Politics Politics Politics

A conversation with friend of the show Will Harris got my wheels turning. He pointed out something he was seeing in the UK press — Trump getting credit for what many are calling Biden’s Gaza peace deal. And yeah, I had missed that particular discourse, but it didn’t take long to see that the split wasn’t just overseas. It’s right here too. Some are arguing that the framework for this agreement was already in place under Biden, but now it’s Trump stepping in and sealing the deal. That’s not an unusual pattern in politics — one team builds, another finishes — but the way the Biden side is reacting is worth exploring.Let’s be honest: getting a Middle East peace deal done is about the hardest thing you can try to accomplish in diplomacy. Saying you have a plan is one thing — implementing it in a region with as much distrust and complexity as the Middle East is a whole different story. It’s like drafting a diet and fitness routine and assuming the results will match the spreadsheet. Biden’s people floated frameworks, sure, but they couldn’t make the deal happen. I suspect that’s because they thought it would require applying pressure on Israel to end the war — and they didn’t want to be seen doing that. They wanted the outcome without owning the action.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Then there’s the idea that Biden deserved the credit even if Trump got the win. And this is where I find it all a little rich. Because I remember 2020. The Trump administration rolled out Operation Warp Speed — arguably one of the biggest policy successes of his term — and when Biden took over, they went out of their way to discredit everything Trump did. The narrative was that Biden had to rebuild the whole vaccination effort from scratch, even when it would’ve been politically smart to share credit or even use it to jab Trump from the left on vaccines as that issue started to shift.Now the roles are reversed. The Biden team worked on the peace framework and now wants credit — even though the Trump administration finished the job. It’s not that I think they deserve nothing. There’s a case to be made that this deal, if it holds, spans both administrations. That the effort to find a resolution to an ugly, years-long war included meaningful contributions from both. But if you live by the sword of discrediting your predecessor at every turn, don’t be shocked when you die by it too.I don’t think we’re about to see the Trump team break out the thank-you cards — and if a Nobel Peace Prize comes out of this, it’s going to have Trump’s name on it. Still, if they were smart, they’d acknowledge — maybe off the record — that having a working framework didn’t hurt. But the real lesson here is that a plan is just that — a plan. The deal is what matters. And once again, it turns out being the closer counts more than drawing up the play.Chapters00:00 - Intro03:13 - Gaza Peace Deal11:47 - Update12:04 - NYC Polling13:58 - Letitia James18:18 - Texas21:14 - Interview with Kenneth Vogel54:28- 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

Ceasefire in GazaPresident Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, marking the beginning of a multi-phase peace process. The first phase slated to begin Monday includes the release of 20 hostages, a halt to active fighting, and Israeli withdrawal from parts of Gaza. Hamas is expected to return the remains of deceased hostages as part of the deal.The agreement, brokered with the help of Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, represents a shift in regional diplomacy. Qatar’s role is especially significant, given its previous support for Hamas. Observers suggest that recent Israeli strikes in Doha (looking more and more like an approved strike by Qatar) indicate a broader effort to isolate Hamas.Key details of the peace plan, which aligns with a Trump proposal presented at the UN, include:1. Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.2. Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.3. If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.4. Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.5. Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after 7 October 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the 19 January 2025 agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under 19 January 2025 agreement.9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of state to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform programme, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarisation of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration programme all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbours.14. A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence.—The long-term viability of the deal remains uncertain, but initial signs suggest a realignment of regional priorities. This deal has Trump’s fingerprints all over it. As I am typing this I am speaking with friend of the program Wil Harris who is telling me that the UK press is presenting this as Biden’s plan Trump is taking credit for. That’s a bit rich, in my opinion. To paraphrase The Social Network:If Biden was the inventor of the Gaza Peace Plan, he would have implemented the Gaza Peace Plan. Katie Porter’s Viral Meltdown Raises Political StakesCalifornia gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter is under fire following a viral interview where she appeared combative with a reporter. The incident was compounded by resurfaced footage of Porter harshly reprimanding a staffer during the COVID-19 lockdown.Porter’s opponents, including Antonio Villaraigosa and Betty Yee, have seized on the moment to question her temperament and fitness for office. Strategists warn that although her base remains strong, such optics could threaten her standing as the Democratic frontrunner in a crowded 2026 race.Despite the controversy, many believe Porter’s progressive bona fides will carry her through. The Democratic primary electorate, historically more tolerant of combative behavior if aligned with ideological purity, may ultimately overlook the episode.James Comey Arraigned in Politically Charged CaseFormer FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty this week to charges of lying to Congress and obstruction, charges filed by the Department of Justice under Trump’s newly appointed U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan. Comey’s legal team is expected to challenge the basis of the prosecution, citing political retaliation.Legal experts widely anticipate the case may be dismissed before trial, but the optics alone are significant. The indictment illustrates the fraught landscape of prosecutorial partisanship in the post-Trump era, where legal actions against political adversaries risk becoming a norm rather than an exception.Chapters and Time Codes* Introduction & Return to Austin — 00:00:41* Gaza Ceasefire Overview — 00:05:10* Trump’s Role and Regional Dynamics — 00:08:18* Implications for Hamas and Israel — 00:14:11* Katie Porter Controversy — 00:20:31* Political Impact of Porter’s Behavior — 00:24:06* James Comey Indictment — 00:29:11* Wrap-up & Preview of Ken Vogel Interview — 00:32:23 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 want to start today by explaining why my audio sounds like garbage. I don’t have my usual mic — or my webcam, or laptop, or clothes — because everything was stolen out of our rental car while we were eating at Burma Superstar in Oakland. I lived in this city for nearly a decade and never once got ‘bipped.’ This time, someone smashed the window, glass flying right over the car seat where my baby had just been sitting, and took every bag they could find. My wife’s stuff, my stuff — all gone. They even took the bag of stuffed animals. Apparently, those don’t fence for much.Now, I don’t bring this up for pity. I know full well that parking a rental car in Oakland is like drawing a target on your back. But that’s exactly what bothers me — this idea that we deserve it. That the cost of living in a beautiful, culturally rich city like Oakland is rampant, normalized crime. And it’s not just Oakland. I don’t buy that this is the price of admission for living in cities like Chicago or New York either. These are cities with strong tax bases, vibrant economies, and in some cases — like here in San Francisco — literal gold rushes. I’m speaking to you now from the Bay Park, right next to the Chase Center, where the Warriors play. OpenAI’s offices are here. And yet one garage over, you’re stepping through fentanyl, addicts, and filth.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.What really got me was the reaction. When I told friends what happened, no one was surprised — just a shrug and “yeah, rental car.” No outrage. No concern. This isn’t just about me getting my stuff stolen. It’s about the fact that this kind of thing is treated as an unavoidable fact of life. And I get it — people here have empathy. But that empathy’s being weaponized. Because this isn’t just random desperation. If it were, they’d have taken the diaper bag. No, I think what we’re dealing with is organized crime. And no one seems interested in doing anything about it.There’s no political will. I’m not calling for a police state, but I am saying that the city should want to stop this. It’s not just bad for tourists — it’s not good for the locals either. The criminals aren’t the ones getting rich. The neighborhoods that need better-paying jobs aren’t helped by a tourism industry that doesn’t exist because no one wants to visit a city where this is just what happens. I don’t think it’s generous to ignore that — to write this all off as unavoidable.The kicker? When I called 911, they told me to go to a website. That was it. And look, I’ll be fine. My car rental’s covered by Amex we’re going to get home okay. But what does that say about the city — when a middle-class family gets robbed, and no one even pretends to care? There’s something broken here, and it’s not just the window.Chapters00:00 - Intro and Crime Thoughts08:12 - Interview with Bill Scher45:42 - 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

