"Best Speech EVER!" MAGA Goes Wild for Trump Speech as Democrats, AOC's "Squad" Members, Jeer

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Morning Meeting

Episode: "Best Speech EVER!" MAGA Goes Wild for Trump Speech as Democrats, AOC's "Squad" Members, Jeer
Date: February 25, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin (2WAY)
Guest Co-Hosts:

• Melissa DeRosa (Former Secretary to Governor Andrew Cuomo, NY political analyst)
• Rep. Mike Lawler (Republican Congressman, NY, swing district)

---

Episode Overview

This episode—airing the morning after Trump’s highly dramatic State of the Union—focuses on the immediate and long-term political fallout, the substantive policy items raised, and the contrasting reactions across the partisan aisle. Mark Halperin, Melissa DeRosa, and Rep. Mike Lawler break down the speech’s impact on Congress, the midterms, and policy prospects, with extended Q&A from the “Morning Meeting” community. The show examines not just the spectacle of the night, but what moves—and doesn’t move—the needle in American politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Immediate Impact of Trump's State of the Union

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • Assesses the speech as “a classic Rorschach test” ([06:48])—partisans heard what they wanted to:

    "Republicans who are already with him think it was a great speech...then you turn on Ms. Now and they said it was full of lies and a total waste of time." ([06:48])

  • Predicts little effect on public opinion or midterms overall.

• Rep. Lawler:

  • Argues the speech had substance for swing-district Republicans, highlighting key policy specifics: housing, energy, prescription drugs, banning congressional stock trading, and AI/data center requirements ([08:02]).
  • Credits Trump for "knowing how to use the stage" and orchestrating viral moments, such as calling for Democrats to stand in support of prioritizing American citizens over illegal immigrants ([09:21]):

    "Not one single Democrat stood, I think is going to be a defining moment, and it's going to be a defining moment in this midterm election." ([09:21])

• Mark Halperin:

  • Analyzes the "stand if you agree with me" tactic as theatrical and politically ingenious ([15:36]):

    “I can't remember a president ever doing this...saying, 'I'm going to say something, we're going to watch to see who stands.' ...this is, I think, the biggest advantage the president made from last night. It reminds Republicans...hey, this guy’s actually pretty good at politics." ([15:36])

---

2. The 'Stand or Sit' Immigration Moment

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • Considers the Democrats' refusal to stand a tactical error, because the position (prioritizing Americans over undocumented migrants) is overwhelmingly popular even in blue districts ([11:01]):

    “100%. I think they made a mistake.” ([11:01])

  • Suggests base Democrats’ fears of primary challenges and ideological purity trap them into vulnerable positions ([12:14]):

• Rep. Lawler:

  • Notes Democrats' "fear of their base" prevents bipartisan gestures ([12:14]):

    "They can't agree to anything Donald Trump says for fear of being called a traitor." ([12:14])

  • Recalls previous years when Democrats’ refusal to stand (e.g., for a sick child's honorary Secret Service agent appointment) backfired with public opinion ([12:22]).

• Mark Halperin:

  • Links these viral moments to polling—a strategic connect for campaign ads and social media, not just legislative agenda ([15:36]).

---

3. Policy Prospects in Congress

A. Housing Bill

• Rep. Lawler:

  • Predicts a 30% chance of a comprehensive housing bill passing, stressing bipartisan potential and noting that the House already passed such a bill with overwhelming support ([20:43]).
  • Cautions that the process depends on Senate action and White House leadership ([22:02]).

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • More pessimistic; "takes the under," at 25% ([21:24]).
  • Points out the difficulty in Democrats handing Trump an election-year win ([23:34]):

    “They'll come up with some reason why it's not good enough. They're not going to give him the win.” ([23:30])

B. Congressional Stock Trading Ban

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • Sees potential if Republicans get serious, but skeptical of real movement—it may just be an applause line ([25:05]).

• Rep. Lawler:

  • Personally supports a ban, sees it as an "integrity measure" ([25:29]) but doubts passage given reluctance on both sides ([26:13]):

    “My general view...as a member of Congress, you are way too privy to information that the general public does not have...” ([26:13])

  • Both hosts predict “maybe” or “no” on likelihood of bill passage this year.

---

4. Epstein, Class, and Politics

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • Explains Democrats’ focus on the Epstein scandal as a way to keep Trump and Republicans defensive, tying it into populist anti-elite narratives ([27:39]):

    "...the notion of the Epstein class and trying to make it the wealthy, the powerful are untouchable and everyone else has to play by a different set of rules."

• Rep. Lawler:

  • Confirms that the Clintons will be deposed by House Investigative Committee in his district ([29:02]), with heightened local attention and security.

---

5. Iran, Foreign Policy, & Looming Military Action

• Discussion centers on whether the U.S. will/should strike Iran if diplomatic talks fail ([32:39]):

  • Melissa DeRosa:

    • Critiques the lack of an effective public case by Trump for military action:

      “I do not think that he has forcefully enough laid out a compelling case for why we should go into Iran.” ([32:39])

  • Rep. Lawler:

    • Applauds the administration's multi-pronged approach—crippling Iran's oil exports, building up forces, and giving both Iran and Venezuela “off ramps”—but stresses the need for a separate, direct presidential address to the public before or after any military action ([33:45]):

      "...if the Ayatollah does not come to the table in a serious and meaningful way...I don't think it'll be a small strike." ([33:45]) “This is not about Israel...this is far bigger than that.” ([33:45])

  • Sen. John Thune (joined via live feed around [49:45]):

    • Echoes urgency in Iran talks, emphasizing nuclear non-proliferation and U.S. preparedness for military options.

---

6. Domestic Partisan Consistency: The Gavin Newsom Flap

• Mark Halperin and Melissa DeRosa discuss the media firestorm over Gavin Newsom's comments, highlighting the double standard and the reality of high-level politics ([36:29]–[39:04]).
• Rep. Lawler:
  • Argues Democrats often patronize people of color and would attack Republicans for similar comments ([39:04]):

    "If you're going to have one level of outrage when a Republican does it, then be consistent in condemning it when a Democrat does it." ([39:04])

---

7. Community Q&A: Civic Virtue and Bipartisanship ([41:37–58:37])

• Nadine (Caller from NM):

  • Raises the patriotic threshold for politicians: “Do you like this country, do you love this country and do you prioritize your citizens above all else?” ([41:55])

• Melissa DeRosa:

  • Responds with optimism—believes most who run for office fundamentally love America ([43:21]).

• Rep. Lawler:

  • Shares his philosophy of bipartisan engagement and district-focused representation, irrespective of national party trends:

    “I like and love my country and I do prioritize my constituents first. It’s, you know, one of the reasons why I fought back against my own party…” ([45:03])

    • Highlights the value of “constructive dialogue” and direct engagement, citing his good relations across the aisle.

