New Revelations from Jeffrey Epstein Files Expose More Elites: Washington, London Wonder Who's Next

Summary

The Morning Meeting – Episode Summary

Podcast: The Morning Meeting (2WAY)
Episode: New Revelations from Jeffrey Epstein Files Expose More Elites: Washington, London Wonder Who's Next
Date: February 10, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin
Panelists: Hogan Gidley, Melissa DeRosa

---

Main Theme / Purpose

This episode centers on the latest developments about the Jeffrey Epstein files, focusing on the political, legal, and societal fallout from new disclosures and ongoing redactions. With top panelists and audience participation, the episode covers how politicians and government agencies are reacting, who is implicated or under scrutiny, and the broader implications for elites in Washington and London. Additional discussions cover immigration negotiations, midterm election strategies, housing legislation, and global reactions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Epstein Files: Congressional and DOJ Maneuvering

• Congressional Review Leads to Frustration: Despite promises of transparency, recently released Epstein files remain heavily redacted—angering both Democrats and some Republicans.
• Back-and-Forth Accountability: Members like Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) demand more openness, while DOJ and FBI point fingers at each other over who enforced the redactions.
• Partisan Motivations:
  • Melissa DeRosa: "The DOJ...should’ve just redacted the names of the victims and released the rest of it..." (07:13)
  • Hogan Gidley: Points out that both parties cherry-pick facts to fuel their own narratives, leading to the public being misled (08:01).
• Transparency Rhetoric vs. Action: Mark Halperin presses Hogan on Republicans’ lack of public outrage and demand for full disclosure.

Memorable Moment / Quote:

“Do we just release the full files with only the victim’s names redacted and rip the Band-Aid off and let a couple of news cycles go by...or allow this to continue to be dragged out?” – Melissa DeRosa (11:30)

---

2. Hypocrisy and Political Risks Explored

• Initial Republican Framing Backfires:
  DeRosa argues Republicans believed the files would primarily incriminate Democrats, yet the breadth of implicated individuals now exposes both sides.
• Pressure to Testify:
  High-profile names (e.g., Howard Lutnick, Trump officials) are discussed as to whether they’ll be hauled in for testimony—creating both PR nightmares and legal dangers.

Memorable Moment / Quote:

“This thing is littered with everyone under the sun, including very high profile members of Donald Trump’s cabinet.”
– Melissa DeRosa (11:30)

---

3. Howard Lutnick’s Connection with Epstein

• Mark notes Lutnick’s past denials now contradicted by concrete evidence of repeated dealings with Epstein, even after Epstein’s conviction—heightening questions about potential protection from the sitting President.
• DeRosa’s Advice: She suggests stonewalling as damage control, implying Trump’s personal loyalty may insulate Lutnick for now (14:42).

Memorable Moment / Quote:

"If Howard Lutnick resigns...he’s canceled, it’s over."
– Melissa DeRosa (14:42)

---

4. Dangerous Precedent for Publicizing Names

• Potential Damage: DeRosa warns of the precedent set by releasing names of contacts and associates not charged with crimes, likening it to public shaming without convictions (17:20).
• Context, Or Lack Thereof: Gidley highlights the reputational risks—e.g., even harmless contacts (like Billy Graham’s) would be sensationalized without proper context (18:09).

---

5. Ghislaine Maxwell, Immunity, and Trump Pardon Speculation

• Legal Wrangling: Maxwell invoked the Fifth. Panel debates if she could/should be granted immunity to force disclosure.
• Pardon Speculation: DeRosa provocatively suggests Trump could pardon Maxwell—calling it an “insurance policy” should damaging revelations threaten allies or himself (20:13).

Memorable Moment / Quote:

“I wouldn’t be shocked if...Trump issues a pardon for her, you know, right when Democrats take control of Congress...”
– Melissa DeRosa (20:28)

---

6. Broader Effects and International Repercussions

• Poland and other European countries are launching their own investigations into local elite involvement with Epstein (53:26).
• US Congress may lag in advancing a dedicated Epstein probe, possibly only pursuing it if Democrats regain control (55:49).

---

7. Other Major News

Immigration and DHS Negotiations

• Slim path exists for a compromise on DHS funding and immigration reforms, but likely outcome is another continuing resolution (CR) to avoid a shutdown (22:09, 22:52).
• Hogan Gidley: Points out political rather than policy gaps are holding up progress (23:37).

White House Tactics

• White House shifts optics by proactively embracing body camera policies for ICE, aiming to appear reasonable amidst partisan deadlock (26:05, 26:28).

Midterms Outlook

• Both parties are choosing where to “play” given limited resources (36:07).
• Susan Collins’ re-election in Maine deemed likely, but depends on Democratic challenger strength (36:33-36:42).

Housing Legislation

• Both House and Senate have advanced divergent housing bills. Political calculations for the midterms make resolution complex and uncertain (30:55-31:38).

Global Check-In: Ukraine

• On-the-ground report describes life in Kyiv—frequent power cuts, resilient populace, and intense interest in US political fallout over Epstein files (51:33-54:29).

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “...the DOJ, it’s going to behoove them to just get rid of the redactions other than the names of the victims and re-release them.”
  – Melissa DeRosa [07:13]

• “I think that they have to confront the question to themselves: Do we just release the full files with only the victim’s names redacted and rip the Band-Aid off? ...Or allow this to continue to be dragged out?”
  – Melissa DeRosa [11:30]

• “If Howard Lutnick resigns...he’s canceled, it’s over.”
  – Melissa DeRosa [14:42]

• “It sets a very dangerous precedent...letting them be hung in the public square. And I think it sets a very dangerous precedent.”
  – Melissa DeRosa [17:20]

• “The difference with Howard is he said...I had one dealing with him and then never again. That’s why...this is worse for him.”
  – Mark Halperin [18:41]

• “I wouldn’t be shocked if ultimately...Trump issues a pardon for her.”
  – Melissa DeRosa [20:28]

• “I think they’re more in line with policy than either party would let on. I think they're much further apart on the politics of it.”
  – Hogan Gidley [23:37]

---

Important Timestamps by Topic

• Epstein Files Redaction Scandal: 06:40–14:00
• Political Fallout for Both Parties: 11:30–13:00
• Howard Lutnick Scrutiny: 13:00–15:18
• International Response to File Releases: 53:26–55:49
• Ghislaine Maxwell Speculation: 19:50–20:45
• ICE & Immigration Policy Debate: 21:57–26:28
• Midterm Strategy, Senate Races, and Susan Collins: 35:35–37:37
• Housing Legislation Standoff: 30:55–31:59
• Ukraine Dispatch: 49:52–54:57

---

Audience Participation Highlights

• Special Interests as a Campaign Issue ([41:01]–[45:43])

  • Not (yet) a front-burner issue in general elections, but intra-party Democratic contests are enlivened by anti-corporate rhetoric.
  • “In Democratic primaries, the Bernie–Elizabeth–AOC wing…have created this narrative of the corporate Democrats…” —Melissa DeRosa [42:34]

• New York Politics:

  • Hochul seen as improving in political acumen but lacks signature accomplishments. Her alliance with progressives potentially risky if public order declines ([47:02]–[49:20]).

• Ukraine Report:

  • Intense interest in US developments; skepticism US Congress will act before Europe on Epstein investigations ([51:33]–[54:57]).

---

Tone & Language

The tone is candid, analytical, sometimes irreverent (“I’m going to hedge a little bit...”, “as Hogan would say in Arkansas…”), and marked by political savvy and ex-insider’s wit. Speakers maintain mutual respect but challenge each other’s party lines and interpretations.

