Not Even Mad: Michael A. Cohen & Charles Fain Lehman

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Gist

Episode: Not Even Mad: Michael A. Cohen & Charles Fain Lehman

Date: January 8, 2026
Host: Mike Pesca (Peach Fish Productions)
Guests: Michael A. Cohen (Truth and Consequences Substack) & Charles Fain Lehman (Manhattan Institute, City Journal)

---

Overview

In this episode of The Gist’s recurring panel discussion "Not Even Mad," host Mike Pesca brings together Michael A. Cohen and Charles Fain Lehman to analyze current political events with their signature blend of wit, skepticism, and spirited disagreement—but with the promise to stay “not even mad.” Topics include the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, the political departure of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and controversies surrounding housing policy and leadership in New York City under newly elected Mayor Zahra Mamdani. Rounding out the episode, the panelists share their “Goat Grinders”—personal pet peeves about current events.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Venezuela: U.S. Intervention and Its Motivations

Segment Begins: [09:49]

• Background: Mike Pesca introduces the segment with an overview of the surprising U.S. military action that led to the detention of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro.
• Rubio vs. Trump Doctrine:
  • Charles Fain Lehman argues that Senator Marco Rubio is driving the administration’s policy toward supporting democracy, while President Trump is more interested in spectacle and quick, decisive action than long-term outcomes.
    • “Rubio comes out of … the neoconservative foreign policy disposition which says, like, we need transition to democracy… And then there's Donald Trump who just said, we would like 30 to 50 million barrels of oil…” [11:09, Lehman]
  • Cohen finds this lack of unified doctrine “unbelievably baffling,” criticizing the administration’s lack of a clear or coherent endgame:
    • “This is the most confusing military operation I think I've ever seen. I literally have no idea why we did it.” [12:30, Cohen]
• Strategic and Moral Arguments:
  • Lehman makes both moral and geostrategic arguments for intervention, but worries there may be no real follow-through to support democracy.
    • “There is a moral case… but there's also a geostrategic case of like it's not great to have a proxy of our major global opponents in our backyard like that.” [15:07, Lehman]
• Trump Doctrine Analysis:
  • The hosts discuss the “get in, get out” approach—decapitate regimes quickly but avoid entanglement or occupation.
    • “Trump is kind of allergic to any kind of taking any risks on foreign policy. He wants quick one-off jobs that will get him attention… but doesn't involve any kind of long term risk.” [21:30, Cohen]
• Skepticism About Lasting Change:
  • Multiple panelists doubt that the operation will lead to meaningful democracy or U.S. influence in Venezuela, especially given historic U.S. interventions in Latin America.

Notable Quote:

• “You cannot just threaten to kill a foreign leader if they won't hold a free and fair election… that's not that free.” [25:07, Pesca]

Polling & Political Impact:

• Public and Latin American regional polling discussed; enthusiasm outside Venezuela is high, but U.S. public opinion remains tepid (only 37% support the action) [27:59, Cohen].
• Short attention span of both the administration and American public seen as a liability for follow-through.

---

2. Minnesota: Tim Walz’s Departure and Democratic Party Strategy

Segment Begins: [33:37]

• Fraud and Scandal:
  • Mike Pesca contextualizes Governor Tim Walz’s decision not to seek a third term, raising both the impact of right-wing attacks and legitimate fraud scandals (e.g., Feeding Our Future pandemic-era fraud).
• Political Calculus:
  • Cohen argues that Walz’s departure is a calculated move to prevent him from dragging down the Democratic ticket:
    • “Politicians are a means to an end… He did that [progressive legislation]. But now he's a problem for the party. So now you jettisoned him, just like you got rid of Al Franken.” [36:52, Cohen]
• Fraud as a Bipartisan Issue:
  • Lehman highlights the universality of the fraud issue, noting similar Medicaid abuse and administrative failures in other states. Even in deep-blue Minnesota, fraud could have led to a competitive race.
    • “Opposition to fraud is a bipartisan issue. You actually can't waste the public's money giving it to recipients that don't exist…” [37:55, Lehman]
• National Implications?:
  • Cohen doubts the Walz story will matter outside Minnesota, given the likely Trump-focused framing of upcoming elections:
    • “The 2026 midterm election is going to be a referendum on Donald Trump and that's it… this story… I do not think it's going to have a huge impact.” [39:52, Cohen]

---

3. New York City: Sia Weaver’s Appointment & Mamdani’s Administration

Segment Begins: [41:17]

• Controversial Appointment:
  • Sia Weaver becomes head of NYC’s Office to Protect Tenants. The panelists scrutinize her past tweets (“homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy”, “impoverish the white middle class”, advocacy for communism) and the New York Times’ odd defense that “most of those tweets were before 2020.”
    • “If she wants to be in a position of public trust, the fact that she's a bigot is relevant… She's an open and unapologetic bigot.” [42:36, Lehman]
• Ideology vs. Pragmatism:
  • Cohen contends that Mayor Mamdani, though occasionally pragmatic, is putting hard-left ideologues into power and will face further political fallout.
    • “He is going to consistently have to, you know, pacify his very liberal, very left wing base and by putting people in positions of power who frankly are not what we people voted for in New York.” [43:49, Cohen]
• Housing Policy Critique:
  • Lehman calls attention to policy failures—specifically, rent control laws that have led to tens of thousands of unrentable apartments—and a slew of new left-leaning legislative proposals:
    • “Now he's going out saying the landlords are the problem… appoint these crazy communists… but it is the result of the policies that he wants to implement.” [47:06, Lehman]
• Legal Dangers:
  • Cohen notes the city’s aggressive legal stance risks federal challenges to rent control:
    • “It's an extraordinary statement… opens the door for the Supreme Court… to basically overturn rent stabilization rent control laws in New York City.” [48:37, Cohen]

---

4. Goat Grinders: Personal Pet Peeves

Segment Begins: [49:46]

Michael A. Cohen:

• Advocates Larry David’s rule: Never wish “Happy New Year” after January 7th.
  • “You shouldn't be wishing Happy New Year's after January 7th… you lost your chance.” [50:24, Cohen]

Mike Pesca:

• Criticizes New York Times coverage of congestion pricing, arguing the improvements (e.g., bus speeds) are marginal and data is sometimes misleading.
  • “They noted… bus speeds have increased by four and a half percent... but that’s from 8 mph to 8.5 mph.” [51:16, Pesca]

Charles Fain Lehman:

• Debunks the “Heritage Americans” meme circulating in far-right circles, showing most Americans do not fit that lineage in any way.
  • “The overwhelming majority of Americans are not heritage Americans, and they haven't been for decades and decades…” [54:16, Lehman]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump Doctrine:

