The David Pakman Show - And Now The Scamming Of Americans Begins

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

-- On the Show -- Senator Raphael Warnock, Democrat from Georgia, joins us to discuss the Trump administration's Venezuela operation and the stakes for U.S. credibility abroad -- Trump tells NBC that U.S. oil companies could rebuild Venezuela's oil infrastructure and then be reimbursed by the U.S. government, shifting taxpayer risk to protect corporate profits -- Donald Trump and allies including Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Stephen Miller float military action against Iran, Cuba, Colombia, and Greenland after campaigning on "no new wars" -- Legal experts discuss whether Trump's extrajudicial kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro could trigger universal jurisdiction and expose Trump to detention risk if he travels abroad -- Fox hosts struggle to reconcile Donald Trump calling foreign military action "not war" while framing domestic drug trafficking as "war," highlighting contradictions even in friendly media coverage -- Donald Trump posts false claims about the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule and promotes misinformation about vaccines and acetaminophen -- María Corina Machado flatters Trump and floats sharing a Nobel Peace Prize with him as Sean Hannity presses for loyalty -- Gavin Newsom publicly mocks Mike Johnson's U-Haul-based claims about California, cites recent population growth and wage and tax-burden arguments -- Volodymyr Zelensky highlights the inconsistency of Trump targeting Nicolás Maduro while avoiding any comparable action toward Vladimir Putin -- On the Bonus Show: Colombia and Mexico brace for Donald Trump's next moves as flu activity surges in the U.S. and overwhelms communities across the country 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Books: https://davidpakman.com/echo -- TDPS Subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow -- David on Bluesky: https://davidpakman.com/bluesky -- David on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow (00:00) Start (01:18) Trump's Venezuela oil plan sticks taxpayers with risk (07:34) "No new wars" to invasion talk: Iran, Cuba, more (19:31) Legal fallout: Maduro kidnapping, travel detention risk (25:13) Fox struggles: "not war" abroad, "war" on drugs at home (31:43) Trump pushes vaccine schedule lies (40:24) Sen. Warnock explains Venezuela raid, credibility stakes (53:59) Machado flatters Trump, floats shared Nobel Peace Prize (58:53) Newsom mocks Johnson's U-Haul dig at California (1:04:18) Zelensky flags Putin double standard in Trump's targeting  

We will start today with a bombshell that should really make you angry, which is the floating openly of a plan where oil companies will rebuild Venezuela's infrastructure, take the profits and then get reimbursed by you, the taxpayer. Corporate welfare dressed up as America first. And we saw this scam before. We will then look at how Trump is playing his own base, the so-called anti-war president, now openly, along with his allies. saying we might go into Iran, we might go into Cuba, we might go into Colombia, even Greenland might be taken by force. No new wars didn't last very long. And we're also going to get into something you don't often see, which is Fox News host genuinely confused about why is Trump doing this and they are struggling to defend what is quite frankly indefensible. And vaccines

and Tylenol, the administration again going anti-science. Oh, and Gavin Newsome humiliates Maga Mike Johnson and raises some really interesting points about California and its population. All of it and more today. The scam and the grift are growing and I'm going to have to pay for it and you are going to have to pay for it. Let me explain what is going on. Donald Trump said to NBC News something that really should stop you cold, but it should also

infuriate the magas. Trump says American oil companies might spend billions of dollars rebuilding Venezuela's oil infrastructure and then isn't this convenient? They could get reimbursed by the US government, meaning your tax dollars. Big oil spends money. Big oil takes the profits. You take the risk and you reimburse them. Trump said that the companies would be spending, quote, a tremendous amount of money.

And then he said they'll get reimbursed. by us or through revenue. Now, by us means the federal government. The federal government is funded by you, by your tax money. This is not, well, we are funding improving bridges in the United States. This is not we are funding better access to less expensive health care in the United States. This is not we are funding rent and groceries for people. This is corporate welfare dressed up as foreign policy, and this is not a new idea. We have seen this movie before. After the Iraq war, American companies rushed in to rebuild oil fields and infrastructure.

Taxpayers paid trillions for the war. Private contractors walked away with massive contracts. Regular Americans got nothing but debt and higher deficits. And it's the same story in Afghanistan, where billions were responsible. spent on reconstruction, and much of it vanished into actual waste fraud and sweetheart deals. The public paid, contractors profited, the country collapsed anyway. And then when Wall Street crashed the economy in 2008, we were told, well, the banks are too big to fail.

And so they got bailed out. The homeowners didn't, the workers didn't. They socialized the risk. Capitalism for the profits, socialism for the risks. The profits stayed private. this is the exact same model. Now, Trump says that this Venezuela plan is going to lower oil prices. Maybe the truth is gas prices have remained in that low $3 a gallon range for a long time. And it's not that likely that they're going to go much lower. So I don't even really know what we're

fixing here. We're not fixing cost of living. We're not helping the working families that are currently hurting. It's just Trump says the oil companies are going to do very well. And then we're going to reimburse them. Now, the other thing, which I mentioned yesterday, which is critical, is that these oil companies are not exactly rushing in on their own. They're cautious. They're hesitating for a bunch of different reasons. Number one, Venezuela has a long history of nationalizing oil assets. They could get in there and start spending money. And the next thing you know, uh, there is a renationalization of those oil assets and it's all taken away. in the American companies that got involved lose the money. Number two, it's very risky because

anytime you're doing anything involving Donald Trump, if the wins change, proverbial, the metaphorical wins change, all of a sudden you're out or the plan changes or Trump doesn't care about it anymore. So it is even risky for the companies that want to get involved. So what does Trump come up with? Let's put the taxpayers on the hook. If it fails, you'll get reimbursed by working Americans who pay taxes into the system. But if it works well, then you'll be able to cash in. Final thought about this. The context. This is coming alongside military action in Venezuela. Trump has admitted that even though he didn't inform the House and Senate in advance of what he was doing with the kidnapping of Nicholas Maduro, that he did inform the oil companies. He said he spoke to the oil companies before and

