Politics Politics Politics

The biggest political story in America right now isn’t about a campaign, a scandal, or even a vote. It’s something far more fundamental: Donald Trump’s clash with the judiciary.It’s the kind of confrontation that doesn’t just make headlines — it shifts the tectonic plates of our democracy. It forces us to look hard at the limits of executive power, the independence of the courts, and whether the guardrails of our system are holding up or giving way.At the center of it all: Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, sending them to a supermax prison in El Salvador. One flight, carrying deportees, was already in the air when a judge ruled the move illegal. That flight didn’t turn around.That was the spark.Suddenly, it wasn’t just another Trump-era controversy. It was a constitutional crisis.What Happens When Trump Defies a Judge?The reaction was swift and furious. The noise from the media, legal scholars, activists, and political commentators reached a full roar. Was Trump defying the courts? Were judges overreaching their authority? Were we witnessing the collapse of the basic balance of powers in real time?Some folks lost their minds.And honestly, I get it. If you squint hard enough, this looks like the beginning of a genuine authoritarian slide. You’ve got Trump, once again, taking an aggressive stance on immigration — and this time, ignoring a judicial ruling in mid-flight. It feels dramatic. It feels dangerous.It also feels... familiar.Because this is a recurring theme of the Trump presidency: bold, legally provocative action, followed by legal pushback, followed by public outrage, followed by months of litigation.The difference now? Trump’s not just promising things. He’s delivering — aggressively.The Two Simplest TakesLet’s be real. There are two clean, simple, headline-ready narratives here.Narrative One: Trump is a lawless authoritarian. He’s ignoring the courts, trampling over civil liberties, and pushing the country toward dictatorship. Bannon’s out here musing about a third term. The plane that didn’t turn around? That’s not just a flight — it’s a red flag.Narrative Two: Trump is finally doing what America has been demanding for years. He’s cleaning up the streets, deporting violent criminals, and living up to his campaign promises. And if that pisses off elite judges or cable news pundits, so be it.Either of these takes will get you clicks. They’ll fire up your base. But both are missing the point.Here’s where I land. I don’t have a hot take. I don’t have a screed. I have some questions, some caution, and a long view.Let’s start with this:Even if you think these deportations are justified, you want due process. There’s a guy who says he was just a soccer player with tattoos, mistaken for a gang member and deported without a fair hearing. Maybe that’s a fluke. Maybe it’s not. But when you're using a rarely-invoked 18th-century law to fast-track deportations, you better be damn sure you’re right.At the same time, it’s impossible to ignore what’s happening politically.Trump is doing something that’s rarely seen in American politics: actually fulfilling campaign promises. That’s shocking. And for a lot of Americans — particularly in the Spanish-speaking communities that have been targeted by the Tren de Aragua gang — this isn’t authoritarianism. This is action.It also helps explain why Trump gained ground with minority voters in 2024. When crime is real, when gangs are active in your neighborhood, when you feel like no one is protecting you, then a president who acts decisively (even if controversially) doesn’t feel scary. He feels necessary.No One Should Be Too Certain Right NowSo where does this go? Honestly, we don’t know yet.Trump is pushing hard. The courts are pushing back. He says he’ll comply, but also defend his position tooth and nail. This is what the process looks like in a functioning democracy. The key word there is “process.”And if you’re one of the people passionately demanding that we respect the judiciary? I agree. But I’d also remind you: the Supreme Court has the final say. And this is the same Supreme Court that many on the left have called illegitimate. So if you’re praising judicial power now, be prepared to keep that same energy when the ruling comes down, because it may not go your way.For now? I'm watching. I'm waiting. And I’m staying cautious.Because what we’re witnessing isn’t just a legal fight or a partisan squabble. It’s a realignment. It’s a redefinition of how power is used, challenged, and ultimately judged in 21st-century America.And while the takes are hot, the only thing I know for sure is this:I got nothing.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:44 - Trump and the Courts00:11:41 - Update00:12:34 - Israel-Hamas Attacks Heating Up00:14:26 - Trump’s Dept. of Education Executive Order00:17:58 - George Glezmann’s Release from Taliban00:19:25 - Interview with Katy Stech Ferek00:58:39 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd l

Chuck Schumer is in hot water with progressives after supporting a GOP stopgap funding bill aimed at preventing a government shutdown. Many on the left see this as a strategic blunder, arguing that he surrendered leverage to Trump. Progressive groups like Indivisible have publicly called for Schumer’s resignation, and moderate Democrats, such as Charlotte Clymer, have led donor boycotts, amassing over 25,000 signatures.Schumer’s defense? He argues that preventing a shutdown was the "lesser of two evils," protecting the party from greater damage under Trump. However, his attempts to quell the outrage — including appearances on CBS Morning News and The View — have done little to shift the narrative. His decision to cancel book tour events amid protests underscores just how serious the backlash has become.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The biggest problem? His critics don’t appear to have a clear plan for what comes next. If Democrats truly want Schumer out, they must follow through — otherwise, they risk looking weak and divided at a critical political moment.Polling numbers paint a bleak picture for Democrats. Both CNN and NBC report that the party’s approval rating sits between 27% and 29%, a stark decline from previous cycles. With about 40% of the country identifying as Democrats, that means at least 11-13% of them are unhappy with their own party.Data analyst David Shor’s research further complicates the narrative. His analysis of the 2024 election challenges the idea that low voter turnout hurt Democrats. Instead, Shor suggests that even with maximum turnout, Trump still would have won by nearly five points — a sobering reality for the left.The party’s problems are multifaceted: Independents aren’t sold on the Democratic agenda, progressives feel sidelined, and moderates are frustrated with leadership. Right now, the party’s best hope appears to be waiting for Trump to wear out his welcome with the American public. But that’s not a strategy — it’s wishful thinking.The most surprising shift in this political moment? Donald Trump’s growing appeal to economic progressives. Recent discussions in leftist circles highlight Trump’s stances on issues like the carried interest loophole (a tax policy long criticized by progressives), trade protectionism and tariffs, and economic populism.Journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon even went on Bill Maher to declare herself a “MAGA leftist,” arguing that Trump has done more for the progressive economic agenda than Democratic politicians have. While many on the left may dismiss this claim, the fact remains: Trump is successfully appealing to disaffected progressives, a major threat to Democrats who rely on that voter base.Meanwhile, JD Vance, a key figure in Trump’s political circle, is emerging as an heir apparent, pushing an even more economically populist agenda. If Democrats don’t reclaim these issues, they risk ceding major ground in 2026 and beyond.At the heart of this moment is a clear message: Democrats must decide whether they are serious about their internal fights. Whether it’s Schumer’s leadership or a broader strategic pivot, they can’t afford half-measures. If they challenge Schumer, they must see it through. If they oppose Trump’s growing influence, they must present a compelling alternative — not just react to him.Every second spent in an intra-party squabble is a moment not spent rallying the country behind a clear vision. And as Democrats bicker, the house is on fire.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:03 - Schumer Facing Backlash and the Future of the Democratic Party00:03:55 - Interview with Isaac Saul00:50:53 - Update00:53:16 - Justice Roberts’ Comments on Trump00:56:00 - Trump and Putin’s Meeting01:01:00 - JFK Files To Be Released01:02:55 - Interview with Tara Palmeri01:25:53 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Schumer blinked. House Democrats are furious. But there will be more on that tomorrow.While the dust settles, I’m joined by returning guest ettingermentum to dive deep into the best and worst winning presidential campaigns. We rank every campaign from 1964 to 2024: Who ran the best campaigns, who completely fumbled, and which elections had the biggest long-term impact. Ettingermentum previously put together a two-part series ranking these campaigns, and I, naturally, had to make his own. So, we go back and forth, comparing notes, debating rankings, and making the case for why certain campaigns deserve more credit (or less).Justin’s RankingsS-Tier:* 2008 (Obama)* 1984 (Reagan)A-Tier:* 1992 (Clinton)* 2024 (Trump)B-Tier:* 1972 (Nixon)* 1996 (Clinton)C-Tier:* 1968 (Nixon)* 1980 (Reagan)* 1976 (Carter)* 2000 (Bush)D-Tier:* 1964 (Johnson)* 1988 (Bush)* 2004 (Bush)* 2012 (Obama)F-Tier:* 2016 (Trump)* 2020 (Biden)Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:04 - Schumer Won’t Block Spending Bill00:03:43 - Ranking Winning Political Campaigns, Part 100:48:26 - Update00:49:21 - Mayor Pete Not Running For Senate00:52:45 - Probationary Federal Employees Rehired, Judge Says00:54:56 - Birthright Citizenship Battle00:59:00 - Ranking Winning Political Campaigns, Part 201:36:49 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

In the intersection of politics and technology, few innovations have had as significant an impact as online donation platforms. ActBlue, the Democratic Party's premiere fundraising tool, has revolutionized small-dollar contributions since its inception in 2004. However, recent internal turmoil at the organization is raising serious questions about both its future and about the broader landscape of political donations.A Game-Changer for DemocratsActBlue was an early pioneer in digital fundraising, allowing Democratic candidates and progressive causes to tap into small-dollar donors efficiently. Through gamification and mobile accessibility, the platform made it easy for supporters to donate with just a few clicks, contributing billions of dollars to campaigns over the years.By 2024, ActBlue played a crucial role in helping President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris amass over $1.5 billion in campaign funds, outpacing the Republican counterpart, WinRed, which raised $900 million for Donald Trump. The platform also helped Democrats dominate small-dollar fundraising in Senate races, with candidates like Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and John Tester (Montana) outraising their Republican opponents, despite ultimately losing their races.A Leadership Exodus and Rising ConcernsDespite its success, ActBlue is now facing a crisis. In February 2025, seven senior staff members resigned suddenly, including the organization’s chief legal officer, vice president for customer service, and a technical expert with 14 years of experience. This mass departure was alarming enough that two employee unions publicly voiced concerns, warning that confidence in the organization’s stability was eroding.This followed a December 2024 letter from over 140 political stakeholders — consultants, campaign staff, donors, and academics — urging ActBlue to implement stronger safeguards to prevent donor exploitation.One particularly cryptic development came when a newly appointed technical leader at ActBlue reminded employees of whistleblower protections, a warning that suggests internal concerns about potential misconduct.Allegations of Financial MisconductWhile ActBlue’s success has been attributed to its superior technology and network effect, some critics argue that there may be fraudulent activity behind its fundraising dominance.A GOP strategist, Mark Block, filed a racketeering lawsuit against ActBlue, alleging that his identity was stolen to make 385 fraudulent donations totaling $884. He claims that these small donations — each under $200 — were used to exploit a loophole in Federal Election Commission (FEC) reporting requirements.This practice, known as “smurfing,” is a form of money laundering that involves breaking large donations into smaller, untraceable amounts to avoid detection. Block’s lawsuit cites donation receipts from an old campaign email account, showing repeated micro-donations averaging just $3.24 each, many of which he did not authorize.Additionally, there have been reports of:* Elderly individuals discovering numerous small donations in their names without their knowledge.* Foreign nationals using surrogates to funnel money into U.S. elections, a violation of campaign finance laws.These allegations, combined with the sudden staff exodus, suggest that ActBlue could be facing a major financial scandal.The Potential FalloutIf these accusations are substantiated, the implications for ActBlue — and Democratic fundraising — could be severe:* Small donors may hesitate to contribute if concerns about fraud persist, resulting in a loss of trust in one or both parties.* The FEC or other watchdogs may launch formal investigations, leading to stricter oversight.* With ActBlue in turmoil, Democrats may struggle to replicate their past fundraising successes in upcoming elections.There is also speculation that WinRed, the Republican alternative, could face similar scrutiny. If both major fundraising platforms are found to have engaged in unethical practices, the entire online political donation system could be upended.Looking Ahead to 2028ActBlue’s situation is still unfolding, but one thing is clear: The Democratic Party’s dominant fundraising machine is in serious jeopardy. If ActBlue collapses or loses credibility, Democrats will need to quickly find an alternative — something that won’t be easy given the platform’s deep integration with campaign operations.With the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential race on the horizon, the future of small-dollar political fundraising is more uncertain than ever.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:05 - Interview with Matt Laslo00:21:00 - ActBlue Chaos00:32:22 - Update00:33:46 - US/Canadian Tariffs00:35:29 - Ukraine Ceasefire00:37:35 - Mahmoud Khalil’s Arrest00:40:17 - Interview with Jen Briney01:15:08 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