  • “Act swiftly, act decisively, act with overwhelming force and then be done. This is what we saw in the Iran strikes. This is what we saw in the killings against Soleimani. This is what we saw in taking Maduro.” [14:08, Lehman]

• On U.S. Intervention Skepticism:

  • “You cannot just threaten to kill a foreign leader… if they won't hold a free and fair election… That's not that free.” [25:34, Pesca]

• On Housing Policy:

  • “You cannot see this stuff outside of the context of the housing environment that was built by the machine that helped install Zahra Mamdani in power… It’s nuts, but it is the result of the policies that he wants to implement.” [47:04, Lehman]

• On Political Strategy:

  • “This story… I do not think it's going to have a huge impact because ultimately, this election is not about fraud in Minnesota… It's about, do you like Donald Trump or do you not like Donald Trump?” [39:52, Cohen]

• On Ideological Appointments:

  • “If she wants to be in a position of public trust, the fact that she's a bigot is relevant, and that's what she is.” [42:36, Lehman]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Venezuela & U.S. Foreign Policy: [09:49] – [33:37]
• Minnesota Politics & Tim Walz: [33:37] – [41:17]
• NYC Housing Policy & Sia Weaver: [41:17] – [49:46]
• Goat Grinders: [49:46] – [55:52]

---

Tone and Style

Playful, opinionated, and often sardonic, the discussion threads between evidence-based policy analysis, political cynicism, and sharp humor—true to the show’s “responsibly provocative” promise. The panelists spar robustly but without rancor, poking fun at each other and themselves throughout.

---

Summary for the Uninitiated

If you missed this episode, you’ll come away with a shrewd understanding of why the latest U.S. intervention in Venezuela is so divisive, what Tim Walz’s resignation means for Democrats, and how hard-left housing ideology is sparking new flashpoints in New York City politics. The panelists’ analysis is seasoned with context, data, and sharp insight—plus a few laughs and gripes about the news cycle itself. Whether you lean left, right, or just want political clarity over spin, Not Even Mad on The Gist delivers a fast-paced, nuanced perspective on the week’s big stories.

Transcript

[A]

The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. Thursday, January 8, 2026 from Pete Fish Productions, it's the Gist. I'm Mike Pesca and today's even mad day. We have two not even mad stalwarts. And in fact, I have to say when I cast this one, I was hoping they'd get a little mad. A little bit on Venezuela. Coming together on Mom Donnie, which I have to talk about. They are Charles Fain Lehman and Michael A. Cohen. Like when the middle names get involved. Now, if you're not from New York, a little bit of an orientation about the Mom Donnie segment that we're going to do. There is a woman who is going to be in charge of housing or tenant rights policy. Her name is CEO Weaver. And you will hear on the show I quote a couple of tweets. I also quote the New York Times saying most of these tweets talking about white supremacy in association with housing and talking about wanting to elect more communists. The New York Times says, yes, but these occur before 2020. Those tweets may have. I tracked down a bunch of interviews she gave. Here is one from the Reply Guys podcast. And this was in 2020 where she.

[B]

Said, it's also the fact that like when, you know, as you were talking about when the housing crisis happened, when the housing market collapsed, it was because a lot of banks gave like predatory loans to people of color.

[C]

Totally.

[D]

And so you see homeownership as like wealth building and like related to education for white families and like a trap for black families. And it's just so fucked up.

[B]

I'll say it. It's bad and I don't like it.

[D]

So I think we need to take that. We need to like, really, like when I say we need to abolish private property, I really do mean it.

[A]

So she's pretty clear on what she wants. She just did an interview saying, maybe I wouldn't have said all that stuff that I did say that way, but we know what she wants. She is not a person who thinks that private property should exist. I'm going to say even with the whole Mom Donnie success, that might be a little bit out of step with most New Yorkers. Who knows? Who knows? I haven't taken the temperature of the electorate here's. Another podcast, and this was from an outlet called Biz Now. I'd never heard of it, but it was a really good interview and I'll talk about that in a second. Where at issue was during the pandemic, Weaver advocated for a rent strike and the host of the program said, well, rent strike, won't people just not pay their rents? Which I think is a pretty good question. And here was Weaver's I think, pretty bad answer.

[D]

So do you really think that all.

[B]

Rent should be canceled?

[D]

So I actually think that if rent is canceled, people will still pay their rent if they can. And I hope that they do right, I would encourage them to do so. And people who can't are just not going to be evicted for it at.

[A]

The end of the show in the Not Even Mad feed. Since I just really think it was an excellent, excellent interview. I'm going to put an extended version of that interview so you could hear good interviewing and you could hear, I think, disqualifying question answering. But when you elect a socialist, you get socialism. All right. And that now brings us to here on the gist today's episode of Not Even Mad. You know why we make New Year's resolutions? Well, it's because what we did in December kind of destroyed us. All those holiday parties and the skipped workouts and maybe some late nights decorating the tree. So, you know, you have to get a bit healthier. And maybe you're thinking things like gym or sleep. That's hard. What's not hard, but depends on you recognizing how important it is, is to get the right amount of healthy water. And that starts with COVID Pure. When you think about the garbage that might be in your water and therefore in your body, you're starting off behind the curve before you even begin. So Cove Pure changes all that immediately. Their technology is certified to remove up to 99.9% of contaminants. Pretty much anything that isn't water. You know, pfas and microplastics and pharmaceutical residue and fluoride, it all gets removed. This is the purest water you can get. And there are a couple points about COVID Pure that when I extol their virtues, I don't talk about enough. One is with the touch of a button, you get hot water so you don't have to put on a tea kettle. Tea kettles are nice seeming and sounding, but they burn a little bit and they minutes. The hot water is great. And also you might be tempted to install a complicated system right into your pipes. But if you rent that's not even an option for you. So this is really the best way to purify your water and by extension your body if the house you live in is not your own. I use Cove Pure every day, many times a day and it is quite delicious. I will attest to that. Co Pure makes it so easy to get pure water with the push of a button. So this year make a New Year's resolution that sticks. Improve your health with clean water. Right now you can get $200 off for a limited time if you use my link cove pure.com/the gist here comes the spelling portion of the show. C O V E p u r e.com/the gist to start this new year right. You know when I'm seen about town wearing my camel hair double breasted overcoat and they have two but mine's in the more camel y brown Carmel type color. I draw stairs and it's because much like their responsible down hooded parka, no camels were actually injured. But I create quite the show. I cut quite a figure and I am warm. Quince has unbelievable cold weather coats for men and women and everyone who is even smaller and maybe having a little bit of mucus dribbling out their nose, put them in a quince. They'll look better, they'll feel better, they'll be warmer. They have men's Mongolian cashmere sweaters, wool coats, leather suede overcoats. It's impressive. They have, like I said, the down jackets and the camel hair and Italian leather outerwear. They cut out the middlemen. Sorry middleman. You could still qualify for an excellently priced quint product. Costs. As a middleman or woman, you are still in America or Canada. But because the middleman is cut out, there are no markups. They give you unbelievable quality. The same quality as luxury brands at a fraction of the price. Sounds like a cliche about how Quint does it, but that really is how they do it. So you'd be a fool not to take advantage of the fact that middlemen are getting cut out left and right. If the middleman economy has to suffer, I mean, shouldn't you be the beneficiary? Plus middlemen will be warmer. You got to see some of their Italian leather outerwear that the middlemen are wearing. Now refresh your winter wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.com the gist for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in the cold land of Canada as well. That's Q U I n c e.com/the gist Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com/the gist. Hello and welcome back to the show that promises not to take over Greenland unless the majority of its population, meaning the reindeer, vote for it. It's not even mad. Today we speak of Venezuela, the newest Mamdani initiatives and appointments, and what happened to Tim Walls in Minnesota. As we do so, we promise to uphold our reputation for refutation while at the same time vowing to be not even mad. Who are we this week? We are Michael A. Cohen, who writes the Truth and Consequences newsletter available on Substack, where he does a lot of nutritious substack lives. You can also read him at MSNB now or Ms. Now. Hello Michael. How do you say it? Snap Snow.

