The David Pakman Show - Jack Smith stuns Senate as Trump ally gets caught in private

Episode Date: September 30, 2026

On the Show: -- Hilary Shae, a licensed and certified speech-language pathologist who specializes in concussion and neurological disorders, joins us to discuss signs of neurological impairment in Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell -- Former special counsel Jack Smith testifies under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Donald Trump committed serious crimes -- Republican Senator Eric Schmitt accuses Jack Smith of perjury after mistaking the Iowa Hawkeyes for the Atlanta Hawks -- Leaked audio reveals Ken Paxton privately telling donors that Donald Trump's midterm convention hurt Republican numbers -- Donald Trump signs an executive order replacing artificial intelligence with super intelligence after claiming artificial implies fake -- Donald Trump addresses reporters alongside tech executives regarding a voluntary AI agreement and calls it morally binding -- Donald Trump advocates for tech self-regulation while dismissing local community concerns over data centers -- On the Bonus Show: How AI is changing campaign advertising, a Google co-founder is spending $100 million to defeat California’s wealth tax, Flock Cameras are moving from roads to the sky, and much more... 💳 PDS Debt: Get your free assessment & find the best option for you at https://pdsdebt.com/pakman 🛌 Helix Sleep mattresses: Get up to 27% OFF at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 🧠 Try Brain.fm totally free for a month at https://brain.fm/pakman 💻 Try Aura free for 14 days at https://aura.com/pakman 💪 Get a FREE AG1 Pro Yeti Shaker in your Welcome Kit at https://drinkag1.com/pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 💻 Sponsored by Private Internet Access: 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/Pakman -- Become a Member: https://davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe to our (FREE) Substack newsletter: https://davidpakman.substack.com -- Get David's Book: https://bit.ly/m/attention -- Send David a text: [phone] -- 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 (01:05) Jack Smith defends Trump prosecutions under oath (09:44) Senator mistakes basketball team in perjury claim (22:09) Leaked audio shows Paxton criticizing Trump convention (29:40) Trump renames artificial intelligence to super intelligence (38:52) Hilary Shae Interview (54:15) Trump holds press conference on AI safety accord (1:03:21) Trump defends self-regulation for AI data centers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, former special counsel, Jack Smith, goes under oath and he makes an extraordinary statement about the evidence that his investigation developed against Trump, while a Republican senator thinks he's got Smith in perjury, but it turns out to be a mix-up about women's basketball. Leaked audio catches Trump loyalist Ken Paxton admitting that Trump's big midterm convention damaged him severely and Trump is now officially renaming artificial intelligence to super intelligence, all because he doesn't understand what the word artificial means. We have all of it, a strange AI press conference, a push for AI to regulate itself, and we will speak to Hillary Shea, who you all loved the last time she was on.

We've got a show today. If they let us do it, we will record it and we will publish it. You have my word. Special prosecutor Jack Smith went under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said something about Donald Trump that couldn't possibly be any more serious. Remember, this is the former special counsel who actually led the federal investigations into Donald Trump and listened to what he had to say. Beyond a reasonable doubt, they had proof that Trump engaged in serious crimes against

our nation. This is insanely serious. Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation. If asked whether to prosecute a former president today based on the same facts, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Republican or a Democrat. The charges against President Trump were the result of the evidence. Grand juries and two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions, as alleged in the indictments they returned. Rather than accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election,

President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power. After leaving office in January of 2021, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Merrill Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. These are extraordinary statements, which I understand we've been sort of desensitized to because it's been 11 and a half years of this insanity. But these are these are extraordinary things to hear being said under oath of. about a president of the United States.

Now, we should be precise about what's being said by Smith. The assessment of Jack Smith of the evidence is not a jury verdict. We're not claiming that it is. Trump pleaded guilty, Trump pleaded guilty. Trump pleaded not guilty in both federal cases. And neither case went to trial. And the prosecutions ultimately ended after Donald Trump won the 2024 election and went back to being president of the United States.

But Smith saying, if you. You gave me the same evidence today. I would make the same decision. He told senators if he were asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts, he would do it if it were a Republican and he would do it if it were a Democrat. Now, Smith was originally appointed in 2022 and he brought those two federal cases against Donald Trump. One involved Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

The other involved classified documents that Trump retained. There's a so-called bathroom documents, the toilet documents that Trump was potentially keeping in his toilet. And that then he also was engaged in efforts to obstruct recovering those documents. What Jack Smith is saying is that after all of this, he's put back under oath and he says, my position hasn't changed. And in his final report on these cases, he said the admissible evidence would have been enough to get a conviction at trial had Trump not won.

the 2024 election. When we said during the 24 campaign, this is Trump running to stay out of prison. Now, it was metaphorical because I don't think Trump was ever going to see a day in prison, but put that aside. It was indeed in the sense that Jack Smith said this only went away because Trump won. And now Republicans are essentially putting the investigator on trial. And they're saying, oh, Smith was politically biased and he overreached from a prosecutorial standpoint and he unfairly swept Republican lawmakers into the investigation. And that leads to this incredible exchange involving the late Senator Lindsey Graham and his sister. I know it's it's it's so incestuous and nepotistic. Senator Darlene Graham is the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham. She's now the senator

representing South Carolina. And there is this incredible moment where Darlene tries to confront Smith, oh, you were getting phone records from my brother and all of this stuff. Do you really think that my brother would have destroyed evidence? And Smith's answer completely upends the question where he goes, oh, you know what? We weren't investigating Lindsay. Lindsay was likely to be a witness in our case against Donald Trump suggesting that Lindsay was actually investigating the claims that Trump was making and found them to be false. This is a remarkable moment. It doesn't make sense unless the only motivation you had was to take down President Trump and his allies one by one before the election.

So, Mr. Smith, do you really believe that Lindsay was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession? No, I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. he was not a target of our investigation, and in fact, he likely would have been a witness in our case. Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making. He found them to be false. He said so on the House floor. I have another question. Then why does the gang order say that disclosure of the subpoena would result in destruction of our tampering with evidence?

Because disclosure of that subpoena could result in Donald Trump attempting to intent. as he had before and after. We had an ample basis for that. The evidence in question belonged to Lindsay and was in the possession of Verizon. It makes absolutely no sense that anyone would be able to destroy the evidence you are seeking. Do you know what I think?

I think you're just trying to bully my brother and other allies of President Trump. you caused my brother and a lot of other senators, a lot of stress. And that makes me sick. Yeah. All right. Anyway, this is very important. Jack Smith says, no, Lindsay Graham wasn't a target.