In a Truth Social post on Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that "the golden age of America has just begun." He touted his administration’s early successes and emphasized that his newly assembled cabinet is focused on cost-cutting measures and staffing decisions, with the Department of Government Efficiency — colloquially known as "DOGE" — playing a central role.According to Trump, his administration will take a "scalpel rather than the hatchet" approach to reducing government waste. He praised Elon Musk and DOGE for their efforts in streamlining operations, stating that his team would be conducting biweekly meetings to assess and refine their approach.However, the speed and aggressiveness of the administration’s restructuring efforts have not gone unnoticed. Over the past 48 hours, there has been a discernible shift — a brake pumping, if you will — on the administration’s initial velocity. Reports suggest that Attorney General Pam Bondi recently presented Trump with binders labeled Epstein files, only for him to realize that most of the information was already publicly available. The implication? There may be an effort to control the chaotic rollout of these reforms.Behind the scenes, Chief of Staff Suzy Wiles appears to be taking on a stabilizing role. She remains largely unquoted in the press, but her influence is evident. While no one can dictate Trump’s decisions, if there is anyone capable of channeling his impulses into a more structured path, it is likely Wiles.The Challenge of Government ReformPolling data presents mixed signals for the administration’s strategy. While government reform remains broadly popular, Elon Musk himself does not poll particularly well. Moreover, while fiscal responsibility is a winning message, mass firings are unpopular, especially when they disrupt essential services.Some of the layoffs initiated by DOGE have drawn minimal public sympathy, such as the widely ridiculed case of a Yosemite employee responsible for bathroom keys. But other cuts have raised alarm, like the reported downsizing at the National Weather Service. This agency is crucial not only for routine weather forecasts but also for emergency alerts, particularly with tornado and hurricane seasons approaching in the coming months.If the administration is now signaling a more measured approach, it may be an acknowledgment that they have tested the limits of public tolerance for aggressive government downsizing. Silicon Valley's ethos values rapid iteration, but that approach does not always translate well to governance. In the tech world, listing a feature that doesn't yet exist isn’t necessarily misleading if it eventually becomes reality. However, in government, making sweeping announcements without a clear plan can create the perception of recklessness rather than innovation.This shift in tone suggests that the administration is attempting to move away from the narrative that it is slashing government with reckless abandon. Instead, the messaging now emphasizes precision: cutting waste while retaining key personnel and essential services. Whether this recalibration is enough to change the public perception is a question for another day.One clear indication of this shift is a new push in Congress. Senate Republicans are urging legislative action to codify DOGE’s spending cuts, following a court ruling that limits the department’s unilateral authority. While some lawmakers have praised Musk’s efforts, others, including Senator Rand Paul, have cautioned that major spending cuts should be handled through Congress rather than executive fiat. Senator Lindsey Graham, a supporter of DOGE, has acknowledged its flaws and has encouraged a more structured approach through legislative rescission.The Coming Battle Over RescissionOne term that is about to become more prominent in political discourse is rescission. While it may sound similar to reconciliation, the two are entirely different budgetary mechanisms. Rescission allows the president to formally request that Congress cancel previously approved federal spending.Here’s how the process works:* The president submits a rescission proposal to Congress, specifying funds to be cut.* Congress has 45 days of continuous session to approve the request. Importantly, approval only requires a simple majority in both chambers, meaning it bypasses the 60-vote Senate filibuster.* If Congress approves, the specified funds are canceled, preventing the executive branch from spending them. If Congress rejects or ignores the proposal, the funds remain intact.The significance of this approach is that it moves beyond the constitutional gray area of unilateral executive spending cuts. Instead of DOGE simply slashing budgets at the departmental level, rescission would put the matter before Congress, potentially giving the cuts more permanence.According to reports, Musk was convinced to support this approach after Lindsey Graham pointed out that any cuts made solely at the department

Last night, Donald Trump delivered a speech that, while technically a joint address to Congress, carried all the hallmarks of a campaign-style event filled with made-for-TV moments, emotional appeals, and strategic messaging. Let’s break down what happened.Trump’s Optimistic Tone: A Departure from "American Carnage"One of the most surprising takeaways from the speech was Trump's notably optimistic tone. Historically, Trump has thrived on highlighting crises, framing America as a nation in peril, in need of his leadership to "fix it." This time, however, there was a shift. He painted a picture of a country that was on the verge of a new golden era, offering solutions rather than just grievances.While still aggressive in his direct call-outs — pointing at specific politicians and criticizing their policies — Trump's rhetoric was more forward-facing. Whether one believes his words or not, the tone of his message was clear: We’re going to be okay, and here’s why.The Democrats' Disjointed StrategyIf Trump’s address was an exercise in tight, focused messaging, the Democratic response was anything but. There appeared to be an internal divide on how to handle the moment. Leadership suggested a visual strategy, having members bring a “plus one,” specifically fired federal workers, to highlight job losses under Trump. But instead of a powerful display, the execution was lackluster.What Democrats mostly did was hold up small signs with messages like “False”, “Protect Medicaid”, and “Fire Musk.” These signs echoed previous protest tactics, like Rashida Tlaib’s “War Criminal” sign when Netanyahu spoke. However, instead of appearing unified and strong, it made them look like they were following a playbook set by a single faction of the party rather than presenting a broad, compelling counterargument.Al Green’s Yelling and the Optics BattleThe lack of a coherent Democratic strategy was further highlighted when Rep. Al Green (D-TX) stood up mid-speech and began yelling, though it was unclear what he was yelling about. The 77-year-old congressman was eventually escorted out, but the visual of an elderly man angrily shouting and then leaving quietly did little to make an impact.Trump, anticipating resistance, built a line into his speech about how Democrats would refuse to stand or cheer for anything he said. True to form, many Democrats remained seated during moments that, at least on camera, appeared universally positive. The optics of the party looking grumpy and disengaged while Trump supporters clapped and cheered was, at best, a missed opportunity.Policy Highlights: Inflation, Tariffs, and Open BordersTrump’s speech hit several key policy points, starting with inflation, a topic polling shows as a top voter concern. His approach? Blame Biden and promise that lowering fuel costs through increased drilling would lower overall prices.He also reaffirmed his stance on tariffs, arguing that protectionist policies would bring jobs back to America. However, as Justin pointed out, this messaging could be tricky. If tariffs are seen as inflationary, they could directly contradict his economic promises.Immigration was another focus, with Trump highlighting border security as one of his administration’s major successes. While migration levels have significantly decreased, he took full credit for the decline, presenting it as a unilateral victory.The Made-for-TV MomentsThis address will likely be remembered more for its emotional and strategic moments than for its policy substance. Trump repeatedly leaned into personal stories, putting everyday Americans in the spotlight. Among the most notable:* A Mother of a Murdered 12-Year-Old – Trump honored a grieving mother whose son was killed by gang members, announcing the renaming of an animal sanctuary in her child’s honor.* A Young Female Athlete and Transgender Sports Debate – He highlighted a female volleyball player who suffered a head injury from a transgender opponent, a move that played directly into the right’s ongoing cultural battles over women's sports.* A Cancer Survivor Turned Secret Service Member – In a surprise moment, Trump announced that a 13-year-old pediatric cancer survivor was being made an honorary Secret Service agent, prompting an emotional response.* A Military Legacy Continues – A young man from a military family was told, on stage, that he was being accepted into West Point — yet another moment of surprise designed for maximum emotional impact.* Afghanistan and ISIS-K – Perhaps the biggest bombshell was Trump’s announcement that the mastermind behind the ISIS-K attack that killed 13 U.S. service members in Afghanistan had been captured and was being extradited.Polling and Public PerceptionIn the immediate aftermath, polling suggested the speech played well. A CNN snap poll showed 69% of speech watchers viewed it positively. A CBS YouGov poll reported that 68% of respondents felt “hopeful” after the speech, while only 16% felt “angry.” These numbers suggest th

The United States has officially imposed broad tariffs on two of its largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, marking one of the most aggressive trade measures in recent history. With potential economic fallout looming, world leaders, economists, and businesses are scrambling to assess the impact of President Donald Trump’s latest move.From Trade Deals to Trade Wars: How We Got HereDuring Trump’s first term, his administration took a mixed approach to tariffs. While he aggressively targeted China with import duties — many of which remain under President Biden — his strategy with Canada and Mexico was more nuanced. Initial tariffs on specific industries such as lumber, steel, and aluminum eventually gave way to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a revised version of NAFTA that stabilized trade relations.However, with Trump back in the White House, he has revived concerns over trade imbalances, particularly with Canada and Mexico. On January 20th, Inauguration Day, Trump signed an executive order launching a review of USMCA, with findings due in April. But before that process could unfold, he moved forward with major tariff increases.On February 1st, Trump announced two executive orders imposing sweeping tariffs. Canadian imports now face a 25% tariff, with a lower 10% tariff on energy exports like oil and gas. Mexico has been hit with a flat 25% tariff on all imports. Though negotiations initially delayed the tariffs by 30 days, they have now gone into full effect, shaking up a $1.3 trillion annual trade relationship.To justify the tariffs, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a legal framework typically used for sanctions. He linked the move to national security concerns, specifically citing fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration.Sweeping Tariffs Hit North America HardThe response from Canada and Mexico has been swift and severe. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the tariffs as "absolutely unacceptable" and unveiled a $30 billion retaliatory tariff package, with plans for an additional $125 billion in tariffs within 21 days if the dispute is not resolved. Several Canadian provinces have announced bans on U.S. products, pulling American wine, beer, and liquor off store shelves.In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum issued a sharp protest but has not yet outlined a formal retaliation. However, Mexican officials have signaled that they may target key U.S. industries, including soybeans, pork, and beef exports.Domestically, the tariff decision has sparked significant economic concern. Stock markets tumbled following the announcement, and major retailers like Target and Best Buy have warned that prices on imported goods will rise sharply, with businesses passing the cost onto consumers.Economists overwhelmingly predict inflationary pressure, warning that tariffs could lead to a U.S. recession and further damage trade relations. The automotive industry is expected to see major price hikes, as will sectors reliant on steel and aluminum, energy resources, agriculture, and consumer goods such as electronics, clothing, and household appliances.Trump’s Endgame: Tough Negotiation or Economic Gamble?These tariffs will likely be felt most harshly by Canada and Mexico, as the United States is their largest export market. Seventy-five percent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., while for Mexico, that number is even higher at 80%. By limiting these exports, Trump is exerting maximum pressure on both countries, but the strategy raises significant questions.Is he using tariffs as leverage to renegotiate USMCA? Does he expect Canada and Mexico to cave under economic strain? Or is this a broader shift toward economic protectionism, despite warnings from economists?Trump’s decision could make or break his administration. While his supporters may see the move as a strong stance against unfair trade practices, rising prices and economic downturns could alienate voters — especially those who supported him for his stance on inflation control. The coming months will reveal whether these tariffs are a negotiation tool or a long-term policy shift. For now, both the U.S. and its North American neighbors brace for an economic showdown.Chapters* 00:00:00 - Introduction* 00:02:39 - Ukraine Mineral Deal Fallout* 00:06:35 - The Impact of Tariffs on Trade Relations* 00:17:22 - Consequences of Tariffs on the Economy* 00:22:15 - Interview with Bill Scher* 00:58:09 - Update introduction* 01:00:13 - J.D. Vance’s European Controversy* 01:03:02 - GOP Government Funding Bill* 01:04:48 - Democrats’ Plans to Protest Trump’s Speech* 01:08:00 - Interview with Katie Harbath* 01:45:25 - Outro This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

In a dramatic turn of events last Friday, an Oval Office press conference meant to signal unity between the U.S. and Ukraine spiraled into an unanticipated disaster. What was supposed to be a step toward solidifying a peace negotiation framework with Russia instead resulted in the unraveling of a crucial minerals-for-aid deal. The fallout has raised pressing questions about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations, President Trump’s foreign policy, and Ukraine’s ability to sustain its war efforts.The Lead-Up: A Fragile PartnershipTo understand the significance of last Friday’s debacle, it’s essential to examine the events leading up to it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a seasoned political operator, has long been reliant on U.S. support. Despite initial tensions, particularly regarding Biden’s approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the Ukraine-U.S. relationship strengthened in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The Biden administration’s vocal support and military aid were critical in keeping Ukraine afloat.However, Zelenskyy has never shied away from playing hardball in the American political arena, a strategy that has at times put him at odds with U.S. leaders. His aggressive advocacy for Ukraine, including his willingness to publicly challenge U.S. decisions, set the stage for what would become a deeply consequential clash with the Trump administration.The Minerals-for-Aid Deal: A Shaky FoundationOne of the most underreported aspects of Friday’s breakdown was the origins of the proposed minerals-for-aid agreement. Contrary to some portrayals, this wasn’t a Trump-led shakedown—it was an idea first floated by Zelenskyy himself in October 2024. His proposal sought to leverage Ukraine’s vast rare-earth mineral reserves, essential for advanced technology and defense systems, in exchange for long-term U.S. and European support.The Trump administration seized on this idea, seeing it as a way to justify continued investment in Ukraine while securing critical materials. However, negotiations faltered. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and a delegation, including Senator JD Vance and Marco Rubio, attempted to finalize the agreement in multiple rounds of talks. Zelenskyy, at one point, appeared ready to sign—only to later insist on additional approvals from Ukraine’s parliament, frustrating Trump and his team.The Press Conference MeltdownThe diplomatic strain reached its breaking point at the White House. The stage was set for Zelenskyy and Trump to present a united front and sign the minerals deal. Instead, what followed was an unexpectedly confrontational exchange that unraveled months of negotiation.The first warning signs appeared when Zelenskyy openly bristled at Trump’s references to Russian casualties, signaling an underlying frustration with the framing of the discussion. Tensions escalated when Zelenskyy, rather than using the platform to solidify the agreement, engaged in an impromptu challenge to JD Vance regarding U.S. support for Ukraine.Key moments included:* Trump’s unexpected commitments: Despite accusations that his administration is soft on Russia, Trump pledged continued arms shipments to Ukraine and even left the door open for U.S. troops participating in a peacekeeping force.* Zelenskyy’s misstep: His attempt to push for additional reparations from Russia, while politically sound, was ill-timed given the fragile state of negotiations.* The breaking point: A contentious back-and-forth between Zelenskyy and Vance, initiated by Zelenskyy, derailed the proceedings. Within hours, the deal was dead.The Fallout: A Win for Moscow?The failure to secure an agreement is a major setback for Ukraine. Without a clear U.S. commitment, European nations may hesitate to maintain their full-throated support, wary of straining relations with Washington. Meanwhile, Russia stands to benefit from any cracks in the Western alliance’s stance on Ukraine.For Trump, the incident may not be the political liability that critics assume. Polling suggests that a majority of Americans remain skeptical of prolonged foreign military commitments. His stance, which aligns with a broader shift toward isolationism within the Republican Party, is unlikely to cost him significant political capital.What Happens Next?Despite the disastrous turn of events, all hope is not lost. The underlying incentives for a deal remain strong—Ukraine needs U.S. support, and the U.S. has a strategic interest in securing rare-earth minerals.* Will Zelenskyy make amends? His best course of action may be to reopen negotiations, perhaps even making a direct appeal to Trump at Mar-a-Lago.* Can Europe fill the gap? In the immediate term, European leaders, including France and the UK, are trying to reassure Ukraine, but their ability to replace U.S. support remains in question.* Will the Trump administration re-engage? The White House has signaled that the door is not entirely closed. Treasury Secretary Bessent has expressed confidence that an agr

