C (3:55)

No, I've met her, but no, I don't know her well.

B (3:59)

Yeah, so I've known her a long time and I think she's an incredible person, incredibly talented person. I find it hard to believe that these were on the record interviews. I'm not saying Christopher Whipple violated anything, but it's just kind of incredible what she said. Here's a picture of the accompanies the story and as you can see, it's an extraordinarily posed thing. That's not Andy Leibowitz. Right. What's the photo credit on that? I don't know. I don't know who it is. But there you see Susie at the center and some of the administration's leading lights, including the Vice president arrayed around her. That's kind of like one of the core group of advisors to the President. All right, let's get to what's in the interview. There's a bunch but let's get to a little bit of it. Here's 122. Here's some of the stuff that's being spotlighted already that Susie Wiles told him over a series of 11 interviews. Ms. Wild offered a pungent assessments of the president, his team. Mr. Trump has, quote, has an alcoholic's personality. I'll annotate. True. Vice President J.D. vance has been a conspiracy theorist for a decade. True. And his conversion from Trump critic to ally was based not on principle, but was Sort of political because he was running for Senate, I think. True. Elon Musk, quote, is an avowed ketamine user, said by many to be true. I have no firsthand knowledge, quote, an odd, odd duck. We all can see that with our own eyes. Whose actions were not always, quote, rational and left her, quote, aghast. Russ Vaught, the vote. The budget director is, quote, a right wing, absolute zealot. Jim Kennedy would say that's true. And Attorney General Pam Bondi, quote, completely whiffed in handling the Epstein files. Also true. Get to a few other things she says. She said the president had no idea that Maxwell was being transferred to a minimum security, less secure prison and that he was annoyed by it, which seems odd because maybe he could have ordered her back. And she also says she tried to get the President to stop doing retribution against his political enemies, but he refused. Okay. Kristin, your initial reaction to all of this. How big a deal will this be in Washington? Implications, things that stand out to you?

C (5:57)

Well, I mean, I think, I think every consultant, politico group, chat I have right now is popping off saying, oh my gosh, can you believe it? You know? Yeah, there are two different ways that this goes. I mean, this is someone who just a week ago the president said was the most powerful woman in the world, rightfully so. And so she's, she is in a position of strength to, you know, say some things that a lower staffer or, you know, B rate consultant couldn't get away with. I think there's two different ways it goes. So it's either, you know, embraces it, moves on, goes to the next story, or we have to see kind of how the, you know, Internet MAGA world responds. That's typically, you know, the two barometers here of, of when something like this happens with someone, you know, in the admin, or there's the real world response, then there's the Twitter world response. And so really need to see in the next two hours which one is louder.

B (6:56)

Yeah, I agree with everything you said, Jim, before I go to you, Susie was also just named to like the Forbes top most powerful women or some list like that. And everybody senior in the White House retweeted it and said, great, totally well deserved. The president loves her. She's gotten almost a year into this administration and extremely well liked, extremely well respected. So as Kristen, you suggested, she didn't start this on thin ice, but it is an extraordinary series of things to say. Jim, your thoughts?

A (7:25)

Well, Mark, the Stockman analogy is valid. That's when that phrase trickle down economics became political vocabulary. And I think in her case, the price of her memoir, the price tag on her memoirs just went up, although arguably she should save these comments for the memoir and not spill the beans. Now, I think the audience of one is is valid here. What does President Trump think that matters more than what any of us think? So we'll see. He'll probably telegraph something sooner than later. And, and it's remarkable.

B (7:55)

Yeah. He's got no public events on schedule. Let me run through the daybook. He does have a public event tonight, the Hanukkah Party. Let me run through the daybook. And then we're going to come back to this topic. And then we got a bunch of other topics to get to, including Russia, Ukraine, the economy, Islamic terrorism, on and on and on. All right, here we go. The president today has a embassy credentialing event that supposedly closed press at 2 and then a Hanukkah reception at 8:15. Not sure why none of us were invited to that in the East Room. And that's open to pre credentialed media. The Vice President, 10 o' clock is in Allentown, Pennsylvania, delivering remarks on the economy. Rubio and Hegseth on the Hill today all Senator classified briefing on the Caribbean operation. And then they're briefing the House right after that, House and Senate House Republicans and Democrats have conference meetings right now, the press conferences. The House Republicans attend the Democrats at 10:45. The Senate continues work on the NDAA. Then the senators have their famous separate weekly lunches. And then after that, Senate news conferences at around 2. And then house Republican in the Rules Committee, House rules rather considering the Republican health care package. And then they're unveiling the Barbara Rose Johns congressional statute at three o'. Clock. Speaker Johnson Jeffries and Governor Youngkin, Kristen's friend, the judge in Milwaukee who was charged with obstructing justice when she seemed to help a illegal immigrant escape. Federal agents is on trial today in Milwaukee. And the economic numbers came out. We'll talk about them in a minute. The jobs numbers were pretty disappointing, not disastrous, but disappointing. All right, Here is just to give you an idea of how Republicans are going to have to handle this. Susie Wiles here is Congressman Leader Scalise who had the bad fortune of being on squawk box just as Andrew Ross Sorkin saw what was in the vanity therapies. Here's Andrew with Leader Scalise. 1:20, please.

C (10:00)

And this literally has happened while you have been, I think on the air.

A (10:04)

I don't know if folks have been.

C (10:05)

Following this, there's a piece in Vanity Fair that has just come out, an.

B (10:10)

Interview with Susie Wiles, of course, who's the chief of staff to the president, who says some. She apparently sat for 11.

C (10:19)

There were 11 different interviews going on here with the Cabinet team. Some astonishing quotes.

B (10:24)

I just want to read you this. I'm curious what you, what you react to it. She said that Mr. Trump, quote, has an alcoholic personality. She goes on to say that J.D.

C (10:34)

Vance has a conspiracy, has been a.

B (10:37)

Conspiracy theorist for a decade. She says Russell Vogt, who's the budget.

C (10:42)

Director, is a right wing, absolute zealot.

B (10:45)

And that Pam Bondi completely whiffed in.

C (10:48)

Handling the Epstein files.

B (10:49)

This is the chief of staff of the president.

C (10:52)

This literally came out just this morning as we've been speaking to you.

A (11:00)

Well, I obviously have not read that article.

B (11:02)

I'll have to read it. I know Susie. She's the hardest working person up in.

A (11:07)

D.C. with the hardest working president in America, Donald Trump.

