Amber Duke (6:30)

It was a weird and tough weekend. We were going into the weekend with pretty light news, it seemed, coming around to Monday. And then all of a sudden we had these three really horrific tragedies and another one thwarted. By the way, I would just mention there was a Christmas market in Germany where five individuals were arrested for planning an attack on a Christmas market in Bavaria. Germany has been canceling a lot of their Christmas markets because of the threat of these attacks. And so it's just a wave of violence. And I think it makes it harder, as you mentioned, Mark, that there's still not a lot of answers in at least two of these cases. I mean really all three. But I think mostly the Brown case, there was a moment where a reporter was asking the president of the university what was what was happening in the classroom before the shooting. Was it a class, was it a review session? And she had no idea. And this was six hours after the shooting. They got into custody, a person of interest, but still have not arrested the shooter. That person was released and the video they released of the suspect was completely unhelpful. It was just a video of a guy in all black walking away from the camera. Couldn't see his face, nothing. And so I think the lack of conclusion in these three cases.

F (7:57)

Just creates.

Amber Duke (7:58)

A sense of unease.

Mark (8:00)

Yeah, Kevin, before you jump in, let me just say fittingly, symbolically, looking at the corner of my eye, the three main cable news channels and they're each leading with a different one of the stories. Fox is leading with Australia, CNN is leading with Brown, and MSNBC leading with Rob Reiner, although Rob was a regular guest on Morning Joe. So a little bit of a different perspective there, perhaps. The other thing I want to note is, well, go ahead, Kevin, you jump in. I'll save it for after you. Go ahead.

Kevin Walling (8:34)

Yeah, I'll just add to what Amber said and it's great to be reunited with Amber too, that it's all Just so senseless. And the fact that there are still so many questions out there, especially in Providence, and my heart goes out to them because of the uncertainty of the relief of this idea that there was a person in custody, a person of interest, and then to have that person released and to have that uncertainty around is their community actually safe? Is problematic in this balance that we have to have with releasing what information is out there to the public, but also making sure that it's verified before we do that. And we've seen in recent weeks and months with similar incidences where things have been released prematurely by people of authority. And it just creates more uncertainty, it fuels conspiracies, and it's just problematic. Especially heading into. Obviously it's the first night of Hanukkah last night and then obviously into the Christmas season.

Mark (9:33)

Yeah. You know, one of the things about the late night press conferences last night, practically back to back, first in Providence, where they announced that they were releasing the person who had been questioned, and then in California, neither of those was very satisfying. And I am always a critic, even in even intense times of law enforcement who don't know how to brief properly. It's just, it's gotta be part of the job. And to go to the. Kevin, the point you raised, I want to discuss first. You can't say the lockdown's over. The community can be calm, we've got somebody in custody, then release that person and say, well, we no longer need a lockdown, without explaining. It doesn't make. It doesn't make any sense. Right. So that's a troubling thing. The topic I want to discuss, because again, we could spend the hour on these three cases, is in each of these cases, there's something out there that's being reported, some online, but in some cases by news organizations that are reputable, that are not being part of the conversation. I'm not for rush to judgment. I don't think we need to know everything right away. But in each of these cases, a debate should be occurring and isn't most pronouncedly in Australia. You've got ABC in Australia, which is one of their biggest news organizations, and a few other international news organizations reporting on the identity and background of the alleged killers. In that case, obviously, almost certainly the killers we can assume were anti Semitic. But it's being reported that they have ties to isis, for instance, allegiance to isis. And as you know, for some reason, the political correctness of many people in our society, including in the media, has precluded the acknowledgment that there have been many, many cases of murders committed by Muslims who often against Jews. And it's just not central to the coverage or the national, international discussion about what we need to do about this. And in this case, it's kind of incredible that if you look at most Western news organizations, they're not naming the suspects and they're not pointing out that that's being reported, what their ties are. So, Kevin, is this a problem that, that the, that the identity of a lot of killers is either suppressed or not acknowledged at all if they're Muslim? Is that a problem for our society?

Kevin Walling (11:57)

Yeah, it certainly is. And the question of how these individuals are getting radicalized, the fact that we don't want to talk about it in polite company and call it out when we see it, it's hugely problematic. I mean, and we have a huge problem in our own country, right? 10,000 or so anti Semitic incidents just this past year. That's 25 a day, right? That's not just violence and intimidation, but it's also a factor on college campuses. It's a problem within my own party, and we saw it inflamed on so many college campus where, you know, Democrats didn't want to address some of the core, you know, issues with violence on these campuses because it wasn't a polite company. And I think we need to have authentic conversations. Part of it is the balance of not wanting to give more fame and attention to perpetrators and shooters and committers of these violent acts. But then part of it too is if it is part of a larger narrative, we need to address it and call it out. Certainly.

Amber Duke (12:51)

Mark, Amber, I completely agree with your analysis of this, and I think it's especially so in this case because there's two narratives that the media doesn't want to cover. One is this purposeful attack against Jews, the anti Semitism angle, and the other is the identity of the perpetrators and radical jihad. And I think the fact that it happened in Australia, the fact that there's these attacks happening across Europe, there's an unwillingness to admit that there is a migration choice that was made to accept refugees from all over the Middle Eastern countries that have a lot of radical cells and proper vetting was not done. And it's precisely why you have journalists who two years ago were saying that migrant grooming gangs didn't exist, now saying, well, yes, it's a problem, but it's not. It's not because of our migration policy. Nobody just wants to say the truth, the quiet part out loud, which is they made a deliberate choice to let in people without knowing where they were coming from or who they were associated with. And unfortunately, now we see the consequences of that.

