U.S. Warns Iran Today Is "The Most Intense Day... Most Fighters, Most Bombers, Most Strikes" in War

Summary

---

The Morning Meeting—March 10, 2026

Podcast: The Morning Meeting (2WAY)

Episode: U.S. Warns Iran Today Is "The Most Intense Day... Most Fighters, Most Bombers, Most Strikes" in War
Host: Mark Halperin, with co-hosts Larry O'Connor and Kevin
Theme: Network news executive roundtable previewing—and analyzing—the day’s most pressing news in politics, national security, and media, focusing on the ongoing U.S.–Iran conflict and domestic political ramifications.

---

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode centers on the rapidly escalating U.S.–Iran conflict, described by military briefers as the most intense day so far in the war, with record numbers of strikes, bombers, and fighters in action. The panel unpacks military and geopolitical developments, the political fallout, tensions with allies, the administration's communication strategy, and top domestic political stories, including legislation like the SAVE Act and key Senate races. Listeners are offered a candid, insider “morning meeting” snapshot of news network deliberations.

---

1. War With Iran: State of Play

[05:00–17:15]

Military Briefings and U.S. Messaging

• Pentagon officials (Pete Hegseth, Gen. Kane) called today “the biggest day of the campaign” in terms of munitions dropped.
• Over 5,000 targets have reportedly been hit; significant Iranian naval and missile assets destroyed.
• Administration is bullish on U.S. progress but avoids specifying an endgame or “mission accomplished” timeline.
• Notably, military briefers now avoid talking about “regime change,” contrasting with earlier hints ("Trump was asked, who should the new leader be? And he said, 'I’d like to have a say in that.'" — Larry, [10:19]).

When Will the War End?

• Hosts discuss ambiguity: Will the campaign last “weeks or days”? The president has suggested both; Pentagon refuses to set metrics or schedules.
• Quote: “It’s up to the president where it ends. But as far as they’re concerned, they’re continuing.” — Mark [08:20]
• The group agrees: The war ends when the U.S. "debilitates" Iranian capabilities (esp. to threaten U.S., allies).

Notable Quote:

“There’s a reason why it was wise for them not to say regime change is the goal... If goal was only to debilitate Iran's capability, then they're close to victory.”
— Larry [09:30]

---

2. Straits of Hormuz & Oil Market

[11:20–15:15]

Securing Oil Flows

• Tension spikes over safe passage through the Straits of Hormuz.
• The president has publicly threatened Iran and claimed he’s “doing China a favor" by reopening the strait—since both China and Iran depend on oil flow.
• Some tankers are moving through by turning off transponders for stealth, which has contributed to a drop in oil prices.
• Gas price effects lag events by about two weeks; hosts forecast prices to stabilize if current trends persist.

Memorable Exchange:

“I think we’re on the back end of the highest prices... The pieces are in place now to get oil stabilized and gas prices stabilized.”
— Larry [13:08]

"Inflation is just transitory by Larry O’Connor.”
— Kevin, jokingly [13:20]

---

3. U.S.–Israel Tensions

[15:12–17:14]

• Discussion of possible friction after Israeli airstrikes on “desalination and energy” targets (purportedly against U.S. wishes).
• Two U.S. envoys’ trip to Israel (Jared Kushner, Steven Witkoff) reportedly canceled/postponed.
• Panel sees enduring “behind-the-scenes tension.” Divergence looms if U.S. goals and Israeli goals (e.g., regime change in Iran) don’t align at the campaign’s outcome.

“At the moment, it appears as though they’ve been able to move forward, and whatever tension there was was resolved. But watch that space—That’s going to be the biggest issue.”
— Larry [15:50]

---

4. Presidential Communication & Public Opinion

[17:15–27:33]

Trump’s War Rationale, Endgame, and Oil

• Trey Yingst’s 20-min interview with President Trump is recapped: “No other president had the guts to do it.”
• Trump claims urgency: If strikes hadn’t happened, Iran would have attacked first or acquired/used a nuclear weapon.
• On talks with Iran: "It's possible... depends on what terms... We sort of don't have to speak anymore, if you really think about it." — Trump (via Yingst) [18:45]

Negotiation Challenges

• David Ignatius (via NBC) adds: Iran’s new leader is a hardliner, with little appetite for a deal. Gulf allies fear Trump will “leave a wounded, angry animal across the Gulf.” [19:31]

Seizing Iranian Oil?

• NBC headline: Trump won’t rule out “seizing Iran’s oil,” a goal familiar from his rhetoric on Venezuela. [20:34]

Public Opinion

• New Quinnipiac poll: 75% of Republicans think Trump’s explained himself clearly on Iran, vs. only 5% of Democrats.
• Only 27% of independents say he’s been clear—potentially damaging if the White House cares about broad public support.

“The real takeaway here is not what does the White House need to do. The real takeaway is, my God, look how divided we are over something that Democrat presidents have supported in the past.”
— Larry [24:37]

---

5. Handling Mistakes: The Iranian School Bombing

[27:33–31:32]

• Deadly strike on Iranian elementary school (reportedly by a U.S. Tomahawk missile) is now a flashpoint.
• The administration’s story is contradictory. Trump claims, with no evidence, that Iran bombed their own school with a Tomahawk, despite other officials’ denial.
• NYT and others have evidence suggesting a tragic American mistake.
• Consensus from the panel: Investigate, own up, apologize, compensate. Delaying harms U.S. credibility.

“We’re the United States of America, and we own up to it.”
— Kevin [29:32]

“If it turns out this was an accidental strike... we need to emphasize: America does things differently. We don’t target children.”
— Larry [30:53]

---

6. Domestic Politics: The SAVE Act and Election Law Fights

[31:32–60:59]

The SAVE Act (Proof of Citizenship to Vote)

• Discussion on Trump’s push for passage and the pressures on Senate Republicans, esp. John Thune (who is resisting, citing Senate procedural hurdles).
• Panel notes: Requiring citizenship proof is popular with the GOP base, but tactics (“If you pass this, Republicans win the midterms”—Trump) undermine public trust.

“It’s pretty good politics to make Democrats stop all votes... so they have to explain to the American people why they don’t want proof of citizenship.”
— Larry [32:22]

• Kevin argues rhetoric has hurt the bill's bipartisan appeal: “If he just stuck to [the core policy], he would be better off.” [33:11]

Potential Effects if Passed

• Likely would spike political messaging and turnout efforts on both sides; complicated implementation—especially if close to Election Day—could burden states.
• Not certain to change outcomes unless races are razor-close.

Debate on Voter ID

• Lively back-and-forth over whether proof of citizenship requirements disproportionately burden certain groups (youth, women, lower income).
• Larry: “It’s the same proof you use for an i9 when you get a job.”
• Kevin: “More women vote Democrat than Republican... so it would hit Democratic turnout more.” [56:49]

---

7. 2026 Senate Races: Maine & Texas

[35:15–42:54]

• Maine:

  • Graham Platner (outsider, endorsed by several Democratic senators) vs. Janet Mills for the Dem nomination; Platner is leading primary polls and some general election scenarios, but baggage may emerge (“You haven’t heard half the stuff... Republicans are just waiting to dump it.” — Larry [37:31]).
  • “Do not bet against Susan Collins.” — Larry [38:05]

• Texas:

  • Cornyn vs. Paxton: Trump withholds endorsement, using it as leverage for passage of SAVE Act.
  • New polls show Paxton leading the primary, and a Trump endorsement wouldn’t assure Cornyn’s win.
  • “Trump is gathering info, using endorsement as leverage. Paxton might be the next Senator.” — Larry [40:01]

---

8. Listener Q&A—Iran, Elections, Kurds, Election Security

[45:33–60:27]

• Charles (former CIA): Asks about a possible Kurdish role in Iran’s war endgame.

  • “Kurds in Iran are a wildcard—when boots on the ground are needed, the U.S. and Israel have history with them.” — Larry [48:33]

• Matthew (Philadelphia):

  1. What are practical implications of the SAVE Act if passed?
  2. Should public be concerned about FBI efforts to secure voting data?

