← The Morning Meeting
The Morning Meeting
Trump Slams CNN for "Knowingly False" Iran Story As U.S. Says It Will Be "Hanging Around" in Gulf
01:02:28
Loading summary
Transcript144 lines
- [00:00]
A
FOREIGN welcome to the morning meeting on this historic day for the world, the region and this program. Happy to have you here. We have two great guests hosts with us today, one here now, one coming soon. Trish McLaughlin is here from the Ohio State and hi Ma Moore will be here shortly. Trish, good morning. Thank you for being here.
- [00:23]
B
Good morning. Thanks for having me. Great to be here.
- [00:25]
A
How's your retirement going?
- [00:28]
B
So far so good. Tanned, rested and ready. I'm back in my home state, which it's been great to be back.
- [00:34]
A
Any announcements to make this morning about your future?
- [00:37]
B
I'll let you know. Probably not this morning.
- [00:39]
A
Okay. Just checking because I wouldn't want you to break the news like next hour on with Bill and Dana or something. Anyway, thank you for being here. Jaime will be here in a minute. A lot to get through, those of you who went to sleep in America last night with a lot of indecision about what this agreement means on Iran. A lot of new data this morning that you probably haven't seen. The vice president's talked in Europe. The president's been on Truth Social. There was a Pentagon briefing and the two Davids weighed in. I call them the two Davids, David Ignatius and David Singer, one of the New York Times, one of the Washington Post. You won't find more experienced and veteran reporters who understand what's what and are pretty fair in the eyes of most people in the national security establishment. Both Davids were on morning television. And we'll play for you what they said about the deal and the questions that there are. And we'll see what we what progress we can make in helping everybody understand that. We'll also talk about a few other issues that are out there with the administration, including this new Haberman swan book. And and of course, the latest on the Yankee Stadium concession that has ice cream in the form of chicken. We'll talk to you. We'll have the update on that. I'll run through the day book and then we're going to play play for you a bunch of sound from today that again, you may not have seen already, probably haven't brilliantly curated by the morning meeting team. And then Trisha and Heim and I will kick it around and then to your questions, comments. As always, if you're here on the platform and want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. Tom, if you're watching on X or YouTube. Interesting. Today, put as much smack in the chat as you want. We're declaring a moratorium on smack. Moratorium. So just go Crazy. Get it all out of your system. Because starting again tomorrow, we're back to peace, love and understanding. The presumption of grace to all and. And of course, Haley, smoking is a. Is a ripe target for anybody who wants to just smack around. Please go for that. Okay. Do the daybook first. The President. Excuse me? He's already been on Truth Social, as I said. Participates with executive time. 8 o' clock meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture. Closed press at 11:30. 2 o', clock, he's doing an interview of some sort that's not with me, so we can cross that out, but otherwise it could be anybody. 3:30, it's a closed press meeting with the Secretary General of NATO. Spidey sense says that could open up, but we'll see. Close press, 5 o' clock, has a Freedom 250 reception. Closed press. Caroline Levitt, briefs at 1. The Vice President is still in Hungary. He spoke this morning. We'll play that for you in a moment. Told you already. There's the Pentagon briefing. The Secretary General of NATO, in advance of heading over to the White House, is meeting with Secretary Rubio. Don't know if that's at the State Department or at the White House, but they'll meet. House and Senate remain out. Excuse me. National National Action Network. Al Sharpton's group meeting in New York City today, hearing from potential presidential candidates Josh Shapiro and Ro Khanna, as well as many other speakers. The Dow futures are way up and crude Brent and gas prices all weigh down. Jaime, welcome and thank you for being here.
- [03:52]
C
Good to see you, sir.
- [03:53]
A
I hope you're in New Orleans because I read there was a big DNC party.
- [03:56]
C
No, I'm actually in New York right now and I'm going to go to that NAN event tonight or another NAN event tonight in New Orleans, tomorrow.
- [04:03]
A
Okay, but there's like a big DNC party last night in your own city. Shouldn't you have been there? You are. You are DNC to me. You are DNC and. And Louisiana. But you skip the big party headed down tomorrow, okay? I'm sure there'll be a big party.
- [04:16]
C
I'm going tomorrow.
- [04:17]
A
For you, for him. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you both for being here. Let me get a quick sponsorship in and then. And then we're going to catch up on the news together. Cozy Earth will give you 20% off right now. Everything on the site, promo code morning to buy all the Mother's Day gifts you want. We'll be. We'll be reminding of you this through Mother's Day. Which is not that. Not that. Right around the corner. So get used to hearing about the fact that all the moms in your life deserve deserve Cozy Earth slippers, Cozy Earth bathrobes, and of course the bubble cuddle blanket celebrate Mother's Day, providing all the moms in your life with comfort designed for the quiet routines that matter most. The robes and the slippers bring, they claim, intentional softness to the everyday spaces moms live in most. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like a good thing to me right now. Again, everything on the site, including these great ideas for Mother's day gifts, are 20% off with the promo code morning go to cozy earth.com promo code morning. And when you get the post purchase survey, say hi mom or begged me to buy my mom's stuff from Cozy Earth. And Haim was very persuasive. So I did it. Thank you. Codezearth.com promo code Morning. Go to it right now.
- [05:27]
D
I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time, that one shop turned into a multibillion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talked to founders, athletes and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth. Plus real world lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.
- [06:01]
A
When you get momentum, you step on the gas.
- [06:04]
E
That's how you get separation from everybody else.
- [06:06]
A
I was at Harvard Law School.
- [06:07]
E
I was blah, blah, blah.
- [06:08]
A
I looked up, let me tell you something. There's kids in my neighborhood putting in sheetrock that are smarter than you. AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff.
- [06:14]
F
It is never going to disrupt physical
- [06:17]
A
blue collar trade skill.
- [06:18]
C
And the guy just looked at me
- [06:20]
D
and he said it's bloody impossible.
- [06:21]
A
So I asked him this question.
- [06:23]
D
I said, it's impossible unless that's podcast with me, Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [06:35]
A
All right. Lot of sound to play for everybody. And I want to start with the Vice president speaking in Europe. Here's what the vice president says about the deal and note. Although he says the current deal is good, note the notes of many notes of caution he has about what could go wrong. This is 114, please.
- [06:56]
G
What the President set out to do was decimate the Iranian military, decimate their ability to wage conventional war. And that military objective, as the President said yesterday, as I said yesterday, has been achieved. And because of that, what the President did is he basically issued an ultimatum to the Iranians. He said, open up the straits, stop trying to hold the world's economy hostage, and we'll engage in a ceasefire. And that is the basis of this fragile truce that we have, which is now, you know, 8 to 12 hours old. You have people who clearly want to come to the negotiating table and work with us to find a good deal. And then you have people who are lying about even the fragile truce that we've already struck. And that's just an interesting thing about their system. The President of the United States has told me and he's told the entire negotiating team, the Secretary of State, the special envoy, Steve Witkoff, he said, go and work in good faith to come to an agreement. That is what he has told us to do. If the Iranians are willing in good faith to work with us, I think we can make an agreement. If they're going to lie, if they're going to cheat, if they're trying to, going to try to prevent even the fragile truce that we've set up from taking place, then they're not going to be happy. Because what the President has also shown is that we still have clear military, diplomatic, and maybe most importantly, we have extraordinary economic leverage. So the President has told us not to use those tools. He's told us to come to the negotiating table. But if the Iranians don't do the exact same thing, they're going to find out that the President, United States is not one to mess around.
- [08:31]
A
All right, that's someone who doesn't sound quite as trumpet as his boss sounds hopeful, but, but, but wary. Here is the Secretary of Defense this morning on the the short term pressing issue is is the Gulf, is the strait open and if it's open, under what limits set by the Iranians? And then second is what about the nuclear material which the vice President gave short shrift to, but the President says it's going to happen. Here is Pete Hegseth this morning. 123, 124.
- [09:04]
B
What role is our military playing in escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz at this point? And the President said on Truth Social that the US Will be hanging around to make sure everything goes well. Obviously, Mr. Secretary, you just mentioned, you know, we know, the scars from hanging around in Iraq for decades, but what does that entail in terms of our military presence at this juncture?
- [09:29]
H
Yeah, we'll be hanging around we're not going anywhere. We're going to make sure Iran could complies with this ceasefire and then ultimately comes to the table and makes a deal. So we'll stay put, stay ready, stay vigilant. As the Chairman laid out, our troops are prepared to defend, prepared to go on offense, prepared to restart at a moment's notice with whatever target package would be needed in order to ensure that Iran complies.
- [09:53]
A
As far as the strait is their handing over of all of their enriched uranium. And they're promising not to enrich any future uranium, a non negotiable for the
- [10:04]
H
US it's always been non negotiable that they won't have nuclear capabilities. And so right now it's buried and we're watching it. We know exactly what they have and they know that. And they will either give it to us, which the President has laid out. Well, they'll give it to us voluntarily. We'll get it, we'll take it, we'll take it out. Or if we have to do something else ourselves, like we did in Midnight Hammer or something like that, we reserve that opportunity. But what's clear, what the Iranian, the new Iranian regime knows is they'll never have a nuclear weapon or the capability to get a path to one.
- [10:36]
A
So that sounds like a little bit of trust and a lot of verify. Played a lot of sound for you already, but we're going to play more because again, this is the best curation you'll find anywhere of the significant points of view. Here are the two Davids. David Sanger of the New York Times on cnn, David Ignatius, the Washington Post on Morning Joe. And you will hear from both of them where their concerns are, what they think has been achieved by the United States and Israel, and where their concerns are, number 112 and 113, please.
- [11:04]
E
So the Iranians know exactly what the economic leverage is. And all those sanctions were in place before the war, stayed in place during the war, and they're in place now. They are going to the talks with the leverage of having shown the Iranians what, what an incredible pounding can take. But they're also going without the strait being wide open, which it was on the first day of the war. Remember, the Strait of Hormuz was not the reason we went to war. It was a result of the war. Okay, so you've got to resolve the strait issue just to get back to where you were on February 28th. Then you go to the President's objectives on the 28th. The first one was get all the nuclear material out of Iran. It's still there. It's exactly where it was before the war. The second was greatly degrade or eliminate their missile stocks. Well, they've degraded a lot of them through the, through the military strikes, but obviously there's still a good deal there. And one of the third one was get rid of the navy and the Air Force, check that one's done. But then came the regime change part, right, where the president said to step, wait for us to go do this and then come out and take over your government. Well, the fact of the matter is by negotiating with this government, with what is essentially the same regime with different people, he is to some degree abandoning that promise.
- [12:40]
I
The problem, as always in negotiation, is the ambiguity of the two sides positions. President Trump has said that the Iranian 10 point proposal for resolving this conflict for a cease fire is a workable basis for negotiation. But when you look carefully at it, there are a number of items that the US Is going to have trouble with. The US has gone from demanding unconditional surrender from Iran to basically working on the Iranian term sheet for a settlement. Also, there's going to be so much discussion about whether Donald Trump's rhetorical style, his wild threats ended up harming the US Position in global opinion or whether, as I'm sure in Trump's mind, it was part of forcing Iran into finally accepting a negotiated structure. What exactly has happened in terms of reopening the Strait of Hormuz? That's the key issue in terms of the global economy. Iran is saying that it will work with Oman across the strait on a system to allow shipping in and out. But it also talks about the two of them collecting tolls, revenues. That's going to be something that will be very hard to negotiate. But this is the kind of negotiation that could easily collapse because of differences you can already see. But again, the financial markets are telling us there's generally a sense of enormous relief.
- [14:15]
A
Okay, few more things to get through. The president on Truth Social last night and today you can just start putting these up. 103, 104 and 121. Very positive about the deal he told the AFP last night. Yes, the nuclear. He wouldn't have made the deal without a promise on the nuclear material. There's no indication that the Iranians are ready to turn over their nuclear material, as you heard. 120. Is this, let's see, is that last night? That's today. That's today. The US Will work closely with Iran. There'll be no enrichment of uranium and then he says this, this is new. A country supplying military weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed on any and all goods sold to the United states of America, 50% effective immediately. There'll be no exclusions or exemptions. This at least indirectly speaks to the question of what China and Russia are taking away from this. The left was not happy with the war. The left is not happy with the way the President made the agreement. Erik Erickson criticized them for that. But then he also represented the kind of muscular view about what needs to be done. Eric wrote this in his substack. If we leave it as is, Iran certainly has to rebuild a lot of its military, but it still controls the Strait of Hormuz, still has its nuclear materials, still has massive arsenal of missiles, and still controlled, it's still controlled by the present regime. What is the point of what we did if this is it? Finally, here's Ambassador Mark Sievers, Ambassador Oman for Barack Obama and serve also under Donald Trump, I believe he says. Here's his take on the ceasefire Iran blanked just yesterday. The regime rejected a temporary ceasefire and refused to meet in Islamabad. Overnight, they took President Trump's threats seriously. There's no way to bridge Iran's 10 points with America's 15. So the outcome of negotiations depends on whether Iran accepts the fundamental US demands. Removal of highly enriched uranium, no further enrichment, dismantlement of ballistic missile and drone capacity, an end to funding and directing on the regional proxies and fuel full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will seen soon enough. Leave that tweet up. I want to start there. Jaime, I'll, I'll tip my hand and say, I think Mark Sievers has, is exactly right. I wonder what you think of how he frames it.
- [16:30]
C
Yeah, no, I, look, I, for one, look, I feel like we've been in a whiplash over the last 40 days. And so I'm not necessarily surprised that the President has taken this route, but I think, I think Marquez completely framed it correctly and we will see. And I think one of the things that people are specifically interested in, in, is how things are going to operate in the, in the Hormos, in the Strait of Hormos. And I think that's one part, the second part is to your point about China and Russia, I mean, the President has now threatened tariffs yet again. I think when it comes to China and comes to Russia. This is something I've talked about over the last couple weeks extensively. I've been very concerned about how Russia and China were going to benefit from from this. And I think the president has yet another opportunity to prove that he is America first and he is not going to allow Russia and China to continue to benefit from these conflicts. And so we will see soon. Look, I think people say the left is upset about how the president entered the war and how he exited the war. Look, I think as the Democrats I know, the lefties I know are happy to end a war and we're never happy to go into the war. But I think as things started out, a lot of people were talking about this in the comments. I do think there is going to be some Trump derangement syndrome in all of these big sort of military operations the president embarks on. And the Democrats are going to be going to be skeptical each and every time. And so I think that's part for the course, but I think the ambassador completely framed it correctly.
- [18:08]
A
Tricia, thank you for your patience. What makes you most pleased with what happened last night and what most concerns you about what happened last night?
- [18:15]
B
Well, of course that there is a ceasefire at its core. I'm very grateful for it. I'm glad we're likely going to see less bloodshed than we've seen. I thought it was an interesting press conference from Hegset this morning as far as it to a degree, did feel like a bookend. He laid out the objectives, was saying, he even laid out all the people who were killed in the IRGC's leadership and saying actually there has been regime change. So he's trying to check that box, talking about the end, the Air Force being decimated, the Navy being decimated, that all of those conventional missiles and weapons, the ones that still exist, are buried under rubble. And then he did bring up the Uranian enrichment piece and saying that it sounded like he wasn't taking the possibility of moving boots onto the ground to actually remove that. So I think it's going to be interesting what Caroline Levitt has to say. She of course, does a great job of reflecting what, what the president is thinking in that moment. Of course, if you look at the truth posts overnight, it looks like the war is over, that this has been a great victory. Hagseth hedged a little bit more saying we'll have to see if Iran sticks to that two week ceasefire. But there is a great piece out of Axios this morning from Mark Caputo and Barack Ravid, who's been a phenomenal reporter during this war. And it really lays out step by step really how this deal came to be. Witkoff being incredibly involved, Vance being incredibly involved and that it looks like as of noon yesterday that they knew that this ceasefire was likely coming.
- [19:55]
A
Who, who goes to the peace talks, do you think, do you think the vice President goes? If there are peace talks, There have to be peace talks, right?
- [20:01]
B
Yeah, I think Vance would certainly lobby to go and I think that'd be smart of him too.
- [20:05]
A
And do Israelis get to go?
- [20:08]
C
I think certainly, I think they have to.
- [20:10]
A
They have to. So let's say it ends like this. Let's say it ends like this. The strait is open, but Iran makes some money off of it. But it's open. We get the nuclear material out by agreement. We don't have to take it by force. The current regime stays in place and the sanctions come off and they, they're allowed to make money. Is that, if it ends like that, is that a good outcome, Jaime?
- [20:37]
C
I, I think that is a better outcome than right now, but I don't think that's the strategic outcome the president and the Republicans are going to run or want to run on in the fall. I think for, for this to be
- [20:51]
A
so just to stop you, you're saying if we got the nuclear material out and the strait were effectively open, that
- [20:56]
C
wouldn't be a good thing to run. Well, here's the thing, you know, if, if, if one, I don't know how we're going to be able to prove that we got all of the capabilities completely decimated. So that's one. Secondly, if, when you, when you look at the regime, we don't know really how different this current regime is from the previous regime and we don't know how they're going to operate. And so I'm nervous they're going to take five more years, come back and we have to start this thing all over again.
- [21:21]
A
Well, okay, but just to press the point one more second, if the regime hands over the nuclear material, opens the strait effectively and benefits from sanctions relief, wouldn't that mean they were a different regime? And in effect, wouldn't that mean the president was right, that there's regime change? I'm assuming a lot in here, but I take the president at his ward and the Secretary of Defense and the others who've said they're going to have to turn over the nuclear material, but the statements from Iran so far notwithstanding. So if that's the outcome.
- [21:50]
C
Well, I think you are assuming a lot. If that is the outcome and those are the point, I think that is a win. But I do think when, when we look at the long term effects of what has happened over the last 40 days and what can happen again in five to 10 years, we gotta be very mindful of that aspect. And I think that's been my concern. Obviously I was very anti going into Iran, but once we got there, I say, look, if we're going to be there, let's be very strategic about it and make sure once we pull out we don't have, we don't make the same mistakes that we've, we've made in the past and we don't allow for this, this operation to continue to grow.
- [22:24]
B
Yeah, I largely agree with that. I was going to mention, I mean, reportedly that new Supreme Leader was very involved in this two week ceasefire deal. And I mean, that indicates that there is a shift in a change to at least the thinking of this individual. And I was actually surprised given how he was apparently incredibly disfigured and injured from past strikes. But if that's the case, if that is going to be the spirit that he operates in, at least looking out for, for his own people, as far as mass amount of suffering and death, that's a very good sign of a more normalized relationship going forward and that they could potentially participate long term in the regional and global economy. So I do think, I mean, Mark, if those are the ends, that is a great feat for not just the Republicans, but for the country and for the world.
- [23:18]
A
Yeah. And presumably Israel would probably accept that deal as well, right?
- [23:23]
B
I mean, I would think that they would, they would have to, because that's what Donald Trump's going to want. And I think without his support, Israel is not going to have a strong standing on the world stage, especially on this issue.
- [23:35]
A
Yeah, last one on this and then we'll move to some other stuff because I know people want to get in on the conversation, but there's a few other topics we want to cover. The straight, you know, the financial community just, you know, we see it in the markets, they're all excited about this and Netanyahu's kept his tongue. What do you think the prospects are though, that the talks fall apart and the war starts back up? Is that a remote possibility, a strong possibility in your mind, Tricia?
- [24:05]
B
I think it's certainly a strong possibility. I mean, I see a lot of my fellow Republicans online, especially the ones who were very concerned about this war. Not just from the fact that the president of course campaigned on no new wars, no endless wars, but more of the libertarian Tucker piece of the party. They're saying the war is over. And I'd say let's Hold a bit. A lot could change, especially with the fundamentalist regime that they do have.
- [24:35]
A
Yeah. Do you think the possibility start.
- [24:37]
C
I agree. I think, I think it's 5050 at this point and I do think we, this is, this could be the point of divergence from Israel and BB and Netanyahu. So I do want to be very mindful and watch out how they're going to respond to this because I think Trish is completely correct. The President's going to lay this thing out and if Israel can't comply to this, this is, this could be a moment where you can see some clear differences between the two.
- [24:59]
A
Yeah. All right. We're going to race through a few other topics quickly and then get to your questions. I know a lot of people want to weigh in on the war. So please raise your hand if you're here on the two way platform and want to get in. 116 is a cover of the new book When's the Swan Haberman book coming out? Next month. Is that right?
- [25:14]
B
Yeah, I thought it was June. June's in my mind.
- [25:18]
A
I think so.
- [25:19]
C
Yeah, I think so. Anyway, a lot of promo yesterday.
- [25:21]
A
Yeah. So they regime change. Here's the COVID inside an imperial presidency of Don. The imperial Presidency Donald Trump. 2 New York Times reporters who've been on book leave, both of whom get a lot of scoops, both of whom get a lot of cooperation from the administration. Maggie gets a lot of cooperation with the prep from the President. They had at least one interview and I suspect more with the President and yesterday the Times well in advance of the book release. This is a trend now with nonfiction books to put out stuff well in advance of sales to start the buzz and the Amazon pre sales they had an excerpt about the war and about the deliberations that went into in consultation with Netanyahu and within the administration the decision to go to war, very timely and full, you know, fly on the wall. Details about some meeting, conversation involving who was weighing in in which way about the war. I can tell you from knowledge it's obvious the President was if not the main source for them, one of the main sources. And when the President cooperates, generally the culture and Trump world is everybody's told to cooperate. So when people say as they have on buzz, on social media and in my inbox, oh, massive leaking, they're betraying the President. I don't think that's the case, ladies and gentlemen. I think this is like a fully authorized like public history. Trisha, how does something like this happen? How did two new York Times reporters on book leave get such level of cooperation within this administration.
- [26:44]
B
I mean, both Haberman and Swan are storied reporters who really kind of got their credibility covering Donald Trump. Haberman from the 2016 campaign and his first administration, and then Swan, of course, there's kind of the famous interview he did when he was at Axios and he became this meme character. I think it was in response to a Covid interview. So, I mean, there are known quantities in the Trump administration with the president and with that inner circle. So it really is no surprise if they were going to write a book. It's better to shape it from a communications advisor perspective. It's better to help shape that book than let it go without your voice.
- [27:23]
A
And again, I'm not taking anything away from their world class reporters, but they got a ton of cooperation. Jaime, if you were in the Trump administration, would you be trying to get a copy of the book to see what else was in there?
- [27:33]
C
Well, look, I presume that a lot of them know what's in there because to your point, they were very active in giving quotes and background for this book. But I agree with Tricia. I think as a comms professional, if you're going to have this sort of book come out, you want to be as helpful as possible. And look, and I think we have to also realize that President Donald Trump is entering the legacy phase of his presidency. And so any of these sort of things that are coming out, he's going to want to have his, his, his hand on those things. And we know that Donald Trump is one of the best storytellers that we've ever seen, particularly on the presidential level. And so he's going to be involved in this book and he wants to help shape the narrative and he wants to have some intrigue and obviously he wants to be a great historical figure. So of course he's going to be involved in this book in some way.
- [28:19]
A
There, there was a period when Trump books sold very well. We're in a period where there's been a little bit of Trump book fatigue. This book will go to number one. Tricia, how many weeks will it be number one on the New York Times bestseller list?
- [28:30]
B
Gosh, it depends what other books are coming out.
- [28:34]
A
It always, it always does. But you have to factor that into your wild ass guess.
- [28:37]
B
Oh, I'm going to go with six.
- [28:39]
A
Six. Jaime?
- [28:40]
C
I'm going to go with two weeks.
- [28:42]
A
The correct answer is five. The correct answer is five weeks. Okay. Another story making waves within the Trump administration. And it's kind of an incredible story in The Washington Post. 117, please it's a story involving three people. The Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, who's a very close friend of the vice president, who you recall has been central in the Ukraine, Russia peace talks. The vice the secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, and the secretary of war's spokesperson, who according to this article is very interested in being secretary of the Army. The headline after clashes with Hegseth, Army Secretary says he isn't going anywhere Dangerous. Praised by the White House for his efforts during the Iran war, said in a statement to the Washington Post that, quote, I have no plans to depart or resign as secretary of the army. And again, he was key in Iran, but he was also key with Ukraine. So if you read the story and again, I recommend you get behind the paywall if you're not a subscriber to read it. Basically, it says Hegseth and his spokesman have been plotting to get rid of Driscoll as they've gotten rid of some other top Pentagon officials. And Driscoll's got huge support from the White House. And he says here he's not going anywhere. Seems like kind of a dysfunctional situation since secretary of the army and secretary of war presumably need to work closely together. Trisha, what's happening with this one?
- [29:55]
B
Well, I can speak with some authority on this, as I didn't come from the Department of Homeland Security where we had some level of dysfunction. But I can say that I know Sean Parnell well. He's not a nakedly ambitious guy when
- [30:10]
A
you're under He's a spokesman. He's a spokesman spokesman who is said by sources. The story wants Dan Driscoll's job to move from being HEGSA spokesman to secretary of the Army. So go ahead.
- [30:21]
B
So a couple of things here. When I initially read the story, the byline is Dan Lamont, who is a Pentagon reporter. He has been a real thorn in the side of the Pentagon under Hegset. So I thought it was very interesting that Driscoll or his camp gave that exclusive quote over but during a time of war, I'm not seeing this Senate confirmed ally of J.D. vance's. He's not going anywhere. I don't think Pete Hegseth is is going anywhere. The Trump White House, at least in the past 13, 14 months, you know, they've been involved in personnel decisions, of course, but they really let agencies run their agency unless they're under such a spotlight as the Pentagon would be during the war. I Don't think either person is going anywhere, particularly Driscoll, unless the president gives the okay.
- [31:10]
A
Jaime, if you worked for Dan Driscoll, how would you feel about that story?
- [31:14]
C
Look, I agree with all of what Trisha said, but look, I, look, you guys know I love some palace intrigue. So I think when it rains, it pours. And I think reporters and some of the public and Democrats are seeing blood in the water with the recent changes in the Cabinet, with Nome and with the attorney general. And so I think these sort of stories are going to become apropos for the next couple weeks. But look, I think Trisha's right. It's interesting that they would give this quote to, to this reporter. And I think this is sort of a slap in the face to the secretary. I don't, to Trish's point, I think the president makes these decisions. I think we're in a very tenuous place right now because of all the conflicts and what can happen in Cuba, which we haven't talked about yet. So I don't think the president's going to want to make that sort of change right now. But it could lead to some dissension with Secretary Hetzak, which I think could be a bigger problem. And I think the secretary is going to have to figure out how he continues to operate in this world to make sure that he's not on the chopping block and he doesn't put himself in a, in a bad place with the president.
- [32:22]
A
Mandatory. Go ahead, Go ahead, Mark.
- [32:24]
B
One other thing, just to give some context around. Why is this reporter such a thorn in the side? He does get kind of. He, of course, he gets scoops that would undermine. But there's also a personal dynamic here as far as he would be putting out things on where Hegseth is living, what his security apparatus looks at, that looks like. And that really irked Hegseth, his team more broadly.
- [32:47]
A
Yep, understandably so. All right, mandatory exit question. Who will be in his job longer, Dan Driscoll or Pete Hegseth? Jaime Moore.
- [32:58]
I
Oh, God.
- [32:59]
A
Dan Driscoll, Tricia McLaughlin.
- [33:03]
B
I think they both last until the end. Maybe Driscoll gets moved somewhere else. But they were both in the administration
- [33:07]
A
until the end, correct? I think unless Hegseth goes. I'm not sure I, I, My money's on Driscoll. All right. Special elections. Not special elections. Well, elections yesterday, some special, some not. Marjorie Taylor. Green seat in Georgia won by the Republican, but by a much smaller margin than Green herself won the seat. And in Wisconsin, Democrats walloped in a state Supreme Court race. The state supreme Court in Alaska in Wisconsin used to be Republican controlled. Now it will be heavily Democratically controlled for a long time. We know there's a blue wave of some size coming. Almost certainly, almost certainly Politico headline about these results. A wow moment. Democrats make big gains in key battlegrounds. Of course, those are important battleground states. But my question to you is, did we learn anything new yesterday from these results about where the, where the midterms stand currently or is just confirmation of earlier results which Democrats have dominated in 2025 and 2026? Jaime, did we learn anything new?
- [34:13]
C
No, I don't think we learn anything new. Like one look, I think Democrats are super excited. Like I said, I'm going to be in New Orleans tomorrow. And they're using this particular race in Wisconsin as a rallying cry. As you guys know, this Supreme Court, I think it's the third seat that the Democrats have put a lot of energy and money behind. And so I think this specific seat has been very important for Democrats. But what I'm looking at, and we haven't seen the cross tabs yet, but some of the things I've been hearing, I was looking at some report yesterday about sort of young men, young people, young white men, young black men and how they could be a differential in this upcoming midterm. And so I'm not sure how those numbers fell in these two particular elections yesterday. I'm going to look at that when those things come out. So I think that will be some new data we can extrapolate from. But right now it seems like the trends are trending as we one, expected. And two, it's still early. There's still a bunch of primaries that have to happen in June and in May. And so it's kind of hard to say what November is going to look like. But for right now, for today, this seems to portray the story that this year is going to tell.
- [35:27]
A
Trisha.
- [35:28]
B
Yeah, I think that analysis is right on. I do think this is this is not apples to apples by any means. The Republican got way outspent in the Wisconsin race, which is not going to likely be what it looks like come November. Bloomberg is reporting that there's a 4 to 1 Republican to Democrat fundraising efforts. I think Republicans nationwide have about 750 million. So that doesn't look like it's going to be telling really the same story. I hate to, you know, go after campaign operatives or a candidate for that matter, but a lot of people have been saying that she, this woman was not a good candidate. Maria Lazar wasn't a good candidate, couldn't fundraise. People were saying the political operatives, it was like malpractice. So that could be an anomaly. But I'm not saying that this isn't a good, this isn't a great harbinger for what's to come. Prob for Republicans.
- [36:26]
A
Well said. But okay.
- [36:28]
C
I think Trisha made a really awesome point, Mark.
- [36:30]
A
Yeah.
- [36:31]
C
That I want to underscore.
- [36:32]
A
Yes.
- [36:32]
C
And I think this is what we saw in 2022. The candidate choice is going to be very important for both Democrats and Republicans, more so than ever before. And it's going to be very specific to the district and to the election. So I think that's a really good point, Trish.
- [36:43]
A
Yep. Absolutely. All right, two more bits of business and then to your questions. Again, if you've never raised your hand and you want to get in on the conversation, we'd love to have you please consider doing that. We may see Secretary Rubio and the NATO, what's his title, NATO General Secretary come out and speak. If they do, we'll, we'll probably join that live for at least a bit. First, we've told you for several days now about the new hot concession at Yankee Stadium this season. I've not been to a game yet, so I've not had a chance, but I will soon. It's the viral fried chicken dessert. Here's a picture of it. 119. It's fried chicken made or ice cream, rather made to look like fried chicken. I always get it backwards. So that's, that's corn flake crust and there's pretzels in there. Vanilla ice cream. And the news is the viral fried chicken dessert is a major hit with fans selling out in the first inning. So if you're going to the Bronx and you want to make sure you get the fried chicken dessert, you got to go early. And I've taking that to heart. I will be there super early to make sure I get at least one. And yes, I will post a photo. All right. Lastly, a quick word from our other sponsor today and then to your questions. If you want to be in on the conversation, please raise your hand. And our other sponsor this morning is our new sponsor who is going to help you this spring as you move outdoors to do work around the yard or maybe you work outdoors professionally and you're looking for clothes that are comfortable and will work with you and move with you. Recommend the stuff from truework.com that's T R U E W E R K truework.com 15 off everything on the site with the promo code two way. And as you move out to do more work, you want close of work with you. Performance workwear that is durable and works very functionally. In the spring it can get wet and it uses advanced performance fabrics designed specifically for job site work. Four way stretch for bending, kneeling and climbing. It's water resistant and it's load all this. All the pants are loaded with pockets that have been tested to be strong. You can carry a lot of stuff in there. Over 15,000 five star reviews. And when you buy some, you'll see it just fits differently. You put it on, you understand you're gonna be able to bend and move around and work in any kind of outdoor condition. So go to truewerk.com use the promo code two way again. True work. T R U E W-E-R-K.com promo code two way for 15% off. Built like it matters, because it does. My pants are are great and inspiring me to build a shed or a birdhouse or something, which I will do soon. This is worth knowing. TikTok Shop helps you discover good value
- [39:26]
B
products and surprise deals fast.
- [39:29]
A
No endless searching, just smart finds.
- [39:32]
B
Download TikTok now.
- [39:37]
A
All right, here we go to your questions. Comments, come on in, raise your hand. Hi, Unmute. Tell us where you are and what's on your mind. And we start with Young K. Go ahead, please. Hi. Hey. I'm calling from Chappaqua, New York. Fascinating news cycle. Fascinating news cycle regarding Iran. The question is basically during the, you know, the, the debates on how to resolve this issue. The questions are going to come. One of the questions, Lebanon.
- [40:06]
E
Right.
- [40:11]
A
So it is an open question on what's going to happen with that. Yeah, it's a great question. And there's been some confusion overnight. Jaime, any sense of how that gets.
- [40:23]
C
No, I think this is what I was alluding to earlier in my answer. I think this is going to be a fundamental question in the future relationship between Israel and America. And I mentioned this a couple weeks ago. I think Israel would like to go further than America would like to go in some of these strikes and some of these conflict. And so I don't know what's going to happen young, but I think that's a fantastic question. But I do think this is going to be sort of the question that has to be ironed out over the next couple of days, particularly as we continue this ceasefire and as the president would like to bring a full into this war. But we got to see where Israel stands, particularly on Lebanon. That's a great question. So I don't know the real answer, but we got to answer that.
- [41:04]
A
Fisher, one of the great dogs that hasn't barked during this conflict. Whatever disagreements have existed between Nat, who have largely been kept below the radar, there have been little flare ups but nothing major. Do you think the United States would ever speak out publicly or privately to say to Israel, look, this deal does include Lebanon, you can't be cute about it.
- [41:22]
B
Oh, I think absolutely. I wouldn't take that off the table in any way. But I also think it matters, the internal dynamics for Lebanon as well. Right. Iran's not in a vacuum. What do these people do in the next two weeks in Iran? What do they do in the coming days that could have ricochet effects on what happens in Lebanon as well?
- [41:41]
A
Yeah, Young, great question. And as you suggest, it's one of the big ambiguities that's out there. And Israel has been using this opportunity to do the work it wants to do there kind of under the COVID of the war. An operation that if they tried to do without that cover, would have received a lot more pushback. Kenneth, welcome in Unmute. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Trisha.
- [42:03]
F
Mark, I wanted to say you have pants, by the way.
- [42:06]
A
I do have great pants. I wish I could show them on camera more easily, but.
- [42:09]
F
Well, I know they're great. I'm in Indiana and been on a couple times. Has there. I have, I have a few questions. Has there ever been a time in history where people on different sides of the globe are seeing the exact same series of events play out and taking, taking away completely different results? Like, I don't know, it seems like there's propaganda on all sides.
- [42:36]
A
Yeah, I think most wars have propaganda. I'm not sure this is much different. Trisha, thoughts on that?
- [42:44]
B
Generally speaking, I mean, history rhymes. It doesn't repeat. So I would say, whether it be Venezuela or Iran or if you look to Lebanon in the near future here, I mean across the board, part of war is going to be a propaganda war. It's going to be a PR war. I think that's why what happened over the weekend of the rescuing of those two airmen was so essential because that did change the dynamic of the war. Had, had we lost those young men for good, then I think that we wouldn't be sitting here today with a at least two weeks ceasefire.
- [43:21]
A
Jaime?
- [43:22]
C
Yep, I agree. Look, as a certified propagandist you know, I think that comes with, it comes with the, with the job. And I think you're completely right, Tricia. This was a huge moment for, for this conflict, for this war this weekend. And I have to say, you guys know, I don't give the President a lot of credit very often, but I do, I do want to say I think he handled the rescue and recovery and the communication of these two, these two gentlemen very well. And I thought it was very smart of him to be very communicative in every aspect of that. But that is a part of the PR and the propaganda, and I think that's okay. That just kind of comes along with it. And we had realized that for our interest in this country, we should be as on the same page as we can, because there's a lot of propaganda that's against America outside of this country.
- [44:12]
A
Kenneth Unmute, next question.
- [44:14]
F
Yeah, I've been behind this series of events the whole way, but as much as I want to see us winning, it's really hard for me to see, at the very minimum of a draw, nevertheless, victory if Iran comes out of this with the ability to essentially hold the straight hostage and everyone who goes through it. And so, I mean, I have a hard time believing that after everything that's transpired, the administration really gives Iran that leverage. Point moving forward, is my missing something or what's your take on that?
- [44:53]
A
My guess is that Iran's going to be maybe with Oman or another one or two countries going to be given administrative power over the, the Strait, that they'll be able to make money off of it, but that they won't be able to control it, that there'll be some sort of checks in place that keep them from shutting it down without taking massive aggressive actions. And if they are making money off of it, I think the theory is that it will be more likely to stay open, but that's going to have to be negotiated, and we'll see now whether the Brits and, and the Chinese, the other Europeans, maybe the Asians, whether there's an effort to globalize this so that it makes it harder for Iran to act unilaterally and that it can be pushed back in a more administrative way rather than in a military way to require to counteract anything they want to do. Jaime, thoughts on that?
- [45:43]
C
Mark I think you put it perfectly. And I think the one thing I would underscore is will there be some sort of international coalition led by the Europeans, led by the Asians, led by China to prevent Iran for from having unilateral control in the future. I think that's going to be an important aspect of whatever these 10 points we iron out are. And I think the Asian countries, hopefully they have felt the brunt of this and are going to come to the table in some kind of constructive way so this doesn't happen again.
- [46:18]
A
Tricia?
- [46:19]
B
No, I would echo I miss sentiments completely. And it's a great. By the way, it's a great question.
- [46:25]
A
Yeah. Kenneth, thank you. Now, you know, ceasefires sometimes don't take place immediately, but Brett McGurk tweets this signal to noise as of this morning, there's no change in the Strait of Hormuz. Ships passing only with Iran's consent. And Iran is shooting missiles at uae, Kuwait and Bahrain. Whatever is being said, this is what's happening. And the FT has just reported exclusively that Saudi Arabia's east west oil pipeline was hit by a drone attack. So we'll see, we'll see where we end up. But none of that's consistent with the notion that there's a ceasefire here.
- [47:02]
B
Vaguely referenced this this morning, though, in that some of these militants may not have gotten the word he was even saying, like get their carrier pigeons to get word that there is a ceasefire. So I'm still, you know, skeptical, but we'll see.
- [47:18]
A
We'll see where we're in 24 hours. Yeah. Haley, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind.
- [47:25]
J
Hi everybody. I'm calling from Palm Beach Gardens. I'm again Israeli American. So my thoughts are very mixed. You know, this entire war I've been kind of on the fence and but my entire thought process is basically I was supporting this war because of the Iranian people they wanted. So my now thoughts with this two week ceasefire, I know that the Iranian regime is continuing to execute prisoners. They are continuing to do horrible, horrible things to their own people. Is there any type of, is this going to be addressed is my understanding. You know, is my question basically, because from what I know, the Iranian regime, that means that they win in the end. And from what all indications, this is the same Iranian regime that we had at the beginning of the war. So just wanted to know if there was any thoughts on the actual people of Iran.
- [48:30]
A
It's a great point, Tricia. It seems to me there's a little bit of tautology here, which is if the United States makes a deal with whoever shows up wherever the talks are, and if the deal involves taking the sanctions off and turning over the nuclear material, that, that, that's going to be, as the President has said, a more reasonable regime. Is that possible? Or is Eric Erickson right that the only way to get a more reasonable regime is to go back and continue to kill and bomb?
- [48:57]
B
Well, I think that the question really is how are we the present America first says he wants to serve the American people's interests. So, I mean, this. Is this ever going to be a perfect regime? No. I mean, this is. Are they going to probably continue to kill their own people? I would. I would say there's a great possibility. But does that, does that detract from U.S. interests? I think is the real question. And that's going to be really the deal at the table. The number one issue, of course, is is that the fact that they still have that enriched uranium and they're getting closer and closer, or we're getting closer and closer to that nuclear weapon. So I think that that's what it's going to really come down to, because that's what actually poses a security threat to the United States of America.
- [49:42]
C
Yeah. Haley, good to see you and always good to hear from you. I think that's a fantastic question, and I think that's one of the issues that I've had over the last couple weeks as we've been into this war, and I've been trying to articulate it, but you did it much better than I. But I think this is one of the. One of the issues that the President's going to have to negotiate. And we've been talking about human rights in Iran for as long as I've been alive at this point. But I think when I originally, and you guys know, I came in anti war, anti going in, but once we got there, and this is what I keep repeating, it's. And I think to the President's point, and I don't agree with his points yesterday and the day before about complete taking out their civilization. But I think he was trying to make a greater point, is what I think. And if you guys continue down the road that you're going to continue down, and as we get into negotiations during this ceasefire, this is going to be a big element of it. If you can't take care of your own people, then we're going to make sure that, you know, you guys don't exist or you guys have very limited way to exist, and that's going to hurt everybody. We don't want to hurt everybody in Iran, but it's going to hurt everybody. If you're already not taking care of your people, then we're Going to make sure that, you know, these people understand that you're not there for them. So I think that is the point. But I do think that we don't have a full answer to that yet. The President's going to have to negotiate that during the ceasefire. But I think that is on the table and that is going to be a part of the conversation.
- [51:13]
J
I just want to push back because. Just a little bit, because Trump did make the justification of the protests before he made, you know, Help is On the Way, that famous tweet. You know, he did speak about the Iranian people, and that was the reason why we were coming into the region. I understand America's interests are number one, and I totally get that. And that's why I'm split as an American and an Israeli. But I just think that he really betrayed the people that he was supposedly in the beginning coming to help save. So just something that is in the back of a lot of our minds, people who supported this war in the beginning.
- [51:51]
B
The only thing I would add to that, Haley, and I think you made such a great point, but is part of the President's objective when pushing, when putting that out there, when making those kind of posts, is that he wants to fuel that uprising. He wants the Iranian people to stand up on their own. So saying we're also coming, he's saying, we'll give you backup. But I think he wants them to do it on their own.
- [52:13]
J
I agree with that. I just think that now we're at a point where I don't even think they have the energy or the stamina to come out and do it on their own anymore because of all of the last six weeks and what has happened. So that's just where, you know, I. So thank you, guys.
- [52:28]
A
Haley, thank you. Before you go, Haley, it's one of our longest participating community members. I'd love for you to speak to those who either only watch the program on YouTube or come on the platform, but don't raise their hands about both the challenges of participating as you see them and how to surmount those.
- [52:46]
J
Well, there are definitely challenges. I can understand that people who, let's say, are center independents like me and to the left might not feel comfortable raising their hands because of, you know, the backlash that they might get. But I am very, very a strong proponent that every single voice on this platform is really shown. You know, we. I think it takes a little bit of bravery to say what you feel, especially on camera. But I think it's this platform you mark and everybody here does really give everybody a voice, regardless of if anybody agrees or not. But I also think that we should kind of let people speak without attacking as well. I think that we as a community can do better, but I also think that people should, should understand that we. I especially love to hear voices from every single side of the political spectrum, no matter where you come from. So I really encourage people to just be a little brave because there are a lot of great people here who want to hear every single voice.
- [53:52]
A
Thank you for that. And the reason I'm asking Haley to weigh in on it and I'm going to want Tricia and Jaime to speak to it as well, is we go through this every so often is people seem afraid to raise their hand because in America it's dangerous. You're on camera, your fake name is there, your voice, your likeness, your point of view. And, and that's a dangerous thing on most platforms in America. And, and even on this one, unfortunately, you're bound. If you say something somebody doesn't like to be attacked in the chat, I urge you to ignore that. The whole point of Two Way, the whole point of this program and the other programs on the channel that deal with politics is to have a place where people can talk and, and hear different points of view. And if you hear a point of view you disagree with rather than be angry about it, say, well, that's interesting that hundreds of millions of tens of millions of people or millions of people have a different point of view in this country. It's part of why we created Two Way. It's part of the value of Two Way. And it doesn't work if people won't raise their hands because they're afraid. Don't be afraid. This is a place you can say whatever you want. And even if there are people on here who disagree with you, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. In fact, it's a positive. Jaime, thoughts on that?
- [54:53]
C
Well, I have a couple of friends, I won't call them out right now who I've been dming with and asking them to step in and ask questions and give their, their, their comment. But look, I, I, I, I completely agree with you, Mark. I, I, you know, I think these sort of forums and I told Mark when I first started doing this that I just love coming on and love the, the, the fact that I can hear from different perspectives and give real time feedback for what's going on. And a lot of times, Mark, I, I will take some of the feedback I'm seeing in the chat or hearing from comments and back into the real world or into client meetings or, or just into my perspective. And so look, this is a two way street. That's the whole point. And we ought to be able to have these sort of conversations in a constructive way because our country only gets stronger when we are at least have an open dialogue to hear the other side.
- [55:44]
A
Thank you for that, Tricia.
- [55:47]
B
Thousand percent agree. And Haley, I give you so much credit, takes guts, especially when you don't work in the political arena and you have a livelihood and friends and family far outside of politics. But I think it's so important for also just people being able to humanize one another who don't always see same point of view. But I mean even in this conversation, Jaime and I haven't actually met before. But I mean we are agreeing on more things than we're disagreeing on. And I think that's the beauty of this platform, that's the beauty of this country. So I think, you know, if people are curious at all, raise your hand and get in the conversation because we learn a heck of a lot from, from you all.
- [56:30]
A
Thank you for that. And again, there may be some risk involved. You may not want to, you may not want to be in the arena on the National 10th Square, but we won't really be satisfied with the way this works on this show and my evening show and the others until you're just as likely to hear from someone who supports Bernie Sanders and single payer health care and Donald Trump's impeachment as we already hear from somebody who thinks that Steve Bannon doesn't have enough influence in America. So please, everybody participate and don't be reluctant to come on the platform or raise your hand, be part of the conversation. Noon today. Megan McCain, Megan McCain hosts, really one of Jaime's all time favorite members of Congress. I'd go with maybe. Maybe. Let's see, John Lewis, Tip o' Neill and of course, George Santos. George Santos, that's the three the big the holy trinity. George Santos joins Megan at noon today. I'll be back at 5pm Eastern time. We'll have everything from Caroline Levitt's briefing and all the other news of the day at 5pm regular time, 2A tonight amongst my guest, Jessica Anderson. And then this program will be back tomorrow at 9:00am Eastern Time, 23 hours or so from now on the morning meeting, Larry o' Connor and a guy named Kevin Walling will be here. Reminder the program also, this program rolls right into the 10 o' clock Eastern Time hour every day on Sirius XM channel 111, Megyn Kelly channel. And you can call me today. Well, plenty of time for calls today because, because we, we ended a little early and went to community questions here. So if you want to get in on the conversation and you don't have to be on camera so you can have your hair in curlers. You can be wearing ripped tie, dye shirt, whatever you want. Feeding, feeding the cat. Give me a call. 8334-4634-9683-3446-3496. You can call me in the 10 o' clock hour. We'll take your calls at the end of the program. And next up is available now and includes my 8 for 28 April rankings. Put those up on the screen. I want to see what Trish and he say about it. This is most likely Democratic nominees in 2028. And you can see I've moved up number two. And number one and two stay the same. Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro. I've moved up Mr. Buttigieg, Ms. Harris, Mr. Emanuel and Ms. Ocosio Cortez and Mark Kelly and J.B. pritzker moved down. Jaime, what would you shift around on my chart?
- [58:56]
C
Well, you know, My, my, my one thing I'm gonna always shift around is J.P. here. And I think he's got to be ranked higher. And I've spent a lot of weeks.
- [59:03]
A
I know you do, dude. He's moving off the chart next month.
- [59:06]
C
I, I don't think, I don't think that's right just yet. You gu. Give it a little bit of time. And then the second part, I'm less hot on Pete Buttigieg right now. I love the secretary, but I would move him down.
- [59:14]
A
Yeah, I hear you. Now tell me you've been spending time with Pritzker face to face.
- [59:19]
C
Yeah, he was in D.C. maybe the week before last. Did a couple events, saw him on the stump, some run around. And, and he's, and he's, he's, he's a great story to tell. And he is being, he's very fueled by the win of Juliana Stratton right now. And that's a big part of this conversation.
- [59:36]
A
All right, we'll keep talking about those two guys because we disagree. Trisha, give me a quick because I got to jump over to serious, but
- [59:41]
B
tell me I'm moving Rahm Emanuel way up. AOC way up. Josh Shapiro way down. And JDB Pritzker. I'm actually go. I'm with, I'm with you. I think, I think he's moving up, even though he said some choice words for me, so I'm not a huge fan of his.
- [59:55]
C
Oh, no, I'll chat with him, Trisha, because I like you, so I don't.
- [59:57]
A
Yeah, I don't want to hear that. But you say moving who up? Rom up and who else? All right, well, I got them moving up and made top two. Interesting. All right, Trisha. And I'm so grateful to you both for making Time Love having you on. Please come back soon and I'll see all of you at Siri and SiriusXM in a minute. And again at 5 o' clock today. Thank you for being part of Two Way and have a great day.
- [60:19]
B
Thank.
- [60:26]
A
You.