Mark (14:05)

We need a debate about Israel's policies. We also need a debate about the Muslim community. We should not tar every person of a particular faith with the actions of the worst members of that group. But you can't ignore the long list of crimes committed by Muslims around the world against Jews and others who have an allegiance to a certain ideology, which seems to be a through line to a lot of these. All right, again, we'll talk about this during community participation. So please raise your hand if you want in. The Brown ones can a little complicated because I don't know that any news organization has reported this, but I've been besieged with messages from people who are really concerned about the report. And again, I believe in being transparent here. If I were editing the New York Times, I don't think I'd put it in the paper. But. But people are telling me that the family of. I just need to look up her name.

Kevin Walling (15:10)

Ella Cook, I think.

Mark (15:11)

Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That the family of Ella Cook, the Alabama. A young woman who was a sophomore has been told that she was the target of what happened at Brown. I have no idea whether that's true. There's other theories about why the person did what they did, but now that we don't know who the. The assailant is, it's. It's going to be harder to say. But if it's true that she was targeted, that's a big story because she was one of the most visible conservatives on that campus, don't know that it's true. But probably most of you don't even know that, that that's being alleged because you'd have to follow certain accounts on X or have sources, as I do, who are telling me that. So, Amber, if she was targeted, and again, we don't know that, but if she were targeted, what would the implications of that be?

Amber Duke (15:57)

Well, I'll start with a couple of things that I think lend credence to that theory, which is one, typically when we see mass school shooters, they don't just stop and walk away, right? Usually they keep going until they're apprehended by police, shot dead or they kill themselves.

Mark (16:14)

Amber, let me just stop you. I should have been clear. She was the number two person at the Young Republicans branch on Brown's campus. So that's why some people are concerned if she were targeted. Go ahead, Amber. I apologize.

Amber Duke (16:26)

Right. Well, and the other thing is, if the police are telling Brown students that they are safe, they don't have to shelter in place anymore, but they don't have a suspect in custody. I think that also suggests that this was some kind of targeted attack. Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised. When I was on campus at Georgetown, I was chair of the College Republicans. I had to report multiple threats against me in my final two years on campus. And it seems to me that the political violence problem has only gotten worse in the 10 years since. There's been obviously numerous high profile attacks. The two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted bombing of a local Fox News van. And we also have all of these surveys and polls showing that young people are more comfortable with political violence than at any point in modern political history. There really is a strain among young people where they believe that political differences and problems can be solved by killing the person of the opposite political stripe.

Mark (17:41)

Kevin?

Kevin Walling (17:42)

Yeah, I agree completely with Amber. I'm so sorry. That was your experience at Georgetown. I went to Catholic U here in Washington D.C. and we did so much cross party programming with Democrats and Republicans, the college groups, just because it was, I think, important to realize and keep everything in perspective that we're all Americans first and we just disagree. And to Amber's point, we have seen this transcend now to lower generations where the idea that political violence is the solution to our disagreements is on the rise. And I think it's fueled by video games and desensitization and just this loneliness factor that we have in our society that this is a solution. And again, there are more questions than answers. I think we'll get a better picture hopefully when this person is found and arrested in Providence and we get the real understanding of the, of the motives in this case specifically.

Mark (18:39)

Yeah, you know, we don't obviously, I know, you know, we don't always know what, what, what the, what the motives are. Most of these crimes are solved in terms of there's an assailant. We don't know why the guy shot President Trump. Kind of incredible. We don't know the answer to that. So we'll see. But, but watch closely to see what, when they do find someone, assuming they do, if that person really did target Ella Cook for her political beliefs, it's going to be a big deal. And it's just a reality of media. An Ivy League campus case is going to get more coverage than another school because of the way news executives mentality works. So this is going to get a lot of coverage. And we will see last, I'll just say on Rob Reiner, you know, it's just a weird media phenomena. I'll just point out that People magazine reported last night that the son's being questioned. He has a history of drug abuse. And, and, and now TMZ is reporting that their daughter found them and, and, and that she suspected. Here's the People headline. Rob Reiner's wife, Michelle were killed by their son. Just People magazine and, you know, they're not, they're not the Wall Street Journal, but they're a reputable news organization and they're just asserting it. And this was last night. You won't see this anywhere else. It's just interesting as a media story that this is out there being reported and it's not like other places would typically, you know, people cite people, all the people. Other news organizations cite People magazine all the time. And yet for so far, they're not. Kevin, any idea why the press is being so cautious on this?

Kevin Walling (20:19)

Well, again, I think, you know, in terms of the. The daughter found the bodies just at 3 o' clock Pacific time yesterday, so. And again, when it involves a family member, I think there is a little bit more caution out there. Obviously, the LAPD has been out there saying they don't suspect. You know, they're not looking for any other persons of interest which point to the closeness of a family member committing this. And what also is being reported is just that the gruesome nature of how, you know, these two individuals were killed. Rob and Michelle Reiner, stabbed to death, which is also, you know, indicative of a, you know, someone with, you know, a lot of violent behavior in their, in their past and closeness to the victims.

Mark (21:03)

Yeah. Thank you for mentioning Michelle by name. I have a brain damage regarding names, and I just couldn't summon up her name. But she's a. Not just obviously a person, but also an accomplished professional and a huge loss as well. Amber, you're in the news business. Why are these other news organizations not mentioning the sun as a suspect, even though people in TMZ are.

Amber Duke (21:26)

I don't know. I know at the Daily Caller, we've updated our initial news reports with that information. TMZ and people usually are trustworthy sources, especially when it comes to Hollywood related stories. And the only thing I can think of is it dropped late at night. But there's. I really don't know. I don't know what the motivation would be for keeping that out of the story. I don't see a clear angle there.

