The David Pakman Show - They’re stealing the election and SCOTUS said yes

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Dr. Frank George, who runs The Gaslight Report on Substack, joins us to discuss recent examples of Trump's cognitive decline -- The Supreme Court strikes down a majority-Black district for relying too heavily on race, which enables new gerrymandered maps in Florida -- Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warns that rising gas prices and tariffs are increasing inflation and slowing economic growth -- Todd Blanche says it would not surprise him if new details emerge about who shot a Secret Service agent at the Washington Hilton -- In an event with Artemis II astronauts, Donald Trump claims he could be an astronaut and treats James Comey's “86” as a murder threat -- Defense Department official Jules Hurst refuses to say if he has Signal on his phone during congressional testimony -- A Manhattan Institute poll finds about 47% of Democrats say the Butler, Pennsylvania shooting involving Donald Trump was staged -- On the Bonus Show: Janet Mills drops out of the Maine Senate race, a California billionaire tax measure heads to the ballot, families sue ChatGPT after a mass shooter used it to plan the attack, and much more... 👖 Fair Harbor: Get 20% off with code DAVID at https://fairharborclothing.com/david 📱 Cape: Get 33% off for 6 months with code PAKMAN at https://cape.co/pakman ✉️ StartMail: Get 50% OFF for a year subscription at https://startmail.com/pakman 🤖 Sponsored by Venice: Use code PAKMAN for 20% off a Pro Account at https://venice.ai/pakman 🔊 Blinkist: Try it free for 7 days and get 30% OFF at https://blinkist.com/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 (01:31) Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act (08:55) Fed Chair warns about higher gas prices (18:12) Todd Blanche says he expects more suspects (25:07) Trump claims he could be an astronaut (35:34) Dr. Frank George Interview (55:40) Defense official cornerned over Signal (1:02:02) Almost half of Dems think Trump shooting was staged (00:00) Start (01:31) Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act (08:55) Fed Chair warns about higher gas prices (18:12) Todd Blanche says he expects more suspects (25:07) Trump claims he could be an astronaut (35:34) Dr. Frank George Interview (55:40) Defense official gets cornered over Signal (1:02:02) Almost half of Dems think Trump shooting was staged Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Need a vehicle that isn't afraid to make a splash? That's the Volkswagen Taos. Capable and confident, the Volkswagen Taos is fit for everyday life. Nimble in traffic, agile and tight spots, and still spacious enough for weekend getaways. While available 4-motion all-wheel drive gives confidence in rain and snow. The capable Taos, you deserve more confidence. Visit vw.ca to learn more. SuvW, German engineered for all.

Welcome aboard via rail. Please sit and enjoy. Please sit and stretch. Steep. Flip. Or that. And enjoy. Via rail, love the way.

It's never too early to plan your summer story in Europe with WestJet. From rolling countryside to cobblestone streets. Begin your next chapter. Book your seat at westjet.com or call your travel agent. WestJet, where your story takes off. I wish I were exaggerating with you today, but I am not. Did Donald Trump and the Supreme Court just hand Republicans a roadmap to steal elections? The answer may be yes, a major voting rights ruling dropped from the Supreme Court.

And within an hour, Republicans were already trying to redraw maps to lock in more seats. They know they can't win by winning the will of the voters. So they're going to try to win with techniques and tactics that are on the edges of the law and would have been illegal, by the way, until the Supreme Court decision. We're also going to talk about a very blunt warning from the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, who Trump wants gone, who says gas prices are a problem, tariffs are a problem, growth is going to be affected. And by the way, inflation is creeping up.

Meanwhile, there's a key detail in the White House correspondence dinner shooting that is increasingly in doubt, officials still cannot say who fired their guns. And it increasingly seems like it may not have been the shooter. And finally, you've got to see this. A senior Pentagon official was asked a very simple question. Do you have signal on your phone? Do you, do you use the encrypted messaging app for official business? And he froze and you can see the look on his face as he realizes this is not going to go well. All of that and more today. I can't believe that I have to start with this today, but Donald Trump and Republicans may have just stolen the election. And Trump's henchmen in this entire thing is the Supreme Court of the United States, one of the most radical right-wing Supreme Courts that we have had in a very long time.

For more election coverage, by the way, make sure to hit the like and subscribe buttons. We see which videos the likes and subscribes come from. And that tells us, yes, cover these issues of elections more. We used to have this thing called the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court just gutted it. In a 6 to 3 ruling, the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court said no. And what they did is they struck down a majority black district in Louisiana. Now, you might say, all right, well, they struck down.

one district. What's the big deal? Why does this mean now they get to or potentially will be able to steal elections? Well, it's not quite just one district. The Supreme Court's decisions are precedent setters. Now that the Supreme Court has said that district in Louisiana is relying too heavily on race, there is the possibility of unwinding a whole bunch of other districts. Now, when we talk about stealing an election, you're right to think about the election that is just six months away. And this decision may well impact the midterm elections that are just six months away. But in fact, this is probably going to have an even bigger impact in 2008 because a lot of the filing deadlines have already passed this year. So that remains to be seen, which election will it impact more?

What is critical to understand here is that the Voting Rights Act was a major. accomplishment in the United States in increasing ballot access to black Americans. And also in cutting down on overt racial discrimination that was taking place prior to the Voting Rights Act. And the Supreme Court has just come in and they have blown that away. They have completely destroyed that. And case in point, you might say, well, David, maybe you're just speculating. Maybe you're being hyperbolic and saying Republicans are going to do something. They're not really going. Well, within an hour of this Supreme Court decision, the Florida House of Representatives

passed a new insane gerrymandered map, which is the desanctus plan, desanctimonious, and has been for a very long time. This new Florida map could give Republicans four more congressional. seats in 2026. Four more seats. Remember, it is a razor thin margin right now for Republicans in the House of Representatives. And so what we need to do now, I'm going to sort of skip to the answer because there's understandable panic and despondency. Now what do we do? We need to redraw all the damn maps. What was done in California, what was done in Virginia, and just a couple of other places, we have to do it everywhere. I'm not the only one who had this idea. Congresswoman

AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, saying the exact same thing. If this is what they're going to do, then we need to redraw the maps. We have to all abide by the same rules. And so if Republicans are going to redraw in North Carolina, if they're going to redraw Texas, if they're going to redraw and gerrymander every one of their states, then unfortunately, we have to be able to redrawinging have to provide balance to that until we get to the day where we can all finally agree to put this behind us and pass nonpartisan gerrymandering federally. This is a key point, okay? We on the left for the most part, I guess I know I agree with this and clearly AOC agrees

with it and I know many in my audience do. We recognize that this entire district drawing game is a race to the bottom. black hole, we are not going to, over the long term, improve the country big picture in a steady and robust way by having to go back and forth with these redistricting games. It's just not. And we have solutions. There's a number of different solutions. At this point, we could use technology to redraw maps in a fair way and to take the drawing

of the districts off the table. We know that we have the ability to do that. There are other ideas. For example, nonpartisan redistricting commissions that might have six people, three Democrats, three Republicans. They've got to all get on the same page or at least a majority, which means you need to have some bipartisanship about how these districts are going to be drawn. The idea of just whichever party is in power draws the districts in a completely whacked

out way whenever they have an opportunity is not a long term sustainable solution for increasing overall ballot access and fairness. Now, remember, Republicans don't want to increase overall ballot access and fairness. They're not going to be able to win elections with policies like, I will lower your gas prices, except they hit another new record today, which we will get to. They're not going to win that way. You're not going to convince people your policies are good. So Republicans don't want to win by increasing ballot access and having elections reflect

the will of the people. They want to win by doing things like this. And for those saying, well, Democrats are doing the same thing. Yeah, Democrats really have no choice. Democrats support have sponsored and voted for legislation to take this drawing of maps issue completely off the table. But the anti-democratic Democratic Republican Party wants to keep doing it. So what we must do is redraw every single map that we can in the immediate, eliminate,

eradicate the political power of the Republican Party. And by the way, let me briefly speak to my further left audience for a moment, the people to my left left, the socialists, the common. communists. Okay. A lot of you might be saying the Democratic Party is too far right. Why would I do anything to help the Democratic Party? Well, I want to speak directly to you. If you desire a real left in the United States, then help destroy the Republican Party. If you take the Republican party out of contention and you leave the Democratic Party, all of a sudden, that shifts the overton window to the left and creates an opportunity for your true far left party.

So even if you look at this and you go, ah, Republicans, Democrats, they're all kind of doing the same thing with these maps and well, you want a real opportunity to go further left, then help eliminate the Republican Party because even if you say, this sucks, but I hate Democrats, you would benefit from helping to destroy the modern Republican Party. So AOC is right. Let's prevent them from successfully using this to steal an election. But they're certainly going to try to do it. Fed chairman Jerome Powell has dropped a little brutal warning on Donald Trump's economy.

He just did massive dumps of bad economic news right on Donald Trump's head. What Donald Trump and others want you to believe is that the economy has never been better, that this is an economy firing on all cylinders. But Jerome Powell has a different perspective. Trump despises Jerome Powell. Why? Because Jerome Powell does not allow himself to be bullied by political desires and simply tells it like it is. And here he is explaining that the higher gas prices that are resulting from the Iran war, are reducing the disposable income that people have, which means they will spend less money

on other things. This is called basic demand side economic analysis. But remember, when gas prices go up, that's disposable income coming out of people's pockets. So they're going to spend less on other things. So they will be hit to GDP. That is exactly right. That is absolutely basic macroeconomics. will go down because of higher gas prices because people will have less money to spend on everyday

goods. You know, sometimes I get, these are kind of weird emails because a lot of people just, they make everything about me when they watch the show. But I've explained to people that not only you, I've said before, Trump's economic policy, his two tax bills in 2017 and then in the second term. They've been good for me as an individual, if I think only of myself, like a man on an island with no one else because they've carved out tax deductions for people who own exactly the type of business that I own. But I've explained, not only do I think it's not the morally right thing to do, even if I only think of myself self-centeredly, egocentricly, the way Trump does, I should still want broad-based tax benefits for the average person. Why? Well, I depend on advertising and

memberships. People who go, hey, I like David's show. I may not like his hair. I may not like his facial hair. I may not like his armpit hair. Okay, now we're going a little crazy. I want to support David's show. I'm going to pay six bucks a month. Why would I want a policy that doesn't fill people's pockets with a little more money with which they could subscribe to me? Like, if you want to say, David, I don't really believe you care about the average person. I think you only care about yourself. Well, then I should still want different tax policy than what these Republicans put forward. And case and point, the higher gas prices that take out disposable income from people's pockets. So now they go, now I can't afford to support the average independent media show that

I like. That is the same economic analysis that Jerome Powell is making here macroeconomically. He also addresses inflation, which by the way, is going up. Inflation has moved up recently and is elevated relative to our 2% longer run goal. Estimates based on the consumer price index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 3.5% over the 12 months ending in March, boosted by the significant rise in global oil prices that has resulted from the conflict in the Middle East. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending in March. This relatively high rate largely reflects the effects of tariffs on prices in the goods sector. You hear that?

Tariffs have led to higher inflation. The desired inflation rate of between 2 and 3% has now been eclipsed as he is talking about 3.5% total price inflation and rising. Finally from Jerome Powell, a warning. Energy prices haven't peaked. And if you look at a gas price chart, you can see that it is going vertical. It is going to take a while for that to peek and to come back down. And Jerome Powell telling us exactly that.

For a long time, we've been working on the hypothesis, really, that tariffs would lead to a one-time price increase and that that would go away over time. In other words, there would be no further change. So measured inflation wouldn't reflect that higher level going up more and more. And it's time for that to happen. You know, we really do expect that to be happening in the next two quarters. So we'll be watching very carefully to see that what we've thought all along would happen. That's kind of critical part of the forecast.

We need to really see that. With energy, it's so hard to say. I mentioned, you know, in sort of the textbook, you would look through an oil shock because they tend to be short, live, and they tend to revert. And monetary policy works with long and variable lags. So, you know, you wouldn't necessarily react right away. I think that is all the more true, given that we're several years above 2% inflation, and that we're already looking through the tariff shock.

So I think we're going to be very cautious about that. But the question about looking through energy really is not in front of us right now. It hasn't even peaked yet. And I think we'd want to see the backside of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about reducing rates. Listen to what he is saying. He is telling us number one, we are expecting just from the current tariff shock, we're expecting two more quarters of potentially rising inflation. And then he drills down specifically on energy.

