← The Morning Meeting
The Morning Meeting
White House, Hegseth Fire Back at "Fake News" Washington Post Report on Bombing "Drug Running Boats"
01:04:39
Loading summary
Transcript187 lines
- [00:03]
A
Get your mother loving ears on because your big time radio DJs got news. PayPal lets you choose how you want to pay for all the stuff. With PayPal I can pay in store, pay online, or pay overtime.
- [00:15]
B
What's that?
- [00:16]
A
You want this translated into song?
- [00:18]
B
I hope you're sitting down.
- [00:20]
A
You can pay your own way. You keep those ears on, you hear. Don't just pay, baby. PayPal. Learn more@paypal.com this is it.
- [00:32]
C
The world as you know it is over. Completely done. It's not about to be over. It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build.
- [00:41]
A
AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great.
- [00:47]
B
Thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.
- [00:52]
A
The There is a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create.
- [00:56]
B
Digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves.
- [01:00]
A
We have no idea whether we can stay in control.
- [01:02]
C
While others say that AI will usher.
- [01:05]
B
In unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that.
- [01:08]
C
It'S going to be the most important.
- [01:09]
A
Invention that humanity will ever make.
- [01:11]
B
This really will be a world of abundance.
- [01:14]
C
And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple.
- [01:22]
B
Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. Good day everybody. Welcome back. It's the morning meeting for December 1st. Thank you for joining us. We have a great show today with two great special guest co hosts you see here, Ash and Hogan Gidley. Welcome to you both. Thank you for making time for the morning meeting community and the wider two way community. Ashley, not everybody's familiar with you, even though you're a regular on their various screens of different sizes. Just tell a little folks about where you come from originally and how you got involved in politics and government originally.
- [02:04]
C
I'm a Texan. I'm from Houston, Texas. I'm excited to see what's going to happen with our Senate race there. But I've been in Washington 25 years, up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, two stints in the White House, Obama, Biden, and then was playing Pelosi's communications director for the four years of Trump, ran the impeachment war room. So I've got a couple of badges of honor. And yeah, so now I got my own firm and consulting CEOs in crises right now.
- [02:29]
B
Yeah. And regularly communicating with people in Democratic politics.
- [02:33]
C
Oh absolutely.
- [02:34]
B
Hogan Gidley has been here before, of course. Also a native of the South. All three of us grew up south of the Mason Dix line. Let's be clear about that. Hogan, you know, I grew up south of Mason Dixon line. Right. Maryland. Maryland. Right. Right there. Right. Right below Hogan. Besides advising the speaker of the House, who else? Who else is the benefits of your services these days that you can reveal? No, I don't want any Emirates or anything like that.
- [02:59]
A
Right. Well, I got my start with Mike Huckabee when he was governor of the great state of Arkansas. And I've known Sarah since he was 19. So it's been a long time. I've been in this game for sure. People like Rick Santoruma ran for president. I was comms director for Elizabeth Dole when she ran for reelection.08 got swept out kind of in the Obama wave. And as you know, I served in the first Trump administration, principal deputy press secretary in that White House. I was his national press secretary on the campaign. And now I do various things around town dealing with crisis comms as well as Ashley does on the other side. But also, as you mentioned, doing some work with the speaker of the House as well.
- [03:37]
B
Yeah. Well, I hope there's some crisis that develops during the hour because we have two crisis experts here. Thank you both for being here. Ashley and Hogan will be with us, Tom, and you'll meet some nice people throughout the month of December. Different folks will be stopping by to help us with the hour. So we're grateful to you too. And you'll see who's coming later in the week. But they'll be here today and tomorrow. Got a bunch of stuff to get to. And as always, we're forward looking on this program, so we'll try to project forward. But a lot of stuff is going on, particularly both internationally and of course domestically. And we'll do the daybook in a moment and then we'll run through some topics and then as always, we'll want your questions and comments. If you're here on the platform, you want to be part of the conversation, please raise your hand. If you've never raised your hand before, today would be a good day to do it. Honor of a lifetime for many to be able to speak with Hogan and with Ashley. And then we'll tell you about three more two ways coming later today. So we'll tell you about those as well. Quick word from a sponsor. Our friends at Cozy Earth got a great email over the weekend from one of you. I won't say who because I didn't have time to ask for permission, but she said, my husband never buys clothes, doesn't like to buy clothes. There's some men like that, but I got him a pair of the Cozy Earth pants. And I thought, well, Mark says they're great, maybe he'll like them. She said he's never once in their years of marriage, I believe decades of marriage, if I understand correctly, he's never once gotten a pair of clothes from her and had anything positive to say about it in this case. He said, could you get me another pair of the pants? He said, these are the best pants I've ever had. Get me another pair. So the folks at Cozy Earth right now will let you do the same thing for yourself or for loved ones. 40% off. Go to cozy earth. Com use the promo code 2WMM. 40% off. You can get your own pants or pants for someone you love. Give the gift of everyday luxury. Again, 40% off. Using the promo code 2WMM. You can buy the pants, the blankets, the bubble cuddle, she bubble cuddle blanket. Everything you want on there is available to you right now. Go do it. All right. The day book, the daybook. Here we go. The president today has an event at 4 o' clock that's a currently closed press. He's signing what he's calling congressional bills. Did not know there was another kind of bill and just a little while ago they added to the schedule at the White House. Caroline Levitt will be briefing at 1 o' clock where she is sure to get questions about many of the topics we're about to discuss. And we'll show all of that to you at six o' clock on two way tonight. He's also at sometime this evening doing a town hall tele town hall with the party's congressional candidate. We'll talk about that in a minute. In Tennessee, no known schedule for the Vice President today. The first lady and the second lady are at joint based Andrews meeting with military spouses. House and Senate both back. The House Rules Committee is considering a bill on NCAA barring student athletes from being considered employees. Leadership of both House leaderships are meeting separately. The Senate's voting on nominations. They have a lot of nominations for judges and other executive branch appointees on their schedule for this week. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner headed to Moscow meeting I believe tomorrow with Putin, although Putin sometimes famously leaves people waiting. So you could have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, but it might not happen till Wednesday. President Zelensky is in France in Paris meeting with Macron. And here we go for other legal matters. Luigi Mangione is in New York State Court today. Pretrial hearing supposed to last much of the week. Supreme Court's hearing a couple Cases one related to copyright infringements. Cox Communications has supposed to pay a billion dollars for using music that they weren't supposed to use. That seems like a lot of money. And the Supreme Court at 11 hearing a case on immigration. Indiana legislators continue to resist the White House's pressure Republicans to redistrict their meeting today to talk about whether they're going to do it. New Orleans today administration's launching a series of their immigration enforcement operations in and around New Orleans. In Tennessee 7th congressional district this race is tomorrow we'll talk about it. My sources think the Republicans gonna win, but we'll see. Mike Johnson this morning doing a rally with his candidate Matt Von Epps. I can tell you this, if Matt Von Epps loses, dishonest Republicans will say that he was a bad candidate. Seems perfectly good to me. But if you lose a special election, you always turn out to be a bad candidate. Anyway, as I said, the president and Speaker Johnson tell a rally for Van Epps this evening. The speakers also 4 o' clock on Fox News with Van Epps. And then tonight at six o' clock this RNC chair Joe Grutters and the speaker and Van Epps doing a rally in Clarksville, Tennessee. Jerome Powell has event at Stanford at 8 Eastern. Again week ahead President or Tennessee seventh congressional races tomorrow. A lot of early votes in already. Witkoff and Kushner in Moscow. And Jimmy Kimmel's guests this week include Miley Cyrus and on the Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon is welcoming amongst others, Sydney Sweeney. So those are two highlighted guests amongst the long list. All right, that's the daybook. Let's talk Russia, Ukraine. The president last night on Air Force One. He talked on Air Force One. I gotta tell you, we have a ton of audio. It's not great. In the greatest country in the world. You would think that we could hear the president United States when he speaks to the public. But he spoke last night. We're not going to play that. We're going to play Marco Rubio from yesterday. Pretty optimistic. This is 106. We had another very productive session, building off Geneva, building off the events of this week. As I told you earlier this morning, our goal here is to end the war.
- [09:32]
A
But it's more than just to end the war. We don't just want to end the war.
- [09:35]
B
We also want to help Ukraine be safe forever so never again will they face another invasion.
- [09:40]
A
And equally importantly, we want them to.
- [09:43]
B
Enter an age of true prosperity. All right, I'm going to play one more piece of sound. Then finally, our very patient Co host will get in here. Tom Cotton, his key voice, tends to try to be supportive of the administration on things when he can be. When he disagrees, he speaks up. He's been silent as far as I can tell, until this morning on Russia. So here he is on Fox and Friends talking about the peace talks and what his perspective is. 121.
- [10:10]
A
So what should Witkoff's focus be when.
- [10:12]
B
He talks to Vladimir Putin? What would actually get his attention?
- [10:16]
C
Senator, if I put you in that.
- [10:18]
A
Room, he's going to be there with Jared Kushner.
- [10:22]
B
Well, Secretary Rubio said the meetings in Miami with Ukrainians yesterday were productive. He said the main focus, as it should be, is not just ending the fighting, but making sure the fighting doesn't renew in the future. Vladimir Putin is solely responsible for, for this unprovoked war of aggression, just as he was in 2014 when he invaded Ukraine the first time on Barack Obama's watch. So the key points, I think, for Ukraine is that they main defensible territorial lines, geography matters here, and a military that can deter Russian aggression in the future, no matter who is the president of the United States or Ukraine or Russia. I think that's what the focus of Mr. Witkoff should be as he goes to Russia. And he should make it clear that President Trump means business. We're continuing to arm Ukraine through Naito. We've imposed sanctions on two major Russian oil companies. President Trump has called for Congress to pass a new sanctions bill. The pressure will continue to increase on Vladimir Putin. He will have more to lose in the battlefield and in his economy than if he comes to the negotiating table now to end this war that he started. All right, pretty hawkish, but supportive, which is what I expected when we eventually heard from him. Ashley, where, where do you think you. Are you bullish or bearish on the prospects of a deal?
- [11:31]
C
You know, I'm, I don't anticipate there will be a deal here. I think the question, though, is on whose terms, whether or not there will be a deal and whether Ukraine will accept it. It's my understanding, based on everything I've read and heard, that the President is leaning toward settling this thing on, on Russia's terms. I mean, he's always been pro Putin, you know, since he came into the White House. And so I think he'll, you know, that won't, that won't change. I mean, what I find interesting is Senator Cotton basically saying putting the blame on the war on Russia. I don't think that that is a shared sentiment within The White House. So I think this is, that, is that question there. Who is to blame, who started, who provoked, who's responsible is really at the center of all of this. So I think that's what's going to continue to complicate this matter. But I don't see there being a peace agreement anytime soon.
- [12:21]
A
Hogan, how far in the past am I allowed to go? Since this is a forward leaning show?
- [12:27]
B
Yeah, you may reference the past as.
- [12:28]
C
A, just don't bring up Joe Biden, okay? Leave Joe Biden.
- [12:32]
B
You may reference the past as a tool to analyze the future. Hogan.
- [12:35]
A
Okay, so let me just go a little bit past and then we'll go into the future. I remember because I'm old enough to do so. When it was Barack Obama who told Russia that they'd have more room to negotiate after the election, of course, Hillary Clinton with the Russian reset and she wanted to have a better relationship with Russia, which makes sense, by the way. Joe Biden, who said if it's a minor incursion into Ukraine, it'll be fine, we'll let, we'll let that happen. So we're in this mess because of feckless failed policy from the past on the Democrat side. Donald Trump, though, is the president now. He's got to fix it. I imagine we are further along the path to peace than we have been in the, in the previous administration because Donald Trump understands how the world is. He doesn't pretend it's how he wants it to be. He knows how it exists currently. He understands. Volodymyr Zelensky, someone that the left told us, assured us, was of course a joke, that he was just some failed comedian, that he was fully corrupt when Donald Trump was president. Now all of a sudden, when Joe Biden was president, he was Churchill somehow. Some stories came out over the weekend. There were some oligarchs receiving billions of dollars, millions of dollars from American taxpayers. That's a problem. But that doesn't really address what we're talking about today. And looking forward, Mark Halperin, which is how do you get to a peaceful solution? Donald Trump has been very clear. He wants the fighting to end. He wants the bloodshed to stop. He will do whatever he can to work with both sides of this matter to get that accomplished. But he also said on countless occasions it's really going to be up to those two men. It's their two countries, it's their two constituencies, it's their war torn nations that are facing the brunt of this. So to the extent that this country America can broker that deal and help do so on the global stage, because I do believe we are now more feared, we are now more loved and respected than we have been in the past. We can do that to some degree. I will make this caveat, and I think Ashley's right. I don't know if we're going to get something out of this meeting because foreign policy is extremely nuanced. Oftentimes you're dealing with nations that hate each other. It may be something that sparked up out of nowhere. It may be a battle or conflict that's been going on for thousands of years. Either way, there are all types of little chips to be moved around on this playing board here. And it looks like Donald Trump and his administration, at the very least, is at the center of it, trying to come to a peaceful solution.
- [14:55]
B
All right, just a little update just now post on X from Zelensky saying he's with Macron. And they did like a conference call with the UK Prime Minister and Steve Witkoff to further discuss what was discussed in Florida over the weekend again, as Witkoff heads to Russia. So let's just close this one because we'll be talking about it all week. Ashley, I know you're bearish. 20% chance there's a deal by Christmas.
- [15:27]
C
I don't see it happening.
- [15:29]
B
So less than 20.
- [15:30]
C
I don't see it. Definitely not happening by Christmas. I mean, the question, I mean, the issue, though, is Ukraine's not at the table. How do you negotiate a deal without them being at the table? I mean, that's what's making this all too complicated. And again, I mean, you, you, you compound that with the President's sort of admiration and love, unrelenting love for Putin. I mean, that really challenges the negotiations going forward. So I don't anticipate that we'll make it very well.
- [15:57]
B
But they, but they are, they are at the table. They just spent the weekend in Florida. They just did a conference call with Witkoff. I mean, they may not be getting the deal of a lifetime, but they are being listened to, right?
- [16:08]
C
Yeah. No, I don't disagree with that. I mean, I think they're right. They're at the table. But the point, though, is whether or not they're actually, to your point, being heard at the table, whether or not their interests are being considered at the table or whether or not it's just theater. And that's really the question here.
- [16:25]
A
In a jumpsuit or in a suit. It seems like Zelensky's here a lot, talking to a lot of folks, he's at the table here bending the ears of our elected officials. Not to mention the fact it wasn't too long ago when Donald Trump said, I think Ukraine can win this war. I'm kind of sick and fed up with Russia here because they're not coming through and following through with their promises on their side of the table. And let's not forget, Russia would have, in my opinion, been able to have wiped out Ukraine in one fail swoop had it not been for the aggressive weapons that Donald Trump gave Ukraine in the first administration. So he clearly sees this as the reality that it is.
- [17:03]
C
I'm not indicting the president at all. I mean, don't get it wrong. I'm not indicting the President.
- [17:08]
A
Oh no.
- [17:09]
C
I mean, my question is the issue is going forward whether or not there'll be a deal by the end of the year or by Christmas. And I don't see that actually happening because, you know, every, every deal that's come out according to Zelensky is really one sided and so, and that's held and that's accepted by the international community as well. So I think that is the sticking point. Whether or not we can get to a deal that everyone can agree on.
- [17:33]
B
We got, we got to move on. But, but I will say, talking to people in the administration in the last 36 hours, I actually think there's a better than even chance there's a deal by Christmas, which is a big change. Big change for me. We'll see. But they're very bullish. And.
- [17:49]
C
That deal in Gaza.
- [17:50]
B
So it just, it just depends. I think it just depends on if Putin really wants to end the war. Putin doesn't want to end the war. There's no deal that's possible. All right. Pete Hegseth rare bipartisan bicameral concern about the strike, the first strike of the many strikes that have taken place in the Caribbean or maybe it's Caribbean, I never know. Here's the Wall street journal headline 107 Congress Opens Inquiries After Report the U.S. targeted Boat Strike survivors. This is based all based on this Washington Post story, which is a little ambiguous about what happened. The President last night on Air Force One was asked about Pete Hegseth and Hegseth defense of the operation. Without specifics. The President was asked what he knew about a so called double tap, a second strike that the Washington Post alleges was intended to kill two shipwrecked people who could not defend themselves, which if true would be in violation of international law and American law. Here is the president on Air Force One last night. Number 108, please. Talked a little bit about the strikes.
- [18:51]
A
And the controversy around.
- [18:52]
B
Secretary.
- [18:54]
A
I don't know anything about it.
- [18:57]
B
He said he did not say that.
- [18:58]
A
And I believe. No, I, I, he said he didn't do it.
- [19:05]
C
He said, he never said, would you be okay with that if he did?
- [19:08]
A
He said he didn't do it, so I don't have to make that decision.
- [19:14]
B
A second strike that killed people, even in the first strike.
- [19:20]
A
Number one, I.
- [19:21]
B
Don'T know that that happened.
- [19:22]
A
And Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about. So we'll look at, we'll look into it.
- [19:31]
B
But, no, I wouldn't have wanted that.
- [19:32]
A
Not a second strike.
- [19:34]
B
First strike was very lethal.
- [19:36]
A
It was fine.
- [19:37]
B
And if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn't happen.
- [19:41]
C
Does that make you.
- [19:41]
A
I have great confidence.
- [19:44]
B
I don't know.
- [19:45]
A
I'm going to find out about it. But Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.
- [19:51]
B
So Congress is going to look into it, and the President's going to look into it. Hogan, there's, there's, there's ambiguity. And some people are saying, well, maybe he didn't order that second strike, but his second strike was consistent with his orders that everyone be killed. What are your, what are the questions you want to know the answers to? Tom Cotton said he wants answers as well. So what are the questions you'd like answered now on this, if any?
- [20:13]
A
I think, I think, I think the investigation that Congress does, I think the investigation inside the administration will be, what did Pete Hecseth do? What did he say? What did he want accomplished? And right now, Pete Hexeth is being very clear that none of this happened, that this is all a machination, a lie from the mainstream media. And look, the amount of times this particular publication has lied about the Donald Trump administration and used shadowy sources as opposed to people on the record, is, is not countable. It's too many times to even think about.
- [20:48]
B
Then, then why, then why, why is Chairman Wicker launching an investigation on something if it's just fake news?
- [20:55]
A
Hold on one second. Are you, are you trying to tell me that in this town, someone doing something for their own political gain or.
- [21:02]
B
Benefit, why is it, why is it in Chairman Wicker?
- [21:05]
A
I'm not saying, I'm not saying it's not genuine. What I'm saying is, of course he's going to go look into it, and he should. That's fine.
- [21:13]
B
Do you have any unanswered questions about it?
- [21:16]
A
Look, I have a lot of unanswered questions about a lot of things across the federal government. I will say, though, interestingly enough, from the broader landscape, a political fight here is about to ensue. Because for whatever reason, it just seems like this administration is focused on preventing illegal drugs from coming into this country and killing American citizens. The previous administration left the border open. This one closed it down. So when they decide to designate drug lords as terrorists, then obviously they are going to try and attack them at every turn. And I wish everyone was on the same page of we don't want more drugs pouring into the country. It just seems like one side of this isn't worried about that. They're worried about preventing drugs from coming to the shore.
- [22:00]
B
Okay, let me ask you one more question, and then ask Ashley to say what her unanswered questions are. If. If the Washington Post reporting is accurate, and I don't. I know you don't like the Washington Post, but you can't rule it out. I don't believe. If the Washington Post reporting is accurate, would it be wrong? Would you consider it a violation of international law or American law to do that?
- [22:22]
A
Well, if the Washington Post reporting was accurate, then obviously Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to win the election. I mean, they've done this a bunch of times, so whatever, they're going to write the story.
- [22:33]
B
So you're saying you're. You're saying you know it's wrong, so you won't address it. You're like the president. Entertain hypothetical.
- [22:38]
A
No, I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals. I will say, though, they can write the story and they can ask the questions, but these shadowy sources from inside the government that tend to try and erode the credibility of those at the top, I think that's deplorable.
- [22:52]
B
Ashley, what are your unanswered questions, if any, about what happened in this operation?
- [22:56]
C
I mean, let's be clear. I mean, the Washington Post reporting is really only compounding the issue. I mean, the issue was the question whether or not it's legal, what the administration's doing in terms of bombing these boats, whether it's. Now, the question amounts to whether or not it's a war crime or whether or not it's murder. I mean, of course, both chambers are now investigating this issue because of that reason. Even if you take the Washington Post reporting out of it, there's still these questions that need to be answered. I think President Trump and Hexif owe the American people an explanation. Is it regime change because that's what Senator Cotton said on television, that Maduro needed to go, or is it about the drugs? I'm not really sure which it is. But they ultimately owe the American people and now the international community an explanation as to what the objective actually is here. I mean, because there's some conflicting accounts here. Why is President Trump pardoning the former president of Honduras, which flooded the United States with cocaine? I mean, if this issue was about drugs, then let's stick to that. Let's make it about the drugs. But it seems to me there's a lot of conflicting interest here in the president. Not knowing even what HECSEFF did or whether or not the order was right is a failure of leadership. And so that's what this thing amounts to. I mean, is HECSEF sort of getting off by bombing people and killing people, or does the president sort of asleep in the Oval Office and has no idea what's going on? I mean, all of this is problematic. And I will say the president's comments on Air Force One is really only making the problem worse. I'm surprised he even went there to say he had no idea. And, you know, he's trusting hecsef. I mean, that's really gonna only exacerbate his problem and further amplify these investigations. So, you know, I think the Republicans and Democrats on the House and the Senate side are not going to let up on this. And I think it's just going to be even greater problem for the administration.
- [24:49]
A
Every president. Every president, though, would say they support their secretary in that position.
- [24:55]
C
You don't know, I mean, about people dying, I mean, about committing Internet, you know, war crimes is a failure of leadership. Why not say nothing? Why not say, I'm looking into this, rather than he said no or it didn't happen. I mean, he said he's going to.
- [25:09]
A
Trust the person he put in charge of the department. That's nothing.
- [25:13]
C
The buck stops with the president.
- [25:16]
A
Of course it does. But there's my bigger point, which is yet again, somehow, some way, Donald Trump has gotten the Democrat Party to be on the side of a terrorist and a drug lord. It blows my mind.
- [25:28]
B
Well. Well, the president's. The president, through his pardon, has put himself on the side of a drug lord.
- [25:34]
C
Exactly. I mean, the point is. The point is we've got drugs from.
- [25:38]
A
Pouring into this country. He is killing those who do it.
- [25:41]
B
Do you understand?
- [25:42]
A
Like, nah, I think we're going to protect the terrorists.
- [25:44]
B
Do you understand? Do you understand? Do you understand the pardon he did. Togan, can you explain that?
- [25:49]
A
No, I, I, I didn't, I've not even seen the reporting. I know you said he's a cocaine lord or whatever, but. Yeah, I've not seen the.
- [25:57]
B
Well, he was convicted in America. He was convicted in American court. We don't have time for that. Unfortunately, Maduro. The president confirmed his conversation but didn't talk about the details that had been previously reported by the New York Times Wall street journal editorial board. Today113 basically says the president now has elevated Maduro. So high headline, the high stakes in Venezuela. Trump shows the showdown with Maduro and only one will win. And basically says the president can't back down. I actually, I'll just say what I think, I think they're overstating the case. He can back down. He can try to get him out or not. But, and I've said I think he'll be gone by Christmas. Ashley, do you think Maduro will be gone by Christmas?
- [26:36]
C
I do, I think he will. But, you know, again, I think I just wanna reiterate the point. I think the president owes us an explanation as to what's going on here, what's really afoot. I mean, there's questions about whether or not we're gonna commit troops, whether or not we've committed war crimes. I do believe that at the very least, Hexif needs to go to Congress and explain himself.
- [26:56]
B
Yeah. Hogan, Maduro will be gone or no.
- [26:59]
A
I think so. Look, I lived through this in the first term. The Boltons of the world inside the administration and what their attempts were in that country. So I think this is kind of the culmination of several decades of problems with Venezuela. And I think this could be the moment that tips the scale.
- [27:19]
B
All right, let's talk about Kash Patel. There have been, sometimes there are attacks by what Hogan would call the deep state anonymous quotes. And you see that in the Washington Post story about Hagseth. But there's a story leading the New York Post website this morning. By Miranda Devine, who's, who doesn't typically break hard from this administration. Headline, Damning report labels FBI rudderless ship under Cash. Patel with him and Dan Bongino more concerned with building, quote, personal resumes. It's a scathing report. It's not really, it says it's by agents, it's all anonymous. But it says a lot of them are supportive of the president. But, but, but Hogan, how could Miranda write this piece? How, how would you explain, is this a signal to the president Is it a signal to Patel? How does that happen that some of a columnist who's in a publication that's typically supportive would write something so scathing?
- [28:24]
A
Full disclosure, I am friends with Cash Patel. I know him really well. I'm friends with Miranda Devine, too.
- [28:29]
B
Okay.
- [28:29]
A
Well, what struck me in this situation was, as we just talked about, as I'm maligned, I think rightly so, the Washington Post, for its decades of failure, whatever, this publication tends to lean to the right for a whole host of reasons. And there's reporting, I would argue, that that defends that claim. Sometimes I think in order for people to get the president to try and do something, they will feed the right media, and I mean correct media for him to see, but also right from a political standpoint, for him to see as well. It sounds to me like there are people in that agency who just don't like Cash Patel. And while I think he's done an incredible job, and I think if you polled maga, they'd probably say he's done an incredible job as well, there are people in that and call them a deep state. Call them folks who just don't like politicals being hired, whatever it may be. They are trying to get Donald Trump to do something. They're trying to get his attention, and they're using someone like Miranda Devine. Now, I'm not saying Miranda Devine's not an incredible reporter, because she is. And I'm not saying she's an unwilling or unwitting or witting stooge in this. I'm saying she has reporting. She put it out there. I think the people who put the story in the ether, though, are ones that really want the president to do something. Probably unjustified, but whatever. They just want to have more control. And Caspitel is running that place in a manner they don't like. So they're going to try and use the media to wag the dog, so to speak.
- [29:58]
B
Ashley, the president reads the New York Post pretty religiously. Do you think this story will have any impact on Patel's standing?
- [30:04]
C
Well, it seems to me that the president soured on Patel for some time now, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of the first sort of victims and is fired from this administration. But, you know, I deeply appreciate Hogan's perspective, but the reality is we've got to get to the substance of what's being reported, not about demonizing, you know, media outlets and reporters. I mean, like, let's just stick to the substance of being reported what's being reported, and that is that the morale is down in the FBI. People lack confidence in the FBI director, which is a problem. That he's misusing taxpayer money to fly around to ufc, to use FBI, just to fly around to UFC matches to go play golf. His girlfriend now has security that the FBI provides. I mean, all of this sort of wasteful government waste that Patel and others sort of railed against when they were on the outside, now they're participants in it. They're deepening the swamp, as we would say in Washington, D.C. so that's really the question here is whether or not there's something to all of this substance. And the other, I would say the reason why I believe that there is is because those same agents have complimented Patel and the Trump administration, saying they got rid of the DEI effort, which they appreciate, that there's been a refocus and a repriority on cases. So there is some, both positive and negative. But I think the negative we have to take very seriously. When you've got the FBI agents say they don't have confidence in the FBI director, that's a problem.
- [31:35]
A
Yes. But I'm most certain many people who are in that agency and across this federal government are not happy with getting rid of DEI or not getting rid of WOKE policies makes that, you know, makes them furious. They like that type of nonsense. So I would imagine.
- [31:52]
C
No, they complimented the administration for getting rid of it.
- [31:54]
A
Some have. They may have complimented, but it doesn't mean they like it. They may have just been, you know, kiss and tail like they typically do. I would say, though, this is, let me say one thing about sources and I'll give this, I'll give this anecdote. But it happened many times. Reporters would sit in my office in the White House and say to me, we have two sources that say X about a meeting with the President. And I get the information. I say, wait a minute, I was in the meeting. Didn't happen. I'll go on the record. The reporter will inevitably say, yeah, but I trust these sources. I'm like, okay, but I'll go on the record. I call them Billy Badasses. These two Billy Badasses are going to come to you, you and try and tell you a story, but don't have the guts to put their name to it. Yeah, I think I trust my reporting. So this happens all the time, using anonymous sources to further a narrative. And I think this is happening here. But I will say security for his girlfriend, things like that. He can't just do that it's because of death threats this administration has seen, which I would imagine are infinitely more than previous administration.
- [32:56]
B
You're cherry picking a little bit, Hogan, because. Because that's one of the allegations. But there's a ton of others. There's a ton of others in that story. That's what I'm saying about him not.
- [33:05]
A
Wanting to wear a jacket walking down the plane. Okay, fine. Reporters will always cover palace intrigue over policy. They always will.
- [33:15]
C
We saw this play out with the Charlie Kirk investigation. I mean, you can't convince people of what we actually saw in terms of Patel's actual failure to lead the agency. So, I mean, you know, this, this, like the Venezuela thing is not going away. Both, both chambers and Republicans and Democrats are going to be investigating Patel in these accounts.
- [33:35]
B
Yeah. Patel and Hagseth are on a different place today than they were before. I don't know that they'll leave, but they're in a different place. All right, a few more topics into your questions. Please raise your hand if you want to get in on the conversation. Some really negative polls for the president. They continue. Again, you can't say fake polls because it's all of them show his approval rating really low and people still super concerned about the economy. This weekend, the man who many think will be the next Fed chair, Kevin Hassett, was out doing shows. Here he is. Well, we won't show it. He was on Face the Nation. He's very upbeat. He's very heartened by the holiday shopping. Hogan. Well, let me ask Ashley first. Ashley, what's your appraisal of the state of the economy now? What's good, what's bad?
- [34:22]
C
I don't know what's good. I think that the president is trying to reverse some of these tariffs on coffee and other, other goods, mostly in the sort of grocery section of our economy. I think that that's positive. I mean, so, you know, an acknowledgement that the tariffs was a bad, bad economic strategy, I think is a good thing. I think what's not working is what we're all experiencing, that prices have gone up 12% in the last two to four years, that they're only, you know, that our economic situation's only getting worse for too many Americans. We saw that play out in the November election where it was a complete rejection of Trump's economic agenda and the Republicans, big beautiful bill, or whatever they want to call it. So I think this situation's not going to get any better for the president. By their own accounts, the economy is in a recession, inflation is too high. Again, by the administration's own accounts, we're in a recession and inflation is too high. So you've got to take them at their word. And this is what people are experiencing in their everyday lives. And so I don't, you know, I don't see much good. I only see it getting worse. And I think that is a sentiment that's shared among the American people. I think 70% of folks who voted in Virginia said themselves that they're tightening their pocketbooks because they anticipate that the economy is only going to get worse. And so I think, again, that is a shared sentiment across the country with president being at 60% on disapproval on the economy.
- [35:52]
B
Hogan, before you jump in, three quick things. Appeals court has upheld the disqualification of Lena Haba to be the top prosecutor, U.S. attorney in New Jersey. This is another court saying that these appointments, these special appointments are not kosher, as we say in South Carolina. Second, CNN and others reporting the president's having a meeting at the White House tonight with his top national security advisers on Maduro and what to do there. And then I had one more thing, but I'm going to skip it for now. Hogan, thoughts on where we are on the economy and the president's standing with the people.
- [36:27]
A
Okay. One of the most offensive things you can do to a voter is tell them what they are experiencing isn't real. You saw that with Kamala Harris and Joe Biden telling us that the border was closed. It wasn't telling us that the economy was good. It wasn't telling us that crime was down. It wasn't. The difference here is when Donald Trump goes out and says the economy's better, he's right. It's truthful. That's the difference. However, do the American people. Well, hold on.
- [36:57]
C
Are we talking about the economy is better?
- [36:59]
A
I mean, again, I'll give you a few stats.
- [37:01]
C
The treasury secretary said we're in a recession.
- [37:04]
A
I'll give you a few stats. Inflation was at 9% under Joe Biden. It's now down in between three and two and a half percent thanks to Donald Trump and his policies. Groceries run an all time high under Joe Biden. They're now lower. Gas was at an all time high. It's now lower. Energy was at an all time high under Biden. It's now lower under Trump. The border is closed. All these things happen. But we're talking about the economy here. The American people aren't necessarily feeling all the good of it because a couple things, One is the big beautiful bill, 67% of the American people didn't even realize the the country's largest tax cut in history is in that bill. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime, doesn't take effect until next year. That's part of it. There's a lag. In addition though, I think the American people, you got to be careful here as the administration messages it moving forward and I think they're doing a pretty good job of it. That is what the American people feel may not necessarily jive with reality, but you have to couch it in those terms because it is way better. The economy is measurably, provably better than under Joe Biden, but it's not where it was in 2020 under Donald Trump when he left office. So he's got to get back to those numbers if at all possible. And I don't know that's possible because they were so out of control under.
- [38:22]
C
The previous administration making the mistake that you just cautioned against. You're trying to convince people that what they're experiencing isn't reality and what they're experiencing is a bad economy. And again, at the president's secretary, treasury secretary's own words, we're in a recession. So but you're actually making the mistake that you're cautioning against, which is trying to convince people that what they're experiencing isn't reality. So I said a lot of it.
- [38:45]
A
Wouldn'T take effect and I told them to be to caution them on the messaging because in reality, getting back to where the numbers were pre pandemic is going to be quite difficult. But you've already beaten Joe Biden's economy by miles.
- [38:58]
B
Okay, so here's so let's look at one of the closing ads for the Democrat in this House special in Tennessee tomorrow. Again, it's a huge pro Trump district. Republicans are trying to nationalize this turnout the president's voters. If they do, the Democrat will lose. Here's her ad. And it plays on all the themes we're talking about, which is change versus more of the same. And it's the economy, stupid. Here's that spot.
- [39:26]
C
Angry about high grocery prices, worried about health care costs, feeling burned by tariffs. Then December 2nd is your day to shake up Washington. I'm Afton Bain and in Congress I'll work for you, not the rich donors or special interests. Together we can bring balance to Washington by making health care more affordable, bringing.
- [39:46]
A
Down the cost of living and protect.
- [39:47]
C
Workers and small businesses from job killing tariffs. I'm Afton Bain and I approve this message to Shake up Washington.
- [39:56]
B
So, Hogan, she's pretty liberal. They've dumped on some opposition research on her. I still think based on everyone I've talked to, Republican will probably win. But just talk about why she's going to overperform the president in that district and talk about what Republican reaction will be if she does win.
- [40:11]
A
Well, I do think, well, if she wins, I don't, I don't think she's going to win. I mean, you talk about how we go to postmortem, talk about how good the candidate was or not. She is a horrible candidate.
- [40:23]
B
Yeah.
- [40:23]
A
Bring up things she herself said in the past. She acts like it's a smear campaign when she was the one who said it's fine to firebomb.
- [40:30]
B
Hogan, you're absolutely, you're absolutely right. She's good in set pieces. But she is a horrible candidate. And Republicans saying they're going to, but she's going to overperform the president by a lot. Kamala Harris by a lot. So, so how worried are Republicans about the resonance of the messages in that spot?
- [40:47]
A
Well, I don't know. They're worried about the resonance of the message. I think they can take lessons from the previous midterms in Virginia, for example, and some of the other states where Ashley and I were on set together in New York about those very things. I think this is another one. You hear her, for example, talk about affordability and I think it's adorable when Democrats do that considering most of them live in the highest tax states on the planet that are taxed by state Democrats. So it's kind of their own fault. But there is an affordability crisis. The question is, what are you going to do about it? And I've been doing campaigns for a long time. I love that type of ad because just say we're going to lower prices, we're going to make sure everyone lives with free money and we're going to give you unicorns and rainbows every day. There is no explanation of what you're going to do. But that's a campaign. I get it, but I just don't know that the affordability argument, while a good one. Now we're on. Now Donald Trump understands it, The Republican Party understands it. So now where do we fight on the affordability issue and who can bring you more affordable prices? That's going to be the real issue. I don't think this race necessarily is a, it's a microcosm of where the country is. But Nationals, while right leaning, still has a lot of liberals in that city, of course. So I think the Republican wins here. I think the Democrats a bad candidate, but I think it does allow Republicans that chance to go. All right, how do we reset and reload going into midterms for next year?
- [42:10]
B
Ashley, if she does, if your candidate does come up short, what will the lessons learned be for your party?
- [42:16]
C
I think she will come up short. I don't anticipate that. We think that she'll actually win. I mean, Trump won that district by 60%. So let's be real. I think, though, what we're going to be watching for is to see where Trump and the Republican bleed support, whether they bleed support and where they bleed support. Very similar to New Jersey, where the President, his coalition broke down, you know, where he bled support among Latino male voters and other young voters. So I think that's what we'll be looking to see. Not that whether or not we'll win, but whether or not this affordability issue still has potency and whether or not there is a weak fractioning of Trump's base in his coalition that he built going into the last presidential election.
- [43:02]
B
All right, you both think the Republican's going to win, right?
- [43:06]
A
Can I give you some breaking news right now?
- [43:08]
B
Yes, sir.
- [43:09]
A
I think Mike Johnson is live on Fox right now because the speaker of the House is giving a speech, I think, for Van Epps, and he has Trump on speakerphone.
- [43:20]
C
I mean, the interesting thing here, Mark, is that Republicans are throwing everything they got at it. They're clearly afraid.
- [43:26]
B
They've had to spend a lot of money.
- [43:28]
C
They're expending everything. They're throwing all of their aces at this point, this one race. And so that really speaks volumes of what they think about their vulnerability in the nation right now and whether what they think about the vulnerability of the economy and how people are processing this economy. So, you know, appreciate Hogan, but the reality. But what I do appreciate is him acknowledging that there likely will have to be a reset among the Republican Republican Party and the in the president and.
- [43:56]
A
Actually knows everyone wants to blame the messengers, Right. It's always the Tom's people they blame. It's like, hold on a second. I can't sell a bad product, Right?
- [44:03]
B
All right.
- [44:03]
A
I think Trump has. Has a good product. But how you get the people to know that and feel that is a whole different conversation.
- [44:10]
B
Yes. All right, quick word from another sponsor, then to your questions. Please raise your hand if you want to get in the conversation. Imagine a company that makes great clothes, free shipping, free returns, free exchanges. And imagine it's a company whose clothes are beloved by the Hogan Gidley, about whom, by the way, ZZ Top wrote the song Sharp Dressed Man. Little known fact Hogan, why do you love the stuff from Poncho so much?
- [44:32]
A
It fits incredibly well. It's extremely durable. It's very comfortable. Everything from their winter stuff, their corduroys, their flannels, all great. They're like fishing gear. Shirts are kind of lighter material for the summer here in the swamp, for example, is very good quick drying. And little known fact, I'm a sucker for a snapshirt. And almost everything they have comes in snapshirts. And I love a good Snapchat.
- [44:57]
B
It's true. And, and the thing about it fitting well, it's like they're magical cloaks. You put them on and they just fit great. Right now, $10 off your first order and free shipping. Go to ponchooutdoors.com 2wmm ponchooutdoors.com2wmm for $10 off your first order and Free shipping. All of the stuff, the flannels, the jeans, the western polos, the tough thread. And again, they stand by every shirt. If you don't like it, they'll take it back. Free exchanges. So go right now, gear up for the fall. Every piece is built for comfort, performance and lasting style. Ponchooutdoors.com 2wmm $10 off, free shipping. When they ask how you heard about it, tell them Hogan Gidley sent you. All right, here we go. Professor Kenny, welcome in. Thank you for being part of the two way community. Unmute. Tell everybody what's on your mind for Ashley and for Hogan.
- [45:44]
A
Thanks for having me on, Ashley. You're doing great. Nice to see you and Hogan always solid. Okay, so Ashley, here's my question. Do you think Gavin Newsom is the frontrunner for the Democratic Party at this point for president in 2028?
- [46:03]
B
Great question.
- [46:04]
C
Yeah, it is a good question. I think it depends on what measure. I mean, polls are saying no. But I do think if you sort of take a pulse of the energy within the Democratic Party, he definitely is leading the race. I mean, he's really figured out, I think the sweet spot, the best way to run an opposition against Donald Trump. He's mirroring back to Donald Trump his own antics in a way that really is galvanizing, energizing the base. He's going after him in terms of the legislator with the redistricting. He's going after him in the courts. So I think that is the formula by which we're going to have to attack Donald Trump and raise the opposition. And so he's setting the new playbook on how to actually do that. So I think the answer is definitely yes. If you get out into the world, measure the pulse of the base in the Democratic Party, he's definitely it.
- [46:56]
A
Mark, I need a little leeway. Ashley, would you say affordability is the number one issue right now in the country?
- [47:05]
C
Yeah, definitely. I mean, I think it's always the economy, stupid. Right. I don't think that has changed. We. If you look at every time I've been, I've been behind two winning midterm elections, 0, 6 and 18, we won 40 additional seats in 18 on three main messages. One was jobs, one was the economy, which is two about affordability, and then the third was about corruption. I don't think that framework is going to change going into the midterms. I think people are experiencing this economy in really devastating ways. So I think it's going to continue to be the top issue. But I will say my concern, though, Professor Kenney, is whether or not the Democratic Party can offer an alternative, whether or not they can present a proactive agenda that gets to this issue. Okay, so the economy's bad. So what now? What are you going to do about it? To change it, to give the American people and Democrats something to vote for, not just something to vote against. Donald Trump.
- [47:59]
A
Right. There's an article in the Wall Street Journal the other day says California digs a deep budget hole and it just keeps going on about how Newsom, they have the highest tax revenues ever in California, and yet they can't meet their budget. And when Newsom came, you know, when Newsom became governor, they had a hundred million, $100 billion budget surplus and got wiped out, you know, under, under Newsom. And that's why I keep saying everybody's Newsom, Newsom, Newsom. And yet his record is just on the economy.
- [48:35]
B
You're 100% right. And you could, you could, you could fill a thousand negative ads with people on the left and on the right of Newsom complaining about his stewardship in California. And it's one of the reasons why I secretly continue to think he's not going to run, even though now I pretend I think he is going to run because everybody tells me he's going to be the nominee.
- [48:54]
C
But all of these things are a snapshot in time. So once Republicans start to wear him out on his record, then I think it changes whether or not he's a front runner. But if you ask me today, I'm going to say yes.
- [49:02]
B
Yeah. Professor, thank you. Thank you, Professor. I'm doing a lot of reporting. Go ahead, Hogan.
- [49:07]
A
Hey, just real quickly, remember the famous Willie Horton ad against that Republicans ran against Democrats, that actually came from a Democrat primary where Democrats brought that particular individual up. So obviously the, the intra party warfare will wound somebody enough. General, that's problematic. So Democrats are going to get a hold of Newsom too, is my point.
- [49:28]
B
Democrats raised it in the nominating process, but the famous ad was made in the general election.
- [49:32]
A
But yes, yes, but I'm saying small.
- [49:34]
B
Point, but I'm doing a ton of reporting, which I'll have later this week probably on next up, about Democrat nominating process for 28. And it's incredible how many people have different views, particularly Governor Beshear and aoc. Some people put them right at the top, some people put them not even on the list. It's fascinating and it's reflective of the unclared lack of clarity about what's the party going to be looking for. Jack, welcome and tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Hogan and for Ashley.
- [50:02]
A
Well, I'm from San Antonio and welcome.
- [50:04]
C
To the new crew.
- [50:06]
A
I have a lot of concern about the alleged war crime in the Caribbean, and it predates that. If I go back to the first term, you know, at Hegseth's urging, when he was just a Fox News person, the president pardoned a number of people that had been convicted of war crimes. And this is not your average Washington, D.C. jury. These are operators that have seen the enemy right in the eye and they felt it was appropriate to convict these people that the president pardoned. And then in the second term, he's purged a lot of the senior officers in the military as well as the senior jags. And these are the very people that you expect to keep the guardrails on any potential war crimes. And lastly, Admiral Stavridis, who used to be the commander of Southcom, when he was talking to Michael Smakran as he was pointing out that we very much have the capacity to stop these kind of situations, interdict them, arrest them and process them through that way there's no need to just summarily destroy them.
- [51:24]
B
Yeah. What's your right feel on that, Hogan? I hear this over the weekend from lots of Trump supporters very, very worried about what some see as a lack of concern about war crimes and about chain of command and about the seriousness of the rule of law as it applies to the military. So this is not just a media creation or just a democratic issue. So, thoughts on what Jack said?
- [51:51]
A
Sure, but I think the secretary has been pretty adamant about the fact that everything they're doing is legal. Not just, you know, from the court standpoint, of course, but their actions are being followed in the chain of command correctly. And so I would imagine if these things get not just litigated, but these things get investigated, that, you know, one way or the other, it's knowable information, and we'll find that out. I do think, though, when you take a look at how many hundreds of thousands of people the drug trade is killed in this country, and you designate terrorists or designate the cartels as terrorists, you have the authority legally to take them out. And while some may be squeamish on the right and definitely the left hates it, the fact is drug lords also have a business to run. And they take a look at that and go, wait a minute. So you're just going to arrest them, typically, and throw them in jail? No problem. We got 100 guys who will make that trip tomorrow on the boat, but you blow them up in the water now, your little pool to draw from gets a little tighter because not many folks want to make that trek if they know they're going to get drone from the sky. So, again, it kind of comes back to, in my opinion, from a political standpoint, are you on the side of the terrorists and the drug cartels who come into this country, or on your. Are you on the side of the American people who have died at the hands of. Of the drugs brought in by the terrorists and the drug cartels? That, to me, kind of is the bare bones argument, if you can keep it in that lane, as opposed to running rabbits on nuances. And look, those are important rabbits to run sometimes, don't get me wrong, but they're going to be running due course. In the meantime, though, I think if you keep the fight to protecting Americans versus letting terrorists bring in drugs, I think they're going to. They're going to be on the right side of it.
- [53:38]
B
Ashley?
- [53:40]
C
Yeah, I mean, the issue for me is, you know, are we going to be a nation of laws? Are we going to be a nation that adheres to laws, not what Pete Hexap says he thinks is right versus what the actual law, what is actually stated in law. That really is where we are as a nation. Are we going to reverse course? And, you know, and again, you've got an authoritarian in the White House who's going to determine what is or what isn't legal based on his. But I'm just saying that's where we are as a nation. We have to. You know, and so you keep saying that we're standing up on the part of drug dealers, which is not true. That's not what this is about. What this is about is the law. Whether or not you've committed murder, whether or not you've committed war crimes. That's what this is about. And we as Americans have to stand up on the side of the law. If hecs that believes that and the president believes that they're justified in what they're doing, then go to Congress and say that. Then go to the American people and say that. But they haven't done that. Okay. Every passing day, we learn more and more about the violations of the law on the part of this administration as it relates to this one issue. I mean, there's a lot we could talk about about the violations of the law, but we've got to stipulate to the law.
- [54:49]
B
Jack, if you could ask the President a question or two, what would you ask him?
- [54:54]
A
I would probably ask him why they don't make a presentation to the American people and to Congress and. And explain the evidence you have for interdicting these boats. He says they're drug runners, but really, there's never been any offer of any kind of proof that I'm aware of, and I think that would go a long way. I certainly am not sympathetic to drug runners.
- [55:21]
C
Absolutely.
- [55:22]
A
You need to show that they are drug runners.
- [55:24]
B
Yeah. Jack, you're speaking for tens of millions. Thank you. Let me. Yeah, go ahead, Go ahead. Ask him.
- [55:30]
A
Jack, do you remember anyone on the left upset when Obama droned an American citizen? Or when Joe Biden bombed a school bus full of children and said they were terrorists? Like, here's where I have a problem. Those things happen, and no one says a word on the left, and all of a sudden, Donald Trump starts killing actual terrorists as opposed to American citizens and children, and now they're angry about it. I can't for the life of me square those two things. And you as a citizen out there seeing all this play and out in real time, do you not see the difference in the two actions there? It's something. I think you just need to look. Look at the special circumstances, for example. What some of those things Obama did. I. I did support.
- [56:15]
C
These were not.
- [56:16]
A
These were not tourists that were just backpacking through the Middle East. These were people that were bad guys. And if there is collateral damage, there is collateral damage. God knows There was plenty of that in World War II.
- [56:34]
C
Yeah.
- [56:35]
B
All right, Jack, I wish, I wish we had time to drill down because I'm surprised to hear you make the distinction there. But the facts are different in every case and we just don't have time to do it. But I appreciate you raising the issue. As I said, on the general point, you definitely speak for tens of millions. I got to sneak in one more quick sponsor word and then we'll get back to business here or different kind of business. Brickhousesale.com right now, 30% off. Fad diets bad idea. When average person hits 60 years old, they've lost and regained several hundred pounds. I did that just last week. Doctors do have Cyber Monday sale. Cyber Monday sale today Brickhouse Nation. 30% off. You don't need a promo code. Just go to BrickhouseSale.com this is on Field of Greens, a super fruit and vegetable drink that delivers results your doctor will notice. Products from Lean Weight Loss Breakthrough to help you lose weight in a meaningful and healthy way without injections and creatine, pure creatine made just for women to help you look fit, leaner and toned without excessive dieting. Right now, 30% off. The whole thing go to Brickhouse Nutrition. BrickhouseSale.com save 30% off Brickhouse sale for 30% at all to lose weight in a healthy way. All right. Later Today, bunch of two ways coming up. Bunch of two ways. For instance, noon Megan McCain, her guest, the great Scott Jennings. He's out selling his book and it's a good one. I got a chance to get a free copy last week and read it on the plane and it's a good one. So go to Megan at noon to watch. Watch her with Scott Jennings, 6 o' clock Eastern. I'll be here two way tonight while full coverage of Caroline Levitt's press conference and everything else that press, press, what do you call it? Not a press conference, press briefing. That six o' clock Eastern. Then at seven, if you've not yet monitored and watched Ethan Supley's lifelong, Tonight's your chance. 7:00 Eastern Time. Someone, one of my colleagues is going to chime in and tell you who Ethan's guest is because my email's not working. Ethan, seven o'. Clock. Another way to be healthy. Watch Ethan's show. Somebody's gonna chime in and. That's all. Three, noon Megan and then six o' clock two way tonight and then Ethan at seven. All right.
- [58:57]
C
Ethan's guest is Adam Bornstein.
- [59:00]
B
Thank you. He's the editorial director at Livestrong. Yes. Another great organization for health. All right, lastly, I want you guys to watch the president talking about. Well, you know what? Let's talk to Chris instead. Chris, I wanted to see the president's MRI, but. MRI answer. But. Chris, you got 45 seconds. I apologize. Chris lives in Georgia. He's a proud graduate of Harvard University. And happy holidays. Chris, what's on your mind? 45 seconds. Sorry to clip you short. We got.
- [59:30]
C
I mean, I could talk about a lot of things, but since I often get accused of being some kind of race baiter when I bring up racial stuff in this mostly all white crowd, I'd like for Ashley to give her quick opinion on what Trump's actions since.
- [59:46]
B
Taking office have done to the supposed.
- [59:48]
C
Inroads he made in terms of black voters.
- [59:53]
B
Okay, good question, Ashley. How's the president's policies affecting his support from black voters, would you say?
- [59:58]
C
Well, I mean, I think we've seen in this last November election the bleeding of support among black supporters, specifically black males, because I think they feel betrayed by what the President told them he was going to do versus what he's actually done. So, you know, I don't think this is work Democrats don't have to do. You know, that people are starting to see and experiencing Donald Trump's failures around the. Just the one issue that he sold them on, which is grievance around their economics, and he's failed them on that. And I think they're speaking louder than what we can say or provide as a Democratic Party. Now, you know, you've got the issues of race, where the Department of Labor has come out with sort of the face of the American workforce, which is a white male. I mean, there's a lot of clear indications that the President is trying to reverse the progress that we've made and really reinstate white male dominance. And I think that is not lost on black voters, specifically black male voters. So we're seeing right now that he's bleeding support among that coalition that he built. The question, though, is whether or not they'll come back and vote for Democrats. I mean, that. Or whether they'll just get out of the process altogether, fall out of the process altogether, because many of them were low propensity voters. So that's really the question.
- [61:16]
B
Yeah. Chris, thank you. I'm sorry. It's a huge conversation, and I apologize. We can't do it longer, but I want to make sure we end on time. Ashley and Hogan, thank you for being with us today. And we'll see you. We'll see you again in the morning and again, Megan at noon, me at six for two way tonight and then Ethan at seven. Grateful to y' all for being here. Thank you for putting only limited smack in the chat. Even though it's pointed out to me I forgot to mention at the top, no smack in the chat. That's the general rule here. Thank you for watching. I'll see you at 6. Have a great day, everybody, and thanks again, Hogan and Ashley. We'll see you tomorrow.