him and Trump is likely going to end up convicted here. Eighth, Trump might moot the issue by declining the pardon. Trump is a fighter. He will want to vindicate himself in both the court of law and the court of public opinion. He might see a pardon as denying him that opportunity, making it very difficult for him to accept the pardon.

By offering the pardon, knowing full well that it might not be accepted by Trump, Biden puts Trump in the difficult position of either losing his chance at public vindication due to the generosity of his opponent or risking a trial and conviction after a way out had been offered. In this sense, offering a pardon is a no risk proposition for Biden. We're really grasping at straws at this point. Trump is potentially going to spend the rest of his life in prison over these charges. There's a real possibility of that at the very least, even if you think it's unlikely because he's a former president. These are serious charges and there's going to likely be some

consequences for them. He's terrified of that. He wouldn't reject the pardon because he knows that there's a serious possibility of him ending up in jail. Rejecting the pardon would make no sense politically because he could just, like I said, use this to his advantage and say that he was pardoned because of the flimsy case against him. He would accept it in a second, right? Because that would just be one thing he doesn't have to worry about. And he wouldn't think that it would be any sort of liability for himself in the 2024 election. He would see it as Democrats admitting to the fact that there was a witch hunt against him. Ninth and last, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has spent years trying to destroy Trump and they have been beaten each time.

The progressive wing would be furious if Trump escaped their clutches because Trump was pardoned. But Biden's polling with independents is deeply underwater. And these swing voters are also polling at a net minus 55 points on the question of whether the nation is on the right or the wrong track. Offering a pardon, knowing how deeply unpopular the move would be with progressives, would demonstrate that Biden is not beholden to that wing of his party. Alternatively, failing to offer a pardon would be further proof that he is beholden to the most extreme voices in the Democratic Party and bog him down even further with independents. Well, I certainly disagree with the premise when it comes to this one, because progressives have had their wins against Donald Trump over the years from the two impeachments to defeating

him at the ballot box in 2020 to taking the House in 2018 and the Senate in 2020 and then fighting off the red wave in 2022. Also, I'm not sure that progressives are more in favor of prosecuting Trump than generic Democrats are. I'd like to see the polling on that one. But the most important thing from this ninth point here is that you're maybe ignoring the other side of the equation. You can say that, OK, it's possible that Biden will pick up some independence from pardoning Trump, but he couldn't he also lose some of those progressives you're talking about if he decides to do this? Couldn't some progressives decide to vote third party or vote for a challenger to Biden in the primary or

stay home altogether? You have to calculate that also into your equation. So overall, those are the nine arguments. I don't think any of them make sense or are all that convincing. If you want to show that no person is above the law, no matter how rich or powerful they may be, then you have to prosecute when you have reasonable suspicion that crimes were committed.

Otherwise, you are giving Trump and the people who come after him the green light to do whatever they want because they think that they'll get away with it. And even if they don't entirely get away with it, then they'll get a pardon and effectively ultimately get away with it. So I wonder if Trump was accused

of more serious violent crimes, whether people like Chip Moore would be making these exact same points because they all would apply, right? And maybe it's taking it to an absurd level to say that everyone would be calling for Biden to pardon Trump if Trump had committed a crime like murder or something like that. But it shouldn't be even viewed through that lens. It should just be viewed as their crimes on the books.

