Episodi
-
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
* Obamaâs campaign refusing to let him speak at the 2008 DNC
* How he reacted to his grandson recording Mitt Romneyâs â47%â quote
And 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 youâd 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 Tuesdayâs 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 Trumpâs slate who are being painted as unready and unprepared.
They did not do that.
Instead we got screeds on Hegsethâs 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 Iowaâs 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 Trumpâs 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 podcastâŠ
Jen Briney, host of Congressional Dish, joins to discuss the stakes of these hearings and the ideological divides within Trumpâs 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 Trumpâs Coalition Cabinet
* 00:21:00 - Marco Rubioâs 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 youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Episodi mancanti?
-
Best I can tell there are two emerging Democratic Lanes in our post-Obama era worldâŠ
Progressive + Border Hawk
In a bygone era, Bernie Sanders got an âAâ 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 Dogs
Arf! 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.
â
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.
Chapters
4:30 Jeff Maurer
35:05 UPDATE - Carter Funeral, Fetterman to MAL, Trump First Executive Orders
48:51 Kirk Bado
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Justin Trudeau, Canadaâs long-standing Prime Minister, announced his resignation this week, marking a seismic shift in the nationâs political landscape. Trudeauâs 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 donât care about Canada unless theyâre playing hockey or changing heads of state as told to us this episode by Evan Scrimshaw.
The Breaking Point: Why Trudeau Resigned
Trudeauâs 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 caucusâresign or face a vote of no confidence.
Several factors contributed to Trudeauâs plummeting support:
* Declining Poll Numbers: Trudeauâs 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 Trudeauâs 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.
Trudeauâs 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 Trudeauâs family.
* Housing Crisis: Critics argue Trudeauâs inaction exacerbated Canadaâs housing affordability crisis, with rents and mortgage rates soaring during his leadership.
As Scrimshaw put it, Trudeauâs administration embodied âreckless disregardâ for ethical boundaries. While these issues might have been survivable individually, collectively, they eroded trust in his leadership.
Trudeauâs 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 Trudeauâs 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 UKâs 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 victoryâwhether narrow or overwhelmingâwill shape the trajectory of Canadian politics for years to come.
Trudeauâs 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.
Chapters
Opening and Introduction (00:00:00â00:00:45)General overview of topics, including Trudeauâs resignation, Zuckerbergâs changes at Meta, and upcoming political discussions.
The Revival of Government (00:00:45â00:01:25)Commentary on the return of political activity in the House and the Trump administrationâs cabinet hearings.
Justin Trudeau Resigns (00:01:25â00:08:45)A detailed discussion of Trudeauâs resignation, his legacy, and the future of the Liberal Party.
Global Political Trends and Liberal Party Risks (00:08:45â00:12:15)Insights into parallels between Canadian and UK politics, the Liberal Partyâs identity crisis, and risks of being overtaken by the NDP.
Future Leadership of the Liberal Party (00:12:15â00:14:22)Breakdown of potential leadership candidates and their implications.
Conservatives' Prospects and Pierre Poilievre (00:14:22â00:21:57)Analysis of Poilievreâs leadership style and the Conservative Partyâs likely dominance in the next election.
Discussion with Tom Merritt on Meta (00:39:00â00:41:07)A conversation with Tom Merritt on the implications of Meta's changes for political and social discourse.
The Trump Administrationâs Strategy (00:26:23â00:29:56, 00:42:00â00:49:20)Overview of Donald Trumpâs legislative plans, reconciliation tactics, and the challenges facing the House and Senate.
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
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.
Iâm not going to do a blow by blow of her campaign because this is a eulogy and eulogies are broad. So letâs start here:
Kamala Harris is from California. Not a bygone version of California. Not Ronald Reganâs California. Not Roger Rabbitâs 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 donât mean the bullet points sheâd 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 Iâll give credit to her campaign staff, who I didnât think did a great job, because I donât 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 letâs-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: sheâs 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 didnât find it in 2019.
True authenticity emerges when voters believe in a politician's core identityâeven 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 canât explain it as a stregth or distance herself from it as a weakness.
She's not a poor speakerâ 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 theyâd reject him and the job heâd 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 gracefullyâsimply stating she wanted to pursue her own vision of government. Would it have left the Biden Administration scandalized? Yes. But thatâs happening anyway. Why tie yourself to the mast of a sinking ship when you have a chance to win the presidency? This would have distinguished her from the administration without directly criticizing him. Now when she dodged she could always point to her sacrifice which would speak louder than any second guessing.