B (11:11)

By the way, he doesn't even drink alcohol. So not sure what that quote is related to. The full context would be helpful. But President Trump never stops working for America. All right, just for those you don't know, Chris Whipple is kind of specializes in interviewing White House chiefs of staff and he's and there have been some people who've said stuff to him in the past that they've regretted. I don't remember him ever being accused of taking stuff that was off the record and using it. I will say this. There are certain people in this administration who talk to reporters they trust and don't say this is off the record. They just assume it is. And it's possible that some of these conversations, Susie assumed they were off the record. So let's close this up while we will continue to monitor it during the hour we're together again, raise your hand if you want in on the conversation later in the show. Jim, has you've been an advisor in the White House to officials who have had PR issues to address. Let's say you were staffing Susie. And she said, jim, I don't want to get in a war with Chris Whipple, but a lot of this stuff I didn't say to him on the record. What would you advise her to do?

A (12:17)

Well, if that's demonstrably a fact that might be worth putting out. But getting in a fight with a reporter is usually not the way to go in something like this. Of course I would have advised her not to talk to him in the first place. I never trust magazine profiles. And so that mistake was made from the get go. But otherwise, I think kind of, kind of lay low and hunker down and hopefully the President's got your back.

B (12:41)

Yeah. I mean, Susie's first rule is do no. Has been do no harm. Don't become the story. She's not done very many interviews. And to do a series of interviews with a guy with a history of, you know, putting people in a less than flattering light and to say all these things, Kristen, if, if, if he's got audio tapes, and I think you said you saw the New York Times says there's some audio, if all that stuff's on audio and he starts to play it, that will compound her problem, correct?

C (13:08)

Yeah. And I would assume most reporters now, even if, if it's off the record or on background, they'll ask to record it just for their own posterity, remember? So I would assume that he recorded, especially if he was in a profile piece. I do think this is a lesson for a lot of folks. The Vanity Fair doesn't do, I mean, especially when it's a Vanity Fair profile, doesn't do anyone any favors. I think the Biden administration had similar issues with that. And Republicans kind of mocked their press secretary for doing glamour shots in that magazine. You know, I, I think that this is a, this is, reads like an interview of someone who's, you know, moving on to something else. I can't imagine that that's the case here. She keeps, she does such a great job there, keeps everything together. It's a. Going to be a quick address and, and pivot, I would think. And the good thing for her, we're going into the holiday. People have short memories. There's a lot of things going on this week. We, that I think it'll be a quick news cycle for her, but she needs to address it fast.

B (14:04)

Yeah. I'll say one other thing, which is Susie not only has goodwill, but she's dealing with a bunch of people like the vice president who just don't care. They engage in combat on X. They say negative things about each other, like it just washes off their back. You know, we have a vice president who said the president was the Republican Party's Hitler not that long ago, and yet he's the vice president. So I think, I don't think this would kill her the way it would lots of chiefs of staff. But, but it is a, it is a mystery. It is a puzzle because she's a very careful person and she has not sought the Limelight, and she's very smart person, and she must have known saying these things to someone writing for Vanity Fair would create what we call in Connecticut a kerfuffle. All right, we'll continue to follow it because I'm sure Twitter is going to continue along these lines. Let's talk about Russia, Ukraine. I continue to be baffled, as I said, by how little coverage it's getting this morning or yesterday. Last night, President Zelensky and the European leaders all were very bullish on how things were going, or at least they said they did. There's still some security issues that need to be worked out. There's talks of possible additional meetings either in Ukraine or Florida this weekend to continue to work through it. There was also talk of a potential ceasefire for Christmas. The Russians this morning 103 seemed to put out any prospect they would agree to that. Putin's spokesperson said Moscow, quote, wants peace, not a ceasefire, claiming that a pause would allegedly give Ukraine time to regroup and continue the war. The idea of a Christmas ceasefire had been proposed by the German chancellor. That's from some Twitter account that I'm not familiar with. It says Ukraine supports a Christmas ceasefire and an energy ceasefire. That appears not to be in the cards. Zelensky this morning also spoke at the Hague to the parliament there and said. Talked about the peace talks, but also said, we'll play a little bit of this. He said then, this seems to me to be a big sticking point that hasn't been in the news very much, that, of course, Putin and Russia can't get away with war crimes and they need to be held accountable. Whereas we have heard that part of this is welcoming Putin back into the community of nations and the US Doing business with Putin, which is hardly a recipe for putting him on trial. Here is zelensky. Let's play 104 for a bit and then 105. At the Hague this morning. This Sunday and Monday.

A (16:25)

In Berlin, we held intensive, really intensive talks with President.

B (16:30)

Trump's team and with Steve Itkoff, Jared.

A (16:34)

Kushner, others, members of the team.

B (16:39)

And we're working in great detail on documents that could stop the war and guarantee.

A (16:45)

Guarantee security.

B (16:46)

This is very important, and every single detail matters.

A (16:50)

Why? Because not a single detail must become a reward for Russia's aggression if the.

B (16:55)

Aggressor receives, okay, switch, switch. The other one starts to believe that during this war, there is hardly a crime against humanity that Russia has not committed.

A (17:09)

Even the Netherlands.

B (17:10)

Sadly, Sudle knows all too well that.

A (17:16)

These are not just words we do remember. MH17 a terrible act of Russian murder.

B (17:23)

Followed by shameful lies that cannot simply be forgotten. And the people will not forget.

A (17:32)

And when the guns stay silent, when the drones stop killing, the law must still speak Russian. Root causes should be returned to Russia. And it cannot be that war criminals travel freely across Europe or the world as if they were tourists.

B (17:53)

It cannot be that those who kill.

A (17:56)

Are suddenly treated as respectable partners.

B (18:00)

Okay, stop this. I hate to do this because it's violating my own values about story hierarchy. Please go to msnbc. Peter Baker, the New York Times reporter who got a first early look at the Vanity Fair interview, then did a follow up interview with Susie Wiles. He's talking about that now on Morning Joe. Play that, please.

A (18:23)

That he would have to go to Congress for authorization. That's a really interesting concession because I haven't heard. To relax in her conversations with Chris Whipple. Chris wrote the book on White House chiefs of staff. And therefore I think she looked at these conversations as part of, you know.

B (18:42)

Setting the history of her time as chief of staff.

C (18:45)

In some ways, she's been the most.

A (18:46)

Successful of Trump's chief of staff, one that he actually seems to trust.

B (18:50)

She didn't view her job, she doesn't.

A (18:51)

View her job like John Kelly did. John Kelly viewed his job as somebody who threw his body in front of the train as it headed down to places that he thought were reckless or unwise or illegal.