The Shutdown Senate VoteThe shutdown rolls on, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already said it is unlikely the Senate will vote this weekend. That means the government shutdown will extend into next week unless something changes Friday morning. He criticized Democrats for demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidies in the stopgap bill and insisted negotiations must begin only once the government reopens. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is predicting GOP unity will falter as the shutdown drags on, but I’m not convinced.From where I sit, the numbers tell the story. Three Democrats voted with Republicans last time. Rand Paul opposes continuing resolutions, so Republicans will need eight Democrats to reach 60 votes because J.D. Vance is the tie breaker. Every time the Senate votes, I’m watching to see if more than three Democrats side with Republicans — that’s the real signal of where this is going.I don’t believe Democrats are built for shutdowns. They’re posturing as if they’re ready to see this through, but the longer it goes the more likely rank and file members will embarrass Chuck Schumer into ending it. The real pain — furloughs, firings, and cuts to the federal workforce — is only going to show up if this lasts into next week. That’s when the Russ Vought part of the story kicks in, and that’s when this gets serious.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Abigail Spanberger in VirginiaFormer Representative Abigail Spanberger is leading Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earl Sears by 10 points in the governor’s race, 52 to 42, according to a new Emerson College and Hill survey conducted September 28 and 29. Early voting is already underway with more than 146,000 ballots cast. Among those voters, Spanberger leads 60 to 38 and still holds a 50 to 43 edge among those yet to vote.Her gains have come from independents, men, and younger voters. Independents back her by 19 points, men are evenly split, and voters under 50 favor her by 27 points. History suggests the party that is not in the White House usually wins the Virginia governor’s race. Based on that, I’d bet Spanberger, even though this isn’t exactly an electric matchup.The only real advantage Sears has is the men’s and women’s sports issue — a culture war topic, not a kitchen table one. I don’t think that will be enough, especially in Northern Virginia, which is heavily government dependent and angry at the president. Add on Sears not being a great candidate and Spanberger looks far stronger heading into November.Bailouts are BackTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the Trump administration will announce substantial support for U.S. farmers next week, likely funded by tariff revenue. Soybean growers have been hit hard as China has halted U.S. purchases during their trade war. Bessent accused Beijing of using farmers as hostages in negotiations but pledged aid, noting their loyalty to Trump.He discussed the plan with the president and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, but details and costs remain unclear. Argentina’s discounted soybean sales to China have undercut U.S. farmers and stoked tension. Bailouts are back, and this is classic Trump — he’s never been a fiscal hawk and has no problem using the federal government’s pocketbook to shape the world as he sees fit.That’s where things stand. Farmers are hurting, the administration is signaling payouts, and we’ll see next week how big the support really is.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro and Synagogue Shooting00:03:47 - Interview with Gloria Young00:34:28 - Update00:34:44 - Shutdown00:38:08 - Abigail Spanberger00:40:18 - Farmers00:41:49 - Interview with Gloria Young (con’t)01:03:18 - 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

As I record this episode, we are on the edge — maybe already over it, by the time you read this — of a government shutdown. And I want to give you a bit of the behind-the-scenes intel I picked up that helps explain how we got here. According to one of my sources on the Hill (a Republican, for the record), the read is that Chuck Schumer is locked in. He’s in a “dark place,” unwilling to budge, and if anything’s going to change, it’ll come from other Democrats. That’s been the drumbeat here: Schumer can’t blink. If he does, he opens himself up to a leadership challenge. And that’s the one thing a Senate leader absolutely cannot do.The Democrats are trying to pitch the shutdown as a way to stand up for healthcare — that’s the messaging. But the problem is that if the government shuts down, there are a lot of healthcare extensions and services that begin to expire immediately. I read off a list of them: community health centers, Medicare adjustments, ambulance payment programs, disaster medical systems — the works. The irony is that the parts Democrats hate the most about the Trump administration don’t shut down. ICE doesn’t go anywhere. Deportations still happen. Those are essential — and Trump’s people decide what counts as essential.