---

Episode Takeaways

• The Epstein files remain a live-wire issue, with partisan and inter-branch distrust complicating transparency.
• Both major parties are exposed by these files—the narrative has grown too broad for narrow partisan attacks.
• Key political actors may be insulated more by loyalty and damage control than by law.
• Internationally, the US is seen as lagging on accountability; other countries may act first.
• Beyond Epstein, major challenges loom over immigration, housing, and midterms—with strategy often motivated more by optics and party competition than bipartisan problem-solving.

---

This episode provides a vivid, comprehensive view of a complex, fast-moving story—with thoughtful, at times provocative, real-time analysis. Even for listeners unfamiliar with the broadcast, the summary above gives a detailed, navigable account of who’s implicated, who stands to gain or lose politically, and how the aftershocks from the Epstein files are reshaping public conversation from Washington to London and beyond.

Transcript

[A]

This is it. The world as you know it is over. Completely done. It's not about to be over. It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[B]

I was selling AI as a great.

[A]

Thing for decades and I was wrong.

[B]

I was wrong.

[C]

There's a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[A]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that.

[D]

It'S going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[A]

This really will be a world of abundance. And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[C]

Foreign.

[A]

Here. Still adjusting his shot because that's what I do. Some days now, my alarms are going off. Thank you for being here. This is the morning meeting. We'll run through the day's news. Got the day book here. I've also got two guest co hosts, stalwarts, fan favorites by any measure. Hogan Gidley, Melissa deroso. Welcome here. Hogan, what was your first job in politics?

[D]

Mike Huckabee, working communications for then governor of the state of Arkansas.

[A]

State of Arkansas. 1 of 2.

[D]

Was in college at the time.

[A]

Yes, exactly. Melissa, your first job in politics?

[E]

I was the communications director for a statewide bond referendum, the Transportation Bond act in New York. It was very sexy, let me tell you.

[A]

Did it? Did you win?

[E]

It did. And it had been defeated the two times it was previously tried.

[A]

Yeah, we call that the Derosa magic.

[D]

And great work, by the way, because New York is known for very good transportation.

[A]

It is indeed. If you want to be in on this conversation on a variety of topics, we're going to span the globe here. Please raise your hand if you're watching on x or on YouTube. You may not participate directly, although someday you'll come on the platform and you'll do that. But also, don't put smack in the chat. Think peace, love, understanding, comedy with a T. Just whatever you need to do to be part of the ethos of what we're doing here. Lots going on on Capitol Hill. That's serious. Lots going on around the world. That's serious. And then at home, we have some really complicated political stories. We'll get to all of that and more in just a moment. A quick word from a sponsor. You all know cozyearth, one of our great sponsors here. And you know the Cozy Earth will give you 20% off the whole site. Go to cozyearth.com promo go2wmn2wmm but as great as I am at selling the Cozy Earth products, because I love own them and I love them, I can't do better than these two four legged friends.

[E]

So what do you do when one of your babies loves the blanket, the bubble cuddle blanket, and one of your babies loves the bamboo striped sheets from Cozy Earth? You get all of it. And you make not only these two kiddos happy, you make their owner happy too. Cozy Earth to please the whole family.

[A]

Again, if you're listening to the version of this program on the podcast, you missed two gorgeous little pups laying on a bed. One on the bubble cuddle blanket, one on the striped sheets. I couldn't sell them better myself. Go to cozyearth.com 20% off for you and for your pets. Cozyearth.com promo code 2 WMM all right, the daybook. Today the president's got a couple things but Caroline Levitt's briefing at one and boy are there a lot of questions for her. I may try to go to that briefing. By the way, I'm not sure if I can get a seat but. One o', clock, Caroline, briefing. The president has closed press signing time at 4:30. I bet they open that up right during two way tonight. 5:30 he's got a closed press policy meeting. Then he's got a private dinner at 7. If you're wondering, I've not yet been invited to that dinner. But Hogan, if a seat opens up and they're asking for a recommendation, I like the food at the White. It's a little got a little more butter than I normally have, but I'd go all right. That's what's going on at the White House. The vice president continues on his trip overseas. He visited a memorial honoring the estimated 1.5 million Armenians killed by the Ottoman Turks more than a century ago. There you see those of you watching, there's a picture of the vice president and the second lady and he's off to Azerbaijan to talk about the US Brokered peace deal there. Lots going on in the Hill. As I said at this hour, House Republican and Democratic caucus meetings are taking place, after which we'll see the House Republican leadership. Hogan's friends at 10 hold their press conference. 10:45, Melissa's friends, 10:45, Democratic House leaders, a bunch of hearings. 10:00', Clock, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and the Immigration, U.S. citizenship and Immigration Services. The heads of all those folks appear before the House Homeland Security Committee. They will get lots of questions, including maybe about the Democrats proposals of how to change the procedures of ice. See what they think of that. Democratic Women's Caucus press conference at 11:45 to talk about the SAVE Act. They're not for it. It's Tuesday. So we've got House Republican and Senate separate lunches and the House takes up this, the House Rules takes up the SAVE act at 3:30. There's some other stuff going on, but let's get to it. Let's start with Epstein. Yesterday, a number of members, including the two most prominent faces of the House legislation that opened up the Epstein documents, Congressman Khanna and Congressman Massie, went to the Justice Department and started reading through the documents which were advertised as being unredacted. And what they found is a lot of redactions. And what they say happened is these were redacted by the FBI, who then gave them to the Justice Department. And the Justice Department's view was, well, these are how we got them. So we're just going to let you read them. Redacted. Some stuff has been unredacted. Incredible, historic. I don't know if the founders ever anticipated this. CO= branch back and forth on X where Ro, Khanna and Massey are complaining about the documents and the deputy Attorney general's subtweeting them and saying no, no, no, here's the deal. And some things were redacted further. But as more members, including Jamie Raskin and others go in, they're finding there are redactions. So Melissa, are we going to see more unredactions? In other words, will this process continue on a rolling basis or what?

[E]

I think at a certain point the doj, it's going to behoove them to just get rid of the redactions other than the names of the victims and re release them. Because now you're going to get into this back and forth where the public and the press are relying on the interpretation of specific members of Congress who go in and say I read this and this looks like actually Trump didn't ban Epstein from the White House. And I read this and it looks like there's six co conspirators. And so I think they're in dangerous territory where they're now going to leave it up to members of Congress who have clear motivation to drive certain agendas and that they should just do what they should have done all along, which is redact the names of the victims and release the Rest of it or not started down this path to begin with.

[A]

Hogan.

[D]

I think this is very typical of Congress when they go in, for example, for these Russia collusion briefs in a skiff, a private room where you can't have cell phones, et cetera. And then they come out and somebody on the Republican side says, there's no collusion. This is all a joke and a witch on it. Democrats come to the microphone and say, oh, no, no, no. He and Putin were best friends. It is very clear by the evidence. And turned out that they weren't telling the truth and there was no collusion. But this is a similar pattern. They go in and read these things, they have the, the same data and they'll come out with different conclusions. Now, Massie, who is a Republican for some odd reason, who hates all Republicans, I don't know why you shouldn't switch parties, continues to side with Democrats on things when he knows the missteps he's made by allowing some of these victims to be known. You know, the victims families filed lawsuits against them to prevent them from releasing some of the data they wanted to because Comer's committee was doing it in a.

[A]

So here's what I'm here. Here's what I'm confused by, though. And I asked this without prejudice and in good faith. Your party says you want transparency. The attorney general said she wanted transparency. The president at one time said he did. I hear a lot of Democrats expressing outrage at the redactions. I don't hear a lot of Republicans saying, I want to go up there and read those and make sure there's accountability for the Epstein class. Why is your party not doing that?

