Iran Turmoil Hearts Up in What Could Be Regime's End; Tensions Flare Between ICE, Protesters in MN

Summary

The Morning Meeting – Episode Summary

Date: January 9, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin (2WAY), with panelists Kevin Walling, Larry O’Connor
Key Episode Themes:

• Unrest in Iran and speculation about regime change
• Tensions in Minnesota following an ICE-involved shooting and political/legal fallout
• US domestic politics: Supreme Court tariffs case, Hill votes, Fed chair rumors, and dynamics heading into 2028
• Shifts in Russia/Ukraine conflict and US global policy (including Venezuela)
• Listener Q&A on housing, stock trading reforms, and “sanctuary cities”

---

Overview

This episode of "The Morning Meeting" delivers a rapid-fire analysis of the day's top political and world news stories as viewed by insiders. The central themes are turmoil in Iran—with potential repercussions for the regime—and continued friction in Minnesota over a controversial ICE shooting. The panel weighs political strategies, legal ramifications, and global power plays, while making room for audience engagement on issues ranging from housing policy to campaign prospects for 2028.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. US Political Daybook: Presidential Schedule, Economic Numbers, and Pending Decisions

• President's schedule is closed to the press except for meetings with Secretary Rubio and energy sector execs regarding Venezuela, followed by a trip to Palm Beach.
• Awaiting Supreme Court tariff decision—speculation over potential market reaction and court splits (possible Roberts/Barrett defection).
• John Thune and Republican senators at the southern border as immigration continues to dominate headlines.
• Unemployment figures: 50,000 new jobs in December; unemployment dips to 4.4%. Numbers are decent but underwhelming (“not great. They’re not horrible.” —Mark, [05:41]).

2. Minnesota: ICE Shooting, Protest Fallout, and Political Maneuvering

• Ongoing uncertainty about investigations: tough path for federal or state prosecution. Most think the Trump DOJ won’t indict the ICE agent ([08:07]).
• Disagreement over federal vs. state investigative roles; expectation that state may try but feds will seek to move/toss the case ([08:50]).
• PR war is ongoing: Minnesota Democratic officials viewed as weak in media strategy. The panel suggests focusing on calls for federal-state collaboration to boost transparency (“there is a moral argument to be made for that collaboration…” —Kevin, [11:05]).
• Explores potential for the incident to shape national dialogue and preview 2028 politics, especially with a Democrat potentially stepping up to urge protesters to nonviolence (“Now is the time to stand down, stop with the direct actions… The national figure who says that I think really has a chance in 28.” —Larry, [14:16]).
• “Winners/Losers” dynamics: Amy Klobuchar surprisingly absent from the news cycle, despite her standing in-state ([16:10]).

3. Iran: Protests and Possibility of Regime Change

• Unfolding, massive protests: panelists transfixed by coverage and the regime’s move to cut off the internet (“Never a good sign when the regime is cutting off Internet” —Kevin, [18:11]).
• Escalation noted as protesters openly call for death to the Ayatollah; government buildings are burning ([18:35]).
• “Blew my mind. Absolutely blew my mind.” —Larry, referring to images from Tehran, [17:50].

4. Russia/Ukraine: Supersonic Missile Use and Stalled Negotiations

• Russia's use of nuclear-capable, supersonic missile described as alarming; viewed as response to Western security guarantees and troop offers ([20:05]).
• Ceasefire prediction market gives only 45% chance for any agreement in 2026.
• General consensus: No deal likely; Russia appears unwilling with foreign troops on Ukrainian soil ([20:41]).
• “Trump hates that stuff when he sees innocent people… women and children. That actually affects him.” —Kevin, [21:42].
• Discussion of the US seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker in the presence of Russian subs—possible signal to Putin, and evidence of Russia’s marginalized status ([22:09]).

5. Venezuela & International Spheres of Influence

• President’s meeting with Venezuelan opposition figure Machado. Panel speculates about her potential as US-backed leader and about Trump seeking a “Nobel Prize” moment ([23:21]).
• Ongoing theme: US moves in Venezuela as a potential piece in the US–Russia/China power chessboard.

6. US Domestic Politics: Tariffs, The Fed, and Congressional Dynamics

• Supreme Court pending tariffs decision—high market and political stakes, but timeline uncertain ([04:11]).
• Debate about the next Fed Chair—Kevin Hassett vs. the field. Betting odds and insider insights offered, with several panelists favoring Hassett ([26:35]).
• House/Senate relationship with Trump: Despite defections, no grand “rebellion” on Capitol Hill; panel rates Republican “rebellion” at “five” out of ten ([29:56]).
• Analysis of recent NYT Trump interview: Much bluster, little lasting significance ([30:47]).

7. 2028 Democratic Primary Preview: Newsom vs. Shapiro

• Audio excerpts from Newsom and Shapiro speeches dissected.
• GOP strategist Jeff Roe on Shapiro: “Democrats would have a really hard time with a white guy and let alone a Jewish white guy. …I think that he's our worst nightmare [general], and the least likely of the top contenders…to make it through.” ([35:57])
• Panel split: Larry compares Shapiro to Scott Walker (“wasn’t the right moment”), while Kevin argues Democratic base is pragmatic and Shapiro might well break through ([37:40]).

8. Senate 2026: Dems’ “Path to Four”

• Panel’s “best analysis” of Dems’ four top seat pickup opportunities: North Carolina, Maine, Ohio (Sherrod Brown), and at-large in Alaska (Mary Peltola) ([39:56]).
• Skepticism remains about success; Larry: “That's why it's not going to happen because North Carolina and Maine are going state Republic and probably Ohio will as well.” ([40:20])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This could be a sister soldier moment for Klobuchar.” — Larry, speculating on Amy Klobuchar’s possible role ([16:42])
• “I'm transfixed on these videos... Yesterday's images from Tehran blew my mind. Absolutely blew my mind.” — Larry ([17:50])
• “First time I've seen signs that say 'Death to the Ayatollah.'” — Kevin ([18:11])
• “It’s a PR war on. ... Democrats and the governor should focus on that and getting to the bottom of this; hopefully some cooler heads will prevail. Not this debate over whether she was murdered or killed or what have you.” — Kevin ([11:05])
• “If fraud ends more careers, it’s a good thing. The American people hate this kind of stuff.” —Kevin ([59:17])
• Winner of the week: “Marco Rubio is having his moment.” — Larry ([41:57])
• Loser of the week: “Tim Walz is the loser of the week.” — Larry ([42:43])
• “I just cannot believe… Trump said this in the New York Times. …Everything in that interview, literally all two hours is like, he’ll say whatever he’ll say. …There’s no meaning to any of this.” — Mark ([30:47])

---

Audience Q&A Highlights

• Housing Policy/Corporate Ownership (Lance, [44:33]): Discussion on Trump’s proposal to limit corporate ownership of single-family homes. Larry supports the proposal, calling it “the right side of this one,” while Kevin warns against a blunt ban, stressing the policy needs nuance.
• Stock Trading Reform “Pelosi Act” ([45:29]): Skepticism over whether Congress will ever meaningfully restrict stock trading among its members; “They always find a way to get around it.” — Larry ([47:37])
• Sanctuary Cities and Federalism (Bob, [51:04]): Comparison to civil rights era; Larry and Kevin reflect on federalism tension and suggest the need for Democrats to rethink sanctuary policies or risk more conflict.
• Venezuela & Spheres of Influence (Mallory, [55:55]): Listeners draw connections between US moves in Venezuela and signals to Russia/China. Kevin and Larry see spheres-of-influence debate at play; Larry doubts Trump is playing “three-dimensional chess” privately.
• Consequences for Fraud (Mike, [58:50]): Fraud (especially with federal funds) is a bipartisan political killer with likely more fallout to come.

---

Important Timestamps

• Minnesota PR/legal crisis: [08:07] – [16:42]
• Iran protests analysis: [17:07] – [18:46]
• Russia/Ukraine escalation: [20:05] – [22:47]
• Venezuela/US diplomacy: [22:47] – [23:59]
• 2028 Democratic primary debate: [32:07] – [38:56]
• Senate 2026 “path to four”: [39:24] – [40:26]
• Audience Q&A housings/stocks: [44:33] – [48:03]
• Discussion on fraud & consequences: [58:50] – [60:44]

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is fast-paced, insiderish, and often sardonic. Panelists are forthright about strategic realities in politics, media narratives, and the limits of White House/political messaging. Listeners chime in with practical and sometimes wonky policy questions, which the hosts answer with both seriousness and wit.

---

Visit Takeaways

For listeners who missed the episode:

• Massive developments in Iran could signal regime change; panelists are riveted but cautious.
• ICE shooting in Minnesota underscores tensions between federal and state law enforcement; PR battle and legal gamesmanship predicted to continue.
• The Russia/Ukraine front remains unpredictable; Russia's use of advanced missiles and US actions in Venezuela are seen as strategic signaling.
• The US political sphere is full of jostling: Supreme Court and Fed appointments, shifting House/Senate allegiances, and 2028 primary undercurrents.
• Robust, occasionally fractious Q&A underscores overt discontent with big-money politics, congressional stock trading, and affordable housing crises.
• If you want to sound informed on Twitter (or at the office), this is the 45-minute morning catch-up you need!

Transcript

[A]

I'm James Patterson. 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.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

BJ Novak.

[C]

Yay.

[A]

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.

[D]

Foreign.

[B]

Yes, collecting little bottles, ladies and gentlemen, that's the theme of today's episode. Welcome in. This is the morning meeting. Kevin Walling, Larry o' Connor here with us to run you through the day. It's Friday, January 9th, and the Minnesota story is still with us, but there's a ton of news happening around the world. The Iran story is so big. We'll talk about that. It's Friday. We'll have our winners and losers of the week and what to look for this weekend. And things could explode during the day, including the supreme court, which at 10 Eastern time may rule on the tariffs will be fascinating to see if they rule against the administration or for the administration, frankly, what the markets do, because the markets have, have mixed feelings, to say the least about the tariff regime regiment. So we see about that. We'll run through the day book, then we'll talk about the news of the day. And then as always, if you're here on the two way platform and you want to get on the conversation, raise your hand. I see already some hands up and they're familiar faces, members of the community who do like to raise their hands, which is great, but we'd love for some new people too. So if you've never raised your hand before and today you want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. Gentlemen, good morning. As I run through the day book, I'm going to ask you about a few things. So stand ready. The President. Interesting schedule. Another day of all closed press events. He's been, he's been virtually invisible this week with the exception of course, of his two hour interview at the New York Times, which we'll Talk about today. Three closed press events as of now, 11 o' clock meets with Secretary Rubio. Interesting they put that on the schedule because he meets with Secretary Rubio on a regular basis. But for some reason they're briefing, they're, they're noticing that and lunch with The Vice President 2:30 meets with the oil and gas executives to talk about Venezuela and then he's headed to Palm Beach. Not sure what he's going to do down there over the weekend, but it is the season, as we say. Kevin, where are you today?

[C]

I'm actually down in Palm Beach. Family.

[E]

Yeah.

[C]

So I saw Trump Force One when I landed. I have obviously Air Force One isn't here yet.

[B]

So if, if you say something provocative on the show, Kevin, you might get invited to Mar a Lago. So feel, feel free to customize your.

[C]

Or the band might continue. So we'll see.

[B]

Yeah, we'll see. Anyway, Vice President, as I said, having lunch with the president, Marco Rubio meeting with the president. Senate is out. House Hispanic Caucus is having a press conference on Venezuela policy at 9 o'. Clock. At this hour, House is voting on at 10 on legislation to roll back Biden error energy efficiency standards. And John Thune is with a number of Republican senators and Senate candidates on the border today in in Texas, on the Mexican border. Governor Walsh has asked there to be a moment of silence at 11 Eastern today in Minnesota Supreme Court, as I said hearing announcing a number of opinions at 10 o' clock and people widely expect there to be the tariff decision. Kevin I never predict court justices, justices or juries, let's say the court strikes down the tariffs. The administration expected then to find other avenues to continue them. And let's say the court says but the money that's already been collected can be kept. How do you think the Dow would react to that in the S and P?

[C]

It's a good question. I honestly don't know. Obviously, the administration has focused like a laser on this tariff issue. We saw the justices throw some cold water on some of the the elements of the defense of this use in an emergency capacity. But it will certainly be anyone's guess in terms of how that will all play out. I suspect it won't happen today. Obviously they usually leave their more controversial decisions for later on in that reporting period. So maybe next week I doubt they come right out swinging with that decision.

[B]

I've been such a critic of the courts for not understanding that they've got an obligation to rule quickly and break their normal 19th century pacing. Larry, let's say the president loses and if he loses, let's say he loses five, four, he could lose six, three Potentially. Who would, who are the most likely Republican nominated justices, do you think, to defect on this case?

[E]

I have the conventional wisdom is that a combination of Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett would be the two that defect. Mixed bag on Gorsuch. I think potentially he's, he's hard to predict as well. I don't know. Conventional wisdom though is often wrong these days in the era of Trump in this court. So we'll see. But the idea of keeping the money, I mean the whole crux of this argument before the justices was about the money. So how do you rule that the tariffs can't stand, yet the government can still keep the money. You gotta find a way to return the money, otherwise the decision makes no sense.

[B]

I totally agree. I'm amazed that people suggest that that's the way it's gonna go because. Couldn't agree with you more. Luigi Maggione is in federal court here in New York today at 11 o'. Clock. And we had unemployment numbers come in at 8:30. Here they, here's the CNBC headline. They're not great. They're not horrible. This is the CNBC describes it. The unemployment rate down a little bit. U.S. payrolls rose 50,000 in December. That was less than some analysts had expected, but unemployment dropped from 4.6 to 4.4. So a decent number, but not a blockbuster set of numbers that the administration could brag on. All right, we're going to go to talk about Minnesota in a second. Reminder to everybody that Fairway and Green, our partners, our sponsors, back with us in 2026. You can get all their merchandise, including two way merchandise on the website. Go to Two Way TV Fairway to see the full array of items available to you. Promo code is two way 20 for 20% off everything on the site. Many of you either bought or received Fairway and Green merch for the holidays. And I got a number of lovely notes about how much everybody loved it. One of you had a tiny customer service problem and it was corrected lickety split by our colleagues at Fairway and Green, a great group of people who take customer service seriously. So again, if you want to be part of the community and look great and wear the nicest and most comfortable golf apparel I've ever had, go to Two Way TV Fairway.

[A]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The top, 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. BJ Novak.

[C]

Yay.

[A]

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]

All right, gentlemen, Minnesota, the biggest looming question, besides the facts of what happened, because we still don't know everything that happened, is the question of who's going to investigate it. The New York Times has a pretty good piece this morning about how difficult it would be to secure a federal prosecution, let alone a conviction, not a federal state prosecution, let alone conviction of, of, of the ICE official who pulled the trigger. And nobody I know thinks that the Trump Justice Department is going to investigate and indict him. So, Larry, where does the legal case stand as far as you're concerned going forward?

[E]

Well, I would. Minor disagreement. I do think the Justice Department will investigate. They must. I mean, they're compelled to if a federal law enforcement officer discharges their.

[B]

Well, but, but it can be, but it can be an administrative probe, not a criminal probe.

[E]

Yeah, I don't. Yeah, I would share that thought. I will amend what I said yesterday. I do think that if this goes the way it should go with the federal investigation and that there's no charges brought if the state does bring charges. I don't think. Yesterday I said I have no reason to believe the police officer won't cooperate based on the rhetoric I saw yesterday. I don't think the police, I keep saying police officer, the ICE agent will cooperate with the state proceeding. I do think there will be one. I think it's a show trial. It reminds me of when the civil charges, or, excuse me, when the second charges were brought against the police officers in the Rodney King case in Los Angeles.

[B]

But I don't think. I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt, but do you think it actually get to trial? Because my reading of the law, reading the Time story and the vice president's strong assertion is that they'd move to take it out of state court and then it would be dismissed.

[E]

That's what I believe will happen, too. But again, as I said yesterday, if for some reason the feds lose that and it does go to state trial, I had said yesterday that the police, the officer would probably cooperate. Now, I don't think he will, nor should he, because of the way this is being set up.

[B]

Yeah. Kevin, I struck me this morning in thinking about the PR wars of this, because there is a. There is a PR war on. On the question of culpability, on the question of. Of the ICE presence, it seems like. And again, I'm just trying to be objective here. You know, the administration's taking this seriously. They trotted the vice president yesterday, so to announce this special prosecutor type to look at the fraud allegations. They're very aggressive with Noem and the president, everybody else, and. And the Minnesota Democratic officials, to me, seem pretty weak. You know, they're not the most skilled or coordinated. So my question to you is, if they hired you, if. If the. If the state party, the governor, the mayor, all hired you and said, kevin, we think we need a stronger daily drumbeat presence, what could they be doing differently to try to win over. Do better in the news cycle than they've been doing?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think they should focus on the news that we saw yesterday, where the FBI is taking the lead on this, and they've kind of shut out the state investigative agency, the bca, in. In. In Minnesota on this. And I think you can win the argument saying, let's have greater state. You called for this in your monologue yesterday, Mark. Greater collaboration between the state and the feds on this. I think it's a winning argument in terms of transparency, and let's just get to the bottom of how this happened and how this woman's life was taken and try and separate out the politics. I think there's a moral argument to be made for that collaboration between the state investigative agency with law enforcement and the FBI and not the FBI, just shutting them out. And I think Democrats and the governor should focus on that and getting to the bottom of this, and hopefully some cooler heads will prevail. Not this debate over whether she was murdered or killed or what have you, but let's just. Kevin, let's figure out some transparency with us.

[E]

So two things, Kevin. Do you have faith in the state agencies to investigate this, considering their track record investigating the fraud that has been uncovered over the last couple of weeks? And secondly, don't you find it kind of ironic that had the state of Minnesota cooperated with federal ICE officers in their immigration duties instead of claiming sanctuary status, this never would have happened?

[F]

Yeah.

[C]

Laird, to your point, I'm a big believer in. Okay, well, listen, it's complicated, right. And it's nuanced. So you Know, I'm a center left guy. I want further collaboration. I can't have the rhetoric from Trump and Noam saying she's a domestic terrorist and then, you know, not have these communities say, okay, we don't want these folks here. I hate to see these protesters get in the face of these, these men and women in ice. Okay, that's not helping situation. Those folks grabbing onto their weapons, what have you. That's hugely problematic. But both sides are so dug in and Governor Wallace thinks he's winning and the mayor thinks he's winning. Right. By rallying up his base. And obviously the President and Secretary Noem think that they're winning on this.

[B]

Let's say, let's say the ice, the ICE operation continues without incident. Let's say there are no big protests or, or, or clashes between protesters and, and officials. What's the next beat in this story that people should be looking to see happen?

[C]

Well, I mean, that's, that's a really hopeful, you know, again, we have the news out of Portland with, you know, shooting there involving border agents. And I think you're just going to see more of this because these communities are agitating more and more. You know, you saw a peaceful protest down 16th street in Washington. That's what I want to see. Right, okay.

[B]

Yeah, but, I mean, but, but, but, but if you're thinking about the news cycle, like, like, yes, this morning the local police cleared away some of the barricades have been set up by the protesters around the site where the shooting occurred because they said emergency vehicles have to go through. It seems like there's, there's a little bit more, obviously this isn't a surprise, a little bit more effort to restore order on the part of the local officials. So again, I, I'm embedded in. My question is if there's no more clashes, I'm not sure where this story goes next may recede from the news cycle as we wait to see on the investigative front.

[E]

Go ahead, Larry. I have a thought from a political perspective where it might go and it might be a prelude to a 2028 conversation we're going to have a little later. And that is there's going to be a Democrat who wants to win on a national ticket who is going to step up and say exactly what Kevin just said, which is, guys, I agree with you, Trump's out of control. I agree with you that the chaos from ice, yada, yada, yada, all the necessary talking points, but now is the time to stand down, stop with the direct actions, do not Engage directly with ice. That is wrong. We can win this the right way. The national figure who says that I think really has a chance in 28.

[B]

Kevin, if somebody who is thinking of running for president called you and said they were thinking of doing that, would you advise them? That was a good idea?

[C]

Yeah, 100%, because I think that's where the majority of Americans are. Right. But I also think the politics of it, to Larry's point, and I wonder if you see any nuance from the administration. They've tackled the border crisis incredibly. Right. Speaking as a Democrat, that issue's off the table, sadly for Republicans, because it was such an effective struggle against us. But you look at even Fox News polling, the president's down when it comes to immigration. Right. His numbers are still good on the border, but people are now realizing, okay, it's one thing to take out these criminal elements and stuff like that. It's another to take out the day laborers that in a lot of cases are, you know, at Home Depot, that people are picking up to do things in their house that are peaceful and just want to get paid under the table oftentimes and paint their, you know, the sides of their houses. And I think that's the nuance that we're seeing with the Republican numbers drop so much with the president standing on the immigration issue and more of these clashes, I don't think, help, you know, the president's cause on that.

[B]

All right, last question on this. And again, folks, if you want to get in on the conversation on this later in the program, please raise your hand. Have you all seen Amy Klobuchar out on TV talking about this at all? I've not seen her. I've not seen her.

[E]

No, I saw Tina Smith. Tina Smith gave us.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. She's done some cable, too. It's interesting, right? She's the most popular Democrat in the state. She's thinking of running for governor, and she's invisible. But of the people who are speaking, Tina Smith, Ellison, the governor, the mayor. Kevin, who would you say is the single most effective Minnesota spokesperson for the, for the Democrats on this? Anybody?

[C]

None of them.

[B]

All right, Larry. Anybody?

[C]

I think, I think Amy Klobuchar, to your point, could, you know, she's a center left kind of person.

[E]

It is a triang. Yeah, it could be a sister soldier moment. If I could go back in the archive for Klobuchar. And by the way, I have a friend who was on a plane back to Minnesota yesterday and both Smith and Klobucher were on that flight so she's in the state today.

[B]

I just find it crazy.

[C]

I think she was a prosecutor in a.

[E]

Yes, she was. She was a U.S. attorney. I think it was.

[B]

No, I think she was Hennepin county prosecutor.

[E]

You're right. You're right. Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Just kind of crazy to me that she's. She's nowhere. All right. Iran 117, please. Incredible story. We're now headed towards the same second week of protests. Everybody I know knows the region says this could be different. The administration continues to watch it. Here's the New York Times headline, Iran is cut off. Iran is cut off from Internet. As protests calling for regime change intensify, the Shah's son continues to speak out and. And urged us to go forward and Europe, Middle east countries. I checked the media there today. Everybody's watching it. I think nobody wants to be accused of encouraging it if it's happening organically. Larry, does this feel like to you that something that may well lead to revolution?

[E]

I am transfixed on these videos, I gotta tell you. And I mean, I'll preview this is what I'm looking for this weekend when we get to it later because I cannot get enough of it. And yesterday's images from Tehran blew my mind. Absolutely blew my mind.

[B]

Yeah. Kevin, what's your spidey sense about how where this could head?

[C]

I mean, we've been down this road before a number of times. Obviously. This is the largest protest that we've seen since 2022 when that woman was killed by the kind of roving police elements. You know, it's never a good sign when the regime is cutting off Internet. That's usually a good indication that they're more scared than ever. And I will note some of the signs that I saw. And to Larry's point, I'm with him. I'm transfixed by. This is the first time I've seen signs that say death to the Ayatollah. Okay.

[E]

Yeah.

[C]

That is again, you got these secret police elements. They see that you're done. So to see that level of rhetoric in the streets is something I don't think we've seen before.

[E]

And burning government buildings.

[B]

Yeah, I mean it's quite, quite something. All right, we'll keep watching that. Russia, Ukraine, big news yesterday, 104 Russia used again, I believe for the second time, at least the second known time, this supersonic weapon. That represents an escalation. Russia appears to use nuclear capable missile. And Ukraine have confirmed the use of the missile would be an ominous threat to Ukraine and its Western allies. This is a missile that can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads. And it's part of Russia's happening at the same time as Russia is using rhetoric to suggest that they reject the outlines, at least, of what the US And Europe and Ukraine have agreed to regarding forces that would be somehow involved in a set of security guarantees for the Ukrainians. Polymarket this our colleagues at Polymarket, our partners asking what are the chances of a ceasefire this year? 118 at a time when again there's progress with Europe, US and Ukraine, but Russia seems standoffish. Here's the P market, 45% chance, according to Polymarket Betters, that there'll be a ceasefire this year. So Kevin, are you, as the week closes here, are you bullish or bearish on the prospects of a deal?

[C]

I don't, I don't think it's going to happen. And again, you saw this missile launch mostly because you saw France and, and the UK agree to have boots on the ground and to build bases in Ukraine in terms of these security guarantees. So this is something, you know, obviously it's a non starter for Moscow with that, and that's why you saw that missile launch. So again, Putin, as we've talked about previously, especially with Larry, too, is not going to agree to any of these kinds of situations, especially with any foreign troops on the ground in Ukraine, let alone them building bases. So, you know, I just see this going forward as a stalemate.

[B]

Larry. Larry Senator, sorry, but Senator Graham claimed, but this is like a game of telephone that the president has signed off on doing the sanctions bill next week. Does that seem like to you, like that's going to happen?

[E]

No, I think that's wishful projection from Senator Graham's part, otherwise you would have, I think probably heard it from the White House first. I was so bullish a couple of weeks ago after the Nick Kristoff article, after the framework, which I assumed wouldn't have gotten leaked out in the way that it did if there wasn't some indication from Wyckoff or someone dealing with Moscow that they were somewhat on board. Now, after last night, you look at the last year, the things that have brought Trump to publicly express how pissed off he is at Putin. It's this kind of thing that we saw last night. And so I think the end result here is he's going to sign off on selling arms to European countries that will arm then Ukraine and he's going to wash his hands of this. I think.

[C]

Yeah, I think that's a great point, Larry. I mean, Trump hates that Stuff when he sees innocent people, to his credit, and we saw a situation in Syria and unilateral actions that he took in the first term. He hates to see the death and destruction, especially women and children. That actually affects him.

[B]

Yeah. And again, it comes on the heels of his turning 180 about whether Putin was telling the truth about whether the Ukrainians tried to hit one of Putin's homes.

[E]

I do wonder real fast, that stunning image yesterday of the US Commander, was it yesterday or two days ago? It all is a blur. Commandeering that Venezuelan tanker with Russian, Russian ships just, just sitting there, neutered the Russian submarine. Watching as US Forces took back that Venezuelan tanker. One wonders if this is just Putin, you know, sort of reflexively wanting to flex but, but really won't come to anything else. He was just, he wanted to show some of his, you know, his testosterone or something. I just, it's Russia seems so marginalized right now after the Venezuela action.

[B]

Yep, yep. Okay. Again, if you want to know the conversation, please raise your hand. Please don't put smack in the chat. I, I keep saying it and it's almost as if I egg you on. The more I say no smack in the chat, the more smack goes in the chat. So maybe I won't mention, I won't mention it per day and see what happens. Quick on this one, Machado. The president suggested yesterday that she's coming to D.C. and that he, he'd be delighted to meet with her. It seemed, if you, if you're a reader of Trump, that he does plan to meet with her and that's going to happen. Kevin, is her stock rising? Is that meeting suggest it's possible she could become the administration's choice to take over the government?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Or he just wants the Nobel Prize.

[C]

I think that's part of it. I read between the lines of what the president often says, what he thinks and obviously, you know, we don't believe him, but when he used the language, I think she's going to come by and we're going to say hello. I'm not going to sit down with her. The language of, you know, I think she's coming next because we're going to say hello was an interesting element of that.

[B]

Is this happening live right now? Is this hasset live currently? Thousand dollars more in, in December than they did in January of the same year. And so that's the kind of thing that brings people off the sidelines into.

[C]

The labor, our next venture right there.

[B]

Things are moving forward positively what you guys are maybe worried about. Or griping about is that you want it to move forward faster as. And that's something that we fully expect we'll see in the second, second half of. Or the first half of this year. Because the bottom line is that the factories are being built, the ground is being broken, the machines are coming in and some worker is going to have to run that machine. When I ask about the President getting involved with the dividend and buyback strategy of the defense companies, I know in 1962 President Kennedy did a rather radical thing. He came out again against the steel companies. Execs were overpaid.

[A]

He went after them.

[B]

Antitrust just basically said this is the way it has to be. And it was one of those things where the right really felt overstretched. I think Kennedy looks placid versus what.

[C]

The President wants to do in terms of corporate intervention.

[B]

How do we explain this? And when you were at Stanford where.

[C]

You went, I don't be in Ken Arrows classes. We didn't talk. This was not talked about.

[B]

Right. Well, well the, the bottom line is that the President believes that we. All right, you can dump out of this defense monitor and if he starts talking about the Fed, we'll go back to it. Let's jump to that topic. The President in this two hour interview with the New York Times kind of leaned into the notion that Kevin Hassett was his choice. Without saying so many of my sources continue to believe it will be Kevin Hassett. Poly market wagers don't feel the same way or at least not clearly. 112 plays according to the latest wagering on by market. And this is a massive poly market. You'll see the amount bet here is just.

[E]

Yeah, I was stunned by that too. Look at how much money is in.

[B]

On this one 150 million on this market. And, and Kevin, the other Kevin. Kevin Warsh at 41% chance. Hasset 37% and Waller and. And re reader down at much less. Rick Ryder. Is that a pronounce his name reader Rick Ryder. He, according to Scott Besson hasn't even met with the President yet. He was supposed to meet with him over the holidays. For some reason that didn't happen. Kevin Hassett or Scott Besson said yesterday the President would make this announcement around Davos either before or after. Enormous number of administration officials, including the President are going to Davos because they're all a bunch of European populace. The President said the President told the Times he's made his decision, but he hasn't told anybody. And of course he said this before that he's made his decision and yet he continues to interview candidates. So I have very complex reporting and feelings about this, which I'll share in a moment. But, Larry, will it be Kevin Hassett or someone else? If you had to bet Hassett or the field?

[E]

Hasset or the Field? Yeah, I might put some money on Hassett if he's at 37 right now. I still think it's Hassett. I have all along. And I think, especially with the numbers that we just saw with inflation numbers and the growth numbers, the president, I think if inflation were a concern, I think Hassett would be in trouble because of his policies and his focus. But, yeah, my money's on Hassett. And incidentally, that would mean that the Fed chair once, at a social public function, did a karate move on me and threw me to the floor.

[B]

Yeah, wouldn't be the.

[E]

I'll tell that story sometime.

[B]

Didn't Greenspan do that to you also, wouldn't it be the second Fed chair.

[E]

At the Inn at Little Washington actually, with his wife looking on? Yeah, yeah.

[B]

Kevin, I'm tempted to say you should be recused from this because it's a Kevin On. Situation, but are you, are you for Hasset or the field?

[C]

I mean, I think to Larry's point, I think it is hassle. I mean, Trump loves a TV performer and next to Caroline Levitt, you know, Hassett has been out there constantly, especially when we see these new numbers come down. He's a pretty effective communicator on the economy and Trump likes that. So. And obviously there's a closeness there. You know, this is obviously going to happen in May this year. This is, this is Trump's number one focus and appointment, I think, you know.

[B]

Yeah, it's, it's ironic because it really doesn't matter who he picks. They're all going to do the same thing. I think, here's my view. Don't, don't be mad at me, but this is my reporting. It's Hassan. Unless they can find somebody behind door number five, and they're still looking, so don't be surprised if it's door number five. And don't be surprised if, despite the President saying he's already chosen and Bassett saying it'll be this month, don't be surprised that this decision goes into next month as they continue to look for someone else. All right, two things I want to do quick. Lots happened on Capitol Hill yesterday, some repudiations of the President, like on the war powers vote in the, in the Senate, in the House, they voted on that Obamacare subsidies on discharge petition, they got what, 17 Republicans, which my colleagues, my colleagues are reporting is higher than, than expected. I was told a few, you know, last before the recess that they might get to 30. So I'm not super blown away by 17, but it does create the appearance of momentum as they look for a deal. But then also the House failed to, to pass the override on two vetoes that the President had done. So mixed messaging off the Hill. The question to you, Larry, first, the politico, you know, as always rushing to try to get ahead of the story, even if they end up in the wrong place. Donald Trump can't count on Congress to have his back anymore. I believe that's overstated. Larry, what's the, what, what's the state of things? What's the thing that happened yesterday that you think is most representative of the relationship between the President and Republicans on the Hill?

[E]

I think the failure to override the vetoes, I think holding the line there is more representative. I think that this vote on the ACA subsidies, nobody thinks that the Senate is just going to pass that and it'll head to the President's desk. It's coming back to the House. So it was kind of a gimme. People could vote on it either way and it doesn't really affect the President. So I'm not looking that. Is that an indication that there's defections that are going to really severely impact. That said boy, Johnson is sweating bullets every day. He wakes up and checks his phone.

[B]

Yeah, Kevin, I'll do this for you as a McLaughlin style question. Zero meanings, no rebellion. And 10 is full scale rebellion. Where are House and Senate Republicans now vis a vis Donald Trump?

[C]

It's not a, it's not a rebellion. You know, to Larry's point, especially on these veto overrides, it was more regional than anything. Right, Kevin?

[B]

Kevin, I just need an, I just need a number. Kevin. Five. Five. Well, five's pretty, that's pretty high. That's pretty high. All right, all right. The New York Times interview. I just cannot believe that 10 years into Trump people are still calling me and saying Trump said this in the New York Times interview. What does it mean? Doesn't it mean, you know, everything's different? It's like, no, everything in that interview, literally all two hours is like, he'll say whatever he'll say. I only am going to eat cheese for the rest of the month. And then you'll see him on the Colonnade with a Slurpee, like there's no, there's no meaning to any of this. But to the extent there is, Kevin, if you had to choose one thing from the New York Times interview, do you think this has meaning? History will long remember, Larry will never forget when the President told the New York Times X. Is there anything he said in the interview that you think significant?

[C]

No, not really. I mean, he spent a lot of time on the Minneapolis issue, went back, he even changed his mind. You know, he said one thing, and then by the end conversation, just about Minneapolis, he returned back.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

You know, the hard line position. So he loves these sessions, though.

[B]

Yeah, it's the whole court.

[C]

He's all the reporters all around him at the Resolute desk. He loves this stuff.

[B]

Larry, one of the dozen things I got emails and calls about was when he said, it's up to Xi what happens in Taiwan. People are like, my God, he's giving away Taiwan.

[E]

No, that's not what that.

[B]

Larry, is there anything in the interview that's meaningful to you?

[E]

Only that the last two nominees for the Democrats to sit in that Oval Office, one of them who ended up sitting in the Oval Office, couldn't have done the same thing that Donald Trump just did or would be unwilling to do what Donald Trump just did.

[B]

Yeah, true. They're not as obsessed with the New York Times as Donald Trump. Something. Some. Some things. Some things never change. Donald Trump's obsessed with the New York media. Donald Trump loves putting calls on speakerphone so other people can hear them. Donald Trump loves giving tours. It's just something changed, by the way.

[E]

Mark, that everyone's making a big deal of the fact that while they were sitting there, he did a speakerphone thing. I used to work in New York. That is a New York executive power move. It's happened to me when I worked in New York all the time with my bosses, and they love doing stuff.

[B]

Yeah, but. But were any of them president. Who put the president of Columbia on the speakerphone? No, not. Not for an hour. All right, couple more topics, then to your questions again. Raise your hands if you'd like to be in on the conversation. I have been of the View for a while that there's. There's a top tier of Newsom and Shapiro and then there's everybody else. And that part of the analysis for 28 is who can get into the top tier, who can plausibly fight their way in. I've got skeptics in my life, particularly about Shapiro and whether he can be nominated. Right. And I'm talking top tier, not strongest general election. Who can be nominated. Yesterday both Shapiro and by coincidence, Shapiro and Newsom gave big speeches. Newsom has stated the state, his final one and Shapiro announcing for reelection. Here is a little bit of both of those. Here's Gavin Newsom as part of his state at final state of the state.

[C]

Shifting the tax burden from the wealthy from billionaires to small businesses, ranchers, farmers and the middle class. Lining the pockets of the rich. Crony capitalism at unimaginable scale. State capitalism, self dealing, profit making, not policy making. Rolling back rights, rights, marginalized communities rewriting history, censoring historical facts. Their politics, some politics of some twisted nostalgia about restoring the dynamics of a, of a bygone era. None of this is normal.

[B]

Breaking news. The USC is the fifth tanker, a Venezuelan tanker. So that operation continues. Here is Governor Shapiro part of his announcement event yesterday did event Pittsburgh event in Philly was on MSNB. Mississippi now almost cost me $40,000 in this error jar Mississippi Now. But here, here he is in his opening kickoff event announcing the reelect in Pittsburgh. Governor Newsom, Governor Shapiro, through it all.

[F]

You the good people of Pennsylvania, y'.

[B]

All have been my north star.

[E]

And so I came back here today.

[B]

To say thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to listen.

[E]

To your you and to serve you. I'm also here to say we've only just begun.

[B]

We've got more stuff to do, we've.

[E]

Got more people to help and we've got more problems to solve. And so with a servant's heart and.

[F]

An ear to your concerns, progress made.

[E]

And with a hunger to do more for you, I am here to announce that I am running for re election as governor of this great commonwealth.

[B]

All right. Now if I booked Beyonce on one of my shows, you'd say that was a book in coup, right? Kevin Halpern got Beyonce. That's a booking coup, right? Sure.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay. Those are, those are, those are, they're.

[C]

One in the same. They're one.

[B]

Those are obvious. Your Beyonce's, your Panetta says you're obvious. Here's a booking coup, but only for insiders. Jeff Rowe. Jeff Rowe is one of the smartest Republican strategists I know. Doesn't do a lot of media. He came on with Jaime Moore yesterday on NextUp and we talked about Governor Shapiro and, and Jeff is, is one of the few Republicans about whose views on the Democrats. I care because most Republicans analyze the Democrats the way I analyze Turkish rugby. They don't know anything about the other party but, but Jeff does because he's very smart. He's a student of Democrats. Here's what Jeff said about Governor Shapiro's prospects both to be the nominee, but also if he were the nominee in the general election. This is from next up. 111, please.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Jeff, you're one of the few Republicans who actually understands the Democratic Party. So how would you rate his chances of being the nominee? Leave the general aside.

[C]

Pretty low. He, I don't think they, I don't think he fits their brand that they're looking for. And Hamid alluded to this a little bit from, even from Mayor Fry and all the way through the popular strain. I frankly think that the, that the Democrats would have a really hard time with a white guy and let alone a Jewish white guy. And I think that getting things done is really not the brand of politics that they're looking for right now. They're looking for somebody to fight back. I mean, they almost kicked out Chuck Schumer for, you know, agreeing to a deal with, with Republicans on the budget. And so I think that he's, he's our worst nightmare.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And the least likely of the top contenders, I think, to make it through.

[B]

So you think he's the strongest general election candidate?

[C]

No doubt.

[B]

Would you make him one of the top eight Republican Democrats to be the nominee?

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Yes. But not top four, it sounds like.

[C]

No.

[B]

Okay, so let's break down whether you guys agree with Jeff on what he said. First of all, Larry, do you think he's far fetched or a longer shot than some for the nomination that Jeff's view that he's a, a white man who's about get a white Jewish man who's about getting stuff done as opposed to opposing Trump. Didn't mention Trump yesterday, for instance, in his announcement for reelection. Do you agree with Jeff's analysis on that piece?

[E]

I do. Josh Shapiro reminds me of Scott Walker in 2016. On paper, Walker was great and he was my choice at the beginning, but he, it wasn't the right moment for him. And as soon as he get off paper and starts engaging in the times that we were in at that point, he didn't rise to the fight. And I don't think Shapiro can either.

[B]

All right, Kevin, do you agree with Larry and Jeff that Shapiro is going to struggle to win the nomination?

[C]

I disagree. He's incredibly compelling. He's got a record to run on. And I think there's an element in my party, this is why Joe Biden was the nominee. There's an element in my party that thinks through the general election scheme that's why the core of my party, black women. Rosalie didn't really support Kamala Harris in the primary because they they even though, you know, she was a black woman, they wanted to win. So I do think there's a practical element to my party. And again, if you've got eight top tier candidates running, all you got to do is 30% in some of these early primary states.

[E]

Right.

[B]

All right. And lastly, quickly on Jeff's Jeff's assertion that Shapiro would be the Republicans worst nightmare, that he'd be the strongest general election candidate, Jeff seemed to suggest by a lot I probably should have pursued that with him. I cut him off because I was focused on the other question. Agree, disagree or too soon to say that Shapiro would be the toughest of all the democrats in the general.

[C]

Kevin Agree 100%. Again, Pennsylvania's lockdown and you look at his numbers right now he's one of the more popular Democratic governors and he's got crossover appeal. So it all also comes down to 2026 in terms of what he can do to flip some of those Republican districts in Pennsylvania as well in the Commonwealth. He's my number one contender and has.

[B]

Been for a long time. Larry Agree, disagree or too soon to say that he'd be the toughest general election candidate.

[E]

I pretty much agree. I think Mark Kelly could potentially be tough, too, but he doesn't look like he's running now. I'm not sure. But but other than Mark Kelly, I think Shapiro is tough. Yeah.

[C]

Ok. And look at the money he raised, too. He just announced like 10 million for the last quarter, too.

[B]

I mean he's yeah, but that's on that's with unlimited. Right.

[C]

Pennsylvania, I think unlimited state funds.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And do they do they do corporate? They do corporate too. I think they do, right?

[C]

I believe so.

[B]

Yeah.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

All right. I've been promising to be due the Senate all week and we just got a few moments here. So here's my question. If most people the conventional wisdom is Democrats, Karl Rove said this. Others have said this, Democrats will take the House, but they'll come up short in the Senate. If they were to take the Senate, they would need to win four seats because they got to get to 51 because 50, 50 they're still in the minority. What are the four most likely seats? And they got to hold all theirs. But if they're going to win four, what are the four most likely? Either of you have a path of most likely? We know one's North Carolina, North Carolina and Maine.

[C]

Maine shared Brown in Ohio and fingers crossed, Mary Patola in Alaska, who's the at large member and she's making every indication that she's going to run.

[B]

LARRY, don't even answer because ladies and gentlemen, Kevin has just given you the literally the best analysis I've heard anywhere of what the four is. That's the exact right list. So Larry don't even Alaska's got that rank.

[C]

Really?

[B]

Well, I agree.

[E]

And by the way, that's why it's not going to happen because North Carolina and Maine are going state Republic and probably Ohio will as well.

[B]

Well, they could, but, but at least Kevin's given you some ideas of what it would be. All right, quick word from a sponsor. Then we're going to do winners and losers of the week and what to look for this weekend. And then to your questions, 20% off the entire site. Take lean.com use the promo code 2WMM. No fat diets, no cabbage juice, cabbage soup, no raw food, no injectables, just scientifically proven lean products created by doctors. Oral supplement, not an injection. The science behind it is impressive. It allows you to maintain healthy blood sugar, convert control appetite and cravings and convert loose burn fat by converting it to energy. All the products on takelean.com available to you, 20% off. Use the promo code 2WMM. Start the year off right without weight cycling, gaining and losing lots of weight. Just consistent effort to help your body out rather than doing things that are harmful for your body like weight cycling. Again, go to take lean.com promo code 2WMM takelean.com 2W M M. Kevin winner of the week Winner of the week.

[C]

Chuck Schumer for his recruitment efforts, not necessarily his management of the minority caucus, but the fact that Mary Patolo is coming forward took a lot of convincing not to run for governor but to run for that Senate seat. I think governor would be easier but a bigger, bigger pull for for him. So his recruitment efforts have been extraordinary these last couple of months.

[B]

Interesting. Larry. LARRY Winner of the week I think.

[E]

That'S more of a commentary on the other weeks Chuck Schumer has had. But sure, why not?

[C]

We'll go with it.

[E]

The winner of the week is Marco Rubio is having his moment. What a week. Coming from the actions in Venezuela and his performance on the Sunday shows well into this week and declining the offer to become the new head coach of the Miami Dolphins.

[B]

Marco Rubio the correct answer is MARK MARCO RUBIO Correct answer. LARRY well done. KEVIN Loser of the week Speaker Johnson.

[C]

And I actually love the guy as a Democrat, but, you know, his numbers are getting smaller and smaller, headache after headache. It's now ruled by discharge petition. You know, my heart goes out to him. He didn't want the job in the first place, but he's really struggling without the support of a really strong White House, saying, this is what we want on health care, this is what we want on xyz. And he's kind of caught in limbo.

[E]

Larry, one year ago, Tim Walz was hoping to be sworn in as vice president. Now he had to remove himself from reelection as governor and could very well be facing federal criminal charges. Tim Walz is the loser of the week.

[C]

That's a fair loser. But this Democrat can't say.

[B]

When I said I knew who my loser was, I thought all three of us would say that. I mean, hands down, Larry, once again, you and I agree, we're two for two. Tim Waltz, loser of the week for just the reasons Larry said. Kevin, what are you watching for this weekend?

[C]

To see what, what happens out of Minneapolis. Right. You said, you know, the governor's calling for a moment of silence and a day of unity if, if we see, you know, we saw down 16th street last night in Washington D.C. if the protests continue to grow or if cooler heads prevail over the weekend.

[B]

Yeah. Larry, you already said Iran is where you're looking.

[E]

It is, yeah. My, one of my earliest memories is the Iranian hostage situation. And I just, it's been been the situation my entire lifetime. We've been want hoping for this. What a game changer on a global scale this would be if this revolution continues.

[B]

Yeah. Not to play down those two significant stories, but the Indiana game tonight. Indiana football is a great story. Basketball State, suddenly with football, when I was out, I was out in California by Quincy and I rose on the road on the Herz rental car van fan van with a bunch of Indiana fans who were in for the Rose bowl and they were so fired up, they were so lovely. Who's your values? Who's your values? And. And if they win, they get to play Mark Caputo's Miami team who won last night because the referees are horrible.

[C]

Just such a great guy, you know, in all, I mean, he's incredible. He's the hero America needs right now.

[B]

Totally agree. Incredible story. All right, Lance, welcome in. Happy New Year to you. Thank you for being part of the two way community. Unmute. Tell folks where you are, those who don't know and what's on your mind for Kevin and Larry and again, happy New Year and so grateful to you for coming back this year with us.

[D]

You're welcome, Mark. I'm from Charlotte, North Carolina. My name is, well, you know, my name is Lance. I'm sorry, I'm getting nervous, but that's.

[B]

Right, Lance, take it. Take a deep breath and go to it.

[F]

You're good.

[D]

Okay. So I'm extremely elated that Donald Trump is supporting banning corporate ownership. Well, corporations owning single family homes, white Charlotte, they have bought 20% of the market. And it's really doing a lot to crowd people out of the market. And so I'm extremely elated that I hope that we see more stuff like this from Trump. And I think that I would also like to see the Pelosi act passed. No reason to make it about the executive branch is to call it the Pelosi act because most of the corruption in our government that people really don't like kind of stems from Congress. So don't know.

[B]

You're talking about stock trading.

[D]

Yes, stock trading.

[B]

All right, let me stop you there because I want to get Kevin and Larry to respond on those two things. Larry, some people say that the president's idea about no corporate ownership of housing is actually going to hurt supply because a lot of what they buy are things that need to be fixed up and they put them back on the market. So what are your thoughts on that policy, Larry?

[E]

Yeah, I recognize that argument, but I still think the President's on the right side of this one. And it's something that Charlie Clear Kirk actually was really passionate about until his assassination this year. It's jerking around with inventory and the availability of affordable homes. So I'm with the President. I think Lance is right about it.

[B]

Kevin, if this goes forward, it is standing up to some of the president's cronies. I mean, the companies that buy these things are mostly New York based companies who've given a ton of money to the President. So you give them credit. Speak to both the politics and the policy.

[C]

Sure, but, but to Larry's point, it's a little nuanced.

[E]

Right.

[C]

So it can't be this out outright ban, I don't think. But, but you're seeing, obviously health care is going to be the number one driver. I think number two is going to be housing. And you saw Democrats go forward with an affordable housing plan out there just because that's such a frustration right now. And it lends to Larry's point the, to the affordability conversation. So, you know, we, and Lance, it's a great question especially, and you hit the nail on the Head because again, Democrats are focused on that, the administration's focused on that, and it's kind of an under the radar issue.

[E]

Which, by the way, going back to the discussion About Newsom in 2020, we talked about Shapiro. We didn't really talk about Newsom, who sounded like Obama doing a Captain Kirk impersonation. If you watch that speech again, if affordability is the big issue for Democrats, Newsom has overseen the most expensive state getting even more expensive and housing is a big component of that. I don't know how he gets the nomination, even though he's in a good place place, if affordability is the issue and meanwhile the president's actually doing something about it.

[B]

Yeah. And Lance's second point about the stock act, I believe it's, it's, there's, they're still threatening a discharge petition in the House. Right. But, yeah, but where does that, where do you really think guys think that's going?

[E]

You know, I'm cynical about this because I remember when Peter Schweitzer wrote his book in 2012 or 11, I want to say throw them all out. And it had it exposed, all of the insider trading and they, they advanced a stock act at the time. They always find a way to undermine it. They always find a way to get around it. Sorry to be cynical, but even if they do pass something, even if leadership endorses it, as I think Speaker Johnson might, I just doubt it'll make a difference. They always find a way.

[D]

Yeah. Trump's FCC is also considering doing stuff to stop hedge funds from doing some of their more, how would I say, monop. Well, I'd say consumer unfriendly policies, unconsumerist policies, policies that are against the consumer. We didn't hear anything like that from the Biden administration. So, you know, Disney shut down a line for disabled people at Disneyland. Shareholders voted to have one. And the leaders of Disney basically said, no, we're not going to follow the vote that they had. And you know, I'm sorry, my thoughts jumbled this morning, but I just feel like that anybody who said anything about hedge fund BlackRock or Vanguard during the Biden administration was basically labeled a conspiracy theorist. There is nothing to see here. Mostly because they were following their ESG policies. And I know there's some Republicans out there who are like, well, the corporate corporatism is being incentivized by the government. But, you know, you know, you know, if, you know, we could, you said we have to be about the right solution. I made an entire bill about getting rid of the progressive income tax. And so what some people might say, oh, well, you know, in replacing it and making sure our budget is balanced. And some people might say, well, Lance, you were in favor of trying to make the trying to, trying to increase taxes here and there marginally to try to marginally and putting some things under other tax categories with the big beautiful bill. Well, and I would say, I would also in favor of that and getting rid of corporate subsidies as well.

[B]

Yeah. Let me, let the guys respond. Go ahead.

[E]

All I want to say is, Lance, let me know when you have you turned 25 yet? Let me know when you turn 25. I, I will. I will send people to North Carolina in your district and we're going to start organizing.

[B]

Larry. Larry, what are the two things one can do when they turn 25? Run for that.

[E]

They, they can run for the house. And what's the other thing? Oh, they can rent a car. They can rent.

[B]

Exactly. Lance. Thank you, Sir. Thank you. Topics. Lance, 20, 26. We got to get the guy to be able to rent a car. That's key to me. All right, let's go to Bob. Bob, welcome in. Happy New Year to you. Thank you for being part of Two way and tell everybody what's on your mind for Kevin and for Larry.

[F]

Happy New Year, everybody. And thanks for having me on this morning. My winner of the week, and I'm calling it a day early Mark, is the Green Bay Packers.

[B]

Yeah.

[F]

As they knock off the Chicago Bears inside the Bears.

[B]

They're Bears that they played twice already. They split, right?

[F]

They split. Yeah. You had eight or.

[C]

Yeah.

[F]

Eight quarters of football on an overtime. Okay.

[B]

Yeah.

[F]

So yeah, they were close.

[B]

Bob, as you know, I'm for the packers, but I'm less bullish than you are. I'm a little concerned, to be honest.

[C]

But Bob, are you a shareholder out there? Are you sure?

[F]

My wife and I are both shareholders. That's right.

[B]

Yeah. All right, Bob, is that all you want to do, predict the Packers? Yeah, go ahead.

[F]

I, I have a serious question. Mark. I watched you last night and you had a guest and unfortunately I can't remember his name, but I thought he was fantastic. And he was, he was more or less on the Democrat side, but he made a lot of sense to me.

[B]

Julian Epstein.

[F]

Yes, that's exactly what it was. He was absolutely phenomenal.

[B]

He's a great guy, very smart guy.

[F]

He was making a point and this is a larger point, I guess. I wanted to run by your guests today about the, the idea that we could have these sanctuary cities you know, that don't allow federal law enforcement and don't cooperate with them. And he was raising a point, for example, the civil rights era or like, what if somebody in the south wanted to say, well, we're going to have a sanctuary city where we don't, we don't recognize civil rights laws just as a hypothetical. And I'm looking at the broader picture there. I think he had said that this hadn't been litigated, but it seems to me that it really needs to be litigated.

[B]

Yeah, it should be, because this friction.

[F]

Is not going to go away. And as long as there's this friction, whichever side of the fence you're on, there's going to be more of these problems. It hasn't been widely reported, but somebody, a Cuban immigrant on Monday had, you know, ran off and tried to hit ICE officers with a car. I mean, this isn't the only example. I know the one in Minnesota, I'm saying, yeah, isn't the only example. There's just going to be more. So what do you guys think could be done about that?

[B]

Yeah, Kevin, great question, Bob.

[C]

Kevin yeah, it's a great question. I think it strikes at the heart of federalism and, you know, the 10th Amendment here. And you see these to a larger narrative, these preemption laws. Right. And you know, I was a big believer in Republicans being small, you know, small g government and the fact that the power is closest to the people. And you see, you know, when the changing of the guards with Democrats and Republicans wanting to preempt what the states are doing, I think, you know, I'm more power to the states when it comes to these kinds of issues.

[B]

Yeah, Larry.