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently released a set of documents titled the Epstein Files: Phase One, which were expected to shed new light on the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s extensive network and illicit activities. However, the heavily redacted documents primarily contained information already available to the public, leading to significant criticism.Following the document release, Bondi sent a stern letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, accusing the FBI’s New York field office of withholding thousands of pages of additional records related to the Epstein investigation. She stated that despite assurances that all Epstein-related files had been provided, she quickly learned of the existence of more material.Bondi demanded the release of all remaining records—documents, audio, and video—by 8 a.m. on February 28th. Additionally, she announced an internal investigation into the handling of these files and instructed Patel to propose personnel action within two weeks.The document release quickly turned into a social media firestorm. Several influencers, including Libs of TikTok owner Chaya Raichik, Mike Cernovich, Jessica Reed Kraus of House Inhabit, and Chad Prather, were photographed at the White House holding binders labeled Epstein Files Phase One.This sparked outrage, with many questioning why these influencers had early access to the files while they were not made publicly available online. Others, particularly those who have long followed the Epstein case, downplayed the release, arguing that these files contained little new information.The controversy extended beyond social media, as members of Congress expressed frustration over the handling of the files. The House Judiciary Committee mocked the situation by posting a fake link to the Epstein files—only to rickroll their audience. Meanwhile, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who is involved in declassifying public secrets, stated that she had not been provided access to the documents before their release, raising concerns about poor coordination within the Justice Department.The release of Phase One has left more questions than answers. While Bondi insists that additional documents exist and must be made public, the disorganized rollout has fueled skepticism. Some remain hopeful that new, previously unknown details about Epstein's network will eventually surface. For now, the public is left with confusing and frustrating news—but potentially more revelations on the horizon.Chapters* 00:00:00 - Introduction* 00:03:00 - Stephen A. Smith’s Potential Presidential Run* 00:16:12 - Keir Starmer* 00:19:51 - The Epstein Files Debacle* 00:24:10 - USAID Fallout* 00:25:55 - Interview with Claire Meynial on CPAC, Europe, and Ukraine* 01:02:09 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Sixteen years ago, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli stood on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and delivered an impassioned rant against federal plans to bail out struggling homeowners. “Do we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages?” he shouted, calling for a “Chicago Tea Party” to protest government intervention.That moment became the rallying cry for a movement that would reshape conservative politics, define opposition to the Obama presidency, and eventually evolve into the MAGA movement that has since won the White House twice.Lately, the Tea Party has been on my mind because of the way political movements are often dismissed by their opponents. In liberal circles, one word was frequently used to wave off the Tea Party: astroturf.“This isn’t a grassroots movement,” critics insisted. “It’s funded by billionaires to look like a populist uprising.” After all, it started on CNBC—hardly a blue-collar favorite.But that’s not the whole story. And now, in 2024, astroturfing accusations are being hurled in the opposite direction.Last week, Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia faced a hostile crowd at a town hall in Roswell. The moment (captured in a widely circulated video) showed Democrats in his district voicing their frustration, pushing back forcefully against GOP policies.In response, conservatives dismissed the backlash as manufactured outrage, a coordinated effort by the so-called “deep state” to rattle the Republican establishment.Sound familiar?To understand whether today’s Democratic anger is real or manufactured, it’s worth looking back at how the Tea Party took shape.While Santelli’s on-air rant is widely credited with sparking the Tea Party, grassroots opposition to Obama’s policies had already begun. Keli Carender, a blogger in Seattle, organized an anti-stimulus protest even before Santelli’s speech. Her February 2009 demonstration—dubbed the “Porkulus Protest”—drew about 100 people.But once Santelli’s rant went viral, Tea Party protests exploded across the country. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter helped coordinate events, and by April’s Tax Day, an estimated quarter-million people took to the streets in organized demonstrations. Conservative media played a crucial role in amplifying the movement. Fox News hosts like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity championed Tea Party causes, helping grow its ranks. Soon, prominent Republican figures lent their support, though the movement remained largely decentralized.By the summer of 2009, as Obamacare made its way through Congress, Tea Party activists shifted their strategy. Instead of street protests, they flooded town halls, confronting Democratic lawmakers with fiery opposition. Videos of these clashes—angry constituents challenging their representatives—became a defining image of the movement.And electorally, the Tea Party had teeth. While it failed to topple the Republican establishment entirely (Mitt Romney still won the 2012 nomination), it helped flip House seats and push the GOP further to the right.What does the Tea Party teach us about today’s Democratic opposition?* It’s never too early to be angry. Santelli’s rant came barely a month after Obama took office. Right now, Trump’s disapproval ratings are rising, but Democrats haven’t yet rallied around a singular issue.* Movements can make an impact—especially in the House. The Tea Party didn’t need to control the White House to change the political landscape. A handful of flipped seats can shift the balance of power.* Dismissing protests as ‘astroturf’ is risky. If the same kind of town hall showdowns seen in McCormick’s district begin happening elsewhere, they could turn into a trend.The Tea Party was fueled by a raw, pent-up anger over fiscal conservatism. Many conservatives felt betrayed by their own party—George W. Bush had campaigned on balanced budgets, only to expand deficits through wars and bailouts. Obama’s presidency, with its ambitious government programs, only amplified those frustrations.The question for Democrats now is: What’s their version of that anger?If it’s simply opposition to Trump, that’s not enough. Even figures like Elon Musk—despised by many progressives—aren’t sustainable political villains. “Musk sent another email” isn’t a battle cry that will mobilize voters in the long run.That’s why Democratic strategists should be tickled by what just happened in the House. They (impressively) passed a budget that, while avoiding direct mention of Medicaid, includes $880 billion in cuts overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee—which just happens to control Medicaid.Why the cuts? Because fiscal hawks in the House need a way to offset the Trump tax cuts.For Democrats, that’s a classic, politically potent message: Republicans are cutting your Medicaid to give tax cuts to the rich.If they can harness that into a movement—one that gets people angry enough to show up at town halls, knock on doors, and vote—then history might just be repeating itself

One down, 47 to go.With Donald Trump’s first month in office coming to a close, we are seeing something that feels a bit more familiar. According to three recent polls, his approval rating is now underwater—meaning more people disapprove of him than approve. This is still essentially the same conversation we were having before. There are deeply entrenched beliefs on both sides, with some convinced he is doing a terrible job and others believing he is performing tremendously.Keep Politics Politics Politics alive! Get two bonus episodes each week! Upgrade to paid!The numbers reflect this divide. A CNN SSRS poll shows Trump’s approval at 47% with 52% disapproving. Similarly, a Reuters Ipsos poll reports 44% approval and 51% disapproval, while Gallup’s latest survey records a 45% approval and 51% disapproval. I have seen other numbers where he remains above 50% and in net positive territory, but the general trend suggests that the more people hear his name, the less they seem to like him.Sound familiar?At the heart of this, however, is the same issue that contributed to Joe Biden’s defeat: the economy. Economic fears and anxieties remain high, and now that people are reminded of both the speed and the sheer volume—both in quantity and loudness—of the Trump administration, there’s a sense of, “Ah, okay, here we go again.” If the economy rebounds, Trump could find himself in a very strong position. But if it does not, whatever mandate he might have had will quickly evaporate.It’s worth noting that we still have the majority of Trump’s first 100 days ahead of us, though you’d be forgiven for forgetting that as it feels like he’s been in office for six months. Chapters02:06 - Trump Approval Rating Down04:46 - Evan Scrimshaw on Why Canada Hates The US51:53 - Mitch McConnell Retirement54:05 - Kash Patel Confirmed57:37 - Zelenskyy To Sign Mineral Deal With US01:03:12 - Kevin Ryan This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Wait, what? What just happened? To who? When? And it just flipped when it landed? A 13th kid with a fourth woman? Does that have anything to do with the other thing? You know, the one that just happened. Or maybe that was last week… The first month of Trump 47 has felt more like 47 weeks than it has four, with a relentless barrage of executive orders, personnel decisions, and, let’s say, charitably unconventional accounting procedures that have kicked ant piles both foreign and domestic. And with all of that, much of what you read on social media, Substack, or in your podcast feed is likely very, very hyperbolic—or, if you’re on the conservative side of the aisle, particularly gleeful. My goal, however, is to ask a simple question every day: What actually matters? On this episode of the show, we’re going to talk to two people with vastly different perspectives on the political system. First, we have Gabe Fleisher, who writes the Wake Up to Politics newsletter and, even as a fresh college graduate, has probably forgotten more about political history and minutiae than the average voter has ever cared to learn. On the other end of the spectrum, we have John Teasdale, an entrepreneur and co-creator of The Contender card game, who intentionally disconnected himself from politics for the past year and has only just returned stateside.“Sure, Justin, I’ll enjoy both of those conversations. But what about me? What does that give me as a framework to understand what’s happening right now?” Well, to help with that, I want to dust off something that doesn’t usually get brought out in the political realm, but given the breakneck pace of news, I think it’s worth it. In 2013, WNYC’s On the Media program put out a helpful infographic titled the Breaking News Consumer Handbook. You’ve probably seen it during major events like shootings or tragedies, but with the flood of headlines right now, I think it’s worth revisiting its five core tenets and applying them to this moment.In the immediate aftermath of any major event, most news outlets will get it wrong. This is crucial to remember because, amid the deluge of information, you owe it to yourself to slow down. Wait a few days, maybe even a week, before getting worked up about something. Half-truths, gossip, and rumor fly out of every orifice in Washington, and with time, further context often clarifies the situation—or at least reveals whether it’s even newsworthy. Don’t you deserve the full set of facts before being led around by the nose by the outrage machine? I think you do. Don’t trust anonymous sources. Case in point: as I was recording, a story broke from NBC News stating that U.S. intelligence indicates Vladimir Putin isn’t interested in a real peace deal. The sources? Four anonymous sources—two congressional aides and two intel sources, presumably provided by those aides. The article essentially asserts that while Putin may negotiate with Trump, he’s not deterred from taking Ukraine in the long run. To which I say: da-doi. Unless you genuinely believed that Putin was going to apologize for invading Ukraine and promise never to do it again, this “news” adds no value. It doesn’t outline the parameters of a peace deal, Russia’s red lines, or any concrete details. It simply reiterates that Putin remains an authoritarian thug, which, let’s be real, even MAGA supporters acknowledge. The end of war is not a morality play—it’s about making decisions that stop people from dying. This story is calorie free by making a stupid point and not even using named sources to do it.Don’t trust stories that cite other media outlets as sources. This is a favorite trick of churn-media articles, particularly those designed to game Facebook’s algorithm. If you mostly get your news from social media, you’re consuming content optimized for engagement, not accuracy. These outlets often regurgitate information from elsewhere, making their legitimacy dubious at best. Fourth, and this one is more relevant to shootings, but still applicable…There is almost never a second shooter. In a broader sense, Occam’s razor applies—sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. While plenty of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true (COVID lab leak, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc.), not everything that pops up on social media is exactly what it seems, especially when it comes to government spending. Right now, people are combing through federal expenditures, uncovering what might appear to be scandals. Give it time. Wait a few days before reacting and hitting retweet.Pay attention to the language the media uses. Phrases like “we are getting reports” could mean anything. “We are seeking confirmation” means they don’t have confirmation. “The news outlet has learned” means they have a scoop or are going out on a limb. Stick to fundamental journalism: a compelling lead, a nut graph that clearly outlines the news, and at least three on-the-record sources directly involved in the situation. If those el