[B]

They are.

[D]

In fact, we wouldn't even be having these conversations.

[A]

Who's name the Republican. Just name, just name the Republican not named Massie in the last 24 hours who's gone on cable news and said, like, like Ro Khanna and Jamie Raskin and other Democrats, we demand the release of all the documents, protect the victim's names, but unredact everything. Why. Why are Republicans not doing that if they support transparency?

[D]

I'm sure there are some Republicans that are doing that, but that's not the question.

[A]

Well, it's my. It is my. It is my question. It's your question. And when you say, and when you say you're sure, well, but when you say, well, no. Should there be transparency?

[E]

Of course.

[A]

Do you demand that all the documents be released?

[D]

I demand everything should be released and everything except the does that if you can protect the victims.

[A]

Okay, understood. Understood.

[D]

Doesn't care about that.

[A]

Well, I don't know. I'm just saying, you said you're sure there are Republicans doing it. I watched a lot of TV in the last 12 hours and I don't see any, any Republican pounding the table and saying release everything except protect the victims. You wouldn't have the information Congress. But Hogan, but Hogan, but Hogan, it's a factual matter that there are redactions in there that are inconsistent with the law that was passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress. So I'm asking you, why are Republicans, including the attorney general and the president and the deputy attorney general, why are they not passing, pounding that, where's the speaker of the House? Why are they not pounding the table and say protect the victims assiduously but release everything else? I'm asking you why they're not doing it. That's the only question I want you to answer.

[D]

They have said that many, many times. Comer has said it, the speaker of the House has said it. They've all said it. Now, if they're getting it or not getting it, that's a different question to ask. If he's so. Melissa, these Billy badasses behind the scenes piss me off so much. If he's so tough and take all the names you think are redacted and go read them on the floor where it's protected. Well, they might do that because he wants to show.

[A]

You might be right about that. Melissa, why do you think Republicans are not pounding the table demanding transparency?

[E]

Because they realize they never should have opened this Pandora's box to begin with because it's ricocheting back on them. At the beginning they thought this was going to be some big conspiracy about celebrities who were Democratic donors in the Clintons. And as it turns out, they, this thing is littered with everyone under the sun, including very high profile members of Donald Trump's cabinet like Latnick, and they want this conversation to be over, but they have badly botched this to a point where I don't know that it's going to be over for years. And I think that they have to confront the question to themselves. Do we just release the full files with only the victim's names redacted and rip the band aid off and let a couple of news cycles go by and then, I don't know, bomb Iran or whatever else happens, happens and hopefully move past it or allow this to continue to be dragged out? But the American public is not stupid. And you, it's hard to justify hauling in Hillary Clinton, who doesn't know Epstein, who has nothing to add, but then not hauling in Howard Lennox. And this is either justice applied evenly across the board, or it's not justice, and they're just digging themselves deeper.

[A]

Okay, will Starmer survive? Melissa, yes or no? Will Starmer survive?

[E]

I think Starmer will survive. He seems pretty dug in. Unless there's some mechanism for them to remove him unwillingly, he's going to survive.

[A]

Hogan, will he survive?

[D]

I don't think so. They're pretty unruly over there across the pond, and I think they're getting really angry at kind of the. The chips of his staff and others. I think it's. I think it's going to be a problem.

[A]

I would be surprised if he survived. What about Mr. Lutnick? I wonder how this would be playing out if he hadn't lied about his relationship with Epstein and the fact that it continued. What he said was just wrong, and he said it emphatically. He said he had one meeting with Epstein in Epstein's home, his neighbor. He left, never again. And then he had a lot of associations with Epstein after that. I wonder how people would be treated if he hadn't lied. The left is inflamed about this. As Melissa said, A lot of people are saying, why isn't he being called to testify? Hogan, are you comfortable with how this is being handled? Including the. All the Commerce Department will say is this. Is the liberal media trying to distract from how great the Trump administration is. Are you comfortable with what. How Howard Lutnick has handled his relationship with Jeff Jameson? Are you comfortable with that?

[D]

This is not a cop out. This is a literal question for you. What is the timeline there? Is it after the pedophilia, after the jail sentence? And what was there like, Give me a little bit of backstory, because I don't know the whole.

[A]

He was in business with him. They signed some legal documents together. He. He tried to go visit him at the island with his family. He worked with him on trying to block some construction project in their neighborhood. Lots of email exchanges, including going to try to visit him in the. In the island. It's not clear if he did or not. But all this is after his conviction, his guilty plea.

[D]

Listen, I don't know the nature of that relationship. I'm just taking what you say as gospel here. I. I think anybody in relationship with Epstein, there needs to be conversations and questions had, undoubtedly.

[A]

Melissa, if you were advising Howard Lutnick, would you tell him to just keep stonewalling and hope it moves on or something else?

[E]

I think if I was advising Howard Lutnick, I would say keep stonewalling because once he resigns, his life is over. So I think like he's trying to whistle past the graveyard and his hands are his, his fate is in the hands of Donald Trump. And so the question becomes, is it becomes such a liability that Trump offs him? But Trump has a lot of affection for Howard, and so I don't know that he's going to move to do that. So I think if they can get away with it and move the conversation to somebody else. But I mean, if Howard Lutnick resigns or does something like he's done, he's canceled, it's over.

[D]

So, you know, you hit on something. Melissa. That's right. Trump, Trump likes him. Trump thinks he's done a great job too. So I'm gonna be interested to see how that plays out for sure.

[A]

Here's, here's what, here's what I just amazed. I've not, I read a lot of these stories. I don't read every one, but I've not seen this in every, in any story. Okay. The president, people, people were mystified. Why is the, what's the president protecting? Is he protecting himself? Is he protecting a member of his family? Why does, why did he oppose disclosure? And then Marjorie Taylor Greene said, the President told me he's opposing disclosure because he wants to protect his friends. That's what Marjorie Taylor Greene said after talking to the President. Now, you can say whatever you want about Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's actually a pretty reliable narrator. Maybe not when it comes to space lasers, but when it comes to what happens on planet terrestrial Earth. Pretty reliable. Howard, Howard Lutnick did a podcast interview where he said, I had this one interaction with him. He showed me his massage table. My wife and I stormed out and we resolved never to be in the room with them again. Now, it's an interesting Clinton esque phrasing. Maybe if you're at the beach with them, you're not in a room, so that's okay. Anyway, if I'm Howard Lutnick and I know that I've got all these email stuff with, with, with Jeffrey Epstein sitting there. Okay, again, just, I just amazed no one's talked this through the way I'm doing it that I've seen. So you're Howard Lutnick. You know, you signed a business contract with Epstein. You know, there's email exchanges about trying to keep the Frick construction but project from ruining your neighborhood. And you know, you emailed them to Say, can my family come visit your island? Okay. And your boss is the President who controls whether the documents are released. Presumably someone should ask Howard and maybe, and maybe the President, did Howard ever say to you, hey, Mr. President, buddy, Donald, don't let these documents come out? Because I'm on the record saying my relationship with Epstein ended and there's a paper trail as long as the Commerce Department aquarium. I don't know how long that is, but it's long, showing that I had contact with him. Isn't that obviously what happened?

[E]

I mean, who knows? But some version of that very well may have happened. But, you know, I think that, first of all, what's happening with this Epstein file disclosure on principle, I think, is very dicey territory because you're releasing everybody's names, everybody's emails, all of these things for people who are not found guilty of committing crime and then letting them be hung in the public square. And I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. And so for all of these people who were not convicted of committing crimes, they never thought any of these things would see the light of day. So they were safe in making whatever public statements you saw. And it's not limited to Howard Lutnick. Right.