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.The fight, according to Democrats, is over Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. But those cuts don’t even kick in until after the midterms. Meanwhile, essential Democratic priorities lose funding the moment the lights go out. And that’s the trap. They’re betting that Trump wants to make a deal — that he wants to look like a bipartisan dealmaker. Maybe they believe they can spin this into a win. But let’s remember what happened the last time Trump tried that in 2018: he got nothing.If they’re hoping for Trump to ride in and rescue them, that’s a risky game. The GOP Senate and House leaders — Thune and Johnson — are more than happy to let this ride. Hell, there are people in that party who love a shutdown. It’s a stress test for them, a chance to see what happens when the government turns off. And the data doesn’t look good for Democrats. A New York Times/Siena poll had just 27% of all respondents — and only a slim plurality of Democrats — supporting the idea of a shutdown if demands aren’t met. That’s a brutal place to be when you’re the one pulling the trigger.So here we are: Schumer boxed in, the party divided, and the shutdown clock striking midnight. Maybe there’s a backdoor deal. Maybe Trump throws them a rope. But right now? The only guaranteed outcome is pain.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:41 - Shutdown00:08:42 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw00:30:33 - Update00:31:21 - Hegseth’s Meeting00:34:42 - Schweikert for Gov00:36:09 - NYT Polling on Shutdown00:37:06 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw (con’t)01:15:30 - 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

The looming government shutdown — now just days away — has escalated dramatically. Russ Vought, Trump’s former OMB director and the key architect behind the original administration firings, circulated a memo this week warning agencies to prepare for a “reduction in force” if funding lapses. The message was clear: if there’s a shutdown, he plans to fire as many people as possible and make those firings stick. In his words, the Democrats would be handing him a gift. It’s what he’s always wanted to do, and he’s daring them to let it happen.Democrats, for their part, view this as a scare tactic, a way to push them into passing a clean continuing resolution. They’ve been offered essentially the best deal possible under GOP control: Biden-era spending levels and no controversial riders. Still, they’re rejecting it. Even lawmakers from districts and states with large numbers of federal employees — Chris Van Hollen, Glenn Ivey, Patty Murray, Mark Warner — are standing firm. For them, this is about resisting what they see as Trump-aligned plans to gut the federal workforce.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Some Republicans are framing the mass firing threat as leverage, not a goal. Bernie Moreno said he supports the memo as a negotiating tactic but wants to avoid a shutdown. Susan Collins and Mike Lawler both expressed discomfort with using federal workers as bargaining chips but pointed out that the solution is simple: just vote for the clean CR. Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, is pressing hard, accusing Democrats of preferring illegal immigrants to federal employees by insisting on funding Obamacare and Medicare subsidies that Republicans argue benefit non-citizens.So where does that leave us? A shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass, and the President fails to sign, either the full appropriations bill or a continuing resolution before the start of the fiscal year. When that happens, agencies are prohibited from spending money, except on activities deemed essential to life, property, or national security. Non-essential employees are furloughed, contractors go unpaid, and essential workers like the military and TSA keep working without pay. We’re set to enter this world on October 1st.Everything from passport processing to regulatory enforcement gets paused. Federal contractors, especially in areas around DC, take a huge financial hit. Social security checks, Medicare, and mail delivery continue. And while federal workers usually get back pay, contractors often don’t. A shutdown only ends when Congress passes and the President signs a funding bill. That’s why I say this isn’t an “if,” but a “when.” The government will shut down; the only question is how long Democrats are willing to hold out before taking the same deal they’re rejecting now. I don’t think it’ll be long. This isn’t their kind of fight, and they’re about to find out why.Chapters00:00 - Intro03:12 - 107 Days06:30 - Gov Shutdown15:30 - Update15:49 - Hegseth Meeting18:04 - Kimmel Ratings19:44 - TikTok20:43 - Interview with Tom Merritt55:49 - 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