And he goes, we're not even at the peak on energy. Like before we even think about that starting to come down and before we even think about cutting the federal funds rate, which is another aspect of this, we are not even close to to the peak on energy prices yet. Remember the promises. Gas and electricity and everything will be down 50% right away when I become president, said Trump. And of course, it hasn't happened. But I think Eric, they're not like they lived up.

I used to. Exactly. Totally glitched. Completely glitched in every way. This is a much more trustworthy voice on the state of the American economy than is Donald Trump. That's for sure. Trump is saying it's all great. And Jerome Powell is saying, hold on a second.

Things are not looking so good. A lot of clothing brands today talk about sustainability, but our Fair Harbor sponsor actually builds it into how their products are made. Fair Harbor was founded with a specific goal, reduce plastic waste by turning recycled plastic bottles into durable, comfortable fabrics. Instead of treating sustainability as an add-on, make it the core of the company and make it the core of how Fair Harbor clothes. clothing is designed to be worn and reused over time. I've been wearing some Fair Harbor pieces and what stands out is the environmental factor doesn't come at the expense of comfort or practicality. The clothes feel soft, broken in, easy to wear day in and day out. They're not stiff. They're not over engineered. They're designed to actually be used, which really matters if

sustainability is going to mean anything at all. So if you're looking for swimwear, shirts, hoodies or other casual clothing that works for every day wear and travel, head to fair harbor clothing.com slash David and use code David for 20% off your full price order now through May 15th. The link is in the description. Everything you do on your phone paints a picture of your life going back years. Cell phone carriers track, sell, and sometimes leak that data. But our sponsor, CAPE offers an alternative. CAPE is America's privacy-centered mobile carrier. You get unlimited call, text, and 5G coverage just like with other carriers.

But unlike other carriers, CAPE keeps your data private. Cape only collects the bare minimum about subscribers, destroys call metadata after one day, and then they take it even further. Unlike any other mobile carrier, Cape rotates your network ID every day to help keep keep you anonymous. That really matters for anyone who cares about minimizing exposure to out of control surveillance. You also get secondary phone numbers, sim swap protection, network lock, encrypted texting, encrypted voicemail, and secure global roaming. And unlike random prepaid carriers that don't own their infrastructure, Cape does. Cape owns its own mobile core and issues its own SIM cards. This

ensures your data stays private. No other privacy focus carrier in the United States can say that. Go to cape.co forward slash Pacman and use code Pacman to get 33% off Cape for six months. The info is in the description. We are increasingly being pointed in the direction of the White House correspondent's dinner, shooter, was not a shooter in the sense that he may not have. actually have fired his weapon, which raises a whole host of other questions, legal problems, political problems, and rhetorical problems. Let's back up and I want to kind of build this up from the ground up. Something isn't adding up.

And we start with Attorney General Todd Blanche's statement yesterday. Now, you might be remembering that the day before he had made some comments about we're looking into who fired their weapons. and the arrested alleged shooter fired at least one round. But now Todd Blanche is backing off of that language even more. And he's going with a much softer statement, which is simply, it wouldn't surprise me if the shooter fired his gun. Really?

Well, we're calling him the shooter for a reason, right? But this is extremely careful language that continues to back off in terms of confidence that the shooter fired anything. Take a look at this. So I understand that there is shocker leaks around that, but I'm not going to get ahead of the work of the law enforcement. It would not surprise me if it turns out that our secret service agent was shot by the individual who's currently been in charge with that crime. But that is something that would be wildly inappropriate for me to comment on beyond saying just that just because there's when we know something, I'm sure that that we will, we will let the folks

know. But I just want to get that right instead of speculate. Now, of course, we want him to get it right. The thing is now that the story is sort of crumbling, he is hesitating and saying we need time. Initially, we were talking about, oh, the shooter got off five to six wild shots in the lobby before being stopped. Now, this doesn't mean the shooter didn't want to kill Trump. This doesn't mean the shooter wasn't armed. But it is a dramatically different story from what we were told. And it points as we are increasingly covering. It points to secret service and law enforcement incompetence. Now, I want to remind you, we started to suspect that maybe the shooter hadn't really done any shooting after Todd Blanche had said the following on the previous day.

Have you been able to determine whether the gunman fired shots? If so, how many shots he fired and who exactly whose bullet hit the agent? We want to get that right. So we're still looking at that. It appears, and I don't want to overstate, because we are so looking at this, that there were five shots that law enforcement fired.

We have all the evidence is being examined very carefully and expeditiously, and we'll know more soon. We do believe that as the complaint lays out, that the suspect, that the defendant fired it out of his shotgun And we know that that happened. But as far as getting into exacting ballistics, we're still looking at whether the gunman fired out of the shotgun, but we believe that he did.

That was a day earlier. And then we also had this statement from Todd Blanche with again, which again just makes us say he doesn't really sound confident in the claim that the shooter shot five to six times. I don't have anything further to talk about with the ballistics that are still being analyzed. I said it on yesterday and every law enforcement member who is speaking on this issue is saying the same thing as they should, which is that this is an ongoing investigation with really, really smart experts trying to understand.

Everybody's super smart. We just don't really happen in that shooting and where the bullets went and ended up and where the bullets came from. And once that is at a place where we can definitively say it to the extent we can definitively say. I love that. Once we can definitively say, if, we get to a point where we can definitively say. So let's put it all together now. We have an

incident serious enough to involve a secret service agent being shot. We have someone already charged with the crime. And yet officials are not only not confirming whether that person actually fired the shot that hit the agent. They're increasingly backing off of that claim. Now, the most important part of this is for people who are going, well, but so David, what, What do you believe happened? I'm not saying this guy wasn't there to assassinate Donald Trump. He pretty clearly was. He showed up days early to the hotel came with guns and was ready to do it.