We weren't. Darlene is trying to suggest that Graham was being bullied as a target of this investigation unfairly. But Smith goes, no, we weren't investigating him as a target. We think that he would have been a witness because he was aware of the fact that Donald Trump was saying things that were untrue about. the election and the phone records that issue are uh the records are issue are at issue are phone records and who was communicating with whom and when and all of that stuff it's not even the content of the calls and when ted cruz separately challenged smith about why did investigators get these non-disclosure orders preventing carriers from revealing that we have subpoenaed these records

smith said we had reason to believe that trump would destroy evidence if he knew that he knew that that we were doing that, that he would obstruct the investigation if he knew that we were doing that. And that is incredible. So there are really two completely different stories about this hearing. One story is the Republican story. Smith weaponized federal law enforcement unfairly against Trump who did nothing wrong and he was partisan and the entire investigation was improper and it was all bad, bad, Jack Smith, who's under oath, by the way, the Republicans making these claims are not at risk of perjury. Smith, who's under oath says politics had not nothing to do with it. Most of the important evidence came from Republicans at the end of the day.

There were people around Trump who investigated his claims about 2020 and found them to be without merit. And they told him that the claims were false. And ultimately, the central question underneath all of this is what did the evidence show? And what Jack Smith said under oath before the U.S. Senate is the evidence showed Trump was engaging in serious crimes. And we believe that in a trial, we would have gotten a conviction. That is remarkable. Now, Trump was never even, uh, forget about convicted. It was dropped. The charges were dropped. But Jack Smith is making clear he stands by all of it. And the attempts to bully him really didn't work. And we've got to talk about that next. One of the most backfiring congressional hearing gotcha moments I have ever

seen happened when Republican Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri was questioning former special counsel Jack Smith. And Schmidt thinks he got him, not in like some minor inconsistency. What Eric Schmidt tries to do in the video I'm going to play is push to try to show that Jack Smith committed perjury. And it's all about a basketball game. You have to see this develop in real time. And you will see Jack Smith. starting to be asked about February 3rd of 2024. Were you at an Atlanta Hawks game that day? And Smith goes, no, I don't think so.

That doesn't ring a bell at all. And Schmidt thinks he's got him. But look at how this backfires. Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on February 3rd, 2024? I'm sorry. Could you say that again? Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on

February 3rd, 2024? What city would that be in? Atlanta. No. Okay. So your testimony today is that you did not go to a hawksk. He already thinks he's got him. Game on February 3rd, 20204.

Is that correct? I have no recollection of that. Okay. Is it your testimony that you were not in Atlanta on February 3rd, 2024? Let me just give you a little context. The day before Fannie Willis came clean with her affair with the prosecutor, you know the Atlanta prosecutor that was also trying to get Trump, the next day were you in Atlanta?

I do not believe so. Okay, did you ever go to Atlanta during your time as special counsel? Now, understand that Schmidt is trying to set a perjury trap. He thinks that he knows the truth and he's backing Jack Smith into a corner and he's going to get him on perjury. I really don't think so. It's possible I flew through the Atlanta airport on the way to Florida, but I do not have a recollection of going to Atlanta. I definitely did not go to a hawks game.

I'm sure that. Did you ever meet Nathan Wade or Fannie Willis in your time in your time and special counsel? No. What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a warrior hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair? Now, let me just explain. The whole argument here is that Jack Smith was in Atlanta at an Atlanta Hawks game.

that is where Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade were, and that he was meeting with them. And so the idea here is Schmidt thinks he's got him dead to rights. He thinks that Smith is lying about being in Atlanta, that Smith lied when he said, I've never met with them, but it's going to go south quick. I don't think you know that we have this stuff. So I'll give you a second to process it so you don't, you know, perjure yourself. You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again. Okay.

Mr. Chairman, can we give the witness a copy so he can see what's being read to him? Well, I think you've already sufficiently. I want to run through. We'll put it in a file. If you can respond. I think you've already perjured yourself, but did you or your office? Can we see it? Can we see it?

Did you or your office seek? This is my time. Senator, can we see? If you want to use your time to criticize my question, go ahead, ranking number. Just very briefly. And this can, if this is the correct. basketball game. I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game. Uh-oh.

Where Caitlin Clark was playing right around that time. And the Marshal Service was there with me. You could check if that was the exact date. It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think February of 2024. But again, you can check that out. If that's now mentioning Iowa is the crux of all of this. Watch what we're talking about. Could it then be that University of Iowa is the Hawkeyes? Here comes Amy Klobuchar. Could that be it? And maybe before we show this kind of thing, I know, but if he was at an Iowa game, is that correct?

It was because Caitlin Clark was coming to Maryland to play. Uh-huh. I know, but that might be the confusion over the names of the team, but perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully. Who's questioning is this, by the Lunds, Chairman? Are you using your time, Senator? Is this what this is? No.

Are we just having like an open session here? I will begin my questions. I just, I'm just got shocked that. I'm glad you're trying to rehabilitate the witness, but it's not your time. I'm calling a witness a dirt bag. I presented him with text messages about him wanting to meet with people that could have obviously been related to the prosecution that was coordinated with his office in Atlanta. I'm going to begin my questions now, but I think that people should have their facts straight. All right. So luckily, for people who don't.

I mean, like, if you don't follow sports, you wouldn't necessarily understand the hilarity of this confusion. Schmidt brings up, where were you on February 3rd, 2024? And clearly Schmidt believes that Jack Smith was in Atlanta watching the Atlanta Hawks game. And because Atlanta is central in some sense to the case, because that's where Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade are, that he's got him. And Smith goes, Atlanta, no, I don't think I've been to Atlanta at all, maybe through the airport. An Atlanta Hawks game? No, I don't think so. And so Schmidt's like, I got him. I think you have perjured yourself. Look at these text messages. You were in the front row watching the Hawks. And he doesn't even think that there's any mistake. He goes, I think you've perjured yourself

already. A very serious accusation. And then behind it, Amy Klobuchar realizes, hold on a second. Wait, wait, wait a second. What Jack Smith did is he went to watch Caitlin Clark. who is now in the WNBA, then played college basketball for the Iowa Hawkeyes. This was in Maryland, not Atlanta. The Iowa Hawkeyes came in to play against Maryland at the college level. It has nothing to do with Atlanta. It has nothing to do with the Hawks. It's the Hawkeyes.

And now Schmidt thinks I got Smith, but it's the wrong Hawks. It's not the Hawks at all. It's the Hawkeyes. He wasn't in Atlanta. was in college park, Maryland, watching the University of Iowa Hawkeyes play against the Maryland Terrapins. And who happened to be playing for Iowa? Caitlin Clark had a really good game that night, by the way. And the entire theory that Schmidt is working with here is about a reference to the hawks that they were talking about and seats. So he goes, did the hawks play that day? The Atlanta

Hawks in the NBA. They did play. And that's Atlanta. That's the same place as Fannie Willis. It had nothing to do with Atlanta. It had nothing to do with the NBA. It had nothing to do with the Hawks. It was about the Iowa Hawkeyes, different state hundreds of miles apart. And then Amy Klobuchar comes in and goes, hey, we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves here. Maybe we would back up. You got to look at this a little more carefully. And then Schmidt just goes, whose turn is it here? Now, Republicans have the right to scrutinize the investigation if that's what they want to do. They can raise substantive questions if they have them. They can raise questions about investigative tactics or electronic data or whatever. If you're going to accuse someone of perjury in a televised

Senate hearing where the individual witness is under oath, maybe get the basketball team right. This is one of the most embarrassing things. And he thought he could establish that Smith secretly traveled to Atlanta and caught him lying and none of it happened. He was in college park, Maryland. And this is like they think they've got a smoking gun and the smoking gun is a wet piece of spaghetti. It's nothing. They thought they had a viral moment and it just evaporated. Pathetic and humiliating stuff. If you're in debt before you decide another month of minimum payments is just the price of getting by, take 30 seconds and find out what your options are. Our sponsor PDS debt gives people a free personalized assessment to show them a path forward instead of guessing.

PDS debt helps people with unsecured debt like credit cards, personal loans, collections, and medical bills. They'll review what you owe. They'll look at your budget, your priorities, and match you with a customized solution that is designed to reduce what you owe. Instead of bouncing between creditors and due dates, what they can do is combine all of your unsecured debts into one lower monthly payment. There will be a clear timeline in how you get out of that debt. No minimum credit score required and savings can start the day you complete the free 30 second assessment.

Lots of people in my audience use PDS debt and we looked at the numbers for people coming just from my show. It turns out the average David Pacman show viewer who uses PDS debt saves an average of $24,994. $3. PDS debt is the top rated in the industry. They've got thousands of five star reviews and an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. Get your free 30 second personalized assessment today at PDSdebt.com slash Pacman.

The link is in the description. Buying a mattress is one of those purchases where the options start to all look the same, even though there are really important differences once you're sleeping on it. night and that's one reason I like our sponsor, Helix Sleep, they give you a structured way to figure out what are you looking for instead of just picking a mattress off of a page because on the Helix website, you take this short quiz about the position you like to be in, firmness, preferences, other needs, and based on your answers, Helix will recommend the right mattress for you and it is way more straightforward. I took their quiz. They matched me with the perfect

mattress and I've had it for years. It holds up perfectly. It's super comfortable. Helix mattresses ship free in the U.S. and you get a 120-night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty. Go to Helix sleep.com slash Pacman for 27% off sitewide exclusive for my audience. The link is in the description. Procrastination. Most people have some stuff that they avoid doing. It's not because the tasks are necessarily difficult, but because getting started just feels a little hard. The emails you need to answer or documents you need to read or write, projects you've been putting off. This is where our sponsor Brain FM can help. It's a music app designed to support focus, music created by musicians working alongside neuroscientists with patented audio technology to influence

brain activity associated with attention. This is the only. music app funded by the National Science Foundation. There is research behind it. There are peer-reviewed studies showing that its music will increase activity in attentional networks, and it will improve performance on attention-based tasks, including particularly strong results among people with ADHD-type symptoms. Brain FM has modes for deep work, creative work, motivation, learning, a dedicated ADHD mode for people who will benefit from extra stimulation. If what is preventing you from getting in gear and staying there is you, try Brain FM. My audience can try Brain FM totally free for a whole month at brain.fm slash Pacman.

The link is in the description. I have the perfect example for you of exactly what Republicans do not want Donald Trump to hear them saying in public. Ken Paxton is running for Senate in Texas. He may lose to James Tala Rico. Ken Paxton may be one of the worst Senate candidates I've ever seen in any race ever. And Trump kind of backed Paxton. He backed him and backed them into a corner. Let me explain. Trump backed Paxton in his primary against the incumbent Senator John Cornyn relatively late in that primary. And Paxton has spent years presenting himself as one of Donald Trump's most loyal allies. And so what happened is Trump's super PAC is spending money trying to help Paxton. Trump is mostly saying positive things about Paxton, but Paxton

is suffering by the voters being reminded of how close his alliance is with Donald Trump. And this means that the recent midterm convention that Trump held in Dallas, Texas was terrible for Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton publicly said, this is so great. I love it. But we now have leaked audio obtained by the New York Times of Ken Paxton's assessment of the. that midterm convention. And it is bad. This is from a private fundraiser in Washington. And someone asked Paxton, you know, is Trump becoming a little bit of a drag? And Paxton's response is that midterm convention didn't help us. In fact, our numbers got worse. Take a look at this. You feel like and all these guys have numbers.

But do you feel like he's a little bit of a doubt? So to be honest with you, the numbers in case. When we did that in the convention, it was off our numbers. Everybody can't need off by now. Yeah. Not good. I wish there was something to do to turn on. It's not good.

The midterm convention diminished how well I was polling. Now, this is very different from Trump's story. Trump's assessment was that this convention was such a big success. And it was so successful that it really helped Ken Paxton specifically. It helped them a lot. And Paxton privately goes, all of our polling got worse. It's everybody's polling got worse after the midterm convention. Now, an important caveat.

The New York Times says it's unclear whether the convention is really what hurt Paxton. there's a whole bunch of other problems that Paxton is experiencing. And it could have just been that he was damaged in the polling around the time of the convention, but for other reasons. Now, Paxton's campaign is disputing the entire premise of the story. They're terrified. They're in complete and total damage control mode because if Trump hears that Paxton is saying he actually hurt me, Trump's going to pull the super PAC money. Trump might start attacking Paxton. Who the hell knows? We don't need to speculate about what Paxton thought, though, because we have the audio, And he's really clear there.

The convention hurt us. And there's good reason for Republicans to be nervous. Texas should not look anything like this. Trump won Texas by almost 14 in 2024. Ted Cruz won his Senate race in 2024 by eight and a half. And right now the real clear politics polling average has James Tala Rico, Talafrico. He's such a nasty guy. Tala Rico, the Democrat in Texas at 47.6 and Paxton at 44.7.

And if you look, the reason that all of these circles are blue on the polling page I'm showing you is because Tala Rico is winning every single poll. In the big data poll, Tala Rico's up too. In the Marist poll, which is a very, a perfect poll, Tala riko's up six. the Trafalgar group poll, Talariko is only up one. So the point here is all different polls, big data, TPOR, Marist, UGov, Trafalgar, Emerson, et cetera. Every single one Tala Rico is winning. The question is, how much is he winning by? That is nine, ten polls, all from September, and he is leading Tala Rico is in every single one. Now, this doesn't tell us who's going to win in

November, it tells us what is the polling state of the race today. And this is what makes the leaked audio so interesting. Paxton's public political identity is completely built around worship of Trump. He won the Republican nomination, not necessarily because Trump endorsed him, but after Trump endorsed him. He was prominently featured both nights of the midterm convention, which was held in his own state of Texas. Trump mostly praised him from the stage, although he said he kind of looks weird, but that's a different story. Paxton used the event to mingle with donors and to raise money. And according to the New York Times, days later, he's in a private fundraiser in D.C.

And he's going, the convention was not good. And we don't know what to do to reverse it. And this is a very common dynamic in Trump era of Republican politics. Publicly, you know that if you criticize Trump, there is a big political cost. Inside the Republican party, you could really suffer. So what you do is you effusively praise Trump. Trump is amazing. The event was amazing. It's all going so well. And occasionally, we get a recording from behind closed doors and we discover, oh, that conversation sounds a lot different. Now,

I would not extrapolate from this one recording that they all secretly hate Trump. We don't know that. But these tapes really demonstrate something a lot more concrete, which is one of Trump's most prominent allies, at least as far as we're concerned publicly, believes that Trump's midterm Convention was a damaging element for Republican candidates. And apparently, Paxton was much more comfortable saying that to about a dozen donors and lobbyists behind closed doors than he isn't saying it publicly. And that's the part that is most important. If Republican candidates believe Trump is hurting them, they should be able to say so publicly.

And if they believe he's helping them, they should be able to say that. There's this ritual where everybody publicly praises Trump and privately they go, this guy is really screwing us. And that is a reminder about the incentive structure in the Republican Party. Paxton has a strong incentive not to alienate Trump. The race is close, even though he seems to be losing. Trump's political operation is spending a lot of money to try to help him, money he needs. He's having trouble raising money on his own. Trump is going to Texas to campaign. So publicly, it's full MAGA. But privately, it's hurting all of us. It's not good. I don't know how to turn it around. The leaked audio answers the question of why Republicans who are privately worried Trump is

hurting them don't say it publicly because he needs their they need, they need his money. They need the candidates need Trump's money to the extent he's willing to spend that Trump's hoarding a lot of it. And in addition to that, they don't want Trump turning his ire against them. So lips are sealed publicly, but this seems to be how they truly feel. And by the way, I find this to be completely cowardly. I mean, it is an exhibition in cowardice. It is not a profile encouraged to do this. But they are terrified. They don't know how they're between a rock and a hard place. I don't feel bad for them. They just are. And this is what you get. Donald Trump has apparently already decided how history will remember the war with Iran. It is not going to be

remembered if you talk to Trump as a complicated conflict whose ultimate consequences we just don't know. It is not going to be seen. is something historians will debate for decades. According to Trump, the war with Iran will be remembered as one of the most important things the United States has ever done. Here is Trump on the war with Iran and he goes, it'll be over soon. Oil prices will tumble down. They will write books saying this is one of the most important things we did. Somehow, I doubt that. Now you have the hottest country anywhere in the world. That's exactly true. And Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. Nuclear.

Very badly. Very badly. That'll be over with very soon. It'll be over with very, very soon. They will not have a nuclear weapon. And oil prices are going to be tumbling down just like they were before I had to make that little excursion to the Islamic Republic of Iran. We're very good experience. I think in the years to come, they'll be writing books and they'll be writing the history of our country and they'll say that's one of the most important things that we did. That is actually one of the most important things. Yeah. If you give a thousand monkeys typewriters with access to chat HTP, they will write about my war with Iran. Listen to the certainty. Not only will the war be over soon. We are in month eight

of a two to three week war. Not only will the, will the war we over soon. Oil prices will tumble. History books will celebrate that I did this war. Now, at some point, the conflict will probably end, right? I mean, I hope so. At some point, oil and gas prices might fall. Those are predictions. Those are not facts. And maybe historians will view the war as a success based on what hasn't hasn't happened yet. What happens in the future? Maybe, you know, Iran's nuclear program is durably constrained. I don't know. It's all seeming very, very unclear. But Trump loves to give us the historical verdict while we're still living through the event. And the event is going completely differently than what Donald Trump promised. And moments earlier in these remarks,

Trump explained another supposedly historic decision, which is that his administration is very proudly changing the name of artificial intelligence. And we are now supposed to call it SI super intelligence. Now, I want you to listen to Donald Trump's explanation as to why. I believe that essentially Trump misunderstands the word artificial. I think all of this is happening because Trump doesn't understand the word artificial. And I've got another example of when this has happened to Trump. It might not happen actually. This kind of innovation in government is just a preview of what is possible with super intelligence or SI, and that's the official name in the United States.

I'll be signing a very powerful executive order. I spoke to President Xi. He loves it. Because when you say artificial intelligence, it's artificial. This is extreme intelligence. It's superior intelligence. It's supreme, also intelligence.

But the word super is the best word of all, the simplest. And so we're going to be naming it SI super intelligence. We don't want to hear artificial because it's not artificial. It's very powerful. It's very brilliant. It's going to mostly be put to great use. All right. Okay. Okay. Trump doesn't know what artificial means in the context of artificial intelligence. And so he's renaming it. Artificial intelligence, he thinks, is because it's fake or inferior. It's inferior intelligence. When we say, artificial intelligence. Trump goes, you're talking bad about it. It's fraud. Artificial just means it's produced by a human-made system. AI did not arise biologically. Okay. If I there's artificial

light here in my studio. That doesn't mean it's fake. It simply means it didn't arise by the sun. It's from man-made devices. An artificial heart isn't a fake or inferior heart, it was created by humans. This is a misunderstanding. And Trump goes, when you say artificial intelligence, it's not so good. So we need, what is he even calling it? Supreme, super intelligence. This has happened to Trump before.

Remember when Trump would constantly talk about insane asylums and he would talk about Hannibal Lector? And we figured out, we speculate. What I believe is that Donald Trump is confusing people who come to the U.S. and request political asylum with an insane asylum. In other words, a psychiatric hospital. And so when Trump heard people were coming here and requesting asylum, Trump was like, they're emptying out insane asylums.