And if anyone, no matter who you are, commits them, is accused of committing them, you're going to be taken through the criminal process and treated just like anybody else. All right, we're going to go to a break now, but we'll be back with the final segment of the David Pakman show after these commercial messages. on the show about how Internet service providers have been logging everything their customers do online and selling that data. Tech companies use trackers in websites and apps to collect your data. You can shield yourself from all of it by using a VPN every time you connect to the Internet. The VPN I use is private Internet access. It's the only VPN that has proven multiple times in court. They do not log your activity. Our sponsor, private Internet access hides my IP address,

prevents big tech from being able to paint a picture of who I am and what I do online. And it works for all of your favorite streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu to access shows and movies normally only available in other countries. It's one of the only VPNs that Thank you so much, David. unattended in a crowded room. Anyone can just take a glance. My audience gets 83 percent off. That's just two oh three a month. Go to PIA VPN dot com slash David. The link is in the podcast notes. One of our sponsors today is replace your mortgage. Mortgages are a really interesting thing in the United States. The poor often can't afford them and the rich often don't use them. Instead, the wealthy use special financial tools to pay off their debts, often in a fraction of the time that it takes for a middle class American to realize that same payoff. Replace

your mortgage teaches you how you can pay off your home in five to seven years without needing to make more money than you're currently making right now. And in addition, they can teach you how to better utilize your existing assets and equity to begin or continue growing wealth and passive income through additional strategies. And they actually have an upcoming workshop that will show you how you can take advantage of these strategies, how it all works, create your own economy. In a sense, you can go to replace your university dot com slash Pacman to watch the interview I did with their founder, Michael Lush, to learn how you can get exclusive access to what can be a life changing virtual event.

That's replace your university dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. A couple of the Republican presidential candidates are now taking issue with the loyalty pledge that they have to take in order to appear on the debate stage this summer. The pledge is that if you choose to run in the Republican primary and you don't win, you are going to promise to support the eventual nominee of the party. Of course, there's nothing legally binding when it comes to this. It's just a rule that the RNC came up with to signal party loyalty that they're going to join together once all is said and done to defeat Joe Biden. Well, the Donald Trump situation really throws a wrench into this plan as it did back in 2016. You may remember that in 2015-16, the Republicans on the debate stage were all asked to raise their hand if they plan to support the eventual Republican nominee.

And Trump was the only one who wouldn't commit to it, basically saying it's me or I'm taking the party down with me. Now, in 2023, 2024, Trump is making things complicated once again because there is a serious chance that by the time people are casting their votes in the primary, and by the time the general election comes around and he's campaigning against Joe Biden, that he's a convicted felon or potentially close to becoming a convicted felon. And at least two candidates now in the Republican field, Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, are expressing doubt about whether they could bring themselves to vote for a convicted felon. Asa Hutchinson told Politico, quote, I'm not going to vote for him if he's a convicted felon. He also went on to say, I'm not going to vote for him if he's convicted of espionage,

and I'm not going to vote for him if he's convicted of other serious crimes, and I'm not going to support him. They need to put a little rationality to what is said in that oath or that pledge, basically trying to negotiate what the terms of the pledge are in order for him to be willing to sign on to it. This led to a meeting between the Hutchinson campaign and the RNC and the RNC made clear that they were not going to make any adjustments to their pledge and it's going to stand as is. So Asa Hutchinson, who is currently not polling very well, he's lucky to show up at 1% in the polling, apparently not having the pull on the RNC that he would have hoped for. But he is not alone in calling for the pledge to be amended, for the language to be changed. Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, is also expressing doubts about signing the pledge. He said, quote, I think the pledge is just a useless idea, Jake. And by the way, in all my life, we never had to

have Republican primary candidates take a pledge. You know, we were Republicans and the idea is you'd support the Republican whether you won or whether you lost. You didn't have to ask somebody to sign something. So I understand how Hutchinson and Christie are trying to get attention with statements like this. I understand how this is giving them the media access that they need right now to draw attention to their campaigns. But this doesn't seem to be a winning strategy to me. In fact, this seems to be like an unforced error because you're now giving the RNC a reason to disqualify you from the debates. I mean, Asa himself is saying that he may not sign it altogether.

