B (3:32)

This is it.

A (3:33)

The world as you know it is over. Completely done. It's not about to be over. It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

C (3:45)

I was selling AI as a great

A (3:48)

thing for decades and I was wrong. I was wrong.

D (3:53)

There's a longer term existential threat that will arise when we create digital beings that are more intelligent than ourselves.

E (4:00)

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

A (4:03)

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

D (4:08)

it's going to be the most important

A (4:10)

invention that humanity will ever make.

E (4:12)

This really will be a world of abundance.

A (4:14)

And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right. In the Daybook today, the president once again deviating from the norm. He's not outselling his State of the Union. There's no momentum or anything like that. He is going to Texas tomorrow. We'll talk about Texas in today's show because the primaries on Tuesday, some really interesting dynamics there. At this hour, the president's having executive time, my White House sources say. When he's listed as executive time at 9:00am he's watching us. So hello, Mr. President, thank you for watching 11 o' Clock Intelligence briefing presumably will cover Iran and and probably Russia, Ukraine. We'll talk about that. Private meeting at 3 o'. Clock. Is that either of you? Is that your meeting with the president for either of you? Yeah. Okay. All right. Cross them off as we search for the. Who's the president got a private meeting with? It's not Matt Gorman. It's not. I'm a Moore. I won't say if it's me or not. I'm not at liberty to say. Okay. J.D. vance is doing what is traditionally done. He and a cabinet member are headed to Plover, Wisconsin. Do you guys know where that is? I keep forgetting to look. Where's Plover, Wisconsin? You look that up, let me know. The vice President is traveling today to a district, a third congressional district. It's a competitive district currently held by Republican Representative Derek Van Orden. It's one of the two Republican held districts being challenged by the Democrats and not a coincidence. It's not like hey happened to be going there. He's going there to try to help the incumbent supposed to speak at right after we're off the air here, 10 o' clock Eastern Time with him today, Kelly Loeffler Leffler, the head of the SBA and three members of the delegation including the incumbent whose districts they're going to. So full coverage of that on two way tonight. Eager to see what kind of message the Vice President drives as compared to what his boss did on Tuesday night. House is out. The Democrats are on their second day of their two day policy conference in Leesburg, Virginia. Armed Services Committee is hearing from President Trump nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and American Security Affairs. That's a good job and a good title. Chuck Schumer is having a news conference at 12:30 in Chappaqua, New York. Members of the House Oversight Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike are going to Chappaqua and you can put up the map. They're meeting as we heard yesterday from guest host Lawler, they're meeting at the Performing Arts Center. This will be videotaped. It will not be live. It's about as you can see there, a four minute drive from where the Clintons live in Chappaqua. If you're watching here on YouTube or here on the platform so near the Clinton's house and this is where President Clinton will be going tomorrow. Supposed to start at 11. I suspect it might not be that long because Secretary Clinton doesn't have much to say. It will depend on the questions and how far afield they want to go to ask her about stuff she may not know much about. The release of this stuff is tbd. When will we get a transcript? Members are supposed to have press conferences, I think separate, non partisan press conference afterwards. So they'll give their impressions. And then when will we get the transcript? When we get video excerpts of the entire video. It's all going to be interesting to see. We're going to talk about this in a moment. Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner in Geneva. It's another double header for them. They're currently taking a break from negotiations that started earlier today at the. With the Omanis mediating. Negotiating with the Iranian, Iranian, Iran. Senior diplomat. And the white puffs of smoke coming out have been positive and the oil markets are reacting very positively. I think this might be a bit premature based on my reporting, but, but, but things seem to be going okay. And the talks seem to be largely confined to nuclear. Get to this in a minute. And then later they're, they're negotiating on Russia, Ukraine. Rahm EMANUEL is at 10:30 this morning at Brookings. Do you guys know. Both my parents worked at Brookings at

B (8:27)

one point I didn't know that.

A (8:29)

Not many people could. Not many people can say that now. Both my parents worked at Brooklyn.

E (8:32)

Explains why you're so smart.

A (8:34)

Yeah, that's why I'm so. It's why I'm so boring. Because that's a boring. That's a boring place. Let's be honest. Kamala Harris Tonight, 7 o' clock in Indianapolis, Indiana, on her book tour, speaking at the old National Center. Either of you guys ever done anything at the old National Center? Not familiar with that?

B (8:50)

Attractive to me.

A (8:51)

Somebody, somebody Google and see how many, how many people does that hold? All right, gentlemen, here we go. Did you find out where Plover, Wisconsin is yet?

B (9:01)

Yeah, it's about west of Green Bay.

A (9:03)

West of Green Bay. How far from Green?

E (9:05)

The lake.

B (9:06)

I don't know about that, but it's almost like equidistant on the same.

A (9:09)

Yeah, okay. All right. So as we said, Kushner and Witkoff are at the Omani embassy in Geneva. Hopefully they're not eating squid or eel. Here's the Wall Street Journal headline. Well, let's do it this way. What suggests we may be going to war? Besides every source associated with the administration here is the Wall Street Journal 105 says the US has deployed combat jets to Israel. In a first US deploys combat jets to Israel for potential wartime mission in Iran. In prior years, the US Took pains to Avoid highlighting how closely it worked with Israel. Believe me, they're still taking pains to highlight it. There's tons of intelligence and military coordination been going on for days, maybe weeks with the Israelis to talk about a joint operation of some sort. Politico has a story I don't really understand that says it would be good if the US If Israel struck Iran first. I don't understand that story. But there is a lot of coordination. So that suggests war. Yesterday, both the vice president and the Secretary of state spoke separately to make the case effectively for war, highlighting in particular Iran's nuclear program and their missile program. And yet, as I said, the Iranians today and sources around the talks have said that they're going well and that the Iranians are open to a pretty restrictive deal around the nuclear program. Now, I don't know if they get a nuclear deal, if that's going to do it for the US because they may want a missile deal. Here's 107. This is the latest on the talks from the times of Israel. U.S. u.S. Iran, nuclear talks pause. Omani foreign minister says hailing creative and positive ideas. Again, the Omanis have been positive today. The Israel, the Iranians have been positive. All that matters is when the thing ends, when Witkoff and Jared call the president. That's all that matters. Don't. Don't listen to any other mood music but Matt Gorman. Yeah. Are we headed towards war war, war or more jar Jar jaw?