And so that led him to Hannibal Lecter stories. And that's it. Silence of the Lamb, as he would call it. It's all based around Trump struggling to understand language. And it is an incredible juxtaposition. On the one hand, Trump goes, historians are going to look back at this Iran war and recognize it as one of America's greatest achievements. And then he goes, artificial intelligence.

We can't call it that because artificial sounds bad. There's a lot of intelligence. So we need to call it superior intelligence. Think about how pathetically humiliating this is. And maybe before you start, you know, deciding what the history books are going to say about your presidency. You pull out a damn dictionary, sir. I hope to see many of you, by the way, Saturday in Springfield, Massachusetts. Jessica Tarlov and I both have new books out. We are doing a beautiful event, open to the public, free, no tickets required, just have to get through four

layers of security and then convince someone that you actually know what you're there for. Um, Jessica Tarloav and I are doing an event at Symphony Hall in Springfield, Massachusetts. This Saturday, 6 p.m. We will do about a 50 minute talk and then we will both sign our books. It's going to be a beautiful evening. I hope you can join us. This is crazy. 153 million American and Canadian driver's license scans were leaked to the dark web. Most are from Americans. They were stolen from ID scan.net. a company that handles 21 million ID checks a month. And this leak included your photo name, birth date, address, infrared and ultraviolet layers used to verify the license is real. So this made it

really easy to copy your license. Now, sometimes your license enters third party systems just by handing it to a hotel clerk. I did that just a few nights ago when I was traveling for my book. Who knows what they're doing with it? And that is why I use or. Aura monitors the dark web for exposed info, including driver's licenses. ORA can send you fraud alerts up to 650 times faster than competitors. It also includes antivirus, a password manager, and up to $5 million in identity theft insurance and recovery support. My audience can try ORA free for 14 days more than enough time to check whether your

driver's license has been exposed. Go to aura.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. I like when a health routine is simple enough that I'll actually do it, not a complicated stack, not five steps, just one thing that covers a lot. And this is the idea behind AG1 Pro, which is one of today's sponsors. AG1 Pro is back after selling out last month in 24 hours. It's built for people who just want to simplify their supplement routine instead of adding

more bottles. And so AG1 Pro gives you everything in AG1 next gen plus creatine and additional ingredients for muscle preservation and advanced gut health for less than a dollar more per serving. You get a daily health drink with 80 plus vitamins, minerals, probiotics, whole food ingredients, plus creatine monohydrate, calcium HMB, and zinc carnacine. It's just basic daily support for nutrition, digestive health. cellular energy production to help you keep up. The appeal is consistency and simplicity.

It's one thing to do in the morning, covers a lot, only once a day. Visit drinkag1.com slash Pacman to get a free AG1 pro-YETI shaker in your AG1 pro welcome kit. The link is in the description. Back today to talk to us is Hilary Shea, a licensed and certified speech language pathologist. She posts educational content on YouTube and social media to help patients, families and clinicians better understand brain injury recovery. And Hillary, we recently spoke about the president. We now have this situation with Mitch McConnell. As a layperson, I see a guy that I am not sure is processing what is going on around him. I see a guy that I'm not sure is processing language.

And I see a guy that I very much doubt really had a 20 minute conversation with Scott Jennings because it's not clear to me that he can really speak beyond monosyllabic utterances like I when he voted on a farm bill. What do you see as a professional in these videos of Mitch McConnell being wheeled around? I see the exact same thing. And I have a theory. And clearly, as we all know, we cannot diagnose somebody that we've never met as a speech language pathologist. I do not diagnosed brain injuries. But right now, he really appears to be someone who has suffered an noxic or hypoxic brain injury. And that's basically just loss of oxygen to the brain. Lots of things can cause that, cardiac arrest, drowning. But if you look specifically at Mitch

McConnell's case, we have this so-called fall with pneumonia. And we have a 911 call that says someone was down, CPR was administered. So the question becomes, what why was he down? CPR gets started right away. That typically means you're not breathing. Heart is stopped, one of the two. And so how long did his brain lose oxygen? You also then think about, well, he has this like really significantly long hospital stay.

CPR is not nice. If you're doing CPR right, you're breaking some ribs. And if you think about that with a frail 84-year-old man, that definitely makes sense for an extended period of time. But when you look at what he's doing now, now that we have a very important. actual video evidence of what he is and is not doing. You see a couple of things. One is lack of speech. He's not saying anything. He said, I, very gravely. Someone basically had to say, say I. And we haven't heard him talk really at all. He supposedly gave an update, but that was not

recorded. So we have no video of that. And everything else he's been doing when he's so-called answering questions is what's called a stereotypic gesture. Stereotypic means basically an automatic. So we've seen him do thumbs up. We've seen him do, I've been told it's V for victory. He's not a peace sign kind of guy. Oh, is that right? That's maybe due to the timing and his age. It's like this is probably more of like V is for victory type of like in the war type of thing.

So maybe. But he's just been doing that. He's done the thumbs up. We've had a little bit of a wave. He's stuck out his hand to shake somebody's hand. But that person basically did all the work. So all of those are these automatic gestures, which can sometimes. be preserved with significant brain damage. He's not showing anything else. He's not aware of the

world around him. If you even look at him being wheeled around, look at him going over a curb, upper curb or down a curve. If you look at him also like when he went over a doorway, there was kind of that bump in the doorway. There's no real movement in any of his body that shows that his body is even aware of the fact that there was this bump. His legs don't move. His hands don't move. He's showing nothing. So based, of course, not on examining him, but in your experience, working with people with a broad spectrum of sort of speech abilities in the context, sometimes of brain injury, stroke, et cetera, when you simply see the videos of him, both his awareness of the environment

and the awareness of the sort of content of the speech that he's surrounded by, reporters saying, do you want to be going to work? How are you voting on X? you just see someone whose ability to process the environment around him is at minimum limited right now. Very much so. And you've seen him ignore reporters before. I have a video on my channel actually of before all of this happened, he was ignoring a reporter while getting onto an elevator and he kind of give like a smirk. He looks at the elevator, like when is the elevator going to come? There's none of that right now. I mean, he does not appear to be processing any of that information.

And when you have someone that kind of responds, either with stereotypic utterances or gestures, a lot of times they're responding to intonation patterns. Do you ask a yes, no question? It's typically got an intonation pattern. Are you hungry? And then so we can kind of know, okay, that's a yes, no. If it's a, you know, what do you think about your wife, Elaine, not showing up at your bedside? That goes down. So we know it's more of an open end of question.

Yeah. So you can gather and be aware of something, but it does not seem like he's processing any real verbal information. I'm trying to think how to ask this next question. In your clinical experience, working with people, we don't have doctors say there was no stroke. A tumor doesn't explain. Okay. So like we have the claims from from doctors as far as they've told us. In your experience, if your assessment of his current. speech ability is accurate. To what degree do people his age recover from the state at which you believe he currently sits to being able to sort of fully understand a farm bill, for example, or to be able to speak extemporaneously about issues. Ket, do you see that level of recovery ever? Recovery of anoxid brain injury is one of the least likely recoveries. We are talking about

brain death, cell death, not the whole brain, cell death. And it's not to say that people with anoxic brain injuries cannot recover, especially if you're young. I've seen some really great recoveries. Full recovery typically guarded, being able to get back out into society and do things maybe a little bit better. When I look at Mitch McConnell, I see years worth of falls with concussions. I see likely TIA where he just had those freezing moments multiple times where like 20, 30 seconds goes by. And you look at everything. You look at his age.

You look at his frailty. You incorporate even like post polio syndrome. It's not a good outcome for someone with that health history to then have an inoxic brain injury. So recovery, maybe you see, oh, he's starting to get a few more words out. or maybe you see a bit more spontaneous movement, I would not expect any type of recovery that would allow him to be a functioning human being or even really a senator. Now, it's been months since the triggering event for all of this happened. So one of the things that I think is relevant is that the state in which he currently finds himself is after three

or four months of supposed rehab, et cetera. Does that tell us anything in the sense of like, if this were a week after the incident, it would be different than four months later? Certainly. Yeah. The sooner recovery starts, the better it will be. I firmly believe in something called neuroplasticity, which is basically the brain can make changes. And if you are motivated and have the capacity, I think you can make changes long after an injury. But for someone like Mitch McConnell, who is showing such limited awareness even to his environment, let alone. any actual spontaneous movement, it's pretty significant to say it's been four plus months. And this is where we're at right now.

All right. Let's shift a little bit to Donald Trump. One of the new things that we are seeing increasingly regularly is when Donald Trump is about to walk upstairs or downstairs or off a stage or sort of these moments where you've got to make sure you're stepping in the right places is maybe the way I would describe it. He taps his right leg almost like he's setting up to do something telling himself, hey, this is that thing. I've got to pay special care to. That's sort of the way that I've seen it.

Is that tapping? And it's always, I think, the right hand on the right thigh. What do you see when you see that? It honestly looks like something called a tactile cue. And that just means like something that you can touch or feel that helps just helps jumpstart your brain a little bit. or remind your brain. So if you think about Donald Trump,

likely having sustained a stroke, it appears he has right-sided weakness and issues specifically on his right side, it seems like that tap is either something someone taught him to kind of jumpstart that muscle. Hey, you got to work right now, or it's something where internally he's aware, it's not going well.

It's not, if I take that step, it's not going to go well and his body is automatically just kind of like, wake up, dude. But yeah, it appears to be related to right-sided weakness and difficulty with that motor control. Donald Trump very notably grimaced during a flyover as after they were done, you know, ironing a red carpet for authoritarian she. There was this flyover. And Trump did a thing. We're like, ooh, too loud.

You thought that that was not just a sort of inconsequential reaction. Talk about that a little bit. I mean, absolutely not. If everybody did that, you could be like, oh, it was just really loud. She right next to him, stone cold face. All of the military members, I think Natalie Harp was even right next to him. Like, nobody batted an eyelash with that one. So why would Trump do that?

When your brain is deteriorating and we'll say likely some form of dementia, it is really difficult to filter and prioritize what to pay attention to. So selective attention. I know that there's this loud sound coming. I know there's jets flying over. He probably, you know, planned it. But all of a sudden, it's like, not only can you not really filter it, it becomes the thing in your attention.

My attention can't remain on the fact that I have my hand up in a salute, which is why he also went like this. The hand dropped. He could not determine the sound and then filter it enough so it wasn't so overwhelming to the brain and also be able to keep his hand in that. absolute position. So that's very much a sign of something going on neurologically. On the falling asleep in public stuff, Trump is now falling asleep in public two to three

times a week, really. And you know, when it comes up, I'll mention it. And then we kind of talk about the substance of the events, but I'll hear from folks. And yesterday I got an email from a guy who said, listen, I'm 79 and I'm sleepy sometimes. And sometimes I take a nap, you know, at a time I'm not necessarily planning to. And so I'm trying to balance that with the reality that, you know, 1 p.m. in a bright room lit like a TV studio. You know, the Oval Office is extremely bright. Cameras, people, some some level of pressure in the sense of you're performing to a degree. Is that the same as like, you know, sometimes older folks get tired and they doze off for a few minutes or does that point to something different?

Definitely something different. And I think you have the argument against. it to say, okay, well, you sometimes fall asleep sometimes because you're older. Put yourself in Donald Trump's situation. Would you be falling asleep in that environment? And your answer is going to be, no, of course not. Bright lights. I'm on camera. There's people around me. It's very different if you're like nodding off because you're watching TV. And so why is he doing it at that time of day now even more and more frequently, the super-chaismatic nucleus is our brain's time clock. And it's basically telling him, incorrect information now. And that happens with dementia and brain deterioration. That part deteriorates.

So the wake, sleep cycles get affected. And that's why he's up all night, just on his phone. And that's why he's so tired and physically cannot stay awake. And it's happening faster. He talks. And then it's like within a minute of someone else talking, he's just out. So it is definitely not just, I'm old and sometimes I get tired too. All right. Hillary Shea, licensed and certified speech language pathologist, always appreciate your insights and your time. Thanks so much for talking to me. Thank you for having me. Every political story has two parts. What happened and what different media outlets want you to think happened. And you can see the framing difference pretty clearly in this story about Donald Trump signing a $70 billion immigration bill after this long. fight over ICE funding. On the left, the focus is what will the money fund? Billions for the next three years of Trump's mass deportation campaign. On the right, the emphasis is Trump taking

future ice shutdowns off the table by signing the bill. One side is asking, what does this mean for immigration enforcement for mass deportations? The other is framing it as Trump ending the threat of ice shutdowns. This is why our sponsor Ground News is so useful because it lets you compare coverage from the left, right, and center in one place, along with factuality ratings and info about who owns the outlets. I've been using ground news for years. It can really help you see through the political spin that blinds a lot of news consumers. And right now you can get 40% off the same vantage plan I use.

Go to ground. Dot news slash Pacman. The link is in the description. Global weekly cyber attacks are at or near record highs. A major part of protecting your data is minimizing how much of your data is exposed and how easily can that data be tied to you. Our sponsor, private internet access, hides your IP address online, prevents apps and websites from knowing it's you so they can't tie you to your online activity.

This also means your internet service provider can't see what you're doing. And if there's a data breach, your info stays anonymous because you were never using your real IP address to begin with. Private internet access has proven through multiple court cases they do not log user activity, which can also be verified since their software is open source. Anybody can look at the code and see that your online activity stays private. With private internet access, you can run it on unlimited devices with a single subscription, works with Netflix and other streaming services worldwide. I've been using private internet access

for years. It is one of the few privacy tools I trust. My audience gets 83% off. So all you'll pay is about two bucks a month. Plus you'll get four extra months for free. Go to PIAvPN.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. I don't know how else to describe what happened at this press conference of sorts. Other than Donald Trump seemed to have everything completely backwards, including his legs. At one moment, his legs seemed reversed like his feet were pointing in the wrong direction. It was bizarre. Now, getting beyond that, this was a very strange thing to notice. This was supposed to be a serious event about AI. Trump brought together AI leaders. I know that Trump now wants me referring to it as super intelligence rather than artificial intelligence.

But just over the course of a few minutes, we get Trump visibly reacting as reporters try to ask about AI, AI safety, about ICE. And Trump just makes bizarre claim after claim after claim. And watch this first moment where Trump is twitching in anger that a reporter is trying to ask him about ICE. How dare they? cattle groups are warning that ice crackdowns in Kansas are having problems for... Are we talking about ice now?

That's right. For beef processing, Mr. President, and they're bringing up prices, Mr. President. Any comment on your ICE enforcement bringing up prices? ICE has done a phenomenal job in keeping our people safe. They've done a fantastic job in taking murderers, rapists, drug dealers, the worst people on Earth, the worst, the worst, people all over the world. They got dumped into our country by Joe Biden. by Joe Biden allowing open borders where people came by the way, look at Mark Zuckerberg in the

background, just looking off to the side like, and by the way, I'm not defending Zuckerberg being there or anything like that, but just looking off to the side and wanting to be, it completely missed as being in the background of this insanity. I'm in unvetted, untested, unchecked, and they walk through our country by 25 million. And we've gotten most of the really bad ones out and the rest are going out. These are murderers and the worst people in the world. And we've done one hell of a job. And you ought to talk to the Democrats.

Why did you allow 25 million people, many of whom were the worst criminals? Why did you allow them into our country? You disturbed our country. You hurt our country. Reporter tries to ask Trump about ICE. He clearly doesn't want to engage with the question. And he's just shaking. Now, then we get to the substance of the event, which is the

the biggest day I companies have signed this new accord with the White House. And a reporter asks a really basic question. Is this thing binding? And Trump's like, well, I think it's morally binding. Mr. President, it's more than about a name is it. Is this a chord that everybody signed? Is it binding in any way? I think it's morally binding.

Yeah. Oh, that's the. So in other words, it is not binding. It is so important because this is being presented as this huge AI safety agreement involving the most powerful tech companies in the world. And the agreement contains commitments, right? Like, okay, we're going to do internal safety controls. And we're really going to regulate ourselves and we'll have some audits and board level oversight.

It's completely voluntary. And Trump himself, it goes, they're basically going to police themselves, which we will get to. Now, you might think that's enough. Like, you might think self-regulation and no. binding agreement is okay, but morally binding is very different than legally enforceable. Now all of a sudden, Trump starts talking about ratings, I guess, the convention or something about AI. Like just listen to this insanity.

Sorry, who should be held accountable when the AI agents committed a crime like that it's not AI, it's a, that's the other thing. We've changed the name officially today. We've changed the name Steve officially. to SI. Oh, okay. Before he'll answer anything substantively, he has to mention the name is now SI, which is very stupid. Okay. Si, like SI, SI, instead of AI. You know, that means super intelligence. So the name, I guess that's really quite an announcement because, but the name has been officially changed by the biggest, the smartest, the greatest people anywhere in the world.

All right. So if you're even going to address AI, you have to make sure that you're, you address it as SI, which is the new word. And then here is Trump who goes into a ratings coma, just talking about ratings, ratings, ratings. A lot of things, but for the most part, I have to tell you, the Republican Party is really united. We had a convention a couple of weeks ago that a lot of you said, oh, it's a midterm. It's never been done before. It's going to be a failure. And they put it against the NFL. Right. And we had 107 million views and the NFL had 25 million views. That convention was unbelievable. Now, let me explain to you what Trump's doing. This is a classic. He's comparing completely different metrics. Okay. We had 107 million views and the NFL had 20-something

million views. The Republican midterm convention had roughly 3 million TV viewers, according to Nielsen. Okay. It didn't have 107 million television viewers. Trump's larger number is across all platforms, including the internet, as well as clips and the live stream and blah, blah, blah, all of it together is 107 million views, which is a fraction of what my show gets in a month. Okay, so like, it's not even that impressive when you're going 107 million views. For perspective, the 2004 Republican National Convention was getting 19 million TV viewers across its four nights. But the NFL had 20 to 25 million viewers on TV and the convention had three.

Apples to apples. Complete apples to apples. Okay. Trump said if you're going to ask me questions about AI, you got to call it SI. Trump just doesn't want to address the substance or he can't address the substance. He immediately eventually moves on. And then all of a sudden, this is incredible. Elon Musk is back to bending the knee.

Elon Musk attempts to talk about AI and he goes, I'm sorry, SI. Elon is doing it. He's bending the knee. Sorry, the question was about age of abundance. What's the future? People looking at this will be worried, particularly laptop jobs. What are they going to do in the future system? Well, I think it is worth highlighting the positive benefits of AI, which will, for the SI, pardon me. Thank you.

Super intelligence. I think my father most likely outcome is an age of abundance where we don't have just a universal basic income. We have universal high income. There you go. Excuse me. I meant SI, not AI. It's been five minutes and they're correcting themselves. Artificial intelligence has been called artificial intelligence for decades. Trump doesn't understand artificial doesn't mean inferior. And so he goes, we're actually going to call it super intelligence. It's so stupid. And Elon goes, I'm sorry. I'm using a a forbidden phrase. Now, finally, we get to data centers. There are legitimate concerns all over the country about data centers, electricity, water, noise, land use, whether ordinary taxpayers

and rate payers should subsidize the infrastructure. What is Trump's observation? The buildings, the buildings are beautiful. These data center buildings are just beautiful buildings. The data centers are incredible, and by the way, I'm very good at real estate. Some of those buildings are absolutely beautiful. They're big and they're, you know, big. strong, powerful buildings, but they're beautiful. And they add greatly into a community. It started with a false narrative, mostly by Mike, I would say Democrats, that data centers are bad. So data centers are bringing a tremendous amount of money into the... You know, maybe some of the data center buildings are nice buildings. The beauty of a building tells us nothing about whether

what's happening inside is good policy. And this is the whole problem with this entire AI thing. You ask whether Trump's AI safety agreement is enforceable. He goes, well, it's morally binding. You ask who's accountable when an AI agent commits a crime? Trump goes, it's called SI. You ask about the massive expansion of data centers. And Trump goes, some of those data center buildings are really nice buildings. And in the middle of it, he goes, my convention got 170 million views and beat the NFL.

The questions are about substance. And every single stupid answer is about aesthetics or ratings or vibes or branding or something. And changing the name from AI to SI doesn't make any of his policies any smarter. And it doesn't get him understanding this anymore, which by the way, he completely misunderstands. We then go to the meeting itself. And it's terrifying. One of the stranger things about Donald Trump's relationship with the AI industry is that as Americans raise really important questions about AI, not stop it now, stop AI now. But real question, what

happens to jobs? What happens when an AI system does something the creator of it didn't intend? Who's responsible when something goes wrong? Why are enormous data centers showing up in communities where the decision to build it has been made before anybody has a say and people's electricity prices are going up? It's noisy. You're subsidizing infrastructure. All good questions. Trump surrounds himself with some of the richest and most powerful tech executives. in the world. You've got Elon Musk over to Trump's left. You've got Jensen Huang from NVIDIA to Trump's right. Next to him was Mark Zuckerberg. But the room is full with these people. And the sort of answer from Trump to all of these questions seems to be these guys got it.

Here is Donald Trump talking about how popular data centers are and are going to be. You're going to see data centers are going to be very popular because this is the the group and they're the ones that want to. And they're also the ones that want to see communities that are safe and happy. And they're going to make communities very, very happy. Otherwise, they'll be forced to go overseas or other locations. But even in America, there are so many people that want data centers, you know, the areas with data. They're just desperate for it. The centers have become very rich. People have become very rich. Their taxes have gone down, not up. And a lot of good things have happened. But these,

people and others having to do with the data centers that you've been reading so much about, I think they're going to do things for the community that will be really financially beneficial and otherwise. The reason that data centers are becoming such a big issue is precisely because a lot of communities don't want them. There's bipartisan grassroots opposition over electricity demand and utility costs and all of this stuff. And Trump was asked, could the backlash hurt Republicans? And his response was these really wealthy companies are going to make everybody happy by making data centers and putting data centers in places. Now, as I've said before, communities get to decide.

If communities decide, we like the benefits and we think the benefits outweigh the costs, great. But sitting next to the CEOs building the data centers and going, everybody's going to love it isn't the real answer to the people that are going, we don't love it. We already don't love it. Now, then we get to the most important AI policy initiative of all, Trump teasing this all day. And finally, we have an event. We are changing the name of AI. Trump's big announcement at an AI tech meeting. Well, we're doing one thing.

We're going to be signing a document today at about 5 o'clock. Renaming artificial intelligence, because it's not artificial. We all agree on that. And we're going to be renaming it super intelligence, officially renaming it. And that'll come out at 5 o'clock today. But there was a lot of commonality in this room. It was pretty amazing. And all for the good.

Really amazing. It's all good. We're going to get the name changed and everybody is just loving everything. There are so many real questions surrounding AI. No one was sitting at home going, you know, artificial. makes it sound kind of not so good. I think we've really got to change the name to S-I. And then we're going to really be able to figure it all out. Now, Trump isn't just spitballing on this. They have actually, the Trump administration has directed parts of the federal government

to start using that phrase in everything that they write about it. Listen, call it AI, call it S-I. Changing the name is not an answer to a single substantive question about how it should be governed. And that brings us to the substantive part. How are we going to govern? this thing. And Trump goes, you know, self-regulation is the most important thing. Tremendous self-regulation and we automatically have regulation with the Department of Justice, the FBI, all of that. But the self-regulation is very important. There's something else that was discussed and that's local communities. This is a group that loves local communities. They'll live our country. And they're going to work with local communities for the data.

Everybody will self-regulate. We'll work with communities. They're going to going to do everything perfectly. And listen, signing on, even though the agreement's nonbinding and unenforceable, to the extent that these companies think it will benefit them from a PR standpoint to have internal safety controls or auditing or board level review, fine. But this is all voluntary stuff. And that is a really important distinction when we're talking about companies developing tech that even people inside go, this could go nuclear. This could go crazy. Reuters, Ipsos poll finds 73% are worried AI companies aren't doing enough. So a reporter puts the question directly to Trump.

A lot of the people here today meeting with you don't think we need regulation. Mr. President, on commonality. The belief of everybody that you're meeting with today that no guardrails, no regulation of AI super intelligence, as you call it, is necessary. Well, there's a belief that there should be tremendous self-regulation. There you go. The people you invited, sir, don't think there should be any guardrails or regulation. And Trump goes, well, they all believe in self-regulation.

How has that worked out in any other damn industry? Now, it would be too broad to say none of them want any government involvement. Some have called for some government action. But look at the scene. You put together the most powerful corporations on the planet, all of whom are developing, potentially transformative technology, spending hundreds of billions to build infrastructure around it, raising concerns about data centers from all over the country are people, researchers, the public, and Trump goes, the data centers will be popular. Let's change the name to make it nicer.

And self-regulation is really, really important here. Trust the companies to police themselves is crazy given the stakes that we're talking about here. Now, I am not, I think the idea of a kill switch is basically a fantasy. I think the idea of a moratorium is basically a fantasy. But trust them to police themselves. Give me a break. We have a phenomenal. Speaking of AI, phenomenal bonus show today.

We will talk about sloppaganda. Slopaganda. What am I talking about? We will explain it. We will talk about the latest battle against California's wealth tax that some are waging and the next. step for flock cameras. Great bonus show for you today. Get instant access by signing up at join packman.com. And I hope to see you Saturday, this Saturday, October 3rd at Springfield

Symphony Hall in Springfield, Massachusetts. 6 p.m. with Jessica Tarlov. Free event will be doing a talk and signing books. Hope to see you.