Republican Expected To Beat Liberal Democrat in Crucial TN Congressional Race; Trump Backs Hegseth

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Morning Meeting (2WAY)

Episode: "Republican Expected To Beat Liberal Democrat in Crucial TN Congressional Race; Trump Backs Hegseth"
Date: December 2, 2025
Host: Mark Halperin
Guest Hosts: Ashley Etienne, Hogan Gidley

---

Overview

This episode of "The Morning Meeting" provides a sharp, candid look at the day's most consequential political stories, focusing on a tense military controversy involving Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, reverberations from a boat strike incident, and the expected Republican win in a high-stakes Tennessee congressional special election. The wide-ranging conversation also touches on health care gridlock, 2028 Democratic hopefuls, and the changing nature of modern US campaigns. Halperin is joined by regulars Ashley Etienne and Hogan Gidley. The show’s core promise is open, cross-partisan dialogue, creating space for behind-the-scenes perspectives from both major political camps.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Show's Purpose and Format

• Mark Halperin clarifies the show's mission: a hybrid of morning TV news planning meetings, curated clips, and candid conversations.
• The program prizes diverse viewpoints and direct engagement—viewers can join on-camera to ask questions (03:00–05:00).
  • “If you want a program where all you hear is things people say, things you agree with already, watch something else. …If you want a program where you hear different perspectives and can learn what tens of millions of other people to marry, now, you might want to learn that for peace, love and understanding, for greater understanding of your fellow Americans, you might want it for opposition research…” — Mark Halperin [04:13]

---

2. The Hegseth/Caribbean Strike Military Controversy

• Background: After a controversial military boat strike in the Caribbean ordered by SOCOM Admiral Bradley, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth faces escalating political backlash. The White House appears keen to assign blame to Bradley, while Hegseth spotlights his support for the admiral.
• Hegseth’s Public Statement: (12:00–13:00) Hegseth tweets support for Admiral Bradley, but many see it as distancing himself from responsibility.
  • “Let’s make one thing crystal clear—Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional. …I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made on the September 2nd mission and all the others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us…” — Read by Mark Halperin [11:18]
• Pentagon Fallout: The Washington Post and New York Times report Pentagon anger, and the risk to military morale if field commanders are scapegoated.
• House & Senate Focus: Congress is preparing to grill Admiral Bradley; legal opinions are divided on the legitimacy of the second strike on targets in the water (14:00–17:00).
  • “He gave the order to kill everyone. Right. …But the second question, though, that I think Hegseth cannot avoid is whether or not to his, according to his words, he saw the strike live. And if he did see the strike, why didn’t he say don't do the second, or did he say do the second bombing? That's really the question here.” — Ashley Etienne [15:33]

Legal/Ethical Debate:

• Hogan Gidley frames the two major issues: legality of any strike at all, and if the second strike violated international law; some argue imminent threat still existed, others say the men in the water posed no further threat (18:00–20:00).

  • “The second question I think that’s important is whether or not that second strike violated some international law or not. There are two schools of thought—one is of course it does…The second school of thought...goes: if the asset is supposed to be eliminated, if the command is to eliminate the target...you can’t make up evidence the right to attack them as well.” — Hogan Gidley [18:07]

• Mark & panel debate if Admiral Bradley will testify in public, whether the legal authorization will ever be released, and whether the White House is trying to avoid official accountability (21:00–22:00).

  • “I think Hegseth and Trump don’t want to be held accountable for this. They want to wash their hands of it. So definitely they’re going to roll somebody. And why not Bradley?” — Ashley Etienne [20:47]

---

3. Russia-Ukraine, European Anxiety, and Geopolitics

• Brief Update: Officials (including Jared Kushner) meeting in Moscow, NATO anxious; discussion suggests Putin is shifting the balance, but panel agrees to wait for concrete outcomes (22:30–23:30).

---

4. Health Care Deadlock & ACA Subsidies

• Impending Expiration: The group anticipates no “grand bargain” on health care before year's end, focusing on extensions for Obamacare subsidies (23:45–24:05).

  • “The current trajectory we’re on is …in the House, nothing will happen and then they’ll be dueling partisan votes. …In the Senate, nothing will get 60 votes and the subsidies will expire.” — Mark Halperin [24:10]

• Obstacles:

  • Ashley Etienne describes a push for a discharge petition, but process may take too long to avert short-term lapses (25:00–26:11).
  • Hogan Gidley and Ashley debate whether House Speaker Johnson would accelerate action, given Republican reluctance (26:21–26:51).
  • Listener Call–In (Mike, 52:00+): A retiree questions why ACA subsidies benefit the well-off, calling it “middle class and upper middle class welfare.”
    • “From the time I retired at 57 until I went on Medicare at 65, I received between $1100 and $1300 in ACA subsidies a month. That's $105,600 of my kids’ tax money …During COVID there were two years where I would have had to pay that back except they made emergency changes …A lot of the ACA that we’re talking about is essentially middle-class and upper-middle class welfare.” — Mike [52:01]

• Republican/Democrat Blame Game:

  • “This is 100% Democrat bill, 100% Democrat brainchild …It’s 100% their problem. …That 3 to 7%, no one’s going to hear that number and no one’s going to care because Ashley is, as she is adept at doing, will advise her people to say, republicans are cutting health care. They want you to die. …That’s going to happen…” — Hogan Gidley [53:37]
  • “Republicans have had, even going back to Trump’s first term, opportunity after opportunity to advance an alternative. …They voted 63 times, 64 times to end ACA and never voted once on an alternative. They have to be held accountable to that fact.” — Ashley Etienne [54:52]

---

5. Tennessee Special Election – Republican Favored, Democratic Optimism

• Analysis of the Race:

  • Polls signal a likely Republican victory for Matt Van Epps, though Democrats hope to close the gap (27:14–32:00).
  • Van Epps on Fox & Friends (28:00):
    • “I'm a Christian, a husband, a father, an America first conservative, a combat veteran. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a helicopter pilot, served in state government, led in small business, still serving in the National Guard…” — Matt Van Epps [28:00]

• Debate on Turnout & Implications:

  • Low turnout due to cold weather may affect GOP performance. Ashley Etienne notes Democratic candidate leads in early votes, Republicans expected to surge on Election Day; a close margin would be spun as a Democratic victory, even in defeat, due to the district’s heavy Trump support (29:05–32:00).
  • “If we can get it within five, that is considered a major victory for us, given that Trump won this seat by 20 points…” — Ashley Etienne [29:28]

• Broader Lessons:

  • Both panelists agree special elections can be strange outliers and call for further GOP introspection if margins are unexpectedly close.
  • Ongoing voter concern about affordability and health care are highlighted as undercurrents in the race.

---

6. 2028 Democratic Field: Mark Kelly, Whitmer, Newsom

• Mark Kelly’s National Profile:

  • Increased media role elevates his 2028 stock; Ashley sees Kelly as highly electable due to his military/astronaut background, but Hogan argues Kelly has significant baggage that would come out under the national spotlight.
    • “There’s something very Americana about him that I just love. …This man's been to the moon. You know, he’s defended his country. …I think that Mark Kelly’s positioning himself incredibly well.” — Ashley Etienne [35:39]
    • “He has more baggage, this guy… Delta Turnstile. It's a lot and it's bad. And people in D.C. know it…” — Hogan Gidley [37:30]

• Gretchen Whitmer’s Crossover Reputation:

  • Politico: White House’s favorite visitor, but being seen as “Trump’s favorite Democrat” undercuts progressive appeal. Both panelists think Whitmer’s perceived bipartisanship could hurt her in primaries (38:56–39:56).
    • “I think that headline is a death nail for her. …We want a fighter, which is why somebody like Gavin Newsom’s catching fire…” — Ashley Etienne [38:56]

• Gavin Newsom and Hollywood Donors:

  • Newsom is widely seen as a “fighter” by Hollywood and major donors, with his support ramping up as a prospective 2028 contender. Both panelists agree he should solidify donor support now while momentum is high (40:57–42:36).

---

7. Audience Q&A: Accountability, Bipartisanship, and ACA Reality

• Military Strike Ethics:

  • Callers express discomfort over the second strike—was there an imminent threat?
    • “You attack the boat the first time. The people who are trying to survive on the side of the boat don't pose an imminent threat. …Those people should not have been killed according to the law.” — Ashley Etienne [46:28]
    • “If the goal is to eliminate the target, then you should finish the job…But [is] finishing the job also a legal question?” — Hogan Gidley [45:24]

• Bipartisan Leadership:

  • Can the US elect a president more like “centrist” state-level figures (e.g., Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, PA Sen. Fetterman)?
    • “Every one of those elections was run by someone who said, I'm going to bring the country together …All failed …It's not the question of who we elect, it's a question of whether they can succeed.” — Mark Halperin [48:41]
    • Panel agrees modern primaries pressure potential unifiers to extremes.

---

8. Social Media Echoes: Trump Reshares Ashley’s Two Way Comment

• President Trump reposted a month-old show clip where Ashley Etienne discusses Democratic contingency planning for January 6-style events; panel reflects on why opposition research and narrative control loom so large in today’s politics (57:28–60:00).
  • “If you’re a leader domestically, internationally, and you’re not planning for the worst case scenario with Donald Trump, you’re a fool, you’re foolish. …The President and his team are [not] serious about the issues that the American people are dealing with. In fact, they’re in a level of denial.” — Ashley Etienne [59:19]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. …I was wrong. There's a longer-term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control.” — [Cold Open, unrelated to main episode]
• “All voices under one roof. Opportunity to hear the kind of conversation, the highest aspiration of the show. …You get to hear them and participate in them. That's what this show is. …The opportunity to hear from them is a gift and you should be thanking us. And as I say, especially thanking me.” — Mark Halperin [06:00]
• “In politics, typically Democrats have a lot of early votes and they bank a lot of votes. And Republicans surge on Election day…But the problem with…like Pennsylvania and Fetterman, the guy had banked like 900,000 votes. So by the time election day rolled around, there was almost no way you could get to the polls to swamp him. …Those are important.” — Hogan Gidley [30:29]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Panel Welcome, Show Philosophy: 03:00–07:00
• Daybook/Rundown of Events: 08:00–10:40
• Military Strike Controversy (Main Segment): 10:47–22:32
• Russia/Ukraine/Geopolitics: 22:32–23:28
• ACA/Healthcare Stalemate: 23:28–27:14; expanded in audience Q&A from 51:52–56:11
• Tennessee Special Election: 27:14–34:26
• 2028 Democratic Preview: Kelly/Whitmer/Newsom: 35:00–42:36
• Audience Q&A (Military Ethics/ACA/Bipartisanship): 44:13–56:11
• Trump Reshares Ashley’s Clip: 57:28–61:00

---

Tone & Style

• The episode maintains an energetic, unscripted, but serious tone; every panelist brings candor and personal experience.
• Partisan difference is encouraged but always tied to process, evidence, and “insider” insight.
• Listeners are directly addressed and incorporated, reinforcing the "community" premise.

---

Summary Value

Listeners are treated to a rare "inside the room" perspective on military-political scandal, the mechanics and strategy of key elections, and the cross-pressures shaping the 2028 White House race. The hosts invite disagreement and rich caller participation, modeling the sort of substantive (and sometimes scrappy) dialogue missing from mainstream outlets.

---

For more: The episode is available on 2WAY, YouTube, and major podcast platforms. Full coverage of the Tennessee results and further analysis promised for tomorrow’s show.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, this is Joe from Vanta.

[B]

In today's digital world, compliance regulations are.

[A]

Changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and.

[B]

Stay secure with the most advanced AI automation and continuous monitoring out there.

[A]

So whether you're a startup going for.

[B]

Your first SoC2 or ISO 27001, or.

[A]

A growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta.

[B]

Makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get [e-mail].

[C]

This is it. The world as you know it is over.

[A]

Completely done.

[C]

It's not about to be over.

[A]

It's over.

[C]

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

[C]

While others say that AI will usher.

[A]

In unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that it's going to be the most important.

[B]

Invention that humanity will ever make.

[A]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[C]

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future.

[A]

Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the morning meeting. We're back with you here on Tuesday, December 2, 9am Eastern Time with Ashley Etienne and Hogan Gidley. We're grateful to them. Guest hosts for today together back. Welcome back. Either of you get any reaction to yesterday?

[C]

Oh, I mean, you know, just a little tweet from Donald Trump. He's clearly watching your show.

[A]

Yeah, we'll talk about that. The President decided to go back to the archives for an old clip of Ashley, not from yesterday, but from previous appearance on two way and put it on Truth Social and we'll talk about why he might have done that. Hogan, you get any reaction or you're on. You're on video so much no one even noticed.

[B]

I got a lot of reaction, some good, some bad, but I always find it like it doesn't bother me. I just think it's funny.

[A]

All right, well, again, grateful to you both for being here. We've got a lot of news to get to because it is a very newsy December and we'll do that. And of course, at the end we'll get to all your questions and comments. So if you'd like to be on the conversation, please raise your hand and think about peace, love and Understanding I have to do a little bit of what we call housekeeping in the hazel business, which is talk a little bit about the program because there are lots of questions about the program. This program is a lot of things. It's an hour long every day, but it's a lot of things. And I just want to run through what we think the things are. And that's not just based on what we think here in Manhattan, but what we hear from the community all across the country and really the world. Number one, this is based, as we've told you before, in the network news divisions. Morning meetings occur in the morning and everybody gathers around in New York and bureaus around the world and they run through what's coming up during the day. It's a critical moment in the news cycle. We're east coast centric America. So it's 9:00am Eastern Time. And that's a critical time for people to say, well, what's coming up in government, in politics, what's going on around the world? Second, we provide you the latest elements. I'll tell you about a great Wall Street Journal story or show you a clip from Morning Joe. You're not going to get that many other places in a very concentrated way and a very well collated way, a very well curated way, because my colleagues and I are really smart about how to find the best things and bring them to you. Okay? And then what we say, conversations like no other. The three of us today are going to talk about what's coming up in the news. You won't hear a conversation like this other places. So certainly not on cable news. We'll be casual, relaxed. We'll be not trying to score points, but just to tell people what's coming up, what's going on, what does it really mean? Why are the actors in politics and government behaving the way they are? That's a lot to do. Just right there. But no, folks, there's more, there's more to this program than that because we present points of view that you might disagree with. And I'll tell you again, don't send me emails saying Hogan's too mag, I'll never watch again. Or Ashley worked for Nancy Pelosi, I'll never watch again. You should, you should be thanking us and me particularly for bringing you points of view that you disagree with. Done in a reasoned, rational, sophisticated manner that's not on offer other places. And so what you get is the opportunity. If you're super maga, guess what? Kamala Harris almost won the election. Ashley Worked for Kamala Harris. She can tell you what those people are thinking. That's tens of millions of people in this country. You won't get that another place. So if you want a program where all you hear is things people. People say, things you agree with already, watch something else. But if you want a program where you hear different perspectives and can learn what tens of millions of other people to marry, now, you might want to learn that for peace, love and understanding, for greater understanding of your fellow Americans, you might want it for opposition research. You might want to say, well, now I can out Fox the Democrats or out Fox the Republicans because I've learned how they think. That's not on offer. And you think, well, that's it. That's. That's a lot for 11 hour. Well, no, there's more, folks, because you also get community involvement, okay? You get the opportunity to ask questions of people like Ashley and Hogan and other people on this platform that you don't normally hear. All voices under one roof. So where in America can you ask if you're a MAGA person, Ashley, a question, or if you're a Democrat, progressive, ask Hogan a question. Not very many places. Right here on camera, showing your face and your voice. No anonymous Twitters, no anonymous chat. In the chat on YouTube. An opportunity to stand up, say who you are, where you live and what you want to ask. That's a lot under one roof for one hour for free. Okay? The community involvement allows you all, as I said in the pregame show, to offer your input about what you'd like the show to be. Many of you would like to produce this show, and I know that because you send me emails telling me how we're producing it. Wrong. We do our best every day. It's a live show. I've only been in television for several decades, so I'm still learning. Let me give you one example. Some of you would like the entire show to be community questions. Just one hour. Some say, good morning, Ashley. Good morning, Hogan. Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth. Fairway and green. Fairway and green. Open up the floor. Some of you would like that for the whole hour. Some of you don't want any community questions. You think. Some of you say about your own, ironically, about the community. Those are dumb. I don't care about those. I just want to hear Ashley and Hogan. They're experts. What do I care what Chad and Brennan think? Okay, so there's no right answer. As my grandfather used to say, some people even like chocolate ice cream. Everybody's got their own opinion we do our best here. Morning meeting. Okay. All voices under one roof. Opportunity to hear the kind of conversation, the highest aspiration of the show. You guys get to hear the kind of conversation I've been privileged. Ashley, Hogan, we have these conversations every day we've had for decades. You get to hear them and participate in them. That's what this show is. If you want another show, go watch another show. But that's what this show is. So if you think Ashley's the worst person you've ever seen on video or Hogan's horrendous, you go, Go watch something else. We're not forcing you to watch this, but I'm telling you, the opportunity to hear from them is a gift and you should be thanking us. And as I say, especially thanking me. Thank you for your attention to this matter, ladies and gentlemen. Let me, Let me. Let's see. Let me run through the daybook, then hear from a sponsor. Then Ashley and Hogan and I have having. I've. Having wasted five minutes of your life with that preamble. We'll get right into it. Here we go. The president today has two interesting events. We'll talk about them both. One is he's doing a cabinet meeting, 11:30am Eastern Time. This could last three hours. Sometimes they do, but probably not because at 2 o' clock, he's making an announcement. And that announcement, we're told, is about these kid. What are they called? Trump accounts. Giving every kid a thousand bucks. So we'll talk about those things in a minute. Don't know what the vice president's doing, except, of course, he'll be front and center at the cabinet meeting. Lots going on on the Hill. They're there for like a couple more weeks and then they're gone. And they have a lot to do. House Republican leaders have a press conference at 10. Democratic leaders at 10:45. The Senate continues to vote on various federal nominations. Senators, of course, it's Tuesday. One of my favorite Washington traditions, the separate party lunches on the Senate side, 1245. Sometimes they come out and talk after that. And the Christmas tree. Capitol Christmas tree lighting. 5pm today. Steve Witkoff. Jared Kushner in Moscow to meet with Putin. Vladimir Zelinsky, the guy just travels all over Europe. He's. We should get him like a let's go guide. He's in Ireland today, meeting with the prime minister there. Either you. Can either of you name the prime minister of Ireland? Probably not. Martin. Prime Minister Martin ahead of what is expected to be Irish support for Ukraine. The big election Polls close at 8 o' clock in the Nashville area district. Although it's sprawling district, that closely watched race between Matt Van Epps and Afton Bain closes at 8. Everybody expects Republicans to win, but we'll see more Indiana House redistricting work. Luigi Mangione back in court here in New York, the Supreme Court hearing more arguments in a case involving nonprofits and subpoenas that I frankly don't understand. All right, quick word from a sponsor, then we're getting right into it. And it's it's our friends at Cozy Earth right now. Amazing. I mean, it's hard to imagine getting 40 off anything. 40 off cozy earth everything. Cozyearth.com promo code 2 WMM 40 off. Mark you might say surely this excludes the bubble cuddle blanket or the bamboo sheets or the towels or the jogger pants. No, actually the entire site. 40 off. Order now, though, because Christmas is coming. The holiday season is upon us. And if you've got people hard to shop for, this is it the bamboo sheets, you'll never sleep on anything else again. That's my personal guarantee. Not even from them. And then of course, the, the pants. Can't say enough about the pants. If you order by December 12th, guaranteed Christmas delivery. Give the comfort of give the gift of comfort that lasts beyond the holiday and carries into a cozy new year. Again, cozyearth.com promo code to WMM right now for your gifts. All right. Now we're going to start with Mr. Pete Hegseth and the Caribbean strike overnight. Lots of developments last night in the White House briefing. Caroline Levitt basically said this wasn't Pete Hegseth's doing, this was about Frank. What's Frank's last name? Somebody's going to tell me General Bradley. Huh?

[C]

General Bradley is general, yeah.

[A]

General Bradley. She said it was basically his doing. The Washington Post has a scathing story saying people at the Pentagon are just absolutely furious. Haig says with White House help tries to distance himself from boat strike fallout goes. The headline and the story is filled with blind quotes from career military saying they're putting the commander out to sea here by blaming him and saying Hegseth didn't order. And then somebody went to the New York Times and gave them a detailed description and said Frank Bradley was, you know, was the commander. And Hegseth didn't give a specific order to strike the two men allegedly killed. That that was done as part of the initial guidance given. He here is the hegseth tweet. 103 that came. What time did that happen last night? Oh, no, it was after afternoon, 4 o'. Clock. I thought it was later. Let's make one thing crystal clear. Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional. And as my 100% support, I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made on the September 2nd mission and all the others since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this Department of War says we have the back of our warriors, we mean it. This tweet, widely seen as. Thank you. No, thank you. Basically saying this is all Bradley's fault while praising him. Here is Mark Kelly. This is not a clip from yesterday or two days ago or three days ago. Mark Kelly, once again on Morning Joe saying what he thinks about the Secretary of War.

[B]

So you put these two guys, you know, in charge of, you know, operations.

[A]

And we were really, really concerned that something like this could happen. So we put out the video.

[B]

Donald Trump's response to that was that we should be hanged, executed.

[A]

We're just saying to members of the military that they should follow the law. And, you know, now, unfortunately, because of Pete Hegseth, especially because of his incompetence, members of the military are going to.

[B]

Have to deal with this.

[A]

This is a guy that talks about hunting and killing the enemy, about lethality, about warrior ethos, not about. Well, you, you said what he said.

[B]

About rules of engagement. Stupid rules of engagement.

[A]

Rules of engagement are what the US Military lives by.

[B]

This stuff is not new. I mean, the Geneva Conventions, you know.

[A]

Specify how we have to treat survivors.

[B]

So the US Navy got into this.

[A]

Situation because of the incompetence of, of Pete Hegseth. All right, so the focus continues to be on Hegseth. Hegseth has testified or spoken rather, to Congress. So has the head of the Joint Chiefs, Cain. But, but Bradley has not. And he's, according to the Associated Press, on Thursday, two days from now, going to talk to Congress. So if you believe the New York Times account, a lot of focus is going to be on Bradley. Why did he do what he did? On whose authorization did he rely? We have not seen any legal documents released. Here's former senior government official Morton H. Alperin on Morning Joe explaining why the focus is on Bradley. 106, please, Mort. What is clear over the last 24 hours is that there's a lot of concern in the Pentagon that Admiral Bradley, the SOCOM commander who is said to have authorized the strikes, seems to be the fall guy. He's mentioned by the White House press spokesman herself. What effect do you think that has on men and women in uniform who are wondering what's lawful and what isn't. And when am I going to get in trouble for doing what I think I'm being ordered to do? Well, I think it has a very serious effect, and some of it is good. I mean, we want, I think many.

[B]

Of us, I certainly would have liked.

[A]

The admiral to come back and say.

[B]

I can't fire any additional weapons. There are two people about to drift and we have an obligation, if we're.

[A]

Not going to rescue them, at least.

[B]

Not to hurt them.

[A]

I think he had an obligation to.

[B]

Say that even if the order was from the President or the Secretary of Defense.

[A]

So, Ashley, thank you for your patience. The president and the Secretary of defense seem to want us and, and Caroline want to say this is over. Where are we going now with Bradley and with Hegseth on this story?

[C]

You know, Mark, I've run communications for some of the biggest investigations in Congress. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the Russia interference in the 2016 election, et cetera, et cetera. And I will tell you what the committees are chomping at. The bit to ask Hex up about is his interview on Fox News the following day where he said he saw the entire strike live. I mean, that is damning. You know, first he gave the order to kill everyone. Right. And we've all seen a Few Good Men. I just saw it on, on the airplane just recently. And an order is an order to be executed. And so that is one question. But the second question, though, that I think Hexap cannot avoid is whether or not to his, according to his words that he saw the strike live. And if he did see the strike, why didn't he say don't do the second, or did he say do the second bombing? That's really the question here. The other thing that I think plays to the White House's disadvantage and Hexa's disadvantage is they continue to get ahead of the evidence. We saw my friend Hogan do that yesterday. You cannot get ahead of the evidence and say what is or what isn't definitively. You've got to let the evidence play out. And so this notion that before yesterday that there was no second strike and they had to walk that back is an additional problem for this White House. But again, I think what the investigators are hyper focused on now is why Hegseth went on Fox News and admitted that he saw the entire strike live. That makes him culpable and a party to it all.

[A]

Hogan, this is all in the context of some people saying Hegseth is going to lose his job over this. Some people are saying that. And also this question of these blind quotes where people are saying they're blaming Bradley and it really should be at Hegseth's direction. War. How do you see this from a strategy point of view from the White House?

[B]

Well, and Ashley has an incredible career story, no doubt. So while she name dropped with all of her campaign she's worked on, including Russia.

[C]

No, we're trying to give an insider perspective here.

[B]

Interference in the election.

[C]

That's why we're all.

[B]

You can just say Russia hoax. That's fine too. But I will say, having been in THE Situation room, say I'm going to I'm a, I'm going up the flex here over many military strikes. I don't know that those two things are necessarily connected. Meaning he can watch it and still not have and still not give a second command. That can be kind of a blanket command at the outset. And then the person knows what to do. So it doesn't necessarily mean that just because he watched it live and that's.

[A]

What the New York Times account.

[C]

The point is he gave the. There's two instances now that puts him at the center of this.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Which is one, he gave the order and then two, he said he watched it being executed.

[B]

Yeah. So here the two. Right. But the order at the beginning necessarily doesn't mean the order of the second strike. Now here's the real question, though. There are two of them I have that are significant. One is the legality of this will be can they do these at all, which is something that so many on the left are concerned about, which will undoubtedly be litigated, if not in some type of court setting. Definitely through Congress and other things. But the second question I think that's important is whether or not that second strike violated some international law or not. There are two schools of thought. One is of course it does, because they're clearly in the water. And you can't do that to people who are not destroyed by the first strike. The second school of thought, one that I tend to agree with and one that I believe in the legal argument going if the asset is supposed to be eliminated, if the command is to eliminate the target and that person is deemed to be a terroristic threat, that person has deemed to have killed Americans and other things, not to mention their capacity being in the water to still radio another boat, get protection and keep going on with their mission, you can't.

[C]

Make up evidence the right to attack them as well.

[B]

Again, so those two things are going to be litigated here, none of which are going to be solved on this program. But these are the big questions, I think, that will be asked and have to be answered going forward.

[A]

If you.

[C]

Mark, can I ask Hogan a question?

[A]

Of course.

[C]

I'm just curious. The President said that he disagreed with the second strike. The second strike happened. We now know that it actually happened. So who should be held accountable? Who's had to roll? I mean, you and I both have been in those buildings. I've been in there twice. You know, at some point, the buck stops with the president. So whose head should be rolled? I mean, is it Bradley's? Is it Hegset? Someone's gotta be held accountable and responsible for this, right?

[A]

Well, the administration doesn't think so, because I don't think there's anything wrong with it. So I think the accountability is either gonna come from the media, maybe the public, but really from Congress.

[C]

The reason why I say that is because the President said he disagreed with second strike.

[A]

That's true. Kind of. But tomorrow he could say he thought it was great.

[B]

But if I've learned anything in this setting with Ashley, as he derided me for at the beginning of the show, which I don't know what the example was, but I trust there is one.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I'm not going to get ahead of the evidence, Ashley. I'm going to wait for this to play out and see. But regardless, I think the administration is of the mind. They're doing the right thing here to protect the American people, and that's what's going to play out legally and politically.

[A]

Just to put a button on this, will Bradley testify in front of Congress? In public? Will he testify in public, Ashley?

[C]

I think that the president definitely could pressure him to do that. I mean, I think.

[A]

But do you think he will? Do you think that he'll be asked to do it and he'll.

[C]

I mean, I think. I think he works at the behest of the. The President and the Secretary of Defense, or war, whatever they're calling it today. And I think Hecseff and Trump don't want to be held accountable for this. They want to wash their hands of it. So definitely they're going to roll somebody. And why not Bradley Togan?

[A]

Do you think he'll testify in public? I don't know. Okay. Will we ever.

[C]

Yes. I say yes.

[A]

Okay. Will we ever get the legal document that undergirded the authorization? Will. Will that ever be made publicly?

[C]

No.

[A]

No, Hogan.

[B]

Oh, I would imagine somebody Says something about. I mean, look, the pontification continues on television by all the legal experts. One on one side, one on the other. It happens all day. So who knows?

[C]

That document I'm curious about.

[A]

Yeah, Yeah. I don't read the chat, but I glance at it. Some people are saying maybe it'll leak, maybe it'll be redacted. It'll.

[B]

It'll be.

[A]

It'll be somehow, someplace. Yeah. All right. I'm going to resist asking about how the New York Times got five people to give them the pro hexeth TikTok, but move on. Cabinet meeting. Here's my only question. Over. Under 90 minutes. Actually will be more than 90 minutes or less than 90 minutes.

[C]

I say. I say over.

[A]

Over. Hogan.

[B]

Over.

[A]

Over. I'm going. I'm going under. Who will talk the most besides the president?

[C]

Ashley Rubio.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I was going to say Rubio, but I don't think so. I think it's going to be Nome.

[A]

The correct answer. Scott Besant. We'll see if I'm right, but I think it's going to be Scott Besant. Correct. All right. Exactly. All right. Wrong. Scott. The correct answer. Scott Besant. Scott Besant.

[B]

All right.

[A]

Russia, Ukraine. I don't think we need to linger on this unless either of you have anything you want to say in particular. We're waiting to see what happens out of Moscow. It could be nothing. It could be positive, whatever. The Europeans are just flipping out. A press conference this morning in NATO. Here's the Washington Post headline, US Delegation to meet Putin in latest bid to end Ukraine War. Ahead of the meeting, Russia has claimed fresh military victories, hammering home his point that it can succeed in the war without negotiations if it wants. Putin claimed last night the Ukrainians are denied that they took a city I confess I'd never heard of. That's been a key battlefront. And the Wall Street Journal has an incredible story about how if there's a deal, no matter. Almost no matter what it is, Putin is going to have succeeded in driving a wedge between NATO and the United States. I don't believe that's true. I believe they've changed the terms of NATO. But, but, but that's, that's out there in the. In the ether. Either of you want to say anything about that?

[C]

No. I mean.

[A]

All right, we'll wait and see. Okay. Health care. I always thought it was a fantasy that the Hill was going to somehow reach some massive health care negotiation over Thanksgiving before Christmas. So now it seems like there's not going to be a grand Bargain? Probably. I mean, I don't see a lot of signs of it, but you still have to have a vote to deal with the Obamacare subsidies. The current trajectory we're on is jaw, jaw, jaw. In the House, nothing will happen and then they'll be dueling partisan votes. In the Senate, Nothing will get 60 votes and the subsidies will expire. Hogan, is that, is that where we're headed or do you see some other alternatives?

[B]

I disagree. I think, I think as I kind of take a look at the playing field both on the House and Senate side, not to mention 1600 at the White House, I think they want a subsidy extension at least for a certain time period to begin the negotiation of what a final plan would look like. Because they lost so much time during the shutdown. Yeah, that was the time they had set to prepare for this end of year revocation of the subsidies. And I think what they're going to try and do is give some kind of stopgap measure. It won't be a cr, but it would be something that funds it for a little bit so they can figure out how to fix the.

[A]

And just that. And just that. With nothing else to sweeten it for House Republicans.

[B]

Oh, I, who knows, they always add little salt based sweeteners, whatever to get somebody to do something.

[A]

Ashley, I just, I don't see how you can pass it through the House without a sweetener and I don't see how they're going to negotiate a sweetener.

[C]

No, I think you're right. I mean, I think though, the question for me is, and this is what I think and am hearing that Mr. Jeffries is going to talk about at 10:45 at his press conference is that there is a discharge petition on the, on the actual subsidies. And you've got about a dozen Republicans that are supporting not yet the discharge petition, but that are supporting moving forward with a package on it. So there's a situation wherein, you know, Speaker Johnson can lose control of the House floor again like he did with the Epstein discharge petition if there's enough Republicans that decide to get on board. I think the mistake that Mr. Jeffries made is putting his name on the discharge petition when he should have given it to a vulnerable Democrat that, you know, that was up in the next cycle.

[A]

Two questions about the petition. One, and you may not know the answer, one is, is it just a clean like two year extension? Is that all it is?

[C]

Three years is what it is right now.

[A]

And don't discharge petitions take process wise long enough that they, that it Wouldn't work in this calendar year or if they file.

[C]

So it takes. Right. For 30 days. So I think you're technically right because it's the number of days that the House is actually.

[A]

So it just be symbolic in January. Well, I understand, but we'd still, we'd, the, the, the subsidies would expire, will have expired by then. So it, yeah.

[B]

In my brief time and working up there in the House, I just know that the rules that are finite are only finite until they're changed. So theoretically you've got a 30 day maturation rate. Or date. Or date. They may be like, hey, you know what, this is so important. The American people. We're going to do some type of suspension of the 30 days.

[A]

Well, but, but, but, but the speaker would have to do, the speaker would have to do that. And he's not for a discharge petition.

[B]

Oh no, it's a tool of the minority for sure. Republicans have used it way too many times in my opinion in the last.

[C]

You know, but if Democrats could get those Republicans on that discharge petition, that just really ups the pressure. Yeah, it does on the speaker. But I think you're right. I mean the speaker could say we're, we're going to go out of session and not come back. And then therefore you never reach 30 day limit. So I mean there's a lot of maneuvering that can happen. But the fact that there is more than a dozen Republicans that want to move forward with this I think gives the Democrats some leverage.

[A]

Yeah. All right. Tennessee special tonight. Close, close at 8. And again, you can't find anybody who thinks the Democrats are going to win. You can find lots of people spinning what a 5 point margin or 10 point margin means. I feel a little bit bad for Mr. Matt Van Epps, likely next congressman from Tennessee, because he's not gotten nearly as much attention as his Democratic opponent. Here is Mr. Epps on Fox and Friends this morning explaining why he's different. 109, please. And the distinction between the two of us cannot be more clear. I'm a Christian, a husband, a father, an America first conservative, a combat veteran. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a helicopter pilot, served in state government, led in small business, still serving in the National Guard. And the dynamics of a special election right now after Thanksgiving is just different than the normal election cycle. But we feel great. We're up in early voting and the way we stay up is everybody gets out today and votes. I need every Republican to bundle up and get out to the polls today. All right. Richard Hudson who's the House member, who's the chair of the NRCC meeting this morning? The House Republican Conference is meeting at the Capitol Hill Club. It's a rule of the Lord that some member of Congress live text to Jake Sherman of Punchbowl. Everything that happens in these meetings, we get real time coverage from Jake Sherman. So here's what Richard Hudson just told Republicans there about Matt Van Epps. He says he'll win the special election. Special elections are weird, he said, and a win is a win. Hudson said the Democrats in primaries around the country are being driven by the Mamdani wing of the Democratic Party. So it's very cold in the district today. Low turnout favors who Ashley low turnout favors.

[C]

If you look at the sort of the way voters are splitting right now, the Democrat is getting the majority of the early vote turnout and that's working to her advantage. That's that those are her voters, young voters, voters of color, et cetera, et cetera. And the Republicans likely going to get the majority of his voters that they're going to vote on election day, which, which means this whole dynamic can shift or change or that he actually, you know, that he underperforms given the weather. So that's, that's sort of the look at this now. The sort of360 look at this now. But I will say the interesting thing is the fact that, Mark, to your point, you know, you don't always play to win. I mean, I think from a Democratic standpoint, if we can get it within five, that is considered a major victory for us, given that Trump won this seat by 20 points and the fact that Republicans are defending the seat that he won, 20 points and throwing everything they've got at it, I think again, speaks volumes for their prospects in the midterms election and the fact that they sense that there's some blood in the water right now. And I will say that the Republican candidate on Fox this morning didn't sound overly confident. Nothing, his tone, his tenor, nothing suggests that he's going to sail through and win this thing easily. And so anyway, all of this is, all of this is just continuing to bolster the mood of the Democratic Party right now.

[B]

There are two ways, see what I did there? There are two ways to run copyright unopposed and scared. Okay? So while he doesn't show confidence, you're supposed to run like you're behind all the time. And Ashley's absolutely right. In politics, typically Democrats have a lot of early votes and they bank a lot of votes. And Republicans surge on election day. The Fallacy with that in years past is something Donald Trump noticed and then reversed a lot of that. Still losing a little bit of the early vote, but gaining a lot of ground in the 2024 election. That's something Republicans typically don't do. So it looks like Van Epps is a little bit higher than normal for early voting turnout, which bodes well for him because same day you expect to be more. But the problem with like you think about Pennsylvania and Fetterman, the guy had banked like 900,000 votes. So by the time election day rolled around, there was almost no way you could get to the polls to swamp him. A lot of other things go on in elections, as you know, taking the win or lose elections. A lot of factors, but that's very important. The non sexy parts to get out the vote efforts, the door knocking the ballot, chasing the ballot harvest, all the things were legal to do. Those are important. I do think Van Epps wins. I do think it's close. But also Hudson's absolutely right. These kind of special elections are always weird. Democrats a lot of times outperform in special elections and Trump isn't on the ballot. And so while he won the place big, I don't know that you can necessarily compare it. Now here's the one caveat and the one caution. I think Ashley's right about this too. It would be very, and I'm paid to be nervous, so forgive me, but I'm always nervous in these situations. What are you learning from this election? Just because you win, fine. But if it's close, which all indications are, it will be, why was it close? Is it just because it was a weird off year and Trump went on the ballot? Okay, fine. But if there are some underlying positions and pieces in there that Republicans need to pay attention to, it would be smart for them to do so because no one turns out votes naturally as well as Donald Trump does without effort.

[A]

But I don't know that that can ever be duplicated. Both these candidates are flawed. Both sides spend a lot of money. So it's not about candidate quality. They're both adequate. Neither of them's disaster. Both spend a lot of money. So if it's close, isn't there only one reason? If it's close, it's because affordability and sending a message to Trump's Washington. Right?

[C]

That's right. And that's how the President is actually on the ballot. Right? That's how he's actually on the ballot. I mean, his name may not be on the ballot, but his policies actually are. I mean, In Tennessee, Al, 200,000 people are expected to lose their health care coverage. You've got nine rural hospitals that are slated to actually close. You've got Moody's, who's actually saying that Tennessee is treading water. So what I think the concern is that it's like what we talked about yesterday. Republicans are denying the facts. The facts are people are suffering under this tough economy and they've got to recalibrate on the economy. But there is no signs that they are. There is no signs that the economy's going to get better. So you're going to have a situation where we're going to be watching to see where he bleeds support within the state, among which voters and for what reasons, and that's going to contribute to our learning. And I think what's going to happen, and I'm hearing this within the party itself, is that it's going to bolster some of the candidates. You know, we're going to become even more risky about some of the candidates we're offering and some of the races where we decide to actually show up and compete. I mean, all of this is informing our strategy in those ways.

[A]

All right, we'll talk about this tomorrow morning. Obviously, two things to think about. One is Tennessee counts pretty fast, usually, unless there's some problem. But then the other thing is I don't know if there's an exit poll or not, if anybody's doing an exit poll. We're going to figure it out by tonight. But but that'll be interesting if there's an exit poll. So we can see, particularly people who voted for Donald Trump in 24, who voted for the Democrats. So we'll see. All right, three more quick topics. Yes, sir.

[B]

Two quick things I want to, I want to point out because it was a health care allegation, I just want to make sure we understand the expiration of the health care was voted on and proposed and passed by Democrats because they knew that would expire, number one. Number two, the billions of dollars, millions of dollars, I can't remember as a billion domains, but it's D.C. so it's really close. Whatever in the CR was designed to make sure rural hospitals got paid. Democrats attempted to strip that out as well when they kept the government closed. So that fight, while nuanced, attempted and.

[C]

Did, is two different things. Hogan.

[A]

Yeah. All right, we got to move on Three quick topics on 2028 and then to your question. So if you're here on the platform, maybe you've never raised your Hand before today's the day. Raise your hand. We'll get to you in just a moment. Mark Kelly, he's on TV every day now. He's front and center. I think this latest revelation has certainly made him even more popular with Democrats. I've been super impressed with his performance on tv. Ashley, to what extent do you think his role now as resistance whisperer elevates his prospects for 2028 a lot? A little? Not at all.

[C]

I mean, no, I think definitely he's in the running. I mean, I regret that my old boss didn't take my advice. I thought Mark Kelly should have been her VP pick. I mean, there's something very Americana about him that just love. I mean, they don't even make astronauts anymore. You know, this man's been to the moon. You know, he's defended his country. I mean, like, there's something about him that I think, you know, contributes and adds value to any Democratic ticket. He's got a different profile that we typically see of Democrats. That particular profile, meaning former military, you know, sort of positioning yourself as very pro patriotic and pro America. All of that we're seeing now is working for the Democrats. Look at Virginia and New Jersey, look at Michigan. All of those candidates were former national security officials. And so I think that our military. And I think that's a new profile that Democrats could benefit from exploiting, putting those people on the ticket. But I do think that Mark Kelly's positioning himself incredibly well. I've always had a lot of confidence in him. I've always enjoyed him and liked him.

[A]

So, yeah, Hogan, is he formidable? Leave aside what negative thoughts you have about him. If he were the Democratic nominee in 28. Is he a formidable general election candidate?

[B]

If, look, if he's the nominee, I don't think he gets to the nomination. I don't think he would get through that process at all. Look, and while I appreciate a lot of these people, both on the Republican and Democrat side look good on paper, but no stage is bigger and no lights burn hotter than that of the presidential. And with deference to my good friend, with my deference to my good friend Rick Perry, you can oops yourself off of that.

[A]

But if you. But if you divide. If you divide prospective candidates into people you think are formidable and not. He's not. He's not. For me. He's on the. He's on the wrong side.

[B]

He has. He has more baggage, this guy.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Delta Turnstile. It's a lot and it's bad. And people in D.C. know it. And that's one of the reasons he was. He was sniffed at for vice president. And then they were like, no, I don't think so. It's like, I'll give you a, an example, a metaphor, a simile, or whatever, very close to my heart. Once your football coach starts losing or once he does something to you you don't like, all the things you know about them start to come out in the ether, and you're like, wait, why didn't anyone say this in real time? Once he starts to gain traction, if he were to do that, the merciless level of attacks on this guy are.

[A]

Going to be, all right, we got to move. We got, we got, we got to move. We got to move. The story about Whitmer. Governor Whitmer in Politico says she's the White House's favorite Democrat. She's visited three times. She's there all the time. Do we have that headline? And they review the fact that she held a folder in front of her face and talks about her saying, here's the Politico headline. She might be Trump's favorite Democrat. Governor Gretchen Whitmer decision to work with the White House stands in stark contrast to potential 2028 rivals such as Gavin Newsom and JB Pritz. So let's just do this shorthand. We'll come back to this topic again. If you had put down a fiver at Ladbrokes on being the nominee, not winning in general being the nominee on Kelly or Whitmer, who would you put it down on? 1 5. 15 or on Kelly or Whitmer? Ashley, who would you put it on?

[C]

I think. I think that headline is a death nail for her. I mean, I think Democrats are in a mood where we want a fighter, which is why somebody like Gavin Newsom's catching fire. Jasmine Crockett. I mean, these folks that are, that are, you know, even J.B. pritzker, the people who are taking it to Donald Trump, are the ones that are rising within the Democratic ranks. And then, you know, and then the way that she put that folder over her head, I mean, it was embarrassing.

[A]

All right, so you're putting your five on Kelly.

[C]

I've been putting my five on Kelly. So I'm into it.

[A]

Okay, Hogan, Kelly or Whitmer, I think I would, too.

[B]

But it's for this reason, as I was reading that story, I was thinking to myself, now, see, this is smart, pragmatic, politically wise. She's going to get something accomplished for her people. She can bridge the gap. And then I Realized exactly what Ashley was just saying. The Democrats don't want that. That's not what they're looking for. It takes her out of the running completely. Anything associated with Trump for the left is a death nail. It's not going to work.

[A]

All right, lastly, Gavin Newsom. The only group of Americans. I say this with affection and respect. More ridiculous than the New York donor community is the Southern California donor community. They're just. They're ridiculous people, but they're perfect weather vanes. So, story from Deadline Hollywood. Is that what it's called? Deadline? Yeah. Newsom 2028 Hollywood donors start lining up behind expected White House bid quote. This is about Newsom. He's a fighter. That's what we need. Exclamation point. You don't often see an exclamation point in the headline. And the story's filled with mostly blind quotes from Democratic donors, Hollywood types, and other rich Southern California Democrats saying, you know, the train's leaving the station. We want to be on board. Here's my question, Hogan. If you were an advisor to Gavin Newsom on the donor fundraising side, what would you be doing to leverage this current belief that you got to give to him? If he asks, would you be raising money into a super pac? Like, what would you do with that energy or just bank it?

[B]

I mean, it depends on how far along he wants to try and be at this point. You want to keep your head down and keep doing the fighting.

[A]

Well, that's my question. He obviously would rather keep his head down, but is there a strike while the iron's hot thing where he should be asking these people for checks now or just inviting them to conference calls? Like, what should he be doing to not squander what is clear? Which is a lot of these people who would have thought about Wes Moore or thought about other people, they're. They're like, if I don't give to Newsom now, it could be, you know, a problem.

[B]

Yeah. But in my mind, I'm thinking Mitt Romney here, okay? Both attractive physically, both unattractive. I think politically, once you start to kick the tires, once you look at both men, you realize it's about money for them. And what they try to do in early fundraising is say, hey, I got all the money that's going to dissuade others from getting involved in the race. I can carry the mantle. Look at all the people lining up behind me. I don't know if that's politically wise or not, because as Ashley also knows, these campaigns ebb and flow. You can peak way too soon. You cannot peak at all. Ashley should gamble.

[A]

Ashley should be asking for money now of these people.

[C]

Absolutely. I mean, I think he's trying to prove to the, to the field that he's formidable and that he is actually the front runner in the field. So, yeah, I think he's doing the right thing.

[B]

And he is.

[C]

Yeah. And it's true. And I think the question, though, is stamina, Whether or not he's got the stamina to keep this thing up for three years and continue to crescendo. As my old boss used to say, Pelosi, you got to kind of do a crescendo. You gotta be building. And that's what I'm not sure that he's. He has the ability to actually do. And that's, that's gonna be the sort of where the rubber meets the road.

[A]

All right, quick message from a sponsored nt. Your questions again. Please raise your hand if you'd like to get into the conversation right now. If you're looking for clothes for the season that fit great, denim, jeans, flannels, western, polos, the poncho promise from our friends at Poncho Hogan. You like Poncho? Love them. Love them. Hogan will tell you so many of.

[B]

Their shirts, it's permanent.

[A]

Hogan, we tell you they fit like a magic cloak. Right now, you can get 10% off your first order and free shipping by going to ponchooutdoors.com 2wmm poncho outdoors.com 2wmm and save yourself $10 off and get the free shipping on denim, jeans, flannels, western polos. Their promise, everything's your free shipping. You get free returns, you get free exchanges. If they don't fit just right and they stand by every shirt, they'll make it work for you. When they ask you how you heard about them, tell them Hogan sent you. And again, right now, you can save by going to ponchooutdoors.com they have a.

[B]

Sunglass cleaning cloth on the tail of it.

[A]

Yeah, that's right. Every shirt should have that. Now when I wear shirts that aren't from Poncho, I'm left with smudgy sunglasses.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

It's kind of a disaster.

[C]

If we knew more about our sleep.

[A]

What would we do differently? Would we go to bed at a consistent time or take steps to reduce interruptions to our sleep? With the all new sleep score, Apple.

[C]

Watch measures your bedtime consistency, interruptions, and sleep duration. Then every morning, it combines these factors.

[A]

Into an easy to understand score. From 1 to 100. So you'll know how to take the.

[C]

Quality of your sleep from good to excellent.

[A]

Introducing the new sleep score on Apple Watch iPhone 11 or later required. All right, welcome in Chad. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Ashley and for Hogan. And thank you for being part of two way. Hey, I am in Dallas, Texas. Happy to be on the show this morning. Welcome, everybody. Good day, new folks. Really? I've got two quick ones. One is, you know, just kind of curious. The, the, the hegseth. The shootings in the, in the water. I mean, I'm kind of uncomfortable with the whole thing. The whole idea that we're, we're shooting the boats anyways, I kind of makes me uncomfortable, but it just kind of crosses my eyes a little bit when I think about the thing that everybody's upset is that the strike. Again, I'm just trying to. I guess my question is, what is the goal? It sounds like was to kill him to begin with, which again, I say I'm uncomfortable with. Now we're like up in arms because we made sure they were. Chad, it's a great question. And of course, these are not warships. They're drug running ships. They don't have flags, they don't have weapons. So, Hogan, you first. How do you square Chad's very good question, which is we're trying to kill them and you know, we just finished the job.

[B]

It goes to my point from before and thanks, Chad, you make a very solid point there. If the goal is to eliminate the target, then you should finish the job and eliminate the target. This will be the legal fight here. What ha. You know, do you have the right to do this to your, to your point about being uncomfortable? And then the second part is once you think you have the right to do it, then finishing the job is also a legal question because as I said, some attorneys are saying, no, no, you can't do that because people are in the water. Other people say no. If the goal and the outset is to eliminate the target, you've deemed them terrorist threats, then you have the right to do it. And so I think at its core, there are two legal fights, but I do argue the political one, which is if they were coming to our shores with a nuclear weapon in one of those boats and you blew them up, okay, they're coming with a weapon that has killed hundreds of thousands of American citizens. This administration deems that as a threat. But, Hogan, that's not preventable. So they're trying to prevent It.

[A]

Go ahead, Ashley. And then Chad will ask a second question.

[C]

You know, in preparation. I looked this up and the law says that you cannot attack unless they pose an imminent threat. So the question though is, so you attack the boat the first time. The people who are trying to survive on the side of the boat don't pose an imminent threat. So those people should not have been killed according to the law. So that's really what this is about, is whether or not we're going to stick to the rule of the law. And Hegseth has said when he brought all those military officials together, I mean, his point was to hell with the law, to hell with it all. We're going to do whatever the hell we want to do. And I think that is the attitude that permeates from the top down this administration, and that is the attitude that's going to get them jammed up, especially again, if we pursue this through the courts and it doesn't end up at the Supreme Court.

[B]

But the question then becomes imminent threat. Because if those two people are hanging off the side of the boat and say, hey, the next guy come pick me up, we got to finish this job. Eliminating the threat and eliminating the target.

[C]

Is this is my point about getting evidence. You can't make up evidence.

[A]

We just don't know. Okay, hold on. I said if. Chad. Yeah, if it's. If it's.

[C]

But we're not, we don't deal in if. When you're talking about people's lives.

[A]

Chad, if you can ask your second one real quick, please do. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. This kind of change of subject, thinking forward to 2028, you know, I think about some of the most successful, what seems like the most successful people in government tend to be the, I think about what's his name and Kentucky, the governor Bashir, he's being very successful in a deep red state, but he's a Democrat. Or you think about Fetterman a pretty red state now, but he's been very successful and he's crossed the aisle in a lot of ways. Why is it so impossible to get that from a presidential standpoint? Why is it so impossible? I mean, does, does the, is that ever going to happen or does the two party system with primaries just kind of make that impossible? Because even Brashear, if he ran, he probably is going to have to run pretty far to the left to get the nomination. Chad. I would say before Ashley and then Hogan, if you go Back to Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, Trump the first time, Biden, every One of those elections was run by someone who said, I'm going to bring the country together, everyone. So it's the norm, it's not the exception. Trump, 24 was an exception, but otherwise that's what we've elected. Now, the problem is, even though all those people, with the exception of Trump, largely dedicated their careers to bringing the country together more than most politicians, they all failed. So it's not the question of who we elect, it's a question of whether they can succeed. Ashley?

[C]

No, and I think just to clarify one point, all of those presidents, even Trump in the first term, work with Nancy Pelosi. I was in the rooms to pass a trade agreement. So I mean, each one of those presidents have to a degree worked across the aisle to work with the other side. I think the exception now is this particular term where we're seeing that the President is not doing that. But the opportunity doesn't present itself because it's, you know, the Senate's run by Republicans and the House is run by Republicans. But there could have been some concessions made around this, the shutdown. And I think what's unique about that particular shutdown versus any other feeds into your point, Chad, which is the president actually doubled down and weaponized the shutdown to punish Democrats, Democratic states, Democratic projects in New Jersey and Virginia. I mean, he decided that he wasn't going to feed, go to court to not feed millions of children food. So I mean that's the position we're in now is we've never seen this sort of attempts to not work across the aisle to do what's in the best interest of, of the country and previous administrations we have. I think this one is unique.

[B]

First of all, he did have Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer in the Oval Office to have the conversation about the shutdown. I think it's important to point concessions. The entire funding bill was Biden era level funding. It was Covid era level funding that was voted on by the Democrats 13 times prior to that moment. So the concessions were made on the Republican side. They put something clean forward as it relates to Bashir, for example, those kind of Democrats. As I mentioned before, the Fetterman's in Pennsylvania, that's not what Democrats want. In fact, they're trying to primary Fetterman right now and get rid of him. People are trying to attack Hakeem Jeffries from the left and that's hard to do. Chuck Schumer from the left and that's hard to do. So even ones that have a history of at least having conversations with the other side that is now kind of a non starter. You have to continue to fight against Donald Trump and everything that the American people want from, from low taxes to closed borders because that's not what their base wants. And every election history starts with you trying to coalesce your base and then broadening the 10 out.

[A]

Hold on, hold on, hold on. We got to go. Chad, thank you. Grateful to. Just want to make sure we get some more folks and I apologize. Mike, welcome and tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Ash Hogan. Hi guys. I'm in Southern Illinois across the river from St. Louis and I want to talk about the ACA.

[B]

I assume none of the three of.

[A]

You have ever used ACA insurance or gone through that process, is that correct?

[C]

I have.

[A]

Okay, great. Then that's, that's, that's even, that's even better.

[B]

I'm going to overshare Green Bay Diner.

[A]

Style to try to bring some reality into the conversation about these, about the ACA. I retired at 57 because I could. My house was paid off, car paid off, zero debt. Had a little over 2 1/2 million in liquid investments at that time. From the time I retired at 57 until I went on Medicare at 65, I received between 1100 and 1300 dollars in ACA subsidies a month. That's 105,000, $105,600 of my kids tax money that went to subsidize my health care for eight years. During COVID there were two years where I would have had to pay that money back, pay that subsidy money back.

[B]

Except they made these emergency changes that allowed me to keep it all.

[A]

Yeah, Mike, those are, and those are.

[B]

The, those are the, those are the subsidies that we're arguing about. And my point is that a lot of, a lot of the ACA that we're talking about is essentially middle class and upper middle class welfare.

[A]

And we need to focus on the people that really need it and quit lying about what this program does. Okay, Mike, thank you, Hogan. And then Ashley.

[B]

Yeah, real quickly, Mike, you're absolutely right. It's about 3 to 5%, some people say as high as 7. That we're quibbling over here. And most of them are in the upper echelon of income earners in this country. Again expanded by Democrat policies. This is 100% Democrat bill, 100% Democrat brainchild voted on 100% by Democrats. It's 100% their problem. Here's the issue now The President of the United States and the House and the Senate are controlled by Republicans. So they've got to step in and do something about it. Inevitably, that's going to be problematic for a whole host of reasons. That 3 to 7%, no one's going to hear that number and no one's going to care because Ashley is, as she is adept at doing, will advise her people to say, republicans are cutting health care. They want you to die. They want you eliminated. That's going to happen because that has happened in the past with Paul Ryan. The ad, famously, of him pushing some old lady over a cliff in a wheelchair.

[C]

I wasn't responsible.

[B]

Have a responsible, respectable conversation about it, except maybe on two way, because they'd rather score political points. It is one of the biggest policy issues of our time.

[C]

Can I interrupt time? So here's the real reality here, where I appreciate what Hogan had to say. Republicans have had, even going back to Trump's first term, opportunity after opportunity to advance an alternative. I mean, Trump said even during the debates, he doesn't have a health care plan. He's got concepts. Why, sir, after 10 years of running for office, do you only have a concept about, to Hogan's point, the most important issue of our lifetime? So here's my.

[B]

Republicans are demonized, right?

[A]

Whenever they want to talk about it.

[B]

Why do we have to fix it? It's your plan.

[C]

If you're demonized, you're demonized by your own people, or you're demonized by people benefiting from. But listen, being demonized does not excuse you offering an alternative. Sir, they voted 63 times, 64 times to end ACA and never voted once on an alternative. They have to be held accountable to that, to that fact. This has nothing to do with Democrats. You're in control of the House, the Senate, and, and the. And the House, the Senate, and the White House. If you've got an idea about how to change aca, get rid of it. Change it. Do it. Nobody stops.

[B]

What's their idea?

[A]

Hold on, hold on.

[B]

What's their idea?

[A]

More. More subs. More subsidies. All right, Mike.

[B]

More money, Mike.

[C]

And if you like it, then change it. Hogan. Like, let's do it.

[A]

Mike, very grateful to you. Thank you for explaining that. Okay, one more quick word from a sponsor, and then we got to show you something that's cool right now. 30% off [e-mail]. this is an opportunity to be healthier, lose weight in a healthy way. For instance, you can get their field of green, super fruit and vegetable drinks right now 30% off brick house nutrition cyber Monday sale visit brickhouse sale.com save 30% off also 30% off everything from lean. Lean is formulated by doctors to lose weight in a meaningful and safe way without injections. Allows you to lose weight, keep it off and do it in a healthy way. Also Creatone, it's made specifically for women to look better and feel better without excessive dieting. That is unhealthy. Right now again, 30% off go to brickhousesale.com no promo code needle, just needed. Just go to brickhousesale.com save 30% off again brickhousesale.com all right, yesterday the president went on Truth Social and he posted a TikTok of a video of Ashley not from her appearance here yesterday, but her previous appearance on two Way. That actually was like a month ago, probably.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

All right, so there's the President's true social poster. Here's the very controversial thing that Ashley said on the program. I say that in air quotes play thank you.

[C]

And that is brilliant and smart. I mean most parts of the Democratic apparatus aren't. Again, as we talked about Schumer and Jeffries, that forward looking we were planning when I was working for Pelosi. I don't know that this has ever been made public or I've never said this publicly, but planning for a January 6th type of an event two years before it happened. Right. Just understanding the mentality of the President. So that's what I would say. And then I think, I wouldn't say this is the public messaging, but how do you ensure that the National Guard leaves? Because I think what the president wants to do is leave all of these National Guards behind in anticipation of the midterm election to use and weaponize in all kinds of ways, intimidation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[A]

All right, so Hogan, somebody put that on TikTok and then the president re put it on Truth Social. How does that work? How does the president. Yeah, just a little part about saying that Speaker Pelosi had been planning for two years for the potential of something like that. Hogan, how does that happen? Is the President on TikTok by himself and he just hits the Truth Social button? How does that happen?

[B]

I think a lot of times staffers do a good job of flagging things for him he needs to see and then he decides whether or not to amplify it.

[A]

Okay, so why would they flag Ashley saying a month ago that that Pelosi's off? Speaker Pelosi's office was planning for this type of event.

[B]

Well, because Ashley's probably correct. But also the president wanted to make the point clear again that Nancy Pelosi rejected the request for more enforcements on the ground in Washington, D.C. and then the video, of course, coming out saying, this is kind of my fault. I could have stopped this and didn't if she was planning for it so well.

[C]

Well, I will say that if you're a leader domestically, internationally, and you're not playing for the worst case scenario with Donald Trump, you're a fool, you're foolish. Anyone that's in any of these positions is always, if they're smart, is always planning for the worst case scenario. But here's the thing that I find most disappointing about it, is that what's keeping the president up at night is not the fact that my aunt in Texas is paying $600 a month for her electricity bills. It's not the fact that food banks are running out of food because they have no support from the federal government. Those are the types of things that should be keeping the president up at night. Those are the types of things that his staff should be, to use Hogan's point should be flagging for him at night. I've been in that building twice, and I know how hard the burden is to carry of ensuring that your country not only thrives, but can compete in the world and leads in the world. And it doesn't seem to me that the President and his team are serious about the issues that the American people are dealing with. In fact, they're in a level of denial. So my advice to the President is a get some rest because it's clear that you, you know, in these Oval Office meetings that you're not getting. Let me finish, please. Secondly, please focus all of your attention and efforts on addressing this affordability crisis that the American people are suffering under, by your own accounts, the Treasury Department. We're in the middle of a recession. Please, sir, spend your energy and time trying to figure out how to prevent it and get us out of it.

[B]

He's a counter puncher and he's been talking about January 6th to your Blue in the face. And he's gonna, he's gonna respond to it. No question.

[A]

All right, let me tell you about a few things coming up. Thank you both. Stand by. Later today, a new episode of NextUp will drop my first post Thanksgiving episode. Joining me will be Jeb Rubenfeld, the Yelp law professor, to talk about Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon strikes in the Caribbean. Also, Katie Miller, noted podcaster and my reported monologue. I've talked to a bunch of Republicans on the point Ashley was just speaking to. What do Republicans want President Trump to do to have something of a comeback? Because you look at his poll numbers, you look at some of the flow of the news, clearly even people in the White House will tell you time to turn the page. So my reporter monologue on what Republicans are saying there. So join me for that again. It's on YouTube and on podcast platforms. Two way tonight at 6 o' clock tonight, we'll have full coverage of the Cabinet meeting. If it lasts three hours. I can't say we'll have full coverage, but what partial coverage. But if I'm right that it's less than 90 minutes. Moynihan report at 7 o' clock tonight. Very sorry we did not get to take that down, if you would. Very sorry we did not get to a question from Minnesota today because I would have liked to because it's going to be talked about at the Cabinet meeting. Almost certainly. If you go to the Daily Mail, you can read my new column on the controversy, the scandal in Minnesota, a billion dollars taken from taxpayers.

[B]

It's kind of, that's why Noam gets the longest time.

[A]

Extraordinary. Well, no, that's why I think Besson. Anyway, Hogan, you're back tomorrow, correct?

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

Don't know. But I know Ashley is not. But Ashley, we look forward to seeing you again soon. We're very grateful to you for making time and, and spending time with the community and being so gracious and glad.

[C]

I can up your numbers with Donald Trump retweeting your.

[A]

Exactly. Exactly. It's good publicity for the platform. So grateful to you both. Thank you all for watching and being part of the two way community. And we will see you at six o' clock tonight and then some some guest hosts for your enjoyment and edification tomorrow at 9am Eastern. So thank you very much. Have a great day and we'll see you later. Thank.