B (19:02)

That's not how Susie looks at her job.

A (19:05)

She looks at her job as facilitating the Trump, Trump's agenda, things he wants.

B (19:09)

To do, even if she thinks he's gone too far.

A (19:11)

She talks in the article about Times when she urged him to do things he didn't like, not to pardon all.

B (19:16)

Of the most violent January 6th rioters, to wait on tariffs until there was.

A (19:20)

Agreement on his team and so on and so forth.

B (19:24)

But she says, hey, you know, when.

A (19:25)

He, when there's a tie, he wins.

B (19:29)

Yeah, I mean, J Mart, this is, it's pretty stunning stuff, which we talked about on cable all day. So, Jim, on Russia, Ukraine, people have been saying, well, Putin's not going to agree to this. So this is all waste of time. My, my sense from talking to people in the administration is, of course they've, they've figured out where Putin is on this. They're not wasting, they're going to just waste all this time getting a deal with the Ukrainians to then go back and Putin say, no, no interest. So do you get a sense that, that this is headed towards a deal or not at this Point, I think so.

A (20:00)

I don't think the administration would want to go too far down the road without a deal at the end, at the end of the ride. I mean, the question is whether Putin's going to be Grinch or Scrooge. Scrooge, of course, had a revelation and helped save Christmas. I don't really bet on Putin, so I think he's more of a Grinch. He could ultimately say no, but there must be some signs of progress. So I think they're, you know, they're aiming for that. There must be. So there's like a scene behind the scene that's happening, which we're not aware of, and maybe there's some assurances being given here and there because I think both sides must be fed up with the war and hopefully it does, as you say, reach a better conclusion.

B (20:36)

Yeah. Speaking of betting, Kristen, our friends at polymarket, Polymarket, that exact question, will there be a deal? Put that up, please. 108. And here's the polymarket betters. You can bet on polymarket all over the world on a bunch of things soon in the U.S. here's a Russia and Ukraine ceasefire by the end of next month, by the end of January, only a 12% chance, according to Polymarket. Better. So they're more bearish than Jim is and than I am. Kristen, 12%. Does that seem like the right number?

C (21:04)

I think so. I mean, you know, we say, why isn't this on the front page and why aren't we talking about it? I think people, even some people in the administration are just exhausted by it. There's progress and then stop, and then two steps back, one step forward, two steps, two steps back. And we're dealing with smart yet erratic leaders here. So it's not like Putin is a reliable deal maker. And, and I think, you know, while, while there, I'm sure there are things behind the scenes that give some hope to this. There just have been too many missed deadlines, you know, too slow progress that I, I would be shocked. I hope it could get solved by next month, but I would be shocked if it did.

B (21:47)

Somebody needs to put a stopwatch on MSNBC and CNN because they're going to talk about the Susie Wiles piece. I just, I can tell they're going to talk about it all day. All right, thank you both on Ukraine. Here's Santelli on Squawk121, talking about the job. Numbers, please.

A (22:06)

Straight to the numbers.

C (22:07)

But Mike Santoli, by the way, about the nys. But Rick, get the numbers, please.

B (22:12)

Yes, October and November for the big.

A (22:15)

Job job jobs report.

B (22:16)

The only thing is it's not Friday.

A (22:18)

Here we go.

B (22:19)

November's number comes in at 64,000, 64,000 on non farm. And if we look at average hourly earnings, they are up 1/10, up 1/10.

A (22:31)

Of a percent year over year, up 3.5. These are both a little bit light compared to expectations. The average workweek contracts.

B (22:41)

Oh, no, excuse me.

A (22:42)

We're looking for contraction at 34.2. Comes in at 34.3. 34.3.

B (22:49)

The unemployment rate, and this, of course.

A (22:51)

Is what everybody's been waiting for, did indeed move up to 4.6%.

B (22:57)

So it's, it's kind of blah. It's not, it's, it's definitely not great, but it's not, it's not a disaster. The vice president in this weird trip, a week after the president went to Pennsylvania, he's going four, 40 miles away from where the president went and he's talking about the economy today. So it's like the jobs number was slightly above what the expectations are. That's right around it, but whatever. Kristen, why is the vice president going back to Pennsylvania to talk about the economy when the president did it a week ago?

C (23:26)

I think it's going to be one of the ground zeros for control of the House. So last week the president was in one congressional district. The vice president's going to be another one today. Two very close but very different parts of the state. And I think that, you know, where Vance is going today, that Lehigh Valley is really indicative of all of these swing districts in Michigan and in Ohio and North Carolina. It's a very blue collar part of the state that I think we'll see replicated. You know, there are many districts like that where people are struggling and need to be shored up to stick with Republicans in the midterms. I think that the vice President has a story and a background to show a certain kind of empathy with the economy. I am really hopeful that he can do that. You don't see that too often from him, unfortunately. Like, you know, we need to kind of put Twitter aside and hopefully get back to, you know, what he experienced in his life, because that will really resonate in a place like, you know, where, where he's going today. So that's what I'm looking for. It's a different story. It's a different message and a little bit different part, a little different district. It's really more blue collar, less, more swingy than where Trump was last week. So I think there's a lot to, you know, the message that comes out of these events today, the visuals that come out of these events. This event today I think will be telling to where the administration's going in terms of, you know, midterm approach.

B (24:58)

Jim, I want to ask you more generally about the vice president. Kristen mentioned Twitter. He's a smart aleck on Twitter. And I'm hearing from donors now and some political professionals and this is part of my reducing my odds on the vice president being a lock for the nomination. They think he's just a little bit too smart, actually, a little bit too engaged in political combat on things. And then among some people, including some Jewish donors, concern about his positions on Israel. On Twitter 118A he got into a Twitter spat over this question of the difference between being questioning Israel's policies and being anti Semitic. And again, it's a long back and forth on Twitter. First he criticizes someone writing about public opinion about young people being hostile to Israel. And he says mainstream journalism is just profoundly uninteresting and lame, consumed by its own pieties. To write an article about, quote, the generational divide and antisemitism without discussing the demographics of the various generations is mind boggling. Then there's a back and forth and then he, and then he writes this. Next please. He says, I would say there's a difference between not liking Israel for disagreeing with a given Israeli policy and anti Semitism. So, Jim, how good a messenger is the vice president? Kristen mentioned his bio that he's pretty good in writing his book. But is he a good messenger or is he too smart alecki or something else?