B (11:15)

I think more war than jar. I thought it was notable that Vance spoke out so supportive of it. I mean, right. Is. It's his prerogative to not want to get involved in these things more. More often than not. But like, I also think too, you're right. Wit Coffin and Kushner getting the phone with the president is key. I think we're. I would switch the war talk to the jar talk. If somebody like a Rubio or the like gets in a plane and goes over there.

A (11:43)

He's. He's supposed to be meeting with Bibi on Saturday. I think that's just a big faint. I don't agree.

E (11:49)

Yeah.

A (11:49)

Yeah. Jaime, what are you looking at in terms of, you know, the military buildups there?

E (11:56)

Yeah.

A (11:57)

The Israelis mood music to me suggests that they think we're about to have a big strike. What are you looking and shooting what Schumer said the other day also. But what are you looking at on this?

E (12:06)

Yeah, look, and I think Matt just framed it well. It seems like the president has put himself in the most strategic position to do some sort of strike and so, you know, so I think that's, that's not, that's notable. And to, to your point, I think we've got to see what Kushner and Witkoff say when they go over there. It seems like the President has had enough and he's already fed up and he's allowing the Iranians to placate the media, you know, while he is positioning himself to go in and do something very targeted and very strategic. I think the longer this goes on, I think the more likely the President will go in very quickly and pop out. I don't think this is going to be something that he would want to have as a long term, you know, operation. So I think today is going to be very important. But it does look like the President is headed toward some sort of surgical drop in.

A (12:59)

Yeah, look, Donald Trump could pull the plug on the whole thing. And if he does, people are going to say loss of credibility, just like Obama. I don't believe he feels that way about it. If he decides that the risk is too great and he can get an intermediate deal with the Iranians, I think you got to be open to that. But I believe the base case remains this. He wants to get this over with. He wants this to be the last time in his presidency he has to deal with Iran's nuclear capability, their missile capability, their sponsorship of terrorism, and this regime. So I'm not predicting here there's going to be a big attack, but I'm just telling you, to me, that's the most likely and it will be done with purpose. And the reason you've read accounts over the last two weeks that say this could go on for 10 days is because this has not hit a nuclear facility and demand they come to the negotiating table. This is, we're done dealing with this as a problem. That's what I think is the mindset, but it doesn't mean. And again, I'm not hedging for the purposes of avoiding being wrong. I'm trying to share with you what I know and what I think is true. He could also pull the plug on the whole thing. He could sign a deal that critics will say, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, you know, people who are very hawkish on Iran will say, crappy deal. We went through all of that. You, you claimed you were not Obama and you made a crappy deal. That could happen, too. Now, let's poly market this from our partners at polymarket. Will the US Invade Iran by the end, before the end of this year? Will the U.S. invade Iran this is number one away. Now, the way they define invade Iran is takes control of any Iranian territory. Will the US invade? Around 20% chance, according to poly market wagers. As you can see, it's moved up and down, but it's at a, it's at, I think it's, this is the high, this is the highest it's been. Haima. The president is not going to put boots on the ground. Is it possible, though, that in some way Special forces are in concert with the Israelis, there'd be an invasion as defined that way into Iran, or you think 20% even is too high?

E (14:53)

Well, no, no, I think, look, there's definitely potential. You know, when you go into any sort of warlike scenario, you know, it's not about what you do, it's about the reaction. And so we're not quite sure how, you know, other partners and allies of Iran will take this. And so there is a chance that the President will have to double down and go in for some sort of second go at it. And so we can't deny that that is not what the President wants to do, I don't believe. But that's going to depend on the reaction from Iran and from, from, from their, their allies.

A (15:32)

Matt Gorman, what's the worst case for the United States that you worry about here? I mean, in other words, Iran retaliation that kills thousands of, of Americans and Israelis. What's the worst case on your radar?

B (15:44)

I think the worst case on my radar is not necessarily deaths in Iran, but splinter cells, suicide bombings, God forbid stateside here. Right. Like everything we talked about post Soleimani as a, as a possibility coming to fruition through this. This.

A (16:00)

Yeah. All right, let's talk about Cuba. I've been a little lazy or busy, I'll say. I haven't really focused on this thing in Cuba that's been going on for a couple days now that the Secretary of State talked about yesterday. I've kind of in the back of my mind been assuming will embargo the hell out of them, we'll, we'll destroy their economy. And then the next day there'll be a JW Marriott on the beach in Havana and we'll all be flying down there for, for, for spring break. Not really, but I hadn't really, I didn't really thought about this as a potentially violent transition. Well, here's this thing that's been going on. You put up the headline. This is from The Associated Press 109. Again, I'm sure all of you seen these headlines, but I haven't really focused on it, and now I am, because we're focusing together. Here's the Associated Press. Cuba says boat from Florida opened fire at its soldiers, Starting fight that killed four. Here's the New York Times headline 110. Florida boat and gunfight had Cuban nationals intent on infiltration. Cuba says four people were killed and six other wounded after Cuban border troops engaged in a gunfight near the island's coast. The Cuban Interior Ministry said. So the Cuban government is basically suggesting a bunch of people came and started attacking Cuba and they. And they fought back. I think the people who were killed were on the boat, and maybe they were Cuban Americans, I don't know. And I don't think there's much clarity here. Jaime, what does all this mean? In other words, is this something that could lead to a shooting war between the United States and Cuba or, or Americans, not the American government, but, you know, you know, expats who want back in.

E (17:34)

Look, this is, this is not what I thought we would be talking about today, maybe a week or so ago. And so the fact that Cuba has been from. From the, from the oil to, to. To this, this attack, the fact that Cuba's been in the headlines all over again, I'm sure it's making them a little happy. But look, Mark, there's so much going on in the world now, and I think adding one more complication is not what the President would like to do. But, you know, things have been fraught with this relationship. I think the President has made some entreaties. You know, he. What we've noticed, and I've said this a lot, if the President gets. Gets. Gets. Gets upset and he feels like he's been taken advantage of or he's been. He's been embarrassed, he's going to retaliate. And so the Cuban economy is already barely hanging on. And so I think they've got to be a little bit more mindful how they interact with the United States of America, because the President and the Secretary of State can very quickly sanction them the death and sort of further put that economy in a bad place. So I don't know what's going to happen over the next couple days, but I think they've got to think long and hard about how they continue to interact. And we've got to get more information on what this attack really was, but I think the President would not feel any pain and to further stranglehold their economy.

A (18:54)

Matt Gorman, you're kind of a mercenary, a soldier of fortune. Are you going to head down there on a raft with a slingshot and try to overthrow the, the Cuban government.

B (19:04)

I've heard wonderful things about people that visited Cuba. That's number one. Somebody did it like end of last year was beautiful. But, but separate out this attack.

A (19:12)

Yeah.

B (19:13)

Even before this. I was talking to folks close to the White House last week on Cuba and obviously Iran, rightly so, getting a lot of play. Cuba, the one they, they say is the one to watch that is 10 far more tenuous than Iran observed leadership. Obviously Marco has a very personal vested interest in seeing that. But number two is I, they're trying to find their own Deli Rodriguez in Cuba right now. And there's a weird thing among the leadership down there because they don't want to stick their head up too high because again, still Castro brothers are still around. But there is a definite sense that the right person pops up at the right time. White House picks the. And then we have a Venezuela Part 2 Electric Boogaloo.

A (19:55)

Yeah.

B (19:56)

So to speak down there.

A (19:58)

Couldn't that lady from Miami Sound Machine be the president of Cuba, Gloria Estefan,

B (20:01)

I mean Governor of Florida, if she wanted.

C (20:04)

Yeah.

A (20:06)

All right, let's polymarket this. Will the US invade Cuba this year? 111. Will the US invade Cuba this year? I find this number to be kind of low because I now think we might invade Cuba. 12% chance of US invade Cuba this year. I think, I think once they're weak enough, we may just send Miami Sound Machine down there and have a, have a pop up election and that'd be that I'm using a jokey tone. But, but I really do think now that as Matt just suggested, this thing could be happening. Folks. I don't know if, I don't know what the US government thinks of the, of the, of the boat that gets shot at. But, but, but it would not be a hard pretext if this administration that, you know, plays by its own rules. And it would be, it would be quite, quite a moment if that happened.

B (20:48)

And don't, and don't underestimate again, I don't, I don't know this. I'm just making this up on top of my head. But this is what two ways for everybody's paying attention to Iran and then Cuba just comes.

A (20:56)

Yeah, exactly. All right. The old national center where the former vice president appears tonight holds 4600 people. Ladies and gentlemen, the Harris paradox continues. She's derided by elites and her poll standing is not all that great. And yet she's got a huge best selling book that a Lot of people are buying. She's selling out these pretty big venues all over the country for money. People are. People are paying to go see her. So this is a. This is a weird phenomena worth watching. Gentlemen, do you know what a mentalist is? What is. What do they do What a mentalist do?

B (21:30)

So again, they don't read your mind. They have, I don't know, they're basically amazing. Kreskin back in the day. Yeah, they can. They. They help.

A (21:40)

So they just, they just like read people. Are they magicians? So have you guys heard of Oz Perlman?

B (21:47)

Very good.

A (21:48)

Oz Perlman is a renowned mentalist. He's been announced as the White House Correspondents association entertainment for this year. First of all, prediction. Jaime. Will the President go to the dinner?

E (22:01)

I don't think so, Matt.

B (22:03)

Not this year. Next year.

A (22:04)

Yeah, I agree with Matt. So what is meant. Does he tell jokes? Will he decide to tell jokes? No. No. So what is it like? What will he do? He'll stand up on stage and he'll say, matt Gorman, I think you want a pastrami sandwich. And am I right? And Matt Gorman said, how did you know I wanted a pastrami sandwich?

B (22:20)

He'll go, you know, like Mark Halperin, you know, tell. I want. I want you to think of, you know, your mother's favorite song.

A (22:28)

Yeah.

B (22:28)

And don't tell anybody. And then he'll like write it down and be like, boom.

A (22:31)

Yeah, but is that it? Just a series of.

B (22:34)

They get elaborate and they, they. There's different steps into it. There's great YouTubes on it.

A (22:38)

Does he. Okay, does he have patter? Does he do patter?

B (22:41)

Oh, yeah, he's good.

A (22:42)

He's in gig, so obviously an interesting choice because he's not going to tell jokes about Corey Lewandowski or whatever. Right. So this is an interesting choice, by the way, at his Correspondence association dinner to have an entertainer who Matt Gorman, making me seem like I need to spend the afternoon on YouTube watching this guy without the problem. Which maybe the President will go. Right. Because in the past, the White House Correspondent's Dinner has chosen left wing comedians in many cases. And you're not going to get Donald Trump to dinner. So maybe, maybe they asked. Maybe the President likes this guy. Somebody Google that. See if the President's ever commented on Mentalist Oz Perlman. That his real name Oz?

E (23:22)

I think it is.

B (23:22)

I think it is.

A (23:23)

Interesting. All right, let's talk about Hillary Clinton. People in Clinton world say she'll be fine today because she's got her wits about her, she's got her Benghazi experience under her belt. Her connections to both Maxwell and Epstein are pretty tenuous. And, and she's a major league player. There's worry in Clinton world about tomorrow because President Clinton is not as sharp as he ever as he was at his peak. Not surprising given his age. And he's got much more difficult questions to answer. Matt Gorman, if you were staffing the Clintons on this back to back appearances, what would your, what would your war gaming with them be like?

B (24:02)

I mean Hillary is pretty straightforward. She can take on bridge at all this stuff. I mean obviously she did a pretty good job. Benghazi, that was what, you know, 10 hours, nine hours in a chair, live TV. You're right, the, the Bill stuff is tougher. However, if there's ever a time for the old, you know, 1992 Bill Clinton to reemerge and I'm sure they've been prepping, this is the time.

A (24:26)

Yeah. Here's the Washington Post headline. Trump stirred rumors for years. Now it's the Clinton's turn to speak about Epstein. There's a quote from Patty Solis Doyle, who was a longtime adviser to both Clintons, but particularly Hillary in the, it's in the Washington, I think it's a New York Times story in which she says, you know, once again, this is unfair to Hillary. Hillary's got to go explain something that's not her fault. She's got really very little to do with this. It's President Clinton's doing because he was much more associated with, with both Epstein and Maxwell. We've talked about how he took them to a wedding in Morocco. There's the photos. Jaime, let me ask you a question. And you've worked with the Clintons, but you may want to just do this just as a general staff issue. If you were staffing President Clinton or someone in a position like he's going to be in tomorrow and he's an older person or she's an older person and you show up at the house and he's not sharp, he's having an off day. And, and, and maybe you do some light pepper beforehand and you say, hey, can you explain why who you were in the swimming pool with and that the plan in the war gaming was when they ask you about the swimming pool picture, you come right back and say congressman, where were you? Da da, da, da, da, whatever, some something and you, you pepper. And he's, and he's not executing. What do you do as a staffer in a situation like that?

E (25:43)

You got to pray. Look, I, I think what, what people are going to be watching out for, nervous about. And I have, I've spoken to people in the world and they have, they have extensively prepared for it. And they would not be so profuse about taking this on tomorrow and Friday if they weren't prepared.

A (26:07)

Yeah.

E (26:07)

Reason why Hillary Clinton's going to go first and go tomorrow. And the reason why she was so emphatic.

A (26:11)

No, she's, she's. Today. He's sorry.

E (26:13)

Today, Today I'm in California, so no day matters anymore. Anymore.

A (26:17)

Understood.

E (26:18)

So the reason why she, she's been so emphatic about going. She's gonna, she's gonna frame it. She's very good at framing it. She's very sharp. You guys have seen her. She's been out there. She's been testing the messaging, both in real time and, and very public about it. The thing about President Clinton, he will just filibuster the entire time. And one of the things that a lot of people in this, in the Clinton world and allies of them are worried about is if him having some sort of Joe Biden like moment with the special counsel and sort of just winding and just sort of not landing the, landing the plane. But some of that may be strategy. If, you know Bill Clinton, you know, sometimes he's filibustering so he can, he can not land the plane and he can sort of confuse you a little bit. So I know, I think he's gonna, I think he's gonna be as sharp as he can. I think he's gonna be as straightforward as he can be. But Hillary's gonna be the one that really lays the bread crumbs for their relationship. Obviously, a lot of this is around finance and that plane and sort of the support of the Clinton Global Initiative and Clint Foundation. And so she's going to lay those things out and then President Clinton will be able to talk about it a little bit more personally. But from what I've been told, they are being emphatic about the point that President Clinton has never had any relationship with any woman vis a vis Jeffrey Epstein. And most of the questions that are going to be concerning are around the finances and that relationship.

A (27:40)

Yeah, well, yes, although there's a picture of him in a hot tub and there's a swimming pool and there's a picture of him getting a back rub. So I think he's going to be asked about that. Okay. This is an odd moment because at least some Democrats, at least some Democrats on the committee are going to ask hard Questions. We live in a polarized world where most hearings, one side plays defense and one side plays offense. I think President Clinton and Secretary Clinton are going to get tough questions from both sides. So that's, that's distinctive. What will the headline be out of today? What will the headline be when we see the video, when the members come out, what is the headline going to be, Jaime?

E (28:19)

I think it'll say Hillary Clinton defends her husband, but underscores their, Their, Their. Their past grift.

A (28:27)

Their past grift.

E (28:28)

Yeah.

A (28:29)

Meaning. Meaning the Clinton Global Initiative is a grift.

E (28:31)

I don't, I'm not saying that, but I think that's going to be.

A (28:35)

The headline will be Clinton acknowledges support from Epstein and Maxwell for the Clinton Globe. Okay, Matt, what do you think the headline will be?

B (28:42)

They're going to try and separate the two Hillary and Clinton. So they denies knowledge of Bill Clinton's associations with Epstein. Something along those lines. And my prediction is both of these leaks will come out substantively.

A (28:56)

Right.

B (28:56)

I think, I think you'll see it right around Bret Baier. I think they'll give it to him.

A (29:00)

Yeah. Okay. In the movie about the Epstein matter, today's a big day in the film, so if you're working on a screenplay, save 20 pages for this. Because not only are the Clintons in the news for their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but so is Donald Trump. It has long been known that someone, a person who we don't know who they are, made accusations, the FBI, in a series of interviews about Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump that involve amongst the most serious allegations ever made against a guy, Donald Trump, who's faced many serious allegations, according to an independent journalist then npr, now the New York Times. Three of those four interviews are not document. The documents that relate to three of those four FBI interviews are not in the disclosed documents. They're not in the, the, the released Epstein files. And yet they're listed as exhibits or whatever you word. The right word is in the discovery that was given to Maxwell. So it seems without a doubt that there are other FBI interviews with this person. Now, the allegations are serious. They involve sexual assault of a minor. And we know that this person was known to the Biden Justice Department. So to believe that this person has credibility is to believe that the Biden Justice Department for four years had credible information that they could have brought forward that Donald Trump did this and they did nothing about it. No indictment, no leaking of it, et cetera. So that's a data point for you. Another data point is it is inexplicable that this wasn't released. They said they released everything. There's no indication unless they're currently investigating Donald Trump for alleged sexual assault of a minor. There's no, there's no, none of the exceptions to what could be had to be released would seem to apply here, even though this is the kind of material that under normal circumstances would never be released. But this is a normal circumstances. So either the FBI and the Justice Department purposely withheld them, thinking no one would notice, even though, even though their existence is documented in what was released, or they just screwed up. I don't know. Matt Gorman, what's happening here? Is this stuff going to be released? Why wasn't it released before?

B (31:14)

I don't know why it wasn't released. I think, certainly, I think the data point that you mentioned about the Biden for four years, for folks to believe that this is true also, they have

A (31:24)

to believe that not just true, credible

B (31:27)

credit, credible is better. Better. But Biden had to sit in lap and just decided to not do anything with it. I think the other thing that was interesting to me was journalists who have been chasing the lure around Epstein files for a long time have said, look, you know, we've chased a lot of these leads. This is not a credible worth worth going into. So I think, I think you're right. I think that's, that's going to be the next strand of this. But I think also too, Mark Caputo's put a really good, you know, thread on this. He's like, look, this is why the danger of releasing just criminal files ad nauseam. Yeah, there is. You get into all these little threads, they become stories even though there is no, sometimes there's no there there or whatever. But it can now be published, it can now be talked about.

A (32:14)

Yeah, hi, I have a friend who's a Democrat who lives out in California who three times a day text me a tweet or a blog link or something that says Donald Trump has done such a horrible thing. And he's like, mark, is this it? Is this where Trump finally gets his comeuppance? And he's been texting me about this one forever. And if I, if you watch Ms. Now for 20 minutes, you would, you would believe, if you believe what happens on Ms. Now that Donald Trump raped a little girl and the Justice Department is currently covering it up. Like they talk about it like it's like that's what happened. And we're a long way from that. So is this another case where Democrats and their allies, the media are going to act like there's some big thing here and there's nothing. Or how is this, how, where's this going?

E (32:56)

Well, we don't know that it's, that it's not yet. And I think this is, we talk about this almost every day now. And Matt just hit a really incredible point because these things have been released in a piecemeal fashion. They weren't released four years ago when Joe Biden was president. There are just so many conspiracies that are just popping up around the Epstein files and Epstein relationships. And, and let's just be quite frank. You know, Democrats have been trying to needle this thread of Donald Trump being a sexual predator for the last 11 years. And I think what Democrats. And full disclosure, I don't, I don't watch msn and they've actually never invited me on to be, to be a contributor. So maybe that's the thing. But, but I think Democrats are specifically looking for the moment that they can say, we've been telling you guys this for 11 years. We know he's a sexual predator, and this is what points to it. I don't know if that's gonna, if we will ever get to some sort of real evidence that President Trump, before he was president or even back in his, you know, in his younger days, he's ever done anything of this sort. We just don't know. And I don't think we're going to get there. But if we keep handling these Epstein files so sloppily, these conspiracies will continue to build and build and build and build. Now, the thing that I do think politically it is advantageous for Democrats to keep hammering on this because it does piss the President off and it does allow for, in the midterms for these Republican candidates to have to answer that question.

A (34:35)

Right. So let's say that they release these interviews. And again, the reporting is that this woman, now a woman who's never been identified publicly, was not able to get money from the Epstein victims fund. There's many things about her accusations about both Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein that do not match the pattern. I mean, for instance, she said it happened in South Carolina. Epstein didn't have a home in South Carolina. Okay. So there's lots of questions about this. If you ran a news organization and they release these documents and her interview is filled with wild inconsistencies and very serious allegations against President Trump. Hi, I'm, if you ran a website, MS, now, whatever, would you just, when These get released because they're going to be released almost certainly now. Would you just, would you just publish them or would you read them and say this is, this is the president, United States. These are serious allegations that have no, no backup?

E (35:30)

I think you have to do a little bit of both. You know, look, you, we talk about this all the time. We're trying to figure out what, what is the what, what are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to take people to task and, you know, get people sent to prison? Are we trying to find some, some sort of real justice for these survivors? And so you have to be careful how you have this conversation about someone who's made this sort of, this sort of claim. You don't want to spend all this time tearing down the potential victim or survivor. So that's one. But if you, and, you and I, we talked about this all the time. If you, if you are a journalistic organization, it is incumbent on you to, to just give the facts. And, and if, and if we can look at this and it's clear that the inconsistencies do not allow for the pattern, that we can say this is President Trump or his friends or whatever. You got to say that. Now I don't think we're getting so close to the midterms right now that everything's going to be fraught, everything's going to be political and every, every chance that the opposition party gets to throw another point on the board that's anti Trump, pro sexual predator, they're going to take it.

A (36:36)

Matt Gorman, my view is if you're going to write about this or talk about this on TV or on a show like this, say everything. If you're going to treat it like a real thing, you're going to have to say everything that's being alleged rather than just saying he faces allegations. Thoughts.

B (36:51)

Yeah, there's a lot of sneaky wordplay that, that, that yeah. Outlets use on this thing. I will say this too. I don't think this coming out and this might be a little counterintuitive and I'll explain why is an automatic win for the Democrats that they have you believe. Because I remember, I'm old enough to remember you guys are too. Well, we went through in that fall with Brett Kavanaugh and how you had Christine Blasey Ford come out, but then you had Julie Swetnick and all these other allegations and, and some of just, almost just ridiculous on their face. But folks ran with them and I cannot tell you how much it radicalized the Republicans and in the face of, again, I was there in 2018, the NRCC, a very tough midterm cycle. And so I will say this. If you're going to accuse, you know, and you have this massive fight over allegations that, you know, the Biden White House did not feel or the White Biden just for whatever call it did, I feel we're credible. And you want to let this out in the open, be careful, because you are going to draw memories for Republicans that are very acute with Kavanaugh.

A (37:54)

Totally, totally agree. All right, Howard Lutnick, a few more topics into your questions. Please raise your hand if you want to get in on the conversation. Howard Lutnick's got another hit job on him on Politico today. He's not very popular with a lot of his colleagues. He's very close to the president. He uses his relationship with the president, as any human being does in such a situation, to keep his standing. He's not been fired. The Epstein thing barely seemed to have affected him. He has allies, but he's a lot of enemies. He's got probably as many enemies as anybody in the administration. Every few months, the enemies ball up everything they want to say, blind quotes and anecdotes and try to get Howard either fired or marginalized. Jaime, if you were his comms director and he said to you, hi, Ma, I'm sick of this, every few months, put a stop to it, what would you say to him? Can't be done or be nicer to people. How should Howard Lutnick stop all these stories? Or he can't?

E (38:42)

I don't, I don't think he can. I mean, look, he, he came into this administration with less friends than he had last time. So that this was, this is always going to be the case, I think, with the president. I mean, look, the president has made clear that he does not want this sort of infighting to become public, and he does not want people of his administration to try to take other people out. One, two, he actually really likes him. And they're in their and their friends. So that accounts for a lot of. And so if I'm letting it, I'm going to say, look, I am sick of it, but the president still has confidence in me. I'm going to keep doing my job. He's not going to fire me, but it's not flattering and it doesn't feel good to have these stories thrown out about you. But there's not much he can do about it. He's not going to be any more congenial to his colleagues. He's not going to do any outreach on the external affairs side. You know, it's like Mark, when you, when these sort of things happen, you put together a little four point plan. And one of those plan, part of that plan is calling your allies, but also calling the four people that have been the least positive about you and trying to get them to a better place. And he's not going to do that.

A (39:47)

Yeah, Matt, you can't top that answer, but you're welcome to try. What?

B (39:51)

I would, I would look back at the secretary. Why the hell do you care? You have the confidence of the one person that matters. You're by his side.

E (39:58)

I think.

B (39:58)

What was he by his side when he was addressing the tariffs thing? So I would, I would say, you know, give the double birds to Politico and everybody else that hates you and just cement yourself to the one person who matters. What? Think his side and tell everybody else to screw off.

A (40:12)

All right. It would hurt my feelings, but maybe he's tougher than me. This guy who's performing at the White House Correspondence dinner, what's his name? Oz. Oz, according to the New York Times, is the man of fears, Manosphere's favorite magician. Our colleagues tell us, guess where he's performed previously. Mar a Lago and Bedminster. I think this is a shameless play. Play, maybe even with coordination to get the President to go to the dinner. What do you think of that idea?

B (40:39)

I think anyone who the New York Times sees has any fans under the age of 50 and are white males, they become part of the manosphere.

A (40:48)

Fun, very funny, very astute.

B (40:50)

And, and, and, and he will take umbrage to this. Watch a 60 Minutes profile of him. Not a magician. So that's, that's a. Yeah.

A (40:57)

Not a magician.

B (40:58)

Yeah.

A (40:59)

Did I just say.

E (41:00)

I think Matt, I think Matt's friends with odds. He's not telling

A (41:05)

Matt. Does he, does that, does he? Decks of cards.

B (41:08)

He does, but it's all mental. It's not.

A (41:10)

Magician, magician, magician, magician. Okay. Last night on two Way tonight, great conversation with Jeff Rowe, Republican strategist who's based in Texas and whose client is the Attorney General of Texas who's in the three way primary with John Cornyn and Congressman Hunt and Jamie Harrison, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and Jaime's former colleague. And we talked about the Texas race. And I want to talk about with you two briefly because the primary's on Tuesday and the President's going tomorrow. We'll see if he endorses somebody. But I got the strong sense that he's not. I still think he might endorse during the runoff. If the runoff is, as everybody now seems to think, between, again, this is on the Republican side, the incumbent, John Cornyn, and Paxton. Jeff seems to think it was possible that Paxton would win tomorrow, Tuesday by so much that the Republicans would give up trying to salvage Cornyn. I don't. I don't know. I don't know what that margin would be. But here's what I want to ask you. The Democratic primary. Jaime, who do you think is going to win the Democratic primary?

E (42:15)

Oh, man, I. I've been talking about this all week, and I've got into a lot of trouble. I. I was, you know, who's going to win it? You know, I initially, I thought that Jasmine Crockett had it and she was going to be able to do it. But what I'm hearing is there's no ground game, there's no strategy. And quite frank. I was just told anecdotally, just last night that there were a couple women who you would expect to vote for Jasmine Crockett, and they have not. And so I think it may be close, but it seems like Telo is going to pull this off really well.

A (42:52)

I don't think he is, based on what I know, but he could. But if Jasmine Crockett wins the primary and if Paxton wins the primary easily, or is the front runner going to the runoff, what is the media gonna say? Matt Gorman, what will the media say if that's what happens? Their beloved Democrat loses, and a guy who they says can't possibly win is poised to not just win the runoff, but to win the general.

B (43:20)

Well, first of all, I will be thanking the lucky stars that the media won't be crowning Stephen Colbert the kingmaker of the Texas Democratic number one. Number two, I'm looking forward to the heel turn because, again, the media, mainstream media, is in love with Tal Rico.

A (43:37)

Oh, my God.

B (43:38)

Guy knows the Bible and he's a Democrat. Oh, my God. The heel turn for, yes, Queen Jasmine Crockett will make your head spin. So I look forward to that. Or I'll just get off the board entirely and they'll talk about what a bad guy Ken Paxton is as well.

A (43:56)

Yes. All right. That's perfectly said, Jaime.

E (43:59)

Two extreme candidates. I think we want to be one of the headlines. I mean, you go from. How do you go from the almost leader, John Cornyn, who is one of the most established Republicans in the history, to maybe Jasmine Crockett or maybe Ken Paxton, that, that, that is showing that things are shifting in Texas in a major way and people got to pay attention to those demographic shifts.

A (44:23)

What would Paxton have to get as a percent of the vote in a three way for. For the, for the Thune and the other Republican senators say, sorry, we can't win this race. What would he have to get?

B (44:35)

Matt, you'd have to, you have to win it outright. They're not going to.

A (44:37)

They're not even. Even if it's, even if it's, even if it's 45, 26. 26.

B (44:45)

Because so many of those folks were veterans of the cochrane runoff in 14 and know how close you can do with. And flipping it.

A (44:52)

Okay, Jaime, you agree they, they have to try to save him. He's an incumbent. So I guess they sort of morally obligated the way they look at the world.

E (44:59)

I hope so.

A (45:00)

Yeah. All right, last exit, mandatory exit question. Who will win the general election Texas Senate race in November? Jaime Moore.

E (45:12)

Oh, man, that's so hard for me. I hate this. I think if Jasmine Crockett gets the nomination, she does have a chance.

A (45:21)

Jaime. Jaime. I'm just looking for one name. Who will be. Who will win the Senate seat in November.

E (45:25)

Dunn Cornet.

A (45:27)

John Cornyn. All right, that's a controversial choice. Matt Gorman. Who will win the Senate race?

B (45:31)

Republican nominee.

A (45:33)

Matt Gorman. That's not a name of a human being.

B (45:36)

That, that, that, that's the only certainty I can give you right now. It'll be bloody. It'll be a publican nominee.

A (45:40)

Who's the Republican nominee going to be?

B (45:43)

I think, honestly, and this is not a BS thing, it really does depend. Out of all the combinations we could

A (45:49)

get in the runoff, the correct answer is John Cornyn, who will be endorsed by Donald John Trump after the first ballot on Tuesday. All right, we'll see if I'm right. All right, here, Here we go. Ladies and gentlemen, time for your question. Joshua, welcome in. Thank you for being here. Stop drinking your beverage on mute. Tell us what the pictures of behind you, where you are and what's on for. Hi, man.

C (46:12)

Matt, that is my. That is my cheetah picture. That makes it seem like I'm more of a world traveler than I actually am. That was taken at the Tampa Busch Gardens.

A (46:23)

Not on.

C (46:24)

Sorry.

A (46:25)

Hilarious.

C (46:28)

You know, in the Post show the other day, we had a very long, very nuanced and detailed conversation about Iran. You know, I sometimes go back and forth with how I feel about Trump's foreign policy, in part because I don't ever want to get tied down because I want to sort of check my biases, but also because it seems so inconsistent with his treatment of Venezuela and Iran versus whatever the heck is going on in Ukraine in his brain. But with Iran, for the MAGA folks out there that think that Iran is not an American interest issue, that area, first off, that area is a huge global shipping lane that is under constant threat by Iran. And the idea that Donald Trump might consider some sort of signed piece of paper from Iran and just magic it away by saying, oh, yeah, I think they, I think it's a good. I think it's a good, beautiful document. It's a beautiful peace treaty, some might say. A peace treaty, right. That implies that he, he thinks that Iran would ever act in good faith. Iran wants, Iran wants two things. They want a win, and they want a win. They either want nuclear weapons or conventional weapons, and that's what they've always won. I had an opportunity, I had an opportunity to speak to, to some of the folks who, who had negotiated the, you know, the Obama era piece of paper. And I said, you know, why is there this emphasis on the, on the nuclear portion at all cost with Iran? Because wouldn't you agree that deterrence has been one of the most successful international foreign policy strategies since, you know, since the advent of ballistic missiles? And they, and they said, yeah, we agree.

A (48:39)

You're right.

C (48:39)

It has been. So, so why the emphasis on that? And they were like, well, you know, we don't make the policies, right? We just negotiate. We don't make the policies. It's not gonna work. Yeah, a negotiation with Iran isn't gonna work. You need to take out the Islamic overlay and make a deal with the president of Iran, take out the irgc, make a deal with the president of Iran to, you know, pull a, you know, pull, pull an Egypt era sort of Arab Spring style of internal coup.

A (49:16)

Joshua, I wish I could say you speak for tens of millions, but we don't have tens of millions of people in the country who are as well informed as you are about these issues. You speak for tens of very smart tens. Hi. My thoughts on Joshua's perspective on the prospect of making a deal with the devil.

E (49:31)

Look, I can listen to Josh all day, so. Very well said. Thank you for coming on. Look, I agree, and I think I was trying to articulate this a little bit earlier, but I didn't want to step into any of the crap. But I think you're right. I think particularly around taking the Islamic overlay and potentially the religious aspect of it taking it off the table and going directly. I think you're absolutely right. I don't have much to add to it, but I think there's no way that you can really trust Iran when it comes down to it. And there's no way that we're willing to give them what they want and willing to give them that win. And so we got to have another. And it seems like the president probably knows that and it's part of his calculus. But you're right.

A (50:16)

Matt Gorman, what does MAGA want? MAGA doesn't like war. MAGA doesn't like deals with evil empires. What does MAGA want?

B (50:24)

MAGA doesn't like immersive wars. If this is if everything I've, everything I've heard is airstrikes, what you can get with airstrikes, you're going to is what you're going to get. So that's a big difference between Iraq 2.0, at least at the outset.

A (50:39)

Yeah. Yeah. Joshua, thank you. Very grateful to you. Appreciate it. And I believe we may see the president make the case either way. Either a very high profile explanation of why he thinks it's a great deal. And of course once he's if he decides for a deal, he'll be all in for explaining why it's the greatest deal ever made by any president ever. And if he decides military action, I think you'll get an explanation. And we are in a dangerous period right now because it's a little colon pal at the UN like now the Iranians have nuclear weapons on every subway stop in New York City and they've got ballistic missiles pointed at Wisconsin. The rhetoric is and the Wall Street Journal says they're exaggerating the nuclear program already. So it's my job as a journalist and the citizensry job to say okay, if the president does try to make a case either before activity or after, it's got to be fact based. It can't be based on a bunch of made up stuff. And the Trump level of exaggeration about why was this justified, particularly if Americans start to get killed or American allies start to get killed. It has to be fact based and let's hope that it will be if it comes to that. Brennan, welcome in. Thank you for being part of two way on mute. Tell folks who don't know where you are what's on your mind. For Matt and for Hunt, thank you for calling me.

D (51:59)

I'm calling you from Rhode Island. I just wanted to give a shout out with the shooting that happened in Rhode island to the Good Samaritans who helped bring that situation to a swift close. Yeah. One of those people was my father. So just a special shout out to him. We're proud of him.

A (52:18)

Was he inside the ring?

D (52:20)

Yes. If you remember the video, he's the man in the white baseball hat that jumps on his back.

A (52:25)

Wow.

E (52:26)

Yeah.

A (52:27)

How's he doing, your dad?

D (52:29)

He's doing okay. He just sometimes gets images that he doesn't want at nighttime. But, yeah, the support from the community has been big, so that's big for him.

A (52:39)

Yeah. Well, great. Grateful for him. And thank you for sharing that. And it's, you know, it is. It is. It is a small state and everybody in the States scarred by what happened at Brown and now this. So, yeah, hope you. Hope you and everybody's doing okay. And best your dad.

D (52:55)

Thank you. I'll let him know. But I want to talk about Mexico. There's been reports that U.S. special forces or intel had been involved in the killing of the. I think his name, El Mencho was his name.

C (53:09)

Yeah.

D (53:09)

Just wanted your thoughts on that. And actually, a war that. I think I've been more in favor of a deep war with the Mexican cartels than Islamic terrorist groups because I feel like they cause more harm to American citizens. But that's my question for today.

A (53:24)

Well, we'll go to Matt Gorman. I'll just say if there's ever an instance where US Special Forces or Intel might be involved, they are. Matt Gorman.

B (53:34)

Yeah. And yet, you know, they took pains especially, you know, there's been some kind of back and forth, you know, with some of the other issues with foreign policies where people might have given away a little more too much of our involvement. They took pains to say this was Mexican led. We helped in a very limited way. We did not. We didn't have boots. They were very, very overt about that. So.

A (53:57)

Jaime.

E (53:57)

Yeah, I agree. And look, I mean, Brendan, I agree with you. I think these. These cartels have wreaked havoc on our country and the rest of the world long enough. And I want to give Mexico some credence in actually standing up and being a good partner and bringing this very bad person to justice. But you're right. I think we've had enough of this. And it's time for us to have a surgical approach with Mexico and other countries in Central America and South America to bring some of these people to task and to stop the crime and the drugs that they bring into this country.

A (54:31)

Yeah. Brendan, thank you. Grateful to you and best again to your dad. Bob, welcome in Tell folks who don't know where you are and what's on your mind. For Jaime and for Matt.

F (54:40)

Hey, good morning, gentlemen. I am in Northern Illinois and Mark, your obsession with Plover Wisconsin amuses me, but I know you love those Green Bay diners and it's not far away. I recommend the pancake place right up Military Drive from Lambeau Field in Green Bay. It's fantastic. But what I wanted to comment on was the Epstein information. And you know, I think it was Joseph WELCH in the McCarthy hearings who said, have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency? And is that. I, I feel like that's where we've gotten to with this story. I mean, is this where we're at now? We're just going to report, you know, accusations? I, for those that don't know, I would recommend seeking out somebody named Michael Tracy or Jessica Reed Kraus, who have done, you know, they punched a lot of holes in this Epstein story. A lot of these accusers, frankly, have no credibility. This is a dirt, dirty little secret that doesn't get widely reported in the news. And I, I personally believe that the media is keeping the story alive for views and clicks they're incentivized to keep, keep it alive. And I'm just wondering at what point, Mark, and you would know or anybody could comment, when is this, when do we cross the line from just, we're just repeating salacious details for the sake of it with very little to no proof.

A (55:54)

Yeah, Bob, it's, it's, it's a great point. And I do recommend those two people, and if you've not read their coverage of this, you should. There are people, as I said earlier, who are losing their jobs, who committed no crimes, although the accusations against them are accurate in some cases, they're still losing their jobs for associations that many other people had. And, and yet, and yet they're just, they're just losing things. Bob. Bob Carey had an email exchange and some meetings with Jeffrey Epstein apparently and lost a position he had with a company without a lot of public debate or a sense of proportionality. So I hear what you're saying about the both in terms of things that are true and things that are alleged. Jaime, thoughts on what Bob said?

E (56:40)

Well, it's always good to see you, Bob, and always good to hear from you, and I think you're right. I mean, look, I, I have, I'm up to two minds with this one. I want to bring as much justice and resolution to this on behalf of the the victims and survivors. But to answer your question, I think we've already crossed that line. I think we're not going to go back. And I know I try not to be I try not to be callous in this, but the closer we get to the midterms, the more salacious it will get and the less these I am a pro free speech, pro fourth estate, and I and I support journalism. But I think what's going to happen over the next few months is journalists are going to become a lot more lazy and the media landscape is so wide. And to your point, you know, the clicks and bringing people to task is sort of the the goal right now. It's going to get more fraught, it's going to get more salacious, it's going to get less less black and white and it's going to be something that each person have to individually decide what to believe in.

A (57:42)

Yeah.

B (57:42)

Matt, this is why bringing back to Clinton, they're casting people aside or people are losing or having real consequences, people that really aren't, I don't know, say, necessary anymore really aren't players, so to speak. Bob Carrie has been a Center for 30 years. Larry Summer's been irrelevant for the last, you know, Bill Gates is a name, but he hasn't really done anything of, you know, serious, serious public note in a little while. And that's why a guy like that's why Clinton is even having to do this deposition in the first place, because Democrats aren't willing to fight for him. Right. Because there's a generational divide on it.

A (58:18)

Correct.

B (58:19)

And, and that's why, you know, if you're Bill Clinton, you say the wrong thing, you do the wrong thing, you're not as sharp. You could be in with your old buddy Larry Summers and getting on the outs of in a real way.

A (58:29)

Yeah. Matt, thank you, Bob. Thank you. All right, folks, let me grateful to you. Let me run through some stuff. Next up drops later today, James Rosen is my guest talking about his new book about Scalia, Justice Scalia. And we'll do some Beatles trivia group chat. Four o' clock today. Emma, Joe Morris, Nina Turner, Robbie Suave joined by Madeline Somerville talking about all the day's news and their great format. Join them at 4 and then at 5 two way tonight, Kristen Davidson, former congressman Joe Cunningham, join me. So I'll see you at 5. We'll have full coverage of the vice president's trip to Wisconsin as well as Hillary Clinton's testimony and the latest side of Geneva on both the Ukraine Russia and Iran. So plenty to cover. And then tomorrow morning 9:00am Eastern time, last two morning meeting of the week, a guy named Larry O', Connor, I believe that's the way you pronounce it. And Kevin Walling will join me tomorrow. We'll have winners and losers of the week and what to look for over the weekend. Very grateful to Matt and Jaime as always for being here. Grateful to you all to be part of the two way community. Right now I'm heading over to Sirius XM for the second hour of the morning meeting. Join us there. As always you can listen to the show here. 9am SiriusXM channel 111 at 10. And I'll see you later on both nextup and oh my report and monologue on nextup is on how to cover the midterms like a pro rather than an amateur. I explained to you how to do it. Thank you for watching. Thank you for being part of the community, Matt. I'm a grateful to you both. See you in a moment. On Good to see.