[C]

M. Snow is one way to put it, I suppose. Or Ms. Now. But you can go with Ms. Now.

[A]

Wonderful.

[C]

I think she was my teacher in fourth grade, actually. Now that, now that I'm.

[A]

If I remember correctly, it really does harken back to delightful memories. Charles Fain Lehman is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal. He focuses primarily on the public policies of antisocial behavior, which really doesn't narrow it down, as you would hope, right? Or does it, Charles, because it's a growth opportunity for content.

[B]

It's wonky policy speak for I'm a lot of fun at parties. Like I go out, my wife lets me out of the house occasionally and I talk about drugs and death and violence and sex. And she's like, why do I take.

[A]

You places and do you smack the canapes out of people's hands as an example of vice?

[B]

I'm not allowed to do that anymore.

[A]

Well, let me give you some fun facts about Venezuela before we get to the unfun ones. For decades, Caracas had one of the highest per capita incomes in Latin America. In the 1960s, it was as high as some parts of Southern Europe. Did you know that four Miss Universe winners in a 14 year old in a 14 year span came from Venezuela, including Alicia Machado, who. Who Donald Trump called Miss Piggy. But now let's get to the unfun stuff. What happens now that Nicholas Maduro has been detained, he says abducted and is a prisoner of war? I don't understand the third, fourth order effects. But Charles, I, I ask you, do you think enough people in the administration do have a game plan or game theory for what might happen next?

[B]

I mean, look, I think that there are two factors at play here. One factor is that this is Marco Rubio's baby. You know, I've been saying for a while, JD Vance is trying to use his position in the administration to be elected President of the United States. And Marco Rubio is trying to use his position in the administration to become Governor General of Latin America. He has a vision for Latin American socialism and he wants to see it carried out. And I think the counterargument is that, you know, Rubio comes out of, although I think he has distanced himself from the sort of neoconservative foreign policy disposition which says, like, we need transition to democracy, we need a stable, democratic Venezuela, sympathetic to Machado, is sympathetic to Juan Guaido, the legitimately elected president. And then there's Donald Trump who just said, we would like 30 to 50 million barrels of oil and they were going to be personally or to the government, then we'll sell them and I'll do what I want with the money. I think the President is not invested in a democratic transition in Venezuela, or maybe he is, but he is very much theoretically a deal maker. And the core question is, A, is he going to be bogged down? Are the people who are still in power from the Maduro regime, are they going to sort of figure out a way to negotiate with Trump such that they retain power? And B, is Trump actually interested in what is Trump actually interested in doing in Venezuela? And can he be steered in the Rubio direction, a direction that I am sympathetic to, but also the vast majority in recent polling of Latin Americans are sympathetic to.

[A]

So what do you think of that, Michael? Are you. Because what Fain Lehman is laying out there is Trump might not have a theory of the case, but Rubio does. And that is, if not inspiring, a little reassuring.

[C]

Oh, I don't find it reassuring at all. I mean, I will say this. This is the most confusing military operation I think I've ever seen. I literally have no idea why we did it. I think Charles is absolutely right that there are different motivations by different actors in the administration. I think this is probably Rubio. This happened at Rubio's instigation. But that is, you know, Trump's motivations are different. Trump's motivations, I think, have to do with he likes the spectacle of it. He likes to be the guy who said he got Maduro. He wants to have a sort of moment of he can proudly proclaim himself as an effective military leader of some sort. What was also clear is that they haven't thought through what comes next in Venezuela, what the long term plan is. Do they want a democratic government there. It doesn't seem that they do. They do seem to want Venezuela's oil, although what I keep reading, most of the oil companies are not really interested in going into Venezuela because right now there's an oil gluttony and the last thing they want to see is more production. So I just find the whole thing kind of baffling. And it speaks to just the incompetence of this administration that you can't kind of identify a specific reason why we did this and also what our long term goals are in Venezuela.

[A]

It seems to be the most competent expression of perhaps deep down incompetence in that the military campaign was unbelievably impressive. And maybe that's part of it, that almost nothing Trump touches is, is in and of itself will blow you away with how impressive it is. But he knows he has the military at his disposal and by deploying them, he gets a win as he sees it, and maybe he hopes the voters see it. What do you think, Charles?

[B]

So, two points here. First, to your point, I think this is another instance of what you might think about as the Trump Doctrine, which is act swiftly, act decisively, act with overwhelming force and then be done. This is what we saw in the Iran strikes. This is what we saw in the killings against Soleimani. This is what we saw in taking Maduro. Right. That's out of the, the H.W. bush playbook. He's doing what we did to Noriega. But it is distinctively the case that Trump did not want to put American boots on the ground any more than he had to. Certainly that's been what they projected. We're still not doing that. Right. We're doing this gunboat diplomacy where we're letting Rodriguez manage the transition. And I think that that is consistent with Trump's vision of the case, which is you use force as a tool for leverage in negotiation. You don't use force as sort of this. He doesn't want to get bogged down. I think he's afraid of Quagmire, he's afraid of Iraq, he's afraid of Afghanistan. So that's point the first, you know, point the second to Michael's point to what Michael was saying is I do think there is a straightforward, you know, I attribute it to Rubio and Trump, these motives. But just like straightforwardly, Venezuela is an obvious proxy of America's adversaries. It's friendly to China, it's friendly to Russia, it's friendly to Iran. It is a major regional hub for their interests. There are Hezbollah agents who are in Venezuela. And so you know, from a pure. There is a, there's a moral case for liberating Venezuela, which is like Maduro stolen election. The people of Venezuela are free people competent to democracy and they should have it. But there's also a geostrategic case of like it's not great to have a proxy of our major global opponents in our backyard like that. You know, my concern is that we will not get to a point where there's a free, democratic and American aligned Venezuela. I'm worried about the tactics there. But I think that's a good goal. I think that's a desirable goal. It's much better than status quo.