after and when you look at that chain military pressure corporate opportunity the public's interest last abiding by the rule of law last even though Trump shouts about America first but it's the same trick every time the people that Trump used to get himself elected and whose donor money he gladly accepted, they end up coming last. It's the corporations that go first. It's Trump's ambitions that go first. Trump's ego, Trump's concern, growing concern with what his legacy is going to be. But the average person goes last. And when the rent spikes, you don't get reimbursed. But the oil companies will get reimbursed if it doesn't go that profitably in Venezuela. It is a scam. It is yet another scam that Donald Trump has pulled

on his own base. And if you are just a normal American trying to stay afloat, you should be furious. I know that many of my friends and colleagues on the left and in the center are furious about this. There are even a couple of Republicans like Rand Paul who are saying, what the hell are we doing here? We're going to look at a clip from Fox News of cat, Tim and Greg Gutfeld, clearly confused about what is Trump doing here? What is going on? What is this all about? I don't know whether the magas are ready to say he screwed us, he scammed us. One scam is that they are going, they, we, us, we are all going to end up paying for the oil speculation in Venezuela. The second scam that is coming to light, that is surfacing like rotten varnish coming out of old wood or I don't know what the right imagery is. The second scam is about Trump as the anti-war president.

And we've got to talk about that next. Remember no new wars. Remember I am the peace president. I am for more isolationism and not being as entangled in foreign countries and all of that. Well, they in the Trump administration, including Trump, are talking about Cuba, Iran, Colombia and even Greenland. If you fell for Trump is the real anti-war president, what do you have to say about this? This is just the last 24, 36 hours.

Here is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham praying, praying that the United States gets involved in, ding, ding, ding, ding, pick a country, right? Just spin the globe and point. He hopes that it is Iran. They've chosen not to live this way anymore. He say they've chosen. Like Obama, President Trump has not turned his back on the people of Iran. So I pray and hope that 2026 will be the year that we make Iran great again.

Okay. And Looney Lindsay put on a hat that says make Iran great again. All right. So Iran is a juicy target potentially. What about Cuba? Sure. Lindsay Graham also saying Cuba's an interesting, interesting one. too, we're gonna liberate Cuba very soon. It is very interesting, by the way, history of Latin

American liberation by the United States over is just a matter of time. And Donald Trump will have done something that saluted America since the 50s deal with a communist dictatorship 90 miles off the coast of Florida. I can't wait to the day comes to our Cuban friends in Florida and throughout America. The liberation of your homeland is, um, Close. All right. So Iran and Cuba. Is Looney Lindsay the only one talking about Cuba? No. Marco Rubio was asked about it. We looked at this clip yesterday. Rubio agrees Cuba's in for it. Is the Cuban government the Trump administration's next target, Mr. Secretary, very quickly? Well, the Cuban government is a huge problem. Yeah, the human government is a huge problem. So is that a yes, Cuba? But I don't think

people fully appreciate, I think they're in a lot of trouble. Yes, I'm not going to talk to you about what our future steps are going to be and our policies are going to be right now in this regard. But I don't think it's any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who by the way are the ones that we're propping up Maduro, his entire like internal security. So Marco goes, yeah, no, Cuba's, Cuba's definitely in trouble. What about even in front of Donald Trump? Well, here is Senator Lindsey Graham in front of Trump on Air Force One saying Cuba's days are numbered. Could have done it.

And as to this commander in chief, he did something people talked about doing. You just wait for Cuba. Cuba is a communist dictatorship that's killed priest and nuns. They prayed on their own people. Their days are numbered. We're going to wake up one day, I hope in 26. In our backyard, we're going to have allies in these countries doing business with America, not narco-terror dictators.

killing Americans. What happened to this generation that Lindsay and Donald are part of that made them so bloodthirsty? And Trump seems to like it. All right. So we might go into Iran. We might go into Cuba. Where else could we go? What about Colombia? Not Colombia, the university, although I think Trump would like to go in there too. We are speaking, of course, of the South American country, Colombia. Well, Donald Trump likes that idea as well. neighbor, it's not a neighbor, but it's close to a neighbor. And that's Venezuela. It's very sick. Columbia is very sick too, run by a sick man. Sick as a dog. Who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States. And he's not going to be doing

it very long, let me tell you. What does that mean? He's not going to be doing it very long. He's not doing it very long. He has cocaine mills and cocaine factories. He's not going to be doing it very long. So there will be an operation by the U.S. and. It sounds good to me. Yeah. to me. Now, brief interlude to the bloodthirsty nation building. Just for a moment. I know that that's a top priority, but just one other thing. We've already learned quickly that this is not really about drugs. That was the first of four different explanations and justifications. We already know that that's bullshit. But if that's really what you cared about, why is there not a single word being said about the fact that the real way to deal with the drug problem is to deal with the

demand for it here in the United States because you can start, you know, kidnapping presidents and dropping bombs on boats all you want. But the drugs will find them their way here if there is demand. And so we should really kind of be talking about why does the United States demand so much cocaine and meth and psilocybin and grass and dope and but sorry, I got into a, sorry, I got diverted there. Um, the point here is whatever you're a. about any particular drug. You have to consider the reason that so many places are manufacturing and trying to get it here, which is that there's demand for it.

And that isn't being dealt with. Okay, finally. So we've got Iran. We've got Cuba. We've got Colombia. What about Greenland? Well, among the bloodthirsty Stephen Miller surprises us by how bloodthirsty he is. He says Greenland should be part of the United States.

And if the United States militarily decides to do something, nobody is going to do a damn thing about it. An important topic, the premier of Greenland and the premier of Denmark and other Danish officials are responding to a Twitter post from your wife, Katie Miller, herself a former Trump White House official, showing Greenland covered with an American flag saying soon after that was posted, President Trump repeated the claim that the U.S. needs Greenland for national security reasons. The Danish Prime Minister responded to this in an interview earlier today, as reported by Bloomberg, quote, I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says it wants Greenland,

but I will also make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO, and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War. Can you rule out that the U.S. is ever going to try to take Greenland by force? Well, let me go back. step the president has been clear for months now so i know you're treating this is breaking news the president has been clear for a month now that the united states should be the nation that uh has greenland as part of our overall security apparatus the right but your wife posted that like hours after the venezuela operation that's that's why it's newly relevant no i'm not and i'll talk with you about it

for an hour i think it's really important conversation up i just wanted to i just wanted to reset jake by making clear that it has been the formal position of the U.S. government since the beginning of this administration, frankly, going back into the previous Trump administration, that Greenland should be part of the United States. The president has been very clear about that. That is the formal position of the U.S. government. Right, but can you say that military action against Greenland is off the table? It would be military action against Greenland. The Greenland has a population of 30,000 people, Jake. The real question is, by what right does Denmark, a certain control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having