I can think of no more romantic way for you to spend a quiet moment alone with your partner on this Valentine's Day than drawing a warm bath, throwing in some scented oils, and reading aloud the latest Politics, Politics, Politics post. "Great point, Justin," you can say to each other as you make longing eye contact and renew your commitment to one another. But it is in that spirit of passion that I tell you: somebody's gonna get f***ed — either the House or the Senate. This is a Republican problem, and we are in strange days. Normally, the People's House, which has a far higher headcount, operates with majorities of 10, 15, 20, maybe even 30 seats, at least in a bygone, un-gerrymandered era. In those situations, you could craft policy where some members of your own coalition wouldn't have to vote for it. The Republicans don’t have that luxury.Right now, the House majority is two. Two people. And reinforcements aren’t coming until April with the Florida special elections. We have no idea when the New York special election to replace Elise Stefanik will happen. The House wants to pass one big, beautiful bill with all of Donald Trump's agenda in it. The Senate doesn't want that. They would rather pass two bills. Over the last few days, as Lindsey Graham moved a budget bill out of the Senate, the message has been clear: if the House can't act, the Senate will. Meanwhile, the House, constantly scrapping for power because of its easily divided nature, is saying, "No, we're sending you one bill. You figure it out." And here’s the inside sauce on it: the reason the House wants one bill, many House Republicans don't like massive bills crammed with everything at once. They prefer voting on things individually. But Republicans can't afford to do that right now. They need members to vote against what they’ve pledged to vote for, and the only way they believe they can achieve that is by bundling multiple things together including some things that fussy members can’t not vote for.For example? Budget hawks who won’t raise the debt by one penny… are you not going to vote for border funding? Same for Border Warriors who want every illegal migrant out tomorrow along with their whole family… are you going to be an all-or-nothing puritan and not green light the tax cuts?The Senate sending two bills to the House is a problem for Republicans. The first bill, likely the border package, would pass easily. But when the second bill—probably tax cuts—comes around, budget hawks will balk. And if the House, Senate, and White House are all in Republican hands but fail to pass Trump's legislative agenda, that would be a disaster. The Senate's noise has some in the White House thinking the House is a lost cause. Yesterday, the House finally released a budget, and sources inside the chamber are unhappy. “The numbers are bad, campaign promises are broken, and member priorities are ignored,” As one source put it. "We need a speaker with big balls. In fact, I’d take (Elon’s) Big Balls over Mike Johnson’s any day."Which brings us to Speaker Johnson, the Hudsucker Proxy speaker. If you’ve never seen that movie, Tim Robbins plays a mailroom worker who gets unexpectedly elevated to CEO by a scheming board looking for a patsy. The movie ends with Robbins proving himself to be an exceptional CEO. Johnson would love for that to be his story. But the speakership in this situation is an impossible job. He can only afford to lose two votes, and one of them is already Thomas Massie. He got this job because, after Kevin McCarthy was ousted, every other candidate had at least four enemies. Johnson? He was just well-liked enough to slip through. Now, he's at the center of the storm.The House budget committee has angered members, and things are bleak. This doesn't mean the end, but it does mean they might have to split into two bills. If that happens, tax cuts might take a long time—or not happen at all. That’s a problem because tax cuts are a kitchen table issue. If Trump’s cuts aren’t in place by next year, it would be a massive failure. The number one reason people voted for Trump was to get inflation under control. If taxes go up, it’s a disaster.And the issue here is that there is no legislative North Star. Paul Ryan isn’t walking through that door. He was a legislative guy, a wonk. Right now, there’s no one like that in the House. And there’s certainly no one like that in the White House. And that’s where we land now. The big question? Considering all the noise that has been made by DOGE, does the idea of those savings factor into any of these budget talks?If not, then get ready for a bumpy ride with the first test being the expiration of government funding on March 14th. Chapters:- 00:00:00 - Introduction and Overview- 00:00:50 - Valentine's Day Special Opening- 00:01:19 - Discussion on House vs. Senate Republican Strategies- 00:02:38 - The House's Push for a Single Comprehensive Bill- 00:04:38 - Challenges in Passing Trump's Legislative Agenda- 00:

Donald Trump's second term does not look like his first. In his Super Bowl interview with Brett Baier, Trump admitted that back in 2017, he was a New York guy, a novice to Washington, D.C., and all but confessed that he stepped on every rake in sight. He appointed the wrong people, got caught up in the wrong traps, and was unable to effectively govern. To the casual observer, it may seem like not much has changed—Trump was causing chaos then, and he's causing chaos now. But this show understands the difference: Previously, chaos happened to him; now, he is the one orchestrating it. His agenda is taking direct aim at the centers of government he believes he was sent back to reform. Agencies long targeted by conservatives are now being affected—slashed, possibly shuttered. This is a direct assault on the structure of the federal government as it has been known, something many have promised but only Trump has aggressively pursued.If we can’t compare what we’ve seen over the last month to any prior sitting president, what historical precedents can we look to? I submit to you the year 1992 and three figures whose political strategies echo what we see in Trump today: Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton.First, Buchanan. No one brought the conversation about immigration into the modern presidential sphere quite like him. Though his 1992 challenge to incumbent George H.W. Bush was short-lived, his influence endured. Buchanan’s rhetoric on immigration laid the groundwork for the hardline stance Trump would take in 2016. One of his biggest issues was the interpretation of the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the phrase "under the jurisdiction thereof" meant only legal citizens should have offspring automatically granted citizenship. Now, Trump is doing something Buchanan only talked about: actively challenging birthright citizenship.Next, Ross Perot. If there is one historical figure whose message about government size and spending echoes through Trump’s current actions, it is Perot. Running as an independent in 1992, Perot famously railed against the national debt, which then stood at $4 trillion—a fraction of today’s $34 trillion. His colorful metaphors, like calling the debt a "crazy aunt we keep in the basement," helped him connect with voters who felt Washington was bloated and inefficient. He championed the idea of running the government like a business—sound familiar? Both men also shared a deep distrust of federal agencies. Perot famously quit his campaign in 1992, alleging that the CIA had infiltrated his operation, convinced that President George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, was behind it. One can only imagine a President Perot would have pursued intelligence reforms as aggressively as Trump is now targeting the Justice Department and FBI.Perot, however, never won. Nor did Buchanan. But one man did in 1992: Bill Clinton. Initially, I planned to focus on just Buchanan and Perot, but our friend Michael Cohen recently made a compelling case for why Trump’s current approach also parallels Clinton. While Clinton focused on large-scale economic policies, he also knew how to capture public attention with wedge issues—ones that were more symbolic than substantive but extremely popular. In 1996, he championed the V-chip, a device to block violent content on TV, and pushed for school uniforms to combat youth violence. Neither policy had a significant impact, but they polled above 70%, making them politically beneficial.Trump is using a similar playbook. His recent executive orders—banning men from women’s sports and bringing back plastic straws—affect relatively few people in practical terms, yet they are wildly popular. These 70-30 issues serve as the sugar that makes the medicine go down, keeping the public engaged while larger, more complex reforms take shape. They also bait his political opponents into fighting battles where he holds the high ground— Obi-Wan style.At its core, Trump’s approach today mirrors Clinton’s in how it connects emotionally with voters. Is there really much of a difference between “Make America Great Again” and “I feel your pain”?Chapters00:00:00 – Intro00:02:17 – Trump's Second Term: Chaos or Competence?00:04:12 – 1992 as a Parallel to Trump’s 47th Presidency00:15:30 – Update00:17:53 – Judicial Roadblocks Against Trump’s Agenda00:21:31 – International News: Ukraine and Gaza Updates00:26:12 – Guest Interview: Kirk Bado from National Journal 00:31:36 – The Looming Government Shutdown00:39:52 – The Media’s Role and Chilling Effects00:46:07 – Nancy Mace: Political Calculations or Genuine Outcry?01:16:45 – Closing Remarks This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

It’s a DOGE-eat-DOGE world.Before I get into my thoughts on DOGE—and I have quite a few—the reason I haven’t written much about it (we did touch on USAID in Wednesday’s update) is that I’m still wrapping my head around it.There’s a lot of noise surrounding DOGE, and beyond the clatter, it’s unclear exactly what’s happening. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in the valley. They lost a big election, have no effective power in government for at least the next two years, and have been throwing a lot of spaghetti at the wall. Chuck Schumer was parading around with a Corona and lime when it looked like we were going to hit Mexico with 25% tariffs, and now, the focus of the last 72 hours has been Elon Musk and DOGE.Because DOGE sits at the center of a political noise machine, I tend to be cautious about jumping in while everything is still in motion.That being said, DOGE is a significant development. What they’re doing is something every Republican candidate in my lifetime has promised—and it may very well be illegal. We don’t know if they’re actually cutting the budget in the way they claim, nor do we know if anything they’re doing is truly unlawful. But the fact that both of those questions exist simultaneously is reason enough to take a deeper look.Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE—was conceived during Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign and made official on January 20, 2025, the first day of Trump’s second term. However, it is not a formal cabinet department. Instead, it began under the U.S. Digital Service, which was rebranded as the U.S. DOGE Service, before being placed under the Chief of Staff’s office—likely to avoid transparency requirements. The stated goal of DOGE is to modernize federal technology and software to maximize government efficiency, with Musk claiming they aim to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. Musk has admitted that if they say $2 trillion, they might actually cut $1 trillion, but the ambition remains.DOGE operates out of the Eisenhower Executive Building next to the White House with a small headquarters of about 20 people. Rather than a traditional hierarchy, it functions as a task force embedded across government agencies, with small teams of DOGE operatives placed inside agencies to audit systems and pursue efficiency measures. Musk himself serves as a special government employee, a temporary advisory role that grants him broad access while allowing him to bypass disclosure requirements that apply to full-time officials. This is especially notable given Musk’s extensive business interests in China—something so controversial that a bipartisan group of lawmakers banned TikTok last year.Key figures in DOGE include Steve Davis, CEO of The Boring Company and a longtime Musk confidant, who allegedly leads day-to-day operations. Then there are the so-called “DOGE Kids”—young adults, typically aged 19 to 24, from elite universities with backgrounds in Musk companies or the Peter Thiel machine. Some, like Luke Farritor, gained fame for achievements like using AI to decode ancient Roman scrolls. Others, like Marko Elez, have already faced controversy. Ellis resigned after the Wall Street Journal uncovered racist posts he made in 2024, including advocating for eugenic immigration policies and saying he would never marry outside his ethnicity.In its first 80 hours, Musk tweeted that DOGE had canceled $420 million worth of federal contracts. Get it. The issue? DOGE doesn’t technically have the authority to cancel contracts. That power belongs to Congress and the departments that administer the funds. So the real question is whether DOGE is canceling these contracts or simply recommending their termination, with the speed of the Trump administration making it appear as though they’re acting unilaterally.DOGE’s aggressive approach has already ruffled feathers. On inauguration day, Musk’s team assumed control of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) headquarters, installing sofa beds in the director’s office and working around the clock. Within days, they cut off career OPM staff from internal systems, effectively giving Musk’s team exclusive control over federal HR records. Two OPM employees filed a lawsuit in late January, alleging that DOGE unlawfully installed a private server on the agency’s network.Things escalated further when DOGE turned its attention to the U.S. Treasury Department’s payment system, which processes $5 trillion annually, handling everything from Social Security checks to federal salaries. When David Liebrich, a top Treasury official, refused to grant DOGE access, he was reportedly forced out. By January 31, Trump’s new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, approved DOGE’s access. Soon after, a DOGE tech aide obtained unrestricted access to the payment system’s code base and began making changes with minimal supervision—an alarming development that has raised red flags in Congress.And then there’s USAID. Musk tweeted, “We’re shutting it down,” referring to