• Panel Response:

  • Election law changes mid-cycle will spur legal challenges, states bear the burden, and education could actually swell turnout.
  • “Republicans trumpet it... but passing it would mean the Senate drops the filibuster for major legislation.” — Mark [55:36]
  • On FBI subpoenas/recounts: “It’s about shoring up 2020 grievances, not actual fraud.” — Kevin [52:30]
  • On voter trust: “No matter what, the losing side believes the other cheated... Anything to reduce that helps strengthen our republic.” — Larry [51:15]

---

9. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I'd like to have a say in that [Iran’s new leader].” — Trump, via Larry [10:19]
• “If we hadn’t struck, they’d be dropping a nuclear weapon on Israel.” — Mark, paraphrasing Trump [26:10]
• “He says what he needs to say in the moment... like a day trader.” — Mark [24:37]
• “If we did this, we must apologize and investigate—We aren’t Russia or China.” — Kevin [28:42]
• “Kurds are the wildcard. They could be the solution if the U.S. won't put boots on the ground.” — Larry [48:33]

---

10. Episode Flow & Tone

• The roundtable maintains the informal, humorous banter typical to "The Morning Meeting," balanced with serious policy analysis and behind-the-scenes perspectives.
• Advertisements and light asides (sound effects, inside jokes) are sprinkled throughout, but the heart of the episode is straight-talking policy breakdown, media analysis, and political strategy, delivered in an accessible, sometimes self-deprecating way.

---

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment/Event | |------------|------------------------------------------------| | 05:00–09:00| Pentagon briefing, war progress, and endgame | | 11:20–14:00| Oil, Straits of Hormuz, gas price impacts | | 15:12–17:14| U.S.–Israel tension over war objectives | | 17:27–21:58| Trump interview, oil aims, public opinion | | 27:33–31:32| Iranian school bombing, U.S. accountability | | 31:32–35:03| SAVE Act, voter ID law, Senate battles | | 35:15–42:54| Senate races in Maine and Texas | | 45:33–50:13| Listener Q&A: CIA, Kurds in Iran struggle | | 51:15–60:27| Listener Q&A: SAVE Act, FBI, ballot security |

---

Conclusion

This insider episode of "The Morning Meeting" provided detailed analysis of the unprecedented U.S. military campaign in Iran, political maneuvering in response to the conflict, and the broader reverberations across Congress, public opinion, and the 2026 election season. The conversation skillfully shifted between serious strategic debate and lighter moments, equipping listeners with a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a shifting day in American news and politics.

---

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

All right, everybody, it's the morning meeting.

[C]

Thank you for being here.

[B]

This show is produced with bailing wire paper clips. It's a little. It's a little MacGyverish, but we're holding it together.

[A]

We are holding it together.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Kevin guy always gets it done, though.

[B]

He does. Kevin and Larry are here. I'm here. You're here. The morning meeting. Morning zoo. We're going to institute some sound effects. Some bells, some whistles, some. Some funny sounds.

[C]

Seltzer, bicycle horn.

[B]

Bicycle horn. The. The firing of the seltzer bottle is a great sound. Not used often enough, in my view, in morning video. Thank you for being here. This is based on the network News division's morning meetings. Typically, if this were a network News division morning meeting, somebody be eating a bagel. So gentlemen, either you have a bagel, eat them if you got them. Now in a moment, run through the daybook and then we'll talk about the news. The day. Heavy focus on Iran again today. But not the only topics we have to discuss because it's like going on in Congress, like going on politics. So we'll run the gamut. Some. Some call it a wide world of news. Some call it just the various things we cover. And then to your questions or comments, if you're here on. There you go. If you're.

[C]

Who did that?

[B]

I don't know who did that.

[C]

Is that the Morning Zoo sound effect? Is that what's going on?

[B]

These sound effects, we're building them over time. This is gonna. We're gonna morph into a morning zoo. And here's one thing that's going to be required. The first person we call on from the community every day, the first words out of your mouth have to be ba, ba, buoy. So just raise your hand to be ready. I just.

[C]

They're going to blame the radio guy for this change in tone. This is. That. I have nothing to do with this.

[B]

This is all. This is all. It's a combination of my creative genius and my boredom with the current format. So we're going to be morphing to a morning zoo. We're going to prank. We're going to be doing prank calls to my neighborhood. 711 could ask them if they.

[A]

Mark, you've got a great Rolodex. I want to prank call members of Congress and administration. You should try that. And said, forget seven.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, you got great contacts.

[B]

Call up and pretend to be called Republican members. Pretend to be Donald Trump. There's a lot going on, folks. Stuff is in the works. But today it's just a regular episode. So raise your hand if you want to be in on the conversation. If. If you want to be good and you're on X or YouTube, you want to write stuff in the chat, right? Good point. Kevin or Larry. I never thought of it that way. Or Mark, thank you for moderating such a thoughtful conversation. Rather than Kevin, Larry and Mark are fat and stupid. That would be considered smack in the chat. Don't put smack in the chat, please. Thank you for your attention to this man.

[A]

It's the camera. It's the camera. It's not us.

[B]

Yeah. All right. Quick, quick word from a sponsor and then the daybook. And then to your questions. Ladies and gentlemen, 20 off. A little thing called Cozy Earth. You may have heard of it. Some people are saying it's the greatest Cozy Earth ever. All I know is you can get 20 off. Go to cozy earth.com. use the promo code morning. It's considered a very good promo code Morning. Very good promo code. 20% off. What does comfort feel like to you? Cozy Earth crafts. Every piece with care. Sort of. Socks. Socks. We haven't talked much about the socks, but they do have socks.

[C]

They.

[B]

They'll guide you through your day with breath, breathable comfort. The pants are available, the bubble cuddle blanket for you and your animals. And of course, of course, the lux bath towels. All available to you right now. Go to cozyearth.com Experience the craft behind the comfort and make every day feel intentional. I don't know about you, but without these Cozy Earth pants on my day would not feel intentional. That's just a fact. That's not salesmanship. That's a fact.

[A]

These pants endorsed by Daisy. Endorsed by Daisy, that great German shepherd yesterday.

[B]

Yes, as we saw cozyearth.com promo code morning for 20% off. Daisy, incredible dog. Can type a promo code. Not many dogs can. Daisy can type a promo code. Yes. Little pause. The pause. The pause that refreshes.

[C]

This is it. The world as you know it is over. Completely done. It's not about to be over. It's over.

[B]

Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[C]

I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.

[D]

There is a longer term existential threat

[B]

that will arise when we create digital

[D]

beings that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[B]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance. I've always believed that it's going to

[A]

be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[C]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[B]

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, here we go, the day book. Here's the president's pool in town. He's back in D.C. cNN is the TV pool. Unfortunately, there aren't currently current public events. So what Larry lives for the what's her name? What's that lady's name from cnn?

[A]

Caitlyn. Caitlin.

[C]

Caitlyn Collins. Yeah.

[B]

Unless they open up an event, we'll be wasting a Caitlin Collins. Donald Trump clash Here's the pool. Tim Castus, New Media the Atlantic is the secondary print. Once again, there was thoughts that they were going to kick all of the unfriendly news organizations out of the pool. But you don't get much more unfriendly to Donald Trump than the Atlantic. Here's the president's schedule. Nothing open at this point. He had executive time at 8am which is means right now he's watching us. Good morning, Mr. President. Three o'. Clock. He participates in a policy meeting. Closed press 4:30 participates in a policy meeting. Also closed press don't know what the vice president doing yesterday. The vice president did two events that we didn't know about in the morning, or at least I didn't. He spoke to the firefighters and then he went to do the return at Dover for another American who was killed in the war. Already today, Pete Hegseth and General Kane briefed at the Pentagon. Very similar to the previous briefings. Very bullish on how things are going. Very praising of American forces. They said, as they have in the past, today will be the biggest day of the, of the campaign in terms of ordinances dropped, probably. If you're, if you're looking for news out of that briefing, the biggest thing that I heard was they said they shied away from saying the war is almost over the way the president did. They basically said it's up to the president where it ends. But as far as they're concerned, they're continuing and they evaded questions were pretty good, but they evaded most of them, including any they would escort ships through the gulf, which will that strait which we'll talk about in a moment. The House is out. House Republicans continue in Doral hearing today, amongst others, President Trump's political advisers after hearing from the president and Yesterday the Senate. 9:30, a closed briefing from the administration on Operation Epic Fury. There's a sanctuary Cities policy hearing with the Senate budget committee at 10 o' clock. They hear from the former Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf. Let's see, Senate subcommittee, Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution is hearing on Birthright citizenship. And 4 o', clock, Republican leaders huddle privately to discuss the path forward on the SAVE act, which is something we'll talk about in a moment because the president is asking John Thune to do the impossible. And while the good people of South Dakota historically have shown they can sometimes do the impossible, not this time. Punch Bowl. You guys heard of Punchbowl? You guys know what that is? Yeah, Punchbowl News.