It appears he didn't even get into the same room as Trump, didn't even get onto the same floor as Trump, and maybe didn't fire any shots, at least potentially. This is how confusion spreads. And this is how you end up with people saying, oh, I think. the entire thing was staged. It might have just been incompetence and misreporting of what took place. And now it opens the door to millions of people who go, I think the entire thing was staged. Because without clear information, people fill in the blanks themselves and speculation takes over. Before you even have facts, you've got narratives that are fully formed. And we've seen

this before. When we get early reporting in chaotic situations that's often wrong or incomplete, you end up with conspiracy theories and confusion and all of it. And it foments the idea that it was staged. Now, if the shooter didn't shoot anybody, he still was there with the intent to kill Trump, he was still there with guns, he still attempted to, and I guess to some degree, breached that outermost layer of security in the lobby of the Washington Hilton briefly before being taken down. But it kind of makes a lot more sense if he didn't shoot his gun, which I hope we eventually

confirm one way or the other, because as I said earlier, Given how secret service and law enforcement tend to handle these situations, it would have been completely defensible under the law for the shooter to have been killed. And I struggled to imagine that if surrounded by law enforcement, the shooter was just firing indiscriminately in the lobby, that he would have been killed. The fact that he wasn't killed was weird to me. And then when you consider that he wasn't even on the same floor as Trump, why would he start randomly firing in the lobby if he was nowhere near Trump. I mean, maybe because he thought he could

shoot his way to Trump. But it also kind of didn't make sense. And now where we find ourselves is, did the shooter even discharge the firearm? Or did we again see another one of these instances of secret service incompetence? Like Todd Blanche says, hopefully eventually we will know the answer to that question. Donald Trump suffered a terrifying break with reality. while holding an Oval Office event with the astronauts from Artemis 2. Now, what I am going to play for you here is not AI modified. It is not a skit from Saturday Night Live. This is real video of Trump saying to the astronauts from Artemis 2 that physically Trump is very, very good and is fit to be an astronaut.

How is this real life? The astronauts look a little skeptical, I think I would say. People have unbelievable courage, unbelievable. A lot of other things too, by the way. To get in there, you have to be very smart, have to do a lot of things physically good. So I would have had no trouble making it physically very, very good. There you go. Trump physically would be able to be an astronaut.

Trump can't even jog 30 seconds. Trump is obese. I don't even know that just on the basis of his weight to height ratio alone, he would be, forget about his age. Like, put that aside for a second. But Trump has worked very hard with doctors willing to indulge him to propagandize to the American people that he is healthier and fitter than Barack Obama was when he became president of the United States, a complete and total break from reality.

And speaking of a break from reality, Donald Trump mixed up, I think, Ukraine and Iran. While talking, he started to say that Ukraine's ships are underwater and their planes have been shot down. I think he's talking about Iran here, right? I mean, Trump doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. But we talk more about Ukraine. But which war do you think ends first?

Um, that's an interesting question. You know, coming from you, that's very interesting. Which war would end first? I don't know. Maybe they're on a similar time table. I think Ukraine militarily, they're defeated. Okay. You wouldn't know that by reading the fake news, but militarily, look, they're Navy. So they had 159 ships. Every ship. Ukraine's 159 Navy ships. What is right now underwater? Typically, that's pretty good. What do you think, Jeremy? There you go. So Trump, I guess, confusing Iran and Ukraine. And just disorientation and confusion and a lack of connection to reality.

is really the theme here, which we'll talk to, Frank, Dr. Frank George about a little bit later. At another really wacky moment, the Artemis 2 crew looks absolutely horrified as Trump is attacking NATO and he tries to suck them into it, sort of like he tried to suck in DoorDash Grandma into talking about transports. And the astronauts look like they are dissociating just so that they cannot have to deal with this. That's not good. What do you think of that, Jared?

sending help after we win the war, I don't know, some of that bothers. I don't want to get you guys involved, but I can imagine what you think. The United Arab Emirates, the UAE. And the astronauts actually do something I do in uncomfortable situations where I don't want to be involved. When I found myself in these situations, awkwardness or, you know, I'm out to eat and someone I'm with is being insanely rude to the wait staff, I stand or sit. perfectly still. I don't move a muscle with the idea, the hope, the desire that I might be able to blend into the background, sort of like a camouflage, as some like to pronounce it,

and just not be seen, very still. And the astronauts clearly trying to camouflage themselves into the background of the Oval Office so that they don't have to deal with Trump attacking NATO. Trump on Iran has declared his own blockade genius and says now they're in the position of having to cry uncle if they wanted to end. I don't think Iran agrees with this perspective. By other countries for years and those days are over. Yeah. Mr. President, how long are you prepared to maintain the blockade?

Can that go several more months? Well, the blockade is genius. Okay. The blockade has been 100% foolproof. It shows how good our Navy is, I can tell you that. Nobody's going to play games. We have the greatest military in the world, and I built much of it during my first term,

and we've been building it since. And the greatest anywhere in the world, nobody even close. And you see that, whether it's Venezuela, which, and they have a good military in Venezuela, but it was over in one day. It was actually over in about 48 minutes. Iran, the same thing.

I mean, militarily, we've wiped them out. They have no military. left. It's all the Navy's at the bottom of the sea. The Air Force is never going to fly again. We've, we've got an amazing military. Now we now they have to cry uncle. That's all they have to do. Just say we give up. We give up. But their economy is really in trouble. It's not seeming to me as we are now into week nine and close to week 10 of Trump's three to four week war. It doesn't seem to me that Iran is going to cry, uncle. Now let's get to the most alpha moment of the entire thing.

Trump is a big strong guy, big strong alpha male, healthy as a horse, fit enough to be an astronaut. But the seashells on a North Carolina beach arranged to say 8647 by James Comey. Those could have killed Trump. Talking about how busy you were this morning. James Comey was in court. He self-surrendered. he's now been charged a second time, this time over a social media post with seashells that said 86-47. Do you really think that he was endangering your life or threatening your life with that?

Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86, you know, it's a mob term for kill him, you know. You ever see the movies? 86 him. The mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, 86 him. That means kill him. It's, uh, I think of it as a mob. term. I don't know. People think of it as something. Which I don't know why Trump has a problem with things the mob does because you'll remember that Trump famously had said previously only the mob pleads the fifth, but then Donald Trump pleaded the fifth hundreds of times. So I guess Trump like, maybe that's a compliment that the mob does it. Having to do with disappearing, but the mob uses that term to say when they want to kill somebody, they say, 86, the son of a gun.