A (26:17)

Well, I think he risks coming across as too smart for his own good. And so I think he should tone it down. The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party is going to move into an identity crisis mode like what do we stand for? And he's trying to kind of carve out certainly the right wing. He wants to protect his right flank from attack. And so I think he's sort of launching these tirades on Twitter and I don't think that's necessarily helpful to him. I think it's a little bit beneath him. I think he should be more elevated. I think, as Christian said, talking about the economy in Pennsylvania, that's the smart thing, although that's going to get overwhelmed today by what Susie Weil said about him. But nonetheless, I think it's wise to keep returning to that, to that and not try to be, you know, Gavin Newsom's trying to do the same thing on the democratic side being smart alecky and you know, that's cute and clever but ultimately it's not diplomatic or presidential.

B (27:07)

Okay, a few more topics to get to and then we'll get to your questions. Please raise your hand if you want to get in the media because of political correctness does not like to call out the involvement of Islamic extremism in violent acts. They just don't. And I was watching in the car yesterday the end of Anderson Cooper 360. This was shortly after the Australian prime minister said after several days, yes, the two gentlemen accused of committing the crime on the Australian beach against Jews celebrating Hanukkah have ties to isis. Listen to how this reporter, I don't know this reporter but it's representative of what I see in the media. Listen how this reporter pivots away from Islamic terror to just anti Semitism. Watson joins me now from, from, from Sydney.

A (27:59)

I understand the prime minister has said.

B (28:00)

They were allegiant, had allegiance to Islamic State ideology. Do we know anything more about that?

A (28:10)

That's right, Anderson.

B (28:11)

This update's come just now. The prime Minister of Australia saying that it was the Islamic State ideology that motivated this man, but it was also.

A (28:19)

Sheer anti Semitism hate against Jews.

B (28:22)

These men took up this position atop a Hanukkah party to try to kill.

A (28:26)

As many Jewish people as they could that included a 10 year old girl.

B (28:31)

Again, he just pivots right off of what the prime minister just said. And this is again, I'm not blaming that one guy solely. This is representative of how the media seems to want to cover not just this incident but in general. And if this were, you know, right wing extremism, believe me, it would be covered as the thing. Here's the headline from cnn. Australian PM says Bondi beach territory, Texas suspects quote motivated by Islamic State ideology. And again, we've seen many attacks motivated by the same thing apparently. Jim, why is the media so reluctant to call this out?

A (29:03)

Well, I was with News Corps for many years and they have a big piece of the media pie in Australia and I'm confident that they're covering this fairly. So I think if you're on the ground in Australia, you'll hear all sides and hear a lot of coverage of the Islamic terrorism aspect of this. So I think that is one issue and it's going to affect the Albanese administration because they apparently seem to have ignored warnings, even including from Israel about what was happening. So there's a lot to uncover there. I think it really plays into a global issue, the whole issue of anti Semitism, but also Islamic fundamentalism, which also dovetails with the immigration issue as well. So it's kind of a trajector of concern and you can't ignore any one part of it.

B (29:48)

Kristen, would the tide turn now on this because these guys seem so connected to ISIS and apparently trained in the Philippines, or will the press continue? A lot of the press continue to try to soft pedal it.

C (30:02)

Unfortunately, when something happens, you know, halfway around the world, I think it's very tough for our media to stay focused on it. Like I think today we're going to talk about today and tomorrow we're probably going to talk about Susie Wiles more than an ISIS attack, alleged ISIS attack in Australia. And then we get to the end of the week, we're going to talk about the Epstein files, more than that. So when it's not immediate and it's not in our face, you know, I think the press, particularly with the rate that news happens now, you know, with the Internet and everything, it's minute to minute to minute. If it's not immediate affecting us right here at home, I think it is tough for the press to stay focused on it. They're going to focus on the trendier things that are but isn't.

B (30:43)

Sorry to interrupt, but isn't it bias? It's not just that it's halfway around the world. Isn't it a PC reluctance to, to invoke this that we've seen for decades?

C (30:55)

Yeah. And it's, you know, if had it been, to your point, had it been a radical, you know, white, you know, white supremacist.

A (31:04)

Right.

C (31:04)

We would be talking about it all day long and every politician, every Republican politician would be asked about it today.

B (31:10)

Yeah. If a guy had, if those guys, instead of having ISIS flags in their car, had MAGA hats in their car, 100%, it's all anybody would talk about.

C (31:18)

I'm actually, I didn't see them allege that maybe they weren't.

B (31:23)

Okay, let's talk about health care in a super wonky, super brief way because it's complicated. Even though everybody acknowledges now there's going to be no saving the Obamacare subsidies this year. Now there's talk in the House where they're going to have a vote on this House package that the Wall Street Journal editorial board that says pretty good. They didn't love it, but they loved it enough. But, but there's, but they're still working in the House and there may be a discharge petition to do extension of the subsidies the Senate, there was a gang, bipartisan gang that met last night. They're talking about putting something out this year, but not to vote on this year. Here's my question. Some people are saying the only way to get this done is to is to make it part of the negotiations over avoiding another government shutdown in January where we have another deadline. Other people are saying, including the leadership, we got to keep it separate. It can't be part of the discussions over the shutdown. That makes no sense to me. So, Jim, am I right that it's invariably, if they do take it up in January, it's invariably going to be part of the same conversations, or is there some way to keep those two things separate?

A (32:24)

I don't think you can keep it separate, certainly not in the eyes of the public. You know, Congress, when given a choice between making a tough vote to solve a problem, kicking the can down the road, they're going to kick the can down the road. And Republicans here never can really win on the issue of health care. They can only stop the bleeding. So I think you're going to see some effort to kind of change the conversation and move the goalpost to avoid having to make a tough decision.

B (32:49)

Kristen?

C (32:50)

Well, I agree 100% with Jim. When Congress gets the opportunity to kick the can, that's what they do. That's why we're in this position on so many issues. I have talked to a number of different members from all different br, you know, factions of the party and Democrats and, and there's a general frustration here. So some folks don't want to kick the can. I think some actually want to want to get things done. There are a couple, you know, the problem that you see with issues like this is that there are false ultimatums put forward. So when you have people out there saying, well, we can't pass this without Hyde Amendment language and we can't pass this with, you know, there's no, we have to have an extension. I mean, there's no reason to be public with absolutes right now. Like, we're not even, you know, there are four proposals in the House, multiple in the Senate. Like, get in the room together. Like, there's no, like, I know everyone wants their name on it, but like, get in the room and talk it through. So for the party, I'm really, really hoping that we can have a Christmas miracle here and, you know, talk it through. Because if we keep doing this, you know, this plan, that plan, you know, no way we'll get it done without this. We have to like, we will hurt ourselves for the entire year next year because we will be constantly on our back foot. What? Because this will not just be about health care. This is going to be about cost of living. And we won't be able to talk about anything that improves on the economy because we're going to have to talk about this first. And so I'm really hopeful that everyone can kind of shake it off, get in a room together and find something that will prevent or at least help with the messaging front. So we're not, you know, when someone comes forth and says, well, it's only 7 million people, it's not like, you know, like, that's not a winning message. And so we really need to get in a room and figure it out.

