Trump Says "It Takes Two To Tango" on Ukraine, Says Putin and Zelensky Will Meet, Reach Peace Deal

Summary

---

2WAY Morning Meeting

Episode: Trump Says "It Takes Two To Tango" on Ukraine, Says Putin and Zelensky Will Meet, Reach Peace Deal
Date: August 19, 2025
Host: Mark Halperin
Co-hosts: Sean Spicer (Former Trump WH Press Secretary), Dan Turrentine (Democratic Strategist)

---

Episode Overview

This lively episode centers on the surging push for Ukrainian peace negotiations and the dramatic diplomatic choreography involving President Trump, President Putin, and President Zelensky. The hosts dissect Trump’s recent Fox News interview, fresh reports of negotiations, and the chances for a historic summit between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders. They critique U.S., European, and Russian postures, debate whether real progress is possible, and explore the broader impacts for world politics and domestic polling. Notable guest analyses from politicians and insiders provide multiple lenses on this rapidly evolving story.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Can Peace Talks Succeed?

• Trump’s Fox News interview is the day’s focus, particularly his claims of progress toward a Putin-Zelensky meeting.
• The panel questions whether Moscow is truly committed or just stalling, and what it would take for a real breakthrough.
• U.S. and European leaders express optimism, but Russian official statements remain ambiguous.

2. Trump’s Approach to Russia-Ukraine (03:00–04:20)

• Trump sounds cautiously optimistic: He claims to have initiated a meeting between Putin and Zelensky and frames peace as each side’s decision, not America’s, despite the major U.S. financial stake.

  “I think they're doing okay. I wouldn't say they are ever going to be best friends, but they're doing okay and we're just going to see. So we're setting up a meeting...they're the ones that have to call the shots.”
  — Donald Trump (03:07)

• Trump emphasizes U.S. expenditures and insists things would have been different under his prior term.

• He calls the war “the biggest bad situation since World War II.”

3. The Diplomatic Dance: Reports and Reactions (04:20–07:43)

• NYT and ABC: Putin suggested holding talks in Moscow, but Trump rejected that.

• Scott Bessant (CNBC) describes the Alaska summit as a “show of force,” with military hardware on display, and is bullish on the likelihood of a bilateral Putin-Zelensky meeting:

  “The only way to end this conflict, is to get the two sides talking.”
  — Scott Bessant (05:52)

• Sen. Marco Rubio (Fox News) cautions against revealing negotiation details, stressing:

  “Each side is going to have to make some concessions...land, or where you draw those lines...is going to be part of that conversation.”
  — Marco Rubio (06:41)

Memorable Quote:

“It takes two to tango.” — Paraphrased by hosts, echoing Trump’s negotiation philosophy

4. Is Putin Playing Ball? Host Analysis and Predictions (08:12–14:20)

• Dan believes Putin will resist immediate talks, favoring stalling through deputies, doubting Putin would bestow legitimacy on Zelensky with a public summit.
• Sean expresses duality: Trump’s track record makes anything possible, but Putin is unpredictable and not easily tempted by gestures.

  “After 200 days, I don't believe you bet against Donald Trump...But I don't trust Putin.” — Sean (08:49)

• Both speculate economic incentives (“back into the club”) may be the trump card for a deal.
• Hosts debate what meaningful “security guarantees” could look like, and whether Putin would—at least on paper—accept American/European-led protection for Ukraine.

5. U.S.–Europe Unity & Realignment (19:34–24:23)

• European leaders, despite skepticism, show rare unity at the White House, seeking to “remain at the table.”

• The panel reflects on Trump’s evolution from an alleged threat to NATO to a unifier who now shapes terms and expectations.

  “This is an extraordinary turn of events for a guy who was seen...as a disaster for Europe...To the extent there might be a deal...it is largely because Donald Trump and J.D. Vance...have figured out how to have a strong, positive coalition with Europe on America's terms.”
  — Mark Halperin (23:25)

• JD Vance’s speech in Europe (“grow up”) is seen as pivotal in re-setting transatlantic relations.

Notable Moment:

• Admiration for the White House advance team’s logistical feat of coordinating high-level summits in Alaska and DC.

6. Domestic Politics: Ukraine, Epstein, and Approval Ratings (28:37–41:17)

• The Epstein/Maxwell documents investigation simmers as a potential September headache for the White House.

• Hosts predict the administration will try to slow-walk document releases to reduce political damage.

• Trump’s Approval Ratings:

  • Dan pegs Trump at roughly 43–44% approval, with Sean arguing he’s closer to 50%.
  • Broad agreement that Trump’s support remains historically stable and polarized.

  “His floor and his ceiling are rock solid.” — Mark Halperin (36:17)

• New policy messaging: White House pivots to framing its major bill as a tax-cut for families ahead of the midterms.

7. Listener Q&A: Is Putin’s War a Pyrrhic Victory? (41:21–54:04)

• Wickham from Michigan lists Russia’s setbacks: massive casualties, a weakened fleet and economy, elongated NATO border, and increased European direct involvement potentially closer to Moscow.
• The panel discusses the odds that a deal sticks and skepticism about Russia’s compliance, with concerns that Putin may simply pause before relaunching hostilities.
• There’s debate over whether meaningful U.S. or European troops will ever be stationed in Ukraine (“NATO style/NATO light”).
• Aaron from Houston raises whether even a temporary pause is worthwhile given Putin’s age, or if enduring U.S. financial support for Ukraine is sustainable.

Sound Bite:

“We are literally in debt $37 trillion. We’re taking out more money to buy weapons to support Ukraine, who is fighting Russia, who is selling China oil. The circle is so unbelievably rich...”
— Sean Spicer (52:05)

8. Scandals and Sidebar Stories (54:13–57:49)

• “Right-wing Twitter” controversy over an Israeli official allegedly released after a sex sting in Las Vegas; panel promises follow-up after verifying facts.
• Ongoing DOJ and antitrust division allegations, with healthy host skepticism about “cronyism and lobbying”—reflecting long-standing cynicism about Washington scandals.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Trump: “I think they're doing okay...they're the ones that have to call the shots...” (03:07)
• Scott Bessant: “The only way to end this conflict is to get the two sides talking.” (05:52)
• Rubio: “Each side is going to have to make some concessions...land, or where you draw those lines...is going to be part of that conversation.” (06:41)
• Sean: “Macron seems to be on Team Spicer, which is Trump says he can do it. I want to trust him. I know he can do it. But I don't trust Putin.” (08:49)
• Panel: “His floor and his ceiling are rock solid.” (36:17)
• Wickham (Caller): “If you end up with European troops in Ukraine, you’ve succeeded in moving the Wehrmacht 2,000 kilometers closer to Moscow. I don’t know how politics in Russia works, but I think you’d have a hard time selling that as a victory.” (42:36)
• Sean: “We are literally in debt $37 trillion. We’re taking out more money to buy weapons to support Ukraine, who is fighting Russia, who is selling China oil. The circle is so unbelievably rich right now.” (52:05)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:00 — Trump on Putin-Zelensky Meeting: Trump’s Fox interview and U.S. role
• 05:03 — Scott Bessant's Alaska Recap: Military show of force, optimism on talks
• 06:24 — Rubio’s Caution on Deal Details: Concessions required for peace
• 08:12 — Panel Assessment: Will Putin agree? Who has leverage?
• 13:20 — Security Guarantees: Debate on what “robust” means for Ukraine’s future
• 19:34 — Europe-U.S. Cohesion: Analysis of alliance strength, new posture
• 28:37 — Epstein/Maxwell Political Fallout: Document releases and strategy
• 32:11 — Trump Approval Ratings: Poll data, panel disagreement, impact for midterms
• 41:30 — Listener Wickham’s Analysis: Russian losses, NATO’s border, victory narrative
• 46:53 — Listener Aaron on Putin’s Motives: Is delay strategic? What’s at stake?

---

Closing Thoughts

The episode vividly captures the complexity—and improvisational nature—of high-stakes diplomacy under President Trump. The hosts’ bipartisan banter and skepticism offer a sharp look at the difficult road to peace. Lack of clarity around Russia’s motives and the shape of security guarantees underscore the prevailing uncertainty, while domestic analyses remind listeners that U.S. political realities will shape any future deal. The live Q&A segment enriches the conversation, highlighting public skepticism and humor alike.

---

For those who missed it:
This episode offers a can’t-miss insider’s perspective on a potentially world-changing series of negotiations. With sharp insight, candid skepticism, and lively debate, it’s a front-row seat to the state of the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine crisis—and how D.C. thinks about the world.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Welcome. This is the morning meeting and I'm just finishing a text, so just give me a moment. Thank you for joining, John. Dan and I are going to run through the day. A lot of focus on Ukraine. Of course, President Trump decided to pop up on Fox News, talk all about Ukraine. Scott Bessant on Squawk. A lot of the questions there were about Ukraine. Although if you're interested in the Fed or industrial policy or inflation, I recommend the full Besson interview to you. And we're not going to show you the rest of it, but it was pretty long and pretty good. Gentlemen, good morning. Sean, Bullish or bearish on peace this morning? One word answer, Dan. Bullish or bearish?

[B]

Bullish.

[A]

Okay. Two events at the White House today. The president signs closed press in the oval at 1:00'. Clock. A congressional bill. Either of you know what that is?

[C]

A bill is a piece of legislation that the House and the Senate both passed. It goes to the president for a signature. Yeah.

[B]

I mean the House hasn't been here for a while so I'm not sure what that could be.

[A]

Okay, we'll see. And then at the exact same time the president will have the TV on while he's signing the bill. Is there a TV in the Oval now?

[C]

Not in the Oval.

[A]

Not in the Oval, yeah. So I don't know how he's going to do that exactly because he won't want to miss Caroline Levitt's briefing at one which will surely focus a great deal on Ukraine. JD Vance, not sure what he's doing today. Houston.

[B]

He's in Georgia.

[A]

No, that's later in the week. That's on Thursday.

[B]

Oh, I thought that was today.

[A]

Nope, That's Thursday. California, 12:30 Eastern. Members of the state Senate hold their hearing on the redistricting and the assembly holds their hearing at 1:30. They're still trying to fast track this baby for the fall. We'll see if they do it. And Westmore at 7 o' clock tonight is speaking on Connecticut Avenue at Politics and Prose Bookstore. Gentlemen, jump all question in American political history, what's the second most famous location on the same block as Politics and Prose?

[B]

Oh, it's Cosmo. Cosmo Pizza. Right.

[A]

You've gotten the name wrong. But Comet Pizza. Where?

[B]

Comet Pizza.

[A]

That's it. The nation's most second favorite, famous, most famous pedophile ring held court in the basement of the pizza shop.

[B]

I never liked that place.

[A]

Really? They got ping pong.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

That makes it. And you cannot like that. I think. I'm not a fan of politics and pros. So we can both dislike something on the same block then.

[A]

Okay, kind of amazing. All right, let's talk about forward looking, where we think we're headed on Russia. We don't need to review all of yesterday, but here is political analyst Donald Trump on FOX News this morning analyzing Putin and Zelensky. 113, please. What has surprised you the most between.

[D]

Zelinsky and Putin in terms of their strength or weakness of their position right now?

[E]

Well, I think the fact that maybe they're getting along a little bit better than I thought. Otherwise I wouldn't have set up the two meeting. I would have set up a 3A trylat, but I think they're doing a little bit better. There's been tremendous bad blood. And again, this was all worked out by an administration that didn't have a clue. And if you remember, they said, well, if you made a minor incursion, that would be okay. That was, that was the end the whole thing when Biden made that statement. But minor incursion, what does that mean? So I think they're doing okay. I wouldn't say they are ever going to be best friends, but they're doing okay and we're just going to see. So we're setting up a meeting. I sort of set it up with Putin and Zelensky and you know, they're the ones that have to call the shots where we're 7,000 miles away. In all fairness, you know, we have, we spent through the previous administration $350 billion. Europe has spent a lot, also 100 billion. But it should be reversed if we should have been in for anything, but it wouldn't have happened. So that would have been much better because so many people died. This is the biggest, this is the biggest bad situation since World War II. There's been nothing even close.

[B]

So.

[A]

Mr. So the new York Times is reporting that when the president spoke to Putin about a possible meeting, not clear if they mean the bilater, the trilater, both Putin suggested Moscow and Trump shot that down. According to the New York Times, ABC News is Reporting this is 114, I believe overnight Russia launches massive strikes, largest attack of the month on Ukraine with drones and missiles, a lot of damage done. I don't believe were any casualties reported for that. Here is political analyst Scott Bessant on CNBC talking about the two meetings. 110 please, because I want to set.

[F]

The record straight on what went on in Alaska. Alaska was a show of force by President Trump. He invited President Putin to land that the Russians used to own. He displayed a huge amount of military hardware and then did a flyover. It was kind of like inviting your uncontrollable neighbor to your house and showing him your gun case. So then we, the President Zelensky, we had a very good meeting with him and his team in the Oval for about an hour and a half. And then we went met with the European leaders, who was an incredible group to have in the White House, all led by President Trump. And yes, the culmination of that was a call with President Putin. And my strong belief is that there will be a bilateral meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky, and that's the only way to end this conflict, is to get the two sides talking.

[A]

So he's very bullish on the prospect of a meeting, as is the president and some of the Europeans. But Moscow's public comments at least have been more, let's say, vague or indecisive. Lastly, here's Marco Rubio. Last night on Fox 104, when we.

[D]

Have a deal, I'll describe it to you for sure. But look, that's why you got to give these guys space to work. I mean, they have their own constituencies, okay? They have their own considerations. And you don't want to give away one side's leverage in that regard. But let me just say this about it. I think everyone understands that some of the key elements to bringing this about is Ukraine has to feel safe moving forward. In essence, they have to believe that at the end of this war, they are in a position to never get invaded again. I think what's also true, and I think it's common sense, and I don't know why it's so hard for a lot of people to understand it is in any negotiation to bring about the end of a war, or any conflict for that matter, it's going to require both sides to receive, but also to give. In essence, one side's not going to get 100% here. Each side is going to have to make some concessions. And obviously, land, or where you draw those lines, where the war stops, is going to be part of that conversation. And it's not easy, and maybe it's not even fair, but it's what it takes in order to bring about an end to a war. And that has been true in every war. The only wars that don't end that way are the ones that have unconditional surrender by one side or the other. And we're not going to see that in this conflict. So obviously, the issue of that will be talked about. And the President's been very clear in the end what those lines look like are up to Putin and up to Zelensky and up to the Ukrainian side to decide what each of them can live with. We are going to be there to facilitate that and make that possible and make sure that both sides are talking.

[A]

All right, so my view is that the ball is in Putin's court right now on the two biggest things. One is will he meet and two is will he accept the kind of security, US European backed security arrangements that were the big headline out of yesterday's meetings and seem to be the main thing that the Ukrainian side is getting out of this deal. So, Dan, let's do the first one first. Is Putin going to accept a two way and then a three way meeting as the US Side thinks he will?

[B]

I don't think he will for a little bit.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, if we want to. Yeah, I don't know if we want to just do one word answers here.

[A]

Yeah, we can go a little more. I mean, what, what, you think he'll stall, but then eventually accept or.

[B]

Yeah, I think he's gonna have like his people, lower level deputies meet and talk. And I, I think, I just can't see him sitting down and giving Zelensky the status of a negotiation where Zelinsky gets something in front of Vladimir Putin. I just think he won't do it.

[A]

Sean, will we see a bilateral or trilateral?

[C]

So I have two competing thoughts in my head right now that I can't square. The One is, after 200 days, I don't believe you bet against Donald Trump. I just. Every time that he has seen a political obstacle in the last 200 days, he's overcome it, as he did, frankly, most of his last 10 years. But I think in the last 200 days he has shown inability to do things that politically would be untenable for almost anyone else. That being said, just look at last night. I mean, we're on the precipice of all this stuff and everybody's saying the right thing and then Putin goes out and just blows stuff to crap like you can't, you can't square that. This is not a guy who was looking for a deal. I hate to say I actually think Macron's got a point here. But, you know, Macron seems to be on Team Spicer, which is Trump says he can do it. I want to trust him. I know he can do it. But I don't trust Putin. And that's where I think I am right now. There's one thing that I can't, that I think is the missing piece. Like we talk about land swaps, we talk about security. There's an economic piece that has not been discussed. So this Alaska thing, we talked about the participants. Lutnick Bessant. Right. What was it that was discussed on the economic front that we're not talking about? That some. I mean, there's no way that, that there was things on the economic front in terms of future trade. That's the one thing that I think that we have that Putin really wants, he wants back into the club. And there are things that I think he said that Trump gave assurances to, if you do this, we'll talk. And that's why that hot mic moment that sort of went viral last night of him saying, believe it or not, I think he wants a deal is because there is that one thing that we have, which is international acceptance and economic access that he can't get without us.

[A]

Dan, if, if there's no meeting agreed to by the end of the week or into the weekend, does that end it? And does Trump start with sanctions?

[B]

No, because I don't think Trump wants to go the sanctions. So I think the deputies will meet, they'll meet in Vienna or someplace.

[A]

I'm skeptical that either Ukraine or the US Would go for that.

[C]

You can't do deputies first. It's just not gonna, it's either, you're at this point where you either gotta go out, you know, Sean, would Trump.

[B]

Want to say, then I failed?

[C]

No, but he will go.

[B]

See, that's it. I think, I think they do accept it.

[C]

Okay, no, see, I think that Putin does things and then Trump, he, for all of the talk, and this is what I love about this friggin about DC and the media, all this. Trump's gonna cave. Trump's gonna cave. Trump's gonna cave. And everyone's like, wow, the only one who can pull it off is Trump. And the five days ago, the entire narrative was that he's going to get in a room and bully Zelensky. And yesterday was proof positive that wasn't true.

[A]

Okay.

[C]

And he got no credit for it.

[A]

But. So let's just, let's just stay on this question. Just yes or no. If there's no if Putin doesn't agree to a meeting after some period of time, does Trump, Does Trump in Europe and Zelensky say, we're done with negotiations now, we're going sanctions arm against everything? Yes.

[C]

I don't think he says we're done. But I think he goes full sanctions and says fine will force you back.

[A]

Dan, you agree?

[B]

I think if they haven't, I think by October, Putin will agree to meet. But it's, this is where I said yesterday, Trump's patience. Putin's going to try to string this along to gain more leverage.

[A]

It's not impossible. I don't believe that's possible.

[B]

Well, look, but then, Mark, if you're Trump and you, if you, if you're Trump, you've come this far, it would be a humiliation. Would he really walk away or it's more, more, more.

[A]

It's also humiliating to be accused by Putin of, you know, of, of, of, you know, or to be accused by people of, of kowtowing to Putin.

[B]

Yeah, no, I agree. I totally agree.

[A]

So, so the other issue is security. And the President met with Putin and then met with the Europeans and Zelenskyy and talked about this. It's, it's impossible to me to imagine that Putin hasn't at least implicitly agreed to some level of US European security. Otherwise Trump would be wasting everybody's time putting this on the table. So just yes or no answer for this one. Will Putin will. If there is a deal, will it include robust European led American backed security guarantees for Ukraine that Putin will agree to? Sean, yes or no?

[C]

See, I, I think the devil is in the details in that, both on our side and on theirs. Like a robust what, what that really means, like the DMZ in South, South Korea? No, absolutely not. But will there be something that he, I mean, look, I think Putin is sort of, I think the idea that he said yes, is insane. He said, like, I think we can talk about it, comrade. Like, well, and that's, I mean, look.

[B]

A lot of this is like the tariffs, right? Which is there are we, we don't know any details. Like it's all kept close to the vest because then you can't win or lose. I think, Mark, to answer your question, it has to, you've said it. Rubio said it last night. There has to be a guarantee for Ukraine that Russia isn't just pausing and six, 12, 18 months later or three years later, they're just going to go swallow the rest of it up. So yes, there has to be, it's not going to be the Chinese, it's not going to be the Rwandans, it's going to be the Germans, the French, the English and yes, somewhat the United States, which is amazing that Trump is going there.

[A]

All right, foreign things then. We're Going to talk about the present in Europe again, if you're here on the two way platform and you want to, you want to be in the conversation about this or some of the other topics we're going to talk about, please raise your hand. If you're watching on x or on YouTube, don't raise your hand, but please, please don't put smack in the chat. Just as President Trump is showing towards Vladimir Putin peace, love and understanding. Just as Vladimir Putin is showing towards Zelensky. Presumption of grace to all. This program's available as a podcast now. And yesterday we urged you, urged you to subscribe on Apple or Spotify and we mentioned how well we were doing on Apple. Here's where we were, here's where we were yesterday. I killed the audio there. I had suggested that it was very important to Dan to pass Candace Owens and very important to Sean to pass Heather Cox Richardson. Well, you all, thanks to you all fans of the program. We did. And you can see there, where are we there? Number 13. Is that 13? I can't see the number, but I think we're 13.

[B]

Yep, correct.

[A]

So now we got a new goal. Dan. Very important to Dan to not be behind Ben Shapiro. Imagine how embarrassing that is to Dan when he's hanging out with AOC and his liberal friends to say, well, we're doing okay as a podcast, but we're behind Ben Shapiro and, and the humiliation for Sean to be behind the Pod Save America boys again, borderline.

[C]

Like, I want to just beat Kara Swisher, you know, okay, let's say Swisher.

[A]

Let's say I was going to do Swisher. We'll do Swisher. They're next to each other. So let's get on the doorstep of Charlie Kirk. Okay, everybody get right now, if you haven't done it, just take a moment, grab your phone or some other device, subscribe to this podcast. If you've already subscribed on, on, on YouTube, we're about to reach 100,000 subscribers. Great, but do that too. If you haven't. But please, right now go to, go to your phones or the phones, subscribe. If you do it on Apple, we can pass Ben Shapiro for Dan and Kara Swisher for Sean and all will be right in the world. And so please do that.

[C]

And Mark, just a tutorial here. If you have an iPhone, because I can't, I don't, I don't know, I don't speak Android. There's a little purple icon. It says podcast. You click on that and Then just search the morning meeting.

[A]

Yeah, that's one way to do it. There's multiple ways to do it, but Sean's given a good tutorial in any eventful guy. In any event, if you're a Luddite and you don't know how to do it, ask your grandson or granddaughter. But please, today subscribe to the podcast now. One more piece of housekeeping you'll be delighted to hear. If you want two Way to Thrive in the morning meeting. To thrive is an ongoing concern. You'll be happy to hear that we have a sponsor this morning. First time they sponsored this program. Although they sponsored two Way tonight. Cozy Earth. New sponsor for the program, Sean and Dan. Do you guys wear Cozy Earth material? Clothes? Sleep on the bedding.

[B]

I do now.

[C]

I need to be, I need, I need to be sensible. Not. You can't keep sending me stuff you used to wear.

[A]

Let me tell you guys, I have been wearing it all summer and it is spectacular. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when I wear it in the fall. But in the summer it is keeping me cool. It wicks the moisture right off of you. Whether it's the T shirts or the pants. The pants. If you watch two Way Tonight, you know this already. I literally wear them every day and, and I probably need to get a few more because they're totally comfortable, they're totally cool and they're viscous from bamboo. And if you buy the sheets, which I've been sleeping on all summer, you won't believe how cool they'll keep you even on the hottest nights of the year. You can return them hassle free if you don't like them. But if you keep them 10 year warranty on all the bedding products, that gives you a decade of cool, comfortable sleep. Right now. Upgrade your summer sleep and your all your wardrobe. Cozyearth.com Guys, use the code two way. Guess what percentage you get off if you use the code two way. What would you guess?

[C]

I'm gonna say 20, 40.

[A]

40. Cozyearth.com 40 off the best selling sheets, pajamas and more. Sleep cooler lounge letters. Stay cozy. And I'm telling you, the pants I know, I like, I like the sheets too. I like the T shirts I have. But the pants, incredible. Cozy Earth. All right guys, here we go. Europe people commented, oh, there's never been a tableau like this before. I, I am just stunned. And I know some of it's for show because they're, they're trying to make the president not, you know, side with Putin. There's some element to that. But the, but the fact that they all flew to the White House, they all sat there with JD Vance, who lectured them, and, and the President who, who, you know, they've complained about what a philistine he is and how he's trying to destroy NATO, etc. And it was like one big happy family. And obviously this needs to sustain if they're going to be involved in continuing to support Ukraine, whether there's an agreement or maybe even especially if there's not. Because if there's not, there's going to presumably be the arming Ukraine with the Europeans buying American weapons and some of the, maybe all of the restrictions taken off to allow Ukraine to start attacking Moscow. If that happens, my goodness, there's going to have to be unity. So, Dan, describe the contours of going forward. Let's not be retrospective going forward. How solid is the Trump Vance relationship with old Europe?

[B]

It's pretty solid right now. I think it goes to what we just talked about, which is it appears they're all in agreement that there has to be some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine and that the United States, I would be surprised if we put know ground troops there, but that we're going to provide some form of logistical intelligence support. So I, I think in that regard it's good. Look, they all got the memo, Zelensky, the European heads about how Trump likes to do business and ultimately they are the beggar. They need us to remain at the table. They need us to remain, you know, neutral, slash aligned with Europe and Ukraine, but have a relationship with Putin to try to end this. So I think they are all aligned. I think where the problem comes in is if Putin doesn't agree to this, then the question is, you know, Trump's willingness to say, all right, we may be there for another two or three years at a cost of, you know, $100 billion, 150 billion to the United States. But I'm not going to let Ukraine be lost on my watch. That's.

[A]

Sean, what's your view going forward of how solid this is?

[C]

I think it depends on which leader you look at. Mark Root last night, the comments that he made were unbelievably spectacular. Talking about the fact that nobody but Trump could have done what he did in Europe and NATO. I mean, say what you will, Dan, but the bottom line is, first of all, Root isn't a special case. He has a preexisting relationship from his time as prime minister. They have a strong bond. I think in the case Of Italy very strong. I think you look at Macron and Starmer probably definitely not as strong. So it's a continuum of people who really like him, who get along with him well and then people who are saying what they have to. I would say Starmer, McCrone probably on that end. Ursula is probably in the middle. And then you start going on the other way of real like, you know, friends, kind of general support. But I don't, I think to Dan's point that he's right. I mean Europe doesn't, you know, they might have up there in theory that what they want to do for their NATO GDP contribution to national defense, but they're not in a position to take care of themselves. They need us and that's why they all flew here together. So by the way, one last point. We've talked about it tangentially in the past as a one off but I just Mark, you know this from your time covering this. If you think about logistically what the White House has pulled off in the last seven days, a bilat in Alaska of that level security diplomatically, what it.

[A]

Takes leaving an eight page facts in.

[C]

The printer of, of just of a seating chart.

[A]

There was more than a seating chart. It was a menu, Sean. The menu.

[C]

Okay.

[A]

The menu leaked, Sean. It's a design.

[B]

The Clintons left their eyes.

[A]

Your general point, your general point is.

[C]

The same, but to coordinate like what happened yesterday. I just, I think that, like it doesn't get enough recognition. That team, that White House advance team.

[A]

The logistics, the logistics, phenomenal. But, but again, this is a president who at the beginning of his term you would have said he's on a collision course with Europe. And then JD Vance goes to Europe and gives one of the most seminal speeches the vice President has given in the modern era and basically says to Europe, you guys need to grow up. You need to grow up on your economies, your culture, your military. And I was in Europe around that time and I heard lot from lots of Europeans. Oh my goodness, this is worse than Trump 1.1 Vance is worse than Trump disaster. What's happened since then? EU deal on tariffs and yesterday and I mean with Dan, I mean there's a deal. They haven't worked it out finally. But Bessant this morning on Squawk was very bullish on, on where they stand with trade in Europe.

[C]

Regardless. Regardless whether the ink is dry.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

The bottom line is these guys are not in a position of strength.

[A]

This is, this is an extraordinary thing what's happened and it is for now. Now we Don't. There's no deal on trade. There's no deal with Putin. But. But as a snapshot of where we are at this moment and going forward, at least in the short term, this is an extraordinary turn of events for a guy who was seen, characterized by the New York Times and Le Monde, as a disaster for Europe, as an enemy of Europe, as a person who wanted to destroy relations between the United States and Europe. And to the extent there might be a deal, to the extent that Putin might give in and do what they're trying to get done as a shared project, it is largely because Donald Trump and J.D. vance and Witkoff and Rubio and Bessant have figured out how to have a strong, positive coalition with Europe on America's terms. Kind of incredible, by the way, fair.

[C]

On the European criticism, but the domestic criticism from all of the armchair quarterbacks at the, you know, that are part of the Council of Foreign Relations, et cetera, who said that this was going to be a disaster, that he couldn't get anything done, that his style was whatever. I don't think it's just Europe. I think here in America, we have. A lot of people are eating crow.

[A]

That's why I said the New York Times. But, Sean, they're not eating crow. You watch the coverage now. Literally, you could flip over. We could flip over to cable. Now, even now, I'm not saying we should be giving him the Nobel Prize buys and saying the deal's done. But even now, they're. All they're doing is emphasizing the divisions. All they're doing is saying, well, they're just there to suck up because they're afraid if they didn't go, they would, they would wrestle Zelinsky to the ground in the Oval again.

[C]

But also yesterday, they started the whole day, I mean, not just the day on Sunday, Margaret Brennan was saying, they're only coming because they're saying. But they're even saying so epically wrong once again.

[B]

Well, hold on. I think, Sean, to use one of your favorite phrases, both things can be true at the same time, which is they do get Trump. They do fear. They did fear that coming out of Friday, where Trump had a very different tune suddenly about how he was, what, what his goals were. And given that Trump, we all talk about it, changes his mind sometimes multiple times in a day, that they all felt we had to drop everything in rush here for the good of our neighbor. But what Mark is saying is also true, which is, and I will be the first to admit it, I am impressed that Trump is leaning this hard into it and has had success to the point where he's gotten the ball to where it is today, which is there is some optimism that this may be brought to an end. And he didn't cave to Putin or roll over, as I think I and other people feared he might. But it's also true that everyone is playing the performative part and they get him. Like, the fact that everyone says a flyover was a shot of the bow to Putin is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That a KGB officer who by all accounts is maybe the most sophisticated long game player ever, said a B2 bomber. Oh, they have one of those. It flew over my head. It's loud. I guess I better.

[A]

Okay, but, but then, but then the opposite's true, too. Do you think Putin really thinks, oh, they flew a plane over. They love me. They're saluting me.

[B]

I mean, I think when I think, when he, I do think he believes that when he says stuff like, oh, you really won in 2020. And Trump goes out and for two days talks about it and then goes out and introduces. I'm gonna end mail that.

[A]

That I agree with that stuff is.

[B]

I still got it.

[A]

Yeah, but Putin does. Putin is not honored by a red carpet. He doesn't care.

[B]

I agree. That's why I say when the White House talks it up as this, like, big show of.

[A]

Well, but, but, but what I'm, but what I'm saying. What I'm saying. What I'm saying. But what I'm saying is neither is true.

[B]

I, I agree with you.

[A]

All right. Okay. All right. Again, we'll take your questions on this topic. I see lots of hands up. I'm sure lots of you want to talk about this. We'll cover just a couple more things, and then we'll get to your questions. All right. Yesterday, it was announced by Mr. Comer that starting on Friday, the House Committee, Oversight Committee is going to start getting some of the Maxwell Epstein documents. Not clear which ones. And he made it clear. This is going to take a while. There's a New York Times story that says it's a little. It's. The story's not very well reported, I have to say. But, but the, the essence of the story is true, which is members are hearing about it as their home over the recess about, from some constituents that they're. They want a resolution to this Epstein thing. There's all sorts of weird things going on down at the prison with Maxwell. And I continue to say, like, something's going to give on that pretty soon. And we still are expecting two things to happen right after Congress returns. One is ro Khanna and Mr. Massey having a press conference with some of the alleged victims, some of whom apparently have never spoken publicly before. And. And the discharge position is ripening and could be a real problem. So Sean, what is the Trump Johnson Thune while strategy for keeping this thing from dominating September?

[C]

You know, I don't know. It was interesting. You saw last night this appointment of Missouri's attorney general as co deputy FBI director. I don't know anything so I'll purely speculate but I believe that was to sort of that you can tell they still have a bongino problem with I think what's going on with how they're handling this. I don't know that they've fixed it to be honest with you. I think they have a bandwidth issue and they've sort of been hoping that these other issues allow the store to be overcome by events. So I don't get the sense that there is one as much as just hoping it goes away.

[A]

Dan. I thought there'd be more investigative work but maybe all the reporters are in the Hamptons so they're not writing stories. But besides the events I mentioned what happens to Maxwell discharge position, that press conference and the document delivery, those are four things we know are happening. And there's still one of the three federal judges has to rule on whether to unseal the grand jury testimony. Do you see other things occurring in in the fall that could keep this alive and make it challenging for the President?

[B]

No, I think the hope is they slow walk the release of these documents in conjunction with the judge not unsealing stuff. Right. You can see where they could say hey look, we're trying our best. Right. This takes time. Give it time like tomorrow. Tomorrow, tomorrow. And you hope that you can walk it into the ground. I just think that match was lit years ago and you can't just put it out like this. I think it's his own base that's going to keep demanding this. They're gonna have to give and that's where I think Mark, you're thing about the pardon.

[C]

Well, there's a little bit of an issue here where I think they're trying to solve two separate problems or one and then not fully maybe solving the other one. And the one that they're solving is was Donald Trump sort of implicated or mentioned at all in these files which Bill Barr addressed yesterday in his testimony to Commerce Committee. And I think that's also what's leading them to really talk to Maxwell? The problem is that I don't know that that's been. I think they think, or he thinks that that's the problem, maybe, but I don't think that that's where the base thinks the problem is. And so they might solve one problem but expose another, which is there's still this greater understanding, the desire for greater transparency, understanding of what's in the files.

[A]

Yeah, I never read the chat. Perhaps some of you people, you don't know that I don't read it, but I do glance at it. And I'm telling you, you people who think this is not a story, it shouldn't be a story. You might be right. It shouldn't be a story. But I'm telling you, do a little reporting yourself. You'll find this is going to be an issue in September. And it's not an issue. They have an answer for you. All right. Lastly, the president's poll standing. There's a Reuters poll out that has the President still at 40% approval rating, higher disapproval, what the pros call underwater. And so we took, we pulled the real clear politics trend line. Here you go. This is the, this is a trend. Over what period of time is that, Paul? Where does that start? Where does that start? On the, on the, where he's, where he's not up underwater. Let me put. That starts in February, February of this year. Okay, so put it back up, please. So you see the approval, disapproval. Up, up, up. It's, it's jagged around a little bit. It's, it's, it's not, it's not horrible. Disapproval is not horrible. But, and I don't think it's 40%. So that's my question, Dan. What do you think his disapproval, his approval rating is now? Do you think it's 40, 38, 45? What do you think it is?

[B]

43, 44.

[C]

Okay, come on.

[B]

No, I, I think it's his. No, his approval, I think, is around 43, 44. I think his disapproval is probably around 40 to the same band he's traded in for almost 10 years.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

All right, so, so, like, look, let's, let's just. So that Reuters poll, which, so just to put this in context for folks listening, that has him at 4054, underwater by 14 points. Okay, you go back and look at the four immediate polls before that. Up 54, 44, down 4751. Down 4751. Down 4751. So if you want to know Where I think he is, I think he's probably at 50. 50. If you actually.

[A]

Oh, you think his approval rating is 50?

[C]

Yes.

[A]

I'm not, I'm not talking about in Lubbock, Texas. I'm talking about.

[C]

I think in Lubbock, Texas, it's probably like 67. 80.

[A]

You think? But there's no poll that shows his national proof.

[C]

I just told you. Insider advantage has him at 54. 44. Morning consult. 47, 40, 51. Rasmussen 47.51. Okay, 4751.

[A]

Only one of those had him at 50, Sean. Right.

[C]

So take that. Average it out. Which is what? That.

[A]

Well, you don't get them to 50 if you average them out.

[C]

I do.

[B]

Real clear. Is an average. That's clear. That is what? No, no, no.

[C]

Yeah, but, but take. You can't tell me that if you look at just what I said and you can keep going back, you have 140. Everyone else has. 47 is the low.

[A]

But, but Sean, it still has an average 50.

[C]

You told me, you asked me what I thought it was. I think he's at 50.

[A]

But shouldn't you base it on polls and you're citing selectively the polls that have him doing the best?

[C]

No, no, I'm not. I'm actually the ones right behind it. Put that. Go back to RCP right now.

[A]

Look at the ones from Put up the other Realtor Politics.

[B]

Go.

[C]

Go to August 11th and go forward.

[A]

The last eight days. So again, I don't read the chat, but I glance at it. Why does this matter? Folks? That has him at 45% approval, Sean. So how do you get them. Okay, 46. How do you get him an extra four points?

[C]

Because you take out. Look at. You're going to tell me that a random poll has him at 4054. That doesn't even. That doesn't pass.

[B]

Yeah, but Sean, then you can't put in the random poll that him at 54, like.

[A]

Correct, correct. You throw out the outliers anyway.

[C]

Okay, so wait. If you throw out the outliers in the last three polls before that, all of them. All three in, in sequential order. 47, 51. 47, 47, 47, 51.

[A]

You know what? You know where I put him there, Sean? I put him at 47 with three poles. Have him at 47. Well, that's not 50.

[C]

No, you asked me what I thought. I think he's at 50.

[A]

But how do you think he said 50 if the three polls.

[C]

Because I think that these polls are BS. I sat I had, I'm sure, the other day, and I walked through them all. So I don't. I think this is B.S.

[A]

So, so why does it matter? Number one, it matters because his approval rating, which we're not word more than a year away from the midterms, but his approval rating will be as big a factor as anything in determining how his party does the midterms. Number two, he cares a lot about it. He cares a lot about it. And number three, he's pursuing a lot of very controversial policies on Ukraine, on tariffs, on policing, on immigration and immigration, less controversial, despite what the press will tell you, but still controversial in some ways. And so that's our barometer for saying the American people like the job he's doing. Do they think that his choices in all these policy areas are wise, Dan?

[B]

Well, the one thing Mark, I'll disagree with, and I think this is where sometimes we get carried away here, is for all of the successes Trump is having, he trades in a super narrow band. So when he struggled, he's never fallen. And Democrats want to pull their hair out. I think there's a little risk that Republicans are so euphoric that he's accomplishing so much that they think kind of like, Sean, the way you're saying, oh, he's really at 50. Oh, this like these numbers are baloney. Most of the polls going into the election were almost spot on. He led in those seven swing states. It was like a two to three point margin, you know, five in Arizona. And it kind of played true. The reason I say this, for all of the Democrats struggles, you know, Kamala Harris still got 48 and a half percent. He's still never going to really, I believe, get that high. We are still.

[A]

If he repels a Marxian invasion, he'll go higher. His floor and his ceiling are rock solid.

[B]

Exactly. So then you go to independence and the new people that he brought into his coalition. And most polls show he is struggling with independence. There's now data that Latinos are less enthusiastic about him and about kind of like overall voting intensity, which says to Democrats, if our base is fired up, and today it is, some of it is, they hate Democrats as much as they hate Trump taking the House back. And now with some of these Senate recruits, it's not inconceivable we could lose everything again, but that we could also take the House and the Senate today.

[A]

Sean, is the president. No, no. I got a new question for you. Is the president's conversation about trying to unconstitutionally meddle and have States conduct their elections regarding absentee ballots. Does he have some strategy here or is he just throwing a temper tantrum? Those are your two choices.

[B]

I only need a guy who's advising him.

[C]

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I know that you can't. I mean, there's, there's some there. Although states conduct them obviously individually in counties and jurisdictions, there is some federal assistance that comes. So I don't know. You could try that, I guess. I don't know what his plan is.

[A]

Okay, Dan.

[B]

Yeah, I got a lot to say. Okay. So Democrats for 30 years wanted more federal involvement in elections. And it was Mitch McConnell, Republicans who said it is a states rights issues over our dead body. If Donald Trump is going to federalize elections and ban, you know, practices of mail in ballots and things that state states use. And oh, by the way, Republican success in Florida was partly pioneered on all of these early vote mail strategies. I bet the Congressional Black Caucus is doing black backflips that one day we will get power. And all of these ballot, you know.

[A]

Rules and voting, they're not if they have an attorney because their attorney will tell you that the Democratic attorneys general will race to the courthouse and no federal judge, even Donald Trump's appointees will not. Last thing on. Last thing on approval. As Dan mentioned, the vice president's going out on the road to Georgia this week to sell the reconciliation bill. And according to Politico, they're going to start selling it less as other stuff and more as a tax cut for families. Dan, why are they doing this and will it work?

[B]

Their bill's not popular. They've lost the Medicaid battle. The one thing they have to hang their hat on is if we didn't do this, it would have raised taxes. Therefore, if you didn't vote for it, you voted to raise taxes. And when you combined it with like the Mandani stuff, that's what they're going to try to run on. And that's what apparently the preview was Vance is going to attack us off on is a tax raiser in Georgia.

[A]

Sean.

[C]

So the thing that was intriguing about this is it, I don't, I thought the Politico story, I don't think it made sense to me, which was the NRCC put a memo out at the beginning of August saying, hey, members, when you go back, here are the things that you should sell on the bill. Here's what makes sense. All that's saying is that they're going and actually doing it. They're talking about the popularity of the tax cuts, how it impacts people's lives, which is exactly what they were told to do when it passes, what you would do after any bill passes. So I get it when you say big beautiful bill, it doesn't have a, a personal consequence. It doesn't say oh, that's going to help me. Whereas if you sell the tax cut aspect of it, it makes sense to people. It's personal to them. I found the story kind of silly, to be honest with you. And it's not a rebranding of it. They're not calling it something different. They're highlighting the good parts of it.

[B]

Well, Sean, but hold on. Do you not believe that the nrcc, NRSC and the Trump White House has not been polling and focus grouping the last week or two to test if this is moving at all since members went home and then perhaps the attempt to rebrand it because this says they are changing the title of it in terms of what Vance is going to say. Maybe this they're wrong in their reporting, but let's say they're not. Do you not think that perhaps data's coming back that says we need to shift for post Labor Day?

[C]

Yeah, but I guess what my point is, Dan, is that what you, I don't know that that's unique in politics. You start.

[B]

Of course not.

[A]

I think Dan's would say it's the opposite of unique. But it's happening.

[B]

Yeah, right.

[C]

But I don't find that. But I don't. That's why I'm saying like all you do is as, as things evolve, you're testing what works and what's not.

[A]

And then, but you're, you're can see if, if this change does occur, you agree with me and Dan that this suggests that their focus groups and their polls.

[B]

Our messaging is working, yours is not.

[A]

Yeah, right. I mean that's the clear.

[C]

Yeah, I mean I, Yeah, but I said that.

[A]

No further questions. No further questions. No further questions.

[C]

I don't know what that would, why that would have. That was the messaging from the beginning though. Go look at the memo that came.

[A]

Out and it said Mike Lawler is still defending the Medicaid cut. So we'll see.

[C]

He has to, I mean that's.

[B]

Amen.

[A]

Yeah. Wickham, welcome in Unmute. Please tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Sean and Dan and thank you for being part of the two way community.

[G]

Well, good morning. I'm Wickham from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Long time Viewer of the program, what I want to talk about this morning, I've been thinking about the Ukraine war and this great and successful thing that Putin would like to sell it as. And then when I think about it, you got a million casualties. You got the crippling of your Black Sea fleet, You've got weak economy.

[A]

Scott Bessen said this morning on cnbc, their economy's in big trouble.

[G]

That too. You've got a 1300 kilometer increase in the length of your border with NATO nations. Once Finland joined, you've got antagonization of your oil customers. And then last, and this is just completely gets me, if you end up with European troops in Ukraine, you've succeeded in moving the Wehrmacht 2,000 kilometers closer to Moscow. I don't know how politics in Russia works, but I think you'd have a hard time selling that as a victory.

[A]

Yeah, but you get. You get a bunch of land.

[G]

Yeah, that's. That's what you're gonna say you got.

[C]

Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[G]

And I just listed five things that you lost.

[A]

Yeah, well, so. So you think Putin won't take that deal?

[G]

You mean with allowing European troops in. In Ukraine? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do I think? Well, I think if that's the sticking point and that he rejects it, then it's Putin rejecting peace and not Zelensky, and that just sort of changes the narrative.

[B]

Oh, I don't think Zelensky's rejecting peace. I mean, I think in February, when they first met, Zelenskyy was dug in a little bit on, hey, we'll fight this out. I think Zelenskyy now recognizes we're gonna give up the land that we've lost. He doesn't wanna give up the land that they've not lost. That last 20% of that region that Russia seems to really want.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay. Maybe that's the bargaining chip you end up trading. But to your point, that's the thing. For Zelensky, for Putin. Now, it may not be called NATO, but it is Naito. It is the main NATO powers, plus the United States sitting there with enough troops that if you go in, you killed 5,000 Germans, French, and five American Marines providing logistical support.

[A]

It's my favorite. It's my favorite phrase from 2025, NATO style. It's like. It's like Gangnam Style, Sean. NATO style.

[C]

Okay. Psy is the singer.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Dean from Ohio work on that.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, I. So this is where I. Again, you go back and you look at all of these agreements over the last 10 years that Russia has been part of they blow through them. And, And I think Macron, you know, is rightly skeptical. And I rarely use Macron as my example. But that's what worries me the most, is that we. We agree to something. Putin says yes, and he basically just says, okay, great, I'll wait three years and then I'll start again. And I just. That's what is in the back of my head, is that he may say yes to something. And the question is, for how long? And I also think that there is a. You know, the president on Fox and Friends a little while ago seemed to be very clear that we're not talking about U.S. troops on the ground, which is critical to this. But I also think that the American people, especially the MAGA movement, have grown tired of support for Ukraine, financially and otherwise. And so I just, I kind of. It's sort of like. That's why I was saying at the beginning. Part of me is having a hard time putting all these pieces together because I think the. There's an exhaustion among taxpayers and among American voters writ large on what we're doing in Ukraine. I don't think Europe actually has the staying power. And that's why I think Putin, if he agrees to something, I'll be more. I'll be more skeptical of something that he agrees to than the fact that he actually doesn't buy in. Because here's Whatever he does.

[A]

Here's what's. Here's what's opaque. We don't know why Putin's even doing this. Right? Why doesn't Putin just say, I'm busy and, and continue the war and try to take. Take Keef? Right, because we don't know. Is it the economy? Is it the fear of what Donald Trump in the Senate have threatened? Is it public opinion at home? You can't read a single thing that will tell you why he's doing it. And because we don't know why he's even considering it, or at least pretending to consider it, we don't know what would make. What he'd actually agree to. But he's obviously. He's obviously interested in creating the impression. And according to President Trump, it's because he loves President Trump. But for whatever reason, he's at least. He's at least, you know, going through the motions of pretending rather than just saying we're not interested in talking.

[G]

Well, if I could just say one more thing, sir. Looking at the five things that I laid out, I have thought for some time that if Putin tried to conclude a piece with roughly what's on the ground right now. He would have a hard time staying in power and maybe even living out the rest of his natural life.

[A]

Yeah, that could be it. At some point, Putin will be afraid of being dead.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

He doesn't seem to have motivated him much to date. Aaron, welcome. And thank you, Wickham. Aaron, welcome. And tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Sean and Dan.

[H]

Houston, Texas. I'm in Houston, Texas. Mr. Selig actually concluded with the point I was going to make, and that is that, you know, the idea that Big Game makes this deal or some version of it and then waits another three years and, and begins again.

[A]

You.

[H]

Know, I don't know that that would be the worst outcome. I mean, Putin is a man in the 70s. Russian men rarely make it to their 70s. And like, this is kind of a temporary problem. The Putin problem is at least. And so I wonder if that doesn't factor in. I also just if, if in Mark, to your point, we don't know why Putin is doing this. If one of the thoughts is that, you know, he doesn't want NATO, he wants his buffer country. He doesn't want NATO on his borders. I, I just don't see how a deal that brings NATO light into Ukraine, that seems to be in tension with having the Ukraine as a buffer.

[A]

Aaron, I can't get you to say NATO style.

[H]

I like NATO light.

[A]

Yeah, okay. To each his own. I take your point. But, but again, it goes back to why is he doing it? Because, because, because, because the basic swap is he can stop fighting for now, always have the ability to go back on his word and fight more. He gets a bunch of land that he hasn't conquered. He gets to start, you know, Besson said this morning that 25 of the Russian economy is, is geared towards the war. So he gets to try to, you know, get some more bread and guns, butter and fewer guns. And, and he avoids crippling sanctions. So there's not nothing in him. In it for him. And, and he, and he may not think that NATO style, NATO light folks are going to stay there very long because. Oh, because Europe, that's. He might, I don't know. If you know what, if you know, if you know what. Yeah, tell us.

[H]

I'm not, I don't, I don't, I don't know.

[B]

What did you vote, Aaron? Remind me. You, you voted for Trump three times.

[H]

Did not vote for. Well, so here's. I, I was basically a Never Trumper in 2016. Russiagate, radicalized me, voted for him in 2020 and 24.

[B]

If, if I, I asked because if Trump says we're gonna participate in a security guarantee for, let's say, the next five years, and the US is gonna give roughly $50 billion worth of support per year, arms, other things, whatever, some of it's gonna be backdoored because it's gonna be bought, but we're in it. Would you be good with that? To bring peace, to ensure.

[H]

So a security guarantee is a piece of paper.

[A]

Well, not, not, not if they're, not, if they're boots on the ground. It's more than a piece of paper.

[H]

I do not think there's going to be large. I mean, there's boots on the ground. American troops in Ukraine right now. I don't understand why we pretend otherwise.

[A]

Okay, you mean Special Forces?

[B]

No.

[H]

Why, why do those not count? I mean, they, they are contract. They're not American soldiers.

[A]

They're not a public deterrent.

[H]

You're right. Because Americans have been killed in Ukraine and it has not deterred Russia. That's correct. I mean, but anyway, a, I don't think there's going to be a large American force.

[A]

Not American. Not American. British and French.

[B]

That's why we're giving money. That, that's where I think we'll end up going.

[H]

You know, I just don't have any faith that we won't. We're always going to give people money like the, the American taxpayer is always going to be on the hook for this. I have no faith that.

[A]

Going for. Going forward. Going forward. I don't think the President will do it.

[H]

Oh, I think, I think he will. He will. But, but I also think that if there's going to be this three year pause, this five year security guarantee, just to answer Dan's question, it's going to. Ukraine is going to have to modernize its military so that it's not fighting a war of attrition against the Russians. This is the dumbest kind of war to be fighting, you know, this, this degraded style. And they're going to have to, they're going to have to fight like NATO does and not like the Russians. If, if they're going to.

[B]

Well, I, I don't think it's that they don't want to. They just can't afford it. They don't have the capabilities and their country is under attack. You do?

[H]

Yeah, I, No, I, I hear you. I, I think they are culturally Russian and this is how they know how.

[B]

To fight a war.

[H]

I think that's the military leadership is culturally.

[A]

Aaron, hold on, hold on. Let's get Sean. Sean in. Sean.

[C]

There'S something that is so ironic and rich about what's happening right now. Russia is selling China oil. We are financing our debt to China to give Ukraine arms to fight Russia. Who then uses that? I mean, like, this is such a, like the circle is so unbelievably rich right now about how what we are doing, who we are financing, like we are literally in debt $37 trillion. We're taking out more money to buy weapons to support Ukraine, who is fighting Russia, who is selling China.

[A]

I mean, let's just say one thing about that. Besant this morning on Squawk, and again, I recommend the whole thing to you. He was asked, why are we punishing India for buying Russian oil but not China? And with all due respect to the brilliant Treasury Secretary, I didn't understand his answer at all.

[C]

There isn't.

[A]

Because he said, he said, here's what he said. He said, before the war started, India was buying a very low percentage from China and China was buying a lot. And China hasn't really changed much. India is buying it and reselling it, and a bunch of Indian families are getting rich off this. So we find it morally repulsive. But my view is money is money rich. Money is money is money. And, and, and China buying it's helping Russia just as much as India is buying it. So I didn't really, I didn't really credit his answer, but maybe I didn't.

[B]

Completely understand because there's no good answer.

[C]

Because it's, the answer is we can't screw China right now because we're trying to reach and deal with them. So.

[A]

Yeah, and India, I mean, look, we know India will come back whenever we want them back.

[C]

I don't. I just, I, I think that, you know, to, to Aaron's point, this thing, there's just it, we're, we are trapped in a world and Putin has, really does have the upper hand in all this because he knows that he can outweigh everyone. He will not abide by anything. And he's very, I think the bigger answer is, and then what if he does cross the line? Are we going to go to war?

[A]

Yeah. Aaron, thank you. Darrell is the new doj. I really appreciate the questions, Aaron. They're very smart. Is the new DOJ scandal this thing about the antitrust division or something else?

[I]

No, it's not about that.

[A]

So just so everybody knows the number, the previous number two lawyer in Antitrust division claims that the antitrust decisions in the Trump administration are based on cronyism and lobbying. And, And Dan is shocked if this were true.

[B]

Yeah, I was just gonna say.

[A]

But anyway, that. So, Darrell, what is the other new DOJ scandal?

[I]

Well, there's something bubbling up on right wing Twitter. There was a sting operation done in Las Vegas, I guess, last week, where the FBI rounded up eight child sex predators, people who were trying to solicit underage sex online. And one of those people was the director of cybersecurity, I believe, for Israel. And he was promptly released and let back to go to Israel while everybody else is still arrested.

[A]

So, Daryl, does this exist as a factual matter anywhere but on right wing Twitter?

[I]

It's a factual matter. The State Department put something out about it on Twitter last night because it's blowing up. Marjorie Taylor Greene has posted about it. It's. It's. It's becoming a bit of a scandal.

[A]

Why? Okay, hold on, hold on. It's new to me, Sean. Dan, has this crossed your radar?

[C]

I was just trying to figure out if this still had to do with Comet Pizza, but I guess not.

[B]

Oh, I, I have not seen it, but maybe our. Don't dismiss that, Sean.

[A]

We're not. Darryl, we're not dismissing.

[C]

No, no, no. I, I went. I'm. I'm on Twitter right now.

[A]

Yeah, Daryl, give us a moment and maybe we'll talk about it tonight or tomorrow. But thank you for raising it because we didn't know about it. I'll say again about this show, program and all of two way. Even with an hour show, we cannot cover everything. Every morning we're, we're texting around, talking about what to talk about, and we try to talk about stories that are interesting and important, and we can't cover every interesting and important story. For instance, yesterday, Hamas allegedly agreed to a ceasefire and Israel virtually simultaneously began a military operation into Palestine. Hey, by the way, so, so, so, I mean, we can't cover everything. Yes, sir, it's so.

[C]

The State Department did retweet. It's another. It says the Department of State is aware that Tom Rtm Alexandrioff, an Israeli citizen, was arrested in Las Vegas and given a court date for charges related to soliciting c sex electronically from a minor. He did not claim diplomatic immunity and was released by a state judge pending any court date. Any claims the US government intervened are false. Well, it's got 5.4 million views.

[A]

So what would. So what would the scandal be that he was released?

[B]

Well, the guy, the gentleman said he's left the country now.

[A]

Yeah, well, people with diplomatic immunity get away with.

[C]

Oh, I get it. So he's saying. So the answer is a state judge released him and apparently the allegation was that the State Department or somebody had intervened on his behalf. I guess what the claim is is that we, the federal government had nothing to do with this.

[A]

Right. All right, well we'll pursue it. That's an interesting question. And it could be either way. It could be state, state court did it. But thank you for raising it, Daryl, and putting it on our radar. And what I always say when people complain, well, why didn't you cover X? What I say is come on the program and raise your hand and raise it as Darryl did. So thank you for doing that. Daryl made it on the show, otherwise wouldn't. So please, if you've got some stories you want to but make sure there as Darrell has done substantive, serious stories, not things that emanate from your cat's brain. Sean, what do you have on your program tonight?

[C]

Well, obviously break all this down. Katie McFarland, former deputy national security adviser to President Trump will join us and I may cover the Rhode island assistant attorney general who had a bit of a interesting night in Newport that is out on my Twitter and you can take a look. I, I wonder if she still has a job but it was pretty epic.

[A]

Sean treats Rhode island like the media treats New York City. If it happens in anywhere in the Providence Metroplex it's front.

[C]

Oh no, this is Newport, downtown Newport.

[A]

That'S the Providence Metroplex. The state is so small, Sean, the entire state is the problem.

[B]

It's the biggest little Rhode Island Hamptons just like Page Six loves a good scandal.

[A]

Yeah Dan, you got anything going on we should know about?

[B]

I'll be on with Mr. Hannity tonight. Barring subject to change with the world.

[A]

Hannity two programs for me coming up here on the two way platform at six o' clock tonight. Two way tonight my guest making I believe his two way tonight debut Gabe Kaminsky of the Free Press who is an investigative reporter who is dropping a story may have already dropped but he's got a story about Dan's favorite Laura Loomer. So we'll talk about his exclusive reporting on Laura Loomer but also news of the day including a John Madden style chalk talk telestrator breakdown of Caroline Levitt's press conference. Press briefing today at one o' clock Eastern time. As Dan would tell you, you don't want to miss it. And then new episode of NextUp drops later today. My reported monologue is on Trump, Ukraine and Russia. And my guests include Patty Solis Doyle, who is one of the smartest operatives in the history of the Democratic Party. I say that because everyone I've told Patty's coming on the show, they say, my gosh, Patty's so smart. She's so good. She's very good. And we're going to break down what the Democratic Party is doing now, what kind of presidential prospects they have in 2028. So that'll drop later today as a podcast and on YouTube. And then seven o' clock tonight, our colleague at two way, the great Michael Moynihan on the Moynihan Report, as is his guest, the author, Peter Moscos. Peter Moscos, back from the brink, inside the NYPD, NYPD and New York's extraordinary 1990s crime drop. Nothing could be more relevant than that. And the three of us will see you tomorrow right here, 9:00am Eastern Time. Because, Dan, if it's 9:00am Eastern Time.

[B]

It is the morning meeting.

[A]

Good job. Thank you all. We'll see you tomorrow.