[A]

Why?

[C]

Why does it matter?

[B]

Because it's better.

[C]

Chinese has influence.

[B]

It's much better to have a friend of the region.

[C]

Chinese have influence. Well, okay, but the Chinese have influence across Latin America. They've been making inroads across the region. And frankly I can only imagine that after this particular act by the US this will encourage countries in South America, throughout Latin America to want to get close to the Chinese because they see the US as an untrustworthy country that just acts like with gunboat deployment.

[B]

I don't agree with that at all. I mean, well, why. But go ahead.

[C]

No, no, I just say like if we were to go in there, we were going to get rid of, put boots on the ground and we were going to like you know, make democracy in Venezuela. That I could see why other countries would be like, why don't that to happen to us. But we didn't do that. We basically got rid of Maduro and we said, ah, the vice president can take over. I mean if I'm a country, other country in Latin America, I'm saying these guys are not really serious. They're not serious about democracy. They're not serious about actually, you know, changing the structure of the region in a way that favors the United States. They're just interested in these one off acts that get attention but are quickly forgotten and there's no follow through with. So I don't know. I mean I think this just, this erodes faith in the US throughout the region, which has been actually a lot better over the last 20 or 30 years than it was in the past.

[B]

Okay, so I would say two things. One is that I alluded to earlier. I think my colleague Daniel DeMartino, who is himself a Venezuelan freedom activist, has had his citizenship revoked by the Maduro regime. So he's serious about it. Pointed to polling earlier Today asking Latin Americans what do they think of the detention Nicolas Maduro. It's, you know, it's 87% favorable in Costa Rica, 67% favorable in Colombia, 63% in Peru, Chile. It's broadly popular as a maneuver, I think, you know, if you talk. Yes, I think it is entirely possible that they can fumble this if they allow the Chavista regime to remain in power. But if I'm well, okay, but it's been, it's been three, four days, right, like, and indeed Rubio earlier today said, we're thinking about, he used the word transition. Are they going to bail out? I don't think that would be good if they did. I'm not convinced. I think it's a real question of power politics. But to the power politics point, if I am like the president of a small Latin American country, do I want to be on the side of the Chinese who are flustered and shocked by this attack, or do I want to be on the side of the guys who can simply shut down a president in the middle of the night whenever they want to? I know which ally I want. I want the Americans.

[A]

As to your point, I don't find that the most compelling argument of the countries in South America. Now maybe Nicaragua would consider a Chinese allegiance given the capacity for decapitation, even Petro and Colombia and we could name all the left leaning socialist governments. I don't think their calculation is now we're pro Chinese. But I do want to get to that point that you said.

[C]

No, no, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not suggesting that.

[A]

But I want to get to that point that you said earlier, Charles, which was if you look at the Trump Doctrine, the Don Row doctrine, it's sometimes been called, it's these quick strikes and, and then they're out and then there are no boots on the ground. But in the other examples that you laid out where that applied, the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the bombing of Fordeaux and the TENS and the other nuclear facilities, those worked because they seriously degraded those regimes. The same Iran in each case to do what they had been doing. I don't know that this long term works. I don't know that it degrades Venezuela's ability to be the oppressive, undemocratic, anti capitalist, anti western state that it has been. Sure the current leaders, out of self regard and self preservation certainly will make the, the calculation that at least in the short term we have to express some niceties to the United States. We know they could do this But I don't think it changes much in the way that those other strikes did. So I can't figure out a scenario where two years from now the United States both has an economic partnership with the still oppressive leaders of Venezuela, but somehow there is democracy in Venezuela because those oppressive leaders who might go into league on economic terms with the administration, they can't have it because they'll be voted or at least ousted from office. So in two, three years, do you think that we'll still be working with the people who are running Venezuela today?

[B]

So I have been deliberately careful and will continue to be deliberately careful on sort of sloppy and conditional on there. Which is to say I don't think that Trump is intuitively a big pro democracy guy. That's just not how he operates. I do think that Rubio cares about that. I think that the generally at least one of the factions in the Trump White House is more sympathetic to that. The bull case for intervention in Venezuela is that it's a country with a long history of democracy and with a legitimately elected democratic president. This there's a guy who actually won the election in 2024. I think that they are saying the words transition. I can believe that they're going to go in that direction. I am concerned that they won't go in that direction. But I can very easily tell you a story where they do. Where the Rubio's the world win and say delicate Rodriguez needs to step down, she needs to call an election. Americans will be on the ground making sure the election is free and fair. And when Juan Guaido, whoever else is elected, they will be installed as president. I don't know if that's going to be the administration's policy. I hope it's the administration's policy. We'll see.

[C]

I don't think, I mean look, whether I think it should be or shouldn't be, I feel pretty confident it won't be because as you mentioned earlier, Trump is kind of allergic to any kind of taking any risks on foreign policy. He wants quick one off jobs that will get him attention that he can crow about, that he can brag about on social media, but doesn't involve any kind of long term risk. And that's kind of what my concern a little bit about this is that he is, this is just, this is a one off and there's no follow through. And so if I'm the Venezuelans, I might just think they might, the Trump administration might, you know, make some trouble for the next couple of months and say some things, but eventually their attention will wane and they'll look onto something else. And so, but beyond that, there's no indication that the, these guys are interested in democracy or they're interested in actually having a transition to democracy. I mean, as you mentioned, there is an elected leader. They haven't even talked about him. The guy who is the woman, he was a stand in for a Machado. They basically Trump sort of pooh, poohed the idea that she could take over. These are not people who strike me as being very interested in what happens in Venezuela long term, other than Trump's desire to get Venezuela's oil, which again, I don't really think is going to happen either. So in some ways I think this may end up amounting to much ado about, as far as about, I don't say much about nothing because it's going to affect what happens in Venezuela. But for the US I don't know that this has a really long term impact. I think it is a, I don't think the attention span this administration is strong enough for them to actually follow through on in a serious way. So I think Charles is right about the Rubio in Cuba being the driving force behind this capture of Maduro. But I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what is the, the train the connection had to get from point A to point D, I guess, of Maduro being captured and Cuba becoming a free country, free of communist dictatorship.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, look, I think that that's the strategy there is simple, right? It's like the tactics of will this happen because of Trump is the hard part. But the strategy is just like you call Marco Rubio, calls Delsey Rodriguez and says in six months you're going to call elections and if you don't, we're going to kill you for what? We're going to indict you.

[C]

My God.