B (34:26)

Politico has the best story anybody's written so far about the president's lack of a role in this. And it says correctly, my sources say that the White House just thinks, like, it's too complicated, it's too dangerous. There's no clear outcome. They need to let Congress, the Republicans in Congress, work their will a little bit more before they swoop in. But I don't know that that's ever going to happen without the president's involvement. All right. Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director, used to be in the business of saying controversial stuff for a living. And then he joined the FBI, and he still says some controversial stuff, but he scaled it back. There's a long piece in the New York Times today about Kash Patel. And once again with the Rhode island thing in Brown goes out on social media and says, we got him. And then it turns out we don't got him. And people are saying, why is he tweeting stuff so quickly? But there's three paragraphs in there that basically suggest Bonino is about to leave and maybe even like this week and suggested he's going to go back to being a podcaster. Kristen, if you were the FBI PR person or comms at the White House, do they need to say to Bongino, like, you can't make your living saying stuff you learned as the FBI deputy director, or there's no way to stop.

C (35:37)

Him, or I'm sure there's some sort of NDA. I mean, I would hope that our top intelligence and law enforcement agencies have some sort of NDA for employees that leave that, you know, sensitive information?

B (35:51)

I don't think they do, Jim. Can they stop him? No. Can they stop him from.

A (35:56)

I don't know if NDAs work at that level unless he's Violating, you know, the rules, procedure, or classified information. Yeah, but when I, when I saw that he was attacking Miranda Devine in the New York Post, I figured, you know, he's out of there pretty soon. That makes no sense.

B (36:10)

That's the tripwire. Okay. Yesterday, the president faced criticism from a lot of people that he shouldn't have tweeted about Rob Reiner. And some people defended his position, and some people still are today. But some people who don't normally criticize the president as openly did, including David Urban, who ran Pennsylvania for him in 2016 and is a big supporter of the president. But this, to me, was the most significant because as we say in the political game, if you lose. Scott Jennings. Here's Scott Jennings on CNN last night.

C (36:49)

Scott, why doesn't the president rise to the occasion when it comes to these sorts of things we see kind of over and over again, his responses are often less than humane.

B (37:01)

Well, I agree with Arthur. I think he should have said nothing.

A (37:06)

Look, I'm not surprised that Donald Trump.

B (37:08)

Didn'T have anything nice to say about Mr. Reiner. Reiner was one of his most vocal critics and did for, you know, basically a decade say he should be in prison, called him a fascist, etc. Etc. But the correct answer here, and the advice I would have given him, is just put it in your pocket. You're allowed to harbor opinions and feelings about people, but in this particular case, someone was tragically murdered. Look, we just, as conservatives, we just rolled out of one of the most.

A (37:34)

Horrific things that have happened to our.

B (37:36)

Our movement, which is the murder of Charlie Kirk. And I have been very critical of everybody who celebrated that murder. The thousands and thousands of liberals who've celebrated that, they shouldn't have done that either.

A (37:46)

And so, you know, in this particular.

B (37:48)

Case, putting it in your pocket would have been there. Jim. Donald Trump has said many offensive things on social media and elsewhere. This one faced a lot of criticism. But is this story, does this have any enduring effect or this just goes on the long list of things he said that some people have objected to?

A (38:07)

Well, it was clearly a mistake in it, but it does go on that long list, all that. Look at the things he said about John McCain as well. You know, I think in the case of both John McCain and Rob Reiner in a different way. Rob Reiner obviously was a very strong, outspoken Democrat, but his entertainment really appealed to everybody in America, and that's the source of his appeal. People sort of thought he was a good guy. To cross him really was, was wrong. Senator John Kennedy Said much the same thing as Scott Jennings. That silence would have been better in this case, but I think he'll write it out. But it was a mistake.

B (38:40)

Kristen, does this have any enduring effect?

C (38:43)

I don't think so. You know, here's the thing with, with President Trump. He really can say whatever. And we've seen it. You know, it's because he came into this political world with a 99 name ID. We already knew who he was. So he's able to get away with some things that other people aren't. It was a mistake to say was gruesome. I don't agree with it. But right now, what we're seeing is when you have folks come out and say it was wrong, this is not so much about, is it, does that hurt Trump? It's how do they handle their own situation. Right. So if you're, if you're a member, you don't have that Teflon ability that Trump does to say some things that other people can't say or shouldn't say. Y. And so I, I'm glad to see a number of members come out and say they disagree with it. I mean, these situations when, when someone is killed or dies, they're not. And, but situations like there's no equivocating we should on either side and it was wrong when Democrats did it, and it's wrong when Republicans do it that someone was killed. There's no but in that. It's sad. And you pray for them and their family. And so Trump is a different case. And I think many Republicans and others, and frankly, the media have to understand that no one can do or be held to that same standard. And he will not be held to the same standard that other people are. He's going to be able to. I don't think it has an enduring effect on him. I don't think it's gonna. His, his approval is going to be at the same number forever. And so that's not going to be really effective. But every member that's going to be asked about it, that's a test of who you are. That's a test of who you are as a person and what your character is. And you will not have that same, the same lens that Trump does after, you know, 50 years in the public eye.

B (40:16)

All right, three things real quick. There's still a lot of unanswered questions at the Brown killing, including who the, who the suspect is, who the murderer is. But the conspiracy theories are going pretty hot now, and people are questioning the way the investigation is being run. Do either of you have any suspicions about this or it's just law enforcement sometimes screws things up.

C (40:39)

I mean, when you see what the mayor of Providence and just how it's sloppy, it's sloppy.

B (40:44)

And I don't think it's more than just sloppy in terms of their briefings. And if any can suspicion that it's more than sloppy.

C (40:52)

Not right now. I mean, I. I reserve the right to go back if it comes out and change your mind. But right now I think it's just sloppy and. And it is a. The way looking at how that town has been run and the priorities on public safety, they just haven't really been there. It's a very liberal run town and they put priorities on other things and not necessarily on public safety. And so I think it' result of that, which is, you know, typical of, you know, more liberal policies. They aren't as good at policing and. And public safety. On that front, I hope that there's no other ulterior motives there, but we'll see.