Trump might get his cabinet after all.It was never going to be easy, many of them pulled from the Deep MAGA reserves doomed to offend the old guard who are developing carpel tunnel holding their nose through Trump’s second administration. Others are lifelong Democrats who helped over the finish line but still inspire a stink eye from lifelong Republicans.Some confirmations were easy—Elise Stefanik sailed through, and Marco Rubio was unanimous. Others more controversial, like Pete Hegseth, who barely squeaked by. But throughout it all, two nominees had the lowest odds of making it through, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. That’s because neither of them are Republicans, and in a Senate where the GOP holds a 53-47 edge, blocking a nomination means peeling off Republican votes, not relying on Democratic opposition. The Democrats could stomp their feet all they wanted—it didn’t matter. But on this Tuesday, both have made it out of committee, thanks to key endorsements from influential figures within the GOP they both look to be on a narrow but assured path to the executive branch where they will serve at the pleasure of the president.Politics Politics Politics is free twice a week. Does it LOOK like news is only breaking twice a week? C’mon dude, get the two bonus episodes.Tulsi GabbardHer confirmation was boosted by Susan Collins, a senator unafraid to buck the Trump administration. Representing Maine—a state that's far from a deep-red stronghold—Collins' support was critical. It was enough to push Gabbard through committee on strict party lines. Beyond Collins, outreach from newly installed CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senator J.D. Vance helped smooth over concerns that arose during her confirmation hearing. The main sticking point? Her stance on Edward Snowden. Gabbard made it clear that she viewed Snowden as a criminal and would not recommend a pardon, but she stopped short of calling him a traitor. This led to a bizarre debate over whether she was sufficiently condemning Snowden, as some seemed to argue that unless she said the magic “traitor” word she was unqualified. Gabbard's confirmation has brought together one of the strangest coalitions I’ve seen on the right—far-right Republicans like Tom Cotton, staunch Never Trumpers like Meghan McCain, and figures like TuringPoint’s Charlie Kirk. McCain even appeared on Kirk’s radio show Monday to announce they’d team up to primary anyone who voted against Gabbard. That looks like it might not be necessary.RFK Jr. Unlike Gabbard, his confirmation hearing was messier. While Gabbard kept her composure, RFK Jr. approached it like a Kennedy: arrogantly. Democrats took their best shot, mostly by hammering him on vaccines, though their efforts were, frankly, ineffective. They made a lot of noise but didn’t seem genuinely committed to blocking him. In the end, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a Republican who voted to impeach Trump, decided he was comfortable enough with RFK Jr. to push him through committee.With that, Trump's cabinet is nearly complete. There’s one more potential hurdle: a labor secretary nominee who previously supported the PRO Act and has drawn skepticism from Republicans. But compared to Tulsi and RFK, this is a much lower-profile battle.At the end of the day, this confirmation process has been tougher than what Trump faced in his first term, but his team has handled it deftly. The Democrats? They put up almost no real defense.Was that on purpose? I don’t know. I suspect they don’t either.Chapters00:00 Intro02:50 Tulsi and RFK safe?12:42 USAID21:04 Waffle House Raises Egg Prices25:46 Senate Takes Charge on Reconciliation Bills32:38 Chris Cillizza This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The ongoing confirmation hearings for RFK Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard have been largely predictable. But as always, the real story isn’t the grandstanding—it’s in the quiet calculations happening behind the scenes.This was RFK Jr.'s second day facing the Senate, and the discussion largely revolved around his past statements on vaccines. But if you’re looking for movement in the room, there wasn’t much. Coverage focused on explosive exchanges between Democrats and the nominees, but that’s irrelevant. The Democrats can all vote no, and it won’t change a thing. What matters is what Republicans are saying—and there’s little indication that they are going to vote against RFK Jr.RFK Jr. remains politically resilient for two reasons:* The Kennedy name still holds value with a broad swath of Americans.* His skepticism of Big Pharma and Big Agriculture resonates with a coalition that includes both libertarians and "crunchy moms"The main Republican angle of attack was always going to be abortion. RFK Jr. has been pro-choice his entire life, but now he’s taking orders from a pro-life president. How does that play out? He faced questions about the abortion pill but gave answers that were lukewarm at best.My assumption: He’s moving forward.Kash Patel’s hearing was predictably contentious, with heated exchanges involving Adam Schiff and Amy Klobuchar. But, again, those don’t matter. He also had solid support from Republican lawmakers, which means his confirmation is essentially a done deal.If Matt Gaetz was a non-starter because of his long list of enemies, Patel should have had similar problems—he’s burned plenty of bridges. The difference? Patel has a history in law enforcement, whereas Gaetz does not. That seems to be enough to push him through.This is where things get interesting. Unlike RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard doesn’t have the built-in advantage of a famous name. Unlike Patel, she lacks a Republican establishment safety net. And unlike both of them, she has a real opposition force: the intelligence community.Tulsi has been one of the most vocal critics of the intelligence agencies, particularly regarding FISA Section 702, which she argues enables domestic surveillance. She’s also expressed support for Edward Snowden—a major red flag for the very institutions she’d be overseeing as Director of National Intelligence.Her hearing featured a bipartisan focus on one specific issue: Would she call Snowden a traitor?She wouldn’t.She acknowledged that Snowden broke the law, that there were other ways he could have exposed government overreach. But she refused to use the word “traitor.” And that, oddly enough, might be the line that sinks her.It speaks to a deeper issue of symbolic politics. It wasn’t enough to condemn Snowden’s actions—she needed to emotionally brand him as a traitor. Her refusal to do so is revealing because it suggests that there are Republicans who may see her as too much of a risk to intelligence operations.Looking at prediction markets like Polymarket:* Kash Patel is sitting comfortably at 95%.* RFK Jr. has dipped slightly from 78% to 75%, but still strong.* Tulsi Gabbard is now underwater at 44%.That’s not a good place to be.Gabbard’s nomination has created one of the strangest coalitions in modern politics—hardcore MAGA figures lining up alongside Tom Cotton and Meghan McCain. But if Trump’s team is going to throw its weight behind any nominee, it’ll likely be her. The next 72 hours will tell us if she has the votes or if this is where the process stalls.Not a ton of surprises overall, but one question remains: Will the Trump administration go all in on Tulsi?We’ll see.In this episode we also have a great chat with Michael Tracey who makes his Px3 debut. I wanted to talk to him about current events but we wound up spending the whole hour rehashing the 2024 campaign. Chapters00:00 Intro02:30 Confirmation Hearing Chaos: Tulsi Looks Wounded14:17 UPDATE: Potomac Crash and Vivek Monster Ohio Numbers23:34 Michael Tracey This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The wolves are out for two of the Trump administration’s most unconventional cabinet picks. Can Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. survive their hearings this week?Let’s start with Bobby.Caroline Kennedy has publicly stated her opposition to RFK Jr.‘s appointment. Caroline is deeply embedded in the power structure of the modern Democratic Party—she has served multiple times as an ambassador and was one of the first major endorsers of Barack Obama back in 2008. So, make of that what you will. RFK Jr., the black sheep of the family, is now stepping into a Republican administration, a move that surely raises eyebrows. Though, if we’re speculating, old Joe Kennedy probably wouldn’t have had much of a problem with it. Then there’s Tulsi Gabbard. A recent New York Times article titled “A Vatican Meeting Added Scrutiny of Tulsi Gabbard’s Foreign Travels” befuddled me. If you remember Gabbard’s complaints about being placed on a TSA watch list, this article confirms it—but oddly enough, it doesn’t treat that as the headline. Instead, the focus is on why she was put on the list, with government sources leaking that it stemmed from her attendance at a Vatican conference organized by a man who was reportedly on a terror watch list.The Times knows this man’s name but chose not to publish it because they couldn’t verify why he was on the list. Essentially, the government gave the reporters a briefing, naming this individual as the reason Gabbard was flagged, but when pressed on why he was on the list, they refused to elaborate. And yet, the Times still ran with the story.The article tacks on another odd claim—an intelligence briefing reportedly revealed that two Hezbollah members once mentioned Gabbard in a conversation that was passed on to US intelligence. During Gabbard’s controversial trip to meet with Bashar al-Assad she also met with “the big guy,” according to the Hezbollah fighters. My first thought? She met with Joe Biden? No, apparently, “the big guy” in this case was either a Hezbollah leader or a Lebanese government official with ties to Hezbollah, which, given the region, isn’t exactly uncommon.But what’s the real takeaway here? The way this story is framed makes little sense. If the government comes to you with information about a public figure, I understand reporting on it. But why not fold it into a larger piece digging deeper into the actual process behind it? Why not talk to Gabbard directly? Why not investigate the TSA’s reasoning in more detail? Instead, this piece presents her as suspicious without providing substantial evidence.And knowing now that the government proactively brought this information to the Times, it only raises more red flags. That’s a weak justification for placing a high-profile critic of the current administration on a TSA watch list. It’s probably a bad thing to do in general. It’s even worse that they felt the need to leak it to the media. But, of course, the real motive is clear—they don’t want her confirmed. There’s no other reason for the government to hand this story to the Times unless they’re trying to sink her nomination.Chapters00:00 Introduction01:34 Why didn’t I Cover The J6 Pardons More?17:02 UPDATE: MI Senate Race Heats Up, Trump Funding Pauses, Buyouts?34:23 Previewing Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. Hearings with Jen Briney This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

President Donald Trump, on his first day back in office, issued pardons and commutations to over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. This action nullified the efforts of the Justice Department’s extensive investigation and prosecution of the events. The clemency measures included full pardons for the majority of those convicted, effectively erasing their criminal records. Additionally, sentences for 14 prominent figures, such as Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, were commuted to time served, leading to their immediate release. La Pointe reporter Claire Meynial has been covering the trials and incarcerations of many of these cases and joins us to talk about the reality of the cases and we guess about the political fallout. Also: * The vibe inside congress during the indoor inauguration. * A plea for digital services like YouTubeTV to carry C-SPANChapters * (00:00:01) Introduction* (00:01:22) The Battle for C-SPAN’s Future* (00:07:06) Update: Hegseth Secured? Ratcliffe Confirmed. JFK Files Declassified* (00:15:57) Claire Meynial on J6 and Inauguration This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Donald Trump is the president of these United States again. And with it comes a flurry of executive orders that could reshape America.It’s officially Joe-ver for Biden. But before it was over he reshaped the concept of American presidential pardon power. We discuss all of it LIVE from Washington DC with Jen Briney.Politics Politics Politics relies entirely on your donations to travel the country and cover national politics. Join us, won’t you? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Very happy to be joined on the show today by Ricardo Fernandez a doctor from Chicago who happened to become close friends with former President Jimmy Carter.We discuss:* Life after the presidency * Obama’s campaign refusing to let him speak at the 2008 DNC* How he reacted to his grandson recording Mitt Romney’s “47%” quoteAnd much more! Politics Politics Politics is a good show. Subscribe for free right here or upgrade to paid!Episode Chapters* [00:00:01] Opening Remarks* [00:01:19] Introduction to Jimmy Carter Special* [00:02:00] Ricardo Fernandez* [00:23:03] TikTok Ban News* [00:24:46] Joe Biden's Farewell Address* [00:29:57] Midterm Polling and Other News* [00:39:59] Jimmy Carter's Final Days This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Pete Hegseth is your next Secretary of Defense. Nothing from Tuesday’s contentious hearing will likely pluck GOP votes away from him. If anything the histrionics of the Democrats on the panel will make it harder for skeptical Republicans to stray. The way you collapse a nominee when you are in the minority is you give them enough rope to hang themselves. Ask cordial questions that elevate in complexity and hope they screw something up. That is the most likely possibility with Trump’s slate who are being painted as unready and unprepared.They did not do that.Instead we got screeds on Hegseth’s personal history, financial management and his opinion of women. What standing does a Republican Senator have if he is on the side of Sen. Tim Kaine taking the moral high road on infidelity? That being said, even if the Democrats had played a more strategic hand it looks like the GOP had effectively closed ranks. The lynchpin of a potential washout was Iowa’s Joni Ernst and she spent the first portion of her time discussing the importance of a Pentagon audit (the upside of finding someone from outside the traditional drafting grounds for SecDef since DoD has routinely failed audits) and then played home run derby pitcher on the subject of women in the military. Yesterday, Hegseth was the most vulnerable of Trump’s nominees. Today, betting markets pin that honor on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.But if the Republicans are on the same page the Democrats are going to take this seriously, then I would bet on the full slate sailing through. Also, on the this podcast…Jen Briney, host of Congressional Dish, joins to discuss the stakes of these hearings and the ideological divides within Trump’s coalition. Dave Levinthal, the money man, is back to discuss Kamala Harris 24 continuing to charge donors months after losing.Chapters* 00:00:00 - Episode Introduction and Live Show Announcement* 00:01:35 - Pete Hegseth's Confirmation Hearing Analysis* 00:10:17 - Breakdown of Trump’s Coalition Cabinet* 00:21:00 - Marco Rubio’s Focus on Foreign Policy* 00:30:00 - Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel: Challenges and Prospects* 00:43:10 - Upcoming Events and Political Updates* 00:52:49 - Dave Levinthal This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Best I can tell there are two emerging Democratic Lanes in our post-Obama era world…Progressive + Border Hawk In a bygone era, Bernie Sanders got an “A” rating from the NRA and believed increased immigration was a corporatist scheme to drive down union wages. While, he has yet to reload on his 2A cred, he is now back to beating the drum on the economic costs of immigration. I would suspect that progressives will feel more comfortable consciously uncoupling from positions and groups calling for a decriminalized border. New Blue DogsArf! Arf! John Fetterman sees a lot of Trump signs when he drives through the state of Pennsylvania. So why should he fight tooth and nail to keep Pete Hegseth from the Pentagon? If he wants to keep his seat in a state that is trending rightward then maybe picking and choosing his battles with the MAGA agenda is smarter than diametric opposition. Maybe it makes more sense to make face in Mar-A-Lago than to march in defiance. —Either way we have a lot of spaghetti being thrown at the wall and our friend Jeff Maurer is here to help make sense of it. Including whatever the hell Chris Murphy is up to. Chapters4:30 Jeff Maurer35:05 UPDATE - Carter Funeral, Fetterman to MAL, Trump First Executive Orders48:51 Kirk Bado This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Justin Trudeau, Canada’s long-standing Prime Minister, announced his resignation this week, marking a seismic shift in the nation’s political landscape. Trudeau’s departure comes after nearly a decade as Prime Minister and thirteen years as leader of the Liberal Party. His resignation was not entirely unexpected but has sparked a wave of introspection within Canadian politics.Here is what you need to know if you don’t care about Canada unless they’re playing hockey or changing heads of state as told to us this episode by Evan Scrimshaw.The Breaking Point: Why Trudeau ResignedTrudeau’s decision to step down was a culmination of mounting pressure from within his party and worsening public opinion. In recent months, his leadership faced escalating dissent. A pivotal moment was the resignation of the finance minister, which signaled deep fractures within the Liberal Party. Over the holiday season, Trudeau faced an ultimatum from his caucus—resign or face a vote of no confidence.Several factors contributed to Trudeau’s plummeting support:* Declining Poll Numbers: Trudeau’s approval ratings had been steadily eroding, with the Liberal Party polling over 20 points behind the opposition Conservative Party.* Special Election Defeats: Losing in traditionally strong Liberal ridings signaled waning public support.* Policy Disconnect: While many of Trudeau’s policies were popular in principle, his personal brand had become a liability. Voters who liked Liberal initiatives often dismissed them outright when they were linked to Trudeau.Trudeau’s tenure will be remembered as one of bold progressive initiatives juxtaposed with ethical controversies. On the positive side, his government achieved significant reductions in child poverty, lowered carbon emissions, and introduced affordable childcare programs. Yet, his administration was marred by scandals, including:* Ethics Violations: Pressure on the attorney general to favor a Quebec-based company, SNC-Lavalin, during a corruption probe.* Conflicts of Interest: Controversies surrounding contracts awarded to organizations with personal ties to Trudeau’s family.* Housing Crisis: Critics argue Trudeau’s inaction exacerbated Canada’s housing affordability crisis, with rents and mortgage rates soaring during his leadership.As Scrimshaw put it, Trudeau’s administration embodied “reckless disregard” for ethical boundaries. While these issues might have been survivable individually, collectively, they eroded trust in his leadership.Trudeau’s resignation has thrown the Liberal Party into a leadership race. He will remain interim Prime Minister until March, with no parliamentary sittings until then. Key contenders for his replacement include:* Chrystia Freeland, the current finance minister and one of Trudeau’s closest allies.* Mark Carney, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor.* Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence.* Other candidates, including Francois-Philippe Champagne, Dominic LeBlanc, and former B.C. Premier Christy Clark.The party faces a critical choice: selecting a leader who can halt its decline and prepare it for the next general election. Scrimshaw warns that without decisive leadership, the Liberal Party risks being overtaken by the New Democratic Party (NDP) or marginalized altogether, as seen historically with the UK’s Liberal Party being replaced by Labour.As Trudeau exits, the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, appears poised to seize power in the next election. Poilievre, a pragmatic and relatively moderate conservative, has maintained focus on fiscal discipline while distancing himself from extreme social conservatism. The scale of the Conservative victory—whether narrow or overwhelming—will shape the trajectory of Canadian politics for years to come.Trudeau’s political obituary is one of contrasts. He entered office as a symbol of youthful energy and progressive ideals, but over time, his administration became a cautionary tale of hubris and ethical lapses. His departure offers an opportunity for renewal within the Liberal Party and Canadian politics at large. Yet, the path forward is fraught with challenges, as the party grapples with its identity and viability in a rapidly shifting political landscape.ChaptersOpening and Introduction (00:00:00–00:00:45)General overview of topics, including Trudeau’s resignation, Zuckerberg’s changes at Meta, and upcoming political discussions.The Revival of Government (00:00:45–00:01:25)Commentary on the return of political activity in the House and the Trump administration’s cabinet hearings.Justin Trudeau Resigns (00:01:25–00:08:45)A detailed discussion of Trudeau’s resignation, his legacy, and the future of the Liberal Party.Global Political Trends and Liberal Party Risks (00:08:45–00:12:15)Insights into parallels between Canadian and UK politics, the Liberal Party’s identity crisis, and risks of being overtaken by the NDP.Future Leadership of the Liberal Party (00:12:15–00:14:22)Breakdown of potenti