[B]

Wait, like, oh, what that is, that is a totally, that is a totally orthogonal. That is a totally orthogonal question. Everybody, every.

[C]

That is true. He has said that.

[B]

Like if it's not. If, first of all, Trump has said we will do worse. But second of all, even if, even if they're not actually executed, I guess you can indict Maduro, you can absolutely indict everybody else involved in the regiment. And we have demonstrated the comp, we've demonstrated the competency to kick down their doors in the middle of the night and put them in an American prison within 24 hours. Like, they just, they don't run their country anymore. And so if Rubio gets the go ahead to say, we would like you to call elections now. And we will be observing the results of the elections. Then there will be an election and the Venezuelan people will vote for the people they voted for last time. That's easy. It's just like.

[C]

Yeah, but I don't.

[B]

They have all of the leverage because our guns are so much bigger than theirs.

[A]

Or they will vote for whoever delivering them prosperity. And maybe this is how you pitch it to Rodriguez. You, you're only utilizing a third of your oil. Go with us, we'll take a third of it, but you'll still have twice as much to spread around. Prosperity will come to the people and you'll win the election. Might not be true, but maybe that's the case. They'll pitch.

[C]

Or she'll say, I'm not going to do that. And then what is the US going to do? We're going to kill the. The elect. I get illegitimately elected leader, but still.

[A]

The leader of the kidnapp.

[C]

By the way, how many minutes are we in this conversation? We haven't even mentioned drugs, which was the nominal reason why we did this. I mean, I read Mike Waltz's statement the other day at the un. It was. A lot of it was about the narco trafficking. Right. No discussion of that whatsoever. You cannot just threaten to kill a foreign leader. They won't hold a free and fair election. Not to mention that from a, you know, symbolically, that seems a bit. A bit askew, but you just can't do that.

[A]

Yeah. How free is the election? If you don't have it, we'll kill you. That's not that free.

[B]

Not free as is. I think that what they have established the calculus that is in the back of the heads of every single leader in Venezuela right now is we continue to be in power at the pleasure of the Americans, and the Americans will find some reason, the reason that the drug trafficking matters. And it is quite reasonable to argue that the Venezuelan regime was intimately involved with drug traffickers. The reason that that matters is that that is the basis on which they are engaging in a police action. That's the reason. I mean, that was the reason they were able to pick up Noriega, too. It's the same reason they're able to pick up Maduro. But they can do the same thing to Rodriguez. They can do the same thing to Caballo. They can do the same thing to all of these guys and say, you're done being in control. Now we're going to decide who's in the control, like, we have all the cards. The question is just like. And here I agree with Michael. There is a real possibility that, you know, Trump will put the cards down and wander away and do something else. He does not have a great attention span. But I think that if in fact his attention can be kept on the issue, then it's not that hard to follow through.

[A]

I don't think we have all the cards. And I've played poker with Michael A. Cohen, and he's going to agree. He's a good poker player. I think that if our adversaries know that we will not put boots on the ground, and if they know that the only chip we have to play is decapitation, they'll find ways around and they'll find ways to mobilize their societies around it. And also the United States public, what right now is a good enough operation such that you don't even see swing state senators from the Democratic Party criticizing it? So that's an indication. They might be wrong, but they're reading the winds and saying, oh, America is more or less behind this. America will sour on this. If the 6 injured Night Stalker members of the military were killed instead of injured, they will sour on it. All of these programs won't go perfectly. Some leader is going to get to a safe house, and then we're really going to have to say to ourselves, what the hell were we doing? What were we thinking?

[C]

Can I just dissent a little bit on the politics? I don't know if I agree with you. I think Democrats have been pretty persistent in condemning this and from all sides of the Democratic wall, wings of the party and beyond that, they've guarded their.

[A]

Prerogatives to be briefed and to. And to.

[C]

Yeah, but they.

[A]

The loop. But I'm just talking about.

[C]

They haven't. They're worried about this being popular and them going on the wrong side of public opinion. I haven't seen it. And for what it's worth, this is not a popular operation. The poll I saw yesterday had it like 37% support, 38% opposed, and the rest were unsure. That's not. That's a terrible number on a military incursion like this. Usually these things are more popular. So I think politically.

[A]

Well, the poll beforehand that in the abstract said, should we invade Venezuela was 76 against.

[C]

That's true for.

[A]

So actually doing it.

[C]

Actually, I think that's because you're going to have Republicans who are going to rally on the president no matter what he does. Right. So that's. That's part of it, but still 37%.

[A]

Maybe some of the people saying, I don't want to do it, priced into it that someone might be killed, an.

[C]

American, That's a pretty bad number.

[B]

I agree with Michael that Democrats have staked a position. I think Ruben Gallego, who is trying to position himself as sort of the moderate guy for the 2028 in the 2028 lane, Gallego came out immediately, said, this is illegal. It is foreign interventionism. We're going abroad to fight monsters. I'm against it. I don't think that that was the right call. Here's part of what we'll see. And I think it's right. The American people have a limited appetite for foreign interventionism, much more limited appetite than we had 20 years ago. That's part of what has motivated Trump's strategy in foreign involvement, is get in, get out before you can really do anything. I do think there's an upper bound on what we can do because of that. On the other hand, there's just not a lot that the Venezuelans themselves can do. You know, the problem gets harder as time moves on. We'd like to see them act decisively. If they don't act decisively, it gets much, much more challenging. That said, like, you know, there's just not that much Dulce Rodriguez can do at this point other than try to flatter, persuade and otherwise engage with Donald Trump and hope that she can cling on to power in that way. But she doesn't have, like, a lot of leverage to cling on to power. She doesn't have, like, you know, a bigger gun than we do. And that I think that's fair.

[C]

I just wonder whether or not, you know, if I'm a Venezuelan politician, how you want to see some follow through. And as Mike said, I agree with him. If we're not going to put boots on the ground, I mean, how concerned do they have to be about, like, legitimate, like, real regime change, not just like cutting off the head of the snake? And I mean, you mentioned Noriega before. I want to point out that, like, we put 30,000 troops on the ground in Panama, right? I mean, we, and we actually did sort of think about, you know, after the fact, we thought about what happens after Noreg is gone and tried to establish, put a democratically elected leader in there. We've shown none of the same follow through here. So I do think it's, I think that leads to questions about our credibility and how far we're willing to go to see a peaceful pro US Democratic Venezuela take root.

[A]

Yeah. And so let me just clarify, did say Dems in swing states. I meant in swing seats. And this was from California, the San Francisco Chronicle. Dems in swing seats silent on Venezuela. So they talk about figures like Josh Harder of Stockton, Adam Gray of Turlock. If you don't live in California, you're saying are those real places? But they are. And this is a general trend. The Republicans come out foursquare against Trump and in those kind of seats, they've been more silent. But you know what? This since I'm now talking about local politics, this brings us to our next segment. After the break, we've done the international news. Let's do the state and municipal when we're back with not even math. I'm here to talk about performance in bed. No, not monkeys jumping on it. Not the North American Snoring Championships, not folding a fitted sheet. You know, performance in bed. I'm here to suggest you take control of ED with personalized treatments made with doctor trusted ingredients. It's 100% online. It's HIMS. You can access all of this if prescribed. They offer treatment options ranging from personalized products to trusted generics. That this I'm going to say this is important and might help with performance. Just knowing this that cost 95% less than brand names if prescribed. It's not a one size fits all care. It's a real doctor. It's a real medical professional. They will put your health and goals first. Real medical providers to make sure that you get your results. Don't get intimidated. ED is really quite common in the way HIMSS goes about attacking it and not just it, but a lot of other things is the most efficient, most streamlined way to get you what you need. Simple online access to affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss and more. Visit himss.com the gist that's hims.com the gist for your free online visit himss.com the gist Featured Products include compounded drug products which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions and important safety information. Actual price will depend on product and subscription plan.

[C]

Everyone deserves to be connected.

[B]

That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus Verizon by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular stores.

[A]

Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits plan features in Texas.

[C]

And fees vary. Savings with three three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits. Credit stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required.

[A]

And we're back with Not Even Mad. We have Charles Fain Lehman and Michael A. Cohen. And from Venezuela, we go to a slightly different environment, Minnesota, where Tim Walls announced that he will not be seeking a third term as governor. There are a few ways to interpret it. That's okay. We are three people, thus representing a few avenues of interpretation. Brian Krasenstein, who is a, I don't know, liberal leftist guy on Twitter, which used to be not a qualification. Now it is. He tweeted, tim Walsh isn't dropping out because he committed fraud like the President of the United States was found to have done by an actual court. He's stepping aside because he's sick and tired of the horrible MAGA people putting his family through hell based off of lies and cruelties. Yelling retard outside his house when he has an autistic son. To which Mike Pesca, slightly less popular guy on Twitter, responded, well, that would be worse for Democrats if you could be just pushed out because of mean MAGA Republicans. That's not to say I totally credit whatever brewing or alleged misdeeds of the Minnesota Child Services system would implicate. Then again, let's also remember that there was a legitimate huge scandal that Tim Walls wasn't in the middle of, but he certainly connected to in that millions, tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, were stolen in the Feeding Our Future program. Michael, I'll go to you first. What do you make of this? Was this Tim Walls falling on his sword in a way Joe Biden didn't? Or is this Tim Walls showing that he's, in the words of Nate Silver, kind of weak?

[C]

No, I actually. Look, I. You know, I think he was. He was a liability for Democrats, and he was gonna have a tough reelection fight, and I think he decided it wasn't worth it. Look, I don't think he really wanted to run for governor again, to be totally honest. I mean, from people I've spoken to, the reason why he took the VP slot was because he was tired of being governor of Minnesota. But here's the way I look at this. You know, I think Tim Wall is probably a good guy. Seems like a nice guy. I mean, you know, he did a lot of. Harry was a good coach. Right? You know, he seems like a good. Seems like a good dad. I mean, you know, a good person. He was a pretty effective governor, passed a lot of progressive legislation. Okay, but he also presided over a $9 billion fraud pandemic, ERA fraud. It's on his watch. And ultimately this had become a problem for him and for Democrats in Minnesota. And to my mind, he just needed to go. I mean, there's no sentimentality in this game in politics, right? Politicians are a means to an end. And you vote for Tim Wallace because you want to pass progressive legislation. He did that. But now he's a problem for the party. So now you jettisoned him, just like you got rid of Al Franken. He was a problem. You brought in Tina Smith, you know, solid Democratic vote in the Senate, no harm, no foul. As far as I'm concerned for Democrats in Minnesota, getting rid of walls is a good thing for them politically. They're going to almost certainly get a Democratic who's going to Democrats to win the governorship in 2026 later this year. And it's going to probably going to not be a problem for other Democrats who are running. There's an open Senate seat because Smith is retiring. To my mind, like, this was the right thing for Walz to do. I give him some credit for falling on his sword. But of course, he created this problem by not really doing a good enough job stopping this fraud from occurring in the first place.

[A]

Charles, do you think this ripples beyond Minnesota in any way?

[B]

Well, I certainly think that Minnesota is not the only state with a fraud problem, is what I would say. It's not the only state where, during the pandemic and otherwise, there were relatively lax rules imposed on state handouts that resulted in, and that, we know, resulted in abuses in New York State, where I do a lot of my work, a lot of my attention is there's a massive problem with Medicaid abuse. Governor Hochul herself has described the state's Medicaid reimbursement system as a racket. You can look at Illinois, you can look at California, you can look at Florida, which is a Medicaid problem. I think that. And that was going to be the challenge for Walls, right? Like, there was a real chance. Minnesota has not voted for a Republican for president since like the Stone Age. I don't remember the last time, but, you know, they're the only state that didn't vote for Reagan in 84.

[A]

Well, yeah, there was a real chance. Local, local son made good. Fritz Mondo.

[B]

Right. But there was a real chance, you know, the Republicans might put up Mike Lindell, in which case it's not happening. But if they put up a competent candidate, it. There was a real chance that Walls was going to lose because opposition to fraud is a bipartisan issue. You actually can't waste the public's money giving it to recipients that don't exist. And then the results are the money is pocketed, sent back to Somalia and some of it ends up in the hands of terrorists. That's not a winning political formula.

[A]

Cohen. You know when the last time they voted Republican was, right?

[C]

It was for Nixon. Right? In 72.

[A]

Nixon, 72, yeah.

[C]

South Dakota was.

[B]

Of course, of course, of course.

[C]

That's why.

[A]

Right. So let me just ask the question this way. Do you think there is any. And I'm seeing this as expressed by Democrats who want Democrats to win and will also point to Walz's actual accomplishments like college is free in Minnesota. If you make or your family makes less than $80,000 a year. It's not. He didn't totally breathe that into being. The University of Minnesota was already meeting the full needs of anyone who was under or a family under 50,000. But you know, this wasn't a legislature dominated by Democrats. He couldn't get his will through. He did a good job. So the kind of Democrat who would stand up for walls is also making the case that what this does is it breathes some life into the not just the kind of targeted specific allegations that Charles was talking about, but the wild Somalians are trying to steal from us. Alleg this 23 year old nick Shirley who put together a video that has he nailed, he landed some punches but has a lot of inaccuracies. So what I'm asking you is do you think this does anything to breathe life into the efforts of that part of our American electorate that will pretty much stop at nothing to allege fraud and maybe if there's a dollop of racism there, get a lot of steam behind them.