Chris Christie is saying that he may not sign it in earnest. Why would you do that, right? Just sign the pledge and don't take it seriously. And if it comes down to it, come up with some excuse for why you ultimately were unable to honor the pledge. You can just say something like, oh, the crimes that Trump has been accused of or convicted of, they're much more serious than you initially realized when you signed the pledge. And that's why you can no longer honor it. Just come up with something like that. It's basically what Trump does, right? It's the Trump approach of saying and doing anything that helps you in the short term. And then later, if you have to change your mind, just blame everyone

and everything else for why you had to come around on the idea. So this situation actually reminds me of the Mike Revell campaign in 2019, 2020. You may remember him. He was running for president in the Democratic primary despite being around 90 years old. And he did so not because he viewed himself as a serious candidate for the presidency, but he did so because he thought that it would be a good opportunity to prop up other progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders on the debate stage. And then the DNC came out once they caught wind of this and added this qualification for appearing in the debates that you had to, in addition to hitting the polling and fundraising metrics, also had to be, quote, running to win to basically get rid of the possibility of a sham candidate appearing on the debate stage.

So it really was a death knell to Mike Revell's campaign. It stopped all the momentum that he had once the DNC came out with this qualification. In the same way, Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson are coming up with ways to be disqualified themselves when not being in the debates would also be death knells for their campaigns. So for his part, Asa Hutchinson, he says that pledges mean a lot to him and he seems genuine when he says that he doesn't want to sacrifice the integrity of his word by signing on to something that he doesn't intend to follow through with. Okay, we can at least give him some credit because he's operating on principle here, but this is the wrong approach if you want to win, right? You have to be more cutthroat than that if you're going to win, especially when it comes to Republican Party politics in the year 2023. And it's just one more reason why Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie

probably don't have a serious shot at winning this thing. Florida Governor and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis is well behind Donald Trump in the polls now, something like 30 points down. And it's becoming clear that if he's going to have any path at winning this nomination, he's going to have to market himself as the better candidate when it comes to particular segments of the Republican base better than Donald Trump can. So DeSantis has already shown that he's not good at going after Trump directly. He put off attacking Trump for the longest time. He's only recently started to do it and he is not very good at it. He makes these half-hearted and backhanded attacks against Donald Trump and he often gets nervous he probably realizes this. He just can't get down into the mud with Donald Trump and come out looking better than Trump does because Trump has been doing this his whole life. And that's been his strategy. That's what won him over in the Republican base. But DeSantis might have the smallest of chances if he's able to market himself to, let's say, the religious right, because Trump, we suspect, is not a religious person himself. Remember that he quoted two Corinthians and he said that he couldn't name

any specific Bible passages when asked what his favorites were because the question was too personal. On top of not knowing anything about the religious texts, he also has lived a life that many would consider to be sinful within the Christian community, from his paying off porn stars to his valuing of greed and vanity and ego above everything else in life to his countless lies. There's a lot of reasons to list why Trump is not a holy person and certainly doesn't seem to observe religion. And this lack of religiosity was actually a major liability for Trump back in the 2016 campaign. And evangelicals were holding out their support of Trump in favor of candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

They only came around to him by and large at the very end. DeSantis, on the other hand, actually seems to know his stuff when it comes to Christianity. He can cite Christian stories and passages he's Roman Catholic which may not be the most suitable for some Protestants and specifically Evangelicals in the country but he at least can come across as a holier man than Donald Trump is if this is the approach that he wants to take and if this is what he thinks will give him the best shot at winning the election well DeSantis sat down for an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network

and he posed the question what if I could have been there with Jesus' disciples? How cool would that have been? Listen to Ron DeSantis thinking about this possibility. If only he could have been at the table with Jesus at the Last Supper and then carried his message forward to try to convince people of Christianity. Let's take a look at the clip. Could I have been there with Jesus's disciples? I mean, you know, these are people who, you know, Peter's just fishing one day and all of a sudden this guy comes up to him, catches all the

fish and says, you know, you're going to be fisher. I want you to be a fisher of men. Come with me. And so these guys all went out and they dedicated their life to spreading the gospel. And they all were killed for, you know, they tried to kill John. John ended up, you know, being able to survive. But I mean, the intent was to put him to death, too. And, you know, to talk about what that was like, you know, talk about what their what their impressions are. You know, what did that I look back at that and would love to have been been able to be there with them. So to his credit, Rhonda Santantis actually sounds somewhat knowledgeable about this. He

sounds like he knows the scripture. He's chatting up a storm about Peter fishing and how many of the disciples were killed, but John was able to survive. Of course, the analysis comes with delusions of grandeur, right? Because he thinks that he would fit in with Peter and Matthew and John. I guess it would be Peter and Matthew and John and Ron if he had it his way. And he's acting like he'd be brave enough to be one of those disciples and put his life at risk in order to carry out Jesus's message. But it's a hypothetical and he's talking about how great it would be to live in antiquity and risk being put to death in some horrible way. But the broader point is that maybe this can help him ultimately win some votes with the

religious folks who think that, oh yeah, Ron DeSantis could have been a disciple of Jesus. He's just that holy of a guy. But now I want to get to Mehdi Hassan, who responded to DeSantis in hilarious fashion after he saw this clip. Check this out because Mehdi really hits the nail on the head and articulates why this is just absolutely hilarious, much, much better than I can. Let's take a look at Mehdi's take. Now, Eamon, put aside the sheer arrogance of a Republican politician in 2023 suggesting he could be a disciple of the Lord, but just imagine for a second if alongside Peter, John, James, and Co.,

there had been a Ron. A Ron who every time Jesus helped the poor and used loaves of bread and fish to feed the hungry, Ron was like, you're too woke, Jesus. You're too woke. Let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Every time Jesus said, I don't know, we should embrace refugees and migrants, Ron was like, stop all the wokeness, Jesus. Send them to Martha's Vineyard. The Holy Land is where woke goes to die. I mean, Eamon, the truth is that the Jesus of the Gospels and his disciples were way too left wing for Ronald DeSantis. So Mehdi Hassan pointing out there how Republican politics really don't align whatsoever with the teachings of Jesus and also making fun of how Ron DeSantis manages to bring every single issue back to wokeism, no matter how far removed it may be. Mehdi's guest in this interview goes on to make another salient point,

which is that if there's an analogy to be drawn here between the disciples and DeSantis, the analogy is to paint Donald Trump actually as the Jesus figure, believe it or not, and to portray DeSantis as Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus and turned him into the authorities in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. And that's because Trump did help DeSantis get elected. The degree to which Trump was useful is debated, but Trump did support DeSantis early on, and

DeSantis had these fawning campaign ads showing how he was raising his children to be pro-MAGA. Now, because DeSantis is seeking higher office, he's turned against Donald Trump and he wants to be the leader himself. So he's effectively turned Trump in for that 30 pieces of silver, just like Judas did to Jesus. Now, I don't actually think it's logical to compare Trump to Jesus even for a second, right? But I'm just saying if there's an analogy to be drawn here between DeSantis and the disciples, that's the one to make. So that's Ron DeSantis for you,

mixing in some religion with his campaign. We'll see if it does him any good or if evangelicals will continue to live with the cognitive dissonance that they've been living with for years and years, supporting Donald Trump, despite the fact that he is a very sinful and ungodly person.

Maybe Ron DeSantis has some shot if he decides to go this route. All right, that's going to do it for today's episode of The David Pakman Show. It's been an honor filling in for David today. Luke Beasley, our correspondent and occasional guest host, is going to be filling in for the rest of the week, so we're looking forward to that. Thank you very much for watching, and we'll see you on the bonus show, assuming you are a member. If you're not a member yet, what are you doing? You've got to make sure that you get yourself a membership. You do that by going to joinpacman.com.

And once you sign up for a membership, you'll be able to see me on the other side on the bonus show. Looking forward to it. Have a great day, everybody, and we'll see you next time.