Mark (22:01)

Yeah, we'll be talking about all three of these stories all weekend. Again, if you're here on the platform and you want to raise any of the topics and there are many, I mean the Australia, we haven't really talked about the dangers of anti Semitism and all the implications for that in great detail. So raise your hand if you want to talk about any of those things. Related later today, Candace Owen is supposed to Candace Owens Supposed to Meet with Erica Kirk Today was supposed to be the day when Charlie's the hosts of Charlie Kirk's radio show podcast were supposed to walk through a thorough rebuttal of the conspiracy theories that Candace Owens has offered up about the death of Charlie. And here is an Erica Kirk tweet from yesterday. Candace Owens and I are meeting for a private in person discussion on Monday, December 15th. We've agreed that public discussions, live streams and tweets are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward to a productive conversation. Thank you. They had invited Candace to come on the podcast where they were going to debunk what she said in Candace's reply tweet. I'm very much looking forward to this discussion. Candace had accepted. Then she declined. They were going to go forward with it. Now it's been superseded by this. Again, we could talk about this for an hour because this is very interesting, not just as a personal story, but if you're someone who wants conspiracy theories debunked and rather than receiving the attention of the listeners and viewers, the millions of the show based on telling lies, this could be a good development. But Amber, just thoughts on what your expectations for this meeting are. Is it inevitably going to go well or. Not necessarily.

Amber Duke (23:39)

My hopes are not high. I mean, let's be honest. Candace initially said that she couldn't do anything in person on December 15 because of some family conflict. But now when Erica asked her to meet, she's suddenly free to meet. She couldn't do the live stream in person, but she can meet with Erica. She said that she would stop if Erica told her to stop. Erica is on camera repeatedly saying stop and she says, well, she, she'd only told me to stop lying and I'm not lying about anything. So I'm going to keep going, just constantly moving the goalposts. And so my concern is Erica has been so tasteful about what she shares publicly and what she says publicly. I don't expect Erica to come out of this meeting telling us every single thing that went down. And that gives Candace potentially the opportunity to manipulate what was actually said and force Erica Again, to come out and correct the record, which will only propel the conspiracy theories further, where people will be accusing Erica of lying or trying to impede Candace's investigation somehow.

Mark (24:45)

Kevin, the context for this is Erica's interview that aired Saturday night with Barry Weiss. And if you're looking at this meeting today as a sign of the temperature being lowered, I was. I was stunned by the number of things I saw, not just on social media, but in my inbox from people who I respect were not typically, I would say, haters expressing vitriol at Erica Kirk. They say she's mourning too publicly and. And at Barry Weiss, both from the left and the right. The left saying she's giving Erica Kirk too much credit, and from the right saying she. She asked tough questions or had certain people ask questions that were. They thought too tough. So I'm, I'm very concerned about the general climate. But thoughts on. On Erica Kirk's moment here to see if she can diffuse at least the. The part of it involving Candace Owens.

Kevin Walling (25:36)

Yeah, Mark, I agree. You know, the fact that, you know, Erica's enduring all these attacks, I think I thought it was really powerful. What you played at the outset with, you know, the interview with Piers Morgan and Rob Reiner where he condemned the horrific attack, praised the grace shown by Erica, who has really entered the spotlight in the wake of Charlie's horrific assassination. And, you know, I'm super interested, especially with Amber knowing this space a lot better than I do with the dynamic of, you know, the fact that Erica has now agreed for it to be behind closed doors as opposed to it being a public meeting. I wonder, you know, does it. Does Candace benefit from that? To your point, Amber, in terms of her ability to spin that narrative and, you know, who. Who kind of, I guess, in your estimation, made that change? You know, obviously TPUSA and the leadership there is kind of struggling with how to respond to all these allegations out there.

Mark (26:29)

Great question.

Amber Duke (26:30)

Yeah. I am. I am curious about why that choice was made, because as I said before, I do think it gives Candace that opportunity to manipulate. The way that she's able to, I think, keep the audience hooked, is that she deals with generalities and vagueness. And that's deliberate. Right. She doesn't like to release information that could be quickly fact checked by somebody else. So it's all the source in my emails, the military people calling me, the.

Kevin Walling (26:57)

Dream that I had, you know, the.

Amber Duke (26:59)

Dream that I had, Dreams. Right. It's all things that can't be publicly debunked. And so it Just. And there's always the promise of more, too. Right? Next show, we're gonna have this drop that's gonna piece everything together finally, after these three months. And then you watch the next episode, and she's still very vague and not offering the evidence that she claims she has. And it's. You got to wait till the next episode to find the real conclusion. It's like a soap opera. It's. It's insane. I truly think she's lost it.

Mark (27:30)

Yeah. All right, well said. All right, let's get a few more topics. And again, we'll get to your questions soon. If you want to be in on the conversation, raise your hand. Russia, Ukraine. He put up number 111. Long meeting yesterday, more meetings today between Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Zelenskyy. Here's the headline from the New York Times. Zelenskyy to meet US Envoys and European leaders in new push to end war. For the second day running, Zelenskyy was set to meet in Berlin with Witkoff and Jared Kushner, and then again, a lot of the European leaders there from the major countries, the EU and NATO. Zelensky's given ground on a number of things on NATO membership, on ceding some territory, but been pushing back on others. And there's still concern amongst the Europeans that this is a plan that's going to favor Russia. And of course, some people think even a plan that favors Russia, that Putin won't accept it. So, Kevin, as we begin the week, I will say my sources in the American government are very bullish on a deal. They think we could see a deal this week or next week. That may be wishcasting, but how bullish are you on a deal at this point after the weekend's developments?

Kevin Walling (28:40)

Yeah, I'm more bullish with you, Mark, based on some of these advancements that we've seen and also the concession that President Zelensky has made to have elections next year, which is a key focus for President Trump, something that he's talked about publicly, the need for that. So you have those three kind of territorial concessions, the election, and then also, you know, the territorial concessions as three key pillars of this. We'll see to your point, Mark. Putin's speech on Friday, whether he addresses this, the Russian president has given zero when it comes to concessions, even wanting land that the Russians haven't even claimed in latest attacks. But again, the fact that you're seeing Macron and Starmer head to Berlin today, following up with, obviously, Kushner and Wyckoff on the ground is I think an indication that they're moving in the right direction and that the key issue are these security guarantees. NATO like in their estimation, I think as the kind of one more stumbling block to get through.