B (41:25)

Jim, how's your conspiracy theory meter on this?

A (41:28)

Yeah, I suspect there's more. More than meets the eye here. And perhaps they're trying to, for strategic reasons, hide that, but they're doing a bad job of it.

B (41:36)

Yeah.

A (41:36)

In the meantime. So it's.

B (41:38)

I'm increasingly suspicious. I'll just say. All right. When I worked for the Walt Disney Company, there was a double standard. Everything Disney does gets scrutinized, attacked. If somebody dies at Disney World, it's a massive story. There's blogs about it and gets talked about in business press. If somebody dies at a Comcast park, nobody cares. It's just a double standard. I think Gavin Newsom is now dealing with this exact double standard. He is being attacked from by the left, by the right, on his. On his competence, everything. Every day there's stuff on social media and in the papers, including in a lot of News Corp. Publications, about Gavin Newsom. You're not seeing that about anybody else. On the one hand, that helps him. Here's the latest New York Post headline. Gavin Newsom disqualifies himself from the presidency by his own standard. You're not seeing stories like that about Pete Buttigieg or even Kamala Harris or Shapiro, Governor Shapiro. On the one hand, I think it helps him because it shows he's the aircraft carriage suggests the rights concerned. On the other hand, is a relentless pummeling that. That maybe undermines his electability quality, but also I think could deter him from running because his family sees Even now he's getting all this pummeling. So net net is the fact that he is a target, bigger target than anybody else who might run net net. Is it good for him for 28 or bad for him for the nomination? Good or bad for the nomination? Jim?

A (42:55)

I think it's, it's good for him. I think he welcomes it in some way and it's going to accelerate because the New York Post is going to launch the California Post in a couple months and they're going to treat him like they do Mumbani in New York and but I think he's going to welcome it because every time the media is talking about him, even negatively, they're not talking about Josh Shapiro or somebody else.

B (43:15)

Kristen good for, on balance, good for Newsom.

C (43:18)

I agree. I think every other potential Democrat nominee wishes that they were getting that treatment right now. Now, the concern I would have if I'm on Gavin's team is it's too, it's so early. So if you're made the king with all the arrows coming at you this far out, yeah, you have to respond and endure it. But then in a year from now, are they going to be targeting Shapiro and then you're yesterday's news. And so it is kind of early for that.

B (43:41)

I think it's bad for him. I think it's just such a pummeling that it's going to cause his family to say this is just too much like, we can't go through three years of this and then if we win, we're not going to be able to unite the country. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think. Lastly, a few days ago, the New York Times did a big piece about Joe Biden's failed immigration policy. Some people said, including me, maybe that should have been written three years ago. Today they have a big piece about Nancy Pelosi opposing a bipartisan effort that's been going on for years to restrict the ability of members of Congress to trade stocks. Here's the headline. Pelosi resisted stock trading ban as wealth grew, fueling suspicion, the former speaker failed to appreciate the groundswell of support for banning the the practice refusing to give an inch among GOP amid GOP accusations that she was corrupt, her family has gotten incredibly rich during her time, first as speaker and now in Congress doing tons of stock trading. There's even a thing where you can trade do the Pelosi trades and it does very well. Kristen, what's your guess? Why is the New York Times all of a sudden going back and writing pieces, negative pieces about Democrats that are.

C (44:43)

Several years late because they want to write about Republicans. I mean, that's, that's where it's going. They want to be able to hit Republicans for not, I mean, there's, there's already a few votes where Republican, you know, voted one way or the other or didn't disclose stocks or dump stocks before another vote. They want to go full on attack Republicans. And so they're going to check the box and, and highlight Democrats so that they could say, look, I mean, we already hit Democrats, so now we're going to go three times.

B (45:08)

Jim, do you share Kristen's view? That's why they're doing it.

A (45:11)

Maybe, maybe it is. Another, like you said, it's a case of why didn't they write this several years ago? This story reminds me of when senators used to be able to give paid speeches until my old boss Joe Lieberman knocked off Lowell Weicker in 1988. And then they reached bipartisan consensus that, gee, it's wrong to give paid speeches. I think this case is going to, you know, I think they're going to pass a ban on this. Ultimately, it'll be a footnote in the legacy of Nancy Pelosi. But nonetheless, the media has some accounting to do of its own accord.

B (45:41)

I've done no reporting at the Times on this, but my suspicion is they're doing it because they realize how outrageous it looks on their record to have not written long pieces about these two extraordinarily obvious storylines that needed to be covered. And so they're just trying to, you know, get it in the book of sins, a little bit of erasure for not having done it sooner because these are stories that cried out to be written in real time. And they're just trying to do it belatedly so they can wipe the slate slightly. All right, quick word from a sponsor then to your questions, please raise your hand. If you've never raised your hand before. Good day to get in on here. And please, no smack in the chat as you respond to your colleagues questions. Right now, 30% off the entire product line is chefiq.com use the promo code 2WMM. Particularly keep your eye on their Chef IQ Sense wireless cooking thermometer. Download the app, put the thermometer into your piece of food, whether it's a piece of meat or not, whatever you want, fish, turkey, prime rib comes out perfect every time. The wireless thermometer communicates like magic with the app and tells you when to turn it, when to take it out. How long to let it rest after you've taken that? Basically, you have a personal chef in your kitchen, in the oven and on your phone, allowing you to spend more time with your family, less time hovering over the oven. It's perfect gift to give to anybody on your list who likes to cook. Or buy one for yourself. Again, 30% off everything. 2 WMM is the promo code@chefiq.com I'm James Patterson.

A (47:11)

I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacey Abrams. Yay.

B (47:35)

BJ Novak. Yay.

A (47:37)

Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad. And Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows, Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless, obsessive, compulsive. Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

B (48:06)

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ladies and gentlemen, time for your chance to participate. The opportunity of a lifetime to ask Jim and Kristen a question. We start with a man whose name I pronounce wrong pretty much every time. So I'm just going to say, steph, welcome in. Tell everybody who doesn't know where you are what's on your mind for Jim and for Kristen.

A (48:24)

Thanks, Mark. Hi, Jim. Hi, Kristin. Yeah, calling from. From Italy.

B (48:28)

Splitting my time between here and in the States.

A (48:32)

Former or California resident, actually, and I'll defer Gavin Newsom opinion for another day, but just going to Trump's tweet. I've said this before on the show. Huge Trump supporter, voted for him three times.