The fact that this option wasn't seriously considered reveals how Democrats misread the situation. They treated her like an interchangeable part, failing to recognize that when crafting a multi-year national narrative, you can't take voters for granted. The audience isnât dumb. Shape the story how you want, theyâre not slow.
You need to be alive. You need to be vital.
Only bold moves could have saved her. Instead, we got a rehash of post-Obama Democratic presidential campaigns: celebrity endorsements, polished interviews, and rigid talking points. Not a speck of humanity in sight.
When you're trailing by 30 points, you need to get aggressive. You need to try every strategy possible. If you're not willing to think creatively, what's the point?
But this isnât simply a eulogy. No, this is a prelude.
In politics, what is dead may never die.
I believe Kamala Harris is the next governor of California and I think she might be popular. California might be the only state that would realistically think of Kamala as a centrist. She will have the political clout to do otherwise unpopular things that will be quality of life improvements to the citizens. She could go back to the style that suits her the best: Kamala the Law and Order Liberal.
To use a football analogy. Mac Jones was a good quarterback in college at Alabama but has been mediocre on two NFL teams. But what if he could go back to college? There is every reason to believe heâd be awesome.
Same for Governor Harris.
But if she decides to run for president again? Iâll be saying the same thing I said in 2019. The same thing Iâm saying now. If she runs for president a third time, her ambitions willâŠ
REST IN PEACE
Chapters
* (00:00:50) Introduction: Setting the Stage for 2025 Politics
* (00:01:17) Kamala Harris's Presidential Eulogy
* (00:13:23) PAX MAGA: Republican Dominance in the 2024 Election
* (00:18:03) Bidenâs Legacy and Party Dynamics
* (00:26:03) Reflections on Election Predictions
* (00:40:01) Closing Thoughts: The Path Ahead
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
January
Alec 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.
February
Mitch 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 .
March
Vladimir Putin was reelected for a fifth term as Russiaâs 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 .
April
The 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 .
May
The 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 Britainâs monarchy .
June
The 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 .
July
Senator 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 September
We skipped to discuss God.
October
Former 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 .
November
The 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 youâd 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!
Hereâs 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 conferenceâs inability to unite behind ANY Continuing Resolution to fund the government. There are a handful of Reps that simply donât vote for them. Ever. For anyone.
This is not a problem for the Democrats who do not have fiscal hawks in their ranks. Itâs 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.
Trumpâs 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 ceilingâa 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] Trudeauâs Political Crisis in Canada
* [00:49:19] Musa Al-Gharbi on U.S. Electoral Trends
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
I donât think Kamala Harris will ever be president.
I donât think she has a connection with Americans beyond a core Democratic base who can be easily wooâd 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 Overview
00:03:06 - Bill Scher on 2024 Election Insights
00:15:01 - Trumpâs Continued Popularity
00:40:02 - Trumpâs Lawsuit Against Iowa Pollsters
00:45:02 - House GOP Budget Standoff
00:46:47 - AOCâs Leadership Challenge in Congress
00:50:09 Handicapping 2028 Contenders
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Iâm diving deeper into DeButts.
Yes friends, thereâs 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 Navarroâs 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 referencedâBill Clinton pardoning Roger Clinton and Donald Trump pardoning Charles KushnerâHunter DeButts was nowhere to be found.
Brettâs search led to a site called living.alot.com, which featured a listicle titled âFive Presidents and Governors Who Have Pardoned Family Members.â Interestingly, this article was last edited on the same day Navarro tweeted. My next move was to contact the articleâs 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. Bretâs 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.
Navarroâs strange ChatGPT result wasnât directly ChatGPTâs faultâit was fed a falsehood generated by a content-churning AI.
And with that, the Hunter DeButts saga is solved.
Allâs 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 youâd 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.
AND
We dive deep into this tweetâŠ
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 Wilsonâs 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, isnât 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 Wilsonâs 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 wasnât accurate.
And so Anna Navarro posted the following explanation:
She blamed ChatGPTâs hallucinations.
Oh, well. Weâve 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 donât 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, hereâs something that you guys might not know about large language models: they are fairly replicable. You can get similar answers based on similar questions. Itâs not exact, but a hallucination is something that you should be able to recreate. It would be odd if you couldnât.
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.
Whatâs 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 whereâd 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.
Letâs say youâre not particularly tech-savvy, if you donât 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 â Iâm 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 youâd 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 youâve 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 didnât 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, itâs plain to see that sheâs 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.
Itâs a warm, expansive Px3 for a winter weekend.