[A]

There's a whole, including, including people who are the President's enemies and, and including people who. Other people who are the President's friends.

[D]

Logan.

[B]

But I mean, I'm not trying to.

[D]

Compare Billy Graham to Howard Lutnick, but it would be like, Melissa, this is the question, I think, and the concern of so many in and around this process is if you release all the files and you're like, Billy Graham was in the, this Christian leader was in the Epstein files.

[B]

What?

[D]

And then you read it and it's like, well, they held a Bible study and he was trying to help him come to Christ.

[A]

But that wouldn't be the story.

[D]

The story would be Billy Graham's in the files.

[A]

You share so many people's reputations and.

[D]

Names if the context isn't provided. And you know, and I know members.

[A]

Of the media don't care about that, of course. Now, look, people try to draw the line between pre guilty plea and post, but many people, I can tell you this, as a matter of fact, many people, and this might apply to Howard Lutnick. They, they might have dealt with him and not known that he ever was in jail. Or, or they may say, oh, this is a minor offense, obviously it's not an issue. But they didn't Google it, right? They didn't Google it. They don't know the details, but Howard said, the difference with Howard is he said, pardon me, Secretary Lutnick. He said everybody calls him Howard. So I fall into that. He said, I had one dealing with him and then never again. That's why I think that this is, this is worse for him than it would be for other people. All right, we got to move on because we cannot spend the whole show on Epstein, even though many would. But one more Epstein thing. Maxwell takes the Fifth yesterday. Her lawyer continues to say, give her clemency and she'll tell everybody that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump did nothing wrong and then tell, quote, unquote, the whole story. What crap. That whole thing is what happens next, Hogan, what happens with her? She's in her minimum security prison. That, that I. Pretty still mysterious who decided to send her there. What happens to her now? Is there, is there more, is there more acts in this drama?

[D]

I, I don't know anything. I mean, you know, she's already, you know, given her testimony when it mattered most and had to do with her trial and her sentencing. So I don't know what she thinks she's holding back.

[A]

Melissa, why can't they give her use immunity and let her, and let her test and demand that she not take the Fifth? I haven't heard anybody raise that. Why don't you say, okay, you're immunized. So now tell us everything. Why did, why isn't that on the table? Or is it.

[E]

I mean, maybe it's on the table, maybe they're talking about it, but obviously it hasn't been reported, so they're not taking it seriously. Seriously if someone's kicked that around. But who knows where this goes? I wouldn't be shocked if ultimately, at the end of the day, Trump issues a pardon for her, you know, right.

[A]

After, Right after the midterms.

[E]

Well, I was going to say right when Democrats take control of Congress. So, you know, and then she goes to him, and then when she gets called back in, whatever, he's safe and anything. I'm not suggesting she knows anything that's damaging to the president, but it certainly is one hell of an insurance policy.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. The negotiations over dhs, the Democrats.

[D]

Say again, wouldn't you have used that already?

[A]

Use what?

[D]

Any information she has. If she, if she's trying to, like, leverage or go out for the president. Wouldn't you have done that with the.

[A]

Prosecutors when she was under indictment? You would think so. But, but that's why the whole thing is a bunch of crap. Like she's first of all she's a known liar so I don't understand why anybody would make a deal with her. Second, she lied. I mean she lied most fundamentally about her role with Epstein. So it's like the whole thing, the whole thing, the whole thing is so ridiculous anyway. DHS the Democrats gave over the weekend they gave principles about what they how they want ICE to change. Republicans said non starter there's 70% of this we'd never vote for then. And that includes Republicans in the House and in the Senate. Then they said okay, here's the legislative language codifying it. You Yesterday the White House gave back a counteroffer which has remained private and secret. Some would be critical of that. Some would say that's how you negotiate. But but the fact remains the deadlines in a couple days, three days and there's no chance of a deal because. Because there's the parties are so far apart even though people are they're now talking and people say it's encouraging. So Melissa, is this headed towards another extension of a CR to give them more time to negotiate? How are they going to bridge this in time or are they not so.

[E]

Knowing I was coming on the show this morning, I checked in with a very senior person in the House Democratic Conference and asked whether or not there was any chance whatsoever of a deal getting done and they actually shocked me and they said that there's a very slim path. So there is engagement and I think that there is a feeling that maybe something can happen coming up against the deadline. I personally believe deadlines exist for a reason. You can negotiate anything in three days if you really want to. The longer you kick things out, the less likely anything ultimately ever gets done and you lose the moment and the momentum. But I was told slim path to meeting the deadline Friday and if not I think it could be close enough that they do another continuing resolution.

[D]

Hogan I think it's going to move to a continuing resolution as well for another few weeks. Kicking the can down the road I would argue though I don't think they're. I think they're more in line with policy than either party would let on. I think they're different or they're much further apart on the politics of it. I think they're trying to figure out what it means long term that they continue to go to like a defund the ICE movement. How's that going to look for them or standing up for criminals continuously? Is that going to hurt them or are the images so bad out of Minnesota they think they in their hole to win Midterms, I think that's what they're trying to game out. And giving them more weeks allow them to kind of come to a better conclusion from a policy standpoint.

[A]

100% agree with that. Go ahead.

[E]

Well, I would just argue that if, if things continue to tamp down, as I feel like, let's put Bad Bunny aside and the rude conversations about everything, if things continue to tamp down, if Tom Homan does what he seems to be doing pretty well for the last couple of days, I think you lose the momentum on it. And ICE is funded through the end of the year because of the big beautiful bill. Right. So ultimately, if we end up in a situation where DHS funding is shut down and TSA all of a sudden use. You have a miserable experience in the airports and you're not looking at kids being deported or ripped away from their parents or Americans being shot on the street because it's three weeks from now and the American attention span is 17 seconds. Do the Democrats blow the moment and somehow the Republicans can, you know, flip it back on them? And again, I think that this is like a very. It's a high wire act.

[A]

Right. Well, there's no doubt that while Democrats remain as united as they were in the wake of the two killings in Minnesota, the momentum has been sapped in part by Homan. And so Republicans aren't gonna give in on this policy stuff. They might have been panicked two weeks ago, but they don't need to now. And. And the public opinion polling is still bouncing around, but there's no. The pressure valve has been. The pressure has been taken off. The valve's been open. Yes, Hogan.

[D]

And I think because of Homan's actions. And again, a friend of mine, I've known Tom for a while now, and having served for two presidents, or multiple presidents rather, both Republican and Democrat, famously getting the award from Barack Obama for deportations, he's got some credibility in the space. And when he goes there, he did a good thing, which was basically, he's the one who put out the olive branch. He's the one who tried to work with local officials and say, listen, these are child molesters, they're murderers, they're rapists. They need to be out of these communities and we need to work with you to do it. And the initial reaction by both Mayor Fry and by the Governor, Tim Waltz were like, no, we're still not going to do it. It put them in a really bad spot because all of a sudden people started realizing, hold on a second, you're doing this to try and make communities safer. You're the ones bringing the temperature down and they're still ratcheting it up. It put them off foot, off footing. And as Melissa said, there was a time maybe where Republicans would have caved and figured out how to really bring this down and be the reactor, but instead they were the actor. And now their side looks pretty, pretty.

[A]

Out of touch, I think. I think this is. Go ahead.

[E]

The one other thing I would say which I thought was a brilliant move on the part of the White House was, was on their own voluntarily doing the body, body cameras. And so they took one of the arguments away. Like they brought Tom Homan in, they sidelined the people who were wearing it badly and they did the body cameras. And so at the end of the day, you're going to come over like, is this about getting the issue or is it about the politics?

[A]

And they present and they presented a counter offer. So now they seem like they're being reasonable just now. Hakeem Jeffries in the House House caucus meeting. Jake Sherman gets regular reports from all these meetings. Punchbowl. Hakeem Jeffries slammed the White House's counteroffer and he called it a so called counter and he also called Donald Trump a so called president. So he likes the so called construction. I'm very bearish on there being a deal because, because the Democrats are too energized both politically and emotionally and substantively about demanding their 10 changes. And, and 70% of those changes are just not going to pass the House. They're just not going to particularly as every day goes by and Homans has calmed down, we're no longer seeing images out of Minnesota. All right. I said we were done with Epstein, but we got to do two more things. Hogan. The president has walked a very weird line saying I was outraged by Epstein and I kicked him out of Mar a Lago and I broke off the relationship, but saying I knew nothing of what he did that was illegal. It doesn't make sense. If you didn't see anything wrong, why'd you break it off? Right.

[D]

So that was stealing his employees and the guy.

[A]

Okay, so. Well, creeped out because why? What did Epstein, based on what Trump has said to date since he became president in 19 and lately and Carolina said on behalf, what would you, how would you summarize the reason the President said he, he cut off relations with Epstein because they have said creeped out. Creeped out by what? Stealing employees wouldn't creep him out?

[D]

No, but I'm saying there are multiple Things here. One of which is he's been clear, has the President, that Epstein was stealing employees, which he didn't.

[A]

Okay, but, but two is, yeah, he.

[D]

Has said also that the guy was a creep and that people in the.

[A]

Okay, but, but what did he, what did he see the creep? Did he see anything involving illegal behavior that creeped him out based on what he said so far?

[D]

Well, I don't know that because I'm not in that question and I'm sure.

[B]

Caroline will be asked a question.

[D]

But if the president say, I'm sure this guy's a creeper, then, you know.

[A]

I'm sure she will because the Miami Herald's reporting that one of the documents that was, that's been unredacted, released is an interview with the head of the local police department who said Donald Trump called him and said, I saw this guy with teenage girls and everybody knew about it. So that's, that's a different explanation with a level of clarity we haven't seen. Okay, last Epstein thing, then we're going.

[D]

To come and ask for the other one.

[A]

Well, nobody talked about in 2019, and ostensibly he and Caroline have given a complete account. The complete account that they've given is, is not as complete as what he ostensibly told. Ostensibly told.

[E]

So what's your suggestion, Mark? Is your suggestion that that that's been fabricated? Because if, I mean, I don't know.

[A]

No, my suggestion is, my suggestion is.

[E]

My reaction was why the hell hasn't he been saying that for years?

[A]

Because then it raises the question of why he didn't. Didn't do more about it. Why didn't he do more about it if he was seeing it? And also he and Jeffrey Epstein used to tomcat around together. So now he's going to have to say, I tomcatted around with a guy who. That's, that's an Arkansas term. And I learned that in Little Rock. Tomcatted around with a guy who, who, who, who I saw with teenage girls behaving inappropriately. Now, teenage girls can be adults, but that's not what the, that's not what the tone of this was. We'll see. Lastly, have either of you searched Epstein files for your names?

[E]

I would have no reason to be in the Epstein files.

[D]

No, I have, nor would I.

[A]

Okay, so I hadn't searched myself, but Greg Kelly just sent me. I'm in the Epstein files because somebody makes a reference to one of my books. So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Today will be my last episode of the program. I appreciate the Opportunity to serve.

[D]

Did you do an interpretive reading on the island?

[A]

No, no. It just says somebody said game Change by Mark Halpern. All right, the housing, housing, huge issue for America. And amazingly, bipartisan housing bills have passed in both the House and the Senate. The House passed their bill yesterday differs somewhat substantially from the Senate version. The president's more interested in lowering prices and making housing more affordable. He's not interested in raising supply because that has implications for the economy that he doesn't like. How's this going to. How are the House and Senate, are they going to have a conference committee, which they never do anymore? How's there going to be a housing bill which seems like the Congress wants and the White House wants? How's that going to work? How they're going to get a housing bill with two different versions?

[D]

I think you understand that these two august bodies work so well in tandem on big issues like this.

[A]

And then sometimes they do. But usually, usually the House of Lords just, just jams that the. The House of the people. But in this case, the House of the people rose up and said, we're not going to pass your crummy has the Lord's bill. So what's going to. What's going to happen?

[D]

I mean, look, I think the focus right now obviously is on the shutdown in dhs, but there'll be a lot of these things moving forward too, because they're going to want to have some things to tout heading into the midterm. This will be one of them. How it shakes out, it's way too far off to be thinking about that. We've got to have a hard, firm deadline or something in place for these people to buckle down and do it.

[A]

Melissa, is there going to be a housing bill?

[E]

I agree with Hogan. I think it's too soon to tell. And also there's going to be politics as to why Democrats don't want it to go through. You know, like we're at that stage in the political calendar in the midterms where everything is going to be a political calculation on what they can hang around their opponents neck. So I'm not that hopeful, but it's too soon to tell.

[A]

All right, I want to ask you both one question about the situation with Savannah's mom and again, Nancy Guthrie and the family. We're all praying for some sort of miracle here. If you want to raise anything else about it, you can, but you've both worked with law enforcement. So here's my question. If there's a case where everybody in the media thinks there's a suspect. Okay. And, and, and yesterday the FBI said, and the local people have said there's no suspect, there's no person of interest, there's no subject of an investigation. Would law enforcement ever publicly basically lie and say there's not a suspect because they don't want the suspect to know they have them in their crosshairs. They have them in their line of sight. Is that something law enforcement would do to kind of let it play out without that person thinking they're. They're under investigation? Is that something law enforcement would do?

[D]

Yes.

[A]

Yes, Melissa.

[E]

I would like to think that their answer would just be, we're not commenting on an active investigation versus actively lying.

[A]

Right.

[E]

But, yeah, it's possible.

[A]

Okay. And do either of you have a sense of where that story is going, of, of what the state of play is?

[D]

I mean, here they have somebody. I think they have somebody.

[E]

I think we all hear. We're all hearing the same thing. Right, Right.

[A]

Well, if they do have somebody, they both lied. And again, I'm not. I'd be. This is a situation where I'd forgive public officials lying. But, but, but. So do you think that person's going to be arrested today or soon?

[D]

How did they phrase it?

[A]

They said there's no subs, there's no person of interest. There's no, there's no subject of the investigation. We don't have a.

[E]

We don't have quite the quick turnaround with. It would be.

[A]

It would be. It would be.

[B]

Would.

[E]

There's no subject to arrest somebody.

[A]

Yeah. So Katie Porter, people thought maybe Kamala Harris would run for governor of California. She said she's not. Then they said, well, Katie Porter's the front runner. And then she had those two videos. Very unfortunate. People have pooled on the prospect of Katie Porter winning. Democrats are desperate not to allow two Republicans to be the ones who make it into the runoff in the way California does elections. So Democrats are looking for a front runner. They're looking for a strong candidate who can make the runoff and beat a Republican, presumably, or another Democrat in the fall. Eric Swalwell, Congressman, got in the race. He's gotten some support. And yesterday, Senator from California, Adam Schiff, both. Both favorites of Donald Trump, by the way, Schiff endorsed at Swalwell. So, Melissa, is Swalwell now the obvious front runner, and he'll continue to get endorsements from unions and others, or is this still wide open?

[E]

I think it's still wide open. I think this is obviously a very big push. And that's very good for him because Schiff has a lot of power in California. Yeah, but I think it's too soon to say.

[D]

Hogan, you'll remember on this very program not too long ago, I believe my counterpart at the time was Nomiki Const. I believe.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

And I said I felt as though Swallow was gaining momentum to be the front runner.

[A]

You did nominate.

[D]

And I believe that still to be the case. And this is another way to kind of help that. I still don't think endorsements help all that much unless it's a Donald Trump one. But in California, Schiff does have a lot of power, so we'll see.

[A]

And he can raise a lot of money for him if he starts doing fundraising. Okay. Midterms, choices are starting to be made about where to support who to support, because resources are finite. Melissa, I'm told that you and I have discussed this. The White House looks at the Republican candidates in New York and they're very, they're very annoyed. They're very upset that the top of the tick a lot of House competitive House seats in New York. If the top of the ticket runs weak, that's, that's not great. So they're, they're de emphasizing New York. They're worried about Texas Democrats. Same thing. They got to choose where to play. Maine Democrats don't know who their nominee is going to be to run against Susan Collins. And ladies and gentlemen, those of you who say Susan Collins is done, done and dusted. Dead. Can't possibly win. Remember last time she was way behind in the polls, given up for politically dead, and she won. And Susan Collins, ladies and gentlemen, is back at the starting line and ready to win again. Here's a new video from Susan Collins. 2026.

[E]

This is perfect for 2026 because I'm running.

[A]

Oh, my goodness. I wonder how many takes that was. Melissa, will Susan Collins be reelected?

[E]

Yes, I think Susan Collins gets reelected.

[D]

Yeah, Hogan, I'm gonna say yes. And also, I thought that video was kind of cute. Am I wrong? It wasn't cringey at all.

[A]

You were wrong. All right.

[D]

She's kind of a grandmothery type, right? Choose your fighter. Nonsense. She's kind of a lady ready to run.

[A]

I, I, I'm gonna, I'm hedge a little bit. I think it will depend on who the Democrats nominate and if they're a strong candidate. You do not beat a well funded incumbent, and she will be very well funded unless you've got a strong candidate. And I'm not sure either of the Democrats will be strong, but they could be. Hogan, if you were the RNC chair, what would your, what are places that Democrats or Republicans are expected to spend money besides New York, where you'd be thinking, ah, maybe that's not as great a bet. It's like one or two places. Yeah. Georgia Senate, I mean.

[D]

Yeah, they're going to spend some money there for sure. You know, Minnesota to me is always fool's gold. It's kind of like Democrats in Texas. They're always close, but they never win it. But with the, with the, all the fraud and all the stuff coming out with local officials being tied to it, there could be some opportunities there. But. Yeah.

[A]

All right, Melissa, what's a place you think Democrats are thinking about spending money like Texas? Are there places that you would say, yeah, probably say, let's save our money for something we can win?

[E]

I think that, No, I think that they'll play everywhere to force Republicans to play everywhere. You know what I mean? Like, this is going to be from everything we've seen from 2025 through last weekend. This is anticipated to be a big Democratic wave here. So if they're able to engage the donor base appropriately and raise the necessary funds, I think that they'll play everywhere just to make Republicans play defense everywhere and waste money in places that they otherwise shouldn't have to.

[D]

Big fundraising discrepancy right now, too, right?

[A]

Well, yes, except, except for Democratic Senate candidates raising money.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. Well, I don't know. I don't know that it'll close. Were the, were the retail numbers good, Bad, medium? Somebody tell me, how were the retailers.

[E]

I think they were bad in December, Right. Lower than anticipated.

[A]

Is that right?

[F]

Rick gave them a C. Rick gave.

[A]

Him a C. All right, ladies and gentlemen, our economics correspondent Rick Santelli has the latest. 117.

[D]

Please.

[E]

See me in Chicago. Rick, the numbers, please.

[G]

Yes. Let's start out with the employment cost index. We're expecting a fourth quarter number to end up around. Up 8, 10 of a percent. Comes in 110 light. Up 7 10, up 710 of a percent. How does that rate. Actually, that would be the smallest quarterly price movement since going all the way back to 2Q21. 2Q21, where it equals 0.7. You have to go back to 3Q20.

[A]

All right. I can't. Someday. Some days. Some days. Rick is a model of clarity. I don't know what the hell he's talking about.

[G]

December number.

[A]

Okay, take Rick down one other bit of economic business news. Paramount upped its offer again for Warner Brothers. More of a termination fee and something called a ticking fee. I don't know what that is. All right, quick word from a sponsor and then to your questions. If you want to get in on the conversation, please raise your hand for Melissa and for Hogan. 25% off everything on the website. CBDistillery.com this is something that over 2 million people have turned to for better sleep, more feeling, more relaxed, maybe dealing with pain after exercise. If you have any of those issues, maybe you have two. Maybe you hit the trifecta and you have all three. Sleep issues, pain issues, mood issues. Give the products of CB Distillery a try. They are all natural, third party tested, free from artificial dyes and fillers. Over 2 million people have used them and like them. So if you're ready to start sleeping better, feeling less stressed, feeling good Again, check out CB Distillery. Go to CBDistillery.com use the promo code 2WMM to get a full 25% off everything on the site. CB Distillery, promo code 2WMM. Wake up feeling refreshed. Give this a try. Again. Over 2 million people have purchased the products of CB Distillery. Why not you? Why not you, I ask. CBDistillery.com promo code 2 WMM. Thank you for your attention to that matter. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for your participation. We start with the most important thing to come out of Iowa since Chuck Grassley. Diane Moylan. Diane, welcome in unmute and question. Good morning. Question for Melissa and Hogan. Thank you for being part of Two Way.

[F]

Thank you. I was kind of wondering if you guys think that the issue of special interests is becoming more of a campaign issue this cycle than typically because it just seems like everybody's on some track with some different special interest group that's causing all their problems.

[D]

Hogan, you know, interesting, Diane, I appreciate the question. I find it the opposite. I've not heard a lot about special interests on the campaign trail yet. Doesn't mean they won't bring it up and have those conversations. But I think it's going to center around the economy, border security, immigration. I think corruption will be part of it too. Special interest, I'm not entirely sure unless it's under the rubric of, you know, the some elite class is a special interest or these guys who get caught in corruption and never get accountability or justice or never face any punishment, you know, that that's a, you know, special interest group. Something I don't see it as necessarily pockets of special interest because, you know, the president's kind of gone after people like drug companies. He's gone after big companies for buying up houses. He's gone after some of those things. Maybe it could be we're breaking up special interests and attacking them head on. Maybe, but I just haven't seen a big movement for that. Melissa may have a different take. I just, I haven't seen much conversation about it.

[A]

Melissa.

[E]

You know, I see it in Democratic primaries more because the Bernie Elizabeth AOC wing of the party, you know, it's created the Civil War, the fight club. They think it's their moment to take over the Democratic Party. And they've created this narrative of like the corporate Democrats, which is really just code for moderate Democrats. And they use that as their, as their cudgel. And so I mean I, I saw it firsthand in the New York City mayor's race, which it's, it's actually quite hypocritical because they have their own billionaire backers too. But they, but they try to do this us against them dynamic where they make it that if you're not a total extremist DSA or anti Israel, you know, crusader, that you are somehow bought by the millionaires and billionaires and the special interests and they're, you're controlled by them. And so I see it in the, in the primaries within the Democratic Party, but to Hogan's point, I'm not sure how it plays out yet in the general elections.

[A]

Diane, where are you seeing it? What, what made you ask the question?