B (48:48)

Think his policies, by and large are where we should be heading, and he's the president we need right now. But, and I've said this also before, the one thing I think that just.

A (48:59)

Gets him, and I think it contributed.

B (49:02)

To his defeat in 20, was this.

A (49:05)

Inability to let things go. And when I read the tweet about Reiner, it just. Just re validated what I said before in that, you know, it's one tweet.

B (49:20)

As my friends argue, no one's going.

A (49:22)

To remember it, and maybe that's the case, but it's this continuous cacophony of punching below his weight. And as Scott Jennings said the, the.

B (49:32)

Right answer would have been to not say anything.

A (49:34)

He has every right to feel angry about how the, the left and mainstream media and Rob Reiner specifically went after him for so many years. But again, I think we expect, I would hope we expect our presidents, regardless of party affiliation, to rise above that and to speak to our better angels. So my, my question is this for both Jim and Kristen. And Kristen, you sort of touched on it a little bit in terms of is this going to be, you know, going to linger. But in terms of next year, if this is just added on top of, you know, him mocking the word affordability and the, the optic of not having being out of touch with the working man because the economy is not doing well for a lot of people.

B (50:22)

Even he admitted the investments that he's.

A (50:24)

Bragging about are probably not going to take effect to the point where voters might see the results. Is this going, this, this pattern that.

B (50:32)

He has of just not letting go.

A (50:35)

Of this personal animus, is that going to, you know, be a dagger in the Republicans chances in 2026 and maybe even 28?

C (50:44)

I would add, Kristen, what I usually tell, you know, clients and just even friends and colleagues is you can't take the bait on this stuff. And you can't think that you are, if you're a candidate, if you're a member, you're not on the same level as Donald Trump. He is going to continue to be Donald Trump that we've known since 2015, since 2013. I mean, I remember being on the Rubio campaign in, in 2015, 16, and hear Trump say stuff at rallies and think, oh, that's the end. And no, it's not. It's just, I mean, he is a different bucket. And so once we acknowledge that and, and realize the danger here, I seem not so much on what Trump's going to say because we can't control it. The danger I see is that there will be people who try to emulate it. So it's a good cautionary tale, I think, for the vice president who will go on Twitter and try to sass back. Similarly, don't take that bait. If, if J.D. were sitting right here, I would say don't take the bait on that. You can have your own brand and your own message and still, you know, speak Trump and maga, but in your own voice. And so that, I think is the bigger concern is that Trump's going to do what he's going to do. He's been doing it for the last 10 year plus where the Republican Party and Republican candidates, where it can make or break them is if you try to replicate what he's doing, you're not going to be Donald Trump. You shouldn't try to be. And so the minute that you start, you know, tweeting sassy things or saying similar things, it's not going to land the same way that he does. And you're not going to be given the grace and forgiveness that Trump usually gets.

A (52:11)

Jim, I agree with Kristen. I also think Democrats want to keep running against Donald Trump and they'll, you know, it benefited them this year. They're going to try to keep running against him in 2026. I think long term it's a mistake. They need to pivot away from him. But, but I think they'll try to use this to help energize the base coming into this new year. Thank you, the economy.

B (52:33)

Thank you for the question. Three more things from the Suzy Wiles interview that have just, you know, as people read through it. First of all, she says she was not fully on board with the January six pardons, says the tariffs have been more painful than they were expected to be. And she says President Trump has been wrong about what he said about Bill Clinton and the Epstein files. Again, these are three things that you wouldn't normally hear anybody associated with the president say, let alone the White House chief of staff. And I can take continue to be baffled about why she would say those things on the record, which leads me to believe there may have been a miscommunication. Yakov, welcome in. Thank you for joining. This is this gentleman. This gentleman lives in Brooklyn, usa and he's a great member of our community. And we're happy to have you here. And we love what you're wearing there. Folks from Fairway and Green are very proud of. Is that a comfortable piece of clothing, would you say?

A (53:22)

Absolutely amazing.

B (53:24)

Yeah. It's great beyond words. You can still buy it, folks. It's still time to buy for Christmas. Go to Two Way TV Fairway to see all our merch. Welcome in, sir. What's on your mind?

A (53:36)

Thank you. So, yeah, I live in Brooklyn, but more specifically I live in Crown Heights, which is the worldwide headquarters of the Chabad Lubavitch movement, which sends out currently over 6,000 emissaries worldwide to spread goodness and kindness. And two emissaries were killed yesterday in the Sydney terrorist attack. Another one, my son's age is right now in the icu. So this really hit home. And I don't want to talk about anti Semitism and Israel and that Whole thing, it's too raw now. But I want to talk about what we could do. And what we could do is just fill the world with goodness and kindness. You go to a coffee store, buy a stranger of coffee. You see somebody in the street, just say, good morning. That's it. And also, let's fill the world, especially during the holiday season, with light. And I put up this challenge to the 2A community yesterday on the after show, and six people already took me up in this challenge. I'm going to send whoever wants Hanukkah, menorah and candles, and in addition to that, a. A light, a Hanukkah light, an electric light. You just hang in your. In your window and just spread the world with lightness. That's what I have to say. God bless.

B (55:08)

Very beautiful. Thank you for sharing that, Jim.

A (55:11)

I like. I like your hat, Yakov. And I think that's a great message and one we would all do well to emulate, especially in the political.

B (55:19)

See her, Kristen?

C (55:20)

Yeah, No, I agree. Thank you for saying it. Thank you for challenging.

B (55:24)

Yeah. So David Wolpe, one of America's leading rabbis, has a piece in the Free Press today saying that he sees a lot of Jews hiding their menorahs this year because they're afraid to display them and that that's part of the mission of the terrorists, to try to intimidate Jews from gathering and from worshiping publicly. David will be my guest on Next Stop later today. It will drop later today. And Jakob, I'm going to ask him about the very, very point you raised and whether that is a great solution to just a vexing problem for the world. But thank you for that. Now you're saying you'll send that to anybody who wants one. Just put it. Put their address in the chat. You got a cap on that, dude? Because a lot of people watch the show.

A (56:10)

I have a zero cap. Yeah. And I will send it absolutely free today. Yeah, I'll mail it Overnight mail. Yeah, I. You could just DM me on in the chat. Yeah, I'll send you my email. I'll mail it out. No cap. Absolutely free. Okay. Spread the light.

B (56:30)

All right. Beautiful. Grateful to you for being part of the community and for saying such a lovely thing. And I'm hoping, I'm hoping, I'm hoping you get a thousand requests. Hopefully you don't run out of stock, but thank you. Grateful to you. All right, see if we can sneak one more person in here. Brennan, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind. Thank you for calling me.

A (56:53)

I'm calling in from Rhode island.

B (56:55)

And my question related to the Brown situation. Yes, sir.

A (57:01)

It's widely known that Brown is one of the more liberal Ivy Leagues, and.

B (57:07)

That'S saying a lot.

A (57:08)

Yes.

B (57:10)

So more than just failing test scores, they are. The Ivy leagues, I feel like, are.

A (57:15)

Becoming an embarrassment to this nation just with the incompetency with which the faculty held the tragedy the other day. So my question mark.

B (57:27)

You had some inside sources about it.

A (57:30)

Being maybe targeted or not.

B (57:31)

Do you have any other info on that? Well, again, I just want to. I want to be clear because my words were mischaracterized in the last 24 hours. This is based on what people are saying to me, was told to the family. I don't know it to be true. I'm not here to spread misinformation or disinformation, But I do find the behavior of the investigators to be, at worst, at least, sloppy. And I do find some of the things. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist in general. I do find some of the behavior of the assassin to have been odd. The fact that he fled, for instance, which is not the norm. So I don't know that anybody was targeted, But I do know that we don't know what happened and why and who did it. And I also know that this was a prominent conservative on campus. So had this been. If one of the two people killed. I asked you to do this thought experiment. One of the two people killed had a southern conservative university was one of the most prominent liberals on campus. Okay, what would people. What would. What would the speculation in the media be? What would it be? So I'm not. I'm not here to say things that are false. I don't have a single source in law enforcement who said that she was targeted. But what I do know is we do not have an explanation. And I have serious people who've told me that the family was privately told she was targeted. I have no idea whether that's true. I'm not trying to be irresponsible. I'm just saying in the absence of an explanation, it's strange that she was one of the two people killed. Maybe it's a coincidence, but maybe it's not. And law enforcement has done a horrible job of. Of explaining what's going on. And. And I'm. I'm not a believer in them revealing things that would impair the investigation. I'm for the first Amendment and I'm for transparency, but I'm not for doing things to hurt the investigation. But they've done a horrible job and they've opened the door to people wondering what exactly happened. So again, I don't want to be misunderstood. What I'm saying, I'm saying what I've been told by people who claim to know that, but I don't know that from law enforcement. I don't know that directly from the family. I just know that, as I said, if a prominent liberal were killed on a conservative campus, I know what the discussion in America would be like. Gotcha.

A (59:37)

Thank you for clearing that up.

B (59:38)

Okay, Brendan, thank you. Grateful to you. All right, folks, a couple of two ways today I want to tell you better. Three, really. Four o' clock today, special taping for a program so I can be freed up for a holiday party for two way. So today at 4:00 Eastern, join me and a great group to talk about 2028. We're going to just handicap the fields with a group that we've done this with before. They're just fantastic. Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes and then Alex Casciano and Jaime Moore. We're going to take a deep look at all the prospective candidates. We'll use my rankings on the Democratic side to to go through and we'll see where they disagree and agree. And we're going to talk about this question of Ted Cruz and perhaps others challenging JD Dance. So that's a special will not be streaming on YouTube. So if you want to be part of the conversation, please join us at 4 o' clock today here on the two way platform. Then the regular episode at 6 o' clock tonight of two way tonight. That's live on YouTube and live here on the platform. And then Michael Moynihan has a great guest at seven o', clock, Devin Archer. Don't be confused, folks, by his good looks. He's a very smart man. Friend of mine, Devin Archer, who was, amongst other things, was partners with Hunter Biden, joins Michael live at 7 o' clock to talk about a whole bunch of stuff. But if you've never seen Devin, he's a charming guy and you'll enjoy the conversation. I won't say he's as charming as Michael Moynihan because that is a very high bar. But two charming guys. Seven o'. Clock. So again, 4pm here on the platform and then six and seven live on YouTube X and here on the platform. And then tomorrow, unfortunately, Kristen and Jim will not be back. We're grateful to them for being here. But here's who is here tomorrow. Larry O' Connor is back and Yemeni's back. So that's 23 hours from now. We'll see you then. And a reminder because I've had some inquiries this week. If you want to sponsor this program or any other program on two way, get in touch and we can talk to you about how sponsorships work here. Send us an email at Sponsorsuway tv. Sponsorsuway tv and we would be delighted to talk to you about that. All right, Kristen, to close where we began, do you think Susie Wiles story will make the old dinosaur metric of what's news? Will there be Susie Wiles pieces on the broadcast network evening news shows tonight?

C (61:58)

Yes, 100%, Jim.

A (62:01)

Yeah, this is like an early Christmas present for the media. So it's going to be chewed on over the next few days for sure.

C (62:06)

Until we get to Epstein on Friday, then we'll talk about that.

B (62:09)

It's literally gonna go from Susie that assuming it happens. And then of course, she already talked to Peter Baker of the New York Times and she basically didn't repudiate the stuff she said. Will she be on camera in the next 48 hours addressing this? Will she be on camera on the next 48 hours, Kristen?

C (62:27)

I don't think she's going to address it. I could, I mean, strategically, if she's on camera standing next to Trump, I think that visual would actually do more than her going on camera.

B (62:35)

She's a big Hanukkah gal. So maybe she'll go to the event tonight, Jim, Will she address it on camera?

A (62:41)

Maybe. I like the role of humor in a situation like this. Try to come up with something funny.

B (62:47)

Yeah. You know, one of the best humor ones, although not everybody thought it was funny. When Lloyd Benson, Texas senator had accepted some sort of arrangement where he did a breakfast with lobbyists and the invitation basically said we're trading access for for money. He said when I make a mistake, it's a doozy. And for some reason that that repudiated the whole thing. It let the air out of it. So maybe she'll say something like that.

C (63:12)

But I feel like he could, you know about it and help smooth it over.

B (63:18)

Yeah, I mean my Twitter feed is just a bursting so we'll see what happens. Grateful to you both for being here. Grateful to everybody in the community for being here again. I'll see you today at 4 and at 6 Eastern and then we'll be back tomorrow morning, 9am Eastern Time. Have a great day, everybody.

C (63:34)

Thanks.

A (63:44)

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info.

B (63:50)

In more places that could expose you.

A (63:51)

More to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second.

B (63:56)

If your identity is stolen, our US Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone.

A (64:05)

Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock.

B (64:08)

Save up to 40% your first year.

A (64:10)

Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply.