Will Trump Bomb Iran? Endangered Regime's Response to Protests Could Put His Warning to the Test

Summary

The Morning Meeting (2WAY)

Episode: Will Trump Bomb Iran? Endangered Regime's Response to Protests Could Put His Warning to the Test
Date: January 14, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin
Panelists: Larry O'Connor, Kevin Walling

---

Overview

This episode delves into the rapidly shifting situation in Iran as mass protests surge and rumors mount of a potential US military response under President Trump. Mark Halperin and guests Larry O'Connor and Kevin Walling analyze intelligence, administration dynamics, and the political and global implications of possible US action. The panel also discusses US domestic politics, media coverage, immigration controversies, and audience questions about US foreign policy.

Major Theme:
Is a US military strike on Iran imminent? What is the red line for intervention, and what does this crisis reveal about the current White House, internal debates, and US political/media culture?

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Assessment of the Iran Situation and US Response

• US Military Posture and Diplomatic Developments (03:55–05:24):

  • Reports emerged of US personnel advised to leave the military base in Qatar, signaling a heightened state of readiness but not a full evacuation.
  • Ongoing debates in the administration about the risks vs. benefits of military intervention, with the Vice President (J.D. Vance) and others urging caution.

• Uncertainty Over Iran’s “Red Line” (11:10–12:33):

  • President Trump, in a CBS interview, signals ambiguity about the criteria for military action:

    “If they hang them, you're going to see some things...We will take very strong action if they do such a thing.” — President Trump [11:12]

  • Confusion persists over whether the killing of protesters (by shooting vs. hanging) is the trigger for US involvement.

2. Internal White House Debates: Vice President Vance and Rubio Dynamic

• Vance Advocates Diplomacy, Rubio Leaning Aggressive (13:30–16:54):

  • J.D. Vance, due to military background, promotes caution and is publicly depicted as moderating Trump's impulses.
  • Marco Rubio is portrayed as more hawkish, setting a “good cop, bad cop” dynamic favored by Trump.

• Political Optics (16:01–17:16):

  • Vance’s lower media profile noted as curious given his policy influence, with speculation about the strategic advantage of this approach.

3. Public and Political Reaction to Possible Strikes

• Will Trump Benefit Politically? (12:33–13:30):
  • Kevin Walling speculates:

    “I do think there would be a rallying around the president for this. I fully support toppling this regime...there would be a lot of support for whatever we do.” — Kevin Walling [12:45]

  • Concerns remain about anti-interventionist voices on both left (AOC) and right (Tucker Carlson).

4. Nature of Potential US Action

• Not All Strikes Are Created Equal (51:44–53:53):
  • Audience member Nicole raises whether any military action would be broad bombing or more targeted “decapitation” strikes. Larry and Kevin agree covert ops, cyber warfare, or targeted strikes against leadership are far more likely than outright invasion.

5. Risks and Consequences: A Cautious Counterpoint

• Caller Darrell’s Challenge (55:06–61:38):
  • Expresses concern over “giddiness” about regime change, citing Syria and Libya as cautionary tales:

    “If we're willing to roll the dice on this, we have to be prepared that potentially millions of people could die.” — Darrell [55:45]

  • Larry responds by delineating Iran as a unique threat, but admits negative unintended consequences are a real risk.

6. US Domestic Politics and Economic Messaging

• Trump’s Affordability Agenda Questioned (17:16–22:00):

  • Review of Trump’s speeches reveals an absence of concrete policies on cost-of-living.
  • Panelists agree the administration is banking on positive economic trends rather than new legislative action.

• ICE Operations and Backlash in Minnesota (26:14–31:11):

  • Polls show increasing public discomfort with ICE's tactics; some call for ICE abolition reaching record highs.
  • Both panelists acknowledge the policy and optics risk for the administration.

7. Other Noteworthy Political Developments

• Bill Clinton and the Epstein Subpoena (31:26–38:01):

  • Discussion over why the media seems uninvested in Clinton’s defiant letter ignoring a bipartisan congressional subpoena on Epstein ties.
  • Raises questions about inconsistent media scrutiny for prominent Democrats vs. Republicans.

• Senator Schumer’s Senate Majority Push (39:39–43:10):

  • Schumer’s public math — targeting four key flips — is seen as plausible by the panel, but Maine and Ohio called out as biggest hurdles.

8. Miscellaneous: Political Figures and Profanity (44:31–46:11)

• Both Biden and Trump, like most politicians, are known for liberal use of the F-word behind closed doors, recounted with humor.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Trump's Conditional Red Line:

  “We will take very strong action if they do such a thing.” — President Trump [11:24]

• Political Rallying Effect:

  “I do think there would be a rallying around the president for this.” — Kevin Walling [12:45]

• On Vice President Vance’s Calculated Caution:

  “JD Vance is always going to be somewhat reluctant to commit military forces, even if it's a non-boots-on-the-ground strike…that's sort of on brand for him.” — Larry O’Connor [13:55]

• Caller Darrell's Warning:

  “…if we’re willing to roll the dice on this, we have to be prepared that potentially millions of people could die.” — Darrell [55:45]

• Media Bias on Clinton-Epstein Coverage:

  “Because they're on his side. I'm sorry, it's just most of them are.” — Larry O’Connor [34:36]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Middle East/Iran Update and Speculation: 03:55–07:11, 10:47–15:34, 51:44–53:53, 55:06–61:38
• Trump’s Affordability Agenda and Economic Discussion: 17:16–22:00
• ICE, Immigration Protests, and Polling: 26:14–31:11
• Clinton, Epstein, Media Questions: 31:26–38:01
• Schumer Senate Majority Strategy: 39:39–43:10
• Panelist Banter about Political Language: 44:31–46:11

---

Listener Questions & Responses

• Nicole (Iran):
  Focused on the likely nature of US intervention—targeted assassinations or sabotage rather than full-scale bombing. Both panelists agreed, stressing covert and cyber actions were more probable.

• Darrell (Iran Risks):
  Challenged the wisdom of intervention, highlighting disastrous precedents in Libya and Syria. Larry and Kevin acknowledged the gravity, with Larry emphasizing Iran's “unique threat profile,” but noting the paucity of anti-interventionist coverage.

• Clara B. Jones (Democratic Leadership):
  Asked why leaders like Jared Polis and Gina Raimondo weren’t on Halperin’s “8 for 28” Democratic presidential prospects. Both panelists admired them but doubted their intent to run.

---

Tone & Style

• The episode maintains Halperin’s wry, conversational, often skeptical tone, with lively back-and-forth between the panelists.
• Panelists balance seriousness (Iran, global stakes) with humor and media-insider banter.
• Multiple positions represented—hawks and doves, administration defenders and critics, left and right—mirroring genuine media environment debates.

---

Takeaways

• Iran:
  The White House faces a momentous decision at a historical juncture, with equally strong pressures for decisive intervention and for caution. The exact "red line" that will provoke US action remains undefined, with the administration signaling toughness but uncertainty.

• Domestic:
  Economic performance is the Trump team's best bet for the midterms, but polling on issues like immigration enforcement reveal significant vulnerabilities.

• Media & Politics:
  Both the Clinton-Epstein subpoena and ICE controversies reflect how media narratives and political calculations shape—and sometimes skew—public understanding.

---

For Listeners:
This episode offers a rare look into high-level political and media deliberations, contrasting the arguments and anxieties shaping US policy at a critical inflection point—while staying accessible, punchy, and often darkly funny.

Transcript

[A]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title 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 Stacey Abrams.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

BJ Novak.

[C]

Yay.

[A]

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 you.

[B]

This is it.

[D]

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

[B]

Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm. I was selling AI as a great.

[E]

Thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.

[B]

There is 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 control. While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that.

[C]

It'S going to be the most important.

[B]

Invention that humanity will ever make.

[E]

This really will be a world of abundance.

[B]

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. Ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, welcome back to the morning meeting for Wednesday, January 14th. I remain mystified at the American media's fixation on Minnesota. A very important story over Iran, an epic, historic story, makes no sense to me. Larry o' Connor is here, Kevin Walling's here, you're here. The two way community. Some of you here on the two way platform, poised, even if you've never done it before, to raise your hand and be part of the conversation like no other in a matter of moments. We look forward to your participation. Some of you watching on X or YouTube, live or on demand, and you think, you know what? Even though Mark says no smack in the chat and we should be all about peace, love and understanding. You think? No, I think what Mark really wants is smack in the chat. And in order to give Mark what he wants, I'll be insulting people, using profanity, telling Dan he's a horrible person. No, please, no smack in the chat, just for today only. Let's try see what happens. Lots of indications today that things may be happening in the Middle East. We'll get to that in a moment. Do you have that new, that new tweet I sent just moments ago from my friend Jennifer Jacobs at cvs? Is that available? If it is, you'll throw it up anyway. We're going to be talking about Iran, we're going to be talking about Minnesota, we're going to be talking about the Fed, Greenland, Senator Schumer's PR tour, all sorts of things. Kevin, do you know Chuck Schumer? If you do, tell us your best Chuck Schumer story.

[C]

Just that the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and an open microphone. That's about it.

[B]

Long been true. Larry, you know Senator Schumer, I don't have the pleasure. So I have, I did.

[E]

I used to remember him as a congressman on Crossfire, though. I was addicted to that show. He was good.

[F]

Yeah.

[B]

I have great stories about him. I don't have the time or inclination to tell the best ones right now, but my grandfather was his intern. My grandfather, when he was retired, lived just a few blocks from Kings highway where Senator Schumer, then Congressman Schumer, had his district office and my, my grandfather interned there.

[C]

Anyway, here's your Was your grandfather Benjamin Button?

[B]

Mark, he was not. He was one. He was one of the aging in reverse. He was one of the older interns in the office. He did not go out for pizza and beer after, after work with everybody else. Here's a tweet from my friend Jennifer Jacobs at cbs, one of the best political reporters, government reporters I've ever known. Reuters report some personnel have been advised to leave the U.S. military's base in Qatar by Wednesday evening. Three diplomats told Reuters amid warnings from Washington that it could intervene to protect protesters in Iran. Quote, it's a posture change and not an ordained ordered evacuation, one of the diplomats told Reuters. The diplomat said it was not he was not aware of a specific reason that have been given for the posture change. The reporting overnight, very mixed about whether or not there's going to be a military strike. And my, my reporting is the presence of many minds. He's being told by the vice president and others to be cautious about this. He doesn't, he likes his winning streak, Great successful missions with no U.S. casualties. And so the question is, does he continue the hot streak, if I can put it in those crude terms, or does he, does he not risk tempt fate and continue and of course the overnight reports about the number of Iranians killed literally ranges from 2,000 or so to 12,000. And obviously every life is precious but that's a big difference. Just quickly and then I'm going to do the daybook guys. Spidey sense or reporting. Do you expect something's going to happen today in terms of U.S. reaction? Larry?

[E]

No, not today.

[B]

Not today. Okay. Kevin?

[C]

Not today.

[B]

Not today. Okay. I think maybe today by the way, but stand by, we'll see what happens. Maybe even during this.

[E]

Do you think that or do you have reporting to.

[B]

I don't. No one told me it's happening today because of course no government official would say hey Mark, we're going to do military. It's all the body language. It's all, it's all how people are responding or not responding. It's all, it's this thing that Jennifer Jacobs pointed out from Reuters. It's just, and the president's interview with CBS and all his comments yesterday and I believe the expectation that the red line is going to be crossed. There are people in the government now who think it may have already been crossed. The president hasn't been specific how many people have to be killed. He seems, I don't know why he cares if people are shot or hung. That seems like a meaningless distinction of how they're killing people. But he said yesterday if they start to hang people that he would do something or he suggested he wouldn't. And, and it seems like there may hang someone today. So we'll see the president today, one event in his schedule. White house pool at 2pm covering a signing ceremony. That's the only thing on his public schedule. We'll see what happens there. Also at the White House, maybe the president will do one of those famous presidential drop bys as the vice president and the secretary of state slash national security advisor meet with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers at the White House. Interesting meeting coming at a time when lots of reporters go up to Greenland now and people say we don't want to be part of the United States. Trump is being heavy handed. But then there's a story in Politico that says the Europeans know the jig is up. They're going to have to make a deal. They're trying to figure out what the best deal they can make is. Lots going on on the Hill. I won't run through the whole thing if you don't get my substack. You should because you can read the entire congressional daybook there. Here's one thing 11 o'.

[C]

Clock.

[B]

Congresswoman Robin Kelly holds a press conference with articles of impeachment against Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Lindsey Graham, one o' clock. With a press conference on FDA abortion drug policies. Benny Thompson, Ilhan Omar and other members of the Homeland Security Committee holding a press conference on the killing of Renee Goode at 1:00'. Clock. And the House and Senate are still trying to figure out how they're gonna avoid a government shutdown. And there's talk of canceling their recess. Amazingly, with just two weeks to go before the deadline for government shutdown, both the House and Senate are supposed to be on recess for a week. But there's talk that maybe that's not the best idea. Supreme Court still hearing cases. Another case today. And we got the retail sale numbers and core PI data at 8:30 Eastern in line with what we've been seeing. Not good, not bad, little better than expectations, but largely in line with expectations. Governor Shapiro, 11 o' clock this morning is attending the Pennsylvania Farm Shows Public Officials Luncheon. That's an event that's like a great event. You guys probably don't know about it because you're not students of the Commonwealth, but he's going to that, delivering remarks and having a press conference. 11 o'. Clock. And then tonight, Vice President Harris's book tour continues. She's in one of my favorite cities in the South, Jackson, Mississippi, at Thalia Mara hall in Jackson. Don't know what the that venue holds. All right, quick word from a sponsor and then we're going to talk, gentlemen, about Iran and a little more we did already. But let's look at a few elements from that Cozy Earth sponsor of the program. We love Cozy Earth. We love Cozy Earth. I sound like the guy who imitates the president on Saturday Night Live. Oh, we love a Cozy Earth. We love our cozy earth. 20 off everything on cozy earth right now, go to cozy earth.com promo code 2 wmm. For 20, I'll start the new year off right and give your home the luxury it deserves and make home the best part of life. You can get 20% off the codezero.com promo code 2 WMM. What does that include? That includes the sheets, the towels, the bubble cuddle blanket. Some of you still don't have the bubble cuddle blanket and I'm not a big pityer, but I do pity those of you who haven't had the good sense to order one yet. You want a bubble cuddle blanket or.

[C]

Two in your home.

[B]

You also want to be wearing the pants around town. I'm going to a business meeting today, and of course, my first choice are my Cozy Earth pants. Because I'll walk in and they'll say, well, Mark, we're going to give you 20% off whatever this business meeting is about because you look stylish. Did you lose weight? Did you get a good haircut?

[C]

What is it?

[B]

And I'll say, no, it's the Cozy Earth Pants. Right now again, 20% off everything on the site. Go to cozyearth.com start the new year off right. Give your home the luxury it deserves. Make the home the best part of life. Cozyearth.com 2wmm is the promo code.

[A]

I'm James Patterson. I write way too many books. Welcome to Hungry Dogs. The title comes from my maternal grandmother, Isabel Elvis 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 Stacey Abrams.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

BJ Novak.

[B]

Yay.

[A]

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, obsessed, 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 you.