I'm trying to keep the language nice and clear. They don't use that term, son of again. They use another term. But that's a mob term for kill. Yeah. But do you really think your life was in danger? Probably. I don't know, you know, based on what I'm seeing out there, yeah, the...

It seems very obvious to me that Trump doesn't believe this for a second. He has to say, yes, the sea shells endangered my life. Because otherwise, the entire prosecution of Comey looks really stupid. Now, I think it is important to mention that they said they spent nine, ten months investigating the picture of the seashells before ultimately deciding that Comey would be charged. There are other influencers, including a guy named Jack Pesaviac, conspiracy theorist, who had previously posted 86-46, meaning get rid of Joe Biden. And when asked, will you be going after Jack Pesaviac?

They said, well, you've got to look at the circumstances and all of these other things. It's not so clear. So you're not. So it's all political. But for the MAGAs, your big, strong, orange president was threatened by seashells. Let that sink in for a moment. You use your email for everything. Banking, work, purchases, medical information.

That makes your email provider one of the most important places to think about. privacy. Most big tech email services, scan your messages, build profiles about you, use the data to show you ads. Our sponsor Startmail takes a different approach. Startmail looks and works just like the big name email services you're used to. But start mail never scans your mail, never tracks anything about you, never sells your data. Startmail also includes powerful privacy features you don't get from big tech email providers. For instance, you can create unlimited email aliases so you don't have to give out your real address to anybody, which will reduce spam and fishing risks. You can also send PGP encrypted emails even if the recipient isn't

using encryption. And if you switch to StartMail, it is really easy to migrate your existing emails and contacts in just a few clicks. Go to startmail.com slash Pacman to get 50% off your first year. The link is in the description. If you use one of the mainstream AI chatbots, they monitor everything you put in the app, stuff about your personal life, your work projects, medical questions, all of that info stays in the system forever to train the AI. They build a profile about you based on what you input. If you care about privacy and bypassing censorship, I recommend using Venice instead.

Our sponsor, Venice, lets you use all the biggest and best AI models. They do not store your prompts. Your prompts are encrypted and stored only locally in your app or browser, not used for training data. Venice also offers completely uncensored chatbots and image generation. You can ask it anything and it will answer. It is finally AI. You can completely control.

None of the conversations are tied to your identity. and you use Venice exactly like the mainstream chatbot app that you're already used to. The interface will feel really familiar. You'll also get 20% off a pro plan at venice.AI slash Pacman with the code Pacman. The link is in the description. We welcome back to the program today. Dr. Frank George, a psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist cited 4,000 times in the scientific and medical literature. He ranks in the top 1% of all Google, Google scholars worldwide and has been studying Donald Trump for the past 10 years.

It's quite, Trump is quite a complicated text, as we might say, isn't he? Yeah, I think it takes 10 years to figure him out. Some of it's very simple, but some of it gets pretty complex as well. Well, one of the things that I think is a good example of simple but also complex is there are a lot of observers of the presidents who say and have been saying. He's declining. He's getting worse. It's noticeable. And yet, here we are, where he's still able to sort of keep it together enough to give speeches and be with the king. It's embarrassing. It's erratic, but he's still able to do it. Can you put a little bit of texture or kind of characterize the decline that you're seeing, especially over the last year?

Sure. In fact, one thing to notice about decline and how it relates to. relates to any disorders is the meeting with the king. If you noticed, one of the things in the news was how he stepped in front of the royalty to be shaking hands. And that's not just him having bad manners. I, and a number of the clinicians and et cetera would see that as he is exerting his dominance.

It's part of the grandiosity. It's part of the disorder, the malignant narcissism. He has to be above everybody in every situation. And so that's really just one more expression. It's not just being rude. It's being pathological. And it's gotten worse in the sense that it's just become more and more frequent. I think that's a lot of the progression is the increase in incidence.

I think like 10 years ago, even five years ago, he would not have done something like that. Now it's it's almost expected. Yeah. And he did that before where he was standing on a stage, I think was that with the G20 leaders in one of those big meetings and he like pushed someone aside. Yeah, he like pushes people out of the way and kind of says, I'm going to be in front here. Yeah. Yeah, I have to dominate. I have to be the best at everything. It's when he like with COVID even, when he, you know, devalued all the scientists in that one big press conference and said, basically, he has to be the best out of all the medical people. So why not use bleach? You know, he can't just say, oh, there are other experts. He has to be the best in everything. Can you help us make sense,

though, of, I mean, what you're describing in a sense sound like self-centered ego-maniacal personality traits. And I believe that you characterize it as malignant narcissism. Is malignant narcissism, what we might call a condition in the sense that dementia or bipolar disorder are, or is it a description of one's personality? Or maybe is it both? That's a great question. And it's something that is really important for people to understand. I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, dementia, bipolar, depression, those are instances that can be overcome well the dementia progresses also but it's still a disorder that happens at some point depression is something that happens to you malignant

narcissism is something that is a core of the person's personality it begins before birth it has some genetic components develop neurodevelopmental components childhood adolescents it just becomes more and more enabled depending on their environment Donald Trump had the absolute best or in this case worst environment for enabling it worse in terms of letting it be enabled and it is part of the person's core so it's not the sort of thing where oh you're a militant narcissist well we'll just treat you and you'll get better no it's not like it's part of their core one of the things I'm interested in is

that I think some in the audience see a sort of causality that goes in the following way. Donald Trump's decline is the cause of the erratic decisions, for example, with regard to Iran or his behavior in a particular public setting. If I understand some of the things you've written and said correctly, you seem to have a different take on the causality where some of these situations maybe are what is causing Trump to decline. If I misunderstood that, then I'm glad for you to correct it. But for example, I think you've said that the Iran circumstances in some way have accelerated Trump's decline rather than being evidence of the decline. Do I have that right?

You do. Let me go one step further at that. It's a bit of a circle. It's a bit of a loop in that the disorder is there, what people refer to as. It's his strategy. He's playing five-dimensional chess. He's not. It's only strategy is self-preservation.