Kamala Harris is the American High Speed Rail candidate.Very expensive. Popular with liberal city dwellers. But ultimately a lot of hype that leads to very little.While she isn't necessarily a poor candidate in every context, she struggled twice on the national stage with median voters first within and then outside of her party. I’m not going to do a blow by blow of her campaign because this is a eulogy and eulogies are broad. So let’s start here:Kamala Harris is from California. Not a bygone version of California. Not Ronald Regan’s California. Not Roger Rabbit’s California. The California over the last two decades. One that saw the rise of San Francisco as a financial and cultural hub AND post-pandemic has become synonymous with progressive failure.That California. If you are a California politician the first decision you need to make when explaining yourself to the nation is: does California suck right now or not?If you say it sucks, then you explain how your beloved home state has fallen victim to the plight of the modern world. Blame capitalism, blame a lack of morals, decry the spread of drugs… if you want to get spicy, blame local or state government. Or you can decide California is great actually, blame the media for spreading a distorted image. Kamala Harris did neither. The only time she mentioned California was in her backstory. Oakland was a prop. But for Presidential candidates, your past is your governing philsophy. And I don’t mean the bullet points she’d recite, (did you know she prosecuted trans-national gangs?) I mean your leadership. Are you a head cracker? Are you a unifier? Are you a turnaround artist? Are you a technocrat? With Kamala, we got a little bit of everything. Which means we got nothing. And I’ll give credit to her campaign staff, who I didn’t think did a great job, because I don’t know that they had much to work with.Kamala Harris lacks dynamism and appeals to a limited audience. She is a highly-touted college quarterback who underperforms in the pros. Based on their initial promise they get a second shot on another team only to be terrible there too. Why do we think the third time is the charm?She emerged from her tenure as San Francisco Attorney General as a let’s-enforce-the-laws liberal and was lauded for it. By the time she became California AG she had liberal wins to notch including legalizing gay marriage. Her election to Senate from the one-party state while impressive for her resume is not indicative of someone with political skill or campaign savvy. Her early wins say more about her than anything that came after because California was on the ascendancy after that. The nation was begining to agree with positions California had taken in the last century: specifically on marijuana and LGBT freedoms. The tide rose and her boat with it. But to be clear: she’s a system product. An assembly line politico. Sleek and shiny but quite possibly purposeless.We saw this when she leaned into progressive messaging while running for president in 2020, it backfired. Some blamed this on her embracing "woke" politics or poor advisers, but the real issue was deeper: she's never had to dig deep and find a compelling version of herself before. She certainly didn’t find it in 2019.True authenticity emerges when voters believe in a politician's core identity—even if they disagree with their views. They sense an underlying worldview driving the candidate forward. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump all possessed this quality. Harris notably lacked it, exemplifying a broader Democratic Party tendency to believe messaging alone can solve fundamental problems. No amount of messaging could separate Harris from her identity as a politician from America's most progressive state. And she can’t explain it as a stregth or distance herself from it as a weakness.She's not a poor speaker— just uninspiring. Unlike George W. Bush, who wasn't particularly dynamic but clearly stood for something, Harris never conveyed a sense of deep conviction.Without conviction, you can't win. You need to spark something in swing voters or motivate your likely supporters to actually turn out. Without that spark, you have nothing. This is all compounded by the fact that she was dealt a tough hand. This is the second visit the Campaign Undetarker has made to the Democratic Party this cycle. President Joe Biden drops out before the convention, admitting to America that they’d reject him and the job he’d done as president. And in the late summer, Kamala faced a tricky choice. How do you handle Joe? She decided not to. Okay, allow me one bit of back seat driving for the campaign. In my opinion, her only viable path forward would have been resigning the Vice Presidency. She could have done this gracefully—simply stating she wanted to pursue her own vision of government. Would it have left the Biden Administration scandalized? Yes. But that’s happening anyway. Why tie yourself to the mast of a sinking ship when you hav

JanuaryAlec Baldwin was indicted on January 19th for involuntary manslaughter following the 2021 shooting on the set of Rust that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Although later cleared due to prosecutorial errors, Baldwin returned to public life, including participating in Saturday Night Live.FebruaryMitch McConnell announced on February 28th that he would step down as Senate Republican leader, marking the end of the longest tenure in modern history for that role. This transition sets him up for a two-year lame-duck period as a regular senator while John Thune steps in to assume leadership .MarchVladimir Putin was reelected for a fifth term as Russia’s president during elections held from March 15th to March 17th. The election results, claiming an implausible 110% turnout, highlighted the pervasive control and propaganda of his regime .AprilThe total solar eclipse on April 8th captivated viewers across its path of totality, including in Austin, Texas, where a last-minute clearing of clouds created a breathtaking experience. For many, it was a rare opportunity to witness such a celestial event in perfect conditions .MayThe historic coronation of King Charles III took place on May 6th, marking the first such event in 70 years since Queen Elizabeth II. This regal ceremony was watched worldwide, emphasizing the continuation of Britain’s monarchy .JuneThe 80th anniversary of D-Day was commemorated on June 6th with major ceremonies in the UK and France, celebrating the historic Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II. The event was marked by political controversies, including UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak leaving early to campaign, and a tense moment where President Joe Biden faced direct questions about his family .JulySenator Bob Menendez was convicted in July, involving allegations of accepting gold bars and money from Egyptian sources. His case highlighted corruption scandals and attracted significant media attention .August and SeptemberWe skipped to discuss God.OctoberFormer President Jimmy Carter celebrated his 100th birthday in October, marking a historic milestone for the elder statesman. His centennial was widely celebrated, highlighting his long-standing contributions to public service and humanitarian efforts .NovemberThe U.S. election dominated November, alongside a significant ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah. Both events marked critical geopolitical and political moments in a year filled with transformative events . This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

We are getting a government shutdown for Christmas! Or Hanukkah! Here’s what happened and what might come next. On Thursday night, a vote on a continuing resolution was taken, which some viewed as 1) a stunning rebuke to Donald Trump 2) raising fears of a shutdown.The first claim is almost certainly incorrect, and the second is possibly wrong. Last minute gift idea! Get yourself a subscription.The root of the conflict lies in the Republican House conference’s inability to unite behind ANY Continuing Resolution to fund the government. There are a handful of Reps that simply don’t vote for them. Ever. For anyone. This is not a problem for the Democrats who do not have fiscal hawks in their ranks. It’s just a part of the game. But Speaker Mike Johnson needs to pass a CR. So he has no choice but to negotiate with Democrats. But they know that he knows that they know he needed their support. Sensing leverage, Democrats demanded extensive concessions, transforming a slim resolution into a sprawling 1,500-page bill resembling an omnibus. Republican leaders, frustrated by being excluded from these negotiations, learned details of the bill from lobbyists who had inside knowledge.The situation intensified when media narratives blamed Trump and Elon Musk for killing the bill. In reality, internal GOP dissension doomed the Quasibus CR as soon as the text hit the internet. It would have died when it went to a vote.Did Trump and Musk accelerate its collapse and prevent a vote? Sure. But it woke up dead. It was never happening.Trump’s Truth Social missives did set a new course, advocating for a clean continuing resolution with disaster relief and other GOP priorities while proposing a two-year suspension of the debt ceiling—a strategic move to avoid draining political capital on recurring debt ceiling battles. Specifically the Trump tax cuts which are a top priority in 2025.House conservatives, especially fiscal hawks like Ralph Norman, Chip Roy, and Thomas Massie oppose eliminating the debt ceiling (a key Republican cudgel when Dems run things) unless there are other massive spending cuts to go along with them. Their resistance in the Rules Committee prevented the bill from advancing traditionally, forcing a long-shot vote requiring a two-thirds majority on Thursday night, which was never realistic. GOP leadership permitted the vote anyway to gauge opposition and explore potential concessions.To put simpler, the bill that failed last night was always meant to fail. The question was by how much and who would vote no. One GOP House staffer expressed to me that more rock ribbed conservatives that talk a big game about government spending voted to suspend the debt ceiling than he would have guessed.Looking ahead, the bill will likely shrink more, possibly making the debt ceiling provision more palatable. If Johnson can flip one of the three hardliners on the Rules Committee, a party-line vote might succeed. Alternatively, a few Democrats might cross over, given the approaching holidays and the general desire to avoid a government shutdown.However, if the government does shut down, the practical impact could be limited since most federal employees would still receive holiday paychecks. Political fallout, however, would be inevitable, with intensified pressure to strike a deal after the new year.Despite the chaos, some GOP insiders view the vote as more promising than expected. Though 33 Republicans voted against the resolution, party leaders seem cautiously optimistic. If Trump and key Senate allies like J.D. Vance begin actively whipping votes, a slimmed-down resolution could pass. The next steps remain uncertain, hinging on whether enough conservatives can be persuaded to compromise in the days ahead.Or we shut down and reload for the new year as Trump 2 begins as Trump 1 ended: messy.Chapters & Timecodes* [00:00:00] Introduction and Upcoming Topics* [00:01:59] U.S. Government Shutdown and Congressional Infighting* [00:12:02] Trudeau’s Political Crisis in Canada* [00:49:19] Musa Al-Gharbi on U.S. Electoral Trends This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I don’t think Kamala Harris will ever be president. I don’t think she has a connection with Americans beyond a core Democratic base who can be easily woo’d by another shiny object. I think she would do best in the one-party state she came from and run for governor of California where she might even pass for the centrist she positioned herself as nationally.But I may well be wrong. If I am Bill Scher will have told me otherwise. He believes she enters our four-year cycle to select the next president as the most well positioned Vice President loser in recent American history. Damning with faint praise? Maybe. We discuss 2028 and everything we got wrong about the election in this chat!Chapters:00:00:00 - Introduction and Overview00:03:06 - Bill Scher on 2024 Election Insights00:15:01 - Trump’s Continued Popularity00:40:02 - Trump’s Lawsuit Against Iowa Pollsters00:45:02 - House GOP Budget Standoff00:46:47 - AOC’s Leadership Challenge in Congress00:50:09 Handicapping 2028 Contenders This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I’m diving deeper into DeButts. Yes friends, there’s been a crack in the DeButts case. To recap, on December 3rd, Anna Navarro tweeted that Hunter DeButts, the brother-in-law of Woodrow Wilson, was pardoned. This is not true. There is no historical record of a Hunter DeButts connected to Woodrow Wilson, and Wilson certainly did not pardon him. Navarro later admitted this was incorrect, blaming a ChatGPT search result. However, nobody could recreate the exact hallucination she posted, and the citation icons in her screenshot resembled an outdated ChatGPT interface.Curious, I discussed this with Andrew Mayne, my co-host on The Attention Mechanism, a podcast about AI. I also asked listeners to try replicating Navarro’s prompt in ChatGPT. Shortly after, I received an email from a listener named Bret, who provided screenshots showing that while he got the same initial answers Navarro referenced—Bill Clinton pardoning Roger Clinton and Donald Trump pardoning Charles Kushner—Hunter DeButts was nowhere to be found.Brett’s search led to a site called living.alot.com, which featured a listicle titled “Five Presidents and Governors Who Have Pardoned Family Members.” Interestingly, this article was last edited on the same day Navarro tweeted. My next move was to contact the article’s supposed author, Ron Winkler. However, the author photo appeared unmistakably AI-generated, suggesting the entire article was likely created by a generative AI model.Investigating further, I found that living.alot.com is owned by Inuvo.com, an ad-tech company specializing in AI-driven marketing solutions. This suggested that the hallucination might not have come from ChatGPT itself but from living.alot.com, an AI-generated listicle site, possibly due to SEO optimization targeting AI-driven search engines. If ChatGPT search pulled from this listicle, it would explain the strange result Navarro saw.Speculating further, it seems plausible that Inuvo.com, focused on generating ad revenue, might have tweaked its content after seeing traffic driven by the controversy to avoid being de-ranked or blacklisted by search algorithms. Bret’s recreation of almost the exact same search result strengthens this theory.If anyone at OpenAI working on ChatGPT Search is reading, I recommend a hard look at de-ranking or blacklisting the alot.com suite of sites. The credibility of search-powered AI depends on filtering out such low-quality content. In the end, the mystery of Hunter DeButts appears to be a hallucination generated by an ad-tech company leveraging AI-driven SEO tactics. Navarro’s strange ChatGPT result wasn’t directly ChatGPT’s fault—it was fed a falsehood generated by a content-churning AI. And with that, the Hunter DeButts saga is solved. All’s well that ends well.Chapters & Time Codes* (00:00:00) Introduction: Media, Politics & New Ventures* (00:01:20) Unmasking the Hunter DeButts Hoax* (00:15:01) Political Shifts: Murkowski and Ocasio-Cortez* (00:17:27) Government Shutdown Negotiations* (00:20:26) Chris Cillizza This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