[F]

It just seems like, you know, obviously with the Maha thing, that's all what it's about. But. Yeah, well, here are like the people on ad complaining about the meat packers and the fertilizer companies and they have a lot of complaints about, they want antitrust action taken. You know, and then it's with the immigration thing, it's like the rich people and the hotel owners and again the meat packers and that's why we can't do this in a civil manner, you know, and have just self deportations that this big mess. It just seems like every issue.

[A]

Yeah.

[F]

Like instead of it being like a Democrat Republican thing, everybody's got like some corporation they want to blame.

[A]

Yeah, well, you know, the president's gone pretty hard after the pharmaceutical companies and on, on, on media mergers. He's got a mixed record. Sometimes he seems like he's anti corporate, sometimes seems to be rewarding his friends and, and then, and then on immigration, you know, they've not, despite the rhetoric from Homans and others, they've not gone aggressively after employers. So I'd say it's mixed, but I think Melissa's right. I keep going back to the speech over the weekend from Jon Ossoff, which I'm going to talk about on nextup today at some length. He talked about the Epstein class, and that is an attempt to fuse outrage about the Epstein files with anti corporate interests, anti wealthy, anti powerful people and how the economy has worked for them for the last several decades more than it has for working class. So I'll be curious to see who picks up that Ossoff thing and continues to talk about it less about Epstein and more about the economy.

[E]

I heard that term, the Epstein class thrown around quite a bit this morning on liberal cable news. So it's really something people are going to try to help.

[D]

And why it's so effective is because it basically calls out both sides. It says everybody the crook.

[C]

Right.

[D]

And that's what Trump did, I think so effectively, too. I think it's a good message point for, for people to use.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Well, it's interesting not to prolong this, but to go back to the housing bill. Right. Isn't one of the holdups that Trump wants to stop corporations from buying up real estate because he views that? I mean, it's a populist thing. Right. It gives you a boogeyman. And so it's like, you know, he's looking. And Trump is very gifted at identifying the populist rage and directing it. So you'll see some of that. Certainly.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The Wall Street Journal reports that powerful chairs as well as powerful special interests oppose that provision to try to stop, you know, corporate Wall street from buying up housing. And it's not in either bill. It's not. Neither the House or the Senate bill. Diane, thank you. Great question. Always, always appreciate you coming on. All right. Sorry. Looking at something in my inbox. Susan, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Melissa and for Hogan.

[B]

Thank you.

[E]

So I want to ask Melissa some questions about New York politics, if that's okay.

[A]

Sure.

[E]

Yeah. So the governor's race, first, first question is do you think Kathy Hochul, I read your book, by the way, want.

[B]

To mention that.

[E]

But do you think Kathy Hochul has gotten better? Do I think Hochul's gotten better? Yeah. Kathy Hochul has gotten better at the politics of being, of setting herself up to be reelected. I think that that's what she has gotten better at. I still, however many years into her time as governor, I can't point to one concrete thing that she's done like one accomplishment that she's known for except like exploding spending and giving special interests everything that they want in order to keep them fat and happy. But I think she has gotten better at the politics and at this point she seems like she's set up on a glide path to re election. How about her ability to. Is she threading the needle, the needle correctly with Mamdani or is she just doing nothing or how's that working? No, I think, I think that that is someplace that she is really screwing up. I think that she is bear hugging him way too aggressively. And I think she was doing it out of fear of this primary which was never going to be a real race to begin with with her lieutenant Governor. But she wanted to ensure that her left flank was covered and that she wasn't going to have a primary that would be backed by the dsa. And I think in doing that she's bear hugging him. And with every passing day I think mom dummies numbers are going to go down. I think that between, you know, the day to day management requirements of being mayor of the city of New York, like snow removal for example, or 18 people dying because of your incompetence, not clearing the street from homeless people, I think that you're going to see him fail at the management aspects of the job and at the same time you're going to continue to see things like working groups within his agencies using taxpayer dollars to propel things like Israel's committing genocide and some of the zealotry going. And I think that at the end what she really needs to watch for is there's another nine months of this election and does Mamdami screw up something so badly to some high profile crime stuff, quality of life stuff in the city because she's gonna end up wearing all of that. So I am totally underwhelmed by Blakeman, but I think that she's not totally out of the woods yet. And I think she's overplaying her closeness to Momdami. And if I were her, I'd be acting as more of a foil.

[A]

Yeah. Let me make an announcement. Normally the community participation is totally spontaneous. In fact, this was planned starting Monday. Melissa will be the host Monday through Friday of the morning meeting. Empire State, the New York edition. No, just kidding. But. But it'd be a good idea. Susan, thank you. Grateful to you. But we do hope to someday have morning meetings for everyone and that would be good. The New York one might be our first one. Andres, welcome in. Thank you for being here. Hi.

[B]

How you guys doing?

[A]

Tell everybody where you are today and what's on your mind.

[B]

Arrived in Kiev 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 hours ago. Did five interviews already. This is my break time.

[A]

Thank you for spending your break with us. Would you get there by train? How'd you get there?

[B]

Yeah, I got there by train. I spent three days in the far west by the mountains where it's nice and warm, and then I took a car and a train. And that's the one thing people don't understand about Ukraine, especially American delegations. This is the thing to mention to people, Mark. You can drive from Montauk to Cincinnati and you will not cover all of Ukraine.

[A]

Yeah, it's a big place. Tell us about life on the streets. Supermarkets open, cafes, things open.

[B]

It gets very dark a lot of places with the electricity going out on a regular basis. Last couple of days, February 7, probably the last one, that they had a really bad attack all over the entire country. People say it's kind of. Kind of a fool's thing to think you're safe because it hasn't happened in a couple of days. So they anticipate something in the next couple of days.

[A]

Yeah. And how long are you there and what's your objectives while you're there?

[B]

I did a nice delegation with my friends with the George Pataki center, where we had a bunch of kids playing American football on Super Bowl Sunday. We'll put out some videos of that in Seahawks and Patriots gear. And then. And then I said goodbye to them, and I. And I'm visiting all of my news producer friends who are like, you're here in the country. You gotta stop doing the zooms from America. And then I'm doing a couple of hits for American stations, too, so.

[A]

Okay, before. Before you ask what you want to ask, I'd love to let Melissa and then Hogan ask you any questions they want to ask. Sure. Melissa, any questions for our man in Keith?

[E]

No, I feel like that was a good report.

[A]

Okay, Hogan, any questions?

[D]

Same. I just. I can't imagine, you know, you hear some. You hear some say the whole place is just a debacle and war torn, all this. And then some people say, no, it's like a paradise because they spent all of our money. I'd love to get your take on how it looks on the ground there.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, the money was mostly spent in the United States. We know that. And what's going on is, you know, toughness, depending on where you are in the country. Closer you go east, the More bitter people become, but also the more determined they are of wanting to see the enemy die, to use a lack of a better phrase. I'm going to be meeting with a couple of ministries to see how they're doing. A couple of people who used to be deployed into the United States. They want to have meetings with me, but otherwise they all have the same questions on the morning shows, what's happening in the United States. They're very interested in what the after effects of the Epstein files will be. They very much are reading into Trump's proposed deadlines and wondering if that's because of the congressional calendar of the elections and such. So there's a lot of tea leaf reading over here and also eternally waiting for anybody from the Trump administration to have an underground visit.

[A]

Yeah. Is there a reason you're wearing a tie, not a tracksuit?

[B]

I'm wearing. I'm wearing a thermal running shirt underneath to make sure, because it is. When I got off the train this morning, it was negative 4 Fahrenheit, and that was without the wind chill.

[A]

Is the hotel gym open?