Right. And so that causes a lot of the chaotic behavior. You know, what we see as the blockade, no blockade, you know, get rid of the nukes regime change. You know, all of that kind of chaos. Yeah. But the fact that it's not working, then that becomes a cause of further collapse or further chaos. So it feeds on itself. And unfortunately, you know, for him and for us,

the bad, dare I say, strategies, or at least decisions, you know, have ended up making the entire situation, both geopolitical and personality disorder, you know, both of them worse. The idea being that, you know, people can say, well, he started the whole Iran thing. Part of what was going on was you needed a distraction, anything to distract from the Epstein files, right, being in the news every day. Oh, nothing like a good war, right? And he has wanted to do that for years, even back in his first term. You know, that was one of our great fears, is that he would just invade Iran or

nuke Iran or whatever it might be. And so now, you know, having the opportunity to do that, it can serve as a distraction. But the distraction, because of the poor outcomes, ends up being another injury, and it ends up piling on to the files. It ends up not being a distraction. It ends up being another issue. So, yes, so you're correct. And one thing causes the other and then the other causes that thing over and over. Last time we spoke, you were of the opinion that it is frontotemporal dementia, not Alzheimer's, that the president is suffering from. At a 30,000 foot sort of macro level, are malignant narcissism and frontotemporal dementia more commonly coexisting than they do, than they exist individually?

In other words, is there something that makes both occur more frequently in people? Oh, no, they're independent on one another. I really don't think one is at all predictive of the other. Okay. Yeah, they're both a pretty low probability, the probability of them coexisting. is sort of astronomically small. It's a bad lottery win, basically. That's interesting. So it's not that Trump's personality all along would have given any kind of suggestion that this is what we might expect as he gets into his later years. That statistically,

at least, that's not the case. That's correct. You know, the incidence of front or temporal dementia is relatively low in the population. the incidence of malignant narcissism is relatively low in the population. To have one occur along with the other independently, you can sort of multiply them and get a number that's astronomically small. Very small, yeah. And then to have that occur in a world leader, right.

It makes it infinite, you know, infinite is. Perhaps the first time in history, as Trump would say, I'm the best in history, you know, you know, sort of thing. There was this moment a couple of weeks ago where the president posted an image of himself as Jesus, healing a patient or healing a sick person, I think is better said. Trump then said that was a patient and I was portrayed as a doctor. And of course, I sort of thought about that and applied a little bit of common sense to it. And I know of doctors who wear scrubs, my pediatrician growing up was known for wearing a bow

tie with his white coat. I've seen the, you know, fleece vest that has the doctor's name on it. I haven't seen the flowing white robes with the red. I forget the name of it. Someone told me what it is. But my question to you about that is, is your interpretation that that is something Trump made up because he realized it would be socially inappropriate to say, yes, I was portrayed as Jesus? Or do you think Trump really believed that that was a portraiture? of a physician rather than of Jesus? I don't believe that for one moment. You don't.

No, I mean, it's just truly a messianic, messianic imagery. Yeah. And it's not the first time he's done it. Remember the picture of him as the Pope? It was one instance. Yes. And lately, you know, the Pope is making some negative remarks, not all directed at Trump.

But of course, you know, Trump interprets anything negative as an affront as part of the disorder. And so, again, he needs to dominate. You know, except in this case, he needs to be the best religious figure. He certainly needs to be the new Messiah. And so, you know, there's the image. And as I understand it, that was originally it was an AI that some that he saw and decided to promote. But the fact that he would do that, I mean, he had supporters that worship him. Yeah, so that's not surprising that someone would come up with that. But the fact that

he, you know, the president of the United States would latch onto that and promote it, you know, is just part of this messianic, you know, grandiosity, part of the malignant narcissism. You know, one of the things that I've been hearing from my audience is that after years of hearing about Donald Trump's decline and predictions that we're only a few months, from when he simply won't be able to function anymore. As I pointed out at the beginning of our conversation, he sort of figures out a way to keep functioning at least at a superficial level enough that he can get, like I said, through events, etc. What do you make of the predictions that at least the timeline has been wrong in terms of

within six months he'll barely be able to speak, this sort of thing? What's your interpretation of that and the trajectory of what we're seeing? I think to some extent that's, dare I say, a bit of clickbaiting or sort of thing going on. Specifically when people have said, hey, three months, this guy won't be able to walk around anymore. Yeah, things like that. Yeah, okay. You just don't know. And in part, the disorder, which is why his overall decline has become more and more obvious, the dementia type disorder, the progression varies.

It is an irreversible progression, but the timeframe varies, you know, how it's expressed varies. There are a lot of variables there. Plus, keep in mind, he has the absolute best health care in the world. Right. You know, and he's not just sitting on a couch decaying. So his prognosis is declined, but, you know, it may be a year, two years, six months. You know, I just don't think we really know.

So yeah, I think that's really hard to say. But overall, it's a decline, is progressing, and there's no going back from that. An incident like the threat to wipe out Iranian civilization or on a smaller level referring to a reporter by saying quiet piggy. That's been interpreted by some as a loss of impulse control or a disinhibition, which then you open the door to speculation because loss of impulse control and disinhibition can be associated with a number of different conditions or circumstances. Do you see those actions as a disinhibited loss of control or do you see it as something different?

I see it absolutely as disinhibition, loss of impulse control. Those types of actions would not be unusual in a malignant narcissist anyway. And if they're being exacerbated by symptoms of frontotemporal dementia, those actions, the disinhibition causes them. to occur more frequently, more severely. It turns out that, you know, when people talk to about Alzheimer's, it's like, oh, for God's sakes, I wish it was Alzheimer's because that diminishes a person. You know, they just slowly, you know, disappear,

which is tragic. With FTT, it augments, you know, the underlying, and in his case, the underlying is, you know, very serious. So we see that increase in disinhibitory behaviors, there's dysregulation, loss of impulse control. And the parts of the brain that are involved in the degeneration that we see with front of temporal dementia are some of the areas that are, to say, are ready disinhibited by malignant narcissism pathways.

So really you're just seeing an exacerbation of that whole effect at both the behavioral and the neurobiological level. If we put aside the disinhibition and separate frontotemporal dementia from the malignant narcissism, what other symptoms of frontotemporal dementia does the president exhibit? You could almost go through any of his speeches and point out almost line by line. Even some that don't appear obvious, like, oh, he didn't confuse Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley for the eighth time in a row, you know, types of confabulations. But just his misuse of words, the types of words, his perseverating on topic,

you know, for years, you know, I mean, the biggest example is the rigged election type of thing. But, you know, Obama, yeah, I mean, there are some things that he just will not get over. And that's an example of his perseveration. But also the confabulations. the reciting stories that just are not true and are not only not true, but they're impossible. Like the Air Force in the War of 1812 is like one of the classic examples. And yet that is such a, I think, a clear symptom. So those sorts of things. It's not just the dysregulation.