The government is shutting down. I guess I don’t know for sure, because it hasn’t happened yet, but… it’s happening. The clearest sign came early: Trump said he’s not meeting with the Democrats. That officially pulls the plug on the last off-ramp. And while I can’t say it’s definite until it’s on the books, every indicator points in that direction.Leadership on the Democratic side isn’t exactly riding high right now. Hakeem Jeffries is under pressure from both his left and his center — the progressives want more progressive action, and the moderates are feeling the heat from MAGA-friendlier districts. It’s not a great time for him to be vulnerable, especially with redistricting battles looming. Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, still has the earliest months of this Trump administration burned into his memory, failing to shut the government down back then that got him absolutely roasted by his own side. He knows what time it is. If he doesn’t want to lose his job, he needs to be seen doing something. That something is this shutdown.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Democrats usually enjoy the shutdown game — when Republicans are the ones pulling the trigger. It lets them run the “they hate government” narrative. But now they’re the ones doing it, and that’s unfamiliar ground. It’s not their comfort zone — and it comes with a risk. They tried every angle. They talked to Johnson. They talked to Thune. And then, in what was probably more performance than real strategy, they tried Trump. Trump publicly laughed it off. So now, what are they left with?The clean CR that already passed the House is still sitting there. That’s funding at Biden levels — not exactly a win for Republicans. But because the Democrats need to do something, they’ve started trying to wrap ACA subsidy extensions and Medicaid cut reversals into the mix. The strategy is a little muddled: are they playing offense or just avoiding looking weak? Either way, without Trump at the table, they’ve got no play left except one. And that’s how we get to where we’re at.Here’s the question that’s not being asked enough — how does it end? Democrats aren’t built for long-term shutdowns. Their base doesn’t rally around it the same way. The longer it goes, the more Trump gets to talk, and he will talk. If it drags out past a month, Democrats lose. So that means the shutdown won’t last past a month. And if they’re going to vote for the clean CR in the end anyway, what’s the point of all of this? We’ll see. But from where I’m sitting, there’s no chance the government doesn’t shut down.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:07:13 - Gov Shutdown00:16:47 - Update00:18:00 - Kimmel00:26:26 - Tylenol00:34:25 - TPUSA00:38:22 - Interview with Claire Meynial01:23:40 - 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

Michael Cohen, author and political strategist, joins to dissect the fallout from Jimmy Kimmel's controversial remarks and the FCC's pressure on his show. They analyze the dynamics of the NYC mayoral race, highlighting Zohran Mamdani's surprising rise and Eric Adams' uncertain future. Cohen also critiques the Democratic party's recruitment in Maine for upcoming Senate battles, and delves into the strategical shifts in North Carolina as midterm conventions loom. Expect sharp insights and insider perspectives on the ever-evolving political landscape!

Utah prosecutors have charged 22-year-old Tyler Robinson with aggravated murder in the shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. The charges include obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and multiple firearm offenses. According to the affidavit, Robinson confessed to both his roommate — with whom he was in a romantic relationship — and his father. Investigators say Robinson admitted that the motive was political. He told his roommate that “some hate cannot be negotiated” and accused Kirk of “spreading hatred.”Prosecutors allege that Robinson carved antifascist slogans into the bullet casings used in the shooting. They say he left behind clothes and a backpack at the scene, both of which tested positive for his DNA. A bolt-action rifle was found nearby. Surveillance footage and Discord messages allegedly link Robinson to planning the attack, though he has not spoken directly to police. His roommate, someone transitioning from male to female who has not been publicly identified, is cooperating with investigators.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Also at the scene was a second man, George Zinn, who approached police with a knife and told them to shoot him. Zinn allegedly said he had been trying to help Robinson escape. He has not been charged in the shooting, but prosecutors say he was found with child pornography. The two men were not known to each other before that day.This case does not follow the familiar patterns of mental instability or mass shooting chaos. Prosecutors have outlined what they describe as a deliberate, targeted act with ideological motivation. Robinson allegedly stated that he believed the shooting would be “the only way” to stop Kirk. The firearm used was a bolt-action rifle, which indicates planning rather than impulsivity.Governor Spencer Cox, in his television appearances, struck a more composed tone than in his initial press conference. That earlier moment felt like a political speech. Over the weekend, however, he appeared more focused on unity and de-escalation. That stands in contrast to Trump, whose responses were angrier and more inflammatory. The White House has not issued a formal statement, but administration officials have been briefed.One of the major talking points emerging in political media is whether this attack fits into a broader pattern. Names like Paul Pelosi and Ashli Babbitt have been floated — but what happened here is categorically different. The suspect allegedly had a motive, a plan, and a clear ideological framework. This was not senseless. According to prosecutors, it was intentional and politically driven.It's still early, and these are only allegations. But the details laid out so far paint a clear picture: a targeted political killing, carried out in public, with motive stated directly. That’s rare. And it’s something we’ll be forced to grapple with as the trial unfolds.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:02:15 - Charlie Kirk Suspect Arrested00:09:53 - Interview with Karol Markowicz00:53:28 - Update00:54:01 - Pam Bondi Hate Speech00:57:39 - Epstein01:00:15 - Hakeem Jeffries and Zohran Mamdani01:02:53 - Interview with Ryan McBeth01:52:45 - 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 aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I needed to sit down and talk with you — just you and me. This isn’t a guest-heavy episode, there is no news roundup. This is something different. This is something more personal, more direct, and honestly, more painful. I want to talk about what this moment means, why it matters, and what we do next. Because we’re at a crossroads, and that road cuts directly through our online and offline realities in ways we can’t ignore anymore.Charlie Kirk was shot with a rifle while on stage at Utah Valley University. The shooter is still unidentified, and the motives are still unclear. But there’s no denying what that moment was meant to signal: if you talk like this, we’ll kill you. And while that “we” remains unknown, the message it sends is loud and clear. This wasn’t a private act of violence. This was political. This was a statement. And the target wasn’t just Kirk — it was anyone who might stand where he stood or say what he said.Kirk wasn’t someone I always agreed with, but I did see what he built. Turning Point USA grew into a major player, replacing many of the institutions that shaped college conservatism before him. He blended the Buckley model of organizing with the showmanship of Limbaugh and became influential not just in youth politics but in the Trump movement itself. His voice mattered. His platforms mattered. And whether or not you liked what he said, it’s impossible to ignore that many young conservatives saw themselves in him.So much of what’s happened since his death has disturbed me. The edgelords on the internet doing their worst, cracking jokes about the bullet that hit him, pretending he wasn’t a person with a wife and children — that’s not just tasteless, it’s dehumanizing. And when you dehumanize someone in death, you’re justifying violence against the living. It’s not a good look. It’s not principled. It’s cruelty dressed up as politics.We’ve seen attempts to paint political violence as something that only comes from one side, but that’s not how any of this works. Whether it’s a left-wing shooter or a right-wing pipe bomber, we’ve got to stop turning every horrific act into a team sport. Every time someone uses violence as a form of political speech, it pushes the line further, normalizes the unacceptable, and opens the door for more of it. And that’s the real danger — the escalation, the dehumanization, the cheapening of life itself.Now look, I understand that people hated Charlie Kirk, and saw him as a cartoon villain solely taking up space on the internet. But if your first instinct when someone is murdered is to dig up their worst take, maybe it’s time to reevaluate what you stand for. Did Kirk say provocative things? Sure. But we’re either going to live in a country where bad takes are met with debate or one where they’re met with bullets. And if it’s the latter, none of us — not me, not you — are safe.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Among those edgelords and the calls for retaliatory violence, though, I saw hope. A YouGov poll found that 78% of Americans think it’s unacceptable to celebrate the death of a public figure, even one they dislike, and only 9% answered in the affirmative. That’s good. That’s a big majority, especially in today’s political climate, and it points to a baseline of decency in this country that hasn’t been completely eroded by the internet’s worst tendencies.And then there was Cenk Uygur, the founder of The Young Turks and someone who battled Kirk publicly. He posted something beautiful, something real. He talked about sharing a beer with Kirk, about choosing unity over hate. That matters. Because it shows that humanity still exists across the aisle. That you can disagree without celebrating someone’s death. That maybe — just maybe — we can start tending our own gardens before trying to burn someone else’s to the ground.So, what do we do now? We lead by example. We reject political violence — loudly, clearly, and without exception. We treat each other like people, not caricatures. And we remember that even in a polarized world, the line between democracy and something far darker is thinner than we think. Let’s not cross it. Not now. Not ever.Chapters00:00 - Intro02:42 - Who was Charlie Kirk?07:40 - Reaction clips13:09 - Discourse23:08 - This is different30:26 - The internet is not real life37:44 - What now? 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