• Evan (Another Caller):

  • Suggests adding “Do you put country over party?” and “Do you root for the president’s success?” to the patriotic test ([54:21]).
  • Requests assessment of Chinese influence in the Caribbean—a topic Lawler addresses, painting China as the “malign influence around the globe” and supporting Trump’s focus on the Western Hemisphere ([54:57–58:37]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Melissa DeRosa:

  “It was a classic Rorschach test...I don't think it really moved the needle one way or another.” ([06:48])

• Rep. Lawler:

  "Not one single Democrat stood, I think is going to be a defining moment, and it's going to be a defining moment in this midterm election." ([09:21])

• Mark Halperin:

  “He teed it up...I can't remember a president ever doing this saying, 'I'm going to say something, we're going to watch to see who stands.' ...that's what the whole speech was about. ...issues that test 60–40, 70–30, 80–20, or in this case, probably 95–5.” ([15:36])

• Rep. Lawler:

  “As a member of Congress, you are way too privy to information that the general public does not have...you should not be allowed to trade stocks.” ([26:13])

• Nadine (Caller):

  “I wish that the Democrats would oust the people in their party that don’t, that can’t answer yes to those three questions. …do you like this country, do you love this country, and do you prioritize your citizens above all else?” ([41:55])

• Rep. Lawler:

  “Whoever the president is, if they come to your district, they come to your community, you show up. … It’s not about the personality. It is about the institution.” ([54:57])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• State of the Union impact & “stand or sit” moment: [06:48–15:36]
• Housing & Congressional politics: [20:37–24:07]
• Epstein scandal as political weapon: [27:39]
• Iran strike deliberations: [32:11–36:29], [49:45–54:08]
• Gavin Newsom controversy: [36:29–40:21]
• Patriotism & party loyalty (Q&A): [41:37–54:21]
• Chinese influence in the Caribbean: [54:54–58:37]

---

Flow & Tone

The tone was quick, unscripted, and occasionally humorous, true to the show’s reputation for “conversation like no other.” Halperin and DeRosa kept the analysis sharp and pragmatic, Lawler remained substantive but personable, and the community questions grounded the discussion in everyday concerns—even referencing dogs, blankets, and home life for a touch of levity.

---

Bottom Line

This “Morning Meeting” episode deftly explores the fallout from the State of the Union, parsing both the optics and substance. It highlights the newfound Republican confidence in Trump’s message discipline and media savvy, while also mapping the tricky crosscurrents in a Congress poised for more gridlock than grand bargains—especially in a heated election year. The panel is united in its skepticism about big bipartisan legislation but sees potential on issues like housing and stock trading, if partisanship can be subordinated. If you missed the episode, this summary delivers the key insights, memorable exchanges, and actionable political context, straight from the front row of American political theater.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome in, everybody. Welcome to the morning meeting. Thank you for being here. This is the day after the State of the Union. This program is always forward looking. So we're going to talk about the State of the Union not in terms of reviewing it from last night, but what happens next and a bunch of other topics. Two great guest co hosts today. Honored to have two fellow New Yorkers here. Melissa DeRosa from the upstate, as we call it, and Mike Lawler, Congressman Republican from.

[B]

We actually don't call it the Upstate in Manhattan.

[A]

We do, though. You just don't know that it's to make fun of the Upstate. The Upstate. And Mike Lawler, Congressman, who represents, amongst other things, Chappaqua, New York. Congressman, welcome. Thank you for coming back on the show.

[C]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

So we're gonna talk about, we're gonna talk about a bunch of stuff. And grateful to have you all here. Grateful that many of you joined us last night for our State of the Union coverage with our colleagues, partners at the Daily Mail. And normal rules apply. If you want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. I see a lot of hands up already. If you've never raised your hand before and you'd like to be part of the conversation today, please do. If you're watching on X or YouTube, do not raise your hand. It'll look silly to those in your office or perhaps those in your home, but you can feel free to be in the chat. Just don't put smack in the chat. And if you have to say to me, mark, what's smack? And then you'll put here in the chat, does this constitute smack? If you think it might constitute smack, it's smack. Don't do that. Peace, love and understanding to all. So in a moment, we're going to run through the daybook and then, and then to our pan, our two guest co hosts, and then to you. But first, a word from a sponsor. And ladies and gentlemen, I think I've made a created misleading impression. I think you might think that bubble cuddle blankets are only for animals. They're not. They're for animals and humans. But once again, I believe our most effective way to convince you is if you have yet to use Our promo code 20% off promo code morning to buy something from cozy Earth. I believe we'll convince you today. And the person who's going to convince you is my colleague, Melissa. Melissa. Come on on Melissa. Really will be only indirectly convince you. Here's who's going to convince you. Rosie and Mabel, two new pups who Love their cuddle bubble blanket. One of the first things they've ever owned. One of the first things they've ever seen. There you go. Melissa, which one's Rosie? Which one's Mabel?

[B]

So Rosie is the beige pink one and Mabel is brown.

[A]

Yeah. And how old are they?

[B]

They're eight weeks old.

[A]

All right, if you're listening on the podcast version, you're just missing out. These are two adorable little pups, one white, one black. They're snuggling away. And Melissa, just tell everybody. How much do they love their bubble cuddle blanket?

[B]

So they were awake before I put them on their bubble cuddle blanket, and then they almost instantly snuggled up together and fell asleep.

[D]

This was.

[B]

This was not staged. They did this on their own.

[A]

Yeah. So it's basically a piece of magic. It's like a magic carpet type thing. Go to cozyearth.com, use the promo code. Morning. 20% off everything on the site but including the bubble cuddle blanket. I keep recommending buy one for you and one for the pets. Melissa, thank you. Thanks to the two pups and Rosie and Mabel. Good night and good luck. This is it. The world as you know it is over. Completely done.

[E]

It's not about to be over.

[C]

It's over.

[A]

Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[C]

I was selling AI as a great

[A]

thing for decades, and I was wrong. I was wrong.

[B]

There's a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves.

[C]

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[A]

While others say that AI will usher

[C]

in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[A]

This really will be a world of abundance. And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's go. The day book. Now, the President is eschewing tradition, although I believe he's done this before. If memory serves correct, he is not barnstorming the country. He's not in the congressman's district today or some other place. He's just kind of hanging out at the White House. Here's his schedule. Executive time at this hour. Mr. President, hopefully you're using your executive time to see what Mike Lawler and Melissa thought of the speech, which we'll find out in a moment. Policy meeting at 11. Closed press, 3pm Meets with the Secretary of Transportation, one of the most popular members of the cabinet, Mr. Duffy, and then a policy meeting at 4:30. So in theory we won't see the President at all today. The vice President doesn't have any public events that we know of. But tomorrow he's going to plover. Is that how you pronounce it? Plover, Wisconsin, delivering remarks. Basically the traditional kind of follow up. As far as we know, there's no Cabinet fanning out across America, which we've seen previous administrations do. On the Hill today, where the congressman works. Steve Pierce's former congressman is up to be the director of the Bureau of Land Management. He's got a confirmation hearing on the Senate side. Casey Means wants to be the head of. What's that job? What does Casey Means of her surgeon general. She was up to have a confirmation hearing before. Then she went and had a baby. So now she's back. She's controversial in some ways. She supports Secretary Kennedy's positions on a few issues. We'll see what Dr. Cassidy thinks at that hearing. That's at 10 o'.

[F]

Clock.