This episode includes a serious, hour-long discussion with Ryan McBeth on Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Israel and everything in between. ANDWe dive deep into this tweet…Of course, on December 24, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson issued the controversial pardon for his brother-in-law, Hunter DeButts, convicted of arms smuggling during World War I. DeButts, married to Wilson’s sister-in-law, Alice, was sentenced to 15 years after British intelligence exposed his fraudulent shipping scheme. Though furious, Wilson faced mounting political pressure amid war preparations. The White House cited new evidence suggesting DeButts was manipulated by foreign spies, and critics accused Wilson of nepotism, while supporters framed the pardon as holiday clemency. After his release, DeButts vanished from public life, reportedly living quietly in Cuba until his death in 1933.Except. Wait a minute. What you just read, isn’t true. I fabricated it by directing ChatGPT using Model 4o with the Mac app to make up a fictional reason why Hunter DeButts received a pardon from Woodrow Wilson. Because Hunter DeButts never received a pardon from Woodrow Wilson. Hunter DeButts did not marry Wilson’s sister. Nor did he receive a pardon. There are other Hunter DeButts involved with Wilson or that time in history.And yet, Anna Navarro tweeted about it. Upon a simple Google search Navarro wound up getting serially dunked on as people realized very quickly something wasn’t accurate.And so Anna Navarro posted the following explanation:She blamed ChatGPT’s hallucinations.Oh, well. We’ve all been there. But have we? While conservatives dunked on Navarro even further for believing ChatGPT, I am here to tell you, as a reporter through and through, I don’t know if ChatGPT hallucinated this. And really, I am following the research of my friend, Andrew Mayne, who first sent this to me and said, he could not replicate the Hunter DeButts answer on any ChatGPT model. Not 4o, not any model that is available, and specifically was available to Navarro on December 2nd.Now, here’s something that you guys might not know about large language models: they are fairly replicable. You can get similar answers based on similar questions. It’s not exact, but a hallucination is something that you should be able to recreate. It would be odd if you couldn’t.And my friend Andrew should know. He worked at OpenAI. He was a science communicator. He made a lot of videos that demonstrated OpenAI products up to and including ChatGPT itself and is known as the first prompt engineer for that company. He spent a lot of time with these models.And with that, I went down my own reporting rabbit hole. Because one of the other things is that the screen grab that Anna Navarro showed was a ChatGPT search that had web results.See those little brackets with quotes in between them. Those would be annotations. Theoretically, you could click on them and they would bring you to a webpage that would show you where ChatGPT got this information.What’s odd about it is that those are not the annotations that ChatGPT uses now. And they certainly were not used on December 2nd when Anna Navarro said that she did this search.So where’d she get it? What version of ChatGPT is she using? And what large language model is going to be the origin story of dear sweet DeButts?I had a theory. Let’s say you’re not particularly tech-savvy, if you don’t know exactly what ChatGPT is or OpenAI is, then it is very easy, as ChatGPT has become more and more popular, to just go into the iOS app store and find a lot of — I’m going to call them copycats.What they really are are other apps that are using the ChatGPT API, but they do a skin on top of it and they often charge you a subscription service. Do not use them. But I did because my theory was that Ana Navarro was using one of these apps, one of these apps that are not using similar if not exact user interface the official ChatGPT app is. Maybe they are using those old annotations?All is revealed!We get to the bottom of DeButts, on this episode of the Politics Politics Politics. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

If I could change one thing about the Democratic Party it would be this:Stop demanding blind loyalty to the One True Message. Yes, coalition building is hard. Yes, your most passionate members will be the loudest.Yes, things could go wrong. But the alternative is what you’ve had and that is what you are about to hear from the Harris-Walz campaign leadership in this episode. We invented a totally implausible and frankly laughable narrative and then were frustrated when progressives, the media and voters didn’t buy it. They are to blame! Not the candidate. Not the message. Certainly not the brilliant team that put this in motion. It would have been easy if everyone just blindly repeated that Kamala Harris is a bi-partisan deal maker who understands the best ideas come from beyond the beltway. Sure, it’s plain to see that she’s a Democratic stalwart from the most iconic liberal state in the union. But if you keep repeating the first one, the dumbs will believe it! We discuss the Democratic obsession with messaging with ettingermentum.Also, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico on the future of the Pro Choice movement.It’s a warm, expansive Px3 for a winter weekend. Chapters2:26 Pod Save America Breakdown1:00:00 Update: Musk, Hegseth1:09:17 Future of Pro Choice Movement w/ Alice Ollstein1:31:28 Ettingermentum This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Hunter Biden brought all of this on himself.Joe Biden has damaged his legacy.All of this can and should get worse for both of them.Two Things I Don’t Want to Hear in Response to This Argument:* TrumpDonald Trump is his own conversation. Not everything related to any Democratic politician needs to be held in contrast to him. It’s lazy at best and corrosive at worst.* AddictionI don’t often play this card, but I am the son of an alcoholic and was raised by a problem gambler. Both went to 12-step programs for their issues. Addiction is a multi-faceted problem that deserves sophisticated empathy, but it is NOT an enchantment shielding you from the consequences of your actions. Quite the opposite: the 12-step program is designed to rebuild your sense of responsibility by repairing the damage you caused while afflicted.The pardon not only reveals the 46th president as a craven cardboard cutout of a decent man, but it also expands the bounds of presidential pardons in a uniquely selfish direction under the sickening guise of loyalty to family.But no one should be surprised if you’ve followed this story from the beginning. It is one unforced error after the next. One hapless mistake after another defended by unhinged self-indulgence. Let’s walk the timeline that led us to the most recent crimes:* Hunter Biden’s LaptopHunter leaves a laptop at a computer repair shop and forgets it. The shop owner realizes who owns it and turns it over to the FBI. After nothing is done and Joe Biden’s campaign makes statements the shop owner knows to be false, the laptop is leaked to the press.* Joe Biden’s ResponseHis campaign denies fault, deflects blame, and hides behind Hunter’s addiction.* 51 intelligence experts sign a letter calling it Russian disinformation.* Biden repeats this during a debate.* Twitter and Facebook are pressured to suppress links to coverage.The laptop is later proven real.* Tax InvestigationIn 2020, Hunter announces he is being investigated for tax fraud (ongoing since 2018).In 2023, a plea deal is reached. Hunter agrees to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and enters a pretrial diversion program for a felony firearm offense (illegal possession of a gun while using drugs). The deal is expected to avoid jail time.* IRS WhistleblowersTwo IRS whistleblowers testify before Congress, alleging misconduct and interference in the Hunter Biden investigation. They claim their efforts to pursue charges were stymied by higher-ups in the Justice Department.* The Plea Deal CollapsesDuring a court hearing, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika raises concerns about the plea deal's scope, particularly its immunity from future charges. Hunter pleads not guilty.* Specifically, the deal reportedly included an agreement not to prosecute Hunter for any federal crimes going forward:"The United States agrees not to criminally prosecute Biden, outside of the terms of this Agreement, for any federal crimes encompassed."* Hunter’s MemoirThe gun charge stems from Hunter’s own admissions in his memoir, Beautiful Things, where he describes active crack cocaine addiction during the period he purchased the firearm.* Quote: “I used my superpower—finding crack anytime, anywhere.”* Despite knowing his addiction, he lied on ATF Form 4473 when purchasing the gun.Hunter sabotaged his own sweetheart plea deal by overreaching for immunity. He was the star witness for his own prosecution because he had to write a book about his new found sobriety.But if Joe just commuted Hunter’s sentencing for these crimes, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. Sure he’d be a hypocrite but what’s the real world damage? Hunter didn’t spend a month in prison? He avoided probation?But that’s not what Joe did. He did something far greater and no one should forget it.Joe Biden granted his son a blanket pardon for any and all crimes committed from 2014 to 2024—an unprecedented eleven years.This goes beyond Hunter’s tax crimes and gun charge, extending into the period when Hunter joined the board of Burisma—the focal point of influence-peddling allegations against the Biden family.For context:* Ford’s pardon of Nixon aimed to move the country past Watergate.* Biden’s pardon serves his own family and raises fresh suspicions about influence peddling.The White House’s defense: the incoming Justice Department might weaponize its authority to target the Biden family on exaggerated charges.I would say for the forever power hunger Joe, that same logic fueled Trump’s resurgence from a pariah to a potential two-term president. Maybe they should have let it happen.Instead, this pardon undermines Biden’s credibility, damages the perception of the presidency, and sets a dangerous precedent for self-serving executive overreach.So let’s get to the “But Trump…” of it all. Trump issued two pardons that are similar to this one.* Kodak BlackTrump pardoned the rapper after serving a year of a 46-month sentence for lying on a federal gun form.* Charles KushnerConvicted and served tim

Happy Thanksgiving! For your travel Px3 is happy to present to you the only political conversation you will want to hear. Our old friends Tom LoBiano and Michael Cohen breaking down what we have learned in the weeks since the election. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

BREAKING:Former Congressman Matt Gaetz has withdrawn his nomination for U.S. Attorney General, citing concerns that his confirmation process was becoming a distraction for the Trump-Vance transition team. Gaetz, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump, had faced intense scrutiny since his nomination due to allegations of sexual misconduct.The allegations, which include claims that Gaetz paid women for sex and had inappropriate encounters with a minor, have been the subject of investigations by the Department of Justice and the House Ethics Committee. Reports suggest the House Ethics Committee may release a detailed report on these allegations, though its jurisdiction ended when Gaetz resigned from Congress shortly after his nomination.Gaetz’s decision to step aside marks the end of a short-lived bid for the top legal post in the Trump administration. The move comes amid ongoing investigations and growing political pressure. It remains unclear what impact this development will have on Gaetz’s future in public life, as he continues to face scrutiny over the allegations.The Trump-Vance team has yet to announce a replacement for the role.We discuss this and other Florida political stories with Kimberly Leonard of Politico. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Your Guide to the Matt Gaetz ScandalState of Play:Ethics report is unreleased as of now, a hacker has apparently obtained parts of the Department of Justice investigation that did not end in prosecution of GaetzThe iron law of political scandals, as written on the wall of a DC backroom (wash your hands after inspecting): if the public already knows about your dirty deeds and hasn’t totally written you off, keep chugging. But every new bit of information that comes out is an exponential risk.The Gaetz story has been publicly aired for years. So it is really only a liability if new information comes to light. So what is already known? That way we know if something new comes along.Well, it comes down to two main questions.* Are Sugar Babies w****s?* Is it illegal to sleep with a minor who misrepresents their age? Can the sex be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?Let’s start with question number one. Are Sugar Babies w****s?Which for the pure of heart will begin with a subquestion, what is a Sugar Baby?A sugar baby is typically a younger individual who enters into a relationship with an older, affluent partner—known as a sugar daddy or sugar mommy—in exchange for financial support, gifts, or other benefits. These relationships are often characterized by mutual agreements where the sugar baby provides companionship, and in some cases, intimacy, while receiving monetary assistance, luxury items, or experiences in return.These connections, like much of our modern world, is facilitated by the internet. For example…Seeking.com is an online dating platform that connects successful and attractive individuals seeking mutually beneficial relationships. And so it was on Seeking.com that Joel Greenberg, a then-friend of Gaetz who eventually pled guilty to sex trafficking and informed on the congressman, met women to form such relationships. Here is an ABC report of a back and forth between one of the women…"I have a friend flying in and we are trying to make plans for tonight. What are your plans for later," Greenberg wrote to the woman, whose identity ABC News is withholding for privacy purposes. "And how much of an allowance will you be requiring :)" Greenberg added.The woman responded by telling Greenberg she has "a friend who introduced me to the website that I could bring" and said she "usually" requires "$400 per meet."Greenberg then sent the woman a photo of Gaetz taking a selfie with students at Pea Ridge Elementary from a 2017 visit, and wrote, "My friend," indicating that Gaetz would be the friend joining him."Oooh my friend thinks he's really cute!" the woman responded.Greenberg then replied that Gaetz was "down here only for the day," adding "we work hard and play hard," before asking, "Have you ever tried molly," referring to the drug MDMA, or Ecstasy.As Greenberg was discussing payment for the get-together, the woman asked if Gaetz used the same website Greenberg had used to meet her. Greenberg replied, in part, "He knows the deal :)," referring to the Florida congressman. The former tax collector then said he would book a "suite Downtown" for the gathering.Sugar Baby websites are built on the idea that wealthy people connect with attractive people. The implication of money or expensive gifts being exchanged is inherent to the concept. But… are the women legally w****s? Specifically, women who are charging money for the act of sex?This is a very important question. Flying a friend you eventually have sex with across state lines on your dime is a nice thing to do. Flying a w***e across state lines to pay for intercourse is sex trafficking.We do not have an answer for this. Although Greenberg plead guilty to sex trafficking so he seemingly admitted it.In general it is a moral and legal question that I am sure many rich men, including possibly some in congress, likely don’t want answered.However, it gets even more serious when one of those women is 17 years old. Which leads us to our second question.Is it illegal to sleep with a minor who misrepresents their age? Can the sex be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?A lawyer for two women interviewed by the House Ethics Committee has said the following:Leppard told POLITICO on Sunday that his clients had attended between five to 10 "sex parties" with the former Florida Representative between 2017 and 2018. Gaetz was already in Congress at the time.Leppard also said one of his clients witnessed Gaetz having sex with another woman who was then 17 years old. They were at a house party in Florida."She testified [that] in July of 2017, at this house party, she was walking out to the pool area, and she looked to her right, and she saw Rep. Gaetz having sex with her friend, who was 17," Leppard said.A report from The Daily Beast identified two Venmo transactions Gaetz had in 2018 with Joe Greenberg, an accused sex trafficker, for a total of $900. Greenberg then sent the money to three teen girls in transactions labeled "tuition" and "school."The woman, now in her 20s, reporte