Greenland as a colony of Denmark? The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States. And so that's a conversation that we're going to have as a country. That's a process we're going to have as a community of nation. So you can't take it off the table that the U.S. would use military force to seize Greenland. You can't take it off the table. I understand, Jake, I understand you're trying very hard to, which to get a real answer from you. Again, is your job, I respect it, is great, to get exactly the headline, right, that catchy

headline. We're trying to get an answer to question. That says Miller refuses to rule out the United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There's no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you're asking of a military operation. Nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. There you go. And there is the bottom line. Miller says, if we decide to take it, nobody is going to fight us for it. So remember, Tulsi Gabbard told us there is one true anti-war voice in the

2024 election. And that was Donald Trump. And now after the invasion and kidnapping of the Venezuelan president, Nicholas Maduro, they are talking about Iran. They are talking about. They are talking about Cuba, they are talking about Colombia, and they are talking about Greenland. How is that anti-war president working out for you? And meanwhile, meanwhile, it's January 6th, some people's health care premiums have tripled, tripled. And Trump's got four invasions that he's thinking of doing. The core issue in political journalism isn't access to facts. It's really framing. Different outlets can start from the same under- facts and still produce very different narratives.

Ground news is built to make those differences explicit. Our sponsor, Ground News, aggregates coverage of a single story from across the political spectrum and presents it visually. You can see ideological lean, ownership, reliability of each outlet at a glance. The feature I use the most is the side-by-side headline view. Seeing multiple outlets describe the same event differently makes the framing choice. is very obvious, what's emphasized, what's downplayed, what's the context, what's left out. Ground News also offers a blind spot feed.

That lets you highlight stories that are receiving little attention from one side of the spectrum. That helps expose possible gaps that disagreement alone won't reveal. You can also personalize your feed by topic. You can make it easier to track the issues you personally care about without unnecessary noise, go to ground.news slash Pacman to get 40% off the ground news vantage plan. You can also gift a subscription to a friend. The link is in the description. The David Pacman show is an audience supported program. There is no large media conglomerate that we're a part of. There is no wealthy corporate donor sending us cash. I don't have a money tree planted in the backyard. And I think

that that is a great thing that we are primarily funded by our audience. I invite you to join the ranks of membership. Really understand that this is not a theoretical thing. That is the primary funding source for the show. And I invite you to sign up at join packman.com. Two weeks from today, two weeks from today, we will be launching a one day membership special on the one year anniversary of Donald Trump's second inauguration. If you want to be notified of that membership discount on January 20th, simply get on my substack newsletter at substack. David pacman.com. Imagine waking up to headlines saying that Donald Trump is being openly discussed as someone who should be taken into custody, not sanctioned, not condemned, but taken into custody. And the reason

is something that would have sounded unthinkable a few years ago, which is that Donald Trump authorized and personally directed the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro outside of any recognized legal framework. Within hours, international law experts were not debating policy. They were debating jurisdiction. Could this trigger universal jurisdiction? Does this meet the definition of an international crime? Would Trump be at risk of arrest if he travels abroad?

If an American president orders the extra judicial kidnapping of a sitting foreign head of state, it's certainly not diplomacy. It's certainly not foreign policy. It's obviously darker. But does it justify the arrest of Donald Trump? And this is what is now being discussed. Once a country does this to another, once a powerful country decides. We can just grab a foreign leader if we don't like them.

It becomes open season. And there are in a sense no longer rules and no longer norms. And suddenly the question is, will Trump be detained if he sets foot in certain countries? Should he be detained in such a situation? Now, people always assume the United States is immune to that type of thing. It might happen to the Venezuelan president, but it's not going to happen to the American president. I mean, listen, maybe that's true. Maybe it wouldn't happen to the American president.

But in a fact-based world, international law doesn't care exactly which country you are from. It is either the law or it isn't. And the same legal logic that the United States uses to justify detaining foreign leaders, at least in theory, could be turned around against Donald Trump. That is what is now rattling a lot of the people that are concerned about this. It is not they liked Maduro. Most people, I mean, listen, the majority don't like Maduro unless you like authoritarian autocrats. But if the rule becomes whoever is stronger can kidnap whoever is weaker on the international

stage, in a sense, every leader everywhere is fair game, including ours. Now, we've already heard that in Colombia, in Mexico, in a number of places, there are conversations happening about the protection of the leader because what the Maduro fiasco has exposed is you might think your president is safe, but they may not actually be as safe as you think from international kidnapping. And so that is now a discussion that's happening in many other countries. But what about in the United States? When you think about, you know, the bluster and the familiar posture of someone that acts

as though the rules don't apply to them, that could work domestically. for as long as Donald Trump is in the United States. I think it would be very unlikely that what happened to Maduro would happen to Trump in the United States. But what about internationally? The more that Donald Trump treats this entire Maduro escapade like a flex, like a feet of strength, the more I assume other countries are going to start asking, why should they restrain themselves?

And the part that Trump supporters don't want to hear is that this has. nothing to do with left and right. Democrats and Republicans is a topic on this show. Democrats versus Republicans is a topic of importance in the political space. But this is simply about is the United States governed by law or is it governed by the impulses of one very orange man? And once you normalize extrajudicial force against foreign leaders, you can't be shocked if the world decides the gloves are off. And you know what? Maybe it's not Trump, but other countries could could also start hijinks or funny business with lower level officials, diplomatic Americans who are in other countries. I mean, this has the potential to get extraordinarily ugly

if the gloves are really to come off. Now, the reality, of course, is that there is one person to blame here. It's Trump who has dragged us towards this with recklessness, supported by the sycophants around him who are either taking advantage of a guy who is in cognitive decline and doesn't really know what he's doing or are even feeding him some of these ideas themselves. Now, if your assumption is no country would ever try to arrest or detain Donald Trump, you might be right. I am not here to tell you Trump's getting arrested next time he leaves the United States. I'm not here to tell you that. But what I will say is that many international crises start with the assumption. No one would ever. No one would ever do this thing or that thing.