[A]

The House has votes at 10. So Congressman, I assume you're going to leave this and go vote on repealing the home efficiency programs that the Democrats passed in 22. Then House Democrats 145 go to their meeting in Leesburg, Virginia. That'll include a kickoff press conference with Hakeem Jeffries. And Governor Spamberger will be a big featured speaker there. Supreme Court's hearing oral arguments in a case that has to do with foreclosures of properties and tax defense that frankly I can't understand. And I can tell you I'm so tired that I guarantee you if I went to the oral arguments today, I would for the second time fall asleep in a Supreme Court argument. And I can tell you that if you fall asleep in the court, unlike if you fall asleep in the State of the Union, bailiffs come around and wake you up. You're not allowed to fall asleep. And I know that for firsthand experience because I was a plaintiff in a case that went to the Supreme Court and I got to go and I had to sit through the case argued before mine and I did fall asleep and they did wake me up. So word to the wise, if you go to the Supreme Court, don't fall asleep. All right, again, everybody, welcome in. If you want to be part of the conversation, raise your hand. Here we go. Melissa, what impact will the President's speech last night have on today and through, let's say through the midterms what impact will it have?

[B]

Very little, if any whatsoever. I think it was a classic Rorschach test. I think, you know, Republicans who are already with him think it was a great speech. You look at the New York Post this morning, then you turn on Ms. Now and they said it was full of lies and a total waste of time and, you know, if anything combative and non unifying. And so I don't think it really moved the needle one way or another. I think that there were a few missed opportunities, particularly on Iran. And I think that he did, you know, successfully land a couple of punches, specifically in that one moment where he said, if you agree with me, stand, you know, Americans should come above illegal alien.

[A]

Okay, but let me stop you on that one. What will the impact of that moment

[B]

be if somebody successfully cuts that and puts it into an ad in a district where, where something like that, where that matters and where you're successful, able to make the case?

[A]

All right, Congressman, I read, I read in the news pages that Republican members from swing, vulnerable Republican members from swing districts are upset that the President didn't talk enough about specific policies that they can take to their constituents. Since you are always exhibit A of vulnerable Republican member from a swing district. Did the President give you enough to run on?

[C]

Look, I think the President, number one, highlighted obviously the successes of his first year economically as well as obviously from the standpoint of border policy and foreign policy. I think number two, he did lay out some key specifics. I literally just came from a meeting at the Treasury Department with Secretary Bessant on housing just this morning. So he did lay out specifics on housing, on energy, on health care, prescription drugs is a major issue. Banning institutional investors from owning single family homes, requiring AI companies and tech companies to actually build the power plants that are required for these data centers, et cetera. There were some key specific policies that I think actually can get, frankly, bipartisan support. I mean, you saw Elizabeth Warren, of all people, standing up and applauding the President on the institutional investor issue and the banning of congressional stock trading. So there were some key policy specifics. I think the president, better than almost any president before him, knows how to use the stage to present to the American people. You know, great American stories. And I think you saw it last night. Two Medal of honor recipients, the U.S. men's Olympic Hockey gold medal winning team. You saw it with, you know, a Venezuelan political prisoner being reunited with his niece. You saw it with the mother of a Ukrainian immigrant who was killed brutally last year in Charlotte being recognized so I think the President understands the moment. I frankly think it was one of his best speeches as far as delivery and framing the issues. Now, Democrats, of course, will be angry and upset about, you know, things he said and the fact that he called them out numerous times for not standing and applauding, as we saw last year and again this year. But I think that one moment where he said stand, if you believe that the American people should be put before illegal immigrants and Democrats, not one single Democrat stood, I think is going to be a defining moment, and it's going to be a defining moment in this midterm election.

[A]

I want to follow up with you on a bunch of legislative stuff, but first, I want to ask Melissa again about that moment. Melissa, if Democrats in that chamber, regardless of if they're a senator or a House member, regardless of how blue their district is, my view is that position that the President asked them to support in a bluest district in America would be 70, 30, or at a minimum, 60, 40 popular. Do you agree with that?

[B]

100%. I think that they made a mistake.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so you think if they had to do it over again, the Jefferies and Schumer, if they knew the President was going to do this very clever stunt, do you think that they would say, well, let's stand for that? Or you think the left, the left would punish them for saying we favor American citizens over people here illegally?

[B]

No, listen, and I think that if anything, Democrats are winning right now not because we have some great strategy and are laying out some great alternative policy vision. It's because Trump is losing and because the country feels chaotic and because people are still struggling far too much at the kitchen table to pay the mortgage, et cetera, et cetera. And so my advice to them would have been do no harm. So in those moments where it's like, why.

[A]

How about on this specific one, should

[B]

they all, you know, that's what I'm saying. Why they should have just.

[A]

Would the base of the party been upset if they stood up and applauded?

[B]

Who cares? Because the base of the party in the, in the far left areas of this country, like New York City or like in Brooklyn, for example, they're just fighting in a primary. There is no general election. So, so who cares?

[A]

Right?

[B]

So it's like protect yourself.

[A]

And look, maybe to raise, maybe to raise money. Go ahead.

[C]

I will tell you, Melissa, I mean, talking to so many of my Democratic colleagues, they are petrified of their base right now.

[B]

Oh, I know.

[C]

They cannot agree to anything Donald Trump says for fear of being called a traitor. I mean, you had people who voted for the funding and then voted against it from New York who, you know, with respect to homeland security. And it's just mind boggling. But I will tell you, President Trump learned from last year, I mean, go back to last year's joint session address when Democrats refused to stand for a seven year old boy with cancer when he was made a Secret Service agent. And the blowback they got from the American people and even the press would like that's, that just doesn't look right. And he, he used that opportunity to call them out yesterday, last night. And on that one issue, because, Melissa, you're right. I mean on the issue of immigration enforcement in particular, what happened in Minneapolis, which was tragic with those two deaths, if that's the focal point, the president's losing the message. If the focal point is on illegal immigration and criminal aliens, the president wins the message. And he sought to reset the argument last night and Democrats walked right into it because they just cannot get past their hatred of them.

[A]

This. Well stating. Go ahead, Melissa.

[B]

No, I just wanted to say to, just to punctuate that point, Congressman. You know, and we've been talking about this for the last few weeks. I've been waiting to see how the shutdown was going to play out because there was a moment where the Democrats had the upper hand, rightly, there was a lot of anger and a lot of righteous anger at what was going on in many Minneapolis. But Tom Holman came in, he took the temperature down, they pulled out, they unilaterally did the body cams. So they did it on their own. And they said, we agree with you on this thing. And now you're not seeing it in the news as much. So if you go back to the border issue and making it about crimes that are being committed by people who are here illegally and TSA all of a sudden shuts down or you can't use Global Entry, all of a sudden the Democrats are on defense and you blew the moment.

[C]

So let me just, I, Mark, let me just say, Melissa hit the nail on the head. The moment in many respects has passed. The president could come back if they, if there's, if there's, an escalation. But Tom Holman is very skilled, very capable and he really brought the temperature down very quickly. And I said when the president said he was sending him that that was the right decision and that Tom Holman would handle this appropriately. And, and he has. And so the issue really then becomes, okay, Homeland Security funding impacts TSA fema. I mean, you had four Democrats from Rhode island sending a letter saying, please, please, we need help with FEMA because of the storm. They all voted to shut FEMA down. So it's like the President is going to end up winning this argument because when tsa, fema, the Coast Guard, Secret Service are all impacted as a result of this shutdown and ICE and Border Patrol are still operating because we funded them through the working Families tax cut plan, this is going to collapse on the Democrats pretty quickly.

