The David Pakman Show - Trump’s 9/11 story falls apart as prices hit record high

Episode Date: September 9, 2026

-- On the Show: -- Tina Kotek, Governor of Oregon, joins us to discuss pausing data center construction and Trump's threats to the midterm elections -- Ann Coulter defends Flock surveillance cameras while Donald Trump and Republicans support license-plate tracking and local data centers -- Donald Trump criticizes Kaitlan Collins and celebrates the German party Alternative for Germany as Republican candidates skip his convention -- Diesel fuel prices hit a record near $6 per gallon as the war with Iran disrupts critical energy routes and supply chains -- Donald Trump makes bogus claims about firefighters rescuing him at Ground Zero on September 11th and odd remarks about Welles Crowther -- Ted Cruz defends Donald Trump's September 11th comments, saying it was 25 years ago, which only highlights concerns about Trump's memory -- Donald Trump gives executive assistant Natalie Harp and other close White House aides $45,000 each in cash gifts -- On the Bonus Show: TSA brings back gate access to some people without tickets, No Kings prepares its next event, John Fetterman is ignoring his constituents, and much more... 🎙️ Plaud: Use code PAKMAN for 10% off at https://plaud.ai/pakman or shop at https://amzn.to/4fMahxp 💻 Sponsored by Private Internet Access: 83% OFF + 4 months free at https://www.piavpn.com/Pakman ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman 🛡️ Incogni lets you control your personal data! Get 60% off their annual plan: http://incogni.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 -- 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 (01:28) Ann Coulter defends Flock cameras (09:12) Trump celebrates German far right party (19:41) Diesel prices near $6 per gallon (28:05) Trump makes bogus September 11th claim (37:14) Tina Kotek interview (54:23) Ted Cruz defends Trump's 9/11 claim (62:31) Trump gave Natalie Harp $45,000 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Coming up today, Donald Trump tells an extraordinary new story about being physically rescued by firefighters on September 11th, 2001. There's one enormous problem with the story, and I'm sure you can guess what it is. Diesel prices have reached an all-time record in nominal terms of $5.94 a gallon. People might say, well, I don't use diesel. The consequences will spread from transportation into groceries, into consumer goods. It is a major problem. Trump's big Republican convention starts today, but there are candidates in competitive races who are staying away from it. Trump insists it's sold out.

We know they can't even give the tickets away for free, but most importantly, Republicans think this might not be so good for them. We've also learned that Donald Trump has personally given over $150,000 to four White House employees, including an extraordinary $45,000 payment to Natalie Harp. Former White House ethics lawyer says, we might have another crime. on our hands, even though the White House goes, no, no, no, it's all fine. And Ted Cruz tries to explain Trump's disputed September 11th stories by saying, listen, it was a long time ago, which I believe raises a completely different question, probably

a more serious one. And I will be joined by Governor Tina Kotech. Much more coming up. Ann Coulter is defending flock cameras and she, I believe, is missing. the most important part of this debate. Let's take a look at what she posted to Twitter, where she said, quote, the hysteria over flock cameras is the very definition of a moral panic. There are cameras on homes, in stores, at airports, in elevators, in gyms. But oh my gosh, these are used to catch criminals. Here's how one police department used flock to solve three

major crimes and find one lost Alzheimer's patient. And so she points out, listen, there are cameras everywhere already. And here are four examples of cameras being used for good things. And that's great. The question is not whether these cameras can help police. Of course, these cameras can help police. The question is what happens when cameras simply stop recording what's happening in public And they become a searchable database of where people go or where vehicles go and you can track it over time. And this is yet another issue along with data centers where Republicans are indignantly insisting, these stupid people against data centers, these stupid people against flat cameras, what don't they get? Well, what doesn't Ann Coulter get? These are very different things. Of course, if I drive down

a public street, anyone can see my car. There is not an expectation of privacy. in the law if I'm driving down a public street. If I walk down the street and one of these First Amendment auditors is out there filming trying to get a reaction, I don't have an expectation of privacy if I'm just walking down a public street on a public sidewalk. I get that. Police officers can see my license plate. A security camera could record my license plate. I do not have a reasonable expectation that nobody will see me in public. But imagine that police can type my license plate into a computer and see everywhere that my car has been for the last months. Monday, I went to the doctor and Wednesday I went to a political organization and Friday

I went to a family planning clinic and Saturday I went for two hours to someone's house. And then Sunday I went to, you know, I don't know, a state fair or a mosque or a synagogue. And you can now start building a picture of my life. And that distinction already exists in American law. This is one of the things that is missing from this discussion. about flock cameras. The Supreme Court has recognized that long-term digital tracking can be different from simply seeing someone in public. And there's a case, Carpenter v. United States, and that case involved cell phone location records. They weren't even flock cameras, okay? So we shouldn't pretend the Supreme Court has ruled on flock, but they've ruled on something that I believe is

very important here, which is that tracking someone over time, is not the same thing as an individual observation in public. And the thing about the flock cameras is that it makes that sort of tracking that the Supreme Court has already said is distinct from a generic expectation that when you are in public, you don't have an expectation of privacy. Before, if police wanted to know everywhere you went for a month, they might need officers physically following you, which takes people, cars, time, money. Now a computer can do it in seconds.

And that is a critically important change under the law. And that is why we need some safeguards here. Now, there have been cases of law enforcement officers accused of using systems like FLOC to search for people for personal reasons. And so Flock has responded by adding safeguards. They've shortened default data retention. They require case numbers for searches and they've made some of these changes. Now, those are protections worth discussing.

So are warrants. audit logs, rules about who even has the permission to access data. I am not saying that the answer is to ban the cameras. And the reason I'm not saying that is I think that that is a pointless effort. I am a subscriber to the technology theorist Neil Postman. I don't mean I subscribe to his news newslet. I mean, I subscribe to his ideas. He has since passed away.