[B]

It is. I'm. I'm staying in a nice hotel because I have friends.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You would like it here.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. Maybe I'll come with you next time. You didn't tell me. Yeah. Very much appreciate the report and obviously we all, we all want you to stay super safe, so please do that. But anything you wanted to tell us or ask that we haven't covered.

[B]

Yeah, I'm just gonna follow up on the questions I was hit with. So you guys were talking a little bit about the Epstein files. Topic of conversation here that I put in the chat is that Poland is opening an investigation. You mentioned a little bit about Keir Starmer. There is discussion in the parliament here, actually, because Ukraine has all over mentioned specifically about one of the things people like to point out was that Epstein said there's a lot of opportunity in Ukraine after the change of government in 2014, which I heard from a lot of business people, too. I mean, you get change of government, brand new opportunities for investment. So my question is, which number of countries will the United States be to have an official congressional committee investigating the Epstein files? Poland, UK probably before us, I would assume Germany and France. Are we going to be number five? Are we going to have it this year or in the next Congress, specifically investigating a special committee on investigating or subcommittee on investigating Epstein? And they got the files through the oversight committee, but is there gonna be.

[A]

A special committee specifically on Epstein, on Epstein's ties to Russia or just Epstein's?

[B]

No, no, no. Just investigating the crimes. That's what's happening in Poland. They're gonna investigate any crimes that their people were related to. And that's what I'm hearing from England as well. Not just going after the ambassador, but wanting to know if anybody in their government was associated with them.

[A]

Well, I doubt Hogan's friend Speaker Johnson would do that. But maybe. Maybe after the election, if the House control changes. Hogan. Hogan, what do you think?

[D]

So, so you're saying oversight has done the work to get the documents out. You're saying, okay, great, the documents out. Now, is there going to be another committee to investigate the. Perhaps.

[B]

Or a subcommittee of oversight, Perhaps.

[D]

You know, I could see them pushing for that. It reminds me, though, of the. The famous Simpsons episode where they're trying to get a monorail and Mayor Quimby announces a blue ribbon commission. It kind of pants with the crowd, and someone goes, oh, blue ribbon. Aren't I appeased? And then someone else says, oh, is there any better kind? No. So it's like, I don't know how much these committees or commissions actually do or accomplish, but I could see that as being something, because, again, I had not thought of it that way. But I guess you're exposing these people, then what happens to them? I think that's a good, good question. One to which I do not know the answer.

[A]

Melissa.

[E]

I think that if it were to happen, it would happen when the Democrats take back the House and not before then.

[A]

Yeah. Stay safe. Keep us posted. How long are you there?

[B]

I'm doing. I'm here through the end of the week, and then I slowly make my way, hopping from city to city until I'm in Europe on Monday.

[A]

All right, well, you're in Europe now.

[B]

Yeah, I know.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

All right, well, the safer part, the one with the rockets.

[A]

Stay safe and keep us posted. Thank you. Great.

[D]

Be careful.

[A]

All right, Carlton, welcome in real quick if you can, because we're a little up against the clock. Tell everybody what's on your mind for Melissa and Fred Hogan.

[C]

This is for Melissa. Over the weekend, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, a program I didn't realize existed. It appears from the Wall Street Journal that some of the inefficiencies and in management of monies under that program rivals anything that's alleged for Minnesota. So my question is, do you envision that once Democrats regain power, that they might have something akin to doge, which was horribly, horribly envisioned and even worse, executed by the Trump administration and make it a credible effort to make government more. More efficient and effective for the taxpayer.

[E]

You mean at the state level or you mean at the federal level?

[C]

From the federal level, yes. To make sure that their programs are actually reaching the people that they're intended to reach. It appears that the Temporary Assistance and Needy Families, maybe, maybe. And marginally, if it does, actually doesn't benefit needy families, it goes elsewhere because of the way it's managed.

[E]

Yeah, I mean, I would hope that that's being looked at now by the Republicans, and I would think it would be something that the White House would jump all over because it also gives them an opportunity to finger wag at the blue states that are, you know, mismanaging the money that are sent to them by the Fed. So I think regardless of who's in power, there's benefit to doing that and certainly, obviously for the taxpayer and the people it's intended to reach.

[C]

Right. But Simpson Bowles, the previous effort certainly disappeared in a hurry. And, and I, I thought it was horribly managed. Like I said, Doge, under the Trump administration, this would take a dedicated, disciplined effort to do it.

[E]

Yeah. I mean, it would need to be something that someone was pushing aggressively. So the question would be, where would that pressure be coming?

[C]

Any initiative.

[E]

Yeah, I don't, I don't disagree with you that I think it's necessary, for sure.

[D]

Oh, I think it's also an. Under Carlton. I think it's also an undervalued political cudgel for this upcoming election as well. I think fraud, waste and abuse in the government kind of took off, as you said at the outset, under Elon Musk and that effort. But I think exposing a lot of these places, you know, under control of one party for a long time, you see a lot of systematic fraud there. The people that are purported to get this money don't get it. I think that needs to be.

[C]

I agree. But Musk was so brutish and theatrical in his approach. You know, just. The whole thing just disintegrated. And I thought that was a, that was a travesty.

[D]

Well, well, being. Being in the room with the congressman and Elon Musk at the outset of that, I can tell you a lot of those congressmen are like, yes, we are so thankful you're going to clean up government, but there's some project in my district that I think, don't touch.

[A]

My backyard, my state that's clean, Melissa.

[C]

That it has to be a disciplined, focused effort. And, you know, you have to be dedicated. But the idea is to make government at least at the federal level work better for the American taxpayers.

[D]

Oh, sure.

[A]

Yep. Carlton, thank you. Really, really.

[E]

We'll pass that along to my friends on the Hill.

[A]

Very well said, Carlton. Thank you. All right, two way tonight we're going to have a lot of news. We've got the White House briefing, we've got a bunch of stuff on the Hill. 5pm tonight. Steve Elmendorf, one of our fan favorites is back and first time appearance for somebody Hogan at least knows well, Natalie winners. Hogan, tell folks about Natalie.

[D]

What do you mean say about Natalie?

[A]

Well, what does she do for a living? Why is it, why is that a good get for two Way tonight?

[D]

Well, first of all, it's, it's good, it's a good get for her too. Two way tonight is a very good platform.

[A]

Yeah. Natalie Winters is White White House correspondent for the War room for Steve Bannon's War Room. Very, very, very good young reporter. We're honored to have her on. And we may have a member of Congress on two way tonight who has, has been to the Justice Department to read the documents still being confirmed. But join Natalie Winter, Steve Elmendorf, me and maybe a member of Congress, 5:00pm Eastern Time tonight. Next up post, later today. I've already just completed my interview with Peter Schweitzer. He's the author of the Invisible Coup. Peter's written five books, five number one New York Times bestsellers and he's looked at how the governments of China and Mexico in his theory have played a role in sending people to the United States. The China stuff is crazy. We're training pilots and we're letting Chinese people, Chinese citizens come here, have babies and then go home to be part of the Communist party with American citizenship. It's an incredible story and I recommend my conversation with you, Peter and and then my reported monologue is on on why Democrats are so excited, as I said, about John Ossoff's message tomorrow this program we bid adjust, as Hogan would say in Arkansas to Melissa and Hogan, Larry O' Connor and Kevin Walling will be here in 23 hours to take you through Wednesday together. Very grateful to Melissa and Hogan. Thank you for being here. Thank you all for being part of the two way community for your questions and comments, encouragement, concern and trips to Ukraine. Have a great day everybody. I'll see you at 5 Eastern.

[D]

Thanks guys.

[G]

It's tax season and at Lifelock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear.

[A]

Billions.

[G]

That's the amount of money in refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it. Guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.