hello again. and welcome. it's time to get together and break down the big stories in

our own way. today, we're asking, with republicans going after joe and hunter biden, could this blow up in their faces and cost them their house majority? and then when politics gets personal, how does a name, a face, and a heart-breaking story change the debate over abortion? and good grief. yea or nay on the 73-year-old who is all the range among gen zers. the panel is here and raring to go. sit back. relax. and let's talk about it. up first, the house republicans formal impeachment inquiry into president biden. the third time congress has begun this process in just the last four years. for context, before 2019, it had happened only three times, in the nation's history. at the heart of the gop's case, the president's son hunter, who

amped up the drama by speaking outside the capital, instead of testifying inside. >> there is no fairness or decency in what these republicans are doing. >> hunter biden on the attack. after years of pounding for his foreign business deals. going after house republicans, who subpoenaed him to testify behind closed doors. >> republicans do not want an open process. >> the gop fighting back. threatening to file charges against hunner. >> and frankly, we will also i think look at contempt proceedings as we move forward. >> while also voting to start a formal impeachment inquiry into his father, president biden. >> what are my democratic colleagues afraid of if there's nothing to see there? >> but do they have evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors? >> if you want to talk crime, bribery, co-conspirator to violations, we can can go on and

on. >> one senior republican isn't so sure. >> and the facts haven't taken me to that point where i can say that the president's guilty of anything. >> here to break it down, podcaster, kara swisher. reihan salam, president of the manhattan institute and national review contributing editor. "new york times" journalist and podcast host lulu garcia-navarro and author and pollster, kristen soltis-anderson. welcome back. good to have you again. reihan, going up to capitol hill, saying i am ready to testify in public, that hunter biden called the house republicans bluff? >> i'm afraid not. what he is doing is begging for being held in contempt. i honestly don't understand exactly what the logic is here. what i am pleased to see is that the irs and the federal government seems to be taking seriously the fact that hunter biden, at a minimum, did not pay over a million in taxes. i thought that is something democrats in congress cared a

lot about. that joe biden has talked a lot about investing resources in the irs to go after tax cheats. >> if he wants to testify in public, why not let him? >> look, because depositions are part of investigations. when steve bannon also said he refused to appear before a deposition, there are a lot of folks who rightly and legitimately -- >> he didn't go up and hold a news conference and say i am ready to testify in public. >> that's true but the fact of the matter is the congress has a right to conduct an investigation and a right to conduct a deposition. >> one argument that hunter biden is making is the republican chairman of house oversight committee said a few weeks ago about hunter testifying. take a look. >> we have mountains of evidence, and now, we're ready to bring him in. we're in the downhill phase of this investigation now, because we have so many documents, and we can bring these people in for depositions, or committee hearings, whichever they choose. >> lulu, does the comment there,

deposition or hearing, whichever they choose, which is basically saying testify in public, or in private, does that get hunter off the hook in defying the subpoena? >> i don't think it gets hunter off the hook. i actually don't think it is such a great idea that hunter is defying this subpoena. i mean defying what the house wants, because i actually think that even though this is a circus, and even though this is clearly intended to drag this out and humiliate the president, that ultimately, there is a rule of law, and i think that he should actually do what they want. >> you know, kristen, the white house says that gop majority is wasting time going after the president's son, when it could be doing the people's business. now that they have formally approved an impeachment inquiry, a vote, a majority on the floor,

do they actually have a case against joe biden, an impeachment case? >> well, on the topic of should congress be focused on other things, reality is this has not been a terribly productive congress, up until this point anyway, so it is not as though there's a huge opportunity cost i'm seeing, and passing hundreds and hundreds of bills and suddenly not going tox the other thing to remember is part of the reason why some of these moderate members have been brought along, who are not eager to impeach joe biden, they don't love the idea of going down this road but for them, because this is an inquiry, they don't have to say we think the president is guilty yet, would he have evidence yet, it is just we're asking questions and that is what is giving some of these moderates the comfort to vote and say sure, let's open -- >> this takes a life of its own is part of the problem here, because let's not forget how this all started this. all started because the former speaker kevin mccarthy was trying to placate the right flank of his party and he said let's -- and they wanted this

impeachment, even though there is absolutely zero evidence that the president has done anything wrong. and so here we are now with the next step happening, because there is a new speaker of the house who wants to placate the right of his party. so this keeps going on forward and conventional wisdom that somehow this isn't going to land and they will actually try to impeach the president without any evidence at all. >> hunter biden is using the same tactics the republicans did on the other side and that is what is going to happen, it is going to be a circus and average people don't care much about it at all, unless they come up with this mountain of evidence, which i think is a mountain of something else. >> i mean we do know it, has been documented, that hunter biden made hundreds -- >> with ukraine, china and other countries, it has been documented that joe biden was on the phone with hunter's business partners, supposedly just talking about the weather, but you know, the point was being emphasized, this is joe biden's

son. >> of course. >> does that justify an impeachment inquiry? >> look, it is going where it's going. whether it justifies it or not, but then it brings it to jared kushner, and trump and his relative, and it could go all kinds of ways during the election. it is just, i don't think it is particularly a topic that voters care about it, and they will continue to do it because it placates a certain group of the party and as others as kristen said will go along with it. >> but reihan, to the degree that the ethics was going to be a biden issue, a democratic advantage, over the republicans, particularly trump, with four criminal indictments, on 91 charges, does this muddy the waters and say, you know, that biden and i guess the republicans are calling it biden crime family, does it muddy the waters? >> you know, one thing i'm struck by is that way back, harry truman, he left the white house and he was broke, right? then you look at more recent decades, it is extraordinary the

amount of money that the clinton family, for example, has made, the trump family has made, as well from having served in public office, that is a legitimate concern and i honestly disagree a little bit. >> speeches, that's these huge amounts of money they make from books, and i know you and i are jealous. [ laughter ] >> look, there is an appearance of impropriety issue and in the case of joe biden, it wasn't initially acknowledged that he was on those calls. there has been a drip, drip, drip. and i think one thing, the good point that lulu made, when it was speaker mccarthy, he was unilaterally saying i am going to investigate and now folks are on the record, they will have a formal process, and that's the right way to do it. and i think that's something that the american public genuinely does care about. >> i want to get to the politics of this. you mentioned 17 house republicans who won in 2022 in districts that joe biden carried in 2020, so at least purple and maybe even blue districts that they represent could, and we don't know how far this goes, but the impeachment inquiry, and

then pressure, as lulu said for an impeachment, could this cost them their seats and thereby cost the republicans the majority in 2024? >> i don't know that i think of this as costs them their seats. in part, because for the reasons that other panelists have said, i don't think this rises to the very high priority for most voters. other issues like cost of living, abortion, et cetera, are all going to be much higher up on that list. you know, it does make things a little bit tough, if they are, for instance, facing a challenging primary. for a lot of these members in the swing districts, the fact that they can now say hey, i've opened the inquiry, i have said there is time to ask questions, there was smoke, i wanted to see if there was fire, that should at least be enough to kind of get them closer to election day without -- >> this could actually help them in a primary in terms of a republican who is further to the right, and thinks they're too soft. anyway, another election issue for republicans, abortion. up next, will one woman's traumatic story of legal battle force the right to reconsider how it deals with the issue?

then, the elon musk decision some say could spell the end of x. is talk of the platform's demise been over or under played? and from x, to extra terrestrial, our panel gives its yea or nay to mcdonald's new cosmic answer to starbucks.

now to one woman's story, that has brought a whole new element to the escalating abortion debate in this country. a personal dimension that is threatening to create new blowback for lawmakers who want to sharply limit abortions in their states. >> there's no outcome here that

i take home my healthy baby girl. >> kate cox was devastated when she learned the baby she was carrying had a lethal genetic condition. >> she arrived into this world, her life will be measured in minutes or hours, or days. >> since texas outlaws almost all abortions, cox sued for an exception. her doctor said continuing the pregnancy threatened cox's health and any plans for another baby. a judge ruled in her favor. >> i am going to grant the temporary restraining order. >> but the texas supreme court overruled the judge and republican attorney general ken paxton threatened to prosecute doctors or anyone who had helped cox get an abortion. cox ended up leaving the state to terminate her pregnancy where it is legal. >> any comment on the cox decision in your state? >> texas lawmakers vocal advocates against abortion didn't want to talk about it in

strictly state law. >> democrats are seizing on personal abortion stories to sway voters and they did in kentucky with this ad that went viral. >> to tell a 12-year-old girl she must have the baby of her step father who raped her is unthinkable. >> kentucky's governor credited hadley's story for helping him win re-election. >> ckristen, what happens when the abortion debate gets personal like this, when it is not a case being brought by an anonymous jane doe but it is a real woman with a tough story that we can all relate to, what does that do? >> what it does is it takes it from the world of black and white, which is often where we find things in the law, when a legislature passes a bill, and they say you can do x, but you cannot do y, and that sets it up as black and white, and we find these cases that do live in the gray, where even somebody who says, i believe that this child, at 20 weeks of gestation, with an extra chromosome 18 that has a valuable life, that is worth,

that is worthy and has dignity, and yet, i understand what this mother must be feeling. and are there are no winners here. and so it reminds people of the fact that there are shades of gray. and you saw this with the competing court rules, with the texas supreme court ruling one way and the lower court a different way. when the laws are written that it is not clear, it can lead to these situations where, for instance, an ectopic pregnancy, where it is -- >> i think there is black and then ken paxton is black and white, the attorney general of texas, who showed no compassion, who showed no humanity, who made this an issue that has galvanized, i think, the opposition to what has happened in texas. >> and also, it is catastrophic, i think. >> the abortion issue is a big deal in the last few elections, and these mid-term elections, and now it is again, it is going to be another issue, and all i know is just sitting with my

mom, who is a trump voter, who is conservative, and she just said, this is terrible. this is terrible. and that's who you are trying to reach, the people who are persuadable, and a story like this is just obvious to most, many people, not going to say most, but many people. >> i mean the problem, reihan, is you know, you can say we will have a ban but with exceptions and then when you get to the exceptions, it is every individual person's story, and every individual woman's story, and there are now a wave of cases, pregnant women, who have got, you know, we're not talking about millions of people, wut e -- but each one like kate cox touches your heart. when justice am suamuel alito wrote the dobbs decision overturning, i will put this on the screen. far from bringing a national settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey, the two big decisions that said there was a right to the abortion, roe

around casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. alito somehow suggested that somehow the dobbs decision would simplify things and calm things down, and has in fact, is alito right, has it lowered the temperature on abortion? >> i don't know if justice alito has said it would do that immediately but i think what is happening now is the messiness of politics over i.t. and i think among pro lifer among that movement, there is an ongoing debate about pro life minimalism versus pro life maximalism. in texas, did you not have an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. in florida, with the six week ban, if you look at indiana, louisiana, a variety of other states, they did have exceptions, in that case, and i think one debate is when you look at life of the mother exceptions, how ka capacious are

those exceptions and i think you need to be patient and persuade folks overtime and then look at folks, like kekz, talk about contraception, and then look at it. >> eight out of ten -- >> wait a second. i don't understand there. the idea there is abortion and contraception. two different things. >> it is too late, usually. >> eight out of ten pro lifers support this. >> and does that somehow satisfy women, i was going to use the phrase buy them off, you have the right to birth control. >> we have the right to birth control, which we've had so of course not. and the problem here is this is a losing issue for the gop. it has shown itself to be that. and let me just talk practically, and i actually have a question for the pro life movement, that i have been very curious about, what we've seen actually, since dobbs, is that abortions have gone up, and we've seen a movement of women, like kate cox, going to a different state, to have a

procedure. and you've seen states that have banned it, yes, abortions have plummeted, like in texas, but they have gone to other states, there's women who can, and they've had abortions. and so what we've seen is this system in which women are still having abortions, whether they're medical through pills or whether going to other states tand hasn't had the intended effect that the right has wanted. >> try to make the case for why a pro lifer might say let's make contraception access more available, as the answer to that. to say, look, if you're a pro life, and you want to see fewer abortions, there are a couple of ways to go about it. you can go about it by ban can the procedure, which we are seeing the effects of that, political and otherwise, play out across the country. many states. or you can reduce demand for abortion by reducing unplanned pregnancies in the first place. and so i mean education in schools -- >> absolutely. >> and i think it is very interesting to hear somebody like kelly anne, advising republicans to speak out on

these different issues. >> which they're not going to do. >> these are all men making these decisions. >> what you're seeing actually, is in congress, in texas, all of these are men making these decisions. perhaps kelly anne conway is now singing a different tune but the fact of the matter is the gop, this is all being driven -- >> i want to bring up one other thing, we only have a minute left in this segment, kara, and that is, as if there weren't enough, the supreme court has decided to jump in and hear the case about mifepristone. which is one of two pills that women take, and it turns out that taking the abortion pills accounts for a majority, more than half of all abortions in this country. >> that is correct. >> so the supreme court, sitting there in their black robes, is going to sit there and decide whether or not the fda was right when it extended several years ago, it opened up more access to this drug. shouldn't judges be second-guessing the fda about whether or not it's safe to take

a drug? >> this is going to be explosive. depending on decision. if they ban it, i think the gop is going to lose everything. because i think people, there's no -- there is the most important access to abortion for many women, and i think it is just one of these issues where people are, there's going to be exception after exception after exception, there's going to be kate cox, and kate cox and kate cox and a problem for the gop. coming up, a twist in the supreme court trials and should the justices boost chances of cases get decided before election day?

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it.

i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity. a highly charged legal argument that could decide whether donald trump faces prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election. special counsel jack smith is asking the supreme court to jump

ahead of the court of appeals, and rule whether donald trump has total immunity from prosecution for crimes committed while he was in office. trump contends he's protected under presidential immunity. which is reminiscent of another former president who made the same argument. >> when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. >> kara, you know, if they follow the normal process, the court of appeals goes fires, they hear the case, it takes months and they real and it goes to the supreme court and they take months, and finally make a decision on whether trump has immunity and all of these prosecutions get thrown out. should the supreme court jump in right now? >> i think it will. i think it will. he's also brought it to the court of appeals at the same time. it is a very bold -- yes, it is a bold legal move. i think they will rule and i think trump will lose here. they will rule against trump. i think he has to do this, to get to trial before the election.

>> it used to be rare for the supreme court to jump the process, if you will, but take a look at this. since 2019, the justices have taken 19 cases before a ruling by the supreme court of appeals, and i think we would agree none were nearly as consequential as the united states versus donald trump. so reihan, so why shouldn't the justices jump in right now and decide the big constitutional issue when it ask about presidential immunity? >> this is very unorthodox. you need some special reason for urgency here. and if you really dig into the story, what is the reason for urgency? the reason, i guess, you know, that we've gleaned and it was something that kara was referring to, that you want it to happen before the election. but from a legal perspective, why would that be relevant? they didn't necessarily talk about the election. and the real concern is if donald trump wins the election, the justice department would drop the case. but again, from a legal perspective, where is the actual urgency there to short-circuit

the process? and that is going to lead a lot of people to believe, that guess what, this is politically motivated that jack smith wants a political outcome that is going to be in line with the biden administration's political incentives. and that is not a good look. >> lulu, is it political, and therefore, somehow not worthy to say i think we want to get this decided before an election, so people can know whether or not that donald trump is a convicted felon or is acquitted? >> it is not political. it is practical. we are living in a world in which donald trump is running, and there is a political process that is happening, and they want this issue resolved. in a timely manner. i mean whenever there is a trial, there's all sorts of issues that are looked at in terms of when that trial is scheduled and what factors are taken into account, and this is a real one, and i think this is just a practical issue. >> i don't know if they can resist. the supreme court cannot resist this one. it is a big issue.

it will go -- >> i guess i'm really surprised at, reihan, isn't there a public interest, and i assume that's one of the factors that the supreme court decides, in whether to jump the process, is there a public interest in voters knowing, before they go to the polls in the fall of 2024, whether or not this guy is a convicted felon, or has been acquitted of all charges? >> that's a legitimate argument. it's also legitimate for a lot of americans to wonder, is this actually something that is happening to ensure that biden gets the opponent that he wants, or you know, so i think that -- >> guiding them? >> the supreme court cares about the perceived legitimacy. this is something, this is a very political move that i think might undermine -- >> thinking donald trump would prevent him from getting the republican nomination, it has been disabused of that notion at this point pretty safely.

i actually don't mind this. i think this is ultimately a question of the highest levels, going to get brought before the supreme court, at some point, let's just get it out of the way, because if donald trump was allowed to do these things in office, and he was immune, then let's not go through the whole circus that we're going to go through over the next year, and i mean i can understand why trump's legal team would rather drag all of this out, but -- and i agree with kara as well, that i actually don't think that the court is likely to say that donald trump is completely off the hook but if that is where this is all headed, let's just get there. >> there is another issue, assuming that the court does take the case, in the middle of the election, there is the issue of clarence thomas. justice thomas whose wife, ginni thomas, was very supportive of president trump's efforts in 020, to overturn the election, which raises the question, lulu, democrats are now calling on thomas to recuse himself from this case.

should he? will he? >> will he? absolutely not. i mean i think we have seen that clarence thomas has very little sense of personal responsibility or shame, and so therefore, there's zero likelihood that he will recuse him. do you think he will? >> i think he might, actually. it is so political. it is so close. >> oh, wow. i'll bet you -- >> i don't think he will and i think he will continue to try to make the argument that i am not responsible for my spouse's political activity, which by the way, if you're going to make the standard, you are responsible for your spouse's political activity, there are a lot of americans who really -- >> and apparently, the president's responsible for -- >> i'm sorry? >> i said apparently the president is responsible for his son's business activities. so i mean, you know -- >> that's not quite -- >> well, not quite the same. >> well -- >> in any case, we struggle sometimes to come up with a common theme for our yea or nay

segment. and the best we can do today is some c words, cash, coffee, and a cute canine. those are some of the 700 million reasons to stick around. along with our panel's top take, on this year's hottest christmas gift.

time now to chat about a few stories we think are just interesting, as i asked the group once again for their yea or nay. first, the mega contract of baseball superstar shohei ohtani. he agreed to a record-crushing 10-year, $700 million contract with the los angeles dodgers. that $70 million per season. the all-star pitcher and hitter

agreed to deer all but $2 million -- defer all but $2 million a year until the contract is over so the team has more money to spend on other players. cyst, yea or nay on ohtani's curve ball. >> i'm a yea on this. a rock star player on a team that has no prospect of making the world series has to be miserable and for him to say i will put the best interest on the team first and spend that money on them, it is great. the second thing i think is likely to happen is i bet you as soon as he is done playing, he moves to the great state of florida, where there's no state income tax, and begins to benefit. that's a real gamble, but inflation is not going toing to be a real deal. >> you have given thought to this. >> it sounds like tax evasion, doesn't it? >> that sounds like tax evasion. >> it is the law. >> in florida, it is all okay. >> yes, i understand. but this to me sounds like tax evasion. he will not be paying taxes on it. >> obviously not a dodgers fan.

>> i don't know if you knew that ohtani went to the dodgers. anyway, a new concept from the golden arches, cosmc's, the name comes from an alien character in mickey d commercials back in the late '80s. reihan will you be driving through mcdonald's version of starbucks? >> i am sorry to say that someone without a driver's license, i will have to rollerblade in and i will have to move swiftly as they try to chase behind me. i've never driven. i never will. my poor suffering wife is the one who carries me around. and you know, i got to say, just this is an offense against nondriving americans. >> nay, nay, nay. >> kara? >> i know you know how to drive. >> the other day, i followed you last week, out of the garage, and you left me in the dust. you drive -- >> my electric car. >> yes. >> so will you be drive through

cosmc's. >> i like mcdonalds. i love mcdonalds's. i will try it. i don't know who the character is, the 19 6 0s os whatever, it is all sweet drinks and ridiculous things. >> is mckinney's coffee good? >> yes, it is okay. it's okay. >> i have to make a confession. he doesn't drive. i don't drink coffee. >> all right. finally, the hot holiday toy this season that has people door busting to cvs thanks to tiktok videos like this. >> look! >> guys, selling on ebay for 70 bucks and people going to 20 different stores. they're so cute. >> 73-year-old snoopy but with a puffer coat and winter hat, it is a hit with gen z christmas shoppers. sold exclusively at cvs, for about 14 dollars, but resale

deem has prices spiking online to more than $100. we had to pay more than $100 to get one, and we couldn't get it here in time, because i wanted to set it right here. kristen, are you all for it, yea on puffer snoopy or saying good grief? >> pretty cute. if you can get him at retail price, sure. i wouldn't pay $70 on ebay for him. but every generation has to have their beanie babies, right? it is not unusual for there to be a completely irrational craze around a toy. i would tell people, don't plan to save it in mint condition and retire on that money. >> i do have to say, i had a son who kept the beanie babies, kept the tags on the beanie babies and proudly told me at one point, this is going to send me to college. now, i send him to college. >> yes. >> [ laughter ]. >> what do you think? >> i still have my snoopy when i was a kid and i'm old now, it is a cabbage patch kid. >> and don't you love the snoopy dance from the shows?

>> from the shows. >> wait, wait, wait. can we get a shot of that. >> you know, dance, gosh, you know, the little kid with the dust cloud. >> he's going to go there. >> anyway. >> up next, enough frivolity here, another highly controversial move by elon musk which could spell even more trouble for the platform formally known as twitter. is the threat being over or underplayed?

time now for over/under,

where we ask whether a story in the news is being over or under-played. this week, elon musk reinstated the x account of right wing conspiracy promoter alex jones. the guy who called the sandy hook shooting a hoax. and lost a billion dollar lawsuit over his hateful claim. in 2018, jones was banned from what was then twitter for so-called abusive behavior. musk's latest move comes as x's hemorrhaging ad dollars after a surge of misinformation and, disinformation and major content and apple, disney and ibm have pulled their ads, costing the platform billions of dollars. and according to bloomberg, x is projected to bring in $2.5 billion in add revenue this year, that's half what twitter made the year before musk took over. so kara, how much trouble are musk and x in? and is this narrative we're hearing now about the decline

and fall of x being over or underplayed? >> i think it has been played exactly right. i think the reporting is good, the ad sales are off by a lot, and going down further and continue to not just bring alex jones on but hosts him on twitter along with andrew tate who has some issues and ramaswamy who apparently went to the bathroom in the middle of the twitter space. >> with a wireless mic on so people heard. >> classy, i have to say. >> he is creating a situation what is very hard for advertisers to move in there, especially for alex jones who is a heinous character and broke the rules of twitter over and over and over again. >> kristen, over or under on the decline or fall, the end of x? >> i think you believe that if elon musk is bad, or his choices have been bad, that has been playing out for a while, so i don't know how much this changes it after a pattern of other things he has done that are very controversial. what i do think that is going to be a potential problem is that

you have more user experience problems, if you're an average rurcht mill person who picks up the phone and uses the app a couple of times a week, starts to find that links are not working and starts crashing and those are the things and i have personally noticed more and more of that, to me, that is sort of the next shoe to drop of people getting off of the platform, the users experience is bad. i think elon musk is baked in at this point, but do users really begin fleeing en masse. that is the question. >> lulu, where are you on musk and x? >> i think it is overplayed. i really think that, and i'm going to use these words, words that never came out of my mouth before, media elite and avid twitter x users were very engaged with that platform. i think it has become less and less useful. i think we are obsessed with it because elon musk is such an incredibly charismatic character, but i think we're focusing on it too much. it doesn't matter.

>> up next, more proof you should pay attention to our panel's predictions. and they will have their week's best shots. after this.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness.

oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity. every week, we end the show asking our gang here for their best shots, their special takes, or predictions of what's going to make news. and yes, we keep tabs, whether their shot is a hit or a miss. so check out reihan's prediction from two weeks ago in this "best

shot" replay. >> i got to tell you, governor chris sununu, the outgoing governor of new hampshire has a huge amount of sway with new hampshire independents and i believe he's going to endorse nikki haley. >> three older women who have come to a lot of events. and i saw her coming in here. and she said, so, are you going to finally endorse nikki haley for president? you bet your [ bleep ] i am, let's get this thing done. >> reihan is right. and since we keep score, reihan, one, and the rest of you all together, zero. >> and let's go for this week's takes. hit me with your best shot. >> george santos was booted out of congress not long ago and republicans in long island have found a superstar to run in a special election to replace him, an ethiopian israeli american idf veteran who is going to be a political star, and democrats in the new york state legislature

will try to draw her out of the seat because she will be so incandescent. >> interestingly enough, she will run as a republican, he is actually a registered democrat. >> and look, it is that kind of moment in america right now, a realignment moment where you have a lot of folks switching sides and she represents the new coalition republicans want to build. >> kara? >> i did get it right with google losing a court case. >> i know you're competitive. >> and lose in the justice department, too, the one that is coming. that said, i will focus on bill ackman, who decided not to be an investor and now a twitter troll. and he spent a lot of time on twitter on the harvard issues and the university of pennsylvania. the only thing i would say is that i would like you to be consistent if he's going to punch down students who say things he doesn't like, or the university presidents, and she punch out, someone like elon musk who has been -- >> very critical of the president of harvard. >> yes. >> and not consistent. >> so if you're a free speech

warrior, bill, i would like you to be consistent and stay one the whole time. >> duly noted. kristen, best shot. >> most people have probably not heard of congressman drew ferguson of louisiana but this week he announced he would not be running for re-election and this makes him just another house republican who decided to sit out on the sidelines and not participate in 2024. republicans have already a very thin majority. it is good to have as many incumbents as possible running for re-election. i think the republican house majority already on thin ice and with more and more members heading for the exits while they're in the majority, i suspect we will see more people having conversations with their families over the holidays, putting out press releases in january, saying i'm out. >> lulu, i hope you have something a little more upbeat and fun to get us out of here. >> i always do. [ laughter ] >> my best shot this week is oprah winfrey said that the reason that she was so -- she was taking ozempic, or one of its -- >> she didn't name the drug. >> i was about to say, we all

know it was ozempic, but one of the drugs like ozempic, that help people lose weight. i myself have used one of those drugs. and i think it is a real key moment, because there's been a lot of stigma about these weight loss drugs there,'s been a lot of discussion in the media, and elsewhere, really excoriating celebrities for using them, and her coming out and saying i have no shame, i'm glad i did it, i think it will change the debate. >> and we should point out she said she uses the drug and she takes long hikes and drinks a gallon of water and eats her last meal at 4:00 in the afternoon, and boy, if that's all that you need to get slim, i'm in real trouble. >> thank you all for being here again this week. and thank you for spending part of your day with us. we'll see you right back here, next week. hello, everyon