And then someone does it. And all of a sudden, we find ourselves in a changed world. So keep it in mind and it is stunning that there are now discussions. Could Trump get arrested? Should Trump get arrested? is the Secret Service alone, if traveling abroad enough to keep the full force of another country's law enforcement apparatus from detaining Trump if that's what they decide that they want to do. All right. This is very, very interesting. This is interesting because it's not outrage or opposition. It is confusion that we are now seeing on Fox News. And this is a form of confusion that I believe is dangerous for the administration. I'm going to play a video for you from Fox News where you've got Kat Timf, who is a political commentator and Greg Gutfeld, who I guess is a

comedian, but sometimes he's a political commentator. I don't know. They are, you know, normally when you turn on this show, they are rationalizing and justifying anything that Republicans are doing and anything that Donald Trump is doing. You can see them visibly struggling to make sense of the logic of Donald Trump's kidnap of Venezuelan president Nicholas Maduro. We're going to hear from Kat Tim. We're going to hear from Greg Gutfeld and some of the others on this panel. And it is fascinating to see that the people that normally have no issue figuring out how to justify what Donald Trump is doing are struggling to justify what Donald Trump has done. You have to see how some people might be feeling a little bit of whiplash here, given that Trump spent 10 years, railing against U.S.-led regime-change war.

His own director of intelligence, as recently as two months ago, was railing against regime change war, and then he does one. Is this a regime change? The regime is still there, as far as I know, vice president. All right. Let's already pause. Okay. There's two great things here. Kat Tim correctly points out, we were sold.

This is the guy against regime change wars. And he's trying to do regime change. That's true. Gutfeld is also right, which is, is this even regime change? Because they've taken Maduro, but left the regime completely in charge, including the acting president being the former vice president. So they're both right about the absurdity. Trump went back on his promise of not doing this type of thing.

And also as a regime change operation, it seems to be failing because they're not changing the regime. Let me get this straight. We go to a country. We capture their leader. We bomb it. And then we say, we run this country now. And that's not war. But when they send cocaine over here that people are willingly snorting, that is war. All right. Let me pause it again. Earlier in the show, I mentioned to you that missing from the discussion about the narco-trafficking justification for the bombing of the Venezuelan boats and the kidnapping of Nicholas Maduro. I mentioned that missing from the conversation is the acknowledgement that there is so much demand for these drugs in the United States that they're going to get in one way or the other.

People love this shit and it's going to get in. And we need to be dealing with the demand for it. At least Kat Timf is pointing out that the people snorting. the cocaine. They like the cocaine. They want the cocaine. And that is a war. But what Donald Trump just did to Venezuela is not an act of war? I think, I think that that doesn't make any sense. It does to me in the sense that if this guy is committing crimes against the United States, you lawfully go and get him. He gets his due process here. The regime is still the same. The VP's there. He wasn't the elected. Remember, he wasn't elected legitimately. So they was,

he was never considered the leader of Venezuela. anybody except for himself. So I think it was, you know, difference of opinion, but he wasn't considered a legitimate leader. He had committed crimes against the country. He's going to get his due process. He may be found not guilty. Who knows? We went in, took him, bomb the country and said we're in control of it. That's like, that's, that's regime change war. That is. That's a guy being like, that's like a guy being like, hey, I did bang all these other girls behind your back, but I didn't cheat. You can call it whatever you want, but it is what it is. That's the analogy you always use.

Okay, well, look, having concerns about this, it's very understandable. A lot of people feel skeptical that this isn't going to be the one that's different than all the other ones. A lot of people are skeptical. For me personally, I'm not so confident that this is the one that this is not the regime change that's finally going to work the way we say it's going to work. I would not willingly go die for it. I would not willingly send my son to go die for it.

You get the picture. So this is very interesting. This is not generic anti-war activism from Kat-Tim. This is not a left-wing critique from Kat-Tim. This is just the inability to justify what is going on in Venezuela, even when looked at through a Fox News lens. Trump's framing requires people to believe two totally contradictory things at once. That massive military force isn't war when we do it, but that social problems in the

United States demand for drugs becomes an act of war when it's politically useful to say, Well, by supplying the drugs, Venezuela is engaging in war. And even the Fox hosts are tripping all over it. Now, what's happening here that there's a subtlety to it, but it's important. Fox News's typical role, as I said, is translate the chaos of this administration into coherence that the supporters can line up behind and say, we support this, take Trump's impulses and sort of retrofit them, mold them like a piece of Play-Doh into a mold where we can say, here's the three talking points of why this is a great thing. In this case, there is no coherent

explanation that doesn't collapse under a little bit of scrutiny. And so you get bewilderment. Well, it was regime change which Trump was against and it also failed as regime change. And it was about drugs, but it wasn't because we've also pardoned other narco traffickers. Wait a second. So what is going on here? And so as you see the gears grinding slowly, shaking off the rust here, you start to consider, Trump doesn't lose support when people disagree with him. He loses support when people just can't explain what he's doing anymore. And when we see the Fox hosts fail to square the circle, that's a sign that even the friendly media ecosystem is starting to short circuit under the weight of what Donald Trump is doing.

Now, in the meantime, Trump didn't exactly have a good night. And I want to take a few minutes just to talk about that. The president of the United States, Donald Trump, appeared to suffer a sudden psychotic break on truth social where he is crossing some very, very dangerous lines. Let's discuss there is a lot of substance here. And we start with vaccines. Donald Trump putting out on truth social the following. Oh, my, my truth social button didn't work.

I'll have to fix that. Okay. Quote, today the Trump administration is proud to announce the United States of America's updated childhood vaccination schedule. This schedule is rooted in the gold standard of science and widely agreed upon by scientists and experts all over the world. Here we go. Effective today, America will no longer require 72 jabs for our beautiful, healthy children.

We are moving to a far more reasonable schedule where all children will only be. recommended to receive vaccinations for 11 of the most serious and dangerous diseases. Parents can still choose to give their children all of the vaccinations if they wish, and they will still be covered by insurance. However, this updated schedule finally aligns the US with other developed nations around the world. Congratulations to Bobby Kennedy and a whole bunch of other people, especially the Mahamombs, who have been praying for these common sense reforms.