Chapters
2:26 Pod Save America Breakdown
1:00:00 Update: Musk, Hegseth
1:09:17 Future of Pro Choice Movement w/ Alice Ollstein
1:31:28 Ettingermentum
This is a public episode. If youâd 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 Donât 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. Itâs lazy at best and corrosive at worst.
* AddictionI donât 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 youâve followed this story from the beginning. It is one unforced error after the next. One hapless mistake after another defended by unhinged self-indulgence.
Letâs walk the timeline that led us to the most recent crimes:
* Hunter Bidenâs 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 Bidenâs campaign makes statements the shop owner knows to be false, the laptop is leaked to the press.
* Joe Bidenâs ResponseHis campaign denies fault, deflects blame, and hides behind Hunterâs 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."
* Hunterâs MemoirThe gun charge stems from Hunterâs own admissions in his memoir, Beautiful Things, where he describes active crack cocaine addiction during the period he purchased the firearm.
* Quote: âI used my superpowerâfinding crack anytime, anywhere.â
* 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 Hunterâs sentencing for these crimes, it wouldnât be as big of a deal. Sure heâd be a hypocrite but whatâs the real world damage? Hunter didnât spend a month in prison? He avoided probation?
But thatâs 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 2024âan unprecedented eleven years.
This goes beyond Hunterâs tax crimes and gun charge, extending into the period when Hunter joined the board of Burismaâthe focal point of influence-peddling allegations against the Biden family.
For context:
* Fordâs pardon of Nixon aimed to move the country past Watergate.
* Bidenâs pardon serves his own family and raises fresh suspicions about influence peddling.
The White Houseâs 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 Trumpâs resurgence from a pariah to a potential two-term president. Maybe they should have let it happen.
Instead, this pardon undermines Bidenâs credibility, damages the perception of the presidency, and sets a dangerous precedent for self-serving executive overreach.
So letâs get to the âBut TrumpâŠâ 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 time for a 2005 charge. Pardoned to clear his record.
Both of them spent time in prison for their offenses. Either got blanket pardons that extended beyond what Dick Nixon received.
TheTrump pardons may be gross but donât set new precedent. They donât personally benefit the president.
Bidenâs pardon of Hunter does.
Hunter never paid a price.
Joe Bidenâs legacy should.
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
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 youâd 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.
Gaetzâs 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 Gaetzâs 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 youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
Your Guide to the Matt Gaetz Scandal
State 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 Gaetz
The 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 hasnât 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?
Letâs 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 partnerâknown as a sugar daddy or sugar mommyâin 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 exampleâŠ
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 womenâŠ
"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 donât 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, reportedly confirmed this during interviews with the House Ethics committee.
In Florida, engaging in sexual activity with a minor is illegal, regardless of whether the minor misrepresents their age. The state enforces strict liability in such cases, meaning that a defendant's belief about the minor's age, even if based on the minor's false representation, is not a valid defense. Florida Statute 794.021 explicitly states that ignorance or a reasonable mistake regarding the victim's age is not a defense to prosecution under sexual offense laws.
And yet⊠the woman in question also testified about this to criminal investigators and no charges were filed against Gaetz. This might suggest that the case against him is less than air tight. Or that proof beyond personal testimony would not stand up at trial.
So no⊠you cannot claim ignorance on having sex with a 17-year-old in Florida. But also, there might not be evidence to prove it happened beyond a he said/she said.
Again: this has all been known for years after Greenbergâs arrest and the Department of Justice investigation.
Will there be new information? We have to wait and see.
But it also might not matter, because Gaetzâ higher hurdle to clear has nothing to do with what he did or didnât do as a military-grade horny Florida Man bachelor⊠but rather his conduct as a rhetorical bomb thrower who has personally torched members of the Senate whose vote he now needs to court.
-
That and more on the show!
CHAPTERS
00:43 Guide to Matt Gaetz Sex Scandal
17:24 Normally Podcast (Karol Markowicz and MK Ham)
49:08 Update: Selzer, Lutnick, Trump's NY Sentencing
58:02 Gabe Fleisher
This is a public episode. If youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
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 youâd 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 didnât 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 â24 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 Journalâs Hotline to discuss the future of the Democratic Party and you have todayâs episode!
Also, Trumpâs cabinet appointments continue.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
02:39 Kirk Bado
40:32 Update On Trump Appointments
55:00 Dave Levinthal
This is a public episode. If youâd 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 Iâve 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 weâve had since Tuesday including understanding Trumpâs popularity and the electoral benefit of putting Jews on the ticket.
This is a public episode. If youâd 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 youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe -
ânuff 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 youâd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe - Mostra di più