There are a number of other things like that as well. One sort of interesting point I've seen is that we really can't consider anything he says in a speech. as symptomatic in the sense that these are prepared speeches someone else wrote for him. But I think that what's difficult about that is he goes off script often. And very frequently, the sort of most notably alarming moments are the ones where he isn't reading the script. But I think to some extent there is something to that. If he's reading something wacky that someone wrote for him, I don't know that we can say

that that's evidence of anything. But looking at the off-script moment seems maybe particularly instructive. Absolutely. And even some of his tweets, his posts on truth social, I suppose, are, you know, some of them really do seem scripted and posted by other people. Yes. But, you know, we see some of these, like the F-bomb, you know, post, et cetera, that are clearly him. And I think those are the clearest moments of, you know, of his. current decline, if you will.

So you're right. In some of the prepared speeches, he can still read. Sometimes, especially with the Bible passages, he had a bit of difficulty doing the reading. But in general, prepared remarks, yes, he can still read. But, yeah, when he goes off on his own, I think it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly. Do you have a prediction as to what we will see over the next six months?

Oh, boy, I get asked that a lot. And if the answer is no, it's too hard to predict, then that's fine. I can put it at two levels. One, I'm not a fortune teller, you know, so I will not predict what he will do. What I can say is that it will be narrower in terms of his options. it will be an escalation, whether that escalation is verbal, action, you know, we just can't say from day to day because there's no clear strategy for him to escalate.

There are topics for him to escalate, and those topics are narrowing as he collapses more and as he escalates more. So I think we're just going to see more and bigger, if you will, We've been speaking with Dr. Frank George, psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist. I really appreciate your time. Thank you. You bet, David.

Thank you. There can be a real gap between wanting to be informed and having the time to sit down and read full nonfiction books. That gap is what Blinkist is built for. Our sponsor, Blinkist, is an app that takes the most important ideas from nonfiction books and condenses them into short reads or listens that you can get through in about 15 minutes. What I like is that it's not just summaries for the sake of speed.

It's really curated. So you walk away understanding the arguments and the useful takeaways. So if there's a book everybody's talking about and you don't have the hours to commit to it right away, you also don't want to feel out of the loop. You can get a feel for it on Blinkist, get the core ideas quickly. and then decide, do I want to do the full read of this book? Blinkist has more than 9,000 titles across politics, science, philosophy, psychology, and more.

You can try Blinkist free for a full week and get 30% off a subscription at blinkist.com slash Pacman. Simple questions, I guess, should have simple answers. And when you don't get an answer at all to a simple question, it makes you ask why. And that is exactly what happened yesterday during a congressional hearing that we're going to look at. This is really wacky stuff. We're talking here about the Undersecretary of Defense. Michael McCord. He was asked a very direct question. Do you have signal on your phone? The signal app, the encrypted messaging app that was the center of the Signalgate controversy where all sorts of classified and should be classified and would be

classified and was classified information, sensitive information was shared by Pete Hagseth and others. And instead of just answering the question and going, yes, I do or no, I don't, McCord freezes and he hesitates and he dances around it. And he says, why would you need to know that? You can see it on his face. And of course, to me, this means the answer is yes. If he didn't have it on his phone, he would just say so. Let's take a look. Mr. Hurst, do you have signal on your phone? I'm sorry, why is this relevant? Do you have signal on your phone? What does he do with the budget? I'm going to take that as a yes. Mr. Kane, sorry, General Kane, do you have Signal on your phone? I do, sir, yes. Okay. So I want to talk about Signal. Last year,

the Secretary and other administration officials discussed sensitive and almost certainly classified information about a strike in Yemen using the unclassified Signal app. Mr. Hurst, what's the current policy for Signal on official DOD devices? I'm the comptroller. I don't do CIO work? So therefore, it is allowed? Is that your statement that it is now allowed to have signal on your device? Mr. White said my statement is I run the budget for DOD. Yeah. Okay, well, he's got it on his phone. So therefore it must be permitted. I got to go back and look if it's on my official phone. I was talking about my personal phone. I'm not exactly sure. I'll go back and look though. Okay. So that's that's Hearst, not McCord. I got mixed up with different parts of this hearing.

So let me give you the context here. Signal, like I said, is an encrypted messaging app widely used. Journalists use it. I communicate with a lot of people using signal. And government officials also will sometimes use it. That's not really the issue. The issue is the transparency and the record keeping. Two areas that this administration said they would be better than anybody on. They would be pristine on transparency and record keeping. And they are a disaster. And what we know is going on is that government officials in this administration are doing official business on encrypted apps with messages that disappear. And so a bunch of different questions surface as a result of this.

Law requires that those conversations be preserved. Are they being preserved? Because signal by definition doesn't do that. Is oversight being bypassed by virtue of using this app? Are decisions being made completely off the books, which makes them not subject to oversight or review or evaluation by the nature of using those apps with their disappearings? messages. And none of that stuff requires any speculation. That's why this was asked in the first

place. We've already had Signalgate. And during that exchange, you see the Secretary of Defense Pete Hexeth sitting in the middle, just kind of looking down because he knows what this is about. And when a Pentagon official won't or can't give a straight answer about is an app on your phone, that tells you they know that what they're doing is wrong. If it was a harmless answer, or if they thought maybe it was harmless. They would go, yeah, I have it or no, I don't have the app. That's it. The hesitation, the deflection, the uncomfortable moment that takes place there tells us 90%. The words tell us 10%. The hesitation tells us 90%. The broader pattern here is that we have seen across agencies officials relying on private or encrypted channels while their accountability is diminished.

or is almost non-existent. It is not only Republican administrations that have had an issue with this, but the Trump administration and specifically the second Trump term has already had a major scandal involving this. The whole idea is we as taxpayers are funding this entire thing. Now, we understand that certain things are classified. That makes sense. We do not every individual taxpayer has a right to know any damn thing that we want to know at any particular time. But the whole point is at least decisions are supposed to leave a paper trail. That way, if there is a problem in an appropriate setting, and it might involve members of the house or center, it doesn't mean it's all made public. You have to have decisions that are reviewable.