[C]

Yeah, they're no town hall.

[B]

Punch Ball News is having their second annual conference and I don't know about their journalism at Punchbowl. I can't, as Pete Hank says would say, I, I can't speak to that one way or the other. That's a good sound effect. But their bookers are incredible guys. Look who they booked. Chuck Schumer, Sean Duffy, Steve Ricketts, Tammy Baldwin, Angus King, Adam Schiff and Josh Hawley. That's pretty good. So we'll see what comes out of that. Full coverage of all Punch bowl activities tonight. On two way tonight, elections today in Georgia and Mississippi. My colleagues have tried to build those up into a big thing. But really, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene is going to go to a Republican and I don't know, probably Benny Thompson will win. We'll see. All right. When is the war going to end, guys? That's how we're starting. Kevin, the president suggested it could end. As you know, yesterday I was touting the notion it might be over by Friday. When's it going to end?

[A]

That's, that's the million dollar question on Kalshi and all the prediction markets. And he said multiple positions in that press conference. It could go on for weeks and days. It could end up ending quickly again, as you just said, Pete Hagseth and General Kaine kind of dodged any questions about the timeline. Again, I think it's when the numbers show, whether it's economic indicators like the cost of gas or what have you, when they declare mission accomplished.

[B]

Larry?

[C]

Yeah, I think, listen, there's a reason why it was wise for them not to say that regime change is the goal here because then you've set a measure of success, which is okay, then you can't end until you have a regime change. I think if the goal of the military strike was to debilitate Iran's capability to threaten American interests and our allies, they're very close to Victory here. We've sunk 50 ships, and we've debilitated their ability to shoot ballistic missiles and. And cluster drones. So I think it's coming up pretty soon here.

[A]

I mean, Kane today said 5,000 individual targets taken out. But again, you also had the administration teasing that they wanted regime change at one point, Larry. So they teased it. You wanted to pick the new Ayatollah Trump.

[C]

Trump was asked, who should the new leader be? And he said, I'd like to have a say in that. You know, but, I mean, does that mean. That's the goal of the Trump administration and the Pentagon is that we're not going to end the effort until we get to choose who the successor is? I don't think that's the stated goal of this campaign.

[B]

All right, I listened to you both. You're both very thoughtful. I also was having Internet problems and other technical issues. My. My laptop's about to die, so I'm a little distracted, but I did listen. When's the war gonna end, Larry? Larry, when's the war gonna end?

[C]

It could be. I don't know.

[B]

Don't know.

[C]

Do you know? Does anyone know?

[B]

Wait, what's your best guess?

[C]

When the military achievement for the United States interests are achieved. Hold on. What is this new measure? At what point in American history have we ever been able to say the war is going to end? X, Y, or Z?

[B]

Okay, that's fair.

[A]

I mean, that's.

[C]

It's just a.

[B]

The president talked his. Talked his way to lower oil prices, lower gas prices yesterday. Quite a feat. Don't know if he can do it again. He. Last night, he threatened Iran about not letting ships go through the Strait of Hormuz. 115, please. And he said he's doing a favor for China to open it up. And of course, the Chinese are very reliant on Iranian oil. Not really clear to me. And of course, the Iranians are very reliant on selling their oil. It's not really clear to me that why China is allowing the strait to be closed. And some say it's not really closed, that it's open and the ships just have to have the proper insurance and the crews have to have confidence that they're not going to be killed if they go through there. So, Larry, is oil going to start flowing through here? What. What does the President need to do, besides the true social post, to allow ships to start moving? Because if ships start to move through the Straits of Hormuz, that'll eliminate a lot of the political pressure on the President Big time.

[C]

Big time. And that was, that was one of the things that I've been watching. Well I, I think that ships are moving through. In fact I saw some graphics yesterday that showed that they do have, they've got, they've had quite a bit through. The ships are turning off their sort of identifying transponders as they go through the straits so that they can't be targeted. And I think that they, we are seeing quite a bit. That's part of the reason why the oil dropped. Did we lose Mark completely?

[A]

We froze a little bit there I think but I do think we are starting to see. But I think, but we're also. Yeah, Larry, as you know kind of we're on a two week delay right in terms of what's happening over there in terms of affecting gas prices. So I think we're still going to see those prices rise over the next two weeks even with these ships moving and even with these guarantees that the president is giving both on the insurance front and on the security front.

[C]

But based on the indications that I'm seeing, I think we're on the back end of the highest prices of unless something disastrous happens. But I think that the pieces are in place now to get oil stabilized and gas prices eventually stabilized.

[A]

You heard it here first. Inflation is just transitory by Larry o' Connor.

[B]

Oh, that's hardly what I said.

[C]

Mark. How's your, how's your tech there, Mr. Halpern?

[B]

It's all horrible. It's all horrible. My, my. I picked up a, I picked. Glad I asked.

[A]

I know we, we lost Mark again.

[C]

It is, it is a problem. All right, well we can pick up a rundown from right now.

[A]

Well Larry, I think also too the interesting component is some of the reporting about China's interest in, in here. And I wonder your thoughts if it is true that China supply military support in terms of missile components as they're saying, and financial support to the regime.

[C]

Yeah. Oh, sorry.

[B]

Mark, what does the president need to do to open the straight up. Put, put military assets there. What are we waiting for?

[C]

Well, I think that the concern again we've sunk, we've sunk 50 ships in the Navy. The concern are these smaller boats from the IRGC that could throw, threaten the tankers by ensuring that the insurance companies are going to be covered is going to be a big part of it. And I think that they've put together a strategy. Again, you dropped out. But I mean I've seen reports and I've seen graphics showing that ships are in fact getting through the straits. Now it's just a question of getting them to volume. So I think that the plan.

[B]

And I heard one ship got through. How many ships have gone through?

[C]

Oh, no, I think. I think there was. Unless. Unless I'm seeing misleading graphics that are showing the ships going through. But I thought there was more than just one ship.

[B]

Well, so is it fully reopen?

[C]

I have not seen that it's fully functional, but I do believe that they're on the. The path to getting it fully functional. Here's the problem, Mark. As soon as ships start to go through and they're not threatened and nothing happens to them, I think that's when the ships are going to start going through and in volume and have there not be a problem.

[A]

All right.

[B]

48 hours ago, there were two things that suggested tension between the US and Israel. One was the Israelis hit some desalination and energy assets that the United States was reported to be unhappy with. And Kushner and Witkoff ambassadors, special envoys, were supposedly going to meet with Bibi today. As far as we know, the Israelis have stopped hitting those targets. And as far as we know, the Witkoff Kushner trip is off. Although they could secretly go, or they could go later in the week. Larry, what's the status of the US Israel, you know, partnership here is. Is there tension? I.

[C]

There's definitely tension behind the scenes, and I think that that's. Listen, both of these two issues, I think, dovetail into each other, which is the moment that the American military has decided and the Commander in Chief has decided that our full commitment to this effort is now reached its conclusion. We have seen what we measure as success. If that doesn't match what the Prime Minister of Israel meas success, that's when we're going to see some real conflict. At the moment, it appears as though they've been able to move forward, and whatever tension there was was resolved. But watch that space. That's going to be the biggest issue.

[B]

Kevin?

[A]

Yeah, there's always going to be tension. You know, the Prime Minister had a book on World War II about the Allies fighting together in terms of us and, and the Brits and the Russians. So there's always going to be tension. And to Larry's point, when you have divergent goals. Right. I don't know if we are totally in line in terms of how this ends and what we'd like to see. I think the Israelis would love to see regime change specifically in Iran, so they're not threatened continually with missiles, with drones, with. With supporting of These terrorist networks around the region, specifically targeting Israel. Again, we also have military goals in terms of their missile capabilities and their nuclear ambitions. But again, I think you're going to see that divergence play out, especially as we get towards the conclusion of what this action is.

[B]

All right, we're going to double back to the question of the end of the war. Because my Internet issues distracted me, I want to show you a few things. First, this is Trey Yingst. Do you guys know him? He's the Fox national correspondent.

[A]

You know Trey, he's a great guy.

[B]

He's an incredible correspondent. You know, people have had all these like 2 minute interviews with the President or 4 minute where they just call him up on the phone. He had 20 minutes with the president, summarized some of what they talked about this morning on Fox and friends. Here's that. 108, please.

[E]

I spoke with President Trump for about 20 minutes as he traveled back to Washington from Florida, getting some new insight on the Commander in Chief's thinking about Operation Epic Fury, the success so far, and what he thinks about Iran's new supreme leader. I asked him about Khamenei and he said that he's not happy with this election. He goes on to say, I don't believe he can live in peace. And as the president spoke about the new leadership selection in Iran, he also gave some new details on the timing of this operation and why it needed to take place when it did. He said, when we attacked them first, we knocked out 50% of their missiles and if we didn't, it would have been a much harder fight. He goes on to say no other president had the guts to do it. I don't want some president who hasn't got the courage in five or 10, 10 years to go in President Trump making clear that by taking this action, he believes that within three days if he didn't order these strikes against the Iranian regime, that Iran would have attacked first. And if they were able to get a nuclear weapon, they would have used it. Now, I asked the president whether or not he's open to talks with the Iranian regime. And he told me that he's hearing they want to talk badly. And he goes on to say it's possible. Depends on what terms possible. Only possible. You know, we sort of don't have to speak anymore, you know, if you really think about it, but it's possible.

[B]

All right, now here's David Ignatius on Morning Joe, raising two reasons why the war may not be able to end soon. One is the president's got no one to negotiate with. And the other is the Gulf states and other countries are worried that leaving the war undone, the war goals undone, might allow Iran to be a threat to them. And of course, Iran's already attacked some of them. Here's David Ignatius on Morning Joe 109. Please,

[F]

President Trump doesn't have anybody with whom he can settle this war yet. That's really the problem that was created by the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the former supreme leader, as the new leader of Iran. This is a person who's lost his father, his wife, his son. This is a person who's not going to be eager to make a deal with the United States. He's, if anything, harder line than what came before. And that's the dilemma. Final point. One source of mine who's been in one of the Gulf states said that the leaders of that country with whom he's been talking do not want President Trump to leave a wounded, angry animal across the Gulf that's going to come back and bite them. And so I think there is this fear still that having started the war, Trump has to finish it and find someone with whom he can make a deal that will work. That person doesn't exist yet.

[C]

So.

[B]

All right, lastly, NBC 114. I can tell you this. The president wants to destroy Iran's capabilities. We've talked about that. He'd like regime change, but he doesn't have to have it. But here's something he really wants. He wants their oil, just like in Venezuela. He wants the United States to get rich off this deal. Trump says, quote, does the NBC headline says it's, quote, too soon to talk about seizing Iran's oil, but doesn't rule it out. Obviously, if he talks about that openly, it can create some problems, to say the least. But he wants, he doesn't want to leave without, without making money off this, because that's what Donald Trump does. All right. Selling the war. Quinnipiac has a really interesting poll. Has the president explained himself well enough? And it's kind of incredible. Republicans say 75% say he's given a clear explanation. 22% of Republicans say no. Democrats 5% say he's given a clear explanation. I know we live in a polarized world, in a partisan world, but only 5% say he has. 93% he has it. But this is. Kevin, this would be devastating for the White House if they care about public opinion on this issue, and I'm not sure they do. Right. Today, 27% of independents say the president's been clear. 71% say he's not. Kevin, if you were trying to help the President, how would you improve that number? Like, he's already explained. Caroline Levitt's already explained. Is it the fabled Oval Office address? Like, what does he need to do to be clearer about the explanation?

[A]

Yeah, it's a good question. Maybe it's potentially even going to the region, you know, not having a Mission Accomplished banner behind him. But. But the draw of what that would mean in terms of the optics and the press coverage of the Commander in Chief flying to a war zone, obviously, you know, being safe about it.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And there would have to be a ton of military advance work that could potentially. You know, obviously you see the optics of the Dover returns. That should all give us pause in terms of these brave folks that have given their lives in support of this operation. But I think maybe that potentially the optics of that in the imagery of that might help support the narrative. Beyond that, I don't know. And that independent number should be. Obviously, we're silos, Democrats and Republicans, in terms of what the President does on any front. But that independent number and the fact that a similar poll also shows overwhelming lack of support for boots on the ground, which might be part of this, if the regime change element is still in play in terms of whether it be arming the Kurds forces that we talked about last week, or someone, some semblance of the US Military in order to achieve these goals, to seize that oil, to seize that island, as Professor Kenny was talking about in the chat. You know, that might be an element too.

[C]

Yeah. I don't know where that photo op comes from. First of all, the war zone right now for the Americans is the deck of an aircraft carrier. Right. I mean, we don't. We don't have any sort of ground forces involved here. And I think that that would be a dist from the operation. I think I. But I. Kevin, I think you're right, that it a proactive move by the White House to try to demonstrate.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah. So maybe that it's a meeting of those Arab nations who have joined and supported and other countries and have some sort of international meeting over there in the Middle east, in an Arab country, not in Israel, that shows that we've got a righteous coalition going here and that Iran continues to be the enemy. But ultimately that would be for politics. And I don't think that they're focused on politics right now. I don't think they think this is going to affect the. The election. This November, I think this is going to be long gone by that time. The only negative effect it's going to have is on the oil prices or gas prices. And I, I believe that will be resolved to. Or the White House believes that would be resolved is the better way for me to put that. So I really, I mean, Mark, when you look at that poll, I think that the real takeaway here is not what does the White House need to do. The real takeaway is, my God, look how we're divided. Look how divided we are over something that Democrat presidents have supported in the past.

[B]

Yes, but, but independents are with the Democrats overwhelmingly on this question of explanation, I'll say I'll make my point about it, which may be the most obvious thing I've ever said here. You know, Tom Friedman, Jerry Baker, others critical of the president. Because if you look at the president's statements, it's not hard to compile them. He's been all over the map on every side of every issue since this conflict started. How long is it going to last, what the goals are? He'll say anything. What about the oil? He'll say anything because that's, he's a day trader. He says what he needs to say in the moment to get, what he needs to get. The advantage of that is it keeps everybody off limits, off balance. And he can, he can say situationally what he wants to say, the disadvantages. Maybe that's the reasons independents don't understand the war aims, because he said different things. I don't think there's any cost to it now, but there are other people who certainly do, and I'll be curious to see. Yeah, go ahead.

[A]

One thing, Mark, I'd add to that, too, is, and I think on one of our shows, we talked about the overwhelming number in terms of the polling of Americans not wanting Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Right. That is overwhelming that the regime should never have nuclear weapons. I think, you know, it's been talked about, teased a little bit that there's could be some operations to retrieve some of the nuclear material that the Iranians have been working on. If that is a successful incursion to get that material. And the president goes on air and say, you know, this is what the capabilities were of the regime. We took out their ability to do this, we have their uranium. That might also change the narrative, too.

[B]

And he did yesterday, didn't get much coverage because again, it's all just words, words, words. He did yesterday on at least one occasion that emphasized the nuclear threat from Iran and said that if we hadn't struck them, they'd be, you know, dropping a nuclear weapon on Israel.

[A]

And that's really the only thing that polls overwhelmingly in terms of what Americans don't want to see, the Iran attack.

[B]

I just, I just hope if that's their real explanation, that they document it and make it true and not something that's just exaggerated. It would be my hope. The school bombing, tragic school bombing, massive loss of life of kids. And people keep telling me, three people yesterday and this morning said to me, we're undercovering that story not just because of the tragic loss of life and not just because the President's credibility, but because two of the three think this will turn to be the seminal moment in this conflict. Not sure if I agree with that, but yesterday, the New York Times this morning, another story which they claim documents that obviously the United States did it. If you look at the answers in the body language of everybody in the administration, it's pretty clear that they are. They know the United States accidentally did this. The President, though, continues to say something completely different, not supported by any known facts, although maybe the President knows something we don't know. Here's the President yesterday on the Iran school destruction, apparently by a tomahawk. 118, please.

[A]

Yeah, please go ahead.

[C]

Mr. President. You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a Tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school on the first day of the war. But you're the only person in your government saying this. Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that when he was asked, standing over your shoulder on your plane on Saturday. Why are you the only person saying this?

[A]

Because I just don't know enough about it. I think it's something that I was told is under investigation. But Tomahawks are, are used by others. As you know, numerous other nations have Tomahawks. They buy them from us. But I will certainly, whatever the report shows, I'm willing to live with that report. Yeah.

[B]

Kevin, what's the right thing for the President to do? He hates the loss of life. He hates children, most involved being killed. What's the right thing to do to honor the children who were killed, to acknowledge the mistake? What's the right thing for the government to do? Both. And I'll say, what's the morally right thing and the politically right thing to do? Spoiler alert. I think they're the same. But to extent you think they're intentioned, just tease that out. What should they do? Because the President can just continue to deny it.

[A]

I think the Answers are one in the same. To your point, Mark, I think you know, and you're seeing some Senate Republicans, John Kennedy, Todd Young, others pressing for an investigation into this, specifically in the Senate. So you're seeing Republicans come out in support of, really, we're the United States of America. We don't cover up things like this. If we did this, we need to investigate it, we need to apologize for it. We need to own up to it. We aren't Russia, we aren't China that carry out these attacks and cover it up. And I think the more the President delays that acknowledgement, the longer this story goes on and the more lack of support the President gets in this effort in Iran. And I think he should just come forward and say, if it is truly us and this investigation has played out that we own up to this and let's investigate how this happened to prevent this from ever happening.

[B]

War.

[A]

War is terrible. War is horrible. These things happen, unfortunately, where innocents are killed. And we're the United States of America and we own up to it.

[B]

Larry, should we find the families and give them all a million dollars?

[C]

Well, I don't know. First of all, did we do that to the families that Biden droned after the Abbey Gate massacre in Afghanistan? I don't know if there's a precedent for that. Sure. But, but let's be clear here. Yes, the President should do that if the facts bear that out. I still remain somewhat skep about this story because almost all of the news sources, primary news sources, are videos coming from the Iranian news agency and the Iranian government, number one. But number two, and more importantly, if it turns out that this was an accidental strike by Americans, we need to emphasize the fact that we don't target schools, we don't target children, we don't hide behind hide our military assets where children and hospitals are like Iran does, like terrorists do. This school is literally on an IRGC Navy compound. It's embedded within buildings that are legitimate military targets and assets. We did not target these children. If we accidentally hit these children, that's what defines how America does things differently than how terrorists do it. Where terrorists actually do target children. Where the terrorists funded by the Iranian government do target children and try to kill them.

[B]

I get all that, but how do we make whole these families? How do we take responsibility for. For it if the United States did do this accidentally?

[C]

Again, I'll defer back to what our past precedent has been because this is not the first time civilians have been hit during a military strike, Lord knows. But again, I'M more emphasizing you. The other question was what should the President say and do? Whatever the President says, it should be framed within the context of terrorist target innocence. We do not. This was an accident. And oh, by the way, maybe we shouldn't put an all girls elementary school surrounded by buildings of the IRGC military.

[B]

All right, we're going to cover some non Iran topics briskly and then to your questions and comments. If you're here on the platform would like to be involved, please raise your hand. If you've never raised your hand before, today's the day. The Save America Act. The President continues to urge the Senate to act on it. John Thune can't. And John Thune keeps trying to politely explain to the President he couldn't do it if he wanted to. It's not a matter of Thune's agreement with the President or willingness to do it. This would eat up Senate floor time. Democrats could offer unlimited amendments. I know the President sometimes calls for things that his advisors know are bad ideas and maybe they tell him and he disregards them. But Larry, what's the President hoping for here? All he's doing is fighting with his own team. All he's doing is asking for something that can't be done. What's the best case here for the President?

[C]

Well, first of all, I'd like to sort of let's accept a premise that maybe Donald Trump knows politics a little better than John Thune. John Thune has never really been in a competitive race other than when he won his Republican primary in South Dakota. Donald Trump has won some pretty tough political fights. And I don't know, I could be wrong about this, but I think it's pretty good politics to make Democrats stop all of the votes on the floor of the Senate and stand there and explain to the American people that we're going to grind everything to a halt so that we don't have any sort of proof that people who are registering to our vote are citizens. Make them die on that Hill. Make them actually spend some time communicating to the American people that they're not interested in ensuring only US Citizens are voting in our elections. I think there might be some political benefit to, to that, Kevin.

[A]

Listen, I think, you know, polling suggests that a majority, strong majority of Americans want voter id. We passed a bill that did that Democrats unanimously five years ago when we were in the majority. We tacked on some other things like making Election Day national holiday and things like that. When the president in that, in that speech yesterday in that town hall from Florida says If you pass the SAVE Act, Republicans will win the midterms. That's not great messaging and encouragement to the Democrats to even entertain conversations about how we can increase voter security in this country. Then that seeds us the moral ground to say, okay, this is a political sham that the President is trying to do in order to win the midterms. If he, if he just stuck to line, that was bad messaging. That's, you know, and falling on the heels a month ago of him saying he wants Republicans to take over elections in this country. Right. So, again, I think, you know, the problem is with the President's rhetoric on this. Majority of Americans support key components of this bill. If he could just stick to that, he would be better off. And he puts John Threat soon in unenievable position where John has said he's not going to change anything with the Senate rules. You try this and you fail in the Senate, it works even farther against, you know, Republican standing in the midterms. Don't, don't attempt to fail like that will happen because of Johnson's position.

[C]

From a Republican voter's perspective, there is a real danger here for John Thune and the Republican leaders because there's some thought now that they might lose their majority and they're gonna have to go to those states where they're in danger of losing their majority and say, yeah, you gotta keep us in the majority. And a Republican voter's gonna say, why?

[B]

Why?

[C]

You've got the majority now and you won't even move on this fundamental thing that 90% of Republicans want you to do. So they've gotta play the politics on this thing and actually tell Republican voters that there's some benefit of having them in, otherwise, why show up?

[B]

All right, let's talk about.

[A]

I mean, the base is certainly, and you know the base better than I do, the base is fired up about this. And again, if they fail, it's going to be a big black mark for, for the Republican Republicans and they're going to lose some seats over this.

[B]

Let's talk.

[C]

It's one of the reasons that that much promised Trump endorsement for John Cornyn has not come through yet.

[B]

All right, we'll get to Cornyn in a second, but let's talk about Maine first. This is critical as any race. If Democrats don't beat Susan Collins, they're not going to. They're not going to win the majority. Here's the latest polling in Maine. 123. First, please. This is a Democratic primary. As everybody knows, it's Platner the outsider versus the establishment choice, the governor, humor, support. But Platinum right now has three Democratic senators. According to this poll, Platinum is ahead of

[A]

50.

[B]

And here are the general election matchups against Collins. This is 122, please. This is, this is from Qantas, 800 likely voters. Collins basically tied with Mills and Platner way ahead of Collins in this poll. Way ahead of Collins. So two part question, Kevin, who will be the Democratic nominee and who will be a strong, who would be a stronger general election candidate against Collins?

[A]

Graham Platner is going to be the Democratic nominee. He's raising a ton of money. Janet Mills, God lover, is somewhat milquetoast. She is the Susan Collins of the Dem side. We've tried this a number of times and obviously Susan Collins has staying power in this race. It is interesting, Mark, to your point, to see so many Democratic senators endorse, aside from Chuck Schumer, Martin Heinrich being the third one of that mix from New Mexico to endorse Graham Platner. Problem is, and you bring this up all the time, Mark, in a general election, Graham Platner hasn't faced the real scrutiny. There's a lot of things that have come up about tattoos, about previous statements, about things like that, and heaven help us with the money, Susan Collins is going to have to define him in that general election.

[B]

Larry, why would Platner be up? Why would Platner be up? It surprises me that Mills is. Is even and Platner's ahead because he's

[C]

the new kid on the block and he's, he's got some charisma and he's offering something new to voters. And neither Mills nor college.

[A]

That populist message, that Donald Trump message.

[C]

But I'll tell you this. Yeah, go ahead.

[B]

Well, Kevin, who.

[C]

There's going to be a flood. I'm sure Kevin is hearing the same thing I'm hearing, because I'm hearing it from Democrats in D.C. that you have not heard half of the stuff you're going to hear about Graham Platner. The what, what I'm hearing is that Republicans who no dirt on this guy are just waiting. That's like, do we do it now or do we do it after the primary?

[B]

So, Kevin, you said Platner would be the nominee. Would he be the stronger general election candidate?

[A]

No, I think Janet Mills would likely be. You know, you take on an older lady with an older lady and. Yeah, let Mainers decide.

[B]

Yeah. Larry, who'd be, who's the nominee going to be?

[C]

Larry Platner is going to be the nominee unless this flood of dirt and opposition research gets released ahead of time. And I think I. You do not bet against Susan Collins winning her seatbelt.

[B]

When is that primary? Is that primary in May?

[C]

It's a June. I thought June.

[B]

June. Okay, let's talk.

[A]

I thought it was bet against Susan Collins. And those new sneakers are hers, too.

[B]

Texas is super interesting and Larry's going to love these poll results because the President still hasn't endorsed. There's talk that he's only going to endorse Cornyn if. If they give him the SAVE act. And that's the only way to get what's his name, Paxton, out of it. Paxton out. Here's, here's the political headline. Trump is delaying Senate endorsement to pressure GOP senators on Save America Act. Cornyn and Paxton are vying for a nod from Trump. Here is the polling from Texas. Larry, whose poll is this?

[C]

This is the Texas. Oh, God.

[B]

Something, something. Anyway, yeah, maybe it's a good poll. I don't even know. But here's the numbers. Paxton over Cornyn straight up by 8. 49, 41. If Trump endorsed Paxton, Paxton Lee grows dramatically. 58, 32. And if Trump endorses Cornyn, Cornyn barely moves. Paxton comes down, but it's a toss up. So the poll suggests that a Trump endorsement of Cornyn does not, you know, make Paxton the favorite or Cornyn the favorite. And of course, if Trump endorsed Cornyn and then Paxton stayed in, he could beat him and then it'd be the worst of all worlds for the Republican Party. And again, remember there was that oppo dumped on terror Rico yesterday. That guy's considered so vulnerable now that a lot of Republicans say we can beat him with Paxton. We don't need John Thune's candidate to win. So, Larry, just what's going to happen? Is Trump going to endorse Cornyn? Is Paxton going to get out?

[C]

You've summed it up beautifully. And I think Paxton, if, if this plays out the way it looks like it's playing out, Paxton's move to get out in front of that anticipated Trump endorsement and say, I'll drop out if cordon gives me the sayback, that may be the most brilliant political move of the year. I think Trump. I've been saying this for a week now, over a week. Trump is not in a rush to make this endorsement he's got. He's going to use it as leverage. He's gathering more information. And the more the polls come in and reinforce Paxton as a viable candidate in the general, I don't think it's going to come. I still think Paxton is your next senator from Texas.

[B]

And the poll and the primary, the runoffs, weeks away, so Trump doesn't have to be in a rush necessarily.

[C]

Kevin, how's this, it's the day after Memorial Day.

[B]

Yeah. How's this going to end, Kevin?

[A]

And the runoff is a smaller, more rabid right electorate than what we saw the first go round. And I think, you know, Larry brought up a great point the other week when we were talking about this race. The president can't be so far out of lockstep with the MAGA base. He did, you know, he endorsed a guy in this Georgia special for Marjorie Taylor Greene that isn't the rabid maga, you know, fearing guy. And he, he knows his base and he knows where the people are, and that's why he's, you know, he's teasing all this and holding out on this.

[B]

Is it, is it possible that Thune and the other establishment figures, look at that poll, look at the, the Talarico thing video saying he loves, he loves trans children more than anybody. But his, his family. Is it possible they look at that and they say, yeah, if Trump doesn't want to endorse Cornyn, if, if, if Paxton wants to be, if there's a nominee, that's fine, we'll hold the seat. Is it possible, though, they'll look at that and say, look at those two things and reach that conclusion, maybe therefore back off or.

[C]

No, honestly, I don't think all this fear of Talarico and that they really wanted Cornyn to get the nomination because Talarico has a chance. I think that was bul. Think it's just, it's, it's the establishment protecting their own.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So the fact that it's going to be a Republican winning in November, they just, they don't like Paxton. That's the bottom line. And, yeah, that's, that's what this is always.

[A]

But it's also, but it's also a question of resources. And if Montana is coming into focus, if Iowa's coming into focus and they've got to spend resources where they shouldn't have to in a state like Texas. That's, that's the play there, too. And, well, that's, you know, expanding the map.

[C]

But what, what, how they're going to spend more money getting Cornyn to win the runoff than they'll need to spend to help Paxton win the general unless

[B]

they get Paxton out. But, but I will say in a normal race. Given all Paxton's personal baggage and legal baggage, he wouldn't even be in the in the hunt. But the fact that he's this poll suggests that he's stronger than than Cornyn in the in in the runoff means, you know, there's some he's defined gravity

[A]

and the $110 million being spent against him, throwing everything at him in terms of adultery and

[B]

all right, quick word from a sponsor and then please raise your hand if you're here on the platform and you want to get in here. Ladies and gentlemen, is a part of the program where I announce you can get free money. If you buy gas at gas stations, buy food at supermarkets, or eat in restaurants, the free Upside app can get you free cash back. All you do is buy stuff the normal way. Use it through the app and you get free money back, including with the special promo code mark you use the free Upside app. Use the promo code mark your first gallon of gas or first tank of gas that you buy using the app. You get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon you buy on that first tank bank. As I said, the free Upside app gives you money back, cash back, no points and no conflict with any other points you earn on your credit card. Over a hundred thousand participating locations around the country users of the app earn $1 million in cash back every week and you can use it again with your existing credit card and loyalty rewards. So right now, Upside has given away over a billion dollars to date. To find out how much you can earn, download the free Upside app and use the promo code mark to get that extra quarterback on every gallon in your first tank. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Don't money folks. I'm trying to do you a favor.

[G]

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 was Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talk 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.

[C]

When you get momentum, you step on the gas.

[B]

That's how you get separation from everybody else.

[C]

I was at Harvard Law School as law looked up.

[B]

Let me tell you something.

[C]

There's kids in my neighborhood putting in

[A]

Sheetrock that are smarter than you.

[B]

AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff.

[A]

It is never going to disrupt physical

[B]

blue collar trade skill.

[A]

And the guy just looked at me and he said it's bloody impossible. So I asked him this question. I said it's impossible.

[B]

Unless that's.

[G]

Podcast with me, Matt ebert. Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcast.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Charles, welcome in part A two way on mute. Tell folks where you are and what's on your mind. For Larry and for Kevin.

[A]

I wish we were where you are, Charles. That's a nice little virtual background.

[D]

This is the virtual background, but. There's my agency.

[A]

So you can see it looks like it's a CIA. It's going in and out with background.

[C]

Yeah, Spook.

[B]

I was.

[D]

I was medically retired. I'll be brief because I can see a lot of other people have hands raised.

[B]

All good, go ahead.

[D]

In 2016, it was when I first. Sorry.

[B]

That's all right. Take your time, Charles. You're all good.

[D]

I got up from a nap, was using the restroom and it was in

[A]

my house

[D]

and I blacked out. Talked to my wife, went to the er, they didn't find anything. Went into the agency, talked to oms, they couldn't figure out anything either. Basically after I went through a ton of medical doctors, heart, sleep based, everything, they basically just turned me over to a neurologist and he prescribed a drug that I now cannot remember. It's a new feature that I have with my memory, Stratera. Is that right? Anyway, sorry. Anyway, it did clear up for a time and I was able to continue working in. I was at the time I was working counterintelligence center. And after that I was able to go over and work over at the nro. Anyway, around Covid time I started having issues again and it was.

[B]

Charles, I'm gonna interrupt you. Sorry, I'm interrupting. No need to apologize. I'd love for you to ask a question if you have one. I'm glad you shared all that. And I'm going to want to talk to you offline. But there's a question you want to ask the guys.

[D]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[B]

That's okay.

[D]

Not really, but with Iran, because I kind of paid. I still like. I don't do the US politics as much because I really prefer to be atypical.

[B]

What would you like to ask about? Iran, Charles.

[D]

With Iran, what. The way this could end better is if the Kurds can move in from the west and set up a place for the refugees to move in.

[B]

Okay, let's talk anyway, let's talk about that. Thank you for that. And that's all right. Thank you for that. CHARLES Larry, what are the prospects of the Kurds? We saw the original talk about them, but what's the prospect that they could be part of some sort of solution?

[C]

Jennifer Griffin first reported from Fox News that the Kurds were making a move. Then she had to revise that report and it was Kurds within the geographic territory of Iran, where there is the ethnic population is there. I think that there's a real possibility there, and I think that it's something that both the Israeli government and the American government have a history with them and a relationship with them. And I think that that's sort of a wild card that we could throw in when boots on the ground are needed instead of our boots.

[A]

KEVIN exactly right. And we talked about this last week, just the fierce nature and fighting capabilities of the Kurds. I think that could potentially be a solution on some of this in terms of the inability and the lack of interest in American boots on the ground in terms of targeting this regime. That could be a solution. Also. Charles, just want to say thank you for your incredible service to this country. I know There was a 60 Minutes segment again on the Havana Syndrome, which is what we colloquial have called what you have encountered. I'm glad that there's more of a light being shown on this. I encourage everyone. It was a 40 minute segment alongside the Pete Haggis has story from Sunday night on 60 Minutes. Everyone should watch that because of the fear of these new capabilities, the small microwave emitters that the Russians likely have developed that now we are in possession of, and hopefully you will get some truth and some actual support from this government that you served so brilliantly. CHARLES and thank you for being a member of this community.

[B]

CHARLIE Amen. CHARLES Charles, thank you for sharing your story with us and your strength with us and your question. And we look forward to talking more. Thank you for being part of two way. Grateful to you. Okay.

[C]

Yeah. Keep Charles in your prayers, everybody.

[A]

Amen.

[B]

MATTHEW welcome in. Thank you for being here on mute. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind. For Kevin and for Larry, Thanks, MARK hi Kevin and Larry. I'm in Philadelphia and thank you. I want to echo that. Thank you, Charles, for your service. My question, I want to pivot a little bit. Mark what is the practical implication of the passage of the SAVE Act? I understand there's there's much of the discussion right now is how it gets passed, but let's assume it does get passed. What is the effect on 2026 and beyond? And second question for everyone. Should Nexters be paying attention to the FBI's efforts secure voting data from myriad states at this point? Matthew, those are two excellent questions, and I have to say I would bring humility to answering them both. But let's, let's I'm gonna let my colleagues answer the second one, and then I'll address the first one. Larry, thoughts on what the president's up to with these seizure of voting records?

[C]

I don't know, honestly, and I actually, you know, have some sources within certain departments been part of this, and nobody's saying a dang thing to me. And there hasn't been any reporting about it. Right. I will say this in a broader respect, though, and it touches on the SAVE Act, I hope, and I'm sure Kevin will agree with me. One of the most debilitating developments in our constitutional republic that utilizes democracy to choose our representatives is that in every major election, it seems that the people on the losing end believe in their heart that the other side cheated and that they rigged it in one way or another, whether it's Russia or whether it's hanging chads or it's that's, you know, stuffing the dropboxes during COVID Whatever our elected officials can do who are in authority that can mitigate that and reduce the concerns of people feeling like there's a rigged game in our elections, they will go so far to help strengthen our republic. We need to the reason why we have election integrity laws is not because there have been violations, but it's to ensure for the rest of us that there there can't be any violations. And that's why these things are important.

[A]

Kevin Matthew, two great questions. I think part of the element is of both what we saw in Georgia a few weeks ago with those subpoenas and Tulsi Gabbard being on the ground there and see ballots. And now what we're seeing out of Maricopa County, Arizona, two key counties that propelled President Biden to win the 2020 election, I think there's likely some hope from and misplaced hope on on the part of the president that he's going to discover some widespread malfeasance or something like that and then draw attention to that to make the claim that we need to pass these laws, or if not, I need to take this executive action and take over these elections. So I think it's again, the president is still, despite returning to the white House still obsessed with the 2020 election and continues to bring it up. He brought it up again just last week. So it is still this singular obsession of the present, and he's going to subpoena as many ballots as he can to try and make the point, but the point isn't there for him to make.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Kevin, is it possible that he's obsessed with it not because of his own personal loss in the election, but because he actually believes that there's a undermining of legal voting going on in this country and that in certain states or certain counties they need to have stronger laws? Is it possible that his obsession is because he. He cares about the process in this country and that we have election integrity?

[A]

I mean, I'd like to say that's the case, but I do think he's still obsessed with losing to Joe Biden and the fact that as an incumbent president, it's really hard to do that. And he's still sore about that, despite winning the popular vote for the Republican Party is something we haven't seen in a generation. In his return to the White House, I think it's still a singular obsession about that, not necessarily about the voter integrity element.

[C]

Would you say the same thing about Hillary Clinton and Russian collusion?

[A]

Again, losers try to justify their losses all the time. We saw it with Stacey Abrams, to your point, in Georgia. Right. Refusing to concede. Democrats do it, Republicans do it. We called into question that.

[C]

That's my point.

[A]

Bush versus Gore because of that, too. So any efforts to delegitimize a free and fair election is not. Is not good in this country, especially where Matthew is located right now in Philadelphia.

[B]

So, Matthew, I'll say again, I have a lot of humility about this because I think it's kind of unpredictable. I think here's some things that would happen. The Republicans would trumpet it as an accomplishment and try to use it to energize the voters to turn out to say, look, we're delivering and if it does pass, and I know you're interested more in the. The substantive effect rather than the process, but an impact of the process would be Republicans would have basically gotten rid of the filibuster in order to pass a piece of legislation. And so it would open the Pandora's box then for the Republicans for the rest of the year. So there'd be other priorities that they would say, well, let's pass this and let's set aside the filibuster. Again, I think the Democrat, it's probably the.

[A]

And Mark, not just the filibuster, but also the amendment process too.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

As part of this.

[B]

Which is.

[A]

Which is critical if you can fast track legislation. Yeah, that's also, you know, a key component here too.

[B]

100%. So this is not definitely true, but Republicans think it's true and I think Democrats would probably say it's true. More Democrats would then face a hurdle to voting than Republicans. Right. So there'd be a massive effort on the state level and the national level to publicly educate and say, hey, if you're a woman who's changed your name or man who's changed your name, if, if you're one of the people who would make it harder to vote, there'd be public education for them. And ironically, of course that could swell turnout because then be money poured into Democrats saying we can't let the evil save act hurt our chances of winning the election. And that could produce a swell of public education and voter turnout efforts that could help Democrats. They may turn out more people than they otherwise would have turned out. Could Larry, wipe that look off your face? What do you play?

[C]

No, the look on my face is why. Why is that affecting Democrat voters? Republican or women are married too. I mean there's that you just said it would affect Democrat voters from coming out. It. The law has nothing to do with whether people are Democrat or Republican.

[B]

It doesn't. But.

[A]

Well, more. More women vote Democrat than Republican. Right? Correct.

[C]

Not married women. Not married women who had to change their names. Not married women.

[B]

Don't know. All I can tell you is. All I can tell you is the re. The groups that are most likely to be affected by this would be women would be lower income voters, college students, younger voters, they're more likely to be affected. That just a matter of logic.

[C]

By proving that you're a citizen to register.

[A]

They're more like trying to track down your. Your birth certificate and stuff like that.

[C]

You know, if your argument is that it's only Democrats who are not only basic.

[B]

It's not a bad.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

It's not a bad circumvent. So younger voters. Younger voters probably have a harder time finding their birth certificate than an older voter would just think that's just logically true.

[C]

Not really. I think that a younger voter probably has better access to a birth certificate. Kids know.

[B]

Your kids know where their birth certificates

[C]

are, Mike, because they're closer to their birth. You know, for me it was several decades ago for what I was born, but everybody knows.

[A]

Make sure you have that Democrat voting daughter her birth certificate. You know, God Bless the Navy.

[B]

The last thing. The last thing I'll say is the states, right. The burden would fall on the states to administer this, right, because they're still the election administrators, state and local, and it'll. I think it would be as it was during COVID once you, Once you change the rules of the election and the requirements of the election, close to the election. And by the time this passed, it would be close to the election. You're asking the states to do more with already an overburdened system. And the states that adapt to this better will do better, and then there'll be litigation about it, et cetera, but it's very unpredictable. Mark, just to push you a little further, do you think it has an impact, a noticeable impact, or will it change the outcome of the midterms in any close race? Sure, it could, but in general, no. No, it's not gonna. It's not gonna keep Republicans from losing the House or Democrats from winning the House. It's not gonna change the results of any individual Senate race, unless they're razor close, in which case, you know, the wings of a hummingbird can change the outcome. Larry, Can.

[C]

Can I, Can I just add, again, I get so frustrated, and I apologize, but the exact same identification to prove your citizenship that you would need to register to vote in the Sarah is the exact same proof of citizenship every single person in this country has to show when they get a job, when they fill out their i9 form. So all of those people who can't find their birth certificate or passport, do they have jobs? Do they work?

[B]

I didn't hear anybody argue with you about the merits of whether it should pass, Larry.

[C]

Well, no, but you were making the argument that it's very difficult for certain groups to get those things.

[B]

Well, I didn't say therefore the federal government and it just, it just on.

[C]

I know, I know you didn't say therefore.

[B]

Going to be.

[C]

You were just going to be more.

[B]

Making the case to be. Caroline. Briefing is just. Caroline Levitt has just announced she's going to brief at 2:00pm today. Larry, it just. It's more difficult for some people to vote. Doesn't mean the law shouldn't pass. It just makes it more difficult.

[C]

I know, but. But everyone who argues that it makes it difficult for people to vote, we already have laws that. Then it's just as difficult for those people to get a job. Just recognize that. Yeah, because it's the same law. It's this. Fill out an i9 form, register to vote. Same thing.

[B]

I think it's the same requirements to become a member of Costco pretty much.

[C]

Matthew, thank you. Constitutional right. Thank you, Matthew.

[A]

But to Larry's point, Matthew, I think our, our problem is Democrats on the messaging on this and I fought Chuck Schumer on this, just talking about the ID element of this because again, it makes us look like we don't trust our voters or we think less of them that they can't get these ideas. You know, Democrats passed voter rights unanimously in the Freedom to Vote act years ago. Right. So, but we also wanted to make Election Day a national holiday. We wanted to make it easier and

[C]

drop boxes and ballot harvesting, you guys.

[A]

And that's the difference.

[B]

Hold on, hold on. You guys finish the show. I gotta get over to Serious XM to roll into our second hour of the morning meeting on channel Serious Examine. I'll be on next up later. My 8 for 28 Republic Democratic most likely presidential nominees as well as the latest on the Iran war. And Josh Gerstein of Politico join me then. Larry, Kevin, gentlemen, see you soon.

[C]

Mark, good luck over there with the sound and everything. There's a bit of an echo. I wonder if he wasn't, I think he had a speaker on or something or, or something.

[A]

I just, I just know that you look angelic with this lighting and I hope you keep.

[C]

Dude, I swear the sun was not out when we started the show. I'm not used to this, you know why?

[A]

The radio show at what God forsaken time in the morning?

[C]

Larry, I just realized what it is. It's, it's the time change. This is where the sun is usually an hour ago. Damn it. It's that damn time change. All right. All right. Well, Kevin and I are going to continue, we're going to continue debating voter ID and proof of citizenship. It's going to take about seven hours, but we're going to resolve it by the end of it. Right.

[A]

We're just going to morph into Professor Kenny's after show at 11am we'll just keep that conversation going.

[C]

I would just add Kevin if I could take a partisan swipe. You're right, it does make it Democrats with their messaging make it sound like their voters are dumb or incompetent or incapable of doing basics or, or here's the upside. It makes it sound like Democrats want to cheat. Could be one of the other.

[A]

I mean that, that's part of, that's part of the narrative too. I think it's more the previous to that point where we don't think married women can figure this out and stuff like that. Then we think, you know, there's going to be cheating and stuff like that. I still maintain this is a solution and start a in search of a non problem. We have the safest and securest elections in any modern democracy administered by Republican.

[C]

And Afghanistan was safer and secure. When they had purple fingertips.

[A]

When they had a purple finger. I'm just saying that was a solution. In search of a non problem. But again, we'll continue the debate for later on.

[C]

Yes, yes.

[A]

You want to run us through some of the promos?

[C]

I think Mark, Mark did them all on the way out. But sure. Hang on. We talked about episode of Next up, dropping Today with Mark with Josh Gerstein and then. Oh, and then what's two way tonight? That's a big one. Oh my gosh. And names that are fun to pronounce. Two way tonight. Tonight at 5pm with a Casa Arabi.

[A]

I did it.

[C]

And director of IRGC research at uani. That's exciting. And that will be.

[A]

So we're gonna have some subject matter experts on the situation in Iran. Mark had a great two way about Iran a few days ago too with some experts on the region. That was great. So certainly encourage folks to check that out and and to learn more about this the the situation at hand from those subject matter experts.

[C]

Kevin, one other question quickie. This should be an easy one. When will the war in Iran be over?

[A]

That's it. That's the million dollar question.

[C]

Who knows? Why does he throw these questions at us? We don't know when the war is going to be over.

[A]

He loves to quiz us and rightly so. You know, President Truman, when will the

[C]

war against Japan be over? Well, we got this bomb. Let me tell you what's going to happen.

[A]

August 9th. We knew it. And again, so everyone should hop over to Sirius right now, channel 111 and then of course join Professor Kenny the day after his birthday to keep the conversation going at 11am and again the morning meeting will be live tomorrow. Not with us sadly, but with Hogan the Great, Hogan Gidley and Jaime Moore. We'll be back with Mark tomorrow. Tomorrow at 9am and we'll be back Thursday.

[C]

Are you back Thursday? I'm back Thursday.

[A]

I'm not back Thursday but I'm back Friday. We'll both be back and of course too, as Alan rightly points out, there's a great Evening Post show after the morning, the evening meeting as well. So tune into that with more details in the chat for everybody.

[C]

So everybody has I'm not going to close my glass.

[A]

No, keep that light. Thanks, everybody.

[B]

That is rough.