And one of the things he has, I believe, articulately and accurately expressed is that it's basically pointless to spend time trying to ban technologies as they are very clearly becoming ubiquitous. It's like ban AI. We're not going to ban AI. It's just not going to happen. Even if we did other countries, wouldn't, it wouldn't make a difference. So I am not here to say we should ban flock cameras. If a child is kidnapped and police know the suspect's license plate, this is very valuable technology to hopefully. quickly recover a kidnapped kid. That's good. But it can help catch criminals has never been the end of a civil liberties debate. Wiretaps catch criminals. Cell phone records catch criminals. Search warrants catch criminals. But we still have to have rules governing who can use them and how. And politically, Republicans have to be paying attention or should be paying attention to what's going on here. There are now two tech issues creating massive local backlash. Flot cameras. One of those issues, massive data centers are the other issue. They are different issues, but they hit some of the same nerves. Privacy, local control, private companies and technology changing communities without much

input from the public or without approval from the public. And Trump and Republicans keep putting themselves on the side of let's do more of this. No matter what people want, you're stupid and you're going to be poor if you don't do data centers, Trump recently said. That is a very risky position when the person saying, I don't want this surveillance system in my town might be a Democratic voter, but they're Trump voters as well. Same with someone saying, I don't want a giant data center down the street using massive amounts of electricity and water while I subsidize the entire thing. And so Republicans have spent years presenting themselves as, oh, we're suspicious of government

surveillance and we're suspicious of big tech and we're suspicious of decisions that are imposed on communities from above rather than by communities. They've got to be careful about coming to people and going, accept all this stuff, except flock cameras, accept data centers, just shut your mouth. So Ann Coulter is answering the easy question. Could a camera see your license plate when you drive down a public street? Of course, we understand that. The harder question is, wait a second, should government be able to type your plate number into a computer and reconstruct the last, however many days, weeks or months of your life without a warrant or even any reasonable suspicion that you've been involved in some kind of crime.

That is a different question. And so everybody, there should be a red flag. There should be like a button, right? There's this imaginary button somewhere in the middle distance. And if there's a conversation happening about flock cameras and you hear someone say something like, you don't have an expectation of privacy in public. So there's no story here. That you should envision the button being pressed.

And it's a button that takes us in a direction that does not comport with the law. And it doesn't comport with what is fundamentally at issue here with these flock cameras. So Trump taking the wrong side on data centers wrong from the standpoint of his own followers to a great degree. And Colter doing the exact same thing with flock cameras. I believe this could really backfire on them. And it is up to us to make sure that it does. Donald Trump has a midterm Republican convention starting today in Dallas, and he really, really

wants you to believe that everything is going great. Because while Republicans are reportedly skipping the event, candidates in competitive races are finding out reasons to stay away. Trump is going, oh, it's completely sold out. And apparently while preparing for this supposedly such successful convention, Donald Trump spent last night raging about CNN reporter Caitlin Collins. Why don't you smile more, Caitlin? And then minutes later, he celebrated a victory by Germany's far right AFD and decided to give them their

own version of MAGA. Now, there are two, these are two extraordinary posts, but they're extraordinary for different reasons. Let's start with Donald Trump's convention meltdown. Donald Trump posting quote, very dumb and unhappy fake news CNN reporter, Caitlin Collins, really low ratings also, had a panel where discussions were all fiction and the faction. lies. You would think that CNN, which is suffering terribly in the TV ratings, would get rid of their third rate anchors and try to bring credibility back to their one-storied network. It is fading fast.

See you all at the Republican National Convention tomorrow night. Now, it is quite a transition. CNN's terrible. Caitlin Collins is terrible. They're all lying. Anyway, see you tomorrow. But there's some context here that makes Trump's fixation on the convention. a lot more interesting. This is a very unusual thing to be doing. We don't usually see midterm conventions. You see conventions that are nominating conventions in general presidential election years to formally have Republicans and Democrats respectively nominate their chosen nominees. And essentially, what this convention is seeking to do is recreate some of the energy of a presidential convention when there is very little energy and it is a midterm. And Trump

is scheduled to speak both nights. The whole thing is built very heavily. around him. But the Associated Press reports that some Republican candidates in competitive races are staying away. Some are saying, well, I have campaign events or it's kind of expensive to get over there. House members reportedly were facing a $25,000 charge for participating. And there are vulnerable Republicans who are realizing not only do I need to stay in my district and campaign, doesn't make sense to drop 25 grand on this plus travel and accommodations. Plus, it might not make too much sense to be more closely associated with Donald Trump. And so where it leaves us is the Guardian reporting that only about 100 Republican lawmakers

and candidates total are going to this thing. Now, none of that proves that Trump's claim that the arena is sold out is false. An arena could have a full audience except a lot of Republican politicians aren't there. But it does explain why Trump is so interested in telling everybody how successful the convention supposedly is. Hours before this post, Trump wrote another truth social message saying the convention is really hot. It's totally sold out.

Everybody wants to be there. We know that this isn't true because as I reported to you yesterday, they can't even give these stupid tickets away for free. Now, there's a bigger political tension underneath all of this. Republicans are trying desperately to hold control of Congress in November. And some candidates in competitive races have identified, you know, Trump's incentives here are not exactly the same as mine. Trump wants the election nationalized around Trump.

And there are vulnerable Republicans who want to talk about whatever gives them the best chance in their districts. And that is the tension that this convention really puts on display. Now, about an hour after attacking Caitlin Collins, Trump moves on to Germany. And somehow it gets even weirder as Donald Trump says, quote, wow, the populist party in Germany just had a really big night. They finally got tired of the absolutely horrible immigration rules and regulations which have hurt Germany so badly. They are on the rise and not going to take it anymore. MGGA. In other words, instead of Maga, Magguga, which is make Germany great again.

Now, first of all, calling AFD the populist party leaves out some really important context, which is that AFD is a far right party. Reuters describes them that way. The Associated Press describes them that way. There is not some generic anti-establishment populist movement that had a good election that Trump is like, yeah, it's just populism. AFD won about 44% of the vote in Saxony and Halt, which is an extraordinary result that put it ahead of the chancellor CDU. The party did not win an outright majority.

So whether and how it can even form a government is unresolved. But the point is that if AFD succeeds, this would be the first time since the Nazi era that a far right party has led a German state government. That is a detail that is critical when Trump goes, oh, the popular. Party. This is not, you know, a random foreign election that Donald Trump discovered yesterday. This is a serious rightward move to a degree that I don't think a lot of people understand. And what is important to consider is that Trump world has really cultivated connections with AFD. J.D. Vance met AFD leader Alice Weidel in Munich last year, publicly criticized the political barriers that the mainstream German parties put up against AFD, Trump is now celebrating their victory,

and then we get make Germany great again. The president of the United States taking his slogan and adapting it for this extreme far right German political movement. Now, whatever you think about AFD's immigration policies or why German voters supported them, there is a massive piece of symbolism here in Trump modifying MAGA to Maga, MGA, MGA, Mga, make Germany great again. And it tells you a lot about how Trump views what's happening internationally. He doesn't see MAGA exclusively as an American political project. And when nationalist and anti-immigration parties start to gain ground elsewhere, Hungary, for example, or in this case, Germany, Trump interprets those wins through the same political framework that he uses at home. And in this case, he's even giving them the branding as

MAGA becomes Maga. So in an hour, Trump attacks an American journalist, attacks her network for their coverage of his very unusual midterm convention, celebrates the biggest electoral victory since the Nazis for a far right German party and gives them the MAGA slogan. These are extraordinarily revealing snapshots of what is Trump paying attention to and the blisteringly, blisteringly authoritarian instincts of a guy who goes far right anywhere in the world. I like it. Media reports that aren't always glowing about me, attack them, even go as far as say, as he did with Kristen Welker a couple of weeks ago from NBC. She needs to be reported and may be

punished. These are deeply authoritarian instincts. And tens of millions of people in this country have become so accustomed to it that they're kind of sleeping. And by the way, sleeping like Trump on my shirt. We have turned the Obama hope shirt into a Trump siesta shirt. And this is available on my online store. I expect these to be popular. Let's take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about today.