You have to have decisions that are auditable, that oversight can even be done. If this stuff disappears, you don't really have a functioning system for oversight and review. And so when I see this, a basic question going, oh, I'm not sure why that's relevant. It is a far bigger issue than one app. And we were told there would be no greater transparent administration than this one. But now on the nuts and bolts of it, we are left to wonder what is being said. Where is it being said? Who's keeping track of it? Who is making a bunch of these decisions? Also, who is parted to these conversations, including people that maybe shouldn't be? There was one signal thread that Pete Hegseth's wife was on for reasons that we still don't understand.

Based on that clip, they know that what they're doing is screwed up. They are not eager to answer questions and we are not seeing the most transparency and accountability of any administration. This is a reminder of why we need Democrats to take the House in November. Now, Democrats taking the House in November and getting Republicans out of power is not going to bring back signal chats that disappeared. But it will put Democrats in a position where they will want to from what they've told us, and I believe will, do all of the oversight that they can. And if a bunch of this stuff has been destroyed or programmatically deleted by virtue of using apps like signal that will disappear the chats, then we need Democrats to expose that at minimum because we were promised transparency and we are going to do everything we can to try to get it.

There is a stunning new poll getting attention and the headline is very simple. almost half of Democrats believe that the Butler, Pennsylvania shooting of Donald Trump was staged. 47% of Democrats, according to a Manhattan Institute survey, believe that that entire event was fake in the sense that it was staged. Now, there's this question of, did the guy standing behind Trump, Corey Comparatore, really die. I don't think Democrats are denying that. Was he in on it?

I don't believe the Democrats that think the event was staged, believe that that innocent victim was in on it. But the big picture of 47% of Democrats saying Butler was staged is a stunning number. That's a lot of people. Now, I am not in that group. I don't believe the Butler shooting was staged. I don't believe the White House correspondence dinner shooting was staged. I've explained why.

And I'm glad to get back into it. I don't believe there's evidence that either was staged. And I need some evidence. Speculation or gaps in everything we know are not enough for me to say, I believe that this was staged. When you look at what happened in Butler, I don't think the details even support a staged theory. They point to incompetence.

And maybe we'll start with Butler because that's what the poll about and then is about. And then we can talk about White House correspondence dinner. Trump was shot. A man in the crowd was killed. It was a real event with real consequences. People experienced it in real time. The idea that it was staged hits a bunch of problems. Starting with the logistics, which simply don't make sense under basic scrutiny, you would need a shooter, real or fake, live crowd, real bullets or convincing replicas, and then silence from everyone involved afterwards. That is not a simple operation. That is very very, very important. high risk. It's a high risk conspiracy with a dozen or more potential points of failure where something could go wrong or leak out afterwards. And then there's the payoff, which is supposed to justify the risk except it doesn't because Trump's polling barely moved after Butler.

The impetus for staging it was believed to be Trump needed something to help him in the polls. And so the shooting curried sympathy for Trump, except the polls moved half a point, half a point, which is statistically, essentially nothing and politically insignificant compared to what people would imagine might happen. And if that's the outcome, the idea that anyone would then try to replicate it again, like Saturday at the White House correspondent's dinner, for example, doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. And when I step back, I see no evidence. I don't even see weak evidence for a staging. I see no evidence. I don't see circumstantial evidence. I don't see anything.

No whistleblower, no document, no credible reporting. Just speculation. If you zoom out, there's a much simpler explanation that fits the facts. And we've seen it before with Secret Service, which is that the Secret Service is having issues. Butler looks like another example of incompetence. They didn't secure an adjacent rooftop that was right there. And there's more questions about, you know, does it make sense? for Trump to be doing so many outdoor events and, you know, he kind of stopped doing them after

that other than being encased in a bulletproof glass box. That points far more as an explanation to what took place than it was staged. And that matches the evidence. It matches what we know. It matches what we saw. And so I lean in that direction. It doesn't require dozens of people coordinating. It just requires a little bit of incompetence. And it may even be connected to Donald Trump himself, particularly because of Trump's insistence on big crowds, proximity to crowds, prioritizing optics over strict security protocols. Now separate from Butler, there's the more recent incident on Saturday at the White House Correspondence Dinner in D.C.

And my conclusion there is similar, but based on different sets of facts. There's no evidence that it was staged. The theories don't explain what happened any better than the obvious explanation, which is there should have been some kind of security apparatus that would have accounted for the fact that there are people staying in the hotel who haven't gone through a metal detector, who have been there for days and who have access to the lobby. It's that simple. They didn't do it.

I was there and I saw that they didn't do it. So where that leaves me is a situation where a lot of people, 47 percent of Democrats and some independents and Republicans, believe something for which I don't believe there is any evidence and that's uncomfortable especially for people who spend time criticizing the conspiracy thinking elsewhere on the political spectrum but the pattern is similar we've seen the start with the conclusion and within minutes of the shooting on saturday i was talking to people in dc who said oh it was staged and then they try to back out motive or evidence if they can in this case there's no evidence whatsoever but they're trying to come up with motive but the motive is pretty weak and i understand the

instinct. Trump is a figure who would have no moral problem staging anything he thought would help him. I just don't think he would believe this would help him, especially because Butler didn't. And I believe you still need to find evidence. If you think you found a motivation and you think you found a gap in the facts, cool, you now should go and seek evidence for what you are claiming took place. And fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, I believe that there's a Far simpler explanation, far less dramatic, security failures, poor judgment, incompetence in the real world. I land there for Butler and I land there for White House correspondence dinner. If someone has evidence and it can't be this thing where we go, well, the absence of evidence is part of the evidence because it suggests a cover up.

Sometimes there's no evidence for something because the evidence doesn't exist. And so if someone really has evidence they want me to look at on either of these incidents, let me know. On the bonus show, Janet Mills is out of the Democratic Senate primary in Maine. California billionaires tax proposal garners enough signatures to go to the ballot. And families are suing the company that owns chat GPT because of. of a mass shooter's use of the tool. Is this likely to succeed legally?

All of that and much more on today's bonus show, sign up at join packman.com. And remember to get my free substack at Davidpack.com slash substack.