[C]

Can I just, let me just say this. The 2026 midterm election is going to be a referendum on Donald Trump and that's it. And that is by the way, not an anti Trump statement. It's kind of is because he's unpopular. But every single midterm of a newly elected president is a referendum on that president. And the more unpopular the president is, the better the other party does. And in this case the president is very unpopular. So if your Democrats, you want to make this election solely about Donald Trump. And so if you've got a story like Walz's, the fraud story in Minnesota, you don't want that to be something people are talking about not just in Minnesota, but around the Country. So this is my point earlier about, like, you take away your political problems and you focus on the thing that is the most likely to lead to you winning seats, and that is, in the case of Democrats, Donald Trump. So that's got to be the focus. So to my mind, this story, you know, Republicans will bring it up. I do not think it's going to have a huge impact because ultimately, this election is not about fraud in Minnesota. It's not even about what plans Democrats have for the future. It's about, do you like Donald Trump or do you not like Donald Trump? And that's what it's gonna come down to. So to me, this story is. Look, it didn't. It wouldn't. Would it have been an issue of Wall stayed in the race? Probably in Minnesota it would have. Would it have been a problem for Democrats nationwide? I doubt it. But it could just become a little bit of a liability and something you don't wanna deal with. So just cut it off and don't worry about it. And that's what they've done, basically.

[A]

All right, let's turn our attention to a municipality. So not a state, though New York City has 2 million more people than Minnesota. A woman named Sia Weaver has been appointed the head of the Office to Protect Tenants, which is not an office that I knew about. I did know about Sea Weaver, because in the past she was not allowed to run a similar office because in that case, she had to be confirmed and confirmation was not forthcoming because it was well known that she has tweeted such things as homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy. And she said that it was important to impoverish the white middle class. She advocated for the election of more communists. I did find it interesting, curious, that the New York Times coverage of this wanted us to know that most of those tweets came before 2020. As if this was a demarcation point where there is a tweet amnesty or a sentiment amnesty. So, Charles, I want to just start off with you. I'm a man in my early to mid-50s. Cohen is of a similar, though I think, slightly younger ilk. You're. How old are you?

[B]

I'm 31.

[A]

Okay. So before 2020 was, for us, a mere 10% of our lives. For you, it's a much larger percentage. Does that seem like a reasonable point to make that these tweets came out before 2020?

[B]

I mean, look, a couple of. Look, if she was 13 at the time, sure. If she was in high school, great. If she was you know, I don't think she should be convicted for holding these views. I would not object to hiring her at McDonald's. I would say that if she wants to be in a position of public trust, the fact that she's a bigot is relevant, and that's what she is. She's an open and unapologetic bigot. This is, by the way, a persistent problem in the Madani administration, including it up to the mayor, who has said quite explicitly that it's a good thing that the incidents of his tax plan will fall more heavily on white neighborhoods. And at the time, I said, and I will continue to say that this is all grounds for a federal civil rights investigation. And I'm quite certain that Harvey Dillon, who does federal civil rights investigations, agrees with me about that. Like it is, it is both a problem from a legal liability perspective and also from a public trust perspective to install people who are just openly hostile to a major racial group in American society. I oppose to being openly hostile to any major racial group or minor one, and I don't think she should do that. So I'm not willing to give her a pass in this particular context.

[A]

So I made it specific. Cohen, you could broaden it out if you want to, about Mamdani and anything else, or you want to talk housing policy, that would be great with me.

[C]

Well, first of all, I want to point out sia Weaver is 37 years old, and some of these tweets occurred eight years ago when she was in her late 20s. So give me a break about that. She's too young. She made a mistake. She was an adult when she made send these tweets out. So spare me that. So the thing with Mamdani, and what strikes me about him is that he is an ideologue. He is somebody who is going to put people in place like, no, I shouldn't. Let me take that back. He is an ideologue. He's been somewhat pragmatic on a few things. He's been pragmatic, for example, on keeping Jessica Tisch, who is the head of the nypd. He's been somewhat pragmatic on a couple of other issues as well. But he is also associated with people around him who are not pragmatic and her ideologues. And you have, in some cases, really awful views on things, including this woman, Sia Weaver. And he has to. And frankly, that also defines a lot of his supporters, and he has to sort of pay off those supporters by putting people like C. Weaver in positions of political power. That's going to create problems for him. It's already creating problems for him. And I think it's a situation that's going to get worse for him as he goes along, because there's no way to avoid this. He is going to consistently have to, you know, pacify his very liberal, very left wing base and by putting people in positions of power who frankly are not what we people voted for in New York. They voted for, you know, maybe free buses. They voted because they hate Andrew Cuomo. They voted because the cost of living is so high here, because housing is so expensive. They didn't vote for somebody who would go around and say that, you know, we should hurt white people with housing policy.

[A]

I've said this. If he's able to implement free child care, which will require taxes of 4 million on corporations and 6 million on individuals or somewhere in between there, it's expensive program plus the free buses. But if he's able to deliver free childcare, I'll give him enormous amount of credit. I even see the strategy with, with keeping Jessica Tisch. She is important, extremely important. If policing goes south, absolutely. And New York had one of the greatest years ever in terms of safety and murder. And if that goes south, it will damage the entirety of the rest of his agenda. And I also see somewhat the logic of writing off a couple of these minor agencies that I didn't really know existed. Then again, is Seal Weaver the person to give the SOP to or to. I think what's going on to actually serve as an expression of what he really thinks, which is sentiments along these lines about whiteness and communism and property and certainly tenants rights. So I think all see a Weaver will do will maybe be a flashpoint, maybe be a signal to other socialists, certainly make life a little more difficult for homeowners trying to evict someone, but maybe not even improve the lot of tenants or would be tenants because you know, if you can't evict someone, you're not going to rent out to someone. So I don't even see this as good politics or policies. Charles Fain, Lehman Last word.

[B]

I want to, I want to make two points. One on the housing front, but first I want to go on the moderation thing. I think there has been a great deal of spin about Mom Donnie's moderation. The thing that sticks out is that his, his moderation is all just slightly backing off of insane.

[C]

That is, that is fair. Very right.