[A]

I don't think the speech is going to cause the President's poll numbers to go up, but here's why. What he did was so brilliant. First of all, theatrically, typically what presidents do now because of the applause thing is they just say something and then when the other side doesn't stand, they say, why didn't you stand? The President teed it up. I can't remember a President ever doing this saying, I'm going to say something. We're going to watch to see who stands. Then he says something that's probably 95. 5 from a polling point of view. Then when the Democrats don't stand, he milked it. He paused. He let the Republicans stand, cheer. And this is an issue that not just is 95. 5 for the country, but obviously Mike Lawler likes it, Brian Fitzpatrick likes it, but so did the Democrat Republicans in the reddest districts in America. And that's what the whole speech was about. My colleagues say these are all Maga issues. No, Maga loves these issues, but they are issues that test 60, 40, 70, 30, 80, 20, or in this case, probably 95. 5. And I don't know if it'll be in ads, but it's on social media and it reminds the Republicans and this is, I think, the biggest advantage the President made from last night. It reminds Republicans consultants. It reminds the dsc, the rscrs, nrs, nrs, nrsc, the NRC late nightmare. It reminds. Yes, it reminds them all, hey, this guy's actually pretty good at politics. Hey, this guy got elected not for being extreme, but for capturing the center.

[C]

Look, the thing that I took away from last night is number one, the President was very much on message. He stuck to the script and delivered it well. But moreover, the issues that he hit were issues that got him elected. They are issues that poll well above 60% nationwide. He hammered home the tax cuts and the fact that the Democrats all voted against every single tax cut. He hammered home the fact that the Democrats policies is what gave us the inflation, gave us the high cost of living. He hammered home the border policies. He hammered home the issue of illegal immigrants committing crimes against American citizens. And he really zeroed in on some of the populist issues, whether it's prescription drug costs and going after the price controls that are put in place in Europe and elsewhere, institutional investors purchasing up single family homes. And then when you look at energy, you know, the whole focus is on data centers and AI and the fact that it's going to drive up costs. And he's saying they got to pay for it. And you know what? I think the vast majority of Americans and many Democrats would agree with those policy.

[A]

We got, we got to move on from State of the Union, but I got to follow up on some legislative stuff with both of you.

[B]

And wait, I want to make one more point on the State of the Union, though, on Trump. The one, the one thing that he did that I think is very dangerous, that he should learn, frankly from Biden, Harris on and from what the Democrats screwed up in 2022 and 2024 is don't tell people not to believe their lying eyes. So overstating how great the economy is risks a backlash from people who are struggling and says to them, you live on your veranda on the Hill and you're so disconnected from me.

[A]

I agree. But, but if that wasn't, if that wasn't the Goldilocks spot, there isn't one. He.

[B]

Listen, I think that, I think that what he did do well in this, and it was very Clintonian. What Clinton did in the mid-90s when he was trying to recapture his footing going into 96, is he acknowledged from where he came, he placed the blame where he believed it lied, which is what got him back in the White House in the first place. And he still, and he acknowledged there's more to do. But I would just caution against the this is the greatest economy of all time and we're all doing great because it's not in poll after poll how people feel and you can get it back.

[A]

That's as Goldilocks as Trump can get, given that he loves to know.

[C]

But and Melissa, Melissa is spot on. Like, you can't fall into the trap of saying everything's great because we had a big hole to dig out of and things are moving in a better direction, but we're not fully there. And that's why I think it was important that he zeroed in on health care, housing and energy, as, you know, areas where we have.

[A]

I gotta interrupt, I gotta hold you guys to short answers here. Okay? There's there's a few things that could in theory be bipartisan in Congress because on the merits, Democrats and Republicans would vote for them in big numbers, but the Democrats don't want to give the president a big win in an election year. So, Congressman, you first, then Melissa first, let's do the partisan one. Reconciliation. My reporting up until last night was it's dead again. It's not going to happen. There are too many House chairs who don't want to do it. The White House didn't seem enthusiastic about it. And then I see Scott Besson saying, oh, we'll do housing and reconciliation. So Congressman, is there what are the chances? There's whether it's taxes, health care, whatever housing, whatever it is, what are what odds would you put what percentage chance would you say there'll be a reconciliation bill?

[C]

I'll say less than 50%.

[A]

Well, but let's give me a number of 20%.

[C]

Yeah, I would say 30%, but 30%. Look, I think the bigger issue is on housing and again, I just came from a meeting there. I think it is the single biggest issue we could tackle to actually bring down cost in this country.

[A]

I want to get and I think

[C]

if the White House leads on this with Congress, you can get bipartisan cooperation. We just passed the 21st Century Housing act through the House.

[A]

Hold on, I want to come back to House. Hold on.

[C]

The Senate has the road to housing and Elizabeth Warren has bought in on that. And I think you can meld the two.

[A]

Yeah. Melissa, Congressman says 30% chance, you said of reconciliation bill. What do you think the chances are?

[B]

I take the under on that. I would go like 25%.

[A]

Okay. I think you're right. Now housing, there is a Senate bill in the House bill there. No, we talk about this here all the time because we love process. There is no conference committee. They don't have formal conference committees anymore. And the White House wants this provision in which is unwise and illegal, that keeps people from buying houses. But they really want it and there's some popular support for that because it's a demagogic populist view. Congressman, how is there going to be a housing bill? Will the Senate pass the House bill? Will the Senate make up a new bill that melds them that they'll pass and jam the House? Just tell me process wise, how is there going to be a housing bill?

[C]

So we, we passed the 21st century housing act two weeks ago. I think there were only nine people that voted against it. It had overwhelming bipartisan, partisan support. The Senate Bill, the road to housing that Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott came up with, they tried to jam that into the ndaa and that had passed unanimously out of Senate committee. I think there is a path to meld the two.

[A]

But how's it going? Just tell me.

[C]

No, no, I think the White, the White House is going to have to really,

[A]

the White House is going to write a melded version and then who's going to pass it first?

[C]

I would venture the House will pass a House.

[A]

Okay. Melissa. Democrats, as the congressman correctly said overwhelmingly in both bodies voted for these housing bills. They're actually policy experts will tell you they're both actually pretty good bills. And a melded version would be great. But how would be possible, given how political Democrats in the Congress are against Donald Trump, how would it be possible that an election year, they're going to give them a huge bipartisan victory on one of the most important issues to voters?

[B]

Could that really, I mean, this reminds me of in the spring of 2024 when Biden, when the Biden administration finally acknowledged there was an issue at the border and Congress, you know, he put forth legislation that had everything in it that the Republicans had been wanting. And the Republicans said, you know, so forget it.

[A]

So Democrats are going to go from overwhelmingly voting for bill bills.

[B]

They'll come up with some reason why it's not good enough. They're not going to give them the win.

[A]

So, so they won't vote. No Democrats will vote for it. If the White House.

[B]

I'm not pre, no Democrats will vote for it, but I think that because everyone has to play their own.

[A]

Will it be, will it be filibustered in the Senate?

[B]

I think it'll be filibustered in the Senate. I think they're not going to be amazing. Let's cut to the chase. I don't think they're going to give them the political win. I just don't see it.

