← The Morning Meeting
The Morning Meeting
Insults Fly in Pam Bondi's Epic Showdown With House Democrats; Latest on Search for Nancy Guthrie
01:07:15
Loading summary
Transcript245 lines
- [00:01]
A
This is it. The world as you know it is over.
- [00:04]
B
Completely done.
- [00:06]
C
It's not about to be over.
- [00:08]
A
It's over.
- [00:09]
B
Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great.
- [00:18]
C
Thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.
- [00:22]
D
There's a longer term existential threat that.
- [00:25]
B
Will arise when we create digital beings that, that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control. While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.
- [00:41]
C
This really will be a world of abundance.
- [00:44]
B
And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future.
- [00:49]
E
Listen to the last invention on Apple.
- [00:52]
B
Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:58]
D
Foreign.
- [01:04]
B
Welcome to the Morning Meeting. Those of you watching on the two Way platform just got to experience an extraordinarily lively pregame show. And those of you watching on YouTube missed the whole darn thing. Another good reason to come here on the platform and participate in the conversation. If you're here on the platform and want to get in on the conversation, a conversation like no other. That's one of our taglines. It's not on my sleeve here. My sleeve of my beautiful fairway and green golf shirt says Peace, Love and Understanding.
- [01:28]
E
If you're on the what color mark would you say that?
- [01:31]
B
Fire engine red. Fire engine red. I don't know what they called it. Fairway and Green. My friends at Fairway and Green invent color names that just, I don't know, I can't memorize them. But anyway, if you want the fairway and green with the Peace, Love and Understanding, the Good Morning meeting logo, go to Two Way TV Fairway. Buy whatever you want there. Use our promo code. You'll see it right there. And an opportunity to dress for success. Anyway, Kevin and Larry are here. You're here. This is based on the Network News Division's morning meetings. Going to run through the daybook in a moment and then we've got some interesting stuff to discuss. We're going to start talking about what's going on with ICE because we're on the precipice of a government shutdown and people see a partial government shutdown. People seem not concerned. They just like, yeah, we'll leave town with the government shut and we'll figure it out later. Kind of extraordinary. We've, we foreshadowed this for you folks, because this is not an easy one to solve. We'll talk about that. But in addition, in the what called what the cliche artists call split screen moment, in any minute now, Tom Homans is expected in Minnesota. Tom Homan is expected in Minnesota to come out and have a press conference and words about that he might announce some major withdrawal from Minnesota. ICE has quietly withdrawn and other immigration officials have withdrawn from other cities without fanfare. This would be, as we say in Quebec, a vec fanfare. So we'll see. We'll be watching the home and event again, supposed to happen at any minute. So we'll start with ICE update on Savannah Guthrie and her mom and a bunch of other topics. And we're gonna we're gonna have some conversations. Gentlemen, a moral dilemma. What would you do? And Larry, of course, will always ask himself, what would his friend Eric Erickson do? Because Eric is a very moral, very moral man. Eric's taking some positions about the Bondi testimony. Two things Bondi did, which we'll discuss just in general, just to survey the group here. Guys, is it okay for about speaking necessarily about Pam Bondi? Is it okay? Yes. No questions. Larry, is it okay for members of the Cabinet to show disrespect to members of Congress during testimony? Just in general, Would you say showing disrespect is is is okay or not okay?
- [03:35]
C
I'm not in favor of disrespect in general, but I think how, however, I think that it's fine if a member of the administration wants to do that. Lord, I've seen members of Democrat administrations do it to Republican questioners.
- [03:50]
B
Disrespect two sides thing is disrespect, okay?
- [03:54]
E
I mean, to Larry's point, we've seen it for generations before Congress, so I.
- [03:59]
B
Have to say we'll get to it. I think what you did yesterday crossed a new line. Maybe I'm wrong. Is it okay for the executive branch to spy on the legislative branch? Kevin, yes or no? Is it okay for them to spy on the legislative branch? No, no, Larry. Larry, without without any specific Is it okay?
- [04:16]
C
Very broad question.
- [04:17]
B
Is it okay?
- [04:18]
C
No, no, no.
- [04:19]
B
Terrible.
- [04:20]
C
When John Brennan spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
- [04:24]
E
There you go again.
- [04:27]
C
Never had to suffer a repercussion.
- [04:28]
B
All right. We'll get into all the specifics in a second. We're waiting for for Mr. Homan. But in the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, do you like to dress in comfortable clothes? Do you like to have bedding that's luxurious yet affordable? Do you like towels that feel like you're staying in the Ritz Carlton if the answer to any of these questions is yes, perhaps you'll take advantage of the opportunity. I would save a lifetime to purchase products from our friends at Cozy Earth using the promo code 2WMM. They'll give you 20% off everything, the whole kit and the entire caboodle. 20% off. If you go to cozyearth.com, use the promo code 2WMM. You've seen how much dogs and children love their products. But they're not just for dogs and children. Common misperception of adults like them too. The bubble cuddle blanket, wrap yourself in luxury. The towels, again, nothing like them. And a gentleman who doesn't own the Cozy Earth pants is condemning himself to a life of sadness, misery and alienation. Go to cozyearth.com use the promo code 2WMM for 20% off the entire thing. Cozyearth.com promo code 2WMM. Thank you for your attention to that matter and every other matter that's about to come before you as Larry, Kevin and I take you through the day. Here's the daybook, ladies and gentlemen, our daybook. The President's Day is kind of an interesting day. Starts out at 9am first of all, the new media pool is Tim Cast. Larry, tell everybody what Tim Cast is.
- [05:49]
C
The new Tim Cast is a very, very popular live stream show by Tim Pool. And it's, I would call it right of center but not your typical doctrinaire.
- [06:00]
B
Republican kind of thing. Kevin, you ever met him?
- [06:04]
E
Did I just see Tim Pool criticize the Attorney General too?
- [06:07]
B
Interestingly enough, he's, he sometimes he, I don't know but I wouldn't be, wouldn't be surprised as Larry said.
- [06:12]
E
Yeah, I think he, after last yesterday, I think he, he, I like against her a little bit. I like, I like how that goes.
- [06:17]
B
I like Tim Pool by the way, ladies and gentlemen. He's a nice guy. Anyway, here's the President's Day and again it's a little, it's a little confusing. The President's Day in the following sense. At 11 he gets his intelligence briefing. 1:30. He and Lee Zeldin are making an announcement on the environment in the roosevelt room at 1:30 and then at 3:00 clock he participates in a closed press policy meeting. 5:30, closed press policy meeting. Why do I say that's confusing? He hasn't had an open press event in a while where he's taking questions so we'll see if he does. Vice president's home from Europe. Not sure what he's doing. Lots going on in the Hill, including. They're going to vote in the Senate on whether to have a continue. Well, first they're going to vote on the House bill that funds Homeland Security. That'll not get 60 votes. Then they're going to vote on a continuing resolution to keep the government open that apparently will not get 60 votes. And they plan to just leave town on a week long recess with the government shut down. Last night the White House sent a legislative language codification of their previous counteroffer to the Schumer Jeffries legislative language. And the Democrats say it's not even in the ballpark. Like, like if Fenway's the ballpark. This is in Boston. It's not even close to the ballpark. And so they're just at loggerheads. What else going on on the Hill? Their last day before recess, 9 o' clock at this hour, Hakeem Jeffries and House Democrats steering and policy committee members holding a hearing on ICE accountability. There's some other hearings going on. I won't bore you with that. 12 o', clock, Mike Johnson, Byron Donalds, Burgess Owens speak in an event dedicating the House Press Gallery to Frederick Douglass. Josh Shapiro, 10:15 in Philly announces a housing action plan. Kamala Harris tonight, her book tour goes to Montgomery, Alabama. There you have it. All right, Kevin, how's this ICE thing going to end? How are we going to reopen the Department of Homeland Security?
- [08:19]
E
Not anytime soon. The incentive structure isn't there. You know, TSA is going to keep operating at normal pace. FEMA is going to still.
- [08:26]
B
How does, wait, how does tsa, how does TSA stay open?
- [08:30]
E
Well, because their paycheck schedule, at least for the next three weeks, they're covered. So, you know, we're not going to see the drawdowns like we did last call.
- [08:37]
B
So what's the real deadline? When is their pain?
- [08:43]
E
Could be months from now. Tim Kaine acknowledged until the American people really feel it and they're not, we're not likely to feel it for some time. Well, wait, I don't think the incentive sector there for them to actually do anything.
- [08:54]
B
You, you said months, but you also said their pay period is up again in three weeks. So is three weeks the deadline? Because that's when tsa.
- [09:01]
E
Well, they'll figure out, they'll figure out maneuvering to, to continue to fund tsa, obviously. But you know, I'd say within a month who they, who, who they and Christy know this is.
- [09:13]
C
Why should, Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa. Why should they, why should they bail out the Democrats from inflicting this pain on the American people. Well, don't you think the Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner with this list of 10 demands? Trump shows that he's working. They did a counter offer and it's dead on arrival. They're not budging from this. And you know they're not going to get all 10 demands. So what's their exit strategy?
- [09:36]
E
Their exit strategy is to look at the polling that we see right now that the American people want this in terms of these 10 demands. And the fact that you saw the White House late last night respond to it with two days to go, Larry, shows that maybe the White House is somewhat interested in a solution, but this is on the back burner for them, too.
- [09:54]
B
Yeah. So we'll see if what Homan is now saying will impact the debate. He's saying no arrests have been made at hospitals, churches or elementary schools during the operation. And he's talking about promoting public safety. So far, no announcement about pulling out. So let me ask you this, Larry. Simple, because I see both your points in whose court is the ball currently? Is the ball in the court of the president to be to say to Senate and House Republicans we got to be more accommodating to what the Democrats want? Or is the ball in the court of the Democrats to say, well, we'll take the issue to the voters, we're just going to not get a lot.
- [10:32]
C
Of stuff like where's I think that the president and Republicans have already been accommodating by offering a counteroffer, playing ball, agreeing to certain things like body cameras and such. Democrats have just said, no, we want all 10 of our demands or nothing at all. So I think that it's incumbent on the Democrats to show some movement here and trying to work with the administration. And I think that personally, I think that's what needs to happen here. I don't think all of the provisions in the list of 10 demands, like a hostage situation, is necessarily working with the American people, especially when they start to feel pain at the airports trying to get through tsa.
- [11:09]
B
Kevin, part of why I don't see how this ends is I really don't think Schumer and Jeffries can sacrifice much on their list of 10 things. I think the base would kill him because. Because if you believe what they believe, which is this is what all other law enforcement adheres to, it's not an unreasonable listen.
- [11:27]
E
And I think you have a lot of Democrats out there that think they actually won the shutdown battle from the fall by putting health Care front and center. And, you know, with the, the deal collapsing with Bernie Marino leading that charge in the Senate and the fact that, you know, we didn't get any solution on health care, I think you're going to see Democrats dug in and, you know, polling suggests that the majority, not just of Democrats, but independents, are with them on these 10 key issues. They don't understand why, you know, you can't get a judicial warrant to go into someone's home. They don't understand some of the other elements of this where, you know, and Angus King and others that are the more moderate members of the caucus are out there saying, you know, we're sticking to these 10, 10 items here. So as long as public opinion is still there for Democrats, see them budging.
- [12:12]
B
That much and it look, and it looks like it will be. So the Democrats have public opinion and the demands of the base and they're and their strong moral beliefs that these changes are required so more people don't die. Exactly right. And the Republicans have immigration overall and just the own the lib sensibility of we're not going to give them and also a strong policy belief that seven of the 10 things the Democrats are asking for are ridic.
- [12:37]
C
So, excuse me, Mark, Republicans also have strong moral beliefs, if I may use that phrase, that you aligned to the Democrats, that people's lives will be saved if we apprehend and deport illegal immigrant criminals. So we're interested in saving lives, too.
- [12:54]
B
That's what I meant to suggest with my last point. And you started to speak maybe before you heard it. They believe that these Democratic proposals will make America less safe. And, and, and, and so they, they, they, they have a principled objection to.
- [13:06]
E
To the list dug in on the moral high ground on both sides.
- [13:09]
B
So to close this up, to close this up to either of you have a scenario, because normally when there's a shutdown or threat of a shutdown, one can enunciate a scenario. Do either of you have a scenario of how this ends or no? I don't.
- [13:22]
E
I think, I think it ends with moving more to the middle on some of these things and then declaring victory and that it was his idea all along with the deployment of Homan and, you know, and flipping the script on Democrats, which he's effectively done in the past.
- [13:40]
C
Yeah, I think if the Trump administration moves in any significant away, in any significant way away from the deportation agenda they've been on, they lose most of their base. You want to talk about cratering numbers, it will be a disaster.
- [13:56]
B
But can they, but can they stay on their deportation agenda, agree to some number of what the Democrats are asking for or it'll just have agreed to that.
- [14:03]
C
Well, but again, Mark, you just laid out that it has to be all 10. It has to be all. Otherwise Democrats can't cave on any of it. There is no way the Trump administration can agree to moving the judicial process from an administrative immigration judge to a, to a court to a court of law. There's no way they can do that. That's. Yeah, but Larry, writing immigration enforcement.
- [14:23]
B
Yeah.
- [14:24]
E
And I give the president high marks on, on border security. Right. And the polling reflects that. But the amazing thing, you know that FOX News poll that he's like 20 points now underwater on immigration, does that motivate the administration? This is, this is his champion issue. And the fact now that he's 20 points under underwater on immigration, is that a motivating factor on this at all?
- [14:45]
C
Or if, if that number is accurate, it would go to 50 points underwater if he betrays his base on, on immigration and deportation.
- [14:54]
E
Interesting.
- [14:54]
C
There's just, there's no way.
- [14:56]
E
Yeah.
- [14:56]
B
Okay, let's talk about Savannah's mom for sec. A couple of things I want to raise. First of all, for a while, it appeared that the Guthrie's believed that they were in touch with the hostage takers, the kidnappers, and that they were, they were kind of negotiating to pay a ransom. And then it appeared that. That doesn't appear, that doesn't appear to be the discussion anymore. Now the conversation seems to be, can the police use these gloves or other, other evidence to find them? Just, just your gut. Because I know none of. Neither of you know. Larry, do you think that there are hostage takers, kidnappers who've made a ransom demand or not?
- [15:36]
C
I don't. It doesn't seem like they're behaving as though that's the situation. It seems like there's been zero context since that first TMZ letter. Right. Certainly from, from our perspective.
- [15:49]
B
Take this, take this down for just one second. I'm going to want it back up in a second. Kevin, do you have a sense, are they, are they negotiating for her return or that's no longer the case?
- [15:58]
E
I mean, I'm with Larry. I don't think it's the case because again, one of the major proof points is a proof of life, any kind of image or something. And we, and that likely would have been released to the public and we sadly haven't seen it after day 12 that we enter now today.
- [16:12]
B
Yeah. Enormous coverage of this story continues. The New York Times, here's their summary of, of what the latest and with the exception of the New York Post, chronicling the. The discovery of gloves, which may or may not be connected to the case. You can see from the time summary, those of you listening on the podcast, it's just nothing's really happening in the last 24 hours. Ever since they released that guy, you know, 30, 36 hours ago, who they picked up had nothing to do with the case. Nothing's happened except again, the discovery of these gloves this morning on Fox and Friends. And I'm just singling them out because Fox has covered the story more than anybody. They led with it, and they talked about nothing but this story for the first 15 minutes of the show. And what they led with was a chronology of the case, literally starting on the giant video wall. They started with the day she was taken. Like, that is not breaking news to go back a dozen days. So, Kevin, the New York Times has a story today about why there's so much interest in this story. Is there genuine public interest in this story or is it just like a media story that the press likes because it's a good process story and, and some people are interested. Is there, is there mass interest in this in the country, do you think?
- [17:20]
E
I will say from my personal experience that a lot of people in my life are positing theories. They're on text chains, having these conversations. You know, you, you mentioned, Mark, your conversation, too, you know, with high administration folks and stuff like that. This is captured.
- [17:39]
B
Elites. Elites are definitely interested. A lot of people know Savannah and her husband. But when you say people in your life, are you talking about civilians or political immediate people?
- [17:47]
E
My, my spouse, his family, they're all texting about it like, you know, yeah, Larry, there's huge interest.
- [17:53]
B
Larry?
- [17:54]
C
Yeah, we, we just went and saw a house in our neighborhood. A real real estate agent took us through to see a house, and halfway through the showing, she stopped and said, so what do you think's going on with Nancy Guthrie? I mean, it's just, just out of the blue. It's, it's on the top of people's minds.
- [18:09]
B
Now, I will say the guy who they picked up said he had no idea. He knew nothing about the story, and he lives, you know, 30 minutes away. So I'd just be curious if people are interested. The media is very interested in it, for sure, but I'd be curious if people are interested. All right, let's go to Trump and the environment. We don't need to Spend a ton of time on this. Again, the president's making a big announcement today with Lee Zelda and the head of the EPA another ratcheting down. You could give 50 examples of policy changes the Trump administration has made compared to Biden, of lowering regulation as it pertains to the environment, withdrawing from international conferences and agreements regarding the environment. And there's been a general change in the zeitgeist, I would say, are we going home? And he's saying something we need to see.
- [18:58]
F
We have a lot of work to do across this country to remove public safety risk who shouldn't even be in this country and to deliver on President Trump's promise for strong border security and mass deportation. Law enforcement officers drawn down from this surge operation will either return to the duty station or be signed elsewhere. To achieve just that, we will continue to enforce Title A immigration law throughout this nation, prioritizing national security threats and public safety risks. Makes sense. But I'll continue to say over and over again, if you are here in the country illegally, you are not exempt from our immigration laws. If we encounter you, we will take appropriate enforcement action. But those that say we are backing down from immigration enforcement or the promise of mass deportations, you are simply wrong. Look at the data. Record number of arrests and deportations under President Trump's first year, and we'll continue that effort. Prioritizing public safety threats and national security threats doesn't mean we'll forget about everybody else. We will take action on everybody else. That's just a stone cold fact. A small footprint of personnel will remain for a period of time to close out and transition full command and control back to the field office, as well as to ensure agitator activity continues to decline and that state and local law enforcement continue to respond to ensure officer and community safety. Additionally, federal government personnel assigned to conduct criminal investigation into the agitators, as well as the personnel assigned here for the fraud investigations, will remain in place until the work is done. I will also remain on the ground for a little longer to oversee the drawdown of this operation and ensure success, its success. In closing, I want to thank the leadership and senior management that I've worked.
- [21:02]
E
Okay.
- [21:03]
B
So the operation will conclude. He said determined efficiencies and challenges will conclude. Yeah, so that I don't think he. As far as I can see from watching out the corner of my eye, he wasn't specific on exactly what will remain. They'll obviously continue immigration enforcement in Minnesota, but it sounds like several hundreds are going to be withdrawn. And he said he himself is leaving. So Larry, how does this impact the debate?
- [21:25]
C
Yeah, he said, I think he said that they'd go back to the field offices that were already preexisting for DHS and so the surge would be over. By the way, 3,000 arrests during the surge in the last four weeks. That ain't nothing. I think it takes the heat off. It's what Tom Holman has done since the moment he sat on the ground there was to take the heat off. And it's interesting, Kevin, I mean with, with the threat over the shutdown and everything the Democrats are doing right now in the conversation we just had, it all started in the heat of it all after Alex Preddy and after the, you know, the overheated sort of attention to it. Doesn't it seem like we're in a different place now a couple of weeks later after Homan and now with this announcement? Isn't this also kind of a signal from the Trump administration that okay, we hear you, we're gonna move, we're just not gonna be threatened with this shutdown and acquiesce to all of your demands?
- [22:12]
E
Yeah, Larry, it's a really good point. And I think, you know, we had a conversation about this a few weeks ago where I said, you know, barring another really optic thing on the ground, officer involved shooting, you know, the protesters getting in the cops faces again and stuff like that, this goes on the back burner. Then a lot of the, the attention on this which was fueling these Democratic demands goes by the wayside. And I, you know, we, we talked about this. You know, it could have been the case now and we'll see hindsight 2020 where the Democratics, Democrats most effective time to really push for this was two, three weeks ago right in the wake of the Alex Freddie shooting. And as time goes on, more people move on and then headaches with the TSA might hurt. That polling that I referenced giving Democrats that edge on this issue.
- [22:58]
B
Just to get, just to double back to our first topic, does this mean they're more likely to get a deal today?
- [23:06]
E
Not, not today. Because I don't think, you know, you're not going to get this seven votes. The Democrats right now on, on that the House passed maybe on the CR four to six weeks. But I also doubt that too. And I give Thune a lot of credit for trying to navigate this. He's, he's a pretty effective majority leader and we'll see. But you know, you got Catherine Cortez, Massa, Jackie Rosen, others that are really dug in on this that were part of the coalition of the willing back in the fall to reopen the government.
- [23:32]
C
I think they're, the Democrats have two choices. They can either take this as an olive branch and say, okay, let's get this done, done, or they can say, aha, blood in the water. They blinked. They're retreating. We've got them on the run. Let's keep pressing. And I think they'll do the latter.
- [23:48]
A
Right.
- [23:48]
B
All right.
- [23:49]
E
Let's not overestimate Democrats ability to screw this up even when they've got polling on their side and national optics on their side.
- [23:57]
A
Yeah.
- [23:57]
B
All right, let's go back to the environment. Just is Democrats have never successfully, in a broad way organized around the environment. They've tried for two decades to make it a big voting issue. No indication that it is for, for too many. Kevin, will this, the president's move towards a greater emphasis on deregulation, will it hurt Republicans in the midterms? Is that an issue Democrats will talk about? Will they use the press conference today to say Republicans are going to harm the environment?
- [24:27]
E
I mean, it's, it's a motivating factor for some folks, but not, you know, not likely in the top 10 issues, you know, we all agree on clean air and clean water. And there's, I've run a lot of ballot campaigns, you know, for land trust and things like that on that, but it's not a huge motivating factor. And we'll see, you know, if you are able to get that Clean Coal award next year.
- [24:48]
B
Mark, I'm the front runner, but I'm taking nothing for granted. Larry, you, you care about clean air and clean water, and you don't want, and you don't want conservatives to be hurt by being seen as not concerned. Are you able to follow these policy changes and say, yes, these are good, these strike a good balance, or there's no way to know whether these strike a good balance between a clean environment and a growing economy.
- [25:12]
C
Well, I think, I think most of the regulation changes that the Trump administration are proposing isn't really affecting clean air or clean water as we would normally define. Clean air, clean water. It has more to do with the greenhouse glass gas, climate change, global warming kind of stuff.
- [25:27]
B
Okay, so are you, are you, are you confident that they're not going to destroy the planet with these changes? I'm not, I don't know.
- [25:33]
C
I, I think it's a chicken little thing. Yeah. I think the voters right now have seen this as a chicken little thing where from Al Gore to John Kerry to Bernie Sanders to aoc. They keep telling us we only have eight more years to save the planet. And they keep moving those numbers. And I think the American people see through it now and I don't think it's a big issue in Election Day.
- [25:52]
B
All right, yesterday, House voted to. With six Republicans joining all the Democrats or. But one I believe voted to say the President should stop his tariffs on. On Canada. Right. It was on Canada.
- [26:05]
E
Canada, Yep.
- [26:06]
B
Yeah. And the President attacked the six and threatened Republican senators who might vote against him on the same issue or other tariff overrides. Everybody's waiting for the Supreme Court to rule. These are, in the view of a lot of political pros, is stupid because the President should let these House members blow off steam. They're not going to get a veto proof majority to change his policies. So let House Republicans or Senate Republicans who want to express displeasure to their constituents with the President's policies to stop it. The President's also picking a fight with the Republican Governor of Oklahoma. You can see the Wall Street Journal headline there. Trump lashes out at GOP Governor Ramping up criticism of fellow Republicans. The President is not very popular right now. Poll after poll continues to show just devastating erosion of his support from Hispanics, from young people. There's several polls out today about how poorly he's polling with young people. It's kind of staggering the turn from how much support he got just in the election a year ago November. Here is, here is. Where is that? Here's 122. We've now seen three polls ask the question slightly different ways, but three polls that say voters, more voters prefer the Biden presidency to the Trump presidency, including on the economy. And if the President stays this unpopular, a lot of Republicans are wondering, how are Republican candidates, both incumbents and people running for open seats and challengers, how are they going to navigate being not disloyal to the President but, but separating themselves, being somewhat independent? Here's an interesting ad on behalf of the Republican Senate candidate from North Carolina being run by the Koch political operation. According to something I read this morning, they're spending over a million dollars on it. He's running against the former governor of North Carolina, Democrat and while he was the chairman of the Republican Party. Let me ask you this, guys, just subjectively. If you're chairman of the national party, are you a politician? You're a politician? I would say yeah. No, you have political skill.
- [28:12]
C
You have political skills, but you're not a politician.
- [28:15]
E
You're a fundraiser.
- [28:16]
B
You're a fundraiser Listen, listen closely to the messaging here on behalf of Mr. Whatley in the North Carolina Senate race In a new AD121 our families are struggling. We're stretched to our limits.
- [28:29]
C
But Washington, they play politics and put.
- [28:32]
E
Partisanship over delivering real solutions.
- [28:34]
B
We need new leaders. Michael Whatley is not a politician. He's a serious leader ready to solve problems. Whatley will stop wasteful spending, drive down prices and cut taxes so you keep.
- [28:48]
E
More delivering solutions that work for you. That's Michael Whatley's mission.
- [28:53]
B
MICHAEL whatley, US SENATE now, with the exception of saying he'd cut taxes, that could be a Democratic ad and it doesn't mention support from Donald Trump. He's Donald Trump's candidate, but it doesn't say send Michael Walley to go to Washington to help Donald Trump. Makes it seem like he's running against Washington, which last I checked was run by Republicans, including Donald Trump. Larry, what do you think of the messaging in that ad as it, as it foreshadows how other Republicans will message in the midterms?
- [29:18]
C
Well, I think it's an ad from Americans for Prosperity, so there's just so far they can go in terms of making it very partisan. But yes, it does strike me that there's going to be some candidates in some states who are going to have to try to have a message that is not necessarily the full on Trump message, but they're going to have to appeal directly to their voters in their states. And that's a pretty good indication and probably, by the way, a pretty good example. I think that's a really, there's a lot of talent behind that ad. I thought it was pretty effective.
- [29:48]
B
Kevin, is that a good ad?
- [29:50]
E
It's an okay ad. It's not super compelling. The voiceover is okay. I mean, I'm in the ad making business, but obviously AFP has deep pockets, so everything that they're going to put out there, especially with a six figure buy, is well researched, poll tested. So clearly they've done their research and that's the message that they think will win in November with this delicate dance that Republicans have to play. Not attacking the president, but going after Washington, which is everyone's favorite thing to do and always like that.
- [30:19]
C
Yeah.
- [30:21]
B
In the liberal media and amongst Democrats in Congress. They think the Pam Bondi testimony yesterday was a disaster. Disaster. Politico went so far as to say this 113. This is good stenography on the part of Politico. House Democrats think Pam Bondi just helped them in the midterms Tensions flared between Democrats and the Attorney General during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. They say Bondi was so outrageous and over the top and so unwilling to speak to the Epstein victims and accusers that it's going to help them in the midterms. Two things that she did that I referenced earlier in the program. One is she was extremely disrespectful to members of Congress. She called them names. She came with a bunch of opposition research. She filibustered. She, she, she was disrespectful. And yes, as Larry said, Democratic Cabinet members have been disrespectful, but I don't believe they came in this disrespectful, this non responsive asked a question about the Epstein victims. She, she cited the President's, the Dow Industrial Average numbers on the President's watch. And the other thing that came out during the hearings is the members of Congress who went to the Justice Department to use one of the four computers to do searches on the Epstein documents to see the unredacted versions or partially unredacted versions, apparently had their searches as after they logged in, apparently had their searches not just stored by the Republican Justice Department, but used as opposition research in order to craft the burn book of the Attorney General to come back at them with zingers. And here, here's a tighter shot, you can see of, of the search history of one member Democratic member of Congress. So the Attorney general basically they, they spied on them by keeping track of their searches in a way that I think some Democrats have rightly been outraged about. Kevin, what will the fallout be, if any, from Bondi's long appearance before House Judiciary yesterday?
- [32:16]
E
Well, not just Democrats in terms of that search history issue, but the speaker, you know, Speaker Johnson said, you know, it's problematic, I think was the word that he used, which is, you know, over the top. For him to say something like that, you know, that means, you know, he's certainly not pleased with that. Nothing really happens of this, that you have the optics of the, you know, the victims behind the Attorney General raising their hands, her not engaging with them. Okay, that, that might play for a little bit. But again, the AG is there with an audience of one, as we've seen with every other cabinet member for this administration. And I think, you know, Trump would give her high marks for her ability to spin and defend him and that's all that, that matters to him. So in that regard she, she did well because again, the audience is one, not necessarily the American people, but not necessarily Congress's role in terms of oversight in getting answers. And we know these things are just show trials now that, that they've morphed into where no one really is actually gathering any real information from these hearings and these witnesses.
- [33:18]
B
Larry, our friend Eric Erickson is a man of impeccable judgment. Correct.
- [33:22]
C
On many things.
- [33:24]
B
Okay, 114, please. Eric was outraged at the attorney General. He made it clear on his newsletter this morning on social media. Here's what he said on X. When the Attorney General of the United States is asked why she's prosecuted no one related to the Epstein, and this is her answer. She should be fired or resign. But neither will happen, which is another reason the Democrats are going to have a good election year. So Eric seems to think, and he's referring to her citing how the markets are doing when asked about no Epstein prosecutions. He seems to agree with the Politico headline that her performance yesterday will be a negative for Republican candidates. Larry, do you agree with that one point that this could be politically damaging in the midterms?
- [34:04]
C
Before we engage in this, I just want to point out that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is currently at 50,345. It's up 224 points as we speak.
- [34:13]
B
Yeah, I see that, Larry.
- [34:15]
E
With an audience of one.
- [34:16]
B
Yeah, Audience of one.
- [34:19]
C
I think. I don't know if this is going to impact the midterms because what Pam Bondi did yesterday, I think for the Republican base, they did eat it up. They liked it. Because here's the thing, and I do like Eric, and I've known Eric Erickson for many, many, many years. If Alejandro Mayorkas was not forced to resign or fired after sitting in front of that very same committee and saying the border is completely secure and there's no chaos and everything is fine. If Merrick Garland didn't have to be fired or resign after allowing what happened in the Justice Department and the attack on Catholics going to Latin Mass and investigations of grandmothers praying in front of abortion clinics, then, no, Pam Bondi should not be forced to resign or be fired. I mean, that's just.
- [35:02]
B
Yeah, but I'm asking. Reality of it, but I'm asking if it's possible it'll be politically damaging.
- [35:06]
C
I don't think so. I really don't. I really don't. I think that. I think that both sides already had their minds made up over Pam Bondi.
- [35:14]
B
Okay.
- [35:14]
E
What, Larry, can I ask a quick question? I know we're running short on time. The, the redaction elements and the. I'm interested that the result, the effects on the MAGA base with her testimony on Epstein, that it's still a dog with a bone for a lot of those folks that believe in this cover up the Lex Wexner thing, that there's still more there there. And the right wing intelligentsia that's out there about this, does that feel more on the right with her testimony?
- [35:45]
C
Yeah, I think there's still going yes, the answer is yes. I think there's going to be still a lot of streamers and a lot of podcasters who are angry at her and rightly so. By the I mean, listen, I wanted some answers to questions. I was frustrated when she was asked some questions like, well, why haven't there been any arrests? Well, her answer should have been, well, because we have investigated and it hasn't risen to the level of criminal offense. That's probably the answer. We deserve to get that answer.
- [36:11]
E
Yeah.
- [36:12]
C
So I was frustrated and there's many people like me who are frustrated. But I don't think it's going to have an impact politically.
- [36:17]
B
One more media story, one more Epstein point, then we'll go to your questions. So please raise your hand if you want the conversation. Some question about whether Howard Lutnick would be kind of radioactive after he was exposed as having not told the truth about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Would some people in Washington try to avoid Howard for at least for now? Well, the answer appears to be no. Politico this morning published the partial guest list of who attended Howard Ludnick's annual winter party last night at his Georgetown home. I'll read some of the bold face names for you of people happy to be associated with Secretary Lutnick. Pete Hegseth, Bobby Kennedy, Brooke Rollins, Scott Turner, Doug Burgum, Linda McMahon, all members of the Cabinet. Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Dave McCormick, Stephen Miller, Steve Scalise, Kevin Hassett, Dan Scavina, Will Sharp, Margo Martin, Dr. Oz, Kevin McCarthy, on and on and on of prominent people happy to appear with Lindsey Halligan, Happy to appear at the secretary's party. All right, quick word from a sponsor and then to your questions. Please raise your hand if you want to be in on this conversation. We'll get you in a moment. We're going to talk also a little later in the program about about tariffs and the State of the Union. Message from a sponsor. And that sponsor is CB Distillery. If you're having trouble sleeping, if you're having trouble relaxing, if you're having pain or soreness after exercise, try a product that's a set of products that have worked for over 2 million people. 2 million folks with 100% money back guarantee. Why not try it? If you're having trouble sleeping or some of those other issues, go to CBDistillery.com and get 25% off everything on the site. Use the promo code 2WMM. CBDistillery.com 2WMM Premium Quality Third Party Tested Free from artificial dyes and fillers. They're the source of Trust for over 2 million happy customers. Again, money back guarantee of 100%. Go to CBDistillery.com use the promo code 2WMM for 25 off. It's an opportunity to try something new and if it doesn't work for you, you send it back. CBDistillery.com promo code 2WMM thank you for your attention to this matter, ladies and gentlemen. We go to Arjun Argent. Welcome in. Tell folks who don't know after you unmute where you are and what's on your mind for Kevin and for Larry.
- [38:36]
A
Guys calling in from Ottawa, Canada.
- [38:40]
E
I.
- [38:40]
A
Want to talk about the tariffs and U. S Canada relations. So yesterday the tariffs were shot down by Congress, which is I guess a positive development for us here locally in terms of our politics because it's just been a huge crutch for us in terms of how people have been talking about US Trade and kind of what to do about it. So that's been a positive thing. But just in general with USMCA reviews coming up, as far as what we can do to understand what the president wants, like what's the end game in terms of what he wants from us. And if there's going to be a renegotiation, what concessions does he expect? What concessions is he going to be able to give? Because he's, it's going to have to be a two way thing.
- [39:32]
B
I'll say it's going to be very tough. It's going to be a very tough negotiation. The prime minister is not in good standing with the administration right now. The as I understand it, in July USMCA expires if any party wants to walk away from it.
- [39:46]
E
Right.
- [39:47]
B
And I, and I think you'll see the president more eager to make a deal with Mexico than with Canada. And, and I think the prime minister is going to have to really figure out how to appease the president to even get him at the table. That's my sense of things.
- [39:58]
A
The challenge, the challenge for him has been that it's really popular to be super anti Trump or anti American for local politics. So it's just, it's just been so difficult for him, even within his own party and otherwise, to make this case to be more lenient towards the president.
- [40:19]
B
Yeah, it is going to be a challenge. He's going to have to demonstrate extraordinary skill for a guy who's really a banker.
- [40:25]
C
LARRY Arjun, I think one of the things that's a real challenge here, which has sort of exacerbated where we are right now, was your prime minister's decision to make some kind of deal on the side with China that could only serve to exacerbate the relationship with President Trump. So, I mean, what I'm interested in, what the people in Canada, what Canadians are saying about that aspect of it especially.
- [40:49]
A
It's just so complicated because obviously the conservative side and sort of independents generally are very skeptical, very worried about it. But also, if you think about how anti American the Liberal Party is and party voters are, people see it as sort of a, a real positive thing that we're doing this just because they hate Trump so much.
- [41:15]
C
I totally get, I do get the animosity toward Trump and by extension, I guess, the U.S. but that doesn't mean then suddenly you embrace China.
- [41:22]
A
Right, But I guess that's just how the people here think. It's not, it's not a matter of it's not a rational thing, but that's just how it is. And so there's not much like I can say about that. Personally, I'm not odd about it. A lot of my circles aren't hot about it, but it's just how it is. It's just how people here think. It's just been tough.
- [41:43]
E
KEVIN I'll say two things. ARJUN Number one also, too, thinking of everyone out there with that horrific tragedy, too, I think, sadly, it hasn't gotten the attention here in the States, the horrific shooting.
- [41:57]
A
It's been, it's been a rough week for us. There's been, I know, I'm very sorry, quite a number of these cases in a short period of time. So.
- [42:06]
E
I think a lot of eyes will be on your prime minister in Munich as well. Obviously, he got a lot of attention in Davos for his speech. And I think Trump would envy the numbers that Carney has right now in terms of the favorability. And I think that is due to a large degree to his stance against the president and their kind of relationship back and forth. A lot of eyeballs, too, on your new envoy, your new ambassador, Mark Wiseman, who comes after seven years, brand new ambassador to Washington this weekend. So a lot of pressure on him as well. So we'll see how that plays out, too.
- [42:42]
B
Yeah. Arjun, thank you. Grateful to you.
- [42:43]
A
Thank you very much.
- [42:45]
B
Grateful to you. Richard, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Larry and for Kevin.
- [42:52]
F
Good morning, everyone.
- [42:53]
B
I'm in northern Colorado and a couple.
- [42:56]
F
Days ago there was an article in the New York Times. It was titled Republican Cash Edge Threatens to Swamp Democrats in the Midterms. And a Democratic strategist was quoted, Donald.
- [43:09]
B
Trump has 99 problems going into the.
- [43:11]
F
Midterms, but money ain't one of them. And I'm curious, first to Kevin, why.
- [43:17]
B
Aren'T Democrats raising more money?
- [43:20]
E
Richard, it's a great question and I'm glad you're highlighting it. And Mark, actually we talked about this a few weeks ago, especially looking at the drop off on small dollar donations, those kind of monthly 10, $5 donations that have been the lifeblood for a lot of campaigns. I think there's a lot of exhaustion after raising, you know, after the vice president Harris raised a billion and a half dollars to lose the popular vote and left the DNC in debt. And Ken Martin, the new DNC chair who's been there just over a year, has been working his way out of it. There are strong numbers with some candidates raising, you know, we talked about North Carolina, for example. Roy Cooper, you know, has consistently been doubling what Michael Whatley has been raising in that state. Same with Sherrod Brown, same with John Ossoff from Ohio to Georgia. So the candidates are raising money, but the institutions aren't there. And again, I think, Richard, it's a really good point. I think it's just general exhaustion by our donors and the fact that we had such high expect, high hopes and expectations, billion and a half dollars, only to lose the popular vote to the Republicans for the first time in a generation.
- [44:25]
B
Larry, thoughts on the money?
- [44:28]
C
Yeah, listen, the war chest is significant and it could actually save the day. The combination of the money on hand that the Republicans have, plus still the potential for the Supreme Court to come in on the Voter Rights act and then who the Democrats end up nominating as their candidates, those are the three wildcards that could save the Republicans in a year that should historically be really bad for them.
- [44:50]
E
I mean, Trump is sitting on like, Trump is sitting on like 300 million or something like crazy amounts of money.
- [44:56]
C
More coming. More is coming. Yeah. J.D. has not actually done a huge fundraising swing yet, which he's planning to do. And that's going to be, it's going to be big.
- [45:05]
B
Richard, thank you.
- [45:06]
E
Richard, thank you for raising that especially.
- [45:08]
B
Thank you. Jeff Miller is the most powerful lobbyist in American history.
- [45:14]
E
He's 25 million.
- [45:16]
B
He just raised he raised 25 million in two events. He's got an extremely successful lobbying firm, very close to a lot of Republicans, including this White House, including the speaker, former Speaker McCarthy. But he does it the old fashioned way. He has tons of clients, raises tons of money for the politicians. He's an incredible story. It's One of the 20 books I want to write is about Jeff Miller. He'd never cooperate with me, but it's incredible what he's done and they're their money advantage is real for now, except as Kevin said in some of the Senate races. We're gonna switch stand by for more questions from you all. But let's switch to talking about the State of the Union. That's coming up as part of our series with our partners at USA facts. USA FACTS is a nonpartisan public policy group nonprofit that takes government data that's available and puts it in a form that can inform the public debate. If you haven't checked out their website, signed up for their newsletter, I recommend it to you. I read them every day. But because this is essential to understand what the government is doing, what the government's saying. And in the run up to the State of the Union, we're joined again by Richard Coffin, chief of research and advocacy at USA Facts. Richard, great to have you back. First, let's be we're going to talk about tariffs today and look at some data related to tariffs. But the first thing want to do is talk about the State of the Union and why the State of the Union is such a big deal. Is Richard not here? I'm introducing him, but we are a little bit early. Richard's not here yet. Richard's not here.
- [46:46]
E
All right.
- [46:46]
B
Well, we'll set it up then. For Richard. The State of the Union is a couple of weeks away. And typically in previous administrations there was always a very careful plan to leak out stuff from the State of the Union, you know, to say give the New York Times a thing. There's going to be a proposal that says this and this and give CBS a little thing, this and this. Trump 1.0, Trump 2.0. They haven't really done that. They haven't been as interested in selling in advance. So Larry, first question is why do you think they don't do this run up stuff?
- [47:16]
C
Honestly, I think right now they're still figuring out what the speech is going to be. I'm sure they've had quite a few drafts, but I don't think the President has been entirely focused on it. And until the President actually puts his pen to paper and starts redlining stuff, there's nothing really officially to leak out slowly. I think that, and especially with the DHS funding issue that they're faced with right now, I think they want that resolved before the State of the Union. And if it's not, that's going to change the tenor of the speech in a big way.
- [47:46]
B
Yeah. Kevin, are the states, are, are the stakes big on this speech? Is this, is this a big thing for the President's policy agenda? Big thing for the midterms or not?
- [47:56]
E
I think it's always a big thing. I think it's a question of what happens next. Right. You know, Susie Wiles previewed the President traveling all over. He did that Iowa speech three weeks ago. And we haven't seen much in terms of, you know, on the affordability element of it. So the speech is a lot of eyeballs. But also too, you know, where does the administration go from there? Because it really does take off the election season. And again, we folks have already started voting, I think next week in Texas. So I mean, the pr, you know, the primaries are on and the midterms are on. Yeah.
- [48:24]
B
Richard, I did your, your, very, my very lovely introduction of you before you got here. So I want to do. No, all good, but great to have you back and, and just talk about what USA Fax is doing in the run up to the midterms, how you're, how you're kind of setting the table for people to understand the policy implications of the speech.
- [48:40]
D
Yeah, absolutely. And thanks for having me back. We've been doing a State of the Union report every year since 2020. We realized years ago, you know, our mission to bring facts to the country through data is something that really is what the President's supposed to be doing during the State of the Union. And for, you know, the last many decades, it's really been more of a political message that's about the agenda, not really just about delivering the facts to the country. And so we put out a numbers based report about issues that the President is likely to talk about a couple of weeks before the State of the Union. Not trying to fact check, not trying to number check, just give the country a news companion that they can have alongside the actual speech.
- [49:16]
B
All right, so tariffs are a big deal now. We're waiting for the Supreme Court decision. The House voted yesterday. The President's clearly going to talk about the importance of tariffs to, to his economic policy agenda in the speech. So you've got a couple of charts that you're going to share now. First one is about how big a part of the economic flow and money flow now is due to the tariffs in place. So go ahead.
- [49:43]
D
Yeah, so last year, last fiscal year, we brought in about $195 billion in tariffs, and that's significantly more than we brought in in the years before. Before. It's, it's, it's about, it's, we brought in only about, I think, 77 billion the year before. And so it was really quite a significant increase. But it's, it's still a pretty small part of the overall budget. I mean, the, the, you know, programs like Medicaid cost over 800 billion. Programs like SNAP cost about 150 billion. So that would have paid for that. But, you know, the other thing that I think people look at a lot is the, the deficit. Right? And I don't mean the trade deficit. I mean the annual deficit of, you know, spending minus revenue. And that was about $1.8 trillion last year. So we would have had to have increased tariffs by about 9x to have actually made up for that. So I think it's, it's a huge increase and yet it still is small compared to the rest of the budget.
- [50:32]
E
Right.
- [50:33]
B
And for those of you listening on the podcast, you can see the chart from USA Facts. As Richard said, huge increase over previous years of how much revenue is being collected from custom duties in the last fiscal year. But, but as he also said, it's just the President's claim that this is some huge part of what's currently driving American revenue. It's just not true. It's, it's, it's not, it's more than it's been, but not, but not a lot in the overall picture. All right, so let's talk about the tariff rates again. The President sometimes will announce tariff rates on social media, and then they don't actually take effect. And sometimes they'll announce them, they'll take effect, and then they'll pull them off. So where are we now on tariff rates? The context of history.
- [51:12]
D
Yeah, a great question. And you know, just to give some credit to our amazing team at USA Facts, tariff rates are so hard because they're by product, by country, and they change all the time. But this was something we were able to pull out. That is the average effective tariff rate across all products, across all countries. It was about 7.5% over the last year. But you can see recently, remember, all these actually really went into effect around April. And so recently it's been around 10%. And, you know, that's really higher than it's been since any time, since at least the 1970s. And, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a significant increase in the rate that we're charging in foreign goods.
- [51:47]
A
Right.
- [51:48]
B
And again, you can see in the chart, the rate increase is quite substantial. All right, last chart. Richard, take it away in turn, in terms of what this shows.
- [51:57]
D
Yeah. So this one, this one's fun. This is the trade deficit, and that's different from obviously the, the national deficit I was talking about earlier. This is the. The amount we import minus the amount we export in the difference. The difference there. Or, sorry, the amount we export minus amount we import in the difference there. And, you know, one of the things that have been talked about a lot is, is, is our tariffs going to change this balance, this trade balance. And you can see actually last year, the trade deficit went up a little bit. And I think a lot of that, as you can see, that little spike that happened in, in February, March and April. And I think, as we mentioned, you know, the president announced a lot of these tariffs early in his administration, but they didn't really go into effect until April and May and whatnot later in the year. And the result of that was people actually imported a ton of stuff right before that, and so it actually raised the deficit a little bit.
- [52:39]
B
Yeah. So, again, this is all work in progress, but, but really illuminating in terms of setting the table for the State of the Union in terms of actual facts as opposed to some of the rhetoric. Larry, a comment or question for Richard.
- [52:50]
C
I have a question. I mean, and USA Facts is such a great resource. So, Richard, thank you for providing all of this. I think the President's instinct is to stand up there at the State of the Union and deliver all the data points that he can draw on that show how the economy is great and everything's wonderful and everything he's doing is working. But as has been said often, and often right now, people aren't feeling it. So what's the danger there? How does he find the sweet spot there in terms of conveying facts and data points that do show that the economy is in a good place, but not sounding like Biden and Kamala Harris in 2024 saying, hey, happy times are here again, when people were spending way too much at the grocery store.
- [53:30]
D
Yeah, it's so interesting. It's actually a problem we grapple with a lot because national statistics just really aren't personal. You know, I mean, they don't, they don't really get to what people are actually feeling. And, and I think, you know, honestly, I think the best thing he could do is to deliver a little bit of bad news in the middle of it too. Right. Give a little bit of honesty in that. I think the, the jobs numbers that came out this morning, it actually revised downwards. The, the jobs for the last year I think is actually something relevant. Right. And I, you know, I mean, I think we would be interested in. Is there a way to actually make sure that we're providing even better data in the future so that people can track these numbers a little more real time and it be a little more real compared to what they're showing.
- [54:03]
B
Kevin?
- [54:05]
E
Richard, thanks for being on. And I want to echo, Larry, in terms of just how helpful the USAFax pages. I know there's a number of issues that you profile to, in addition to the tariffs in the economy, immigration, education, budget, defense, spend. Just two moments just talking about some of those issues in that report previewing the State of the union on the 24th.
- [54:26]
D
Yeah, absolutely. So, so we talk more about the economy in addition to tariffs. We go deep into the budget. I mean, that was such a big question this year, right. With the different levels of appropriations processes and you know, how, how the budget was going to get passed. It, you know, talks about the different categories of spending, which is, and I think it gives a great visualization that I think every American should know. That just shows what the picture is of spending in this country. Like you said, talk a lot about immigration, look at border encounters falling compared to previous years, look at deportations increasing, things like that. We spend a bunch of time on national defense, looking at troops and how that's changing. And at least with the available data, we look into standard of living, which to Larry's question really goes deeply into what are people actually feeling? What are people's lives like in terms of what they have to spend, what taxes look like. And then we go into a few other issues as well. But you know, we try to, we try to pinpoint the things that the President's going to talk about. Hopefully we're pretty close to the areas that he focuses on.
- [55:21]
B
Again, if you want to be part of, part of the national debate and understand what's going on, do what people in my business do, a lot of people in government do, including in Congress, go to, go to usafex and just, just, you know, spend some time with it. Sign up for the newsletter and just better understand what the government data means and how to, how to put it in context. We put the address in the chat. But Richard, if people want to learn more, where can they go?
- [55:45]
D
Yeah. USAFacts.org and specifically for this, go to slash State of the Union. And we will, we will be here through the speech.
- [55:53]
E
Great.
- [55:54]
B
And we'll see Richard in a couple of weeks, if not sooner, to talk about the speech itself and some more of the data coming out of it. Richard, grateful to you. Thanks for being here.
- [56:02]
D
Thank you, Mark. Great to be here.
- [56:03]
E
Thanks, Richard.
- [56:03]
C
Hey, Kevin, Adam in Florida in the chat has a really good question. Do we know. I was just going to say that response.
- [56:10]
E
I don't think we know yet. Mark.
- [56:13]
C
Oh, Mark, you're muted.
- [56:15]
E
We can't hear. Mark.
- [56:16]
C
Or something.
- [56:17]
B
I laughably predicted it'll be Nancy Pelosi. I don't think it will be. But that's my, that's right. That's my joke. Guess. I don't know. They haven't said, they haven't said Schumer.
- [56:24]
E
Schumer and Hakeem kind of decide together, I think. Right. Is that.
- [56:27]
C
Well, I think they should do it.
- [56:29]
B
No, stop it. Usually I think one of them takes the lead and the other one has to validate it. I think that's the way they do it. I think it'll be almost certainly a younger person. Person would be my guess. That's my sp.
- [56:40]
E
I would love, I would love if it was John Ossif and we talked Mark about his from the other day.
- [56:45]
B
That would be, I mean, to me, cycle, you know, he's the party. Yeah.
- [56:49]
E
He's the rising South.
- [56:52]
B
And let me say something, let me say something. Let me say something. This is not my, my opinion. This is my reporting. A lot of people in the party, including a lot of women of color, want the face of the party and, and the 28 nominee to be a white man. They just do. They just, they just think that's the, that's the right politics. So I think it'll be a young white man. That's my prediction. We'll see. We'll see if I'm right. All right.
- [57:12]
C
Perhaps.
- [57:13]
B
Yeah. Kevin is a young white man. Bob, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are and what's on your mind. For Kevin and for Larry, I'm in.
- [57:21]
E
I'm in Northern Illinois.
- [57:22]
B
Thanks for bringing me on this morning.
- [57:24]
E
I know that we're pressed for time.
- [57:26]
B
I Had a question about the SAVE act, specifically the fact that it passed the House last night.
- [57:31]
E
But only one Democrat, if I have.
- [57:33]
B
This correct, was involved with that. And yet the polling shows, you know, 84 support, including 70% Dems want, you know, agree with the idea of needing ID for elections or to vote, basically.
- [57:47]
C
So I mean, why, why are the.
- [57:51]
B
Democrats so dug in seemingly on this concept? I'll just keep it that brief. It's a great question. So it seems, it seems way out of whack. Yeah, Kevin. And they're on the wrong side of an 8020 issue. What I hear them say is when we explain it better, that it will switch from 80 20. That's what Schumer and others have said.
- [58:09]
E
Yeah, that's what, that's what Schumer said. We talked about this a few weeks ago. This is not Jim Crow on steroids or 2.0. We've got to get. Democrats have got to get a better response. I think, you know, the fact that I think it's like 69 million women don't have a birth certificate that matches their name because they've been married. Half of us don't have active passports in the country is one of the requirements. Is problematic, I think to the registration element of it, not the voter ID element of it where you need an id, you know, a driver's license or something like that to vote. But I think obviously this goes nowhere in the Senate because you're not going to hit that 60 vote threshold. And despite Larry saying it's a 6, 7 chance that they get rid of the filibuster, I don't think they're doing it on that front. But Bob, we got to get a better answer on it for sure.
- [58:54]
B
Yeah. Look, you know, I heard Catherine Clark.
- [58:58]
E
Say it's, it's election rigging, you know.
- [59:00]
B
Basically to require this.
- [59:01]
E
Yet 80% of people don't.
- [59:03]
B
Yeah. Thanks for watching.
- [59:04]
C
To require only citizens vote is election rigging is really a new one. Yeah, I just need to keep saying it. You, you aren't required to show a birth certificate or passport. You're required to show one of a list of documents and it is the exact, exact same list that every single married woman with a name change has to provide when they get a job on the i9 for. So there's no difference.
- [59:28]
B
Fun fact. You can use your Costco membership card. That's a.
- [59:30]
E
You heard it here, Larry o' Connor attacking stay at home moms that don't have a job.
- [59:35]
B
That's, that's how I heard it too.
- [59:38]
C
Bob. Thanks.
- [59:39]
B
Sorry, we got, we got to jump. All right. I need to tell you about some stuff. 4:00 clock today, my friends at the Group Chat, our colleagues, our if you've not watched the show, I recommend it to you. The Group Chat, Emmett Jo Morris, Anita Turner, Robbie Suave. Guest coast is former candidate for Fulton County Superior Court and civil and human rights attorney, political strategist Robert Patillo. Do you know him? Do you know Robert, Kevin?
- [60:00]
E
I've been on. Yeah, I've been on tv.
- [60:02]
B
All right. So join that join. Join the group chat. 4pm today, 5 o' clock tonight. Two way tonight. All the latest news tomorrow, Kevin and Larry will be back and we'll have winners and lose of the week and what to look for today on on next up. And we're going to go a little over because I want to do this. Rand Paul will join me. We're going to talk about some of his principled stands against the status quo. Andrew Sullivan will join me. I'm not sure what we're going to talk about yet. I have to decide because I want to talk about everything with Andrew. My reported monologue is going to be on this question of different standards for different people that are hard to understand, of who gets asked about controversies, who survives controversies. And going to go back to a bygone era. This is George H.W. bush. There was a big story in a book about accusations that he had an extramarital affair with an aide. He'd been asked about it at Kenny Bunkport in a press conference by CNN's Mary Tillotson. And he took her head off and it some say ruined her career. Here he is in the Oval Office with Stone Phillips of NBC. This is tension City Watch it Governor Clinton has been asked directly be careful now because the interview might end. So let me ask you.
- [61:13]
E
Yeah.
- [61:14]
B
Have you ever had an affair? I'm not going to take any sleaze questions. I gave you a little warning. You see, you're perpetuating the sleaze by even asking the question, say nothing of.
- [61:26]
C
Asking it in the Oval Office. And I don't think you ought to do that.
- [61:28]
B
And I'm not going to answer the question. You were asked this morning to respond.
- [61:32]
C
To a very specific allegation which you very strongly denied. And I was just asking a more general question.
- [61:39]
B
And I because I think it goes.
- [61:41]
C
To the point of I've just answered.
- [61:42]
B
The question for you.
- [61:44]
C
That's it.
- [61:46]
B
Now I bring this up in the context of the the Epstein files where some accusations are raised that people get asked about and some people for whatever reason don't get asked about. There's stuff, there's new stuff about President Trump today that that people have unearthed in the file. There's new stuff about Kathy Rummler, the general counsel at Goldman Sachs. Today there'll be more new stuff and there's just a strange phenomena. Some people get asked stuff and some people don't. Some people get asked and don't answer and pay a price. Some people get asked, answer and don't pay a price. It's all very strange. I'm going to try to sort it out. That's next up. Drops later today and we've got some more clips to show. But I love that one.
- [62:26]
C
Yes, if only they knew what was going to happen in that very Oval Office a few years later.
- [62:31]
B
Exactly.
- [62:35]
E
This is still a family show.
- [62:38]
B
And what the subsequent president would be asked and how he would answer and what kind of price he would pay for that.
- [62:43]
C
Right.
- [62:44]
B
But how many politicians get asked that question, let alone the president of the United States in the Oval Office? Larry, of the 100 U.S. senators, how many think have ever been asked if they've had an affair?
- [62:55]
C
Probably current hundred senators.
- [62:56]
B
The current hundred. How many? Probably none. And how many do you, how many you think might have had affairs? Larry out of 100, I would say a good.
- [63:05]
C
Well, the men, certainly. Yeah.
- [63:06]
B
Well, anyway, it's fascinating.
- [63:08]
C
Marcia Blackburn would have an affair, hasn't been asked.
- [63:12]
B
It's a fascinating topic. Again, it's not just about their personal lives. It's about their finances. It's about their household help. It's about whether they've ever used illegal drugs. There's just a million things. It's almost random who gets asked and who doesn't. Anyway, join me on Next Up. That'll drop later today on YouTube and as a podcast. I'll see you at 5:00 clock tonight for two way tonight. And the three of us will be back tomorrow winners and lose the week. What to look for this weekend. And you can't say the super bowl because we already had it. Have a great day, everybody. Thanks. Thanks to Richard and USA Facts and thanks to you all for being part of two way. I'll see you at 5. See you gentlemen in 23 hours.
- [63:45]
E
Thanks everybody.