[B]

It's like, right, it's like, it's like Jessica Tisch, who is an extraordinarily competent police executive, he finally deigned to restrain her. Or the most recent thing is he backed off of getting rid of mayoral control of the schools, which is an insane thing to want to do when he finally realized this was a terrible idea. But to the point about housing, you know, I think you cannot see this stuff outside of the context of the housing environment that was built by the machine that helped install Zahra Mamdani in power. This is in City Journal. Joe Burns, who writes for us, refers to this as Hipster Tammany Hall. It's the dsa, it's the Working Families Party, it's the, the socialists in Albany who have done things like did you know that in New York City you cannot, in most cities, if your apartment becomes vacant, you can refurbish the apartment and then raise the rents proportion to the cost of the refurbishment. If you're in a rent stabilized apartment, you cannot destabilize, you can't raise the rents between tenants. It's not legal. And so there are 50,000 apartments in the city of New York that are just empty because it isn't worth the cost of refurbishing them. That is the result of a 2019 law, HSTPA. All of this stuff is downhill of the rent control, the tenant protection laws that have been imposed by Montani's allies. Now he's going out saying the landlords are the problem. We need to go after these rental rip offs. We're going to hold hearings, we're going to appoint these crazy communists to do things. It's nuts, but it is the result of the policies that he wants to implement. And that's what's crazy.

[C]

But they, they just actually filed a court document that said trying to stop a company from, from closing its or selling off its rent controlled apartments by saying that basically this company could not make money off of owning and renting rent controlled apartments. Which would suggest that this is a takings and actually opens the door for the Supreme Court or some other, some federal court to basically overturn rent stabilization rent control laws in New York City. I mean it's extraordinary statement.

[B]

I want to throw one more thing out there I can get into. I know this is in the weeds, but I think it's really indicative. There's a bill before the City Council that is almost certainly going to pass called the Community.

[C]

What the heck is.

[B]

It's coppa, the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act. And if and when this bill passes a list of specially designated nonprofits, we'll have a first right of refusal for purchasing many buildings in the city of New York. Like, if I want to put a building up to sale, up for sale, I will have to wait months and months to let all of these nonprofits that the city designates decide whether or not they want to purchase it for it first. That's just going to be policy in New York City. It's deranged.

[A]

All right, we will now go to our goat grinders. Not that we weren't annoyed all along, but these are the little things that grind our gears or get our goats. Michael A. Cohen, could you somehow search within your beneficent soul to find. Identify some small thing?

[C]

I'm going to go in a slightly different direction here because the Go grinders, the whole concept is an idea that I feel is, Is. Is very much emblematic of my favorite comedian, maybe my favorite person in the world, and that is Larry David, because his entire.

[A]

I thought you were going to say it denigrates society and drags us down.

[C]

This whole show is about things that grind your goat. And as Larry David has pointed out, and I think quite correctly, there needs to be a statute of limitations on wishing people Happy New Year. And he says you have to wish people Happy new year by January 7th. That is today. So you're listening to this now. It is January 8th. Understand you may not wish somebody a Happy New Year, that you lost your chance. It is by the seventh. You must do it. So what grinds my goat is people. I agree with Larry David. You shouldn't be wishing Happy New Year's after January 7th. Frank, you know, he. And he in the show, he complained somebody wished Happy New Year's in February. That's psychotic if you ask me. Okay, so, yeah, yeah, no more Happy New Year's, people. You had your chance. The week is up. Move on.

[A]

Yeah, that's the verbal equivalent of leaving our Christmas decorations on your house until Easter.

[C]

Absolutely.

[A]

All right, I'll go with my goat grinder, which is this. It's also a New York City one. The New York Times, right, ran a big story about the success of congestion pricing. I guess I'll have to admit that I wasn't so against it, but it does seem to have worked by many, many measures. But what the New York Times does is they try to convince you that it's worked by almost all the measures. And there were one or two details in there that just had me rolling my eyes and laughing. I wrote about this in the. In the gist list substack, but it was behind the paywall. I bring it out for you now. They noted in a pretty bold bar chart that that bus miles per hour bus speeds have increased by four and a half percent, which sounds great, but I always say from what to what. And if you dig in, you will find that this success. These fast buses, they've gone from eight miles an hour to eight and a half miles an hour, which represents 4.3%. Another fact they put in there is that New York City experienced the lowest number of pedestrian deaths ever. That's true, but was it because of congestion pricing? Here's what they didn't tell you. In the borough of Manhattan, only half of which is affected by congestion pricing, but the entire borough had one fewer death last year, as opposed to 2024. The Borough of the Bronx, which is totally unaffected by congestion pricing, had 19 fewer deaths. So I'm going to say that too. We could not credit to congestion pricing, nor can we the fact that the Knicks are leading the Eastern Division. Actually, they're behind the Celtics. Thanks. Thanks, Mom. Donnie. Charles, what's your go, grinder?

[B]

All right, have you. I'm going to do a little shameless self plugging here. Have you followed this discussion about heritage Americans on Twitter slash X?

[A]

I think so. But is that code for something?

[B]

It is. It's code for white people. No, it's. I mean, strictly speaking, it's so. So the concept is heritage Americans are people who are descended from anyone who is here, either at the founding or before the Civil War. And if you're on like, very, very right wing X, then you think that anyone who isn't heritage American needs to be deported. Like Vivek Ramaswamy needs to be deported because he's not a heritage American.

[A]

Let me interject. Does it include Native Americans? I assume the Lenapes sometimes depends.

[B]

Depends on who you ask. I mean, they'll usually admit that they include Native Americans, but they aren't happy. I mean, it also includes most people, most black people who are descended from slaves here before 1860. But they aren't always happy about admitting that. No. And this conversation has been driving me nuts because the argument is basically, we're a nation of a discrete heritage, we're one people, and immigration is ruining all that. And so City Journal, for which I write, we have a substack. I just wrote a piece, it's City Journal substack, in which I look into the numbers and I say, what fraction of Americans are actually heritage Americans? What fractions of Americans would be here if we close the border in 1860? And my answer is about a third. It's between 37 and 39% by my math, which means the overwhelming majority of Americans are not heritage Americans, and they haven't been for decades and decades.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Half of that growth comes from the arrivals in late 19th and early 20th century people who have been baked in for over a century. So the entire conversation which sort of lives in this theoretical world of until 10 minutes ago, America was all descended from George Washington is just so unmoored from reality, it drives me nuts. So that's, that's my, that's my goat grinder.

[A]

The Lenape agree with you, I think, or maybe disagree or I don't know if there are any Lenape now, but I think we have to acknowledge their land. Charles Fain Lehman of the Manhattan Institute. I thank you.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

Michael A. Cohen will plug the substack Truth and Consequences. I thank you.

[C]

Always a pleasure, Mike.

[A]

And until next time, we're not saying we're right. We're definitely not saying you're right. We are saying we're not even mad. And that's it for Today's show for 2026. Corey Warra is the producer. Jeff Craig runs our socials. We have a pretty great new website with a lot of features that Astrid Green contributed great to Catherine Sykes. She's still doing the just list, which, you know, it's no longer discounted. We told you all about it, but please go and check that out@mike pesca.substack.com and still running it all even in this late year. Michelle Pesca, CEO of Peach Fish Productions Improve to Peru. And thanks for listening.

[E]

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host, you seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to libsynads. Com, that's L, I B S Y N ads. Com Today.