Unclear and Present Danger - Unclear and Present Politics Episode 15 [PATREON BONUS]

Episode Date: February 12, 2026

The next episode of the podcast will be here soon, but while you wait, here is the most recent episode of our politics show on the Patreon. In it, we talk the most recent developments in the Trump administration's attack on Minnesota and what they might portend for both the White House and its opposition going forward. We also say a few words about Epstein because, you know, how could we not.You can get access to this weekly show, as well as a few years of episodes on the political thrillers of the Cold War era, on our Patreon, which you find at patreon.com/unclearpod.

Welcome to the unclear and present every time. Welcome to unclear and present politics. See, I want to do the podcast, but like for this. The unclear and present politics podcast. But that's just, that's, welcome to unclear and present politics. I think that works. The podcast. The podcast where we talk about the issues.

Unclear and present politics. We talk about the issues. The only thing we have to. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. Well, I'm not a crook. Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Now watch this drive. Got to have them ribs and pussy too. And Corpop was a bad dude. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body. We missed last week. I think in large part because I was frozen in my home with my kids. Charlottesville got a really bad winter storm and the roads were impassable. So I was kind of just, and I don't live in a big house.

People think I live, people are like, why don't you just record in your garage or turn some other room into a studio? And it's like, I don't. What kind of, yeah, where do you think I'm living here? Yeah. What kind of money do you people think I have? Yeah. I do not live in a large house. So that was not possible.

So we weren't able to do much recording. But we're back this week. School's back in. The kids are back at school. I can chat. And this week we want to talk about two things that we haven't discussed yet. The first is just the aftermath of Minneapolis. And I want to be clear, it is still the case that ICE and Customs and Border Protection are in Minnesota.

But I think it is widely recognized that the aftermath of the killing of Alex Pretti in the real turn in public opinion against both ICE and Customs and Border Protection and this entire enforcement operation and the administration means that this Minnesota operation, whenever it ends, is like a real political defeat for the White House. So we'll talk about that. And then there was another tranche of Epstein files that came down, which seemed to reveal that basically like Epstein was at like a nexus,

not just of a bunch of like, you know, pedophiles, but just sort of, he was just like this weird billionaire fixer in general. And we can talk about that and what that, what that may portend. So, John, what are your, I mean, I think I know your thoughts on the, on sort of how to look at post the aftermath of the Minneapolis. What, what are you thinking? Like how, now that we're like a week removed from, from it, what are your thoughts? Okay. So it was clear, it's clear that they are trying to do a drawdown that is not so rapid that it looks like a route, right? So they're taking 700 people off. They're changing their priorities.

What they're not going to do, and it's going to look bad and there's still going to be bad scenes, what they're not going to do is take all 3,000 out immediately because that just looks like they're running for the hills. And they can frame this as like a tactical reorientation. But yeah, I mean, politically it was a disaster for them. Now, I'm a little less, I think it's worth saying, I mean, I've listened to your analysis on it. I'm largely in agreement, but I just want to present a slightly less sanguine picture, which is that they may, I mean, like, the public opinion post this looks really bad, but they may have pulled out just in time to recover somewhat. And I say that just because maybe some of the cosmetic changes they make will appease sections of moderate or conservative opinion that thought this was too far, but take seriously some of the changes they're going to make. And it might be enough to get some restive Republican votes back on side.

So I just want to caution that this debacle, although it's significant defeat, may and may portend the beginning of the end. in certain ways. We're not quite out of the woods yet. And you have to imagine, just like the resistance to Trump has learned from things, they may learn things and approach the next thing more intelligently. So I would just say I'm pretty confident that this is a decisive defeat and an important strategic defeat. But I am a little bit more nervous that they may some positive political lessons from it that could aid them in the future in a future crisis or the application of this kind of force. But they did fail to make the protest look like some kind of alien, antifa, radical, stuff like that.

I mean, it just looked to most people like it was ordinary people. And they've really failed in their efforts to, you know, post-death slander, both pretty and good. And you know what? That's really encouraging that that, that, I mean, look, I would say we would be in a terrible situation if people really believe their lies and their narrative. I would be like, we are on the road to something truly bad if they're successfully, their propaganda about this is working.

But it's really not. With that being said, you know, as they get into a more desperate position, they might take more desperate actions. But again, those don't seem to be flying with the public. But yeah, you know, like I take your points about the difficulties of rigging elections in the United States or doing things on a large scale to elections in the United States. But, you know, they seem to be into the idea of either messing with the elections or applying ice in some way to the elections. So that makes me a little queasy. But on the whole, I have to agree with you.

I just think that this was a real catastrophe for them. and you're seeing public opinion just really not like it. But I will say the polling was in free fall and now it's somewhat stabilized. It was funny. I just saw a Quinnipiac poll that had like 60. Yeah. 30% for Trump, 60% won Trump out of what ICE had a minute Minnesota. 50% went Chrissy Nome to resign.

Yeah, that's very bad. That's pretty bad. Yeah. You know, I, I think, too, I think, So what of my kind of like feces about the administration is that there actually isn't any political leadership in it. Yeah, I think you're right there. That in that the absence of political leadership is actually like a really big problem, right? Because political leadership enables you to make the kind of, I think, tactical and strategic choices that you are envisioning may happen, right?

You do the next thing with a softer touch. You respond. You move forward in different ways in the future responding to what is happening on the ground. And there are clearly some. there are clearly voices, right? There are figures from the administration that are capable of this. Tom Homan's, who is kind of just like a brute,

nonetheless has been in, has been in the bureaucracy for some time and understands how one can pursue these ends without sort of like tripping all these wires among the public and among elites even. I think the issue, and the reason why I'm actually not so certain the White House would be able to learn from it,

is that so much of the directions coming from Stephen Miller. And Miller is just an ideologue. It doesn't appear capable of like of making a strategic retreat. Doesn't appear capable of being able to sort of acknowledge where the public is and try to accomplish his goals through other means. he seems to have essentially like one solution for every problem. Which is the final solution. Yes.

Yes, that's one way of putting it, certainly. I was just going to say he just knows how to hit it harder. But yeah. Yeah. And you actually sort of see this developing, right? That they were about to revoke temporary protected status for Haitian in the United States for Haitian immigrants in preparation for a kind of Minneapolis-style assault on Springfield, Ohio.

They were going to just do the same thing again. And they were going to try what they would imagine that that would be an easier target. So I'm actually not sure they're going to learn from this. Or if they can, I'm sure there are people in the administration who have. But the people making the decisions who can like, who are driving the direction of the administration, they are incapable of learning. And I also think that they they very much see the current period

just sort of now or never. And so they're going to continue applying, you know, the maximum amount of force in hopes of removing as many people as I can, you know, building as many detention centers as they can in trying to do as much as they can to avoid the wrath of

public opinion, but which, which will put them in this like spy will, right? Like, this just become more unpopular, which will further constrain their ability to act, which will further lead to them just sort of hitting harder because they don't know what else to do. Right. No, I know. And that's both reassuring and dangerous because they're going to get desperate, they're going to get desperate and start to do crazy and crazier things. One fears. I do think, though, if there is one member of the administration who's kind of capable of learning and making tactical moves and we're treating it's Trump. But as you say, he just doesn't seem to have that much interest anymore. So I think that if he was applying himself and his political instincts, which are not terrible,

he seems to have a real feeling for just how awful you can be before people start to get upset and then kind of pull back. And I think it was his decisions in large part in his change of tone that made the changes. But yeah, I mean, because he seems, as you've pointed out, so disinterested in leading, leaving it's to Miller, but there's been some reporting that he kind of sees Miller as a problem now, and he may sideline him more, but that's the one advisor he's never really moved against. And you have this radicalization spiral because the influencers in the core of their movement want more and more and more of this kind of shit when it's clearly not working for them, you know, to expand their coalition or their mandate.

So anyone who actually understands politics is like, you can't just keep doing this and expect no consequence. It's getting out worse and worse. So, yeah, I mean, they're encouraging and frightening things. I mean, it's the, it's the, I mean, there's a lot of time ahead, but I'm assuming it seems that the Democrats will at least win the House and perhaps win the Senate, and that's going to change a lot of things. But, yeah, you know, there is a long time ahead of us, but what is encouraging is that the

public does not seem inclined to accept this kind of violence applied on political opponents of the regime. People really don't like it. It frightens them. And they're rejecting it. And I would say we would be, again, we would be in a way worse circumstance of people just seem to be shrugging or buying the propaganda line of the regime, which is not what's happening. So frightening things, more frightening things on the horizon, I'm sure, but obviously, you know, like there is an equal and opposite reaction to a lot of this stuff. It's not a public that's empathetic. It's not a public that's taking it lying down. And I'm sure that the, there will be moments where, I mean, the resistance to this has been remarkably good, even though it's not centrally organized,

even though Republicans think it is, like in terms of its ability to get public sympathy now, will there be errors? Will there be people on the ground who do things that go too far in the eyes of the public in terms of standing up to ice? Will there be violence that turns the public off? Those are all things. There's going to be conjuncture after conjunction

where the administration may get petty wins and be like, oh, you see how crazy these people are and they might look a little better by contrast, but I think the general trend is, as you're saying, downwards for them. And there's very little. They might get some tactical wins, but there's very little I think they can do to reverse this long term.

So, yeah, I think we're both on the same page. I'm just cautious because, you know, it's just a pattern of the whole era. It's like, yeah, Trump was really unpopular the last time. People seem to forget about it and voted back in. So I don't know how long people's memory. Yeah, I think people's memories are quite short. I think it helps, right? that like the worst case scenarios for Trump,

term one, didn't really come to pass. Even in the height of the summer of 2020, he was restraint from doing, I think, what he wanted to do, right? Like, we know from reporting that he kind of wanted to just have the army shoot at protesters, which I don't think would have happened, but he wanted it.

So kind of the worst didn't transpire, and there was lots of dissatisfaction with Biden. And so there's a sort of like weird thing that happened where people are like, well, he's not going to be that bad. Right. Like it'll be like the last time. He'll say crazy things. There'll be people to restrain him. And he'll be good for the economy or something, which isn't really true last time.

But that's for people. He's like a totem for wealth for a lot of Americans. So that's what happened. And I think what's what has changed is that in fact, in the killings of good and pretty, I think really make this, they make this really acute. they've demonstrated, in fact, like, the worst case predictions people made about Trump were not wrong, that he actually is quite dangerous. Yeah. And that, I think, might stick. Right.

And people who were even previous supporters like, like, pro podcasters, have made that admission. Like Andrew Schultz was like, oh, the leftists were right about Trump. So they've explicitly made that connection. I think it's worth talking about real quick. So yesterday. So right now, right now it's worth speaking. There was like negotiations over this funding bill for DHS. So what happened two weeks ago or a week ago is that Democrats basically said they weren't going to vote for a full government funding bill if there was going to be, you know, funding for DHS for a property home and security.

Republicans have agreed to break off DHS funding into a separate package to let the rest of the stuff go through. So now DHS, the DHS funding is sort of in question and Democrats for negotiation. They put forth this list of requirements for them to vote for a DHS funding bill. I got to say that following the discourse about this has made me very annoyed because there's a lot of commentary from people who when you press them, they'll say things like, why does it matter? ICE doesn't follow the law anyway. And then when you press them, well, what, okay, so what's the implication? What does that mean going forward then? Like, what should, in which case, does legislation matter at all, right?

In which case, why do you care what Congress is doing in the first place? When you ask that question, the response is, well, we just have to be out in the streets. And it's like, yeah, to do what? Like, what is the end state? What do you hope to accomplish? And so at the moment, I'm like a little annoyed, a little frustrated by a mode of posting, you might say, that is like untethered from actual like things, if you know what I mean, sort of like untethered from any understanding of what is actually happening in the world.

And I see this a lot with these proposals because the chief criticism online is, oh, all this stuff is already against the law. But first of all, that's not true. First. second of all there's actually a difference a meaningful difference between say the fourth a Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and then a specific law that says you can't do X right a Fourth Amendment guarantee against searches and seizures doesn't necessarily have a legal remedy in fact in fact there is a whole Supreme Court case where the court says oh this doesn't have a direct

legal remedy so you can kind of imply that there's one and that's called Bittance The case was Bivens. And then the subsequent Supreme Court's have substantially narrowed that, such that effectively, if the federal government violates your Fourth Amendment rights, there isn't really a remedy.

So Congress passing a law saying, for example, one of the things here in this package, saying that DHS can't racially profile you, first of all, is a repudiation of Kavanaugh's concur. from last year, which enabled this. But second of all, if then DHS does racially profile you and searches you, right,

on reasonable search and seizure, they've broken a clear statute and you have a legal remedy. Like, that's the point. The point is to provide cause of action. So if something happens to you, you can sue. So I'm going to go through, I'm going to go through the list here. It's targeted enforcement. DHS officers cannot enter private property without a,

judicial warrant, which, to be clear, they can't anyway. They shouldn't be able to anyway, but now there is a statute really specifying. You cannot do this. And if they violate the statute, then almost by definition, you can now sue, right? You don't have cause of action. Require verification that a person is not a U.S. citizen before holding them in immigration detention. No mask. Again, that's probably not, probably already the law.

but we now have a new statute pass that kind of reiterates it and that matters. Requiring ID, protecting sensitive locations. Now, this isn't, this is not statutory so far, right? ICE has discretion about where they want to conduct enforcement operations. So a ban on enforcement operations at medical facilities, schools, child care facilities, churches, polling places, courts would meaningfully curb their activity. requiring upholding use of force standards requiring certification of officers, right? One response to that is that like, oh, you think more trading is going to help.

I think the actual reasonable response to that, like the response to an adult has to that, is if the problem, if one of the problems is that they're recruiting a bunch of chuds and then immediately tossing them onto the street, you can slow the rate at which they toss chuds on the street, you have done something to impede the ability of ICE to do what it wants to do. And when you combine that with the no mask and with no with the requirement, the standardized uniforms and to bring them in line with civil enforcement, which is like the 10th point, then you've also kind of eliminated some of the draw for potential recruits, which is to be a mass paramilitary. So if you can't do that, you may have reduced the hiring pool right

then in there. There's two that are actually really important that have gotten like not enough attention. Number seven is ensure state and local coordination and oversight. which preserve the ability of state and local jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute potential crimes and use of force incidents, require the evidence to preserve and share with jurisdiction, require the consent of states and localities to conduct large-scale operations outside of targeted immigration enforcement. So what number seven, what that suggests is it an Operation Metro surge or an Operation Midway Blitz cannot happen without the consent of the state. state and locality in which it's taking place. So you could prevent, you could keep a Minnesota from happening, again, outside of targeted enforcement. So unless you're going to arrest a specific person with a judicial warrant, then you can't just have goons on the street. And the number eight,

which the important part here is, it relates to detention centers, but it says allow states to sue DHS for violation of all requirements. Oh, so if DHS tries to build a detention center in your state and it looks like, as you can assume, it's going to be a fucking concentration camp, then this would empower states to sue DHS and get an injunction to stop it from happening. This to me is actually very significant. Yeah. That's my rant. My rant is about like looking at this and I know it's easy to be like fucking Schumer, fucking Jeffries, right? Like I, you know, I'm not some big Democratic leadership super fan. But like, I know, I know something about the law. And I'm reading this package. And what this package looks like to me is, no, not something that's going to abolish

ice, but in between now and actually having the political power to do so, this is something that would that would throw sand in the gears of ICE and DHS's operations. Yeah. Well, it's an extraordinary amount of power considering the Democrats are in the minority, and it shows the degree to which public opinion is shifted on this. I mean, it's significant. I mean, you know, usually you would say the party and the minority really has not much to say about it, but they have. I mean, maybe we have to give it up to certain Senate rules that we don't tend to like, but I don't know. Yeah, I agree with you. I think that people have a certain amount of political immaturity. I did think certain things that they've said

like Jeffrey's being like, well, we need to ban them from deporting U.S. citizens. And I was like, what are you talking about? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like certain statements, I understand why people react to it. But I agree. Like, it's really important and significant that these changes are made. And also, look, if they break the law, they're breaking the law. And then you can constantly say they're breaking the law.

They have no, like, that's bad to live in a lawless situation. But it does not make the political situation of the regime, of the, of the regime, of the administration any easier if the media story and the opposition could constantly be like, we passed a law, they agreed to it, and they're still breaking it. You know, like this is a, you know, it just brings them again towards a coming election with an even bigger case that they need to be in power because you cannot trust the people who are in power to check, you know, these abuses. So, yeah, I think it's a big deal and it's an encouraging sign.

and the discouraging sign would be people have to also consider the counterfactuals. Like imagine if the Democrats were in such a position where they felt totally politically unable to raise any hue and cry against ICE. That's not the situation we're in. Like that would be a dire situation where I would be very worried about. And I would say, look, Democrats feel politically constrained by this issue to the point. that they can't raise real reforms at this juncture, and it's just not true. So, again, you have to take the wins. You have to see where the political, you have to see where the political wins are blowing to use, you know, sorry if that's confusing. But yeah, I think it's, I'm with

you and people got to get it and understand it. Also, like, okay, in terms of statutes versus constitutional law, you know, conservative justices often are like, well, you know, the statute, like we really prefer there to be a specific statute for Congress to act. And, you know, there's something to that because then there's too much wiggle room for the judiciary to be like, is it really unconstitutional? Like, and if it's like, constitutional questions are sometimes too broad, right? And I think it's really important to be specific. And then, like, you go to court and you're like, that clearly breaks a letter of a statute.

and we don't have to deliberate about constitutional issues, which raises all these philosophical things and just brings the political stakes to a really different level. If it's a settled, if it's a settled, like you're asking the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary to constantly have to stick its neck out politically to rule on unclear constitutional questions. You're putting a lot of stress on the system.

But if they can point to a specific statute and not make everything a constitutional crisis, then you're moving in the right direction. The constant need to refer, and I sound like a conservative justice here, the constant need to refer to the Constitution is not a good sign. The Constitution is a last resort. And they were like, oh, well, Congress should really pass a law. And you're like, okay, you're right in a certain extent.

Like, let's be specific about the evil facing us. So justices don't have to act like legislatures, which is exactly what conservatives always complain about. Now, do they cheat in the other direction? And suddenly once there is legislation, decide it's unconstitutional in some way, sure. But, like, there is a point to the saying, like, okay, the appeals to the Constitution are too broad. They bring up too many issues that can confuse the situation and then you just need to have specific legislation. And also, it's just nice to see Congress and especially the United States Senate doing its job.

Yeah. And, like, you know, like, that's what they're supposed to do, dude. Like, they got to do it. They can't. And if they say, if they throw their hands up and say, well, they're not going to obey the law anyway, then they are behaving like the rubber stamp of an authoritarian regime. That's the thing. I mean, if your response to any of this is that they're not going to obey the law, then it's like, well, we've already, I mean, then we've already lost. Like, then what does it matter if they try to abolish ICE, right? Like, what doesn't matter? Right. It's important, it's important to have a law to have a piece of legislative text that is part of the U.S. code. And if you find, right, that these agencies refuse to obey the law, then that's just more, that's, that's more political support.

That's more opportunities to build support for just getting rid of the agencies. Like, it's funny. I'm like not an incrementalist, but I'm also not someone who looks at politics as like this game of like personal ideological edification. It's just sort of like there are things you want to accomplish. This is somebody looking at the Emancipation Proclamation and being like, this sucks. Yeah. And like you're like, no, no, no, no, no. This is pretty good for the political situation you're in.

Right, right. It's not that big of a deal of the Emancipation Proclamation. But it's a similar dynamic, right? You should be able to both say, this doesn't fix the problem. This is in the right direction. Right. There's more stuff to do. And progress is better than no progress, right?

like moving forward is better than not moving forward. And like, I feel like there's this this pervasive idea that like the only worthwhile play is a Hail Mary. Oh, you're trying to get. That's what they're doing. That's a political mistake they're making, that they're not accepting incrementalism. And they keep on making Hail Marys. And it's like, oh, that's, how's that working out for them?

Right. Like, you can't just go up there and scream abolish ice, like, the same way that Stephen Miller is going up there and being like everybody should be in a concentration camp if they don't agree with me because it's not going to work. A lot of Democrats are there. I agree that it's much politically more salient than it was, and that's a huge reversal, and you've got to keep the pressure on. But, you know, like the public also likes things whether or not that's good that are facially

reasonable sounding, right? Like, they're not going, they're going to be like, well, that sounds like a compromise. And maybe compromises out of order at this point because of how bad things are. But you're going to get more public opinion from sounding reasonable sometimes than being like I'm a maximalist. And if the other guys look crazy and you sound reasonable, you're even in a better situation. And eventually you're going to get your way. So I just think that it's a good, yeah, I'm just with you.

And I don't have that much time for it. And I think that like that shows that there's a huge political defeat for them. Yeah. No, if these, if any, if these demands either in current form or even in somewhat truncated form get passed into law, that is a huge defeat for the administration. That is the political equivalent. You know, back in 2013, there was the filibuster to try to get the Congress to revoke Affordable Care Act funding. That is that this is the same thing, right?

Like the major expansion of ICE and DHS in the last year's big, beautiful bill was like the signature policy of the administration. It was their baby. And so if you were able to significantly restrict the ability of ICE to operate, to take away a good deal of it's sort of like at least blank check to act, just months after passing that big bill, that's significant to be for the administration. And no, it doesn't have, you're not rescinding the funding.

But I'm sorry to say this, Republicans control Congress. And this is the other thing I think it's important to understand. It's like the way, I think, I do think a lot of people have this vision of American politics in which whether anything happens, depends on how much Democrats want it. But like,

people put Republicans in control of Congress. I don't know what to tell you. And paste the myth of Mitch McConnell, it's actually not the case that when you're in the minority, you can kind of dictate what happens. Mitch McConnell didn't dictate what happened. What Mitch McConnell did was force Democrats to make everything a partisan party line vote.

And it was the appearance of partisanship that degraded the political position of the administration, right? Like it was the idea that, oh, Democrats just don't want to work with anyone. That was like the political hit. What, what McConnell correctly understood, uh, in terms of the politics of it is that voters operate on the basis of heuristics. And if they see Republicans refusing to engage, they're not going to blame Republicans. You're going to blame Democrats for not doing what they can to cooperate and to compromise. So, you know, it's actually just not, it's not, it's not the case that Democrats can steam roll over Republicans

in the minority. They can delay things. They can slow things and they can use points of leverage to get concessions. But at the end of the day, if John Thune and Mike Johnson want to do something, they can do it. And it's sort of, I feel like it's people don't want to internalize that because what it suggests, honestly. But it suggests is that you should just vote for Democrats to make sure that they're not in the minority. Like, if there isn't a magic wand, you can wave in the political minority in Congress to like get what you

want, then the only substitute is to try to win the majority. And that would require, like, that would just require supporting Democrats in elections. And, like, I don't know what to tell people. That's just how it goes. So, yeah, like, looking at the current, like, looking at the, where the Democratic minority in Congress is right now, they're operating about as well as you can expect a minority to operate. given the fact that the Senate, Republican Senate majority is actually pretty solid.

And, you know, the Republican House majority, although narrow, Mike Johnson has no particular interest in sort of doing any kind of cooperation across the aisle. No. And they've seized the opportunity. They haven't missed opportunities. They've seized an opportunity here when they saw a weakness on the administration.

They're not missing opportunities. And, you know, they're applying pressure. I am not appraiser of the Democrats. And they looked bad. I will have to say in the first six months of this whole thing. Oh, they look terrible. They looked bad. But they've gotten some, some, but, you know, they were still feeling out the political environment, right?

Like, no one knew exactly how popular or unpopular Trump was at that point. So you kind of have to be like, well, let's see how this administration kind of shapes up. And then we can, we can kind of tailor our political line to that situation. And were they overestimating the political strength of the, of the regime? Yeah. Was that because of bad op-eds, partially? But like the bad op, it just no one, no one knew. And now we have a better sense of where they're at politically. And now you see the Democrat. Also, you see successful examples of opposition like Chris Van Hall in breaking with this dumb populist idea that you shouldn't challenge the monument immigration.

You saw that out. That was actually a big turnaround point popularity-wise. And then Democrats learn from that. And they're like, okay, being oppositional is actually not going to, it's, it's going to shore up our base and maybe not make it impossible for us to expand our coalition. So you see, you know, like the political terrain is just clear now than it was. Shortly after the election, it's very easy to be like, here's the strategy you have to employ, but you just don't know what the strategy the opponent is going to employ. Right. Yeah. Yeah. I know we said we were going to talk about two subjects, but I feel like this is, that was plenty. Yeah. This is, that was plenty. This is, this has been, uh, we've come. We've

over a lot of ground. And I do have to head out soon. Okay. I'll just say the other thing we wanted to talk about was Epstein and I'll just say one thing about it. It's like that's not helping them either. No, that is not helping them. The fact that the president's best friend is the most most notorious pedophile, not helping him. The fact that this network of pedophiles and people who just like didn't give a shit that their fixer was a pedophile. It's quite broad. And encompasses, you know, a large swath of the American elite.

Yeah. Which is interesting to discuss in its own right. But we'll have to be a different time. We should discuss that next week in its own right. I'll say, the thing I'll say is a podcast came through today. I believe in involving Josh Barrow, Megan McArdle, and Ben Dreyfus, Nightmare Blunt rotation. where they were like he he and ha haying about how their names were in the Epstein files.

And I just feel like, I just feel like, I don't like that. I'll just say that. Yeah, I think that's fair. I don't like that very much. And there's been some, I mean, among the kind of contrarian centrist wing, there's been some kind, there's been that kind of a turn towards, well, can you really call this pedophilia? They were 15 and 16 year olds. And it's, I am open to that.

I mean, it's gross, but I am open to that as long as in some part of the country, that may be the age of consent. And as far as I know, 15 nowhere is the age of consent. Yeah. I mean, my thought about that is that like, if you are 60 fucking years old trying to fuck a 16 year old, I think you're a pedophile. I just do. Yeah.

You know, I'm not going to play this sort of like. technically it's a beavophilia. Well, it just sounds so horrible. You're just like, you're making an excuse for a pretty gross behavior. So I think it's, yeah, for predatory, terrible behavior. Yeah. There's no way of 15-year-old consent. I'm sorry.

Yeah. So we'll talk more about episode next week. For now, thank you for listening to Unclear and Present Politics. We'll see you next time. And as I say, whenever I post these things, please leave your thoughts in the comments. there's always good discussions underneath each of these episodes. So please leave your thoughts. I'd love to hear them.

See you later.