Ukraine at a Turning Point — and What to Expect from Today's Trump–Mamdani White House Meeting

Summary

2WAY Morning Meeting – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Ukraine at a Turning Point — and What to Expect from Today’s Trump–Mamdani White House Meeting
Air Date: November 21, 2025
Hosts: Mark Halperin, Sean Spicer, Dan Turrentine

---

Overview

This episode of 2WAY’s Morning Meeting dives deeply into two urgent, headline-dominating stories:

• The mounting pressure on Ukraine to accept a U.S.-backed Russian peace deal — potentially by Thanksgiving — or risk forfeiting further American and European support.
• The significance, stakes, and optics of the scheduled closed-door meeting between President Trump and New York Mayor-Elect Mandami at the White House.

The hosts also debate recent political controversies, analyze key DC developments, and field community questions in a dynamic, newsroom-style roundtable.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Ukraine–Russia Peace Deal: American Pressure and Lopsided Terms

• Context: New reports indicate the U.S. is signaling Ukraine must accept a Russia-backed peace agreement — or lose Western aid.
• Assessment: The deal, reportedly drafted by U.S. envoy Witkoff, aligns heavily with Russia's demands and contains little or no Russian concessions.
  • Quote, Mark (07:23):
    “There are no provisions in the reported peace plan in which Russia makes any concessions… Accepting Russian demands would set conditions for renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine.”
• The “security guarantees” in the deal, described by the hosts as “worthless,” would require Ukraine to dismantle its military and forfeit Western weapons, with no meaningful punitive deterrent should Russia attack again.
  • Dan (10:25):
    “The only way I would agree with you, Sean, is will we pledge to put 30,000 troops on a DMZ line…? Of course not. So it is utterly worthless.”
• All hosts express skepticism that President Zelensky could agree to these terms or meet the Thanksgiving deadline.
  • Dan (11:23): “Over my dead body are you going to… hand the keys to my capital to Vladimir Putin?”
• Politics: The panel predicts U.S. election consequences for whomever first condemns or supports this “capitulation” — with mentions of Gavin Newsom and intra-party fallout.

---

2. Trump–Mandami White House Meeting: Closed Doors, Political Theater

• Context: Mayor-elect Mandami is meeting President Trump at the White House with press access still uncertain.
• Stakes: The meeting is vital for NYC as federal funding and immigration policies loom; both sides weigh the optics and risks of allowing media coverage.
  • Sean (14:05): “Don’t give him the forum, Mr. President. Don’t let him look like he’s on equal footing… If you’re the mayor’s team, that’s an away game.”
• Process: Discussion about who would be allowed in the room, the possible presence of high-profile Trump aides, and what counts as a win for Mandami (e.g., avoiding funding cuts or aggressive ICE enforcement).
• Media Dynamics:
  • Expectation of a “brawl” among the assembled press pool, featuring Fox, Newsmax, Washington Times, and others.
  • All three hosts predict the meeting will “open up” to the press, breaking initial staff-only agreements.

---

3. Military Loyalty Controversy

• Debate: The hosts fiercely argue over a new Democratic video urging soldiers to disobey unlawful orders — with accusations from the right that it sows insubordination.
  • Sean (19:01): “I think… they are encouraging people to question orders that are lawfully given… It’s trying to create disloyalty… question the authority of the commander in chief.”
  • Dan (20:43): “What I agree with you, Sean, is I think they did it to get in Trump’s head… this was a total political stunt. Good for the Democrats, because this is the era of taunting and stunts.”
• They note risks in “taunting” strategies and the double standards in how incitement and loyalty claims are received across parties.

---

4. Comey & Schiff Legal Cases

• Updates on the murky legal processes involving former officials and questions about prosecutorial competence and political interference.
  • Sean (25:38): “From the outside… you look and go, messy at best.”
  • Dan (27:22): “[These stories] make me wonder if… weaponization of government… just a head fake to create the illusion.”

---

5. DNC Fundraising Troubles

• DNC reportedly took a loan amid fundraising shortfalls, a sharp contrast to other Democratic and GOP committees.
  • Dan (30:56): “It’s a huge deal… donors don’t necessarily want to meet with him [Ken Martin]. I wonder now if somebody is added over there.”
• Discussion of historical solutions (layering leadership, bringing in rainmakers) and speculation about possible replacements or fixes.

---

6. California Gubernatorial Race Dynamics

• Swalwell joins the race, as the hosts size up likely contenders (Swalwell, Katie Porter, possible self-funders).
• Speculation on possible mega-funding from Silicon Valley.
  • Mark (36:46): “For the right candidate. But they don’t see the right candidate… they think about whether one of their own could do it.”

---

7. Rahm Emanuel’s 2028 Positioning

• Rahm is writing columns in both the WSJ and WaPo, pitching a Clintonian return to economic values; hosts debate if this old playbook has legs.
  • Sean (38:50): “Rahm’s strategy right now is to stand over there waving his hand and saying… here’s the pragmatic path forward.”
• Mark cautions that many who look like presidential contenders won’t actually run, due to fundraising or personal reasons.

---

8. Remembering Mark Mellman

• Tribute to the late pollster, praised for technical excellence and personal decency across the political spectrum.
  • Mark (41:08):
    “He would tell his clients… this candidate has a problem. He wouldn’t pull his punches.”

---

9. Winners & Losers of the Week

Winners

• Sean: Alan Dershowitz, for steadfast self-defense in the Epstein case (42:06)
• Dan: Marjorie Taylor Greene, for political courage (42:49)
• Mark: People of NYC, praising Mandami’s appointment of a pro-law enforcement, Jewish police commissioner (43:18)

Losers

• Sean: Jasmine Crockett, for “bungling” and evading accountability over Epstein donation comments (44:04)
• Dan: Donald Trump, for “a bad week” in polls and party unity (46:01)
• Mark: Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, for losing floor control and facing discharge petitions (46:33)

---

10. Q&A & Audience Participation

• Language games: Question about politicians’ use of words (“a” vs. “the”) to obscure responsibility — hosts agree it’s mostly about political obfuscation, not communication mastery. (Charisse, 50:51)
• Republican messaging & digital campaigning: Sean emphasizes the need for “meeting people where they are,” not relying solely on TV, and learning from Mandami’s authentic social media usage. (57:38)
• Tax policy & fundraising: Dan sees Trump as uniformly pro-industry; Mark sees Newsom, Rahm, and Pritzker as fundraising leaders among 2028 Democratic prospects. (56:57)

---

Notable & Memorable Quotes

• Mark (11:44): “This is appeasement that makes what happened in the last century look like a great deal. I’m just stunned.”
• Sean (14:05): “Don’t let him look like he’s on equal footing with you in the office, like he’s the head of state.”
• Dan (34:16): “Does Sacramento get a candidate that institutional kind of infrastructure up there does not like Katie Porter?”
• Mark (41:08): “Mark Mellman… did great polls, just technically great polls… and he really cared about issues.”
• Sean (57:38): “It’s not just the message, it’s the mechanics of it, how you’re delivering it…”
• Dan (54:54): “Members of Congress get text messages during hearings about questions… usually it’s lobbyists literally sitting in the room or watching…”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [07:23] – Assessment of Ukraine–Russia peace deal
• [10:25] – Analysis of “security guarantees” & why the peace deal is “worthless” for Ukraine
• [14:05] – Stakes & strategy for closed Trump–Mandami White House meeting
• [18:21]-[20:43] – Military disloyalty video debate
• [25:38]-[28:38] – Updates on Comey & Schiff cases; DOJ infighting
• [30:56] – DNC fundraising problems
• [34:16] – Early analysis of CA gubernatorial field
• [38:50] – Rahm Emanuel’s 2028 positioning
• [41:08] – Tribute to Mark Mellman
• [42:06]-[46:33] – Winners and Losers of the Week
• [50:51] – Audience question on rhetorical tricks (Charisse)
• [56:57] – Q&A: Fundraising and 2028 landscape
• [57:38] – Sean’s advice on Republican messaging and digital outreach

---

Conclusion & Farewells

• Sean and Dan announce this is their last show, thank the production team, Mark, and the community for the opportunity and engagement.
  • Dan (61:23): “Thank you… I will now be many days on the YouTube channel… I will keep watching this show because I love it."
  • Sean (62:24): “I think what we’ve created is something very special because it’s not back and forth… we make sure people understand the process of how our government works.”

Mark assures listeners the show will return December 1st with new hosts, renewed community focus, and the same open, conversational approach.

---

Summary:

This episode delivers sharp, inside-the-room analysis of the Ukraine crisis, the high-stakes Trump–Mandami meeting, and the increasingly theatrical nature of American partisan politics. It’s a fitting sendoff for Sean and Dan — full of candor, pragmatic advice, and engaged listener participation.

— End of Summary —

Transcript

[Mark]

This is it.

[Dan]

The world as you know it is over. Completely done.

[Sean]

It's not about to be over.

[Dan]

It's over.

[Sean]

Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong.

[Dan]

I was wrong.

[Sean]

There's a longer term existential threat that.

[Dan]

Will arise when we create digital beings.

[Sean]

That, that are more intelligent than ourselves.

[Dan]

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[Sean]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[Mark]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[Sean]

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple.

[Mark]

Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Dan]

Foreign.

[Mark]

Everybody, welcome to the morning meeting. Thank you for joining. It's Friday, November 21st, and there's a lot of news, but particularly Russia, Ukraine. And just a little bit before we started, the Washington Post joined others in reporting that the Ukrainians are under pressure to sign the Russia Witkoff deal by Thanksgiving or risk losing American support. Kind of extraordinary. The Washington Post headline, US Pushing Ukraine to sign Peace Deal by Thanksgiving or lose Support subhead. The US is now sending signals, quote, that everything could be off the table, including the article suggest American aid and even weapon sales through the Europeans if Kyiv does not quickly sign a proposal which was drawn up by Special Envoy Wyckoff. There are talks between Zelenskyy and the Europeans now, lots of unhappiness, including in some quarters in the United States about a deal that is extraordinarily lopsided. We'll talk about that in a minute. That'll be the first thing. We get to Mondame at the White House today. No coverage currently planned. We'll talk about that piece of it. And then this flap that makes me insane about the President calling for the death of some members of Congress. Comey case, Schiff case.

[Sean]

Just initially, I'll say that we'll get to it, but that's not true. He did not call for the death of people.

[Mark]

So we'll, we'll get to it. But he raised, he raised, he raised the prospect that they should get the death penalty.

[Dan]

Okay. Again, I think the word was execution.

[Mark]

The process. They should get the death penalty anyway. Gentlemen, we'll get to all that in a minute. Sean, I can't help but notice the lovely outfit you're wearing. Tell folks what you're wearing and how they could get something that Nice.

[Sean]

It's an absolutely beautiful. This is navy blue. I know fairway and green always has colors, but this is a navy blue Polo with the morning winging logo right there on the breast. It's amazing. It's comfortable. I've worn it for four days in a row, slept in it. I've worked out twice. I did hot yoga and it's still comfortable. Smells great. At least I think so. But yeah, these are. The Polos are just unbelievably comfortable and form fitting.

[Mark]

So anybody in their right mind would pay full price for that thing, right?

[Sean]

Oh, no one. And you should never pay full prices. Especially as we get close to Black Friday. There's definitely a code for that.

[Mark]

30% off. Go to Twoway TV Fairway for 30% off. Use the promo code BF30 for 30% off. Everything on the site, including the very merchandise you see Dan, Sean and myself wearing, all available to you. 30% off. Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way. Stitch Fix online. Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want, no subscription required. And he sends just for me pieces plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep what works and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started [e-mail] Spotify. That's stitchfix.com Spotify. All right, as always, we'll take your questions. If you're here in the two way platform, want to get in on the conversation, please raise your hand. This is based on the network news division's morning meetings. And so you have an opportunity to hear our daybook and what's going on enough for us to kick things around. And then to your questions, if you're watching on x or on YouTube, please, no smack in the chat. Just peace, love and understanding. Why not? Reminder today two way tonight, 4pm Eastern time here on the two way platform. It'll. It'll unfurl on YouTube at 6. But if you want to join the conversation of foreign, that'll be not only an opportunity to cover the latest on Ukraine and Russia, but but also the Trump Mamdani meeting is supposed to occur right before that. All right, quick word from a sponsor. Then our daybook and then our conversation and then your questions. Another great sponsor. We have the folks at Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth also having a huge sale. 40% off. Go to cozy earth. Com promo code 2 wmm. Black Friday for cozy earth as well. Crazy sale. 40% off. The bamboo pajama set, the jogger pants, the bubble cuddle blanket. If you don't yet have a bubble cuddle blanket, I pity you a little bit. You'll be going into the weekend virtually naked with no bubble cuddle blanket to wrap around you. So get that now. All the sheets, all the towels, everything on the site. An amazing 40% off with the promo code 2 WMM. Wrap the ones you love in luxury with cozy earth and wrap yourself in luxury with cozy earth. If you're not owner owning the pants, you're missing out on an opportunity to transform your life. Put on. Put them on like a magic cloak. Change your life forever again. Codezer.com promo code2wmm code0.com promo code2wmm toast.

[Sean]

The holidays in a new way and raise a glass of Rumchata, a delicious creamy blend of horchata with rum. Enjoy it over ice or in your coffee. Rumchata. Your holiday cocktails just got sweeter. Tap or click the banner for more. Drink responsibly. Caribbean rum with real dairy cream. Natural and artificial flavors. Alcohol 13.75% by volume 27.5 proof. Copyright 2025 Agave Loco Brands POJOAE, WI. All rights reserved.

[Mark]

Thank you for your attention to this matter. The President today has no public events, including his meeting with Mr. Mondame. It's scheduled for 3 o' clock in the Oval Office. Currently closed. Press and as far as we know, the President's in town this weekend. No announced schedule to leave. Don't know what the Vice President's doing. Senate is out. The House is in. I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but at 10 o' clock, they're supposed to vote on legislation that denounces the horror of socialism. At least they're not denouncing the horrors of communism. And then, as I said in Europe, there's quite a bit of discussion going on today about what is going to happen with Mr. Zelensky and the deal. All right, so on Russia, everybody has the deal. Now it's out there. There's also a side deal between the US and Ukraine. Here is the assessment of the deal by. This is a 106, please. By the International. What's called the Institute for the Study of War. I think that's what it's called. It's on the graphic. So, yeah, institute the Study of War and their assessment of the deal, their professionals. My amateur assessment is the same as ours. This deal, as I say this as someone who's thought for a long time that The Ukrainians were going to have to bend significantly on what they were expecting. They believe this deal is, is basically ridiculous. Quote, there are no provisions in the reported peace plan in which Russia makes any concessions. And ISW continues to assess that accepting Russian demands would set conditions for renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. Many of the provisions in the full text of the reported plan align with the Kremlin's original 2022 Istanbul demands, which amount to Ukraine's full capitulation. Even though the battlefield situation has changed markedly in the years since and has forced Russia to resort to grinding foot pace offenses to make marginal tactical advances. That Washington Post story that everybody should read says the Ukrainians. This is reading between the lines because the quotes are background, but they're clearly from the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians think the US Is in a good cop bad cough. Witkoff and the Russians brought their deal there. And now the Pentagon official who's meeting in Ukraine again today reportedly is, is basically being good cop, saying, hey, I can get you a better deal, but you got to sign on to it now. Dan, I can't imagine that. Forget what, Europe is against it, they'll be against it. Chris Coons is against it. I can't imagine Zelensky could agree to anything like this anytime soon. And the notion of a Thanksgiving deadline seems extremely laughable to me. What say you?

[Dan]

I agree. And as this is a forward looking political show, I am curious who the first 2028 Democrat to come out and say this is pure weakness. This is giving away Ukraine, giving Russia everything they want. All we heard in the Biden era was that China was watching. This is pure, unadulterated, throwing in the towel weakness. Does Gavin Newsom come out and say this like, because then Trump's going to get his backup. I am being called a chicken. I quit. I don't have the stomach to like to do any of this. And Putin's taking Ukraine on my watch, who's going to do it?

[Mark]

It'd be significant if Gavin Newsom did it. But now here's who's about to do it. No, Sean's about to do it. Sean, this plan's ridiculous, correct?

[Sean]

I mean, look, here's the question you have to ask yourself. If you're, if you're Zelensky, this deal gets you US Support. It creates a fake NATO alliance. An attack on one is an attack on the transatlantic. The question you got to ask yourself is, is this the best you're going to get in terms of future security agreement? Future security, you know, support. I, I, I Gotta tell you, I get they're gonna nibble on some. But to your point, they give up a lot of territory. They actually, they get security enhancements, they get Ukraine, I mean, U.S. support. I, I, I think they're gonna obviously push back on this thing.

[Mark]

I gotta say the same thing Dan's gonna say. They're making them dismantle their military, which the Ukrainians believe is their greatest source of strength.

[Dan]

And no Western weapons.

[Mark]

And this, and this, and no troops on the ground, no Western weapons. And, and this security guarantee is not worth the papers printed on Putin because Putin will just go in and then really, with no forces on the ground, no native army military for the Ukrainians, we're really going to do it. Putin will flex that. He's going to drop a nuclear weapon. And whoever, the American president will say, nothing we can do. I mean, the only thing in this, ostensibly for the Ukrainians is what you said, Sean, and it is worthless.

[Dan]

Worthless.

[Sean]

Well, no, but that's why, just to be clear, there's no way the current deal is not going to, I mean, but I look at this as the first salvo, right? And the question is, does this Zelinsky look at this and say, okay, I can live with 1 through 12, but 13 through 20, I need this, this, and this, or, But I would suspect that if you're him, you got to figure out this is at least is the contours of something that you can deal with, because you do have to worry if they walk away.

[Mark]

There's literally nothing in this for Ukraine, United States.

[Dan]

The only way I would agree with you, Sean, is will we pledge to put 30,000 troops on a DMZ line with the Germans, the French, Right? Of course not. So it is utterly worthless.

[Sean]

Right, Right. So, so, so here's what I, here's the question, though. If you're Zelinsky, at what point do you think to yourself, okay, no, this deal is better than no deal, where we get shelled for the next three years and Russia continue. I mean, that's why either either give.

[Dan]

My country away today, or I hope to God that something changes in the next three years. And you're going to. Over my dead body are you going to, Am I going to hand the keys to my capital to Vladimir Putin? I would rather be Zelensky than be the ones who just quit because Trump's weak. That's what I would just keep. At some point, they're going to turn on him.

[Mark]

It takes a lot to surprise me. And as I said before, I have always suspected that the deal would be very pro Russian. But this stuns me that. That the President of the United States, as Dan said, who wants to be known for strength, would abdicate a complete surrender to Putin. Amazing. And, and, And I. I believe more than I did the other day, that this. This stuff about the corruption which has been around forever, has been floated to say to Zelensky, your times are running out. Your government's going to fall. Now, you have to do this deal, and it will go down in history. This is. This is appeasement that makes what happened in the last century look like a great deal. I'm just stunned.

[Dan]

Tom Cotton yesterday literally says on Fox News, I think this may be a fake Russian document. Like that is unbelievable.

[Sean]

So let me read you a line from the Wall Street Journal reporting on this. It says a senior US official said that Ukraine significantly changed one of the 28 points in a ver version that appeared in an apparent move to expose alleged corruption. The draft had called for an audit of all international aid Ukraine had received. The language was changed to say all parties will receive, quote, full amnesty for their actions during the war. I got to tell you, here's my take on this. If of the 28 points, the one that you care about is to make sure that no one finds out how much corruption was in there. That tells you a lot about Ukraine's priorities right now.

[Mark]

I think that reporting's disinformation, because that's not what the Ukrainians are saying to other people. Okay, we'll keep monitoring this because I bet there'll be a development in the next 45 minutes while we're on the air, but let's move on. Mondame and Trump are meeting. Here's the New York Times headline about the meeting. 1 107, please. 3 o', clock, Oval Office. Currently no coverage plans, no clarity about whether Mandami comes to the stakeout. Here's the headline. Trump and Mondame are meeting for the first time. Will they play nice? Mondame, the mayor elect, will go to the White House Friday. The stakes are high for the city. That's a good understatement, Sean. In a meeting like this, everybody's a little bit surprised, at least currently it's not open at the staff level. How do those kind of conversations take place? Would one side say, hey, we want it closed? Is that okay with you?

[Sean]

I think you. I mean, yeah, there's a discussion about. I think, first of all, you default to not. And knowing that the pool is always on standby, so you can bring them in. It's easier to bring them in than to switch it the other way. So that's your first point. The second point is going to be, what's the upside, the downside? And I think the question for the president, and he may say, bring them in after the meeting, that may be another tactic. Hey, let's meet and then we'll bring them in. But I think that one of the issues that the staff is bringing up is don't give him the forum, Mr. President. Don't let him look like he's on equal footing with you in the office, like he's the head of state. So why don't we let him come in? We'll see how it goes, and then you make the decision to bring him in or not.

[Mark]

So, Dan, if you were staffing the Democrat here and the agreement was no press, and then right before it starts, the president says, hey, let's bring the press, and you guys don't want the press, do you have any recourse at that point since you're playing an away game?

[Dan]

No. I mean, I think there's so many things you're thinking through. The first is, who's going to be in the room? Is Stephen Miller, Susie Wiles, J.D. vance, Tom Holman sitting on the couch staring at him. So if you're Mandani, who are you bringing? Like, you're bringing your gun to the fight. You know who is going to come. We were watching earlier, Hakeem Jeffries asked. He said he spoke to Mandani yesterday after the meeting. Does the delegation stand by him? Is Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, other members of the House, do they do a press conference? Because Trump's going to want to get the narrative out. I've asked myself, like, what is victory for Mandani? Like, I think victory is Trump does not say, I'm cutting off money, right? Where we're going to revoke $20 billion or something. And two, he doesn't say something like, ice is coming in this weekend, you know, some sort of big show of force. I've instructed Tom Holman it's time to deal with New York City. So I think he's got to have a plan for the press coming in. If Trump loses his cool, if Homan loses his cool, what do you. How do you want to be seen? You know, because if he loses his cool, I guess it's good for him, but it's bad for the city.

[Mark]

Sean, in a case like this with the would the White House ever say to the Mayor's team. We'd rather you not go to the stakeout. We'd rather you not talk about the meeting.

[Sean]

No, I mean, they can't. They would never. First of all, that would never be something that. That. And I think if you said that, that would backfire. But I want to tell you something. Remind everyone of what I said yesterday. Look at who's in the pool. So here's today's pool. Fox newsmax, Washington Times, the Telegraph, MK Media. That's Megyn Kelly. Media. Ok? I told you that yesterday. They're going to brawl. So I'm just telling you right now, if you're the mayor's team, let's just say this is a kid show, so I'll keep the language clean. But I'd go. You, you. That would be you calling the meat. That would be talking about playing an away game. That's an away game.

[Dan]

So with the, with the acronym F A, F O.

[Sean]

Very applicable.

[Mark]

Again. Again. Stay tuned for full coverage of this meeting on two way tonight. 4:00 tonight. All right, just real quick.

[Sean]

Can we, can we go around? Does it open or not? I say yes.

[Dan]

Yes.

[Mark]

Yes. We all say yes. Alor was beardless and thin, by the way. Also, I need to do a quick correction. The worst error I've ever made on the show.

[Sean]

And then we'll get towards the Earth promo code. Wrong.

[Mark]

111. No 111, please. Yesterday I said it was Leo Derocher who said, can't anybody here. Who asks the famous question, can anybody here play this game? Here's a picture of Stengo with Derocher. Fantastic picture that Paul found. But I, I stand correct. I regret the area. It was Casey Stengel who said, can't anybody ask. Can't anybody here play this game? Not Leo Derecher. I'm terribly sorry. All right. I really don't like this story about the, the Democratic National Security video in the president. I think it's a, it's a, it's a shame in our democracy that this gets discussed. And those six Democrats, I think may have laid a trap for the president because they're booked on cable now nonstop. So who knows what's really happening? But here's the question I want to ask. We could spend the whole show on this and I really don't want to. Sean, your party, the White House, the Hill is lying en masse. The conservative media lying en masse. They're saying that the video says they're telling people in the military to disobey legal orders. They're not. They're saying the opposite.

[Sean]

Oh, my God.

[Mark]

And yet the lie, the lie, the lie, the lie is everywhere. How does it. How does a lie like that. Where up is down and night is day. How does a lie like that.

[Sean]

Play the video.

[Dan]

Hold on. Play the.

[Sean]

Let's play. Let's.

[Mark]

Whatever.

[Sean]

They. Six people reminding people that they have a right to disobey a lawful order.

[Mark]

It says they have an obligation to not obey unlawful. Sean, that's what it says. We don't need to pay it. It says. It says obey. Oh, don't. It says.

[Sean]

Right now you're basically.

[Mark]

I'm asking a simple question.

[Sean]

I'm telling you this. I've served. And I'm telling you that I think that Your premise is 100% false. They are encouraging people to question orders that are lawfully given to them. It is a violation of U.S. code Section 238 to essentially distribute written or permits from Bill. That encourages insubordination. That is what they are doing. They're not 100%. And for you not to even acknowledge that. I think to say that that's a lie is a total mis. I mean, they did that for a reason. To encourage people to question orders. They can't. When they were asked. When Jason Crow went on Fox and said name one thing that the President's done that you question he couldn't. This was all about ginning up questions about whether military service members should actually execute the orders that are given to them full stop. They can't name a single instance, not one that is questionable.

[Mark]

It's not incumbent upon. They can cite historical precedents like Abu Ghra to say you should not obey illegal orders. That's exactly what they say. And I'm asking how the White House can orchestrate through conservative media and Republicans on Capitol Hill a black is white lie. How does that happen?

[Sean]

Because it's not. Because that's actually. What you're doing now is saying that it's a lie is a lie. That is not what they did. I was so offended when I saw that video. This idea that these people are trying to stoke insubordination is wrong. I actually. I can't believe that you. I mean, I actually was so offended when I saw that video. These guys pretending that somehow. And when they were. When they've been asked over and over again, name an instance. It's trying to create disloyalty, insubordination, question the authority of the commander in chief and lawful orders that have been given to them.

[Dan]

I. Wow.

[Sean]

I can't believe that you've come out swinging on something like this.

[Dan]

Well, so I agree with Mark that they repeatedly say unlawful orders. What I agree with you, Sean, is I think they did it to get in Trump's head. I think it was a trap. It was a taunt. You look at who did it. They all served and.

[Sean]

No, no, no, no. They did not all serve. That's not true. Alyssa Slot. Alyssa Slotkin served at the sea. Yeah, okay, but you don't talk about, give up that use Navy phrases and talk about lawful orders. Look, this little thin line about, like, oh, I was at the CIA. Uniform Code of Military justice does not guide and govern people in civilian capacities. And that was, again, that's a whole nother issue about that little cute reference to don't give up the ship. It's an 1812 war cry by a Navy captain about in the middle of battle. Like, this was so stoked with dog whistles. It was unbelievable.

[Dan]

Wow. Oh, boy. I can't. I did. Okay, well, you're right. Thank God Trump never dog whistles. We'll get to his next foghorn here. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Where I agree that the video is not necessarily the best thing is if they had an instance where they could say this was an unlawful order and you did it anyway. People may think there are things Trump's done that they say is unlawful, but they don't cite something. In my belief, this was a total political stunt. Good for the Democrats, because this is the era of taunting and stunts. So I agree with you on that. What I also find just remarkable, because I sat in this chair for weeks, went after Charlie Kirk and said, hey, both sides need to take temperature down. If Kamala Harris called for Republican senators to potentially be with the word execution, I would probably have to have security outside our apartment. If I said both sides. And what's amazing is you now have Democrats getting death threats. They have security, Right. Journalists back in 15 when Trump said beat the shit out of them, who had to get security in their houses. Right? So to everyone on the right who said, both sides, don't play this game, and I said, look at Trump. I give you his statement of yesterday. I know you're all outrage and think it's horrific, but do I think a crazy person would hear that and say, I'm going to do what the President said? I sure do. Welcome to the modern era of politics.

[Sean]

I'm just going to be straight. So hold on. Okay. I just want to make sure I understand this. So they put out A video inciting insubordination.

[Dan]

They don't. Sean, Sean.

[Mark]

Okay, wait. Okay.

[Sean]

So when the president told people what the penalty was for sedition, that's calling for violence. I get it. See, I, I just want to make sure I understand the double standard so that I got it clear.

[Mark]

Which is.

[Sean]

They put, you know, which is the.

[Mark]

Part of the video. Which is. Which is.

[Dan]

Which is the part of the.

[Mark]

Which is the part of the. Which is the. Part of, which is the part of the video where they tell people to violate legal orders.

[Dan]

Thank you.

[Mark]

Which. For which part of the video is that?

[Sean]

No, they're telling them to question them. You don't have to name unlawful. Of course, everyone in the military knows that. Of course you don't have to. So why are they starting to bring this up and telling that we're.

[Dan]

But if everyone knows that and it's true, then there is nothing. You okay with this?

[Sean]

So if someone stood outside of a target and said, you know, you don't have to pay for things that you don't believe are, like you. You're. You're creating an environment in which people are. Why are you telling people not to question the orders? There's not an example. There's no reason to do that. You're doing that because you want them to think that you might have cause for, for concern because that maybe there are unlawful orders. They are doing it for a reason. Let's not kid ourselves.

[Dan]

Get in Trump's head.

[Mark]

So are you, Are you offended because they're, they're, they're insinuating the president might do unlawful orders. Is that what you're offended by?

[Sean]

No. Offended by the fact that I'm offended by the fact that they are trying to so distrust and insubordination among military members who say to themselves, when I'm told to do something, I should question whether that's legal or not. That's. I mean, I, it's literally, if that's not how you live your life and every day going, should I question this order? The ships, the ship sailing down to.

[Mark]

I think the members.

[Sean]

Should I go to.

[Mark]

I think the members of our armed services can handle it. Tim Ryan's not going to run for governor of Ohio, leaving Vivek Ramaswamy in a very strong position that just. That just broke in the Comey case yesterday. Two days ago, the prosecutors seemed not to be able to claim that the full grand jury signed off on the replacement indictment with two charges. Yesterday, the prosecutor said, oh, no, actually they did, Sean, how can that happen? How can it be that they couldn't. They didn't have that information two days ago, but they did yesterday. And it's the and two part question. Is the case now back on track?

[Sean]

So I'll say what I said yesterday. I don't understand that the like from a normal person sitting on the outside who's not a lawyer, I think a reasonable person would say, I don't understand how this makes sense. And you'd have to toss it out. Right. But as I said yesterday, when you talk to lawyers, some of them will say, oh, it's not a big deal as long as it ends up in the right place. I don't know the answer to that question. And so I think from the outside and a layperson standpoint, you look and go messy at best. So we'll be interested to see how the judge rules on this. But I think if I were a normal person saying that, I'd say the odds are pretty good this isn't going forward.

[Mark]

Dan, do you understand why they were able to answer yesterday but not the day before?

[Dan]

I don't understand so much of Lindsay Halligan.

[Mark]

Okay, you be you all would be forgiven if you couldn't remember whether Adam Schiff has already been indicted for mortgage fraud or not. He hasn't. The case continues, but a strange development overnight. It's almost impossible to describe this because it involves the Trump Justice Department investigating. Good for them, you know, if it's true.

[Dan]

Integrity.

[Mark]

The Trump Justice Department is investigating the investigators. According to reports in several news organizations, a witness speaking on the record who is a kind of a whistleblower, who brought the original allegations about Schiff to the attention of Pulte and others, said she was questioned by a grand jury about whether Pulte and others in the Trump administration behaved inappropriately in sharing private information about Adam Schiff. And that suggests that maybe rather than Schiff be indicted, people might be indicted for investigating Schiff. Dan, can you explain how this has happened?

[Dan]

Ah, every time I think, like, what will be the opening few paragraphs of, like, Trump 2.0. Stories like this just make me wonder if they're going to be in there. I mean, it is. First off, it's so blatantly obvious that this is absolutely 100% political. I mean, talk about weaponization of government. The fact that this witness. I think it's the Journal. According to the Journal, when the investigator asked her, did Pulte reach out to you? She's like, well, we spoke a few times. And who has it out for pt? Who got Todd Blanch, the story says the number two deputy AG has worries about the sloppiness of what is happening in that. In that area. We know that Bessant doesn't like him. So I asked you guys, who's got the knife out to take out? And Sean, you always said Trump likes them.

[Mark]

So, Sean, again, trying to pull back the curtain. For folks, this is real hardball. If Dan's theory is tricked, they tried to get Pulte out by leaking about him, by kind of attacking him frontally. And on the side, could they really be ginning up a grand jury investigation to try to harm Pulte? Could that really be what's happening here? Is that how the world works?

[Sean]

Well, I think you've got a spectrum. It could be full on that, or it could be we're leaking it so that we can go to the president and say, Mr. President, look what's going on. This is how sloppy this has gotten. That there's a. Yeah, you know, it's. So there's a possibility that it's a head fake, meaning that you create the illusion that it's more serious than it is. But I think at the end of the day, you know, half of the communication, if not more, to the President is done through the press. And so the idea is, is this, you know, red on red, where they're basically trying to say, this guy that you like is this sloppy, is creating a headache for you. Look what he's doing, look at how he did it. And we're going to get in trouble because of him. It's probably easier to, you know, so I think it could be real or it could be a total head fake to create the illusion.

[Dan]

But what will Trump say if the Schiff case collapses because his own Department of Justice took down the operative that he so clearly has digging up dirt to get these people?

[Mark]

Seems like. He seems like he'd be pissed off.

[Sean]

Oh, well. So. So I will tell you that there.

[Dan]

Are codes for execution.

[Sean]

There was a. There was a comment yesterday that I thought was telling in the. When the President was speaking and he looked at Besset and he said, the only thing I'm not happy about him is the Fed, like, somehow. And the Fed is an independent institution, obviously, et cetera, et cetera.

[Mark]

So. But.

[Sean]

But this goes to the broader point that you're bringing up, which is if the Comey case collapses, if the Pulte, you know, allegations don't pan out, does he start saying, you are responsible for this, you are responsible for this, you created this, and you suddenly have people pushed out because they're responsible for sloppiness.

[Mark]

Amazing. All right, fundraising. If you look at the party committees, the congressional House committees, the Senate committees, the individual candidates, and as best we can tell, the super PACs, Democrats are doing fine in fundraising, and in some cases they're outraising Republicans, but not at the DNC and the rnc. Reported yesterday by the New York Times first that the DNC had to take out a loan, leaving them extremely cash for compared to the rnc. We've talked about the chair over there before, his defenses. They borrowed money because they wanted to spend more to win the two governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey, and they did. Dan, is this a big deal? Small deal.

[Dan]

It's a huge deal. Because if the other committees were struggling, you could say, look, we're all. The party is struggling to raise money, so it's not a DNC problem. His problem is Ken Martin says everyone else is raising money. Everyone else is outraising their Republican competition, but you're getting beat 7 and 8 to 1. It's still the case that donors here, you know, here being New York City, where I am a major market for fundraising for both parties, don't necessarily want to meet with him. So I think, you know, in past when chairs have struggled, they get kind of layered, meaning you get like a, you know, Ed Rendell becomes the vice chair and he's going to become the point of fundraising. I wonder now if somebody is added over there. Like, if I'm Gavin Newsom in the 28ers, I'm like, we need some help over here. Chuck Schumer, others. Somebody needs to help them out.

[Mark]

I think just for. Just for factual clarification, I think Brendell has made like, national chair.

[Dan]

Yeah, something like that.

[Mark]

Yeah. You predicted before Sean waves, and you predicted you thought it was possible somebody would challenge him. So now you're saying he'll stay, but be layered is more likely.

[Dan]

I. I know at least one person who would not challenge him, but if that person were asked, they would serve. So I think he's got to go. But I think there are. There are people out there, including, you know, former, former people involved, that would take it, sean.

[Sean]

So Terry McAuliffe's looking for work.

[Dan]

No names. No names.

[Sean]

So here's the thing that's interesting. I think the election. So one, I think what Dan said is absolutely right. The problem is disparity. Everybody else is able to do it, but you can't. And that's a problem. It just Shows that it's view, not the environment. Number two, I think Martin bought himself some time and goodwill by the the wins in November. He gets credit for things that he doesn't deserve. But at the end of the day, that's the game of politics. We've always said this. You get more credit for things that happen on your tenure that you probably didn't do anything for. And you get more blame in the case of this. But the other thing is, and I don't know that DNC rules like I know the RNC rules, but this idea, like he would have to allow something to happen, right? So he could have to, I think if he were smart, he would convene, folks, get the 20, 28ers in a room and say, guys, here's the deal. Like any of you, all of you, some of you may run, I need your collective help at a series of six events around the country where you, I mean, small, off the whatever, but he needs a plan where he gets buy in by all these guys. But until then, again, this gets back to understanding the rules of the game. And the rules of the game, at least as far as I know, are that Ken Martin is chairman until his term is up.

[Dan]

And by the way, that's exactly what Terry McAuliffe did at the end of 2022 or end of 2002. He called in all the candidates who are thinking of running and said, I need you guys to commit to do seven events for me. La, New York, Boston, San Fran, Chicago, Miami, all the big cities. And the idea was the small people jumped at it because they could get in a room with major donors who otherwise would not have taken their calls. The big people at the time, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards then said, okay, we'll participate too. Because they didn't want these other people just sitting around in a room with these folks. And that's exactly what Terry did. It'd be smart.

[Mark]

All right, a few more topics into your questions. So please raise your hand if you'd like to get in on the conversation. Yesterday, Eric Swalwell announced he was going to run for governor of California. Had been rumored for a while, he did it on Kimmel in order to establish his anti Trump bonafides, because that's the currency coin of the realm. Now in Democratic politics generally, but particularly in California, Republicans I know find Swalwell to be less imposing than Katie Porter even. They're not, they're not super high. So, Sean, who's the top tier and who are the top three candidates? To be the next governor of California. And is Swalwell one of them?

[Sean]

I gotta guess he is. I mean, I think he gets enough media attention. He'll raise some money. I think Katie Porter still is, but mostly because of her progressive bona fides. And I think spot three is tbd.

[Dan]

Dan, I totally agree with Sean and I think breaking it down further, Porter is the progressive candidate. Does Sacramento get a candidate that institutional kind of infrastructure up there does not like Katie Porter? Can Swalwell tap into that? Is that even a good thing in a primary? And then does some self funder emerge like Caruso or somebody?

[Sean]

By the way, what does it say? What does it say that Tom Steyer and his billions don't get him even a top three spot when there's not a third? There's a great interview that Laura Trump has out with a sheriff who's going to run. I think that there will be some kind of coalescing around a Republican candidate. I don't know that that gets him into the top three. And obviously in a runoff, you, you need to be the top two. But I, I think that there's a sense that Republicans need something to be excited about.

[Mark]

And, and, and neither of you think Steve Hilton is the answer to that question?

[Dan]

I don't know enough about California Republicans today.

[Sean]

I will say this. I like Steve. I just don't. I think if you've been, if you have a, obviously you had a platform like Fox to be on and you haven't gotten the coalescing at this point, that's a problem. Like you should have been the one that everybody said, hey, you're the guy.

[Dan]

Mark, let me ask you, because you're close to some people in Silicon Valley. Would, would some Valley people get together to back a Republican and say we will put like we'll give you or create a half a billion dollar suit or $200 million super PAC, we will put you on air for 10 months straight. We're going to define you before you're defined because they're putzing around the other side and say we are going to try to get the Republican Party going back in this state.

[Mark]

Yeah, for the right candidate. But they don't see the right candidate. So in the abstract they would, but they're not, they're not even thinking about it because they don't see the right one. And they think about whether one of their own could do it. But they're smart enough to know that somebody like that is going to have a hard time doing it. Okay. ROM continues to be allowed to write opinion columns for both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. Can either of you think of anybody else ever who was allowed to be a regular column contributor that way to two different places? I can't. So they let him do it. And here's his latest Journal Democrats challenge for the 2028 election. It isn't enough to get away from wokeness. My party needs an economic agenda root in American values. If you ran that column through AI and said, how many of these, how many of these sentences are cribbed from Putting People first, the Bill Clinton book from the 92 campaign, you'd find a very high percentage, I think. I don't know if the copyrights expired on that book. But, Dan, more than ever, that column is just, Rom is just talking about opportunity, responsibility, and community. I mean, is he going to be able to mimeograph, copy and paste, as you tech people say? Is he going to be able to copy and paste the Clinton agenda, or is that not workable?

[Dan]

It may be workable because I go back to, like, there's two camps. There are those who are like the loud, proud fighters right now. That's Newsom, that's aoc, it's Pritzker. It's like in your face. Then there are those that are laying the groundwork to kind of be more of like the roll up your sleeves. Like, I'm not like that op ed talks about, we got to move past Trump and he is part of the Shapiro. Others who are going to be like, he's in the rearview mirror. I know what the base on X thinks, but man, voters have a funny way of being like, what are you doing for me? And is it possible, I think Rahm has a moment between now and the end of 27 where he gets a little bit of momentum, but he also may lay the groundwork for a Shapiro or somebody else to come along and say, look at what I've done and what I want to do for you. And I'm not even going to use the word Trump.

[Mark]

Yeah, Sean.

[Sean]

I get the feeling that Rahm's strategy right now is to stand over there waving his hand and saying, guys, I'm right here. Just, here's, here's the pragmatic path forward. You know, I can do this. And it's sort of like begged me a little, and I'm in. I, I, I just, he's laying this out and he just keeps putting the, the breadcrumbs out there, saying to the Democratic Party, you do have a choice. You and the choice is we can continue to go nutty, nutty, or we can. I have a plan. I have a back. I mean, it's. He's literally just sitting there in the background reminding people, you got a choice. And I think he's playing this like a tortoise and hair kind of thing. Like, I'm just going to keep doing the slow, slow burn.

[Mark]

Yeah, very well said. The one thing I'll say, and this is not applying to only Rom, although it does apply to Rom. A lot of people who, the conventional wisdom is they're going to run, I think are not going to run, in part because the fundraising is going to look very daunting, in part because they don't want the scrutiny, and in part they don't like their chances. So there's no price now. In fact, there's a lot of upside to pretending you're going to run or to keep your options open, but there are people whose kids don't want them to run. They're people who have consulted professional fundraisers and been told you're not going to raise 30 million. And then for those who don't want to have super PACs, because some people in the party think that's bad, very difficult. So, like I said, just don't assume people who, even if they're doing things like Rom is doing to look like they're going to run, don't assume they're going to run. All right, Mark Melman. So many people pass away in politics, we don't often note them, but Mark Melman was one of the best pollsters of the last, of the history of polling, really. And I'll tell you why. Three reasons. He was a great pollster. He passed away, I think, yesterday or maybe the day before. You can put up the picture, Paul, if you have it. First of all, just mechanically, technically, he did great polls. He also came on two way, but that's not why. The reason it's a great pollster did great poll. He did great polls, just technically, great polls. Two is he was honest about. About it. He would tell his clients and he would say publicly, in an extraordinary column he wrote in the Hill, he'd say, my party has a problem. This candidate has a problem. He wouldn't pull his punches. And then lastly, he really cared about issues. He was not a mercenary. He pulled for his clients, but he also pulled to make the country better. And not every pollster does that. Dan, any. Any thoughts about Mark?

[Dan]

You know, you've said it really well. I'm really glad that you're doing this to acknowledge him. The other remarkable thing about Mark is almost everyone who worked with him liked him and his reputation. You know, you do campaigns for 30, 40 years, you, you build up scar tissue of, you know, not everyone in town likes you. I don't know a single person that ever said bad stuff about Mark. And that is a remarkable achievement.

[Mark]

In addition to being a great pollster.

[Dan]

Just a lovely pollster.

[Mark]

Lovely man. Lovely man. Dan. Sean, I don't know if you knew him at all.

[Sean]

I think I might have met him once or twice in a green room. But I would say that what Dan said is the key here. When you walk away from the game and people of both sides, because there's no one on my side that doesn't share the accolades that you did, Mark, which is that, you know, what other side of the aisle but top notch professional, respectful, kind to people. And that's what you want?

[Mark]

Yeah. Okay. Winners, losers, what to look for. And then to your questions, raise your hand if you want in the conversation. Sean. Winner of the week.

[Sean]

This is going to seem a little weird, but not weird, but like, because we didn't even talk about it today. My winner of the week is Alan Dershowitz. Alan fought back against these allegations in the Epstein and, and, and was vindicated. And he just, I asked him over and over again through the last few months, and he was like, I welcomed, you know, I asked the FBI to investigate me. I knew I was innocent. And too many times I feel like people cave and I just appreciate someone who fights back who says, you know, I welcome the investigation. Anyway, I, I thought he's done a great job of defending himself in light of some pretty salacious allegations and, and deserves a little credit for how he's done it.

[Dan]

Dan, a little bit of the same vein. My winner of the week is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She, you know, whatever you think of her, she stood up on this issue. She did not back down, despite getting called down to the White House, and they tried to basically break her arm and she won. And the fact that there are stories that in her district, people, at least so far, don't seem to be upset with her in a pretty red district, I give her credit that that took some political courage. So my winner of the week is Marjorie Taylor Greene.

[Mark]

Winner of the week. The people of New York City, I've been telling people since Mondami won the nomination, give him a chance. Let's see what he does. And one of the first major decisions he made, he chose a pro law enforcement police commissioner who happens to be Jewish. And you tell me an anti Semite who would make his police commissioner Jewish. That's quite a long game plan. So I think everybody should be encouraged on the substance and the symbolism of it who lives in New York. And let's keep giving him a chance to see how he'll govern because he was elected by the people.

[Dan]

Well, and by the way, she's also from a very, very prominent family in this city. Yeah, that is another thing that he's, you know.

[Mark]

Yeah, he went with it. He went with a billionaire police commissioner too. I think she's probably a multi millionaire.

[Dan]

Yeah.

[Mark]

Yeah. Sean, Loser of the week.

[Sean]

So my loser of the week is Jasmine Crockett. And can we just play if we have the. The video with the sound.

[Dan]

This is hard to watch. Oh, Thanks for keeping the sound off, guys.

[Mark]

You mentioned Lee Zelda there.

[Charisse]

He's now a cabinet secretary.

[Sean]

He responded and said it was actually.

[Charisse]

Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who's a doctor that.

[Mark]

Doesn'T have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker.

[Charisse]

Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is.

[Sean]

Who donated to a prior campaign of his.

[Charisse]

Do you want to correct the record on the people? Listen, I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein. Just so that people understand, when you make a donation, you're up picking picture is not there. And because they decided to spring this on us in real time, I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen because I knew that they didn't even try to go through the fec. So my team, what they did is they googled. And that is specifically why I said a Jeffrey Epstein, unlike Republicans, I at least don't go out and just tell lies because it was not the same one. That's fine. But when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He admitted that he.

[Dan]

So just to be clear, that's a mercy kill right there.

[Sean]

Republicans were acknowledging Stacey Plaskett texting in real time with a known sex offender. And she ran to the floor to talk about all the Republicans that had taken money from Jeffrey Epstein, obviously naming Lee Zeldin in there. To which Lee, as you saw, responded by saying, and here's the kicker. FEC reports may not have a face on them so that you knew it was the same Jeffrey Epstein, but they sure have a date on them and an occupation. The guy's occupation was doctor, which Jeffrey Epstein clearly not a doctor. And the. And the donation to Lee Zeldin came after the other Jeffrey Epstein was dead. So, I mean, he's not being completely honest with exactly how bad she. She used bungled this. But this reminded me of the George Santos. I didn't say I was Jewish. I said it was Jewish. I mean, sure to say that. I didn't say it was the Jeffrey Epstein. I said it was a Jeffrey Epstein. Awesome.

[Dan]

That. That was an epic, epic interview. Yeah. And I thought Sean was going to take that. Mine is Donald J. Trump. Despite him saying that he's just had the greatest eight months ever. This was a bad week. I mean, for a first term of a president, really, the last few weeks since the election have not been great for him. Look, I, I actually believe he will turn things around and that he's a political fighter. He's going to try to find a way. But this was not a good week from him. The economy, polls, his own party. He's the loser of the week.

[Mark]

All right. My loser of the week is someone who's been surprisingly and consistently a winner since he became speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. But a tough week for a couple reasons. First of all, I got crosswise with both the White House and John Thune, really, for the first time in any significant way related to a couple things. Most prominently whether the Senate would amend the Epstein resolution. They didn't. Or Epstein law. They didn't. But also I think this has been undercovered. Is that is the discharge petitions. For years, people have tried to do discharge petitions. They've almost never succeeded. Very rare. Not only did it succeed on Epstein, but now they're much more talked about. Now it's been reported this morning by Punchbowl that the speakers think of changing the rules to make it harder to file a disparage petition. Something that will almost certainly fail if he does try it. But it shows the extent to which he's in real danger of losing control of the floor and did on the Epstein matter. And that's a super danger for any speaker, but one who even if he remains speaker next session is going to have a very narrow majority. And if you can't stop your dissident members from joining Democrats to sign a discharge position, it is a much different job to be speakers than it is. And this week I think he's, he's on notice now he's going to have to figure out how to keep discharge positions from becoming common.

[Dan]

And watch Care Watch in December, a.

[Mark]

Discharge petition on health care, banning stock trading by members of Congress. They're talking about.

[Dan]

Yep.

[Mark]

It's, it's.

[Sean]

I think it's an interesting point you raised but by the way, on the, not only the discharge petitions, but the censures are a problem now where there's bipartisan consensus. But the one thing that I'll say we didn't get a chance to talk about is I actually really thought that tuned how the Senate handled that issue of tucking in a provision that these senators who had their phones tapped could get all of this money was ridiculous. And I think that Johnson was outraged, rightly so. The idea that people went through, a bunch of people went through the Mueller report and got nothing after getting dragged through massive legal fees, and these senators are basically saying our phone got fired on, so we should get tens of millions of dollars from the US Government. I actually think Johnson was absolutely right to be outraged about that.

[Mark]

All right, guys, we got to get quick because we're way over. Sean, what to look for this weekend?

[Sean]

Well, as you might tell, I'm in Florida, so I'm looking forward to the weather.

[Dan]

Dan, given Trump's had a bad week, how does he try to unite MAGA and does he who comes into the bullseye to try to get everybody on board back on board?

[Mark]

I'll steal one that Dan uses quite regularly. Has used quite regularly, which is what's the president doing this weekend? Yeah, at this point, he's, he's not going to New Jersey or Florida, as far as we know. All right, message from one more sponsor. And then. And then to your questions. Thank you. Another beautiful patience nights where you just can't sleep and you're looking for a solution so you don't drag the next day, feel exhausted. Try the products of CB Distillery. Go to cbdistillery.com 25% off with the promo code to WM. Made with the high highest quality ingredients, clean ingredients, no fillers, just premium cbd. Imagine waking up like so many people who've tried this. Over 2 million people have tried the products at CB Distillery. Imagine waking up feeling great. Less stress, less pain after exercise, maybe even an improvement in your mood and focus. So for better sleep, less stress, feeling good in your own skin again, try the products of CB Distillery. Go to CBDistillery.com use the promo code 2WMM for 25% off your full order. CBDistillery.com promo code 2WM 25 off your order. Seek the Distillery.com right now, the holidays.

[Sean]

Mean more travel, more shopping, more time.

[Mark]

Online, and more personal info in more places that could expose you more to identity theft.

[Sean]

But Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second.

[Mark]

If your identity is stolen, our U S based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back.

[Sean]

Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply.

[Mark]

Thank you for your attention to that matter and time for your questions. Stand by here. Is your name pronounced Shareefs? Do I have that right? Let's see if I have it right.

[Charisse]

Yes, it is.

[Dan]

Thank you.

[Mark]

Okay, Charisse, welcome and thanks for being here. Tell folks who don't know where you are and what's on your mind.

[Charisse]

For Sean and dude, I am originally, well, I am from Chicago and right now I'm in California. So I guess I really want punishment.

[Dan]

Or to give your money away.

[Charisse]

It's a, it's a little bit of a comment, but I would like to, you know, hear some of your thoughts and feedback on this. One of the things that I've been noticing is that, you know, the Democrats are very good at making pockets of information and the Republicans are constantly like chasing after the little pockets and reacting and throwing their hands up and so forth. And the latest one that I'm seeing is the one for instance, it's a very easy, easy example is the one that you just showed with Jasmine Crockett.

[Mark]

Right.

[Charisse]

And she's using the play on words that a lot of people really don't know is that she used the word A versus the word the because the word A means one of many. The means one. And that's something that like, you know, people in marketing PR are taught but the general public is not. So I think like the video that was made, her comment is very misleading and will be taken out of context because they don't, they're not really, they're listening to it and they're not reading it. Sometimes some people will catch it if they see the word the versus A or the way that they've been doing things. So, you know, am I off base in what I'm, you know, what I'm describing here? Because I mean, you know, I remember even through some training that I had like 20 plus years ago, hate to give away my age. There's the whole thing of like the words, you know, contractions of don't, can't, you know, the human brain doesn't really take in those words. They, they use them as can do. So I see that as, that's the new, that's the new trend that's going on within politics. Am I off base?

[Mark]

Thank you for that, Dan.

[Dan]

Well, that's the first time I've heard that Democrats are good at shiny red balls. I think a lot of people on our side would say the other side is good at getting us to chase. Look, Jasmine Crockett's statement is indefensible. It's ridiculous. Even Democrats, I can tell you, in group chats are laughing at what she attempted to do. I don't think you're going to hear the whole party repeat this like, you know, kind of Clintonian A versus the. I mean, she just did something, you know, a stunt, got caught, and sometimes she's have to say, oops. But you're right, people are clever. I worked for a Clinton, you know, it became a verb. Right. A Clintonian statement. So politics never ceases to amaze.

[Mark]

Sean.

[Sean]

Look, I actually think you got to go back to where it all stemmed from. Stacy Plasket's texting with. With Epstein in the middle of a hearing on Michael Cohen and starts saying that the reason that she was doing this is because as a prosecutor, she was trying to get to the bottom of something. He was texting her about questions to ask.

[Dan]

Right.

[Sean]

She is not a. She may have been a prosecutor. She's a member of Congress right now. So, I mean, the whole thing didn't make sense. And then Jasmine Crockett running down to defend her and saying, I, I appreciate your analysis. I think I, I just don't give them enough credit to be honest with you, and, and think that that was actually some mastermind way of obfuscating. She screwed up the idea that she's saying, oh, the FEC doesn't have pictures on it. Like, as I said before, it has dates and occupations. And she, I mean, look, she got caught saying something stupid and making a massive mistake and just wanted to obfuscate. That's it. Full stop.

[Mark]

Therese, thank you.

[Dan]

I will say, just for everyone who doesn't know this, in hearings, members of Congress get text messages during hearings about questions to ask nonstop. And usually it's lobbyists literally sitting in the room or watching in their offices saying, ask this, like, frame the question this way. Try to set this trap. So just in full disclosure, full disclosure.

[Sean]

100%, I will say this. I've maybe done that myself, but I'm not a sex offender. And the idea that, like, yeah, there's that one difference, because there's a difference between a lobbyist, me, you, and Jeffrey Epstein, and the idea that she was like. And then lied about it and said, well, I was a prosecutor. It's like, no, this has nothing to do with the. In fact, quite the opposite. You were soliciting information about what Michael Cohen was saying at the time. That's, I mean, it was. And the idea, look, I get it, you circle the wagons around your own members, but at some point, you know, Hakeem Jeffries just has to say, guys, please stop.

[Mark]

Jesse. First there was the John Wooden's UCLA men's Bruins, then Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar Lakers, and now, now Ohtani's Dodgers. Congratulations, City of dynasties. Welcome in. Tell everybody where you are. What's on your mind for Sean and.

[Dan]

For Dan, unless you're. I'm. Well, yeah, well, the World Series is always on my mind, but I'm in Portland, Oregon here, so I have a. Yeah, I have a question for all three of you guys, actually. I was on election night 24, could not figure out how to unmute myself. So I consider this a complete redemption. Complete. All right, so Dan, as a former HR Block lobbyist, how do you rate Trump's admins, early signals on corporate tax policies? Is it bullish for Main street or just another giveaway for big tech? Trump's corporate tax policies? I think it's, he, he's, it's, it's pro industry, like not just tech. But I think as a rule he is. And I think it's actually appropriate trying to create the environment for companies, you know, to, to be competitive and innovative. And, you know, as a rule, lower taxes is usually pretty good. Right, Good. So Mark, you flagged Newsom and AOC as wildcards for 28 between those between them and figures like Cheryl and Mandami, who has the fundraising edge right now. And how does Trump's shadow change the map? Or does it?

[Mark]

Well, Mondami can't run for president because he wasn't born here. So he's, he's not going to run unless he passed the constitutional amendment. I think, I think Newsom Rahm and then self funder Fritzgert are the top people with access to money. And my policy is to say nothing about what post Trump politics will be like because I don't think anybody knows. So there'll be a shadow, but I don't know how it affects anything. It's too soon to say. Last one, Jesse, real quick, if you've got one for Sean, please.

[Dan]

Okay. Yeah. With the redistricting battles heating up in states like Tennessee, what's your advice to GOP incumbents on messaging with like the fair maps without alienating any base?

[Sean]

Well, the, the biggest thing that I would say is understand that the game has changed. I I think one of the things that if you look at what Mondami did really well and again, part of this, if you're a professional, whether you're in sports, business or politics, is look at what successful people are doing, regardless of what you know, whether they're on your company, your team or your side of this. A I think m effectively used social media unequivocally. He was authentic in a lot of ways, I think in the way that Trump also did that in the campaign. Be yourself. But, but too many times my party continues to be like, you know, we saw this in Virginia. We're going to put, you know, 1500 points of TV up and think that's going to solve a problem more and more people aren't getting. So it's not just the message, it's the mechanics of it, how you're delivering it. And I think the Republican Party in many cases is still stuck in the wilderness of we'll buy a bunch of TV ads, we'll put them up and we'll hope that that works. And that's that day is gone. And so I think more than just the message, you have to meet people where they are now at all places. It's not one or the other, it's all of the above. And that's the biggest concern I have about a lot of campaigns right now is that I see them stuck in the 20 year ago mentality.

[Mark]

Jesse, thank you for being part of two way and for learning to unmute. And congratulations again. Sean, what do you, what do you have tonight?

[Sean]

Tonight a two guest banger. First, Mike Walls, a former congressman, national security advisor and current ambassador of the UN met with Nicki Minaj to talk about Christian persecution in Nigeria. So he's going to join the show to tell me how he ended up becoming buddies with Nicki Minaj. Apparently they're called like brides. Isn't that what it's sort of swifties and then there's brides. And then Tim Burchett, congressman from Tennessee. And Mark, I know we talked about this, but beyond he's big onto members not being able to trade stocks. So we'll talk about that. But Then also this 7th district, December 2nd runoff is coming right around the corner and I'm going to talk to him about how concerning that is for for the people of Tennessee. He's been, you know, local politics of mayor.

[Mark]

Yeah.

[Sean]

So getting his take is going to be important.

[Mark]

We talked about the Democrat in that race and they upgrade Oppa. Republicans just dropped on her trashing national.

[Sean]

Oh, that's. That was. She's. And then she just put out a video saying that she doesn't hate her own city, which is.

[Mark]

Yeah.

[Dan]

So.

[Mark]

Yeah. All right, today, two two ways left this week, random offense with Ethan at 2:00 clock is guest Ryan Glass, Beagle of Front Office Sports. And then again, reminder, 4 o' clock for 2A tonight. And my guest will be the great Mark Caputo of Axios, who's broken another bunch of stories this week. And Mark and I will have the latest on Ukraine Mondami's visit to the White House and everything else. Now, end of a chapter here today with all of us and for a lot of the community, important moment. So I turn it to Dan to address their coming exit. Dan.

[Dan]

Well, thank you, Mark. Yes. For those who don't know, as we mentioned a couple weeks ago, today is the last day for Sean and me. And I just want to take an opportunity to thank everybody again. I'm going to start with people you don't see on here. Paul, Audra, Aisha, Laurie, Michael, others who produce this show every day. You all want to know why Two Way takes off next week. A lot of the shows, there's one team that does a lot of this and they need a break. And so hats off to them. Mark, I've said it before, you've been a mentor. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for the privilege of coming on here every day and obviously to the community. It's just awesome to hear from you every day. I will now be many days on the YouTube channel in YouTube watching this show. So I will be in the chat. I will not put smack in the chat, but I will keep watching this show because I love it. And so just thank you to everybody and Mark, thank you.

[Mark]

Thank you, Dan.

[Sean]

Yeah, I'll echo that. I think first again to the staff that puts the show on every day. Thank you guys for what you do behind the scenes to all these elements together to make it look great, to keep everything together. So thank you guys for all that. Mark, thanks for everything that you've done to help create this and. And to the community as well. Guys, thank you for the questions. Every day. I can't tell you how many times people stop and say, I love watching you guys in the morning. I appreciate the feedback. I learned a lot. I think what we've created is something very special because it's not back and forth. I tell people all the time sometimes in the chat part of what I think Dan and I bring to this is explaining things. We're not trying to say you're right and you're wrong sometimes, probably. But more than anything is make sure people understand the process of how our government works. And I think that's important at a time when you've got a lot of cable channels where it's just you yell at me, I'll yell at you for five minutes and then we'll say, okay, next segment. So thank you guys for everything that you do. Everybody. Please feel free to stay in touch. Seanbeisser.com I've got a newsletter so you can always find out what I'm doing, where I'm going to. So thank you for everything and look forward to the continued success of the show.

[Mark]

Thank you both. Warner affiliates. We're going to run just a little bit over here. Wish you guys both well and grateful to you for the contributions, extraordinary contributions in building this show and making it something that is very special. We're all grateful to you. I'm especially grateful. So thank you both. When we come back after the holidays on December 1, the elements and ethos of this program will be the same. The morning meeting will be the same show. We'll have the day book. You don't get that anyplace else. The amazing production team that Sean and Dan mentioned will continue to produce the best in class videos. What's happened late at night, overnight in the morning graphics and dipping into live coverage everywhere. Again, those are elements you don't see on any other morning show. And as Sean suggested, Dan knows all points of view represented without rancor here, including by the host, but also by the community. That is something you don't get. But elsewhere, but most of all, what's different about this program is the community. It's you all. And that will stay the same. It's because of you, not because of us, that members of this community knew last year not only that Donald Trump would probably win, but why Donald Trump would win. Those conversations were better here than anywhere else. And we're so grateful to you all for bringing that same thing with the shutdown. We learned more about how people were feeling about the shutdown, how he's impacting the real lives of real people here than anything else. I mean, helped us understand. I could give you a thousand examples of the things we've learned from you all and that will continue when we say two way and this program are conversations like no other. There's lots of reasons for that, but the primary reason is the participation of the community. Not only when you get called on and not only when you put stuff in the chat, but by your reactions and by your coming here every day to be part of this. That's been true from the very beginning of two way, from the very beginning of the morning meeting and it's going to continue to be true when we reconvene all together with new hosts joining me on December 1st. So we'll head into 2026 together. We'll cover the presidential campaign together. We will do it together as a community because that's why we have conversations like no other here. Very grateful to Sean and Dan. Very grateful to you all. Next week we're off. I'm off for two way tonight as well, but we'll see you on December 1st with both programs. Look forward to you joining us and beginning a new chapter here on two WAY and on the morning meeting. Gentlemen, thank you again. See you both soon and have a great day, everybody. I'll see you at 4pm this afternoon. Thank you.

[Dan]

Happy Thanksgiving. Bye.

[Sean]

Happy Thanksgiving.