[B]

All right, gentlemen, a few elements about Iran I want to look at. And first off is the President. Last night on CBS exclusive interview was asked if Iran has crossed this magical and mystical and not very well defined red line. 104, please. Have they crossed your red line or has the line moved?

[A]

I haven't heard about the hanging. If they hang them, you're going to.

[B]

See some things that I don't know.

[A]

What your where you come from and what your thought process is, but you'll perhaps be very happy.

[B]

What do you mean by that?

[A]

We will take very strong action if they do such a thing. We will take very strong action.

[B]

Kevin, I don't know where you come from, what your thought process is, but I think you'll be very happy too. Here is from our friends at polymarket, our partners there. You can wager on all sorts of things. You can even wager there on whether there'll be American strikes. And here it is. We polymarket. The question will the US next strike Iran? The choices for the betters today, January 14th, only 10% think it's agree with me it's today, January 15th. Tomorrow, 15%, the 16th, 9%, the biggest number, no strikes by the end of the month, 28% chance. Kind of incredible and surprising to me. Here's my question, gentlemen. Besides you work into your answer, anything else you might want to say about this situation? Kevin, do you think that if the president strikes Iran, the public reaction, the political reaction would be favorable and rally around the president because everybody doesn't like Iran? Or do you think you'd see, you'd see Tucker Carlson and AOC maybe say, you know, this isn't a good use of American power.

[C]

Yeah, Mark, it's a good question. I'm of two minds on this, right. A lot of people didn't understand the situation with Venezuela or, you know, Maduro is not a household name. A lot of folks have a long memory about our relationship to Iran going back to the revolution, but they also have a long memory about our adventurism in the Middle East. I do think there would be a rallying around the president for this. I fully support toppling this regime. I spent some time with the crown prince yesterday at an interview who says the number is closer to 12,000 from what he's been able to hear from folks on the ground. It's not relegated just to Tehran. Millions of people in the streets of the capital, but in all 31 provinces around the country. This is a country of 90 million Iranians, twice the size of Venezuela when it comes to a population. And they're taking to the streets something that we've seen in the past, but not to this level. So I do think there would be a lot of support for whatever we do on the sidelines to encourage the toppling of the Ayatollah.

[B]

Larry I try not to make every story a story about J.D. vance, but I'm going to make this one at least a little bit about JD Vance because I find it strange that it's being put out there that he's telling the president to be cautious here and to, and to maybe do diplomacy. Whose interest is that in, to put that out that there's a the vice president? Because, because if Trump does do strikes now, it seems like kind of a little embarrassing for the vice president that, that, that he didn't get his way.

[E]

Well, if you remember the exchange on the infamous signal chat before the strikes, it was JD Vance who was sending that cautious tone as well. I think because of his military service, he's always going to be somewhat reluctant to commit military forces, even if it's a non boots on the ground strike, as is being suggested here with Iran, that's sort of on brand for him. And to answer your question, who does it serve to get it out there? Well, I mean, frankly, it serves him. It serves him in terms of policing.

[B]

Does it serve him if there's a strike that's successful?

[E]

Yes, because he said, listen, I gave the President my advice. The strike was successful. I support the president's decision because he's the commander in chief. But it still sort of reinforces his instincts to sort of be cautious before utilizing the military. In this case, I mean, did it hurt Joe Biden's political fortunes because he was against the strike that ended up getting Osama bin Laden?

[B]

Yeah, I'd say it did a little bit. But I take President. Yeah, yeah, but. But he had.

[E]

Well, I also think there's. There's something else at play here with J.D. vance, though, because if you remember, remember the initial reports about today's big Greenland summit that's going on at the White House? It was Marco Rubio. The Vance people wanted to make sure everybody knew Vance was there, too. And there's sort of this good cop, bad cop dynamic going on where Vance is urging diplomacy and Marco, based on what we're hearing, is ready to use military pressure if necessary. I think that that's sort of this dynamic that I think the vice president, and frankly, the White House likes. Trump has always liked having multiple people around him giving him different types of advice.

[B]

Right.

[C]

All right, Larry, can I. Larry, can I ask a question, though? Do you think it's been interesting, you know, obviously, the raid, you know, down in Mar a Lago, everyone seated around those tables, like, we haven't seen the vice president in a long time, seemingly, you know, on, you know, whether it be talking about the economy. He was up in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago, but nothing with regards to any of our kind of foreign policy stuff that we've seen recently. Marco's been front and center, along with Pete Hegseth. Well, in terms, at least optically. Yeah.

[E]

In terms of the optics, yeah, you're right. Now, my understanding is that he was back at home over the weekend when that strike happened in Venezuela. But. But yes, I think it is interesting. I can't tell more other than the fact that his public statements have been all in support of these on mostly on X.

[B]

It is an interesting question. Most vice presidents are not supposed to, you know, they're supposed to not be seen or heard. This vice president's extremely powerful. I've reported he's the most powerful vice President of the modern era, more than Mondale, more than Cheney. And yet I wonder what dictates whether he goes before camera. You know, besides Sean Hannity demanding he do an interview like, what else?

[E]

Yeah, I mean listen, as the politics go on this, it's obvious that Trump does not. It is funny that you said what happens if Tucker Carlson or AOC come out against this? Think about that for a minute. The two of them, you know, both, both have like mind on this stuff.

[B]

Yes.

[E]

I don't think Trump is listening to those influencers by the way. Neither is the MAGA base. 95% support these military interventions so far. JD Vance right now is I think the only one who sees a political calculation in making sure that he doesn't completely piss off that part of the base. He may be wrong about that, but I think maybe he's doing his best to, to be that guy.

[B]

Right. Okay. So the President, the President spoke three times yesterday. He spoke or maybe four times. I think he spoke on departure to Michigan. He spoke at the Ford plant and he spoke in his speech to the Economic Club. And then he spoke coming back, I think he spoke at the airport in Michigan. And here's my question to you. Speak for yourself and someone in a mission in a Green Bay diner today. Did the President say anything yesterday about specific about making life more affordable for the American people, raising wages or lowering inflation? Did he or cost. Did he say anything yesterday that you remember him saying? The answer is no.

[E]

In terms of forward thinking policies, no. He did reflect on successes he's had.

[B]

He did, he did. He did. But I just find it odd to go the Detroit Economic Club and again, we don't need to go into the Groundhog Day of this. He's undisciplined and he's rather talk about grievance, et cetera. He obviously would, but they say he's going to unveil proposals at Davos, which I continue to believe insane. He continues to talk about a bunch of stuff like these credit card fees, interest rate cap that are just not going to happen. John Thune says they're not going to happen. The speaker says they're not going to happen. So Larry, what is the, what is the President's affordability agenda? Not of stuff he can blurt out or post on Truth Social. But what are things that are not only going to pass this year or be put in place by executive order, but make the real lives of real people better by the midterms? Name one thing that's out there that's going to happen and have a positive impact on either costs or on incomes.

[E]

One thing I think, well, one thing that I think will happen is his move to limit corporate ownership of vacant homes right now and.

[B]

But that's not going to happen.

[E]

I think it will really by the.

[B]

Congress will pass a law. Well, Congress will pass a law this year and it will make people's lives better before the midterms.

[E]

No. Oh well, that's a different question.

[B]

But that was the question I asked you.

[E]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[B]

People aren't gonna, people aren't gonna feel better cuz the President puts a post on truth social. They're not even gonna feel better if Congress passes a law. There have to be the real lives.

[E]

Of real people in terms of impact before the midterms elections. I think that this White House right now, and I think they're right, believe that the moves they've already put in place in their first year and the tax cuts of the big beautiful bill, all of the economic indicators so far suggest that by the middle of this year it's gonna be boomtown and they don't need new initiatives before the, the midterm elections. I think the combination of the plunging gas prices and, and the, and the keeping in inflation tamped down the way that they have and the growth of our economy, the gdp, all of that is going to mean the economy is going to explode by June. It's already on the.

[B]

Kevin, Kevin, what do you think of that position of Larry's?

[C]

I agree. Listen, I, you know, the, the economic situation of the summer is going to dictate how successful the midterms are. I do think there is one tangible thing the administration can been talking a lot about it and taking some action is around prescription drugs and negotiations with, you know, Medicaid and Medicare for coverage. That's a tangible thing that the executive can do without the power of Congress. Mostly something we, we did during the Biden administration and touted and the President should be out there front and center doing more of that. I think the two conversations that we're having around affordability out of Detroit this past week are, you know, the hand gesture that he gave on the factory floor, that was the big takeaway that everyone's talking about. And the conversation that he had with Senator Warren and again, I think people, the American people reward action or the perception of action and the fact that he's calling up Elizabeth Warren in the car after the interview, there's been a lot of conversation about that. And you know, I think the American people to Some degree. See that now, you know, to Larry's point in your question, Larry, you know, what can he actually get done? Not really anything that he had a conversation with Elizabeth Warren about. Right. When it comes to credit, limiting credit and tackling some of those issues. But again, the optics matter.

[E]

Yeah. I mean, Kevin, and just to spin off of that a little bit, in terms of getting something done legislatively or even through executive action that will impact people's affordability in time for the midterm elections, is there anything that could happen other than maybe putting a check in the mail? He did talk about that. A tariff surplus check that will be sent back to.

[B]

Well, he's. I mean, I don't know that there is or not, but he talks a lot about it. He's got a State of the Union address to give where presumably he'll talk at least a little bit about things he plans to do in the economy. And not just great.

[E]

But I don't think those things are. Have the midterms in mind. In terms of real results. I think they're longer term real results. The real results are.

[B]

Tell that to Mike Locke. Tell that. But I think.

[E]

I think they're already baked in the cake.

[B]

All right, we got to move. We got a bunch of topics to get to. Again, raise your hand if you wanted. In the conversation. When the thing happened with Chairman Powell, the president said, I don't know anything about this. And people are like, come on, that's a bunch of bull hockey. Of course you ordered this. Well, based on the New York Times reporting and the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. who has the same name as a former Fox News host, that might be what happened. Might be what happened. Here is the New York Times story. 109, please. Their reporting says that a person with knowledge of Ms. Pirro's actions is Janine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. speaking on a condition of anonymity, discuss internal discussion, said that the U.S. attorney, a former television judge and longtime Trump friend, had never interacted with Mr. Polti, one of the officials who was said to have engineered this about Mr. Powell or the Fed and had never met him. And it even says in the New York Times story, again, they're reporting what their sources are saying, that she didn't even check with the attorney general. She just went out and did this. Here is Pirro herself. Basically consistent with this reporting. Last night on Fox.

[G]

We started the investigation in November. On December 19, we sent a letter, an email, and we said we'd like to talk to people at The Federal Reserve. Give us a call. No response for 10 days. December 29th. Please give us a call. We'd like to talk to you. We'd like to speak to you. No response for 10 days. We want to meet them the first week of January. No response. So then we did what any normal prosecutor would do and we issued legal process. I'm not saying that he's saying that. So does the Federal Reserve Chairman Powell respond to that? No. What he does is he issues a video. He claims that he's being threatened. Threatened with a criminal indictment.

[B]

Okay, threaten that. You guys. Most both, most both might think I'm incredibly naive, but I'm currently inclined to believe that that's what happened. Not that the President didn't encourage it, not that she didn't, but, but she basically said we weren't trying to escalate this into some big criminal probe. We just were looking for information and, and they didn't get back to us because maybe the Fed doesn't read their mail. Kevin, are you open to that explanation? Not that it affects things all that much, but that this was not ordered by anyone but her. Are you open to that or you think that's still a bunch of bullhocky hooky?

[C]

As someone who spent a lot of time sitting next to her co hosting the Five, I would not be surprised if this was her own kind of thinking and not coordinating with anyone in the administration. She has a long relationship with the President, obviously. She, she, you know, and this is not the first time aides around the President, appointees around the President have tried to telegraph and think what the President wants actually to do it.

[B]

Hold on, let's listen to the speaker who popped up with Dana and Bill on Fox.

[H]

Prices. Further, we've been fulfilling our promises that we made on that campaign, campaign trail in 2024 and that's what 2025 was all about.

[B]

God. Do you think the affordability argument's a hoax as the President has said?

[H]

Well, no. What the President's referring to when he calls it a hoax is the Democrats spin. It is Biden nomics that got us into this mess. It is Biden nomics, the outrageous spending levels that drove inflation to 40 year highs. That's why prices are up now. We got to wait, work on it immediately. In January, when Republicans took over the Congress, the House, the Senate and the White House and we did exactly what we said we were going to do, bring down inflation, cut taxes and grow the economy. And that's what all the indicators are saying now. Inflation is going down gas prices at a five year low, the growth rate over 5%, that would have been unimaginable. Even the economist, even conservative economists didn't think that was possible. But it is evident, Bill, that when our policies are implemented, they work. So Trump policies, Republican policies, are doing right by the American people and they're going to reward that at the.

[B]

All right, enough. Enough of that. I got three more things to get to. Larry, one word answer. Is it possible that the bureau did this by herself? By herself.

[E]

One word. I have so much to say, but yes, of course it's possible. I, I believe her.

[B]

All right. Okay, here we go. Minnesota going to do this McLaughlin style. Item A series of public opinion polls show strong disapproval, particularly amongst independents and of course Democrats, of both the shooting of the woman in Minnesota and of ICE operations in general. Item. Video after video show ICE agents on the ground in Minnesota strong arming people, including American citizens, in some cases apparently threatening them or breaking their bones. Item Even Joe Rogan is now comparing ICE practices to the Gestapo. Larry, is the administration, despite its continued aggressive promotion of its operations in Minnesota and elsewhere, with ICE making a mistake, misreading public opinion in a way that could damage the party politically in the midterms and beyond?

[E]

I think they need to be cognizant of the fact that mob tactics work and, and that there's a willing media who, as you just said, Mark, is more interested in this story than they are in the once in a century story in Iran. They need to be aware of that and they need to deftly handle the situation. But if they back off on enforcing the immigration laws that have been voted on and passed by Congresses over the past several decades, then that's going to be a huge, that'll be a bigger problem for them in the midterms.

[B]

But Larry, before Kevin weighs in on just how damaging this is, because the polls seem pretty clear, wouldn't it be better if these people were better trained, if they showed a little bit less, more restraint regarding use of force? Would that be better?

[E]

What is the appropriate amount of force when you've got activists who have been trained to get in your face, getting.

[B]

In and endanger your operations? But it's not just activists. There's incredible video of people at gas stations just minding their own business, surrounded by multiple agents. Some cases they're people in the country illegally, some cases they're not. And they're just there. It seems, it seems extremely unnecessary the level of force they're using.

[E]

Yeah, I haven't seen the videos. You're referring to. So I really.

[B]

Okay, I'm going to show you. I'm going to send you one. It was quite striking. I saw it on Ms. Now, Kevin, I will.

[E]

I will say this, though. Generally speaking, when I see a video on social media that tells me that it's something and everyone goes nuts about it, within a day or two, I find out it's actually somewhat different.

[B]

Yeah. Caution is advised, Kevin. The public opinion polls seem to be encouraging people in your party to be pretty aggressive in criticizing this and not too concerned about backlash. Being on the wrong side of immigration as the party has been for many years. Where do you think it stands?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I just saw this new economist YouGov poll. 46% of Americans want to see ICE abolished. I mean, that's the highest number we've seen, including 15% of Trump voters for 2024. That is, I believe, strongly in the importance of ICE. That's problematic for the rule of law in this country. They do an important role, and I think this hurts, you know, their ability to carry out the important work, which is getting criminal elements off the street that does serious damage to a vital government agency. And it's hugely problematic, the vitriol on both sides, you know, not to both sides. You know, this woman wasn't a domestic terrorist. Yes. She should have listened to police instructions. And, you know, I think it's still true what you said in the aftermath of this Mark, where everyone needs to take a breath and then take four breaths and we need to continue to do that and cooler heads need to prevail. Not scaling up, you know, these folks, and also too, working with local government. Right. It should be incumbent on Democrats, especially these big city Democrats. Why this is happening is because you don't have the local law enforcement coordination. That's problematic. These folks are out there in these communities. They don't know these communities. They're not familiar with the suburbs and cities in Minneapolis and the surrounding areas, and they're seemingly going door to door. You bring up the gas station incident and stuff like that. That's a huge problem. There needs to be greater coordination. Everyone needs to take a damn breath.

[E]

Just a quick note that Economist YouGov poll, which I saw, too, and was struck by until I looked at the crosstabs on it. 41% Harris voters, 33% Trump voters. That's hardly a reflection of the American electorate.

[B]

Yeah, but the numbers are consistent with the three other public polls I've seen in terms of independence attitudes.

[C]

And it's not that's not a good thing.

[B]

But, Larry, just.

[E]

47% support abolishing ICE. I don't think that's consistent.

[B]

This was, I'm sorry, not on that. Not on that question. I'm sorry.

[E]

On abolishing ice.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. I don't think people really even know what that means, so I wouldn't even ask the question, honestly.

[C]

And you saw, you know, the mayor of Minneapolis on a different network this morning saying that he doesn't stand for abolishing ice.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Which is interesting. He's going to get a lot of grief from the left, I'm sure, especially in that city right now with what's going on. But, you know, these cooler heads have to prevail, and these moderating forces within my party need to speak up.

[E]

It's funny because he's. Because he said, get the F out of Minneapolis ICE last week. Keith Ellison yesterday also said he doesn't support abolishing ice. So I think they're looking at some polls of their own that shows them, you know, it's just like, you know, defunding the police six years ago. It doesn't work for them.

[B]

All right, we already talked about Greenland, so we don't need to revisit that. President Clinton, the media bias on this is just extraordinary because he's defying a congressional subpoena that was voted on by both parties. This is not a partisan subpoena. Do either of you know the circumstances under which President Clinton met Jeffrey Epstein, the circumstances surrounding the photos that have been released? Do you think President Clinton's ever been asked that question? Donald Trump's been asked a thousand times about the circumstances of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Although I would say even there, not enough, because we don't really know, you know, like, what, what, what, what did they actually do together? Trump's never been getting. President Trump's never getting that account. But the coverage of this is so minimal today. He's defying a congressional subpoena voted on by both parties. Yep. He, he wrote a letter basically saying, I, you know, I don't have to tell you anything and stay out of my personal life. And it's, it's barely being covered. And, And I'll say again, I don't know, I don't know. And I, I can tell you this. For years now, his team has gotten away with saying, we never went to the island. We deplore Jeffrey Epstein. We didn't know what, we didn't know what he was doing illegal. I don't think either Donald Trump or Bill Clinton broke the law in their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, not just because there's no evidence of that, but because my sense of their relationships. They didn't break the law, but they did unseemly things with him. Okay, so my question, Kevin, is how is this going to end? Is President Clinton going to go to jail for defying this? Will a court say the subpoena is not lawful? How will this end?

[C]

No one's going to jail over this, certainly, including a former president similar to when Donald Trump was prosecuted after he left office. You know, the, I read the four page, you know, letter, you know, they're, they're couching this in a more of a national kind of resistance moment between, you know, Bill and Hillary and Republicans on the Hill. I think, you know, James Comer, you know, is not a great oversight chair for many reasons. Number one, because he sets expectations so high and then delivers nothing burger after nothing burger. I'm surprised that for how savvy the former president is that he hasn't done like a sit down interview with a, with a supportive reporter. Right. To lay this all out in terms of your questions, Mark, when, when did they become in each other's orbits? It has been just, we haven't been into the island. We did nothing untoward. And I'm surprised he hasn't sat down, actually, to provide more details in a friendlier interview setting.

[B]

Larry, why? I've asked this without prejudice and truly don't know the answer. The media hounded Larry Summers to resign from everything he was on and to be fired from everything he was on. He didn't break any law either, as far as we know. He just was very chummy with Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton's in a swim in a hot tub. He's on the plane. Why is the press, which is normally interested in everything about Jeffrey Epstein, not interested in the fact that a former President of the United States is defying a bipartisan subpoena to avoid answering questions about Jeffrey Epstein. Why is the press not more interested in that story?

[E]

Because they're on his side. I'm sorry, it's just most of them are. I mean, I would think George Stephanopoulos would be able to get Clinton to sit down for a very exclusive interview about this topic. I think they go way back. I honestly, I think they see this story as a political weapon to damage Donald Trump, and that's the only reason they've been on it, by the way. I'm sorry, I've got a ghost in my mind.

[B]

That's okay. I see that Kevin is Larry's gnosticist. Correct. The press is not into this because they're proclaiming Clinton and anti Trump. Is that, is that the reason?

[C]

I don't know necessarily if that's true because, you know, obviously it was covered on Fox News quite a bit and more, you know, conservative ballots.

[E]

When we say the media, you know, you know who he's talking about and I'm talking about when we say them.

[B]

I mean, I mean, again, yeah, but the fact that, the fact that the subpoena is bipartisan is not a small point. This is not comer on some partisan witch hunt.

[E]

The Democrats more than bipartisan. The Democrats led the charge on this.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And it was all Democrats and like four Republicans, I think.

[B]

Right. And, and the Democratic spokesperson for the committee was quoted in somewhere today, I only saw her quoted in one place saying, yeah, we wanted, we, you know, president, we want to work this out. We need to know what President Clinton thinks. The Clintons are right on the merits, I believe I should say they didn't. They weren't in. They don't know anything about the, the committee's mandate, which is what happened with the investigation. They're right about that. There's no evidence that either Clinton knows anything about the Legislative Oversight Project of looking into how the investigations into Maxwell and Epstein were conducted and so on the merits. Yes, but the committee wants them to answer questions and they're declining even though it's a bipartisan subpoena.

[C]

One interesting fact about this though, Mark, too, is that so Ashley Callan, who's the, you know, Speaker Johnson's former counsel, former Republican counsel to the Oversight Committee, is one of the lead attorneys with the Clintons. So, you know, obviously she's got insights from before in terms of operations and all that and clearly helped draft this letter in response, you know, ticking off some of the key points, you know, in terms of the Clintons being treated than the different than the other folks that have been subpoenaed and things like that. So, you know, there is a, you know, a high level Republican operative and lawyer involved in, in the Clinton response.

[E]

Yeah, well, they're not dumb. They're. Kevin, can I ask you a quick question? Because you said no one's going to jail on this and. Okay. But just for my own information, when I do my radio show so I can explain to my listeners, on what legal principle will no one go to jail on this? Considering Steve Bannon went to jail for this exact same thing, it might not.

[C]

Be a legal understanding of it. I think in Optically, this is why I had a problem with anyone saying that Donald Trump, that Donald Trump, because of these, these different indictments in the interregnum between the administrations, was going to jail. This country would have a very difficult problem, optically, with a former president with Secret Service protection in a minimum security prison, either, you know, either.

[E]

So there is no legal principle.

[C]

Yeah, well, there is no legal.

[B]

There is no legal. There is a legal, there is a legal principle which is no former president has been compelled to testify before Congress. That's, that's a legal principle. I think they are, they are treated differently. President Ford did, but it was voluntary. I think that.

[C]

And while he was president. And while he was president too, either.

[B]

Yeah, either Congress is not going to, either the Justice Department is not going to prosecute, although I don't know why they wouldn't, or President Clinton's going to go to court rather than write a letter. He's going to go to court and try to get a judge to throw it out and say it's not, it's not a legit. And again, on the legal merits, I think you'd have a good case because Congress is not, is not the executive branch. You're not supposed to be doing an investigation except as it pertains to legislative oversight. Their legislative. Stated. Legislative oversight is how is the investigation conducted? President Clinton doesn't know anything about that, I believe. Okay. Wash. New York Times is reporting this. Just breaking news here. FBI agents conducted a search at the home of a Washington Post reporter on, on Wednesday as part of what officials said was an investigation into the possible sharing of government secrets. This reporter is someone who covers the Trump administration's efforts to fire federal workers. We'll watch that. Okay, a couple more topics and then to your question. So please raise your hand if you want in on the conversation. Senator Schumer is on a media tour. His goal is to convince donors that they might be in the majority so they can raise money and try to be in the majority of the. It's an age old thing done by every Senate leader who's in the minority to try to make the case that they can be the majority because donors want to give to the majority. So to create some momentum, he did a round of interviews with print organizations saying, here's how we're going to win. Here's the Axios headline, inside Schumer's plot to Retake the Senate. Two classic words there for headline writers that are ridiculous. Inside. It's not inside because he's saying it everywhere and it's not a plot. It's just, it's more of a plan than a plot. They might have said scheme, but here he is on Morning Joe laying out how the math of how he thinks this is going to happen.

[D]

We have a really strong, clear path to win back the Senate. As, you know, a year ago, no one thought we did. And at that point we said we had to do three things. We had to find good candidates, good, strong candidates in our battleground states. We have done that with Mary Peltola announcing in Alaska. That's the final piece of the puzzle. And we have really strong candidates. Candidates in Maine, in North Carolina, in Ohio and in Alaska. I think we'll win all of those states. Second, we had to create the right political atmosphere. We said we had to bring Trump's numbers down and show people how bad he was with the issue of costs, the number one issue facing the American people. Last night, millions of American families sat around the kitchen table and said, can I. Which bill do I not?

[B]

All right, enough of that.

[D]

My grocery bill.

[B]

Okay, so the math is pretty simple. It's interesting. People are noting this. Schumer is not talking about the Texas Senate race. He's not talking about the Iowa Senate race, although he says, well, maybe we'll win those two. He's basically saying, we're going to hold Michigan, we're going to hold Georgia, and then we're going to take four to get a 5149 majority. Susan Collins in Maine, Ohio, Alaska and.

[E]

North Carolina.

[C]

North Carolina.

[B]

So those are the, those are the four Northeast, Maine, South North Carolina, Midwest, Ohio and then Alaska. And people are saying, because particularly people who like Democrats are saying, yeah, this is plausible, it's not a shoe in. But, but those are four winnable races. Kevin, what are, what's, what are the two. One, number one and two weak links in Senator Schumer's list of six, keeping the two incumbent seats and then winning those four. Which two do you think are the longest shots right now?

[C]

The weakest link, number one, is Maine. Susan Collins has staying power in that state. Funny enough, you saw the President attacking her and saying, we need a new nominee. She has, she's beloved in that state. We have tried multiple, you know, Emily Kane, I think, raised $120 million and Maine could have given checks of $50,000 to every voter, and we still still didn't win that race. So Maine is tough, Ohio is tough. You know, President won it by double digits, although Sherrod Brown kept it to a three point spread.

[B]

So you think Ohio is a weaker length than Alaska?

[C]

Yes, because of ranked choice voting in Alaska.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

That gives us a pretty strong advantage, I think.

[B]

Larry, what are the weak links in the six to you?

[E]

I think Ohio, actually, I would put North Carolina. I'm always dumbfounded by Maine. You're right. She's a juggernaut and she's going to raise a ton of money. It is interesting when Schumer says we've got great candidate in Maine. Who do you think he was talking about there?

[B]

The governor.

[C]

The governor, yeah. He said, do we think he's all in for Dan Mills?

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

I don't know who's going to get the nomination. We need, we need to do a big check in on Mr. Platner and he's so.

[E]

I think that depends. And so it depends on who gets the nomination for Susan Collins. But I would listen. What, what that whole, this whole thing with the Axios article and the appearance. This is about fundraising. He's got to say all this and he's got to let things funders know. Yes. There's a shot, there's a chance.

[B]

There's a theory of the case. Okay. I, I, I think, I think Ohio and Alaska. Alaska are, are the most problematic of the six.

[C]

But I will say, interestingly enough, I mean, the, the, the race for the midterms is already here. I mean, Texas decides in less than 50 days who the nominee is going to be in March. So like that, that's here. And if it's Ken Paxton. Yeah. You know, we're pretty bullish there too.

[B]

Yeah. All right, real quick, last two topics.

[C]

Not if it's Jasmine on our side on Greenland.

[B]

I want to show you, I want to poly market one thing for you guys and see if you agree. This is on Greenland again. The vice president and Rubio are meeting with the foreign ministers today. This is 114. Will the U.S. obtain. What's the word? Will you acquire part of Greenland this year? Will the US acquire part of Greenland in 2026? Poly market wagers only have a 23% chance that they acquire part of Greenland this year. I'll tip my hand and say, tip my cards and say. I think it's much higher than that, Larry. 23% send high to you or you want the over?

[E]

It's that word acquire that I'm having trouble with because we might end up having a all encompassing, long term expanded relationship there and presence there that doesn't actually have full out acquiring. So I'm sort of up in the air on it.

[B]

Okay. Kevin.

[C]

Yeah, I'm a leader. Look what's already happening, you know, and I give the President a lot of credit as a Democrat. You see France, Germany, England, increasing military engagement with Greenland. This is the same thing he did when he kind of bullied them with regards to GDP and the percentage of their defense spending. So I think to Larry's point, you know, we're going to see an increased US Presence in coordination with the Danes and our NATO allies as a result of this. We're not taking it over.

[B]

Yeah. All right. Lastly, two things that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have in common. One is that neither of them has ever been in my kitchen. And the other is like almost every politician I've ever covered, they love to use the F word. President Trump did it yesterday and gave the finger to a guy who says he's been suspended. Was he fired or suspended? Suspended, maybe. Anyway, you'll see the video. Most of you seen this already. Simple question and then quick word from a sponsor and then to people's questions. Kevin, tell people who've never hung around politicians how often almost all of them use the F word.

[C]

100, 100%. And one of the stories about Joe Biden behind the scenes is every fourth word in the Oval Office and other places with advisors was the F word.

[B]

Yes, Larry. One of my favorite sentences in in Game Change was about Senator McCain when he, they were briefing him on his schedule to come up to our friend Megan McCain's graduation from Columbia and he said, and we, we triple source the quote. He said, how many effing times do I effing have to go to New York to effing go to Megan's effing graduation? Four times in one sentence. So, Larry, can you confirm what Kevin says that most people in politics just love that Anglo Saxon verb. They just use it over and over?

[E]

Yeah. Oh, a thousand percent. In fact, I think Orrin Hatch is the only politician that I can remember now. Oh, and Mitt Romney. I didn't spend as much time. I didn't spend as much time with Romney that never used the F word.

[B]

Yeah. Although I've heard at least one Romney's son use it, by the way, but that's a different man. All right.

[C]

I still listen to Orrin Hatch's music all the time. Great singer, songwriter.

[B]

All right, quick word from a sponsored into your questions. Don't play that again. Here's a quick word from a sponsor, folks. I'm going to continue to until all of you signed up for Upside by downloading the app. I'M going to keep telling you about it. Upside gets you free money. Gas stations, supermarkets and restaurants. You just download the app, buy the stuff you'd normally buy, get all the cash back you get from your credit card or any other way and get more from upside. Just open the app. It'll tell you where it's accepted. Over a hundred thousand places around the country participate. It's cash back. It's not points. It's easy, it's just, it's effortless. You just get free money. And right now, if you go to the upside app and you put in the promo code mark, you can get an additional 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas that you purchase and use the upside app. It just connects you with places that will give you more money back for what you buy. It's real, the app is free, the transactions are free. There's no catch to it. You just get money back. So go right now to download the app on Apple or Google. They've given over a billion dollars back to its users. How much you can earn, Download the free upside app and use the promo code mark to get that extra 25 cents back on your gallons. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe for the first time in the calendar year of 2026, a two way stalwart Clara B. Jones. Clara, welcome in. Thank you for being here. Happy New Year to you.

[G]

Thank you. Thank you for calling.

[B]

Of course. What's on? What's on your mind for Kevin and for Larry.

[G]

Well, for you I have a really quick comment and that is that Governor Moore is really unpopular in Maryland right now because the deficit is huge.

[B]

Yeah.

[G]

My question is about your 828 list.

[C]

Yeah.

[G]

Really impressed by Jared Paulus and by Gina Raimondo and I wonder why they're not in play.

[B]

Yep, great question. Neither of them is on my top eight of most likely nominees. As I say, I factor in whether I think they're going to run or not. And although both of them have talked about it and Raimondo's said openly she's considering it, I think in the end neither of them will run until they do something that makes it more likely that they're going to actually be contestants in this competition, I just don't make them in the top eight. But I agree with the premise of what you're asking. I think they're both extremely strong if they do run, even though they're more conservative than a lot of the party. Here are my latest 8 for 28 list. This is available to you on nextup I walk through it. Gavin Newsom Number one, Governor Shapiro 2, Kamala Harris 3. JB Pritzker 4, Pete Buttigieg 5 AOC 6, Ro Khanna 7, Rahm Emanuel. Kevin, what do you think of Raimondo and Polis potential candidates if they do run?

[C]

Yeah. Ms. Claire, it's a, it's a good point. I don't think there is an interest with either of them to run. Jared Polis obviously wrapping up his term as governor of Colorado important state and Gina Raimondo, obviously former governor of Rhode island and our commissary commerce secretary. She's not actually that beloved in Rhode island, interestingly enough. And I think you also make an interesting point, Ms. Clara, about Wes Moore. It's always easy governing when you have a surplus. Much more difficult when you have billions of dollars you've got to find whether it be raising taxes or cutting government spending. So really good, really good points on that front, Larry.

[E]

Ms. Claire, fellow Marylander here, you're absolutely right about Governor Moore. But as of now, John Myrick is the only high profile ish Republican to declare if former Governor Hogan or Ehrlich decide and they've sort of flirted with the idea if they decide to come back and run another term against Governor Moore, do you think that they have a chance.

[B]

Clarity, you think they could do well, a Republican could win that state?

[G]

I don't think either of them would succeed, but I'm very fond of Hogan and Westmore had a surplus from Hogan when he took office.

[B]

Yep. Claire, thank you. Grateful to you for being on. Please come back regularly. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to Nicole. Nicole, welcome in. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind for Kevin and for Larry.

[I]

Hi, good morning. I have a comment on the whole Iran strike situation. I well, I guess a question I think that because of the most recent strike on Iran we did was Fordo and all the nuclear sites and they were a M.A. it was a massive situation that we automatically characterize any additional, additional strike as something that large. When I think about something we might do in reaction to hanging protesters, it seems like targeted assassinations on some of these military leaders that are kind of going out of the way to do this and make a, make an example of these protesters is probably more likely what we're going to do. We're not just going to go bomb while there's thousands of protesters in the streets, I would assume. So I guess my question is when we're talking about an Iran strike, are we intentionally not Being specific that we're looking at taking out leaders that can help the Shah come back in, or is it more about creating the fear of we're gonna come strike in Iran and that is kind of the muscle is the intention, Larry.

[E]

Nicole, I think the latter is really the bulk of what's going on here in terms of this chatter. My understanding, and I remember it being reported at the time that the Iranian hierarchy were, were really shook by the military strike. Not only that they didn't see it coming, but how devastating it was despite some of the sort of spin that you heard right afterwards. And so just flexing the muscle and rattling the saber, as they say, has an effect if there is some sort of action. First of all, let's just be clear. We're kind of there right now. We have assets there, maybe not Americans and American troops, but we have relationships with people in the military. I think we've got covert relationships so we can aid those covert activities. For people who see an opportunity to sort of undermine the regime or maybe even topple it, I think it's more things like that and targeted strikes, but not boots on the ground. That's, that's my understanding of what's being contemplated, Kevin?

[I]

Yeah, because I think about right when we were trying to negotiate with Hamas for the, for the 20 point plan in Gaza, that right during those things they, it wasn't us, but there were, there were very targeted strikes on some of the leaders of those negotiations. And the capacity is there. If we know exactly what bedroom they're in, the capacity is there. So I guess that's kind of my point.

[E]

Yeah, I agree.

[B]

Kevin, anything else you want to add?

[C]

Yeah, I just agree, Nicole. There's also some kinetic things, some cyber things that we can be doing. I don't think it makes sense for us to bomb any kind of military sites. We, we need the, the, the military, the rank and file, to be on board with toppling the Ayatollah. That's how the Ayatollah came in in the first place. The military flipped on the Shah once the purview of the Shah. So I think that's how we do it is very targeted, taking out key personnel and key capabilities that the military is using and the police force is using to coordinate the protest response. If we can hurt their abilities to coordinate on the ground.

[E]

And the Revolutionary Guard, I don't think there's any thought that they can sort of curry favor with and keep the Revolutionary Guard's got to go. And if they're going to do anything against any part of the military. Military to be them, I would think.

[C]

Yeah, 100%.

[B]

I agree. Nicole, thank you. Great question. Quick one, one last sponsor, our friends at Ethos. Ethos.com promo code markets you a free quote on life insurance. Makes it fast and easy Online platform, you get quotes in as little as 10 minutes. If you're the breadwinner in your family, make sure your family could survive and thrive on things like making their mortgage payments, their rent payments, tuition payments, other bills. Consequence of not having. This can be dire. And it's something lots of people put off. Don't put it off now. Go to ethos.com, use the promo code mark for a free quote for life insurance, no medical exams required. You do it all online, just answer a few health questions, can take as little as 10 minutes and you get up to $3 million in coverage. Again, Ethos.com promo code mark for a free quote right now. Very quick. And it's something you shouldn't put off. If you put it off and the unthinkable happens, your family can be left without the ability to go forward and no one would want to see that. So if you don't have life insurance and you know you need to get it, go to ethos.com right now. Use the promo code Mark very quickly, get a free quote. Okay, Darrell, welcome in. Thank you for being part of Two Way. Very good to see you. Happy New Year. Unmute. Tell everybody where you are and what's on your mind. For Kevin and for Larry.

[F]

Thank you, Mark. Happy New Year. I'm outside of Philadelphia. Yeah, gonna come on here with a contrarian view, as you probably expect with this Iran business. You know, the giddiness with which some people are about like strikes on Iran and destabilizing the government there, it's pretty concerning. Especially you, Larry, saying It's like a 100 year opportunity. Like do, do we not forget what we did to Syria? I mean we took out Assad and now the place is being run by a literal extremist terrorists and hundreds of thousands of people died. Like I think we need to be clear headed about what we're really talking about here. And it's not so easy like, oh, we'll just destabilize the regime. Like where's the Revolutionary Guard gonna go? Where is all the super powerful military weaponry gonna go like we have? If we're willing to roll the dice on this, we have to be prepared that potentially millions of people could die, Larry.

[E]

Yeah, well, first of all, nice hat and all Fair points. Although I don't know if all the facts are correct in terms of our participation with Assad, resulting in hundreds of thousands dying. I think the deaths occurred before under Assad, for that matter. And I would argue that we didn't.

[F]

Supply terrorists with weaponry, we didn't do targeted bombings, that Trump himself bombed Syria.

[E]

So I'm not sure what you're talking about. So I'm quibbling with the hundreds of thousands of deaths that you're saying that we were responsible for in our actions in Syria. But Iran is a different animal, man. You look at the last five decades, they are the leading state sponsor of terror. They have so much American blood on their hands after what they did to our troops in Iraq. And if there is a sliver of opportunity where for the first time in 50 years, we could actually get rid of that regime that is not just terrorizing the people of Iran, but have terrorized people around the world, including America.

[F]

Who'S going to take that then?

[E]

We need to be able to look seriously at that Operation Opportunity.

[F]

Who's the opposition leader that's going to take over?

[B]

Daryl? Hold on one second, Larry.

[E]

Is it.

[B]

Is it worth doing and becoming entangled if we don't know who will take over?

[E]

What is the argument here? The devil you know is better than the devil you don't? Because the devil we know is pretty freaking bad.

[F]

Yes, well, we, we killed Gaddafi and now there's open slave markets in Libya. You think that's better?

[B]

Yeah. Kevin.

[E]

Well, I didn't. I didn't support Obama's actions against Gaddafi.

[B]

Let's let Kevin. It's not exactly Kevin and Kevin. Darrell. Darrell speaks for tens of millions who just think this is too risky. It's not America's business. And the unintended consequences could be dramatic. Your thoughts?

[C]

I mean, there's always going to be consequences. But, But, Daryl, to Larry, Larry's point, the devil we know is pretty, pretty awful. And, you know, there is a question as to who takes over that. You know, I saw the Crown Prince yesterday. He has no interest really, in coming back as the Shah. I think he's interested in potentially helping in a transitional role. But he fled the country when he was in his teens. He hasn't been back since 1979.

[F]

Yeah, he hasn't been there in 50 years.

[C]

Correct. So there are civil servants and a bureaucracy and an infrastructure there. And we're seeing some elements of the protests include leadership from the business community, obviously that is hurting really badly based on our sanctions and based on the crumbling economy. And what the regime has prioritized in terms of military spending. But listen, a good amount of drones that are killing Ukrainians right now are from Iran. So if you care passionately about innocents being killed in Kyiv and leaving others, you know, tackling this regime has far lasting consequences for the health and safety of the world.

[F]

Yeah, well, that's an interesting justification for attacking Iran. Is helping Ukraine, like. Well, I just think that's. That's a ridiculous thing. Like, that's not going to solve the issue.

[E]

I'm just curious, Darryl, if there were members of the French court who advised against sending naval support to George Washington and the Continental army in the Revolutionary War, you know, because, hey, you know, sure, we don't know who's going to be the successor of. In the colonies there. You know, we don't know it's going to be destabilizing that whole region. Did we not benefit from foreign intervention there when the French came and gave us Admiral Rochambeau and support against the Brits? I mean, aren't there any good causes for American intervention?

[F]

Well, I think radical government, Larry, if you have to go back 250 years.

[E]

I don't have to go back, but I just, I didn't want to raise.

[F]

Hitler and I only need to go back 10 years when we, we destroyed Syria in the name of. Everything we're saying about Iran was all said about.

[E]

Is there, Are there any. Are there any American interventions in foreign countries that resulted in the toppling of their current leader that you've supported in the last 50 years? Hundred years, yeah.

[F]

Grenada.

[B]

Yeah. Those medical students, I don't know if.

[E]

We toppled their regime, though.

[B]

Did we? I don't think we did. I think we just saved the medical students. Darrell, I'll say again, you speak for tens of millions. I appreciate how relatively, how relatively restrained you are. You only insulted people indirectly once, which is good. Which is good for. By Darrell's standards. And I'll say on behalf of Daryl's point of view, not just he speaks for tens of millions, but it is crowded out of a lot of the media coverage. The point of view that says this is a horrible idea, not just that there are risks, is. Is not very well represented on the television Networks. Not on MSNB. Ms. Now almost lost 40 grand. Not on Fox, not in the Washington Post, not in the Daily Caller. And I just, I just throw those four at a random. There's almost no consideration to a point of view that Daryl represents none. There's none the tens of millions agree with. It's Kind of a stunning thing. Larry, go ahead real quick.

[E]

Take another look at the Daily Caller. You'll see it there. Well, it's run by Neil Patel, Tucker Carlson's partner.

[B]

But, but even, but even there, they'll write opinion pieces about it. But the, but the coverage of it overall.

[E]

Oh, and, and it won't be dealt with in a respectful, intellectual way that we, that we did here. Absolutely agree, agree with that, Darryl.

[C]

Thank you. And without, without Daryl's good question, we wouldn't have an Admiral Roshan bow reference.

[B]

There you go. There you go.

[E]

His statue is right across from the.

[B]

Last, last question for you to Does Diet Coke stain? Spelled Diet Coke on my shirt. Is that gonna stain or that come right out?

[E]

You're gonna want to put some club soda on that as fast as you can. No, it won't stay.

[C]

Diet Coke is the nectar of the gods. So you are just fine.

[B]

All right.

[E]

So I'm telling Bobby Kennedy on both of y'. All.

[B]

All right. Put up his boss eats hamburgers every meal.

[E]

Put up, put up our list of.

[B]

Two ways that are coming up. I'll be on with Michael Smerconish in just moments, which is why I'm going to start talking really fast here because when I'm late, TC gets all upset. Here are the upcoming two ways for later today. Citizen McCain at noon. Remind me who's on that show. Somebody chime in. Who's on today. There you go. Mary Catherine Hammond, Guy Benson. Two great broadcasters and thinkers are going to join Miranda, who's sitting in. Do we have a special surprise in this episode that I can tout? I don't know if we do or not. Well, there might be a special surprise. No, there's no special surprise, George. Citizen McCain today, Guy Benson, Mary Catherine Hamm. Then I'll be on at six o' clock tonight with two way tonight. And you might think, well, Larry, Larry and Kevin are aces. Best in class. Can't top them for two people to come on and chat about the news. Very true. But imagine, imagine a show. This is not a hypothetical. Ladies and gentlemen, Kristen Davis and Stephen Alakara will be joining me at six o' clock tonight. Talk about news of the day and then the moynihan report at 7. And then this program will be here tomorrow. I've told Kevin you can confirm this on background. Kevin's coming back tomorrow. We'll miss Larry. But if you, if you, if you can't have Larry, ladies and gentlemen, imagine Hogan Gidley. Imagine the possibilities of Kevin. Kevin, have you hosted this show with Hogan before.

[C]

I've not. I know Hogan well, though. He's been to my. He's been in my house multiple times.

[B]

All right, that's.

[C]

But he's no Larry. But he's no Larry o', Connor, I'll tell you that.

[E]

Certainly we think we got all agree.

[B]

Anyway, grateful to you gentlemen. Grateful to Claire and everybody else who came on, raised their hand, participated in conversation like no other. We'll see in 23 hours here. And I will see you at 6pm Eastern Time tonight for 28 tonight. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Have a good day. Sayonara.