Mark (29:40)

Amber, I'll just, I'll just add one more element in for you to work into your answer about how bearish or bullish American congressional Republican hawks have been extraordinarily quiet of late. We're hearing a lot about the Europeans concern, but you haven't heard much from Republicans, even Mitch McConnell and, and Lindsey Graham. So where are you on bullish or bearish or besides Putin, whatever obstacles you might see to a deal at this point?

Amber Duke (30:05)

Yeah, I think the silence suggests that a deal is closer to being reached because they presumably are not happy with this deal. The more hawkish Republicans because of those territorial concessions and the lack of NATO inclusion. And if they were signaling publicly that they disagreed with those elements, it would sort of give cover for Zelensky maybe stepping away. But there were also those reports last week that he was refusing to agree to territorial concessions, which I think is not a realistic stance to be at at this point in the war. So we'll see. I mean he's, he's, he's said that he's willing to agree to some kind of peace agreement, but then the details come out and he, you know, says well I'm not going to do any of that. And so that's my concern. Right. Is that we're going to have another moment where it seems like we're on the edge of a breakthrough and then we get another public refutation of a key element of the deal.

Mark (31:03)

Yeah. Friday is the deadline. Another topic now. Friday's the deadline. Congress legislation passed, signed into law by the President for releasing the so called Epstein files. And yet people continue to speculate that maybe they won't meet the deadline. Not really sure how they can do that. Interesting story in the New York Times over the weekend about the Clintons. The Clintons have testimony's been sought by the house committee for Mr. Comer and the headline from the New York Times inside the Clintons fight to avoid testifying in the House Epstein inquiry. The Clintons the story makes clear through their lawyer David Kendall. Those of you who like long standing client lawyer relationships will be happy to know that David Kendall still representing the Clintons and he has written lots of letters to Comer3 that the Times has saying they'll give you statements explaining that they don't know anything about this, that you don't need them in for deposition. And Comer's threatening to have them held in contempt, which could happen because he was sending that to the Justice Department run by the President. So, Amber, do you think the Clintons are going to win this fight, lose this fight? And do you expect Friday's deadline to be met? I break my rule and ask you a two part question.

Amber Duke (32:20)

Well, I. This whole Epstein file situation has been so strange that I think anything is possible. I mean, I, I want to say that over the past few days, or rather past few weeks, I'll amend that. There's been all of these selective leaks with certain information deliberately left out to sort of try to implicate the President. Right. We had the email about him meeting with victims or knowing victims, and it was Virginia Giuffre who said publicly numerous times before her death that she did not see Trump involved with anything. There was the picture of him with the women's faces blotted out. And it turns out they're all like adult models or whatever. And that is so damaging to the Democratics, the Democrats. Cause their argument is that we need transparency. These selective leaks make it clear it's not about transparency, it's about trying to hurt Trump. Jasmine Crockett has been sort of publicly intoning that the President is a pedophile without any evidence. And I think for the American public, this like, silly game that's being played around the Epstein files has gotten so ridiculous that I, I'm, I'm not anticipating anything satisfying in terms of a conclusion to this.

Mark (33:31)

Kevin?

Kevin Walling (33:32)

Yeah, I'm in agreement with Amber. I think, you know, the, the whole name of the game is setting expectations. I think that's something, you know, Chairman Comer has really failed out in previous investigations and hearings of setting the bar so high. This is going to be the most salacious thing. And it's met with Washington and the media establishment was kind of a dud. You know, I think he's fueling this element with trying to subpoena the two Clintons. You know, their interviews are scheduled this week, Wednesday and Thursday, I think. I doubt they're ever going to show up on this front. But it also fuels, you know, James Cameron to go on media and to blast this and, and also redirect some of the attention away from the President.

Mark (34:15)

Right.

Amber Duke (34:16)

Yeah. And that's exactly what he's doing. Right. He's giving cover to Trump so that the DOJ doesn't have to release the files. It can be James Comer that's fighting to release the files, which takes the heat off of Trump and Pam Body.

Kevin Walling (34:28)

Exactly right.

Mark (34:29)

All right. We're going to talk about some 2028 stuff and then enter your questions. So stand by. Sometimes people say I put too much focus on 2028. Maybe I do. But it's happening now and it's super important. And people say it's an endless campaign. It is. It's a really important job. And you know, Bob Iger's successor search has been covered for about 20 years. Nobody, nobody, nobody complains about that. So Axios Sundays now. It's doing it for about a month. Does a newsletter on 2028. They focus more on the Democrats so far than the Republicans, and they usually are doing a good job of catching up to my reporting on just a week or two behind, which is really impressive. Sometimes I hurt myself patting myself on the back. But two stories that lead the newsletter today, they'll get to the fact that Ted Cruz is running in probably next week. That would be the right pacing. Two stories I lead with today. Very important One is Gavin Newsom and the fact that anonymous Democrats. Here's the headline inside the push to knock Newsom off his purchase. 20:28 Foreigner. I've been raising this for over a month. You can't let somebody just break free. And there's so much to put out on him. Now. They quote these anonymous people, and some of it's on deep background, so they're not quotes, they're just saying, well, this is the kind of thing we're going after. Some of it's going after him from the left. Some of them said going after him on the right. Some of it's going after him on competence. Some of it's going after on electability. Some of it's going after very personal things, some's going after very professional things. And there's no single frame, which as both Kevin and Amber know, usually that's a sign of weakness, not strength. You can't say, well, there's a thousand things to go after Newsom on, just like there's a thousand things to go after Trump on. You're supposed to pick one. So, Amber, if Gavin Newsom has a vulnerability, not in the general election, I always remind people the difference between the general and the nomination fight. If he's got a vulnerability and the nomination fight, what's his single greatest vulnerability, would you say?

F (36:22)

I would probably put it at his willingness to do the podcast with the conservative folks and potentially vetoing some more progressive bills as of late because that loses him the primary base, which is.

Amber Duke (36:38)

The most Important thing in a primary for Democrats.

Mark (36:40)

So. So the frame would be he's not a genuine progressive.

F (36:45)

Yeah.

Mark (36:45)

He'll associate. He'll associate with Charlie Kirk and he'll veto the legislature legislatures bills. Okay, Kevin, what's his greatest vulnerability in a nomination fight?

Kevin Walling (36:54)

Yeah. And we talked about this last week, Mark, in terms of your ratings. I think you had him at. At number one right now @ this point. I think it's an authenticity issue. I think it's the same problem with West Moore where, you know, where biography is so key to their.

Dan (37:07)

Rise.

Kevin Walling (37:07)

Right. He's had to talk about, you know, his hard scrabble upbringing and mansions in California and stuff like that. And like just the idea that he has been. He Shape. Shape shifts a little bit based on issues. To Amber's point, too.

Dan (37:21)

Right.

Kevin Walling (37:21)

Yeah. Bringing on having an authentic conversation with Charlie Kirk, then vetoing these progressive bills to try and be too. Too cute by.

Mark (37:28)

Half. Okay. I think on some of these issues, those are. Those are related, but they're different. One is phony. Right. And the other is not really a progressive. Do either of you want to do. Either you want to swap and take the other ones mainframe or you want to stick by.

F (37:43)

Yours? I'm going to stick with mine because I.

Mark (37:46)

Think.

F (37:47)

Because. Because the lack of true progressive roots was what killed Kamala Harris's primary.

Mark (37:53)

Bid.

F (37:53)

Yeah. Not her.

Mark (37:54)

Inauthenticity. Yeah. Kevin, do you want to switch to not a progressive or you stick with.

Kevin Walling (37:58)

Phony? I think it all comes down to character. Right. When you're trying to break out of that pack and it's got to be a personal narrative, you know, that's the.

Mark (38:05)

Problem. The only other thing I'll say about that, that Axios piece is these consultants to these other hopefuls, they can. They can get a reporter and speak on background and say, watch out. But executing on this, particularly now, very difficult. Very difficult. So I think if they think talking to Axios in a braggadocious way is going to slow Gavin Newsom down, I don't think they're right. And that's. I mean, I'm sure he's going to be the nominee. I'm just saying. Talking Axios. Lord. Their second item was by Kamala Harris 116. And they said, hey, look, she's added stops on her book tour. She get very aggressive populous anti establishment speech to the dnc. Their headline, Harris stepping toward another White House run. Just one. One. One question on this because we could talk about this in a million different ways. If she wants to run does she, does she need to get out there more aggressively to lock up donors and activists, etc. Can she be like everybody else and wait another year before signaling it more.

Kevin Walling (39:03)

Directly? Kevin, I mean, her power when Joe Biden stepped back was that weekend where she lined up every single person, major donor endorser. I think she's got to do that early and lock people in. She represents a core base of my party, right. African American, especially women. So she's number four right now on your list from last week, Mark, Because I think of that really telling New York Times piece and then the fact that she came out so aggressive at the DNC meetings in la, calling out both parties. Right. We'll see if that message resonates with the party.

Mark (39:36)

Base. Amber, Kevin agrees with my view. I agree with his that it's paradoxical. She should be the one, because she was vice president and the nominee, she should be the one who can wait the longest. But I think she's got more pressure on her than others to, to just show some, so show some interest sooner than some of these others. What do you.

F (39:53)

Think? I think that's true, but at the same time, I mean, Kevin, you can probably speak to this better than me. Aren't Democrats really sick of her right now? And so that's the problem, right, is she, she has, she has to do it now in order to convince people that she's still got the juice. But she also kind of needs to go away for a while because people are so angry with her. And she's written in her book all of these, these accusations that have really angered various members of the Democratic Party. Josh Shapiro, of course, recently, with his sort of expletive laden response to what she wrote in her book. How, how does she do both of those at the same time, get herself out there and line up donors while also giving people a.

Kevin Walling (40:33)

Break? Yeah, yeah, it's a good, it's a good point. I mean, it's like a burn book, you know, that she wrote 107 days. But I think, you know, that book, that book tour is giving her cover to get back out there right in the speaker mind. But to your point, Amber, and it's a good one, a billion and a half raised in, you know, that short amount of time. There was exhaustion. That's, that's what hurt Ken Martin coming into the role as the DNC chief, being so underwater, right. With Democratic donors saying, we've had it with the party right now because of the Vice President's run. So she's got it, she's got that delicate dance.

Mark (41:05)

Certainly. I will tell you, I'll take a ton of heat for this. She's a more likable person than she showed since 2024. She just is a more likable person. And, and Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore never learned how to translate their more attractive private side to the public realm. Maybe she, maybe she will this year in.

Kevin Walling (41:24)

That. And Mark, you reference that, you referenced that last week. Thank God that Mitt documentary on Netflix didn't come out before the election because he would have been president if they.

Mark (41:33)

Had. Seriously, in all seriousness, he would have been all right. 117 the senator from errors Both senators from Arizona are talked about as potential presidential candidates. Mark Kelly. And now Reuben Gallego gets a very nice story from the Associated Press. Ruben Gallego emerges as key Democratic figure in Latino vote outreach. Okay, this will just be a numerical answer. Zero is no chance to be the nominee in 10. He's a mortal lock to be the nominee in 2028. Kevin, where do you put Gallego? Zero. No chance. 10. Mortal.

Kevin Walling (42:04)

Luck. I think he's like a two or three. He's got, you know, good biography. He was in the House. He's a veteran. He's doing all this work. But he's, he just got elected to the Senate in.

Mark (42:13)

2024. Yeah.

Kevin Walling (42:15)

Amber. And he's no Barack.

Mark (42:16)

Obama.

F (42:16)

Yeah. I would also give a two or three. I mean, he has the potential to sort of be this moderating with, you know, his willingness to admit that there's there's been a border crisis and an immigration problem, but suffers severely from lack of name id. There's not much really interesting about him. We're talking about stories, right, with Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris and Westmore. He's just kind of a.

Mark (42:43)

Bore. The correct answer is three quarters. Three quarters. All right. Lastly, last night, Governor Shapiro, in his upteenth public event demonstrating his national ambitions, held a book event. There you can see a photo sent to me by someone. This is at the big library in Philadelphia hosting Jim Clyburn for a very, very friendly book event. If you want to run for president. History demonstrates you no greater friend if you're a Democrat. Jim Clyburn. And it was a very chummy event. I don't really have a question about this one except to say Josh Shapiro may be the front runner. I have number two now on my list. But he may be the front runner. All right, in a moment, we're going to get to your questions. Either you want to say anything about Josh Shapiro's book event with Jim.

Kevin Walling (43:30)

Clyburn? Well, I think it's very, very telling that they were on stage together. To your point, Mark, very.

F (43:35)

Interesting. I think the Republicans are trying to get out ahead of this because I think it was a couple of days ago there were reports that they have a series that they're running of a series of ads that they're running against him. So I do think that he's on their.

Mark (43:49)

Radar. Yeah. Yeah. And he's, he's going to be very active in the Pennsylvania midterms as.

Amber Duke (43:54)

Well.

Mark (43:54)

Yep. And. And in other states. All right, quick word from a sponsor, then to your questions. If you're here on the platform, want to get in, please raise your hand. Please don't put smack in the chat. Cooking on the mind of everybody. As the holidays approaches and you don't want to spend your entire time with family and friends gathered, hovering over your oven, trying to figure out when the ham is ready or whatever it is you're cooking. Maybe some halibut, maybe some brook trout. Whatever it is, any piece of protein, you can cook it perfectly every time, know it perfect, know when to flip it, take it out, let it cool with Chef IQ Sense and Chefiq.com is giving all members of the two way community 30 off everything, including the wireless cooking thermometer. Go to Chefiq.com promo code 2WMM for an extraordinary 30 off everything on the site, including the cook, the thermometer, wireless thermometer. You just download the app, put the thermometer in. It tells you exactly what you need to do. Buy one for yourself or buy one for someone you love or multiple people you love. And when they ask you how you heard about Chef IQ, please tell them on two way. Again, two way. The promo code is 2WMM. Get all your shopping done right now at chefiq.com promo code 2WMM. Thank you for your attention. To that.

James Patterson (45:01)

Matter. I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Zelvis Morris. Nan used to always say, hungry dogs run faster, James. And I've been running fast ever since. Here's what will be coming your way soon. And this is a really terrific list. I think you'll hear from some incredible people like Stacy.

Mark (45:25)

Abrams.

James Patterson (45:26)

Yay. BJ.

Kevin Walling (45:28)

Novak.

James Patterson (45:28)

Yay. Kathy Bates, Dolly Parton, Josh Gad, and Pope Leo. Okay, maybe not Pope Leo, but who knows? Maybe he'll show up. Hungry dogs run faster. Thank you, Grandma, for turning me into a hopeless obsessive compulsive Listen to Hungry Dogs with James Patterson. That'd be me on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, thank you, thank.

F (45:53)

You. This is.

Mark (46:00)

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

Dan (46:06)

Over. It's.

Mark (46:07)

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

Dan (46:21)

Wrong. There's a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves. We have no idea whether we can stay in.

Mark (46:31)

Control. While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make. This really will be a world of abundance. 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. Ladies and gentlemen, time for your questions. We start with Mark. Mark, welcome in unmute. Tell folks where you are and what's on your mind for Amber and Kevin. And this one goes to 10, not to 11:10am Eastern. Mark, welcome.

Kevin Walling (47:13)

In. Love that background.

Dan (47:14)

Mark. Oh, thank you. And yeah, Rob, RIP somebody that worked in Hollywood for a long time, he was really important to our business and, and I just remember that it's meathead.

Mark (47:27)

Too. So of.

Dan (47:27)

Course. So my question is about Turning point and about 2028 and we've all heard about how Turning Point was so influential in turning out the vote for Trump. But I haven't heard anything about Turning Point there to turn out anybody for any of these swing or these other elections we've had these special elections, could they be motivated and then for 2028, will the Republican candidate get Turning Points involvement the way Trump with if the candidate were Vance or Cruz or Rubio or any of these. So that's my question.

Mark (48:05)

Mark. It's a great question before, before Amber and then Kevin weigh in and it's got a lot of dimensions, so they'll go through it carefully. I laugh when like I tweeted the names of some Rob Reiner movies yesterday and how great they were and, and the fact that he could not only was an Emmy winner for his role on all the Family twice, but not only did he direct so many great films who are quoted as much as much as any films ever made really, but the genres were so diverse. But you know, I left out, you know, the sure thing. I left that for a few Good Men in my initial list, and people went crazy. There's really only one film in Rob Reiner's oeuvre that must be included on all.

Dan (48:44)

This. Or When Harry Met.

Mark (48:45)

Sally. No, Spinal.

Amber Duke (48:46)

Tap.

Dan (48:47)

Okay. His first film.

Mark (48:49)

Too. His first film. I mean, yeah, sure. When Harry Met Sally. You've got mail. There's, you know, so many. But Spinal Tap is is sui generis, as we say in Hollywood. Amber thoughts on turning point in 24 a lot with the president. Where were they in Virginia and New Jersey? Where are they going to be in 26? And then as Mark asked, where are they for 28, depending on who the nominee.

F (49:11)

Is? Yes, it's a great question because I've talked to a lot of GOP consultants about this question, the Turning Point action question, and they were very mobilized in 24, specifically in Wisconsin and Arizona. But there was some frustration with their ground game as well. From what I heard, they were basically trying to use their create and use their own data as opposed to collaborating with the party in their data. And so there was the impression that Turning Point was being very secretive with their voter list, their email list, and not willing to share. And so that sort of signaled, I think, to these, these GOP consultants that this was more of a money raising effort for Turning Point than really a loyalty to the gop. So I do think the lack of participation in the specials we haven't heard much about. If they're doing anything in the 26 midterms means that 28 is very up in the air in that means it kind of depends on the nominee, I think, as to whether or not they get.

Kevin Walling (50:22)

Involved. KEVIN yeah, and listen, I mean, the president made huge inroads, especially with young people, right from his, you know, 16, 20, 24 margin. We'll see if that's just a presidential year engagement. I think part of the problem, too, for folks on the right is you have all these disparate groups doing the field work when it should really be centralized, right, with centralized data run by the RNC so that folks aren't grifting off of it, something that the DNC is trying to get back to. In these special elections. You've seen a really, you know, you know, focused effort by the dnc, especially on the field and organizing efforts. So we'll see if Republicans, you know, learn that playbook based on these special elections that we've.

Mark (51:03)

Seen. KEVIN who's the group in the Democratic Party now, not in the past, but going forward, that could play the role Turning Point.

Kevin Walling (51:09)

Played. So there's A group called Swing Left that was started to really just channel money to folks running for office. They're actually pivoting away from that, raising tens of millions of dollars to do a ground game effort. It's called Ground Truth, where they're out there right now talking to all voters, not just Democrats, at the door to figure out what issues are most important to them so that then that data gets fed back so that more personalized ads can be directed to those folks and people can be.

Mark (51:37)

Engaged. Yeah. A few things to say building on the great answers you got from Amber and Kevin. First of all, we did not talk about the attacks on American forces in Syria today. And I'm sorry, we just didn't fit it in. But that's a huge story as well. Number two, I don't read the chat, but I glance at it. I'm against eating animals. Somebody asked about animal, about protein. I'm against it. I don't think anybody should animals. Unless you love steak or sushi or hamburgers, then you should. But I understand, believe me, I understand. I shouldn't eat another animal the rest of my.

Kevin Walling (52:07)

Life. But I will shout out to Deborah, though, that quoted when. When Harry Met Sally. I'll have what she's.

Mark (52:12)

Out. Exactly. Next. Mark, I've said before, and it's not my point, I stole it from somebody else. We've already seen that Charlie was an indispensable force by keeping the feuding at a minimum. It's clear now that that was his almost. I'd say it's linearly clear, but it seems obvious now that all these fights that have broken out are broken out because he's not there to keep the peace. Because one of the many, many things he was brilliant at was keeping the peace to keep. Keep the different factions within the movement from fighting. I don't, I mean no disrespect to the other people at Turning Point, including Erica Kirk. I don't know that they can, they can keep the organization being the extraordinary turnout operation it was without Charlie. There was extreme skepticism that Charlie could do it, including amongst people who are his friends. They just thought that's not what Turning Point does. And yet they did. They really were successful. But it just, it's. It'd be like saying, you know, it's a crude metaphor, but, you know, could. Could Tesla continue to grow without musk? You know, Charlie may, may have been the indispensable person. So I'm not sure they can do it. As for. As for 28, I don't know about 26. But as for 28, I, I have backed way off my belief that the vice President's a lock for the nomination and that the president will endorse him. I still think if the president endorses him, he is a lock and I still think that's the most likely outcome. But between a lot of donors, very prominent donors in the party saying, we don't want a coronation, we don't want a coronation, we think this should be competitive, then some people questioning JD's political instincts on a variety of topics in the last few months where he's done some things that have been controversial, including relate to some of these feuds within the party. And then finally Ted Cruz and others potentially making it clear that they're going to run. They're not waiting to see who Trump endorses. All that makes me think maybe this is up for grabs and if it is, then what does Turning Point do? Do they get involved in the nomination fight? They'd be extremely powerful, potentially in Iowa, even in a weakened state. So I think it's all up for grabs. But it starts with can they do it? Finally, I'll say this, I was a little bit ahead in thinking AI would be a big deal in 24. It wasn't. It's clear now it's going to be a massive deal in 26 and 28, including, forget at the vote, if you're not ahead of the game. And the Democrats have been behind on technology pretty much throughout the Trump era. They've been behind. Not too far behind to catch up, but behind. So which party? And this would include Turning Point, not just the formal parties, but which tribe is better at harnessing AI for get at the vote. And Turning Point could play a role there. They could potentially. But. But that's going to require a lot of money and a lot of expertise. And we've yet to see which party is going to really make their mark in saying we're going to take this extraordinary new technology and we're going to use it to turn out the vote. So that's all, all to be seen. Mark, thank you. Very grateful to you. Thanks for being part of Two Way. Okay. Okay, let's see here. Chris, welcome in. I'm going to bring Chris and Dan in together because I want to make a point which we've been discussing here. This platform is for everybody. This is not a MAGA platform. It's not an anti MAGA platform. This platform is for everybody. And every voice can be heard, every perspective heard. When you hear a voice, you Disagree with. Some of you might disagree with Chris or with Dan. Use it an opportunity to learn on this of all days. So, Chris, you first floor is yours. Then Dan, both ask your questions if you can somewhat briefly throw up against the clock and then Kevin and Amber will respond.

Chris (55:42)

Chris? Yeah, I think one of the things this forum needs more of is a black perspective which I try to bring. Unfortunately, when I try to bring it, I get a lot of vitriol people on here because I'm always talking about race. So guess what? It's 13% of black population, 13% of the U.S. population that lives race and lives black every day. I'm sorry, we're gonna have to talk about it if we're.

Mark (56:07)

Around. Yes.

Chris (56:08)

Sir. There's an undertone to some of this Charlie Kirk discussion that I think you guys really need to be more careful about. I could host a one hour or two hour show on the things that Charlie Kirk said that were certainly not tasteful and were, I think intentionally meant to stoke a certain attitude. Not the stuff he said on the college campuses. But if you go back and watch his shows. Yeah, it's always on the shows where he said most incendiary.

Mark (56:39)

Things. Chris, we do not have time to adjudicate that.

Chris (56:41)

Today. No, I'm not trying to.

Mark (56:43)

Do. And I respect. I respectfully disagree with you. I think it's actually shocking how people abroad far. But I know you've.

Chris (56:49)

Got. I know you disagree because you keep calling him.

Mark (56:52)

Charlie. Yeah. If you've got a question, Chris, what's your.

Chris (56:55)

Question? Okay, my question then I'm going to shift slightly is do you think that some of the violence that may be at an increased level is not because of political differences of opinion, but because of the level of vitriol that Trump and his gang have raised to a new level? We've never had a president that, that insulted populations like the.

Mark (57:22)

Somalis.

Chris (57:23)

Yes. When you thought.

Mark (57:24)

People. Hold on, we got the question. Dan, question from you, brief if you can be. Thank you.

Dan (57:29)

Chris. I just wanted to speak a little bit about Rob Reiner. His collaboration with Harry Connick Jr. Is why I make a living as a.

Kevin Walling (57:38)

Singer.

Dan (57:39)

Today. I did want to ask people like Rob Reiner, because he's a celebrity, have often gotten a lot of heat for speaking their political views. And I'm wondering, is there a legitimate reason why celebrities, you know, who have this platform should not speak about what they.

Mark (58:01)

Believe? Great question, Amber. First, is Donald Trump at all to be blamed for this? And can celebrities. Should celebrities not be able to town square when it comes to politics. And then Kevin on both. Thank you.

F (58:12)

Gentlemen. I think that Trump actually, what represents, I'm trying to think of exactly how to phrase this. Trump did not just represent a policy perspective that was underrepresented by the Republican Party and so called elite political figures, but also a feeling that those people were held in contempt and resented by political elites. And so I think the rhetoric that people view as incendiary or increasing political violence is a reaction to a feeling of political displacement. And so to me, those that political violence and those sentiments were bubbling far before Trump came along and maybe verbalized some of those feelings. On the political celebrity question, I don't think that there's a reason why celebrities can't speak, but I think a lot of the times it's the tone that people take issue with, where it's this feeling of sort of perched on the ivory tower. Condescension of lecturing is the term that's used a lot in the way that celebrities share their political views. And that's what people, I think, find.

Mark (59:29)

Distasteful. Yeah. Kevin, before you weigh in quickly on both questions, presence just put on truth. Social, social. His reaction to Rob Reiner, some of you might find some of the things he wrote maybe a little off key, but if you consider how liberal and critical Rob was of him, I consider it a victory for peace, love and understanding. Here it is. A very sad thing happened in Hollywood last night. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away together with his wife Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome, sometimes referred to as tds. He was known to have driven people crazy by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump. With his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness. And with the golden age of America upon us, perhaps like never before, May Robin Michelle rest in.

Amber Duke (60:23)

Peace. Kevin.

Mark (60:24)

Sucks. Yeah, better than it might have been.

Kevin Walling (60:28)

Though. Kevin, president never fails to make anything like this about himself. To quote his predecessor, God love him. Chris, I wrote an op ed shortly after Charlie was assassinated. I spent a lot of time debating Charlie on Fox News. Spent a lot of time with him in person in green rooms. Implore you to read the piece. Spoke, you know, about our debates and the fact that we disagreed quite a bit on things that should obviously never be a solution to any kind of political disagreements that we've seen, but also call them out all the time on some of the more racist takes that I disagreed with. To Dan's point, When Harry Met Sally, it had to be you was my wedding song. So God love you for keeping that that strong and, and your talent and, and keeping those songs.

Mark (61:14)

Alive. Thank you, Dan and Chris. Amber, on retrospect, you're right. The president's statement sucked. I'm sorry I suggested it was better than it might have been. It was better than it might have been, but mostly sucked. Professor Kenny, we've got literally 30 seconds for you. Professor was nice enough to host me and members of the community on Friday after the show. Very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to folks and very much enjoyed it. Professor, real quick thought from you.

Dan (61:39)

Yeah. Just wanted to talk about what you just read with Trump. You know, Trump never fails to live up to the ethos of Roy Cohn and Roger Stone. It's just very unfortunate. You know, you can't even this, this is why we have these problems in this country. You know, I'm a Republican. I'm not, I'm not a Trumper. But it's just really sad. You know, Rob Reiner, he was very vocal against Trump. We get it. Doesn't change the fact that he was a great filmmaker and gave us a lot of pleasure. And when somebody gets murdered, to make stupid statements like that just doesn't help the country move forward. That's all I had to say about that. And thanks for having me on.

Mark (62:16)

Mark. Thank you, Professor. All right. Later today, three board two ways. Megan McCain at noon with the great Selena Zito, one of the greatest chroniclers of our time, joins Megan at noon. Please join them. I'll be here at 642-way- tonight at 6 o', clock, coverage of all the day's news, including updates on the three stories we led with. And then Ethan Supley's new program, lifelong. If you haven't seen it yet, join tonight. Tyler Smith, Learn how to live a healthier life, not just in terms of what you eat. As we say, real health, real community, no BS. Ethan tonight on Lifelong 7 O'. Clock. Please sample that show. If you haven't. We're here all week through Thursday. No programs on Friday for two ways for the morning meeting or two way tonight. But we'll be here all the way through Thursday. Then we'll be on a bit of a holiday break and then back in the new year. So grateful to Kevin and for and Amber for joining us. Thank you both. Really glad to have you. And we'll see you all here 9am tomorrow for another episode. Have a great day.