Okay. So the US childhood vaccination schedule does not require 72 shots. This is an old anti-vaccine trick, which is you count every dose. And even if you get a combination vaccine, like for example, if you get the D-TAP vaccine, which is for four conditions and that requires two, it requires a booster. So two shots. They're saying that that's eight shots when it's really. Okay, this is the game that they play.

Sometimes to get to 72, they include annual flu shots. They go, well, let's add 18 because from age zero to 18, a kid also gets 18 flu shots. This is how they come up with this number. It's ridiculous, okay? The reality is that the childhood vaccination schedule in the U.S. recommends none of this is required. Now, there may be school districts that say to come to our school, you've got to have these. But the recommendation is for about 14 diseases.

The vast majority are combo shots. So you don't get as many jabs as Trump likes to call them. There is not a country on earth where kids routinely get 72 injections. Okay. That's been debunked by pediatricians. It's been debunked by epidemiologists. The CDC has debunked it. Now, Trump also posted a graphic implying that Europe vaccinates less than the United States.

That's also misleading. Most European countries are vaccinating against the exact same diseases on a similar schedule. The difference is that they might do different timing, different bundling or different delivery. They are not rejecting vaccines. And by the way, many European countries have higher vaccination rates than the United States, even despite vaccinating against roughly the same childhood diseases. So Trump is cherry picking to try to make anti-vax look like the international consensus. Second post from Trump, quote, pregnant women do not use Tylenol unless absolutely necessary.

Don't give Tylenol to your young child for virtually any reason. Break up the MMR shot into three separate shots. Take the chickenpox shot separately. Take hepatitis B shot at 12 years old or older. And importantly, take vaccine in five separate medical visits. Okay. I want to focus on Tylenol, just as a side note, Trump keeps recommending, get the MMR separately, go and get measles, go and get mumps, go and get Rubella. By the way, that would require six

shots because each of those requires a second dose. That's wild, but most importantly, those aren't available in the United States. I spoke to my pediatrician friends about this. I said, if someone comes in and they say, give me just measles today, let me come back for mumps in a month. They don't have that. That's not a product that is available. It's just the MMR. Put that aside. Let's talk about Tylenol. Tylon is not risk-free. Nothing is risk-free. Okay. High doses of Tylenol persistently can cause liver damage. Overdosing from Tylenol or the underlying drug acetaminophen is a leading cause of acute liver failure in the United States. There have been scientific debates about acetaminophen during pregnancy, including studies that look

at outcomes. The studies do not show. causation, the studies do not justify any blanket warning. Now, when Trump goes unless absolutely necessary, that should be the case for every medication. I know people, this is like a kind of popular thing in Argentina. I hate to admit, a lot of people in Argentina, they're sort of on like a regimen of either Tylenol or Advil. And I don't think it makes any sense. But it's like kind of a weird thing that I don't know culturally what's going on. I know a lot of people in Argentina who are like, yeah, I take two Tylenol every day, like for the last 20 years. That doesn't sound to me like is absolutely necessary. Any drug should only be taken when necessary in discussion with your doctor.

That's not special. But the medical guidance still suggests that Tylenol is the preferred pain and fever reducer during pregnancy. You always use the lowest effective dose. Untreated fever itself can be dangerous. So you do want to treat that. Now, Trump ignores all of that. And he leans on the distrust of pharmaceutical companies. Now, I'll be the first to tell you. I recently read a book about Johnson and Johnson. Tylenol, Johnson and Johnson, a Johnson and Johnson, Johnson originally at Johnson and Johnson drug. I think they might have, you know, shifted it around to a subsidiary now or done legal, legal, uh, maneuvering with it. But Tylenol is often praised for how it handled the 1980s cyanide poisoning crisis where an individual poisoned some Tylenol

before there was tamperproof packaging with cyanide. And people often go, oh, Johnson and Johnson responded so well. The truth is that Johnson and Johnson did not respond that well. There is reason to believe that they knew the intermediate supplier through which the tainted Tylenol was coming, that they did not announce that publicly. They were slow to respond. There was a cold crisis. Johnson and Johnson as the manufacturer of Tylenol is not without an ugly history. And that applies not just to Tylenol, that applies to baby powder. There's a whole bunch of stuff, okay, but if we're going to be serious about Tylenol and you're going to start putting out all caps medical recommendations to people, you've got to acknowledge ibuprofen is often not recommended

during pregnancy. You've got to frame the risk versus benefit. You've got to explain that this is the preferred and safest drug often in pregnancy for reducing fever. I believe. you're not supposed to give babies. I don't know if it's up until age one or two that you're not supposed to give ibuprofen. It's the acetaminophen that is the safer option. So Trump's not giving health advice. He's not contextualizing this with nuance and medical information. He is just saying, don't do it. I'm the president. I'm orange. And I'm telling you what to do even though he has no business doing that. Fear dressed up as concern that can get people to do things they really shouldn't be doing. Most scammers rely on information that's already public. Your name, address, phone

number, family connections. A lot of that is online and available to be scraped and abused. Our sponsor Incogni reduces the risk by removing you from the internet wherever that personal data appears. It works across many types of websites, not just one category. So scammers have fewer ways to piece things together about you. Incogni automatically submits removal requests to hundreds of sites on your behalf, but the standout feature is custom removals where you find your information on any website, even one not in their database. You paste the link and Incogni's team will get to work to remove it. I can tell you I've personally been getting way fewer scam and spam calls and messages ever since I started using Incogny. You can accomplish a lot quickly with Incogny.

Protect yourself before your data is used against you. Get 60% off when you go to incogny.com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman. The link is in the description. It is great to welcome to the program today. Democratic Senator Rafael Warnock representing the state of Georgia. Senator, really great to have you on and I appreciate your time. Great to be with you. Thanks for the invitation.

Listen, I'm hearing from many in my audience. obviously huge concern about this very pro-intervention few days we've seen from this administration with what took place with Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela, even my audience who for the most part is opposed to the regime of Maduro recognizing the problems with what is being done. We are hearing from not only the president, but Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham and others. Columbia is looking interesting to them. Cuba is looking interesting. They're talking about Greenland.

My audience's concern is what levers does the Democratic Party have at all, be it the Senate or the House, to try to restrain what seem to be these increasingly bloodthirsty ambitions? Are there levers that you and your colleagues can pull here? Listen, at a time when prices are way too high and wages are way too low, we've got an unfocused president who has decided to pursue this kind of adventurism abroad. Listen, I'm crying no tears for Nicholas Maduro. He's a bad guy. But they are bad actors all over the world.