Things polling get right in 2024:* Trump had a chance to win the popular vote (he did)* Trump had an advantage in the Sun Belt but the races in the Rust Belt would be closer (true, Trump still won them all)* Ticket splitting is real and could save Democrats from a Senate demolition (it did)But beyond that… we have some real questions. Carl Allen believed Kamala Harris was a favorite to win the electoral college. Together we go through the results and find lessons big and small. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

I am obsessed with how much money the Kamala Harris campaign spent. Hundreds of millions of dollars per week spent on creating a once-in-a-lifetime glittering election machine only to deliver less electoral votes than John Kerry.Some FEC reports are available but reporting on the excesses is also bubbling up. For example, Harris recreated the set of Call Her Daddy in a DC hotel room so she didn’t have to fly to Los Angeles. Videos of a party thrown by the KamalaHQ social media team for Fashion Week have also surfaced. I believe the Harris ‘24 might be a turning point for donor patience, so we will have much more on it going forward. But to whet your whistle… we have Dave Levinthal to chat about it today.Combine that with Kirk Bado of National Journal’s Hotline to discuss the future of the Democratic Party and you have today’s episode! Also, Trump’s cabinet appointments continue. Chapters00:00 Introduction02:39 Kirk Bado40:32 Update On Trump Appointments55:00 Dave Levinthal This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Much like the Trump Tax Cuts, the $99 Annual Deal for all bonus content is now permanent. Enjoy! As we sift through the multi-billion dollar wreckage of this election I’ve recruited Evan Scrimshaw to figure out what we know about this election. First, if you had a Time Machine and your only goal was to increase the vote share of the Biden or Harris campaign, what time would you go back to and what would you say?Then we carve through the revelations we’ve had since Tuesday including understanding Trump’s popularity and the electoral benefit of putting Jews on the ticket. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Immediate thoughts on the Trump win. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

‘nuff said.Find your polling place.Enjoy this entirely non-political conversation with Scott Johnson. Literally, no politics are discussed at all. But there is a lot about religion, fast food, parenthood, weed and more.See you on the other side. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

You asked! We listened! The $99 Annual Deal is extended until Election Day. Make sure you upgrade from your complimentary status if you are coming from Patreon!Here it is… Our conversation with Kevin Ryan on the state of the culture and philosophy that this election takes place in. With that, my final thoughts. Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise? I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you.That’s a quote from a Star Wars prequel and it’s the final decider on who I believe will win the President, the Senate and the House. We will get back to that. First, let’s empty the file on my 2024 election thoughts in order. First, the landscape…Donald Trump is a flawed candidate damaged by January 6th and hard capped at 48%It’s the reason his party tried to overthrow him during the primaries. However, his resilience and ease in overcoming those challenges is telling. Donald Trump began to gain and beat Joe Biden in head to head polling after he was indicted and his New York trial had a positive effect on his pollingThis was the first moment I believed Trump could have a redemptive arc. If the public did not understand the charges against him and saw the prosecutions as political, he would be a martyr beyond core MAGA. The Dobbs decision has been rocket fuel for DemocratsIn off-year elections and special elections the present threat to reproductive rights have gotten Democratic voters to the polls. My criticism that they might be punished for not taking the threat seriously enough has not panned out as of yet. Joe Biden’s presidency has been broadly unpopular and specifically unpopular with anyone who makes under $100,000 a yearBiden was elected in the panic of COVID to be a steady hand at the wheel. He lost that with Afghanistan and never regained it. The border went from a purely GOP partisan issue to a mainstream winner for Republicans almost entirely because of executive orders Biden made at the beginning of his presidency. Issue after issue, the same playbook unfolded… deny, deny, deny until you blame it on Trump. But nothing was more personal than inflation. A class warfare issue like no other. Personal story, my wife and I were driving to dinner with friends. The husband was at the wheel of their new Tesla. The issue of politics comes up. I mentioned Trump was doing well because of the economy. “But the economy is good?” Is the response. And it is a sentiment I’ve heard from many people in my orbit and online. The stock market is booming? We avoided a recession? Inflation is lower here than anywhere else the world? How is this a weakness?And behind the wheel of a new Tesla, I agree.Which is where we get to that $100,000 a year figure. Because anywhere below that, inflation gets infinitely worse. It’s persistent and embarrassing. A ritual humiliation and reminder you are not good enough. That kind of stuff sticks with people. So that’s the landscape… how about the candidatesTRUMPTo say that Donald Trump has run his best campaign out of his three tries is an understatement. I’ll be honest, I stopped trying to fully understand the logic of Trump sometime in 2016. His combativeness, the issues he centered and erratic behavior is impossible to grade. Why did he just send that tweet? Has he discovered a hidden undercurrent in American society? Or did the KFC bucket he had last night make him farty?In his two previous attempts he often didn’t seem to understand which way was up either. He fired two different campaign directors in 2016. He fired one of them in 2020. Both times, election day came with him trailing mightily in the polls. The refrain for his chances became religious. He will pull through… because…But that’s not the case this cycle. Susie Wiles, a Florida GOP veteran who watched her party take a purple state and drench it blood red and Chris LaCivita a bare-knuckle student of the last era of a Republican dominance under George W. Bush have run the ship from initial announcement to election day. Tactically, the boat has pointed in the right direction. Trump decapitated well-funded rivals in his own party in Desantis and Haley. He ended the political career of the man who beat him in 2020. Trump has stayed off Twitter and has largely been able to avoid his habit of turning a bad 24 hours into a bad 3 days because of his inability to concede a point. He has mitigated his worst issue, abortion, as well as anyone who appointed the justices that flipped Roe vs. Wade can and accentuated his strengths with the economy and the border. Of course, he is still Trump. He’s an a*****e that viserally annoys 40% of the country. He is the loser pissbaby who couldn’t wrap his head around losing in 2020 and did a January 6th. And with that I will now leave space on the page so you can add the pet issue or event that you believe best encapsulates why Donald J. Trump should never be president again.If you need more space, please open a new window and hit return until you have enough. He also got

You asked! We listened! The $99 Annual Deal is extended until Election Day. Make sure you upgrade from your complimentary status if you are coming from Patreon!We are in the endgame now. I’ve asked experts from across the spectrum who they believe will win the White House, Senate and House. Now it’s my turn. But I have a few last trusted advisors to speak to first. Michael Cohen (Model Political Campaigns) and Tom LoBianco of 24Sight.news help break down the closing polls and model out how the election will finally shake out. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

If you would like to get 150 episodes of Politics Politics Politics for $99 please take advantage of our annual deal that ends on Halloween! By the time you hear this episode, we will have less than seven days until Election Day.Here are the metrics I am looking at…Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin: Trump 54% to winJon Ralston’s Nevada Early Voting Blog: GOP has 38,000 ballot advantageVoteHub Early Voting CounterAnd here is the math comparing the final tallies in Nevada and Arizona…Electoral History of Nevada:Biden +2.5Clinton +2.5Obama +6.5Obama +12.5Electoral History of Arizona:Biden + Less than .5Trump + 3.5Romney +9McCain +8.5How much more Democratic is Nevada than Arizona?2008: 212012: 15.52016: 62020: 2On this episode of the show we welcome Taylor Lorenz for the first time. We discuss independent media, the blogging revolution of the 2000s and an unfortunate tweet. Also, Wake Up To Politics’ Gabe Fleisher helps us look at the final hours of this contest. And finally, Mark Sutton helps us break down the gender gap. Let’s go! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Don’t take early numbers too seriously. It’s the first chapter of a book. You might think you know where it goes, but each story is different. Early votes are not linear, they are often jumbled by different start times or counting processes. So don’t take them seriously.Okay? Did you read that? Are you not going to take them seriously?Fine. Let’s torture ourselves with early voting data. * VoteHub* Jon Ralston Early Voting Blog* UMichVoterAlso…The great Bill Scher (Washington Monthly) joins to discuss where Kamala Harris is and how she wins the election. Andrew Heaton tells us of all the political signage he’s seen during his road trip from Texas to Washington DC. Chapters2:56 Early Vote13:21 Bill Scher1:00:13 UPDATE (Obama and Kamala, $28 million Polymarket Bet, Trump Legal Strategy)1:09:50 Andrew Heaton This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

If you are looking for good President Harris omens, you might want to check back later. * Every betting market has now firmly tilted Trump* Polling averages continue to show Harris wilting in the Blue Wall states* Silver Bulletin, 538 and The Economist prediction models now all point to Trump* The Oracle of Nevada Jon Ralston brings positively bleak news about the early vote in the Silver State for DemocratsTake all of those for what you will. But remember this, the only reason why President Biden isn’t on this ticket is because down ballot candidates made noise that he was dragging them down. Well take a look at an ad Bob Casey is running. The Pennsylvania Senator and staunch Biden ally who is in a close race with Republican Dave McCormick is running an ad bragging about bucking the current White House and working with Donald Trump. Crunch all the numbers you want, nerds. I will always pay attention when a politician starts running for their own lives in defiance of the party.On this episode* Kirk Bado (National Journal’s Hotline) discusses the Kamala Harris fixation on Liz Cheney and if they are even looking for Never Trumpers in the right places.* Howard Mortman (C-SPAN) dives deep into late campaign trivia and the traditions of the Al Smith dinner.* Trump will tape Joe Rogan this Friday. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

PATCH NOTES: * FIXED audio on Jason Whitely Interview* REMOVED f-bombApologies for the last export…—A listener sent me a curious story: There is a Super PAC running ads online that paint Kamala Harris as a staunch defender of Israel AND a weak capitulator inflaming anti-semitism by pandering to Palestinians.Don’t believe me? Here are the ads.Why is the Future Coalition PAC countering their own message? They aren’t. They’re attempting to inflame both sides of the conflict against Kamala Harris in two swing states.The Pro-Israel ads are not running in ZIP codes with high Jewish populations, they’re running in Dearborn, Michigan the highest concentration of Arab Americans in the United States. Meanwhile, the Palestinian “Pandering” ads are running in the suburbs of Pennsylvania where the majority of that crucial state’s jewish population lives.The goal of both is to turn those natural Democratic voters against the nominee.That’s only first 10 minutes of our two-hour episode!* We are joined by Jason Whitely the senior political reporter for WFAA in Dallas. This week he moderated the debate between Colin Allred and Ted Cruz. We talk to him about his moderating philosophy and his thoughts on Texas politics.* Evan ScrimshawandRyan Jakubowskijoin the show to do a Narrative Draft. What are the topics we believe will dominate the conversation after the election.* Carl Allenexplains to us why we’ve been reading polls the wrong way our entire lives and how to change it.All that and snap reactions to the death of Sinwar in Gaza. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

A listener sent me a curious story: There is a Super PAC running ads online that paint Kamala Harris as a staunch defender of Israel AND a weak capitulator inflaming anti-semitism by pandering to Palestinians. Don’t believe me? Here are the ads. Why is the Future Coalition PAC countering their own message? They aren’t. They’re attempting to inflame both sides of the conflict against Kamala Harris in two swing states.The Pro-Israel ads are not running in ZIP codes with high Jewish populations, they’re running in Dearborn, Michigan the highest concentration of Arab Americans in the United States. Meanwhile, the Palestinian “Pandering” ads are running in the suburbs of Pennsylvania where the majority of that crucial state’s jewish population lives. The goal of both is to turn those natural Democratic voters against the nominee. That’s only first 10 minutes of our two-hour episode! * We are joined by Jason Whitely the senior political reporter for WFAA in Dallas. This week he moderated the debate between Colin Allred and Ted Cruz. We talk to him about his moderating philosophy and his thoughts on Texas politics.* Evan Scrimshaw and Ryan Jakubowski join the show to do a Narrative Draft. What are the topics we believe will dominate the conversation after the election.* Carl Allen explains to us why we’ve been reading polls the wrong way our entire lives and how to change it. All that and snap reactions to the death of Sinwar in Gaza. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

The campaign known for booming vibes has hit a recession. None of Kamala Harris’ polls in the Rustbelt have increased in October. Some averages are verging on the dreaded 47% line.That's bad news. Donald Trump is a hard capped 48 % candidate, but you can count on that 48% showing up. What’s more? Other indicators are pointing the wrong direction for Coconut Hive.Nate Silver on his Silver Bulletin Substack has the race back to a 50% tossup.Think what you will about the prediction markets, but Polymarket money is beginning to pile on a Trump victory. Harris ‘24 knows they need a vibe shift and so they will take a risk! Harris will do an interview with Fox News today. This decision is being hailed as bold and it is.But it’s also a massive risk. Kamala has never faced an adversarial interview in her career. Not in California, not in DC, not in her 2019 campaign. This is a big stage to experiment on. Will it pay off? We discuss that and so much more…Karol’s Substack on the Jewish vote in 2024.JD Durkin LIVE FROM THE NYSE FLOOR on the economy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

COMING FROM PATREON? MAKE SURE YOU MOVE YOUR SUPPORT OVER!Justin Robert Young and polimath (Matt Shapiro) explore the duality of truth in politics, anxiety within the Democratic Party regarding Kamala Harris's campaign and the implications of Biden's debate performance. The conversation delves into the shifting narratives in political discourse, the challenges facing Harris, and the role of FEMA in disaster response. They also touch on voter sentiment, election predictions, coalition shifts, and the future of AI in politics. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Tom LoBianco wants to tell the FULL story of January 6th from Mike Pence. Justin unveils the four potential scenarios for the 2024 election outcome with Evan Scrimshaw.Chapters00:00 The Pence Quest Begins39:40 Introduction and Election Scenarios46:26 Positive Republican Outcomes50:06 Democratic Civil War55:19 Democratic Optimism01:01:53 The Case for a Democratic Sweep01:35:54 The Texas Political Landscape This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe