Politics Politics Politics

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

UPDATE: President Trump posts that Kirk is dead.UPDATE: Initial suspect not the shooter. Suspected shooter fired from 200 yards away. Still at large.This was originally filmed Wednesday afternoon on September 10th, 2025.TRANSCRIPT:Charlie Kirk, shot, condition unknown. Hello and welcome to the Politics, Politics, Politics Extra for what would be September 11th, 2025. Justin Robert Young joining you here. This one is going to be an abbreviated edition that we’re going to get early and we’re going to put out publicly because among all the news that is happening in the world of politics, there is one that is breaking right now, and that is Turning Point USA’s founder, Charlie Kirk, shot at a public event at Utah Valley University in what appears in video online to be an extraordinarily serious, if not likely fatal, assassination attempt. Assassination being specifically defined as a premeditated murder with political motives.And first and foremost, let me just say that all thoughts and prayers to Charlie Kirk and his family. He had a wife and two kids. Obviously, the details on his health will be forthcoming. I will keep an eye on social media as I record this to get you the latest information before I put this out. The reason why I wanted to do this right now is because oftentimes, when this happens, and you have a murderer who commits an act of unspeakable violence, it’s usually hard to map their motivations onto mainstream politics. And I make sure that those points are made because what I don’t want is for aberrant violence to cloud what is otherwise a public dialogue about advocacy, rights, faith, belief, and ultimately the American dream—the desire to live a life that is better than those that came before you and to create a pathway for somebody after you to lead an even better one.And while we don’t know what the motives are of this shooter (who looks to be at least the man who was detained in an extraordinarily public setting was an older white man) what we don’t know is his exact motives. It is hard, at least at this stage, and this is again breaking news, it would seem likely that Charlie Kirk was attempted to be executed, if not successfully executed, as a public sign that he is somebody who was too dangerous to live for political purposes. This was not an act of violence that was taken out in secret. This was done to cow, to show as a demonstration that this is what happens when you stick your head up. You should live and be afraid.Now, we don’t know that for sure. Maybe this guy was just deranged and, you know, he did have whatever bizarre motivations that are beyond the world of mainstream politics. Maybe. Maybe. And if that is indeed the case, the next time that I do a show, I will bring that to you. I will bring that context to you. But in this moment, right now, it sure doesn’t look like it.We’ll take a moment right now to understand Charlie Kirk’s significance on the political landscape. He is somebody that has a very important role in the conservative ecosystem. Not only has Turning Point USA been a tremendous organizer for conferences, for student activism, but also in this cycle wound up taking on a more traditional vendor role for voter registration and door knocking, something that many people didn’t really believe they had the experience to do. And yet it did seem to be at least successful, as much as you can credit a vendor for the success of something like the Trump campaign.He is an unabashed political conservative. He is somebody that comes from the Rush Limbaugh mold. He has been important in the world of Arizona politics, where he lived. And while I have certainly had my commentary on the Arizona Republican Party, there’s no doubt that he plays a large role in that.It’s hard to imagine where this goes beyond Charlie Kirk being a martyr, alive or dead, that will be held up as somebody who was slain by left-wing violence. That will be a large talking point in the media. Okay. There is no doubt that we are living in a world of heightened tension. And so all I will say to you, anyone who listens to my voice or watches this video, is my goal has always been to make you understand and comprehend how politics—the mechanism by which we enact democracy—can work for you. My goal is to highlight campaigns and strategies that are working and ones that are not working.Now, obviously, there’s a swashbuckling element for me that likes being right and likes being able to comprehend the system. But the utility for you that I’ve always wanted to offer when I call myself the scoreboard and not the pep rally is to give you an understanding so you can interact with this system the way that you want and get what you want out of it. I do not believe that political violence has any place in our world. To be totally honest, I would go even further than that. I don’t believe that you should be cutting people off out of your life that you politically disagree with. I believe that there needs to be healing. There needs to be dialogue with people that care about you. Not every random stranger on the internet needs a friend, but I’m talking about friends, family, people that enrich our lives. Because when we are cut off from them, we only wither. We become less than.And as somebody who spends an inordinate amount of time following politics and politicians, trust me when I tell you from the inside, it is not worth it to trade them for the people that you know and love. Not to be all Marianne Williamson here, but the only way that we climb our way out of a world that has weaponized hate to the point where something like this can happen is through caring for our fellow man. Nobody should get that mad at a podcast. Charlie Kirk did not elect Donald Trump. The people of America elected Donald Trump. Everybody had a small piece of it, but it is the people that willed in the person, and then everybody else takes credit for it afterward. Charlie Kirk might have been successful in speaking to an audience about issues that they cared about, but he did not invent the issues. Dare I say, nor did he necessarily shape them. He talked about them in a way that his audience wanted to hear it. Sometimes when you’re as influential as he is, you can introduce new ideas, but there’s no guarantee that they’re going to take. You’re offering them to a populace, and they decide whether or not they care. Anybody who’s been in this game for any amount of time knows that to be the truth.Silencing Charlie Kirk through murderous violence does not stop the ideas. In fact, it likely emboldens those that are looking to change the country in the way that Charlie Kirk is looking to change the country to do so. I wish I had a regular episode for you. Obviously, any plans that I had for Friday’s episode are kind of out of the window. We’ll figure out what we’re going to do for that. But until next time, just know this: for anybody who is listening or watching me, I very much treasure and appreciate your time. And I would just say, love each other. Thank you very much. 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 Trumpian CollisionOver the weekend, Donald Trump addressed a pretty strange situation involving a Hyundai plant in Georgia. ICE conducted a raid there, detaining over 475 people allegedly working illegally — including over 200 South Korean nationals. The site’s still under construction, which makes the whole thing even weirder. There’s now an ongoing diplomatic mess as South Korea tries to repatriate those detained. Trump’s response hit both of his usual notes: yes to foreign investment, but also yes to enforcing immigration law. A rare moment where his priorities clash in real time.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Signs from Buenos AiresIn Argentina, President Javier Milei took a hit in the provincial elections in Buenos Aires. That’s often seen as a signal of what’s coming in the congressional races. While there’s been some economic improvement under his government, it’s clear he still has to fight off the Peronists. I don’t have enough background here to give you more than the headlines — I’ll need to bring on someone who actually follows Argentine politics. But if you’re tracking libertarian movements worldwide, this is one to watch.An Attempted Assassin Faces CourtOn Monday, the trial began for Ryan Wesley Routh, the man accused of trying to assassinate Donald Trump on a golf course last summer. He’s facing charges including attempted murder of a presidential candidate. Based on his online behavior — including attempts to recruit people to fight in Ukraine — he’s definitely a character. I don’t know how much of the trial will be public, but if past is prologue, he’s probably going to try and make a spectacle of it. Whether or not his lawyers let him is another question entirely.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:49 - Interview with Kirk Bado00:48:00 - Update00:48:19 - Immigration00:50:23 - Argentina00:51:21 - Trump Trial00:52:39 - Interview with Evan Scrimshaw01:48:28 - 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

There’s a growing expectation that the National Guard will soon be deployed to Chicago. It hasn’t happened yet, but signs are pointing to it. Several weeks ago, the Guard was sent into Washington, D.C., and now there’s enough time and distance to measure the results — carjackings down 80 percent, violent crime down over 30 percent. That’s not just coming from the White House. Muriel Bowser, the Democratic mayor of D.C., is also saying it. She doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of public sentiment. She’s even making overtures to the White House about keeping some form of Guard presence to avoid a crime snapback.But Washington is a special case. It’s a federal district, and its autonomy is only delegated by the government. Chicago is not. In a federal system, cities like Chicago are under the control of their state governments — in this case, the governor and mayor, neither of whom want the National Guard there. That’s what makes this next move, if it happens, such a flashpoint. If Trump sends in the Guard — and I do believe it’s a when, not an if — the legal and political battle will hinge on the how, the how many, and the where.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.And then there’s the question of when they leave. Lawsuits will be filed. Injunctions will be issued. But I’m convinced this is going to happen because it’s good politics for Trump. He sees the Nixon playbook from 1968 — using force to control urban unrest — and believes it worked then. He believes it’ll work now. And if you look at the RealClearPolitics numbers, there’s a logic to it.Trump is underwater by 9.3 points on foreign policy. On the economy, he’s down 11.5. On inflation, it’s nearly minus 20. The country doesn’t think he’s doing a good job on the issues that normally shape campaigns. Foreign policy numbers can shift — if hostages are released or a ceasefire happens in Ukraine, those could bounce. But economic sentiment is more stubborn. And the danger is that Trump falls into the same trap Biden did: saying the economy’s fine while people feel like it’s not.That disconnect isn’t abstract. It’s felt at the gas pump, at the grocery store. It’s the pain of realizing you don’t have the money to cover the tab, of pulling items from your cart while your kids ask why you’re crying. It’s a humiliating, personal experience, and telling people it’s not real only makes it worse. Trump’s not winning that argument.But he is closer on immigration. It’s loud, it’s polarizing, but he’s only down 1.3 points in aggregate. Polls in August were a split: tied in Harvard Harris and YouGov, down eight in Reuters, up ten in Morning Consult. Two ties, two outliers. For an issue that gets as much airtime as immigration, that kind of polling tells you Trump’s message still resonates.And then there’s crime. The only issue where Trump is in the black — plus one. That’s after the Guard was deployed to D.C. He sees this as the cornerstone of his pitch: what if government actually worked for you? What if America came first? He wants to frame Democrats as soft, as willing to defend criminals while waving spreadsheets that say crime is technically down. And he wants to pit that against your lived experience — that you don’t feel safe, that your neighbor’s car got broken into, that you hesitate before getting on the subway late at night.It’s federally illegal. I believe the courts will eventually force a pullback. But not before Trump gets the message out. Because on this issue, unlike all the others, the American people are with him.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:04:40 - Trump Crime Ratings00:13:31 - Update00:16:23 - RFK Jr.00:23:21 - Eric Adams00:26:42 - Free Press Deal00:31:11 - Interview with Jen Briney01:04:29 - 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 Prop 50 Messaging BlitzProposition 50 is one of the most nakedly strategic plays in this cycle. It exists for one purpose: to eliminate California’s independent redistricting board so Democrats can gerrymander five seats back — a direct response to Republicans doing the same in red states. That’s the whole game. Strip away the messaging, and it’s a power move. The ads hitting the airwaves now make it clear how the campaign is going to run: targeted, segmented, and intensely focused on turnout.Gavin Newsom’s out front, naturally. The first ad is just him — classic ego-forward strategy. The second ad is aimed squarely at the Bay Area and Los Angeles liberal base, the same model they used to win his recall election. It’s all about maximizing favorable turnout in deep blue pockets. They’ve run this play before, and they know it works — but back then, they had a longer runway. This time, they’re racing the clock.Then there’s the third ad. That one’s for the independents, and its existence tells you everything. The campaign knows that gutting an independent redistricting board is a tough sell outside the bubble. They say it’s temporary. I don’t buy that. Nobody gives up control once they get it — not in politics. The only way this doesn’t work is if moderates see through the language and call it what it is. That last ad shows they’re worried that might happen.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Jerry Nadler’s Long ExitJerry Nadler is stepping down after more than 30 years in Congress and 50 years in public office. He’s one of those figures who’s always just sort of been there — a Manhattan political mainstay who most recently made headlines during Trump’s first impeachment. That might end up being his most lasting national footprint. He barely held onto his seat after being redistricted into a brutal primary with Carolyn Maloney. He survived that one, but it felt like the end of something.Now he’s officially retiring. He says it’s time to pass the torch, and he’s backing his former aide, Michael Lasher, to take over. That makes sense. It’s a controlled handoff. The district will stay blue. The torch will stay in the family. Nadler might not have been the flashiest member of Congress, but he was consequential — particularly in the Judiciary Committee, where he held the gavel through some of the most heated partisan fights of the Trump era.He stepped aside from that leadership role after Jamie Raskin challenged him, and that felt like the start of the wind-down. There wasn’t really a lane left for him in this current version of the Democratic Party. He’s not the TikTok-friendly progressive, and he’s not the compromise-seeking centrist. He’s just an old-school liberal from New York. And now, like a lot of others in his generation, he’s finally closing the book.Virginia Foxx and the Epstein FilesRepresentative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee, announced she won’t use her panel to block Thomas Massie’s discharge petition demanding the release of the Epstein files. That’s a big move — maybe even a signal. The Republican leadership has been slow-rolling this whole thing, not wanting to get too close to whatever comes out of those documents. But Foxx just let it breathe.Massie’s move has bipartisan cover — he’s working with Democrat Ro Khanna — and it’s gaining momentum. Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports “maximum disclosure,” but that there need to be protections for victims. That’s the dodge. That’s how they’re all trying to walk this line — publicly in favor of transparency, privately praying it doesn’t land on their doorstep.The buzz on the Hill is that DOJ will release just enough of the Epstein files to make the issue go away. Maybe that works. Maybe not. But one thing’s clear: the discharge petition isn’t just symbolic anymore. It’s a real threat. And the fact that leadership isn’t moving to squash it says a lot about how much weaker those levers of control have gotten. Foxx’s choice here wasn’t just about process — it was a quiet acknowledgment that the old rules don’t apply. Not with this. Not anymore.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:25 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty00:45:49 - Update00:48:02 - Prop 50 ads00:53:05 - Jerry Nadler00:55:08 - Virginia Foxx00:56:47 - Interview with Dillon Fleharty, con’t01:35:24 - 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 Democratic National Committee just wrapped up its meeting in Minneapolis, and one of the big ideas floated behind closed doors was a midterm convention. The logic is clear. Democrats are dealing with a brand problem. They want to reset, energize, and show that the party still has fresh faces and energy. That means television time. That means spectacle. So: midterm convention. And I’m all for it. I would love to cover one. I love conventions. Give me a big show with music, lights, messaging — I’m there.I don’t know if Trump caught wind of this plan early or just read it when the story dropped, but it’s clear what happened next. He jumped on Truth Social and declared that the Republican Party would also hold a midterm convention. Because if the Democrats are getting a big TV moment, then he’s going to get one too — and he’s going to make it better. That’s how Trump operates. If you’re doing a spectacle, he’s doing a bigger one. The man knows television, and conventions are made-for-TV moments. So now we might have two of them.What would those look like? For the Democrats, expect the same tightly-scripted, ultra-managed production they’ve always delivered. Nobody does a convention script like the Democratic Party. For all their other dysfunctions, they know how to build a prime-time political package. The Republicans? Expect a Trump rally — but bigger, glossier, and even more overloaded with segments, guests, and applause lines. Multiple nights, probably. A celebration of Trumpism that looks less like a traditional political event and more like an awards show.The Path to a Shutdown is ClearMeanwhile, Axios also reported that Democratic leaders in Congress have landed on their key demand to avoid a government shutdown: the reversal of Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill. And this is where things get interesting. Because while I’m not here to defend either side — I come from media, not partisanship — I can tell you that this is exactly the kind of story that drives conservatives crazy. This is what fuels the belief that the media covers these fights with blinders on. Because here’s the reality: Democrats want to shut down the government. They are choosing this. They want a shutdown — not because they think it will solve something, but because they think it’s a strong midterm frame.That frame is Medicaid cuts. Specifically, Medicaid cuts for rural hospitals. That’s the message. Not the whole bill, not the fiscal fight — just the healthcare piece. That’s the issue they believe will mobilize their base and let them go on offense. So everything that happens next, from press statements to floor speeches, is about setting up that narrative. The Republicans will try to pass a continuing resolution. Democrats will have to decide: do they agree, or do they shut it down?I don’t think Schumer or Jeffries can survive politically if they don’t let their caucus go through with this. That’s the point we’ve reached. The shutdown is happening, and this is why. The date to watch is September 30 — that’s when the funding runs out. And unless a miracle happens, we’re going to see this showdown play out just like they’ve mapped it. And the messaging is already here. Elizabeth Warren said, “If Republicans want Democrats to provide votes to fund the Trump administration, they can start by restoring the health care they ripped away to finance more tax handouts for billionaires.” That’s the line. That’s the campaign.It’s already baked in. Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Johnson and Senator Thune saying this has to be bipartisan — while knowing full well that their demands are nonstarters. It’s the same dynamic we’ve seen from Republicans in the past: throw out a demand that won’t be met, use the denial to justify the shutdown. The only difference is that Democrats usually don’t do this. But this isn’t the same Democratic Party as it used to be, now is it?Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:06:42 - Midterm Conventions00:09:35 - Dems Shutdown Plan00:15:34 - Update and Minneapolis Shooting00:18:28 - Epstein00:22:56 - CDC00:24:33 - Mark Teixeira00:27:01 - Interview with Howard Mortman01:04:10- 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