[A]

Exit question on housing. Will there be a housing bill that passes, that has to pass bipartisan, with some bipartisan support. Will there be a housing bill passed this year? Melissa? No, Congressman.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

Okay. I, I can't, I, I don't know. Usually I'll take a position. I really don't know because on the one hand, on the one hand it has to pass and, and, but on the other hand, I just, it would be a massive win for the president politically. And the Democrats, we saw how they feel about the president last night. All right. Last policy issue I want to talk about is the, is the tax trading Ban. I can't remember. You trades. You trade stocks, don't you?

[C]

No.

[A]

You buy stock. You don't do that. Who am I thinking of? There's somebody. There's somebody. There's someone. I can't remember who it is. Anyway, the President came out for it last night more firmly than he.

[B]

Maybe you're thinking of maybe, Congressman?

[A]

No, I'm thinking of a Republican House member. Anyway, the President came out for it very forcefully. Speaker Johnson has not been the most enthusiastic supporter of this. And of course, Speaker Pelosi doesn't love it either. Melissa, will there will there be a. Finally, after years of this, will there be a stock trading limit or ban on members of Congress passed this year?

[B]

It's been stalled by the Republicans, so if all of a sudden they want to do it, I don't see why the Democrats wouldn't go along with it. I don't understand how the President doesn't see the hypocrisy of the crypto issue and how it will boomerang back on him in seven seconds. But, you know, I think that if they actually are serious about moving it forward and it wasn't just for an applause line and a speech. Yeah, it will happen.

[A]

Congressman, do you support that legislation?

[C]

Yes, I'm a co sponsor of it.

[A]

So will it, will it pass and be signed into law?

[C]

I think it's difficult to say because there is, on both sides, there is opposition to it from the standpoint of, you know, for the people that came into Congress with certain stocks, forcing them to, to set, to divest, if you will. So some of that has been being haggled over. But my, my general view on this is very simple, which is, as a member of Congress, you are way too privy to information that the general public does not have, including things like when a bill is coming to the floor, when it might pass.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And from that standpoint alone, you should not be allowed to trade stocks. So I've been very clear on this from the start. I don't support it, but it's almost like term limits and whether or not people will, you know, they say they support it, whether or not they really will vote for it. I have always supported term limits, a ban on gerrymandering and a ban on stock trading. I think those three things are good things for the American exit question, and

[A]

then we'll have to go fast on everything else. Will that bill pass and be signed into law this year, Congressman?

[C]

Maybe.

[A]

Maybe. Melissa?

[D]

No.

[A]

I say no as well. All right, we're gonna do these Quick, I'm gonna cut you off if you're not quick because we got a lot to get to. And again, we want to get to your questions, lots of hands up. If you want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. I don't usually watch a lot of Ms. Now, but I did yesterday because the State of the Union and they talk incessantly about, about Epstein and they, and they brought, they brought, you won't call them accusers or victims or survivors. That brought a lot of them to the, to the State of the Union. They continue to link this up with affordability. It seems to be a central argument from the leadership on down, not just Mr. Massey and Ro Khanna, but Chuck Schumer talks about it. Hakeem Jeffries, Melissa, what are the politics of this? I'll take them at their word that they're morally outraged and they think there's injustice. But what's the politics of this, of talking about this issue so much?

[B]

They think it keeps the Republicans on their back foot, that keeps the president on defense. I mean, this revelation From NPR that DOJ withheld 50 pages of testimony that relates directly to the president. I think they're going to try to make that like Watergate, the 18 and a half minutes that were missing from the tapes. And I think they want to continue to make this like they took it from just a, this is about Trump and this is about people covering up for their friends to this notion of the Epstein class and trying to make it the wealthy, the powerful are untouchable and everyone else has to play by a different set of rules. They obviously see things in their private polling that shows that it resonates with some constituency that matters to them, whether it's Republicans or independents and middle left. So they're going to continue to hammer it whatever chance they get.

[A]

Congressman, tomorrow in your district, the first of two days of members, what some might call members of the Epstein class, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, wealthy, well connected individuals with ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. They're testifying for the House Committee Investigative Committee in the district. Here's the headline from the Mid Hudson News. Is that a respected source of news in your district?

[C]

It is.

[A]

Here's the headline.

[B]

If it's not, he's not going to say it.

[A]

He might be, you know, call him fake news. It is Clinton's Mid Hudson News headline. Clinton's being deposed in Hudson Valley this week. Congressman, what can you tell us about their testimony?

[C]

Money. Well, they are going to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee, the Members are flying up to my district to Chappaqua. The depositions will take place Thursday and Friday, you know, at the Performing Arts center in Chappaqua. And, you know, we'll see what comes of it. It's closed door. Deposition.

[A]

Is it being videotaped, do you know?

[C]

I don't know for sure, but I would suspect so, yes.

[A]

Do you know anything about release of the video or of a transcript, when that will happen?

[C]

I would imagine that would happen pretty swiftly.

[A]

Yeah. And why are they using the Performing Arts Center?

[C]

This is where they requested. They requested to do it in Chappaqua, and the committee obliged. And so, you know, I've been dealing with the local police department, county police, the sergeant at arms, to address, you know, some of the security concerns that my constituents have and, and my municipalities and make sure that, you know, there's coordination and cooperation. I'm not on the committee. I won't be there.

[A]

I've, you know, maybe go by and bring donuts.

[C]

I'm happy.

[E]

I'm happy.

[B]

Until now.

[A]

All right, Congressman, what's the most. The most famous event that's ever occurred in your district? Or is anything ever famous ever happened?

[C]

Yeah, so my district was the site of a lot of aspects of the Revolutionary War. Major John Andre was hung in my district for spying on General Washington and working with Benedict Arnold. You know, George Washington stayed at the 76 house, which is the oldest tavern in America. It's in Japan, New York. So now, as we approach America 250, a lot of aspects of the Revolutionary War occurred in my area. West Point is just outside my district, but part of my district, Garrison Cold Spring, overlooks West Point on the other side of the Hudson.

[A]

So I would say, given that if. If Chairman Comer asked the right questions, you're about to have the most famous thing that's ever happened in your district. Okay. Iran. A meeting in Geneva tomorrow. I continue to believe that if the Iranians don't come with something that allows Witkoff and Kushner to say to the president, yeah, this is serious. They're negotiating good faith that there'll be some sort of military strike. And I think if they. If they don't think they're dealing in good faith, a small strike doesn't make sense. We've talked about no strike, small strike, large strike. I don't think a small strike makes sense, because the theory of a small strike is to get them to the table. But if they're not serious about coming to the table, I think we could see a large strike. The President Last night talked about Iran, but did not make the case. However, in a private briefing before the State of the Union, the Secretary of State briefed the Gang of Eight, including Senator Schumer. And here's what Senator Schumer said about the briefing. This is. Well, you know which one this is number 113. This is serious. And the administration has to make its case to the American people.

[C]

What did you hear?

[A]

Now, he's been hawkish on Iran for a while, so. So he would be susceptible to a briefing thinking, well, this is serious. This is about missile technology, which the Israelis are also concerned about. It's obviously about nuclear. But the president last night also said it's about Iranian. Iranian terrorists and allies of Iran killing Americans. So, Melissa, what is the case that's been made as compared to the case you think should be made before there's a military action?

[B]

I don't think that there's really been a case made at all. I think that sporadically over the last several months, the President has leaned into, you know, the terrible, inhumane treatment and murder of thousands and thousands of protesters during the media blackout in Iran. And from time to time, they raised the issue of nuclear capabilities. But I don't think from a storytelling perspective, you know, the people who are on this call, the three of us, we pay attention to this every single minute. Right. But the general American public does not. And I do not think that he has forcefully enough laid out a compelling case for why we should go into Iran. And based on what Schumer has said, not just yesterday, again this morning, it sounds like there is a compelling case, which is why at the top of the show, I said I thought last night was a missed opportunity. He had the attention of the American public. Why didn't he use it?

[A]

Yeah, Congressman, if the President called you and said, Mike, you can do your imitation here. If he said, mike, I want to hit Iran really hard, what do I need to do in advance of that to respect the American people in an ostensibly co. Equal branch? What would you say to him?

[C]

Well, look, a few things, and I will answer that. Number one, I think Senator Schumer's statement was about as sober as Chuck Schumer has been throughout the President's term. And I think the fact that he literally kept it to a sentence long speaks volumes about the issue. And I didn't sense from Senator Schumer that he was opposed to the President taking action. So that's one. Two. As chair of the Middle east and North Africa Subcommittee, I've been extensively focused on Iran. I think the administration has done a very effective job of crippling their oil network, inclusive of removing Maduro in Venezuela, which the ties between Iran and Venezuela were significant. But moreover, the President, by building up forces in the region, is giving the Ayatollah again an opportunity to negotiate. He did this on the Iran strikes, nuclear strikes during the summer. He gave him 60 days. He wasn't kidding. He gave Maduro time to negotiate safe passage to leave Venezuela. He wasn't kidding. I don't think the president is kidding here. I think he very much will take action, and I don't think it'll be a small strike if the Ayatollah does not come to the table in a serious and meaningful way, inclusive of stopping funding, terrorism, ending their ballistic missiles program and nuclear ambitions, releasing political prisoners, among other critical steps that are necessary. I think the president does need to speak directly to the American people. I would anticipate that he would, either in advance of action or immediately thereafter making the case to the American people why this matters. This is not about Israel. For those that think this is just about Israel and it's just the US And Israel, this is far bigger than that. And I think the president does need to make that case. I would differ with Melissa in this respect. I don't think making last night all about Iran or making it a central focus was what the president needed to do in that moment. I think he needed to focus on domestic. I think he needed to focus on the economy. I think, you know, he obviously mentioned Iran. I think a separate address addressing this issue in particular will be necessary, whether immediately before or immediately after.

[A]

I have a million more questions on this for both of you. But I want to get to the community because we have so many hands up. I think a lot about State of the Unit. One more topic, and you guys obviously say what? I think you guys can weigh in briefly on it again. This Gavin Newsom thing is ridiculous. Republicans are making hay out of it, pretending that he insulted the audience, which was made up of a lot of white people, pretending that he said something that was a gaffe or revealing of his true views. He was saying that, like a lot of people, he struggled. His whole book is about this. He had a weird life. He hung out with the Gettys on private jets. And he had a mom who struggled financially and in other ways, he himself struggled. In some ways, that's all it is. And this is Tim Scott and other people are making this up, but so are some people on the left. Some people on the left including Cornel west are saying, oh, this shows Gavin Newsom doesn't respect black people. This is so bogus and I just won't stand for it. And I feel this way no matter who this was about. Here's someone who came to Gavin Newsom's defense, someone who sees the truth. Someone who throughout his time on the National Town square has been a clear thinking individual. 118, please. Who's coming to Gavin Newsom's defense and calling bullshit on the media? Well, of course, the Reverend Al Sharpton. Here he is meeting yesterday in New York. And here's the statement, next one from Reverend Sharpton. The so called controversy driven by Fox News over the governor speaking honestly about living with dyslexia, including the challenges it posed with reading and standardized tests, is political theater, plain and simple. Those who are in the room have made it clear his comments were about his own lived experience and were not offensive. Take that, Dr. West and other people on the left who are trying to make something out of this. I'm just, I'm going to be on this until everybody stops making something of it because it's crap. Melissa, agree with me or not.

[B]

I mean, I think the fact that he felt the need to seek out Al Sharpton to put out that statement says more about how this is getting to him and the traction it's having than anything.

[A]

It is, it is. No one but me is trying to kill it.

[B]

But you know what, Mark? Like, then don't get in the, get in the bright lights like you want to run for president. Yeah. Guess what? I was a staff person and I had shit thrown at me every single day that wasn't true. But like you chose this and, but

[A]

that doesn't mean it's the same.

[B]

That gaff. And people are going to jump on it. It's called politics, Congressman. Run for president. Yeah, he's going to have to deal with.

[A]

Congressman, please, please denounce Tim Scott's demagoguery, please, Congressman.

[C]

No, here's the, here's the problem, Mark. There's never consistency on these types of issues, okay?

[A]

And from Gavin Newsom or in life, in politics. Yeah.

[C]

Gavin Newsom went and delivered a speech and he's talked about his issues with dyslexia, he's talked about his SAT score, but he made a very specific comment to the interviewer who was African American. He said, like you, I can't read. Okay? And that's the problem. When you're trying, when you're trying to hold on, when you're trying to play down to people and say, you know, I'm just like you, I can't do this, this and this. And you're talking to someone of color. Democrats consistently do this. They patronize people of color. They talk down to them. Kathy Hochul saying, you know, if you're in the Bronx, you don't know how to use a computer. You don't know what a computer is. I mean, come on, it's just so insulting and it's stupid. And I think the problem is, had Trump said that, you and I both know this would be wall to wall coverage everywhere on Ms. Now and cnn and they'd be saying Donald Trump is a racist. And so my only comment is if you're, if you're going to have one level of outrage when a Republican does it, then be consistent in condemning it when a Democrat does it.

[A]

I would be, I would be consistent. Assistant Tim I know you would. I know you, Tim Scott. I don't know. I don't like to denounce the co host. So I'm just gonna move on. Ladies and gentlemen, in one moment we're gonna take your questions. Please raise your hand if you'd like to be in on the conversation. If you've never raised your hand before, don't be intimidated. I know Melissa and the congressman can be a bit intimidating, but in fact they're quite nice. They're from New York, so of course they're nice. Raise your hand. Just a reminder, you can buy products from Fairway and Green either adorned with two way logos and and catchphrases like no smack in the chat or peace, love and understanding or just the regular merch. Go to two Way TV Fairway. You'll see your discount code and you can buy some stuff from there. That nicest guy for golf apparel I've ever owned. It's available to you now at a discount of being part of the two way community. Go to two Way TV Fairway. I recommend the Quarter Zips. Again, every time we put this picture up, that is not Hunter Biden. I know it looks a little like Hunter Biden, but it's not classic style. Joins Bold conversation. Oh, we love our partnership with Fairway and Green. Go to two Way TV Fairway to get your discount code and to enjoy. All right, time for your questions. You'll come in, you'll unmute, you'll tell us where you are and what's on your mind. For Congressman Lawler and Melissa DeRosa, we start with Nadine. Nadine, welcome. Thank you for being here. Thank you for being Part of two way.

[D]

Thank you.

[A]

Where are you, Nadine?

[D]

The one question.

[B]

Oh, sorry.

[D]

I'm in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

[A]

Welcome in.

[D]

Thank you. This is my second time calling. I'm a little braver today.

[A]

Welcome back. Thank you. Go ahead. Floor is yours.

[D]

Thank you. One question I wish we could get every single politician to answer. Actually it's three questions. Do you like this country, do you love this country and do you prioritize your citizens above all else? I think every country should demand that of their leaders. Those three questions. And I actually lean a little liberal, not 100%. I'm more middle of the road. But I wish that the Democrats would oust the people in their party that don't that can't answer yes to those three questions. A lot of Democrats, absolutely. They love this country. They like the United States and they prioritize us. But particularly in the progressive winning. There's a lot where you go, do you even like this country? What are you fighting for? Are you just fighting to fight?

[A]

Yeah. Great, great topic. I want let Melissa either answer or ask you a question if she wants to. I'll just. I don't know what you call that kind of middle of the road Democrat in New Mexico. Back east, we call them Derosa Democrats. Melissa. Melissa, question for Nadine or comment and Nadine, after you guys engage, if you have more to say, we'd love to hear from you. But Melissa, go ahead.

[B]

Look, I'd like to believe that everybody who runs for office and puts themselves in that position to represent people like and love this country. I think people have differences on how it can be improved upon, including when Donald Trump runs and says America great again, there's an acknowledgment there that the country is not what it should be. So I think that that's the. And then there are wide differences between how you accomplish that greatness and what and what would make the country a better place for more people. And so that's, you know, the bottom line. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they love this country and they like this country if they're putting themselves out there to serve. And maybe that's not always deserved, but I'm still a little Pollyanna Ish.

[A]

Nadine, what makes you a Democrat? What issues make you a Democrat as opposed to a Lawler Republican?

[D]

I believe that. I do believe in secure borders and that. But I believe that just like we owe a duty to the country, the country owes a duty to the people. And that is, I'm sorry for the dogs.

[A]

So that's okay.

[D]

And that is that there is a floor that we don't let our people go below. We don't let people starve. We don't let people live on the streets without, without helping them. And so I'm not uphold yourself by the bootstraps type of person.

[A]

Do those dogs have a bubble cuddle blanket?

[D]

No, the dogs don't.

[A]

They do. Okay, Congressman, either question for Nadine or reaction to what she said about, about why she's a Democrat or the pledge she thinks elected should take.

[C]

I don't really disagree with anything she said at all. I mean, I think, you know, I like and love my country and I do prioritize my constituents first. It's, you know, one of the reasons why I fought back against my own party on the issue of salt, for instance, and raising the cap on salt or discharging the ACA enhanced premium tax credit extension out of the House despite objections from the Speaker. You know, I do what I think is right for my district and the people that elected me to represent them, even if they don't agree with me on, you know, all or some of what I, what I believe and what I stand for, but I fundamentally believe in, in, you know, my three plus years in Congress. Now, the vast majority of my colleagues can answer yes to all three of those questions, regardless of where they fall on the, on the political spectrum. There is a problem, though, in our country where we have gotten to a point where people cannot actually sit and engage in a constructive dialogue. That's why I love Mark's platform here, because it's not just the hosts engaging, but it's the American people engaging with their elected representatives, with others that are in the political and media space and I think having way more respect for each other and a willingness to recognize, you know what, we're not going to agree on everything. We have different life experiences that shape our views. That's okay. That's a good thing. That's why we have a democracy. That's why we have a constitutional republic. You know, so many people decry, you know, quote, unquote, the dictatorship that we're living in, or they are screaming out against fascism, but yet they hate people who disagree with them. They want unanimity, they want absolutism. They want everybody to believe in their point of view. They don't want debate, they don't want conversation. And yet they're screaming out against, quote, unquote, fascism. And that's the fundamental problem. There's a total lack of understanding of what our process is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be easy to get things passed through Congress. You have to build consensus. And being a member from a swing district, I show that every day. I mean, Melissa knows my district well. You know, there's 80,000 more Democrats than Republicans. The Clintons and George Soros are constituents. It is by no means a Republican bastion. But I've been able to build consensus. I am very direct. I'm very blunt. I don't, you know, you know, skirt around the edges of where I stand on issues. But I am willing to take on my own party. I'm also willing to criticize the Democrats. And you have to be able to do both and do it in with sincerity and be honest about what you believe and why and explain your votes. And I do that every day. And I think if more people would actually engage in a constructive dialogue, we'd get so much more done, and the country would be far better off.

[A]

Congressman, extremely eloquent, Nadine. You were extremely elegant. Melissa, if you could make anybody who's running for governor of New York governor of New York or Mike Lawler, who would you pick?

[B]

I can't answer that question. I'll get in trouble.

[A]

Okay. Just thought I'd give it a try. Nadine, thank you for coming on. Before you go, Nadine, I need to show you one thing. Evan, unmute. Tell us what's on that picture behind you. Just because Nadine isn't sold quite yet. What's going on behind you there, Evan?

[F]

So my dogs do have a bubble cuddle blanket, but to be perfectly honest, I had no idea. My wife just told me she bought this fancy blanket and I never pay attention to anything.

[A]

We bought it without the discount?

[F]

Well, yeah.

[A]

Do you get to use it, or is it just for the dogs?

[F]

I have to be honest with you. It's unbelievable.

[A]

Tell us. Tell us.

[F]

It really is. It's an extraordinary blanket, and that's kind of what made me do a double take on it.

[A]

Yeah. And how much does. What's the name of your dog?

[F]

Well, I have three, but in that picture, Cali's in the back and Wrigley's in the front.

[A]

All right, how much does Wrigley like the bubble cuddle blanket?

[F]

It's absurd.

[A]

Okay. Absurdly good, right? Yes. Okay. All right, Evan, stand by. Nadine, thank you for joining. We love having you. Please come back. I think John Thune might be live on Fox if I'm right about that. Let's dip into that when he comes back. They're playing a second sound bite now, but am I right that. John, Leader Thune is on. Yeah, let's listen to that. Can we just dip in, hear what he's saying? It's coming up right after the Warner sound bite. You can take the audio now.

[C]

American interests in the region.

[B]

So that sounded really ominous, Leader Thune. And folks are wondering after this briefing, are we going to war?

[E]

I don't know the answer to that, Aisha. I think that the President is prepared.

[A]

That's not reassuring.

[E]

To defend America's vital national security interests both in that region and here at home. I mean, we cannot abide, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. He made that clear in his speech last night. I think that's something I hope at least that big majority of Americans agree with. But we have vital interests in that region and obviously the capabilities that the Iranians have to hit a lot of our allies in the region is something that we have to be well attuned to as well. And I think the President is pursuing peace through strength by ensuring that America has the right assets in the right places at the right time, if necessary. Hopefully it won't be necessary if the Iranians come to the table. I think there's potentially a deal that could be made there.

[B]

Do you get the sense after this briefing, I know this is all classified,

[C]

but do you get the of sense.

[B]

Sense that these next talks tomorrow might be a last ditch effort, that this might be it and then the President is pretty close to a decision.

[E]

If I'm the Iranians, I view it that way. I just think that they have, they have an opportunity here and they ought to take advantage of it. There is change that needs to happen in Iran. This is something that goes back five decades. And obviously they've got people who are ready for freedom and democracy in their country. And we need to ensure that they never have a nuclear capability that can be used to reach not only our allies in the region, but the United States as well.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

The President last night also called on Congress.

[C]

We'll keep monitoring that, Congressman.

[A]

And then Melissa and then Evan will get to you. Should regime change. Leader Thune there went back to nuclear, but he suggested the thing that's been going on for five decades. I don't know if he meant nuclear capability or he met the regiment. Should regime change be part of the US Goal, either stated or unstated?

[C]

Well, I think obviously the world would be better off if the Ayatollah was no longer in power. Ultimately, it's up to the Iranian people and if actions taken by the US Military create an environment in which the Iranian people can rise up and take their country back, I certainly would be supportive of that. But I don't think the stated goal here is regime change so much as it is to stop the threat of a nuclear Iran. Their ballistic missiles program, their funding of terrorism, the difference between, say, Iran and Venezuela. The Venezuelan people voted for regime change. They voted to remove Maduro. And I do believe when a free and fair election is held, hopefully within the coming months and certainly before the end of the year, you will have a new democratically elected government in Venezuela. That is a positive step. Iran is far off from that. But, you know, ultimately, if the Ayatollah is gone, I won't shed one tear.

[A]

Okay, Melissa, I want to know in a second about what you think about regime change. I'm just asking my colleagues if Senator Thune is asked directly about the filibuster and the SAVE act, please let us know. Because the President called him out a little bit yesterday, and he said, john, you got to, got to do it, got to do it. Let us know if he says that. Melissa, if the president is going to give a speech either before or immediately after military action, would you favor him saying, we support regime change in Iran, or would you. More actually, slightly different question. Would you support the military action, including trying to strike at the Iranian leadership and kill them?

[B]

It depends on the case that he makes. I mean, you know, we have to hear exactly what's going on behind the scenes as much as they can without compromising national security. But it depends on the case that he makes. And I agree with literally everything that Congressman Lawler just said. I wouldn't cry to see the Ayatollah replaced. They killed thousands and thousands of protesters. They're doing media blackouts. I mean, this is the worst of the, the worst. And by the way, for all the people that were so outraged by what was going on in Palestine, there's an awful lot of silence about what's going on in Iran. So, you know, I want to hear what the President has to say as truthfully as he can, and then, you know, you're going to see where the American public goes from there. But these are not sympathetic people to begin with.

[A]

All right, we've got two minutes before the Congressman has to go vote, and I've got four minutes before I have to go do our hour on SiriusXM. So, Evan, if you want to, if you want to reserve the balance of your time to come back, you can. Or just ask A quick question.

[F]

So the quick question would be, I'm tagging onto Nadine's. I think the question should be do you put your country over party and do you root for whoever's president at the time to be wildly successful? And you can only answer if you're hooked up to a lie detector. That's good because I think that's so. The other question would be what is your level of concern? Because we talk about this in the chat of Chinese influence in the Caribbean because I think it goes underreported or at least on

[A]

big topic, let's let the congressman have a shot at it before he needs to go.

[C]

So, so look, on the issue of when the president in powers of the other party, I fundamentally believe as an American you should be rooting for their success. Now there's going to be differences of opinion, there's going to be differences in policy. You're not going to support certain things and other things you will. But I do think fundamentally you have to be willing to engage. So when Joe Biden was president, he came to my district. He came for the express purpose of attacking me as a quote unquote maga Republican. I showed up, I went and him and I sat down for 20 minutes in a one on one conversation. We discussed the border and the debt ceiling crisis at the time. And we had a very good conversation. And then he went out and praised me for being there. That I was the only Republican that has shown up in his administration when he came into my district, that was sad. The fact is, whoever the president is, if they come to your district, they come to your community, you show up. And this division between members of Congress and the President, it's not about the person, it's about in power, it's not about the personality. It is about the institution in the office. And we have gotten away from that level of respect. Yeah, we're going to duke it out and yeah, there's going to be differences, but we better damn well be able to sit in a room and negotiate over big issues and small ones. And that to me is the fundamental problem today. Members I watched last night again, members of Congress sitting in front of I sat on the Democratic side with Josh Gottheimer. We sat together. Josh is one of my best friends in Congress. We talk all the time, we work together all the time on issues big and small. So many of my colleagues just were melting down as the President spoke about issues that the vast majority of Americans should be able to agree on. So that's an issue as Far as China in the Caribbean. Look, China is the malign influence around the globe. Everything they do seeks to undermine and destabilize the U.S. europe, Israel and the free world. They have used economic coercion to, you know, seize control of ports and waterways around the globe. The President was spot on when he talked about the Panama Canal and many Democrats and many people in the media snickered at him and sneered and said how crazy it was. But you know what? He got China out of the Panama Canal, which is one of the most important trade routes for, for the United States. So the fact that. And we built it, which is just even crazier, that China seized control of it. But this is something that we have to combat at every turn. It's why I've been so forceful about going after the illicit oil trade between Iran and China. I have another sanctions bill to cripple their network even further. What the President did in removing Maduro was critical, critical in the region to stopping the illicit activity from Iran and China and the influence they had in south and Central America and the Caribbean. And I do believe there's going to be a domino effect. I do believe we are going to have greater cooperation in the Western Hemisphere, which is something presidents of both parties have allowed to fall apart over the last few decades. We have just let the Western Hemisphere disintegrate before our eyes and allowed China to come in and seize control. That's got to stop. And I think the President is right to focus on that.

[A]

Evan, thank you, Congressman, thank you. We hope you'll come back. We're so grateful to you. This community loves you because you're a two way kind of politician and leader. So great.

[C]

Thank you. And Melissa is good to see you.

[B]

Good to see you.

[A]

Thank you, Congressman. All right, real quick because up against the deadline here. Thanks to Melissa, of course. Melissa, thank you for being here. Noon today. Megan McCain, still on maternity leave. Miranda has two great guests, Selena Zito and Ben Ferguson. Love them both. That's at noon. I'll be on Sirius XM in a minute, which is why you're gonna hear me talk really fast. Special time for Two Way Tonight. Pre tape. It'll air at five on YouTube. But if you want to be part of the conversation with phenomenal guests, Jamie Harrison, former chair of the dnc, and Jeff Rowe, founder of Axiom Strategies. Jeff's a hard booking, doesn't do a lot of media. He's one of the smartest people in politics. Join me at special time 3:30 eastern time today on the two way platform. 5:00 on on X and on YouTube. And the morning meeting tomorrow. Matt Gorman will be here with Imam Moore. Thank you all for watching. If you work for a member of Congress and you want to get your boss on our programs, give me a call. Your boss can enjoy interacting with our community just as the Congressman did today. Thank you all for watching. I'll see you over on Sirius XM channel 111 in a minute. They'll be mad I'm late. Melissa, thank you. Thank you all for being here again. Thanks to the Congressman. We'll see you tomorrow at 9am and I'll see you at 3:30 today. Special time.

[C]

Lifelock. How can I help?

[B]

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

[A]

One in four taxpaying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud. Fraud.

[B]

What do I do?

[C]

My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.

[A]

Lifelock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[B]

I'm so relieved.

[C]

No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.

[A]

One in four was a fraud. Paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.