Most of my work is not just what happens on camera. It's the prep, the calls meeting with my team, figuring out what I do. do we want to produce? And this is why the Plod Note Pro has been so useful for me. They're one of our sponsors. The Plod Note Pro is about the size of a credit card. It's thin enough to slide into a wallet. It attaches magnetically to the back of my phone.

And I can use it for meetings, calls, interviews, brainstorming. If I want to talk through an idea without stopping to type notes as I go, I just hit record. I have my conversation. Plod will transcribe the audio. separate the speakers, give me a summary of the points that were most important, and even turn that into action items of what do I have to do. I can also search everything later with the Ask Plod feature. And Plod is also built around enterprise level privacy and security standards. Check it out. Go to plod.a.ai slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 10% off all products.

The link is in the description. Most VPNs just don't get. give you the tools you need. If you care how your VPN connection works, our sponsor private internet access gives you control. Private internet access lets you do things like choose between wire guard and open VPN, customize your DNS, use port forwarding. You can also adjust encryption and connection settings instead of being locked into the defaults. So it's perfect for people who want a VPN that you can custom configure. If you're not tech savvy, you're not tech No problem. Private internet access is perfect for you too because by default, you can turn it on in one click and stay protected. No special knowledge required just works out of the box. The biggest

reason I trust private internet access with my data is their apps are open source and they have a no log policy that's been tested in court many times where they simply don't have user activity logs to provide because they don't keep them. They're one of the few VPN. that can say that. One account works on unlimited devices, phone, laptop, tablet, router. You don't pay for separate accounts. My audience gets 83% off. So it's 203 a month plus four extra months for free. Go to PIA VPN.com slash Pacman. The link is in the description. The David Packman show is an independent program. It's an independent podcast. It's an independent YouTube channel. And what that means is we primarily depend on you for your support.

In exchange for those who are so gracious in their ability and choice to become members at join Pacman.com, we do produce an additional show every day for our members. It is called The Bonus Show. And you can get instant access to it as well as commercial free video and audio streams of the show when you sign up at Joinpackman.com couldn't be more important. important, especially when independent media is now under attack by the Trump administration. They're trying to suppress my book. They're doing all of it.

I want to say thank you to Sean McKinnis and Melissa Dart, who are our newest members at join packman.com. Consider joining them and get instant access to the bonus show. We need to talk about a price that most Americans probably never look at, but it could make everything you buy significantly more expensive. And I am talking about diesel fuel. Diesel fuel has hit the highest nominal price ever recorded in the United States. And as of this morning, it is getting even worse. The national average, if you go to AAA, which tracks gas prices and you scroll down to diesel, you see that we are now at a price of 594. In other words,

$5.94 and 24,000 or whatever it would be. And the date on which this was, rather, the day of the highest recorded average price is today. It is 9.926. There has never been a higher or more extraordinary number for diesel prices than today. Now, you might say, well, I don't have one of those diesel vehicles. What do I care? Well, this still applies to you. This still affects you because you might not be buying diesel, but just about everything you buy does depend on diesel. The truck bringing food to your supermarket almost certainly uses diesel. The farm equipment harvesting some of that food uses diesel. Trains hauling products around the country often use diesel. Fishing boats use diesel. Trucks bringing packages to your house often use diesel. So when diesel

reaches record prices, the consequences don't stay only at the gas station for the guy who's got the F-350. It moves through the entire economy. And it is happening very quickly. Before the Iran war, which of course was going to last two to three weeks, but we're in week 27 or 28 now. The average diesel price was 3.76 per gallon. And then Friday hit 585. And now it's 594 and some change. And that is an increase of more than $2 a gallon in roughly six months.

And the central reason is the war with Iran and the disruption it has caused to the global energy markets. You've got the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important oil transit routes anywhere in the world. Traffic has been disrupted. There is not normal movement of oil and fuel out of the Middle East. And it is escalating again and again. The United States now has announced we have destroyed five Iranian oil tankers after Iran

attack the U.S. Navy warship. Now, does the United States have a right and some might even argue a responsibility to retaliate after such an attack? Sure. But it's all only even going on because Donald Trump started this optional war. Iran then said, well, we're going to do some additional attacks of our own. And they attacked ships and a U.S. base in Jordan. And immediately, oil markets react. Brent crude goes back up above $100 a barrel. It was $70 a barrel before the war started. And there is going to be a number of ways that this will show up in your life. The Independent Grocers Alliance says, you know, fuel is 15 to 30 percent the total cost of food. Now, that doesn't mean your grocery bill immediately goes up the same percentage when diesel goes up.

There are contracts. There are margins. There's, you know, different parts of the supply chain that can temporarily absorb or delay some of these increases. But eventually, those contracts get renegotiated and the fuel surcharges get added and transportation companies raise prices and that starts to reach consumers. The foods that are particularly exposed are perishable foods because they constantly need to be harvested, refrigerated, transported, restocked. We are talking about produce, meat, seafood, fruit, the stuff people are buying every single week. And then you've got everything else moving around the country on trucks, trains, and ships. The clothing you buy. furniture, cosmetics, appliances, packages.

It all depends on diesel. Now, we're already seeing companies respond. Amazon put in a temporary fuel and logistics surcharge on some third party sellers earlier in the war. UPS FedEx and USPS are putting in fuel related charges as well. And there's another reason that diesel is such an important thing. If gas gets really expensive, individual drivers can go, well, I'm going to drive less. to save. That's inconvenient, but a lot of people have some ability to modify their behavior.

Maybe you have to drive to work, but instead of doing weekend errand runs, you condense them into your commute to and from work and you reduce the number of miles you're driving total or something like that. The economy can't just go, well, we'll stop delivering food to supermarkets because diesel is expensive. Or if they did or made those deliveries less frequently, then you're going to start dealing with food shortages at supermarkets, which is its own problem. A trucking company company can't go to Walmart and say, we're going to wait to deliver this stuff until next month when fuel is cheaper. Farmers need to run equipment or they can't harvest what they've grown. Businesses need deliveries, stores need inventory. And so diesel demand can't it diesel,

diesel demand is far more inelastic than gasoline demand in the consumer economy. And the supply situation, isn't looking so good because global diesel supplies are expected to remain very tight heading into winter. So this combination is extraordinarily problematic. I don't think there is any obvious solution here for the Trump administration. Trump spent years making gas prices, one of his simplest arguments about the economy. And now we've got gas up well above four bucks a gallon, more than a dollar higher than it was a year ago. Diesel at a nominal all-time record. And by the way, why am I saying nominal? I guess I should explain that. There's this thing called inflation. Inflation adjusted, this is not the most expensive diesel has ever been. Diesel reached 474 right before

the 2008 financial crisis, which is like 720 in inflation-adjusted dollars today. So we are at the highest nominal diesel price, but not the highest inflation adjusted price. Just a little bit of a note. But this is still plenty high to have real consequences. And that's what makes these energy shocks so economically dangerous. You know, it's very easy for, Howard Nutlick reportedly made like 250 million bucks last year. Trump is a multi-billionaire.

These guys don't even compute that small changes to the price of everything can really screw up people's budgets. They just don't understand it. They're too wealthy. Their brains are disconnected from that as a possibility. And so they don't really give a damn about the fact that that is what is taking place. And these costs all trickle down. They make everyone's monthly budgets more expensive.

And we are being shepherded, although that's probably not the right term. We are being shepherded by people who don't really understand, nor do they care about the reality of how this affects the average person. When do we finally say that enough is enough of this stuff? That's the question that I want to ask next. Trump is now rewriting 9-11. He's re he is telling stories about being physically rescued by firefighters and bringing an entire construction crew to ground zero that no one has been able to substantiate.

And somehow during an event that was supposed to honor the people who actually risked and lost their lives on 9-11, Trump just makes it about Trump. Trump gets confused, by the way, and glitches when he tries to say approval, he goes, 92% apprave. And you see that physical glitch. We've spoken to copious experts about this. This is a real thing. Check it out.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Doug Collins, 92% appraval. 92% of prave. He knows he's glitching. His mind is disconnecting from his tongue and mouth, but we don't really have a good explanation for it. We've spoken to speech language pathologists and others who work with stroke sufferers. We don't really know what it's all about. All right, let's now get to the disgusting substance of this speech.

Trump says he was basically lifted out of the rubble on 9-11. He goes, two firemen, big strong guys, they grabbed me under their arms and they said, you got to get out of here. If you get two firemen, we thought it was coming down on top of us. two firemen, big, strong guys, and I'm not the smallest guy in the world. They grabbed me under the arms and said, got to get out of here. And they literally lifted me up. This is not easy to do.

I'm big. They lifted me up and they started running with me. I said, fellas, I can run myself. But they were amazing, but they thought it was coming down. It didn't come down. So Trump says that two firefighters grabbed him under the arms and carried him away because a nearby building was imminently going to collapse. The only problem is, I mean, listen, like, could that have happened?

Sure, anything could happen as long as it's physically possible. The problem is there's no corroboration of this incredibly dramatic story. We have a lot of documentation of 9-11. We have a lot of documentation of its aftermath. Trump was miles from ground zero on 9-11. He spoke to media on the phone from his office. He visited the area days later. And this story of Trump being lifted from the rubble by firefighters, uh, uh, uh, rising.

like a phoenix over the horizon, this has never been corroborated, and it is disputed by people who were there. Trump continuing with this extraordinarily self-centered revisionist history about 9-11. I just thank my people. I took a lot of my, I was building a big building in New York, and I took the whole crew down there right after this happened, and they were, they had no hesitation. Everybody went down with me. We went down as a big group of people. Wasn't too much we could do. I'll be honest. It was, you know, it was raw. nobody's seen anything like it ever we had other buildings the united states steel building was creaking really creaking now we thought it was going to fall down the truth is it creaked a lot it

creaked it still creeks but uh it never came down and uh i'll never forget two firemen we thought it was coming down on top of us and two firemen big strong guys and all right so now he gets back to the other story all all of this stuff is disputed and not corroborated trump's bringing construction crews, PolitiFact looked at that. They found no evidence substantiating that claim. Is this stolen valor of sorts? I don't know. A reminder that Donald Trump's immediate reaction to 9-11 was to brag, oh, now my building 40 Wall Street is the tallest building in lower Manhattan, all of a sudden because of what happened. Did you have any damage or did you know, what's happened down there? Well, it was an amazing phone call. I made 40 Wall Street actually was

the second tallest building in downtown Manhattan. And it was actually before the for the World Trade Center was the tallest. And then when they built the World Trade Center became known as the second tallest and now it's the tallest. And I just spoke to my people. And they said it's the most unbelievable site. Trump went on TV on 9-11 and remarked, you know, now that the towers fell, I got to mention this. My building at 40 Wall Street is the tallest downtown, which by the way, wasn't even an accurate claim. Seventy Pine Street was taller. The president lying about his role in the 9-11 recovery on the 25th anniversary of 9-11 should be a major story. It is basically crickets. And they are talking instead about Trump's stupid midterm convention.

This is what we are dealing with. And it's sort of like, yeah, Trump's basically inventing stories about 9-11 and it's just Trump being Trump. Now, Trump did weigh in during this ridiculous speech about a deceased 9-11 rescuer named Wells Crowther. The man in the red band down, and Trump expresses displeasure that Crowder has become more famous than me around them. Then suddenly a rescue appeared. They call him the man in the red bandada. Have you heard that term? The man in the red bandana has become more famous than me.

I don't like it. Very unhappy, but he's become much more famous than me. Can you imagine? I mean, it, oh, he's joking, David. Don't work. Whatever you think of the joke. What about the contrast? An event commemorating the extraordinary sacrifice repeatedly has to detour into what did Trump do that day, even if it's made up? Disputed stories about where he was and being

lifted out of the rubble by hero firefighters and he's a hero for being there as well and he sent workers down there and someone who actually lost his life saving people has become more famous and I don't really. This is very, it is weaponized ego maniacal narcissism. I don't know how else to say it. And this is sadly, I mean, listen, I would rather it be almost anyone else who is president at the time of such a somber and important anniversary. However, there is a bigger story that is now growing, which is Ted Cruz is defending the stories that Trump is telling. And as I'll explain later, if Ted Cruz's defense is correct, Trump's brain may be working even more poorly than we believe. And we believe it's working pretty poorly. 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. If you Google yourself, you are probably going to find things you would rather not have

there like your addresses, past and present, phone numbers, relatives, jobs you've had, maybe a profile on some site you've never heard of. And the problem is that that can become the public version of you that an employer sees, a colleague or a client, your landlord, your neighbor, maybe somebody you're dating. Our sponsor Incogni will help you scrub your digital footprint because Incogni removes your personal information from all of the most notorious databases. the people search sites, the directories, the commercial data broker lists. And Incogni will automatically send removal requests to hundreds of these sites.

And they'll just keep following up. If your data comes back, they'll get it removed again. Now, my favorite feature is custom removals with the unlimited plan. If you find your information anywhere online, even in sites not already in their database, you paste the link into Incogni, they will work to get that taken down. You control what people find when they look you up instead of letting these random databases and outdated listings and search results introduce you first. Get 60% off an annual plan at incogny.com slash Pacman with the code Pacman.

The link is in the description. Today we will be speaking with Governor Tina Kotech, the governor of Oregon, who is very graciously giving us some time today. I really appreciate it. Well, thank you, David. Nice to see you. I'd love to talk a little bit about data centers because this is a story that nationally I've been following. I think that the Trump world is really missing the mark on this, insisting that communities

should want data centers. They should have them. You end up poor if you don't have them. And you have done a couple of interesting things in Oregon, which if I understand correctly, are a bit of an inflection point in terms of your perspective on what the law should be around these data centers. Give us like the 30,000 foot view on it and then I'll have some questions about it. Well, there is, I think, the defining, one of the defining issues for this campaign season because I think data centers are encompassing so much of the angst and frustration that

people are feeling about large out of state corporations. They're worried about the environment. And, you know, just hear the president talk about it. Like somehow, you know, ordinary people don't know what they're talking about, that this is a problem. And I'm definitely pushing back on that. I was at a rally just yesterday telling folks 300 strong at our capital saying, you know, we're going to hold the line here in Oregon. We will do what is best for our state. And that means having a whole new set of standards of how these data centers come in, how they operate. And so I've been doing, you know, since the beginning of the year, I put a group together saying, we got to figure this out. They're using up all this energy. They're passing on the costs onto our households. In fact,

Last year, I signed a new law that is, I think, leading the nation saying that data centers should pay their fair share of utility costs. They are big users of energy. And what had been happening is that average households, average ratepayers were picking up the cost. So the Power Act was passed. I signed it. And it now allows for us to say, hey, data centers have to pay their fair share.

And we're now already seeing 20, 30 percent rate increases on the data centers. and decreases for small businesses and households, which interesting about my opponent is she voted against it. And so completely out of touch, very much in line with where President Trump is, just not understanding that this actually matters for folks. But it's more than that. I just yesterday said we should not be using any state public lands to help the facilitation of new data center development

until we can figure this out. What does it mean for our water, our energy costs? What's the community benefit when these large things come into the community? If we can't do it right, we shouldn't do it at all. And right now, that's what we're doing across the state of Oregon. There's local moratoriums everywhere saying we got to pause this stuff until we can figure out how to do it right. That I think is what Oregonians are expecting for me. They want to make sure that I am protecting our state.

And I think data centers is a real defining issue for this campaign. Yeah, it doesn't seem to me that the right, the correct position is no more data. centers anywhere ever. It seems that it's really an issue of sort of like informed consent, which is often a phrase that's used in medicine, which is some communities might be informed of the pros and the cons, who will be paying for the infrastructure, what this might do to water or noise, et cetera. And they might say, we do want this or they might say we don't want it. But it seems that one of the issues, and correct me if I'm wrong, is by the time a lot of local constituents find out that there is such a project, it's been a proof.

it's moving forward. There's no real opportunity to evaluate it and to have some kind of democratic process. Is that sort of your position that the problem is at the centers themselves? It's the process. Oh, absolutely. I think people feel like they're getting taken advantage of. We had a non-disclosure agreement on a facility trying to come into the state capital here in Salem, Oregon. And I hadn't, I didn't even know we had state land connected to that project. The minute I found out, I said, we got to pull that state land out of there. People don't know what's coming in. There has been no process.

And that was a big conversation with advocates yesterday. I love the idea of informed consent. When people understand what's happening and they can have a voice in the process, at the end of the day, it's going to be better. It's going to respect the folks who live around these centers. And that just has not been happening. A lot of these decisions have been done quickly by local governments. And these big companies come in and they're buying up land. And they're trying to control the process.

and people are really reacting to that. And I completely support the idea that we need clear, transparent process and making sure that whatever they do, if a data center does get built in the future here in Oregon, it has to meet the norms of our state. You can't take all the water, you can't take all the energy, you can't bring in dirty energy to run your data center. And whatever is happening has to be benefit back to the community. And that just hasn't been happening. And again, I think it's emblematic. of how people feel about the world right now. They're worried about AI. They're worried about data

centers. They're worried about big corporations just running roughshot over them. And I think that's what you see in President Trump's comments. He kind of does. He doesn't care. He's just like, well, not my problem. Why don't you want these things? Why do you want to be poor? Like, it's ridiculous as comments. They don't make any sense. There's been this sort of, I call it a Kafka-esque claim from the Trump administration that they've lifted millions of people off of food stamps. And then the word lifted is really doing a lot of work where you've taken benefits from a lot of people. You haven't really lifted them. I read that in your state of Oregon, about 35,000 people lost SNAP benefits because of these new

requirements that were put in place by the Trump administration. I'd love to hear you talk not just about, like, I think it's obvious if you're depending on food stamps and you don't have them, that's a problem. But food stamps are very economically stimulative because the money is spent in communities, in businesses that also employ people. So can you give us like the full rundown of how this is affecting your state? Yeah, definitely can.

Well, for folks you don't know much about my background, before I even got elected, I worked at our statewide emergency food system, Oregon Food Bank. My job was to make sure people could get the help they needed. So I've known these policies for years. We're trying to make a program that works for people. 750,000 Oregonians receive some level of SNAP benefits, and that helps them put food on the table.

And as you said, it also supports local grocery stores, particularly in rural communities where you have more households that need a little bit of help to put food on the table every single month. Let's go back to last fall during the federal government shutdown. For the first time ever in a shutdown, the President of the United States was okay about starving Americans. He basically said, well, you're not going to get any money. I'm just going to stop all benefits.

And that was completely unacceptable for me. So I declared an emergency. I moved money that I could as soon as possible to our emergency food pantries. That can't make up the whole gap there. But we had people literally starving in that first week when benefits were suspended. And then we went to court. Like all the attorney generals, they've been working hard to fight in the courts. They went to the courts.

And while that was happening, I went to my agency people. And I said, if they turn those benefits back on, we need to be ready. So when the court decision did come down, we were ready. I remember sitting in my car that night. I was going to an event and the team called me at about 5 o'clock and said, hey, the court ruled in our favor, we can move these benefits tonight. And I said, let's do that. Because then I got home later and I was reading on social and I saw folks saying, I got my benefits back. I can go to the grocery store.

I can feed my families. I think that is so clearly the defining contrast with the Trump administration. They don't care if people starve. They say that they're, you know, rooting out fraud. What they're doing is just piling on more red tithe. tape. They're making it so much more difficult for people to get on the program. So about 35,000 Oregonians, as you said, I've already had their benefits lost because maybe they didn't turn in a piece of paperwork. Maybe they didn't respond on a certain time. This whole idea that,

well, you need to be working. We have a lot of people who are working who need that additional help through SNAP to put food on the table every month. And I'm going to make sure people can feed themselves. We're at the United States of America. If people need to help putting food on the table, we're going to make sure they can do it. When you when you talk, you mentioned this, the ways in which you at the state level can sort of resist or undo some of the things that the federal government does. That's true in some places and not in others. What area do you think the Trump administration has most hurt the people of your state that as governor, you don't really have the power to fight back against, not because you don't want to, but just because you don't necessarily

They have the tools or resources to do it. Yeah, well, as you know, governors are front line right now. And I really actually worry about folks in red states because I don't think their governors are standing up and not. So we're doing everything we can. We're fighting in the courts. But there are some things that are just at the macro level. Let's talk about tariff taxes, right? We're a trade dependent state.

We're on the West Coast. We make things. We sell across, you know, the oceans. People send us stuff. We make more things. We grow a lot of things. Tariffs are impacting our state, billions of dollars. And sitting down and talking to our.

small businesses. It's like it's clearly a huge impact. The trade challenges with Canada right now affects us, right? So the most we can do is provide some a little extra help for folks who are dealing with the irregularities and frankly, massive uncertainties because of tariffs. That's something that every state is doing with. I mean, the president has taken a whack at our economy nationwide and Oregon is disproportionately impacted because we are so trade dependent. The other issue I think is immigration enforcement. We have passed a series of bills here that I've signed into law saying we're going to do everything we can to have more tools to push back on the assault that is coming down from

immigration enforcement. We are a sanctuary state, but that's not enough. We have to push back on mass agents and where they can show up and arrest people. And as you know, from the numbers of this year, despite that, we're seeing increased arrests of folks who have no criminal record. Right. And they're being, you know, detained and deported on a regular basis, even from a state like Oregon. So we're going to keep pushing back.

But those two things are just, you know, very hard to, they're national issues. And they have more tools than we do at the moment. As you mentioned, you're running for reelection. You have a Republican opponent, Christine Drazen. I'm actually interested in getting your thoughts on some of the dynamics within the Democratic Party where in different parts of the country, we have seen really embattled primaries between the sort of more centrist establishment wing of the Democratic Party and what we might call a further left DSA or socialist wing of the party, even though the DSA primaries have only been, or even

though primaries in which there's a DSA candidate have only been won by that candidate about 5% of the time, it's clear that regionally there are parts of the country that want to go in a different direction within the Democratic Party. What are Oregon Democrats thinking about this? Does this play a role in how you think about your campaign and the different sorts of people you speak to? Well, the Democratic Party is a large tent, as you know. And so I think a lot of ideas make us better and stronger. And there is a very robust conversation about what does it need to push back and stand up for real people? I've been doing that, you know, since I've even before I was elected office, I'm an advocate.

I want to stand up for people. So in terms of the challenge on my campaign, you're not seeing those kind of debates. However, I do believe that what we're seeing on the Republican side is, you know, I have a candidate who is, you know, since, you know, Ulysses is top of mind in the movie theaters these days, she's a trojan horse. She has a mega candidate, but she can't say Trump, she can't talk for Trump. And then when she does talk about him, she's in favor of what he believes in. So that's the candidate I have, which is a little different than what you see in some of the other states. But back to the conversation of Democrats. I think we are all coming together saying we have to protect our state and we have to continue to stand up for real people.

There's affordability issues. There's that sense of like large corporations that are just taking over our lives. And I think that there's a unifying theme, whether you're on the left or the middle or, you know, more centrist. I think we all want to stand up for people and protect our state from a government that is destroying our democracy, taking help away from people that we pay for with our tax dollars. and trying to, you know, change the rule of law right out from under us. And at the end of day, I think that's what people will think about when they go to the, go to the polls. We're not here in the polls.

We're mail by vote state. I will say my opponent actually introduced the bill to eliminate vote by mail. We are fighting to make sure when those ballots go out in a couple weeks, people can vote the way they need to here in Oregon. You know, I'm really interested in your take on the vote by mail thing because I know that there was a period of time where it was assumed at the next time. national level that if you restrict vote by mail, it's better for Republicans. And there were a bunch of assumptions that were implicit in that. I'm thinking back sort of like to the COVID era of 2020.

Have you run an analysis of like, I guess what what I'm wondering is, I don't know that at this point restricting vote by mail will be that good for Republicans such that they should keep pushing it. Like I'm all I'm almost a little unclear as to the strategy right now. Do you understand it? Well, the only strategy here is the president of the United States wants to control what he thinks is, you know, a midterm that is going to go against him, right? So his desire to reach in and change voting practices that is unconstitutional. Remember, states are the ones who runs elections. This is just about the ego and the desire of the president of United States. Like, if you want to try to make sense of this, I would not try. I would just say, like, look, he just wants to control the elections because he knows he's going to lose in the midterms. So it's not even about here's how we think we benefit if fewer people vote by mail. And we've done a county by county analysis. It's just like we want to control it and having people vote on the day of maybe even sending ice people or whatever. Like they just want it to happen on the day of and they believe they can better control the election in that way.

Absolutely. And they want to intimidate folks. You know, when I think it was Wyoming and the governor of Wyoming who's a Republican says, hey, you can't have people intimidating my folks during the primary. That's a Republican state. That, I mean, as a Democratic state, we're preparing, we're contingency planning. We want to make sure because even though we don't have polling stations, we want to make sure people can drop off their ballots, even if it's at the post office or a drop box. That intimidation is only about suppressing the vote. And I think in their heads, they think this will help them out. But I don't, you know, at the end of day, I don't care. It's anti-democratic.

It shouldn't happen. It's unconstitutional. And hopefully Supreme Court will support us in the, you know, the injunction that's now in place to say he can't touch these elections. The thing I really don't get is, of course, Donald Trump has voted by mail for a while now. And some of his defenders say, no, no, he supports it if you're in the military or can't get to the poll or whatever. But my question is, like, why does the reason for which you decide to vote by mail change how trustworthy your vote is? Like, why would somebody who's in the military and chooses to vote by mail, that's a trustworthy

mail and vote. But if you're just like, I work weekdays, so it's a convenience thing. Oh, no, that person shouldn't be like, I just don't even understand making that distinction, which I guess is what your system is rooted on, which is if you want to vote, we just all vote by mail, period. That's it. We just all vote by mail. You know, it's about access to the ballot. We've done everything here in the Oregon. We, Oregon has automatic voter registration when you get your driver's license. We have vote by mail. We pay for your postage. We believe that a democracy is. is stronger when people can vote. Regardless, you know, if you're not voting for me or you are voting for me, I want to make sure your vote is hurt. It is your constitutional right. And so we should

do everything to make it easier for people to vote. And this argument that there's fraud is completely unfounded. No data to support that. Again, this is his desire to control so he can continue to do whatever he feels like, which is, you know, not what the American people want to see. We've been speaking with governor of Oregon, Tina Kotech, currently in a re-election campaign. I really appreciate your time. Great to meet you. And we're going to be watching this one closely. Thank you. Take care yourself. The David Pakman show is an audience supported program. And the best most direct way to support the show is by becoming a member at join packman.com. You'll get the daily bonus show, the daily commercial free show and plenty of other great

membership perks. Get the full experience by signing up at Join Packman. If Ted Cruz's story is true, he may have exposed that Donald Trump's cognitive decline is far worse than any of us believe. Let me explain. Let me build up the story. Ted Cruz made an attempt just hours ago on CNN to defend Donald Trump's uncorroborated stories about 9-11. Trump has been telling these increasingly dramatic stories about what he supposedly did. He claimed that two firefighters grabbed him under the arms and physically lifted him up and

ran with him because a building was about to collapse on top of Trump. And we still have zero corroborating evidence for any of that stuff. Now, Trump has also repeatedly claimed he brought 100 and then it was another 100. So 200 total construction workers to ground zero. That's been challenged by fact checkers. So CNN's Caitlin Collins asked Ted Cruz about it and listen to the explanation. Listen really closely to the explanation. that Ted Cruz gives.

On the president's 9-11 story today, he's saying that there is evidence that he was there right after. I mean, he's kind of making it sound like he was pulled out of the rumble, though, with the firefighters. Do you think that's appropriate? September 11th was 25 years ago. It was a horrific moment for our entire country. And you could doubt whatever you want about Donald Trump,

but the man is a New Yorker. He loves New York, and I have every doubt that what he's conveying there is what he experienced, and that was a traumatic experience for all of us. Yeah, some people might just hear that and think he's exaggerating his role. Should anyone exaggerate what happened on 9-11? Look, I think when you're sharing your feelings, your sentiments, I remember I was in DC on 9-11.

September 11th was 25 years ago. It was a long time ago. That's the defense. If the suggestion here is that Trump can't accurately remember where he was or what he was doing during September 11th because it was a long time. ago, that is not a reassuring explanation that Ted Cruz seems to think he's giving. And I want to be really careful about what we're saying here. I'm not diagnosing Donald Trump with dementia. You can't diagnose dementia, or at least I can't from TV clips.

Somebody remembering something incorrectly doesn't mean they have dementia. But Ted Cruz's explanation raises a really interesting question about memory. If I were to say to you, what did you do on the first Thursday in June? of 2024. I would have no recollection of that. And in fact, let me just look at my calendar. Like, what was I do? Could I there? I don't know if I was even traveling in June of 2024. The first Thursday in June. So June 6th, 2024. Ah, I was on the Megan Kelly show with Hogan Gidley. So that's actually, this actually makes this even more interesting. I've only been on the Megan Kelly show once. I remember doing it. I did something notable on that day that I only did once.

September, June 6th, 2024. And I have vivid memories of arguing with Hogan Gidley and all of that. But if you said June 6th, 2024, I would have no idea about that. September 11th is not the first Thursday in June of 2024. And there's a term in memory research for vivid recollections surrounding these shocking consequential events, which are called flashbulb memories. And 9-11 has been studied as an example. of that. Now, these memories are not perfect recordings and people can get details wrong about

these flashbulb memories. But one of the things research has found is that when there's a major event, your memory of it is remarkably stable over long periods of time, especially in adults, including older adults. And think about it in your life. Yeah. Where was I when my girlfriend went into labor with our first daughter? I remember exactly I had just put chicken on the grill. And as things started to get crazy, I remember that the chicken went right into the trash after, you know, cooking for about a minute and off we went to the hospital. I remember that specifically.

Where was I when the Red Sox started that unbelievable comeback in game four against the Yankees in 2004, which led to them ultimately winning four to three and going on to win the world series. I remember exactly. I was off campus at the University of Massachusetts watching the game at a house that was a frequented house for house parties. But this was a weekday and the game was going on. Like, I remember exactly where I was. Where was I when Argentina won the World Cup in 2022? I remember exactly. I was sitting in my living room. My then baby daughter had an Argentina onesie on. And I remember exactly. And September 11th. 11th, same thing.

I was in psychology class with Mr. Palmazano and this kid Eric came back from the bathroom and said, we're under attack. And Mr. Palmesano said, you've disrupted class enough today. Why don't you sit down? Millions of people have these memories that are really locked in and 25 years later, polling finds that Americans mostly still think about the September 11th attacks and where they were. Now, imagine you weren't merely watching the 9-11 attacks on TV. Imagine that your claim is I was there.

I was close enough that a building almost collapsed on me. Firefighters physically grabbed me and lifted me up. They lifted me under the arms. They started running with me because I was in danger of having a building collapse on me. And then somebody asks whether that really happened. And your political ally, Ted Cruz goes, listen, it was 25 years ago. And that is where the explanation gets really weird. We're not really debating.

We're not debating at all. Does Trump remember what he had for lunch on September 18th of 2001? We're talking about what would have presumably been one of the most terrifying and memorable experiences of his life. Two firefighters grabbing me and physically carrying me away from a potentially collapsing building during the deadliest terrorist attack in American history. That is a significant memory. And Donald Trump never mentioned that part of the story, I think, until just a few years ago.

So that is clearly something new that was previously. not mentioned. Now, there's another important distinction. Forgetting something and acquiring an elaborate memory of something that didn't happen are not the same thing. Trump isn't saying, you know, it was 25 years ago, I don't remember exactly what happened. He is supplying extraordinary detail. Two big, strong firefighters grab me under the arms, tell me, sir, we've got to get out. They lift me, they run. It's a really specific story with zero reporting to corroborate it. So there are a few possibilities here and I don't know which one is the right one. Trump could know that he's lying and he's exaggerating on purpose.

Trump could be combining different memories. Maybe he's confusing what happened on 9-11 with when he did, you know, one of his wrestling things where he was on WWE and maybe two big, strong guys picked them up on that day and he's mixing the memories. I don't know. He could maybe remember events differently from how they occurred or there's some other explanation like Trump's memory is completely shocked. and it's evidence of dementia. I don't know. But Ted Cruz going, it was 25 years ago at the end of the day, it only creates more questions because if Ted Cruz's explanation is that Trump's memory

of one of the defining events of his lifetime has deteriorated so substantially that he now confidently remembers being physically rescued in an incident that never happened, that's a real problem with Trump's memory. Now, I don't think that's the claim that Ted Cruz intended. to make. He was trying to defend Donald Trump. But in trying to defend and kind of explain a way Trump's story has happened a long time ago, Cruz is raising a much more important question about the state of Donald Trump's cognitive health. It wasn't what he was trying to do. But that's where my mind goes because there are so many obvious concerns about what's going on with Donald Trump's cognitive health. We just learned today that Donald Trump has personally handed tens of thousands

of dollars to some of his closest White House employees. And, And one of those people is Natalie Harp. And according to a former White House ethics lawyer, these payments may actually be criminal in nature. Let me explain. Trump is using personal money and giving it to people who work for him inside the US government. So we have financial disclosures and they show that, for example, Donald Trump gave his executive assistant, I guess is what we're calling her, Natalie Harp, a $45,000 payment. And it was described as cash gift for the holidays.

Trump gave $45,000 each to communications advisor Margo Martin and White House aide Chamberlain Harris. All three have salaries of $150,000 a year at the White House. So Trump's gift was 30 or more percent of each employee's annual government salary, depending on whether you're talking about gross or net. Walt Nouda, Trump's longtime aide and director of Oval Office operations, got $20,000 from Trump. So Trump gave these four federal employees close to a couple hundred thousand bucks while they work for the administration. Now, I can already hear the response from some Trump supporters.

Why are you attacking Trump for his generosity? Why are you, you know, Trump just appreciates the people who work for him. He treats them well. He gave them these generous Christmas presents. And if these were employees of the Trump organization, that might be an argument. argument that makes a lot more sense. But these are not Donald Trump's private employees. They're employees of the U.S. government. They're paid by taxpayers. They're subject to federal laws designed to prevent problematic financial relationships. And there's a law that might apply here because there's a law, federal law, that bans paying a federal employee extra compensation for that person's services as an employee of the U.S. government. So Richard Painter, who was George W. Bush's chief

White House ethics lawyer, says these payments appear to be illegal. because they violate that law. And it's a really straightforward argument. If Trump gave the money to supplement what they earned while working for the government, that's illegal. That's what the law says you can't do. And the reason isn't, oh, you know, the government has some weird objection to bosses being nice to people. The concern is if a public employee gets huge financial benefit from the government official above them, the government official they work for, that creates perverse incentives. A A $45,000 payment can create expectations and a sense of personal financial obligation that is about serving Trump and keeping the guy who gave you the $45 grand happy rather than doing what you should be doing as an employee of the federal government, which is serving the American people. And that is very different from a private company giving someone a Christmas bonus.

Now, we should be precise about what has and hasn't been established. The payments are not allegations. They've been reported by the employees on financial disclosure forms. So nobody's denying that these payments were made. What's disputed is, is this legal? Is this considered supplemental compensation for government work? The White House says that's not what it is. A spokesperson said, no, no, no, no, you guys have it all wrong.

Trump has always given Christmas gifts to the people around them. Employees, aides, people in his private life, people in government. these had nothing to do with their official duties and therefore they are permissible. Now, there's another government ethics expert who says, yeah, that, I don't know about that. Former Acting Office of Government Ethics Director, Don Fox said, we don't have enough facts here to say that these are illegal, but we certainly don't have enough facts here to say that these are legal. And that is because the statute doesn't ban every gift. It's about why was the money given. If Trump gave personal friends really generous Christmas presents, totally unrelated from their

government work, you could make a legal case that it's allowed. If these payments were effectively extra compensation for your White House job, then they aren't allowed. And the problem, much like with perjury, is that it can be difficult to establish state of mind. Did you lie under oath on purpose and knowingly or did you just get something wrong? And this is why you rarely see perjury prosecution. And similarly, Trump can go, no, no, no, it had nothing to do with Natalie's work.

It was just a gift. That's all it was. Now, as we get back again to Natalie Harp, Natalie Harp is Trump's 35-year-old executive assistant. She's always with Trump now. She seems to spend more time with Trump than Melania. She writes him sweet nothings in little love type notes of sorts and has expressed an undying devotion to Donald Trump. She is known as an accelerator of Trump's worst instincts who always goes, yes, this is a good idea. Margo Martin is another really close aid. Chamberlain Harris is another

close aide. And so these aren't random federal workers getting a Christmas card with 20 bucks tucked into it from Donald Trump. This is Trump's inner circle. Their entire lives are working directly for Trump while getting government salaries. And the Washington Post reports, Well, we don't have any other examples of presidents giving White House employees cash payments like this. And even Fox News, who isn't convinced the evidence establishes illegality, says at minimum, this is very troubling. If you get that much money from your boss, it can leave you feeling uncomfortable or certainly

beholden to the person who gave you the money. So this is yet another problem. The person handing out the money isn't only their boss. He's the president of the United States. And he is essentially a cult leader to people in his inner circle. Now, Trump has not been charged with anything. He certainly hasn't been found guilty. There's been no determination that a law has been broken.

But we now have a new legal problem with another really unusual behavior involving Donald Trump. The White House is insisting everything is fine. The undisputed part is Trump has given out six figures in gifts to four of the closest federal employees that work for him. And we end up with a really simple question. Were these gifts from Trump to people as friends or were these gifts from Trump to people who are primarily inner circle staffers of the federal government? It seems obvious to me that it is the second one.

I don't know if we'll get an investigation. We often don't, but it certainly is another really sketchy thing that Trump is doing. Now on the bonus show today, we will talk about TSA bringing back gate access for some people without plane tickets. It used to be like this before 9-11. No Kings is pivoting to voter turnout, which I love to see. And there are some newly released John Fetterman texts, which are extraordinarily disturbing. All of that and more on today's bonus show. Get instant access. Don't miss it. Sign up at join hackman.com.