[E]

Yeah. I mean, in the civil rights era, we sort of did see this with segregationist Democrats standing in the doorway of schoolhouses after Brown v. Board of Education. And it took, of course, a Republican president to empower the National Guard to actually prevent that from happening. So I suggest, short of that, the way we rectify this is that Democrat leaders need to stop getting rewarded for supporting these policies. You know, we're just talking about Gavin Newsom being the front runner for president. He has empowered his state and all of the cities and counties in his state to adopt these very policies. Policies he wants to be in charge of the federal agencies that as a governor he refuses to cooperate with the fact that they continue to raise money and get political power. Embracing these policies is the root of the problem.

[B]

Yeah. Bob, thank you for the question. Thank you for being part of two way. We're Going to get to Mallory in just a minute. Just a quick, just a quick word from another sponsor and then back to, back to your questions for Mallory. Cozy Earth. 20% off everything on the site. The sheets, the pants, the bubble cuddle blanket. It's all a miraculous 20 off using the promo code 2WMM. Right now, the holidays might be over, but an opportunity for buy gifts for folks if you need to. Buy gifts in the new year, but also stuff for yourself, get better sleep with the sheets. The bubble cuddle blanket will allow you to lose yourself in luxury. I'm not sure you'll actually get lost, but you'll enjoy how comfortable it feels. And of course, as always, you'll hear me talk about the pants. The pants will change your life. You'll buy more than one pair initially. You might just buy the one to try them out, but you'll buy another, trust me. Go right now to 2cozyearth.com use the promo code 2WMM. When you get to the post purchase survey, please mention that Larry told you to buy 20 pairs of pants even if you don't buy 20.

[C]

When do Larry and I get these pants? You know, as part of this, you.

[E]

Know, don't be, don't be using my name for an endorsement unless I get some pants.

[B]

Yeah, understood. And skip give the gift of comfort that lasts well into the new year. Go to cozyearth.com use the promo code 2 WMM. Mallory, happy new Year. Thank you for being part of two way Unmute yourself. Tell folks who don't know where you are and what's on your mind for Larry and for Kevin.

[G]

Hi, I'm calling in from South Carolina today. Are you upstate? Greenville.

[C]

Okay. All right. Our family's in Chester, so not too far.

[G]

A lot of people from Chester.

[B]

More, more sushi bars in Greenville than in Tokyo at this point. A lot of, a lot of sushi bars. Yeah, yeah, there are a lot, Mallory, trust me. They're more than, they're, they're more than there were 30 years ago. There's one blocking. There's, there's one, there's one block in Greenville that has three Japanese restaurants on it. It's craziest thing.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

Mallory, welcome in. What? Tell everybody what's on your mind.

[G]

So the one thing that I wanted to talk about, we haven't, we've touched on a little bit, but specifically, I remember during the first Trump administration reading a lot of essays that Fiona Hill had published. She was with the National, I think she was like an official with the US National Security Council. She was, I think she worked on the Trump administration, a big Russia expert. And there had been some congressional testimony where she had talked about there had been an offer by Russia that we could basically have free reign in Venezuela if we would stay out of Ukraine. And that sort of resurfaced with the recent New York Times article. And I just wondered if you guys were talking earlier about kind of the way the Russian subs were just sort of watching us snatch the oil tanker. If we, if we really do feel like with Trump's break with, with Russia over Ukraine and the recent negotiations, if really this, this Venezuela thing was more of an. A little bit more behind the scenes and less to do with just us in Venezuela directly and maybe Russia saying, hey, yeah, come back. I don't know.

[B]

Yeah, it's a great, It's a great question. And there's a lot of speculation about the interplay. It exists on multiple levels. First of all, Russian tanker being seized, Russia having an influence in Venezuela. All this conversation about whether the president basically saying, spheres of influence, we get this hemisphere, Russia gets Europe, China gets Asia. And then, of course, the question of whether there's a signal to Putin that, well, if we can go in and remove somebody, why can't Putin? So all of those, then more exists on many levels. Larry, thoughts on Mallory's question about how this plays off Russia?

[E]

Yeah, it's intriguing and could explain quite a bit. However, Trump's MO is to not keep those things close to his vest. He'll just say it, right? I mean, that's sort of what he's done in the past, and he hasn't suggested that at all. In fact, he's still pretty hostile toward Putin these days because of his actions and his disappointment in reaching an agreement in Ukraine. So. So I don't know. I would be skeptical at this point in that speculation.

[C]

Okay, Kevin, just real quick, Mallory, it's an excellent question, talking about spheres of influence here. And we talked about this, I think, last week with the fact that I think the administration should be more focused on making the case that China and Russia were making inroads in the south, and especially not just in terms of the oil and critical minerals issue, but kind of abutting their investments in our sphere of influence here and making the case that that's why Venezuela was so important with Maduro and less so about the oil and stuff like that. President hasn't really made that argument. To your point, Mallory, maybe there is that kind of thought of ceding some control in these different spheres to the Other party players.

[E]

That's a really good point. I mean, if anything, China was more entrenched in Venezuela than Russia was. I think Secretary Rubio made that point. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. Mallory, thank you. Really great and important question. Grateful to you for bringing it up.

[C]

Go Greenville.

[B]

Yeah. Mike, can you be brief? We got. We're up against the clock. I'm going to mute you unless you tell me you can be brief. All right, take it over. Go to it.

[C]

Mike, with the fraud issues that are coming up, do you think that there will actually be political consequences or will just be teams circling their own wagons?

[B]

You mean like in Minnesota?

[C]

Yeah, but there's rumors of it.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. Well, we've. We've seen one. We've seen one consequence, which is Governor Waltz isn't running for election. But, Kevin, will there be political consequences for this?

[C]

I do think so. The American people hate fraud, especially when it comes to taxpayer funds. We saw that with everyone getting bailouts. There's a Democratic member of Congress that has been indicted in Florida for fraud during the COVID era. Bill. So the American people hate this kind of stuff. It's a political killer, as we saw with Governor Walz and Mike, to your point, we're seeing some stuff in Maine, some stuff in Ohio, other states. It's not just a Democrat issue, Republican issue. When you have that kind of flow of funds without a lot of accountability, you're going to have fraud. And I think it's going to end a lot more careers going forward.

[E]

Yep, I think. I hope so. I mean, this is made to order for Republicans in a midterm election where they need some issues to sort of change the subject. And I don't understand why Democrats aren't as outraged about the fraud. They're sort of pooh, poohing it. If you really care about these programs, and most of these programs are the brainchild of the left or brainchild of Democrats, you should be pissed off more than anyone else that there's fraud going on. And finally, when the Biden administration wanted to hire 80,000 IRS agents to make sure you dot your I's and you cross your T's and you don't make a rounding error on your 1040, Democrats all embrace that and love that. Maybe we can use some of those agents to audit who's getting the money from the federal government, because it doesn't seem like anyone's minding that store. Lay off how much I'm paying in my taxes. Spend some more money on the millions of dollars you're paying out to these fraudulent organizations.

[C]

Billions. Billions. Not just millions. Billions.

[B]

Mike, thank you. Great question. Thank you for being brief. Gentlemen, couldn't be more grateful to you for coming on today and during the week. KEVIN and to Larry and everybody who came on this week, first week back in 2026. We'll be as I keep telling you, we'll be with you the whole year on this program, but also new programs coming that we're eager to tell you about. And we're the coming weeks and months and we'll be back Monday. Later today, Ethan Strauss on random offense at 2pm Eastern time. Join Ethan and if that's a show you've never sampled, if you like sports, I recommend it to you. Ethan is a just a fantastic program, genius and great, great knowledge about sports. And then my final program of the week, barring Breaking news, 6:00pm Eastern time tonight, two way tonight to round up all the day's news, maybe Supreme Court decisions, certainly some news out of the White House. Standby for that. And we'll see you then. And then we'll be back Monday morning, 9am Eastern Time for another episode of this program that we call the Morning Meeting. Kevin, Larry, thank you. Thanks everybody in the community. I'll see you at 6. Have a great day.

[E]

Free.