There are dictators who are engaged in the drug business. But clearly this is not about drugs. I mean, after all, President Trump pardoned the first of the first of the first of the first of the former president of the Honduras, who literally is guilty of trafficking hundreds of tons of drugs into the United States. He said it was about drugs. Then he said it was, it's hard to know what it's about. I can tell you that he wasted no time talking about oil. And as I talked to the people in my state, they certainly did not hire President Trump to send their daughters and their sons, Georgia's a big military state, to Venezuela to protect all fields for Trump's campaign

donors. And they certainly did not sign up to run Venezuela. He should try running the United States of America where right now millions of Americans cannot afford health care because of his policies. In terms of the ability of the Democratic Party, what tools do you have? If Trump says, let's do Cuba next, let's do whatever it is, is the Democratic? Party able to do anything here? Listen, we are witnessing in a tragic way that elections have consequences. And we are doing everything that we can.

I certainly will be a part of efforts this very week as we vote on this issue to restrain this president. But it's my Republican colleagues who day after day, week after week, month after month, continue to give their power away to a president who is obviously conducting himself according to some kind of philosophy of a unitary executive. And I don't know why they ran to serve in the Senate. It's hard to get

this job. I don't know why they ran to be members of Congress. You put yourself through a lot so that you can come up here and fight for your people. And instead, every single day, they are bowing the knee to Donald Trump. It is the opposite of democracy. And it risks taking us into yet another forever war. We have seen this ugly movie before as he's gone into Venezuela saying we're going to run it. I want people to think about that. It doesn't matter whether you're Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter who you voted for in 2024.

I don't know of any Americans who went into the polling booths, into the voting booths, saying that they're voting to run Venezuela. That's not what Americans signed up for. And they can't afford their health care. They cannot afford their groceries. Wages are low. Young people are coming out of college and graduate school wondering if they're going to have jobs given the challenges of AI. There are serious issues that we need to be addressing in our country. We could ill afford to have a president who is unfocused and trying to run another country. Yeah.

And you know, listen, what I've said to my audiences, if this is simply, if Republicans don't want to do anything to restrain the president, they did win a bunch of elections. These are the consequences. I want to be up front with my audience that that's the case. And you know, one of the things that was coming up over the weekend was, does anybody believe that had Kamala Harris won that she would have kidnapped the president of Venezuela over the weekend as we were ringing in the new year? And I think that if I'm kind of reading between the lines, you're saying.

saying, there isn't that much that in the current state Democrats can do unless Republicans say we also need to act to stop this. Well, Congress has the power of the purse. And the Congress has plenty of authority, but we've got to be willing to exercise it. And so I think you will see efforts move forward this very week that others can join us on to restrain this president. And so the question you're asking me. We really need to be asking our Republican colleagues.

But here is my concern. You know, I've lived through these 20 years or more of what's felt like endless wars in the Middle East. And it's easy to get into these conflicts. It's really hard to get out. We're not in charge of Venezuela and who wants to be in charge of Venezuela. But that doesn't happen just because Trump declares it.

And we have to, he's got, He's got questions. He's got to answer. What does that mean? Is he going to put Georgia troops, folks from my home state and other states on the ground in Venezuela? Is he going to drag us into an endless war? What does this cost us? Meanwhile, people are struggling, struggling trying to afford their health care. I want to talk about the health care situation. And one of the sort of injustices that's taken place in the first six days of this year, as the news of the Maduro thing has been rightly so generating a lot of media interest. is that a lot of people's health care premiums have gone up.

And in my case, it was about 25%. I buy a plan through one of these marketplaces because I'm self-employed. But for some people, it was two or even three times that it went up. I had an off-the-record conversation with one of your Democratic colleagues in the House recently who I said, listen, what is the advice to a constituent whose premium has just tripled? Like quite literally, what is the advice? And what this person told me is, you know, I worry. that the best advice is go to a state that has its own marketplace that is managed independently.

You know, Massachusetts is an example, which has gone above and beyond the standards established by Obamacare even from before the days of Obamacare. And now, now this person said, I obviously am not going to recommend to my constituents that they leave my district. That is not something that I can go and publicly say. But I feel powerless when I hear these stories of 2x and 3x healthcare premiums. where is your mind on this about what can and has to be done for people and quickly, it seems? Listen, let me say that we are not powerless.

And part of the game that this administration is playing with us is that they're trying to make us think we're powerless. They are literally trying to weaponize despair. This work of flooding the zone, there's a reason for that. Yeah. They want to convince us that they've already won. We might as well roll over and let it happen. Well, I serve as pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Martin Luther King, Jr., sir. And I'm reminded in these days that Dr. King and his lieutenants went to see the then-President of the United States, President Johnson, right after they passed a civil rights law.

Yeah. And Dr. King kept saying to President Johnson, we're grateful for that, but we need a voting rights law, quite frankly, sir, and we need that now. The president kept saying in various ways, and he was an ally. I just don't, I can't do that right now, Martin, I don't have the power. President of the United States kept saying I don't have the power. And someone asked Dr. King, well, what are we going to do now? The president says he doesn't have the power. He said, well, we're going to have to go to the South and get him some power.

And so I come from a school of thought that change doesn't happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up. And I just want my constituents to know that I'm fighting for you and with you and walking alongside. you and we just have to stand up in this moment. We are fighting a good fight on health care. I met with members of the Senate in both parties just last night. Last night I was working on this issue with my colleagues, colleagues with whom I differ on a number of issues, trying to see if we can find a way forward. Because here's the thing. It's the red states and the red districts that are being disproportionately impacted by these high premiums that are doubling,

tripling, and in some cases quadrupling for some people. It's red districts that are seeing their hospitals close because of these draconian cuts to Medicaid. They cut about a trillion dollars out of Medicaid. If you do that, you're going to rob people of health care. They have literally taken millions of Americans health care. But again, it's really these red districts, these rural communities that are disproportionately impacted. I was in Evans County, Georgia. This is a district that largely did not vote for me. I won Georgia, but a lot of them voted for Donald Trump.

They voted for my opponent, but I was there with them. They didn't vote for me, but I worked for them. And so I was standing there in the hospital at Evans Memorial Hospital, because here's what I know. If you live in a rural community and your hospital closes, Even if you have insurance, if you're having a stroke, and the issue is getting to the hospital and time, in that case, even your wealth and your insurance won't save you.

And so that's why Dr. King said, we're tied in a single garment of destiny, caught up in an inescapable network of mutuality, whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. This health care crisis is a crisis for all of us. And I think that as we move towards the midterm, will continue to make that case. But even prior to that, know that there are people like me

in the Senate and in the House, doing everything we can to get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do what's right for their own constituents. And I'll continue to make that case. Senator, last thing, do you believe that the president just doesn't care about his voters who are the ones disproportionately suffering from this? Is it maybe because they're not useful to him anymore?

He doesn't have another race to run. I mean, why doesn't he seem to be urgently doing anything about this? Listen, I'm not going to try to get in this head, but I think when you talk about empathy, you think about caring about others and what you can do for others, I don't think that Donald Trump comes to mind for anybody. I don't, that's not how any of us would think about him. Listen, I think he showed you what his presidency was about by the people he had around him on the stage when he was being inaugurated. It was literally the wealthiest people on the planet. And he seems to be working for them, whether we're talking about who's going to get the tax cut

and who's going to be burdened with a tax tariff. He's working for them. If you're talking about this issue that's going on right now in Venezuela, he said, we're going to run it. and we're going to put our oil executives in charge. He's working for them. He's trying to pay off his campaign donors, literally at the expense of putting the lives of young men and women in the military at peril. The people in my state who signed up were patriotic, who said, I want to stand up, I want to fight for my country.

They didn't sign up to protect big oil. They signed up to protect the American dream and give every child a chance. And that's the work that I'm committed to. And that's the work we have to continue to do. And we can't let those who are trying to flood the zone so discourage us, so weaponize despair, that we don't fight back. We've got to fight back every single day because America's worth it. Our children are worth it. Senator Raphael Warnock representing the state of Georgia.

I really appreciate your time today. Great to be with you. I half joked yesterday that Donald Trump is probably jealous that Maria Karina Machado won a Nobel Peace Prize and he didn't. And therefore, he is not going to support her as becoming the new leader of Venezuela after the removal, kidnapping and capture of Nicolas Maduro. It turns out that the joke may have been closer to the truth than I expected. So it now appears that it is exactly the reason that Donald Trump will not try to install her as the new leader of Venezuela. So as a reminder, before I play the new clip for you, here is Trump asked in his press conference after the kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro. What about Maria Karina Machado as the leader of Venezuela? She's the opposition leader. She's got the Nobel Peace Prize.

And Trump goes, well, I think it'd be very tough because she is not respected within the country. country. I think it would be very tough and have you been in contact with her? No. We have it. Mr. President. On Monday. How many head of the team is about Machado?

On Monday. I think it would be very tough for her to be the leader. She doesn't have the support within or the respect within the country. She's a very nice woman, but she doesn't have the respect to be. Nice woman, but doesn't have the support or respect. That is not a serious geopolitical assessment, mind you. That is Trump's ego talking. Trump does not want to partner.

Trump wants dominance, someone who owes everything to Trump. But if she's already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a prize that Trump desperately wants, then that is not going to be someone that fits the bill for what Trump prefers. So I jokingly said the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump's jealous he's not going to do it. Last night on the Fox News show Hannity, Hannity asks about sharing the Peace Prize with Trump. And Machado says, I would love to do that. A disgusting display of subservience. And I don't even think it's going to work.

Take a listen to this. Right. Did you at any point offer to give him the Nobel Peace Prize? Did that actually happen? I had read that somewhere. I wasn't sure if it was true. Well, it hasn't happened yet. But I certainly would love to be able to personally tell him that we believe.

the Venezuelan people because this is a prize of the Venezuelan people certainly want to to give it to him and share it with him. What has what he has done, as I said, is historic. It's a huge step towards a democratic transition. Yeah, she would love to share the prize with Trump. You know what, Maria? I don't think this is going to work. I don't think Trump is going to say, actually, she should be the leader of the country because she shared. her Nobel Peace Prize with me. She is signaling total submission to try to get Trump's blessing to take over Venezuela. And in doing so, she's actually confirming why Trump doesn't respect her. Trump exploits loyalty. And he does not elevate someone who seems desperate for his approval.

That's the irony. He's jealous because she got the Nobel Peace Prize and he didn't. But the more she grovels and the more desperate she appears to convince Trump, put me in, coach, put me in, the less useful she becomes to him because he also doesn't respect that. Now, Trump also wants chaos. He wants leverage. He wants to be the sole star of the universe. And someone begging to share a Nobel Peace Prize with him, that's not a power player. That's not going to impress Trump or draw him in.

So I don't believe that this is going to work. If anything, if anything, it probably hardens Trump's instinct to sideline her because in Trump's worldview, respect doesn't come from moral standing and it doesn't come from international support. It comes from fear and it comes from dominance and the ability to say no to Trump. So as pathetic as she is when she says, oh, let's share it. We can be co- Nobel Peace Prize winners or whatever. even though Trump wants the Nobel Peace Prize, he doesn't want it given to him by a perceived weak individual who out of an act of desperation to say, pick me, pick me, says, I'll share the

thing with you. Bad for everybody, humiliating for everybody. But our instinct that Trump is unlikely to put her in charge to the extent Trump can pick who is in charge, of course, which is crazy. Trump is unlikely to put her in charge because she got something. that Trump believes he rightfully deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. California is a favorite punching bag to the American right wing. It's treated like a failed state by many Republicans. It's a cautionary tale. People are fleeing California.

You got to be very afraid of California. But the part that MAGA never wants to acknowledge is that if California were its own country, it would be one of the most prosperous economies on this planet. Top five global GDP, top four now, I believe, world leading. tech, agriculture, entertainment, clean energy, massive venture capital inflows, relatively huge number of patents and innovation, wages that on average are just dwarfing those of red states. That's the backdrop for what I'm going to show you. Congressman Maga Mike Johnson, also the Speaker of the House of Representatives, puts up a tweet

attacking California, where he says, quote, the company U-Haul just released its yearly report showing more people they're leaving California than any other. state for the sixth year in a row. It's easy to see why. California has the highest state income tax in America, 13.3%. And now Democrats like Gavin Newsom are blocking President Trump's working families tax cuts denying workers real money back in their pockets. Workers are leaving high taxes behind and red states are welcoming them with open arms.

So in comes Gavin Newsome and says, hey, Mike, nice of you to get, nice of you to get off your knees to post. Are you sore? Fact. California's population has grown for three straight years. Fact. Most Californians pay lower overall taxes than workers in Texas or Florida. Fact. Our minimum wage, almost $17 is two times your mediocre federal 725 an hour. We can't wait until you are fired. So let's kind of go through this. People have left California. Some people have left California. That's true. That is not the same thing as California shrinking, failing, or emptying out. Some are rushing to Maga Mike Johnson's defense and saying, well, California's population barely went up. Lots of people left. But then you also had people from other countries

come in. And also Californians had kids, which raised the population. Yeah. Okay, so what? So some people left. Some people came in. Some people were born. That's how the population fluctuates. It is true that California has a high top marginal state income tax rate of 13.3%. Most Californians don't pay that rate. That's the top rate. And it applies. Let me look here. California income tax brackets.

The 13.3 is only paid if you earn over 720,000 or potentially even more. Anyway, most Californians are of course not paying 13.3%. But the most interesting thing, and we've covered this before, you look at the total tax burden, right? Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fees. Fees is a classic way that a state can say we don't have taxes, but we have like outrageous vehicle registration fees, for example. Many middle class Californians are paying less in taxes total than residents of places like

Texas and Florida that don't have a state income tax. Texas has no state income tax, but they have very high property tax rates and they have a regressive sales tax. Florida has no income tax, but they rely heavily on sales taxes and fees. And so the fact that there is a high top income tax rate of 13.3 in California, you've got to remember, most people don't earn enough to pay that and the property taxes and sales taxes and fees in some of these no income tax states make the tax burden higher overall. They love to attack California, but the truth is California's population isn't declining.

The economy isn't collapsing. Wages aren't collapsing. And investment isn't collapsing. One other thing. I say this sometimes in some of my audience gets mad and I'm going to kind of qualify it here. To a degree, places with higher demand, meaning more people want to live there, costs more. It is true that one of the things that drives up housing prices is competition.

If more people want to move to California, that will drive up housing prices, all else being equal. Remember, now it is also true that California and other states have not done enough in terms of building more housing units, which by growing the supply, you can bring down the cost of housing. There are zoning issues. There are all sorts of issues. But it's important to remember that sometimes things are expensive because there is high demand. And there's a reason it's dirt cheap to go to Arkansas. Not a lot of people want to go to Arkansas.

There's great. We have great viewers in Arkansas. There's nice things in Arkansas. So I'm told I've never been. But there's a reason that Arkansas is cheaper than California. And one of the reasons is it's less interesting as a place. It's less attractive as a place for people to go to because it lacks infrastructure. infrastructure, healthcare quality, education quality, etc.

Not the only reason, but it is part of it. If Donald Trump hates dictators so much that he would go and kidnap Nicholas Maduro, why not arrest Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un or Victor Orban? If Trump hates dictators so much, why is he friendly with most of them? This is the question that completely blows up Trump's entire justification for kidnapping Nicholas Maduro, one of the justifications, and it exposes a lie that is underneath. One of the things we were told, we were told it's because of narco-trafficking doesn't seem to be. We were told its regime change doesn't seem to be.

One of the things we were told is Trump is tough on dictators. This is about the principle. He's standing up to authoritarianism. Then there's a very simple question. Why not Vladimir Putin? After the U.S. kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy was asked about Putin and his response and this is in Ukrainian, but what he says is, well, if it's possible to deal with dictators like that, then the United States knows what to do next. Let me play it for

you. Well, how do you derogata? Well, what I'm going to say? If you, if you can, yeah, so, if you can, yeah, so with dictators, like, so, so So, the United States of America, know what they're doing do they're doing. All right.

So what he is saying there is, if indeed we can deal with dictators by just kidnapping them, the United States should know what to do next, which is instead of toying with this,

let's negotiate between Putin and Ukraine, even though we know that Trump is very friendly to Putin and seems skeptical of Zelensky. Well, if the point is dictators, just go, kidnap, arrest, capture Vladimir Putin. Now, this directly exposes, of course, the double

standard. Everyone understands the reality here. Trump didn't do this because Maduro is a dictator. If that were the standard, Putin would have been first in line. Trump didn't do it because he suddenly discovered that he cares about international law or human rights. If that were true, he wouldn't have spent years praising authoritarian regimes and cozying up to dictators. Trump also didn't do this out of consistency because Trump's never been consistent about anything except, are you loyal to me. If so, you get an exemption from consequences. This is the clearest proof yet that none of their stated principles are real. Democracy now. Freedom, liberty, no. Opposition to authoritarianism. Nope. What is real is power politics and it's filtered through Trump's personal grievance

and alliance prism. Are they friendly with me? Do I have a problem with them? Maduro is weak, isolated, and expendable to Donald Trump. Putin is strong, admired by Trump, useful to Trump politically, useful to Trump psychologically. So one gets law and order. The other gets admiration and excuses and, hey, listen, it's a pretty good deal. Ukraine should take it even though Russia gets to keep a bunch of the land that it stole. And Zelensky is making that point without even having to say it outright. If the U.S. can snatch up a dictator on a whim, then the restraint around Putin,

isn't legal. It's not moral. It's not strategic. It's just political. It's who Trump likes and doesn't like. And this was never about principles. It's who does Trump want to protect? Who doesn't Trump want to protect? Who does Trump want to target and go after? And Zelensky doing a good job without mentioning Putin, by the way, of pointing out the absurd and insane double standard that exists. So slowly but surely, every justification for this kidnapping has been crossed off. And what remains to be seen is what ultimately is going to happen there. Now on the bonus show today, we will talk about both Colombia and Mexico getting ready

for Trump, getting prepared for the possibility that Trump tries an incursion into their countries. We're going to talk about that on the bonus show. We will also talk about the completely out of control flu, including H3N2 superflu. They hit the bodies in my house with it a few weeks ago. I'll tell you how everybody ultimately did all of that and more on the bonus show sign up at join hackman.com