Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hello, They're happy Monday, and welcome to another episode of
the Chuck Podcast. I got a few emails from some
of you who wondered how bad my mood was on
Saturday morning, because I have let you guys know that
my mood. The one thing University of Miami wins and
losses do more than any other of my sports teams,
(00:23):
more than the Packers, more than the Nats, is it
affects my mood. Here's what I can't admit. I'll have
a little bit more to say at the end of
the podcast. I have promised I will keep my sports
obsessions towards the end so that way the true diehards
to the Toodcast. We'll get there. We'll get that fix.
(00:43):
I have a lot to say about the game. I
hate the idea that I may have predicted this exact
outcome and how it went. I will get into it.
I will get into a little bit more. In college football,
we got another coach firing already, all fascinating to watch.
At some point, who's going to be left to hire
(01:05):
all these the amount of money when you have Penn
State in Florida and Arkansas, huge programs that are going
to throw all sorts of dollars at their coaching search.
Don't forget UCLA that has a lot of money. Who
else follows right down that road? Virginia Tech thinks it's
a major program. What about Clemson? It's clear that Dabo
(01:27):
was actually worried about his job. Anyway, I said, I
was going to wait until the end and I will look.
I think there was the big event of the weekend
obviously was an O Kings protest. A frankly, a pretty
I think it was a pretty impressive showing. I think
(01:48):
what the question with these protests is is what we
what do we learn from them? Do they translate into something? Look,
the timing of this protest is not random, Okay, The
timing of this protest comes basically in the middle of
early voting here in Virginia. You've got the New Jersey elections.
You have a bunch of off your elections, right, this
(02:09):
is these are these are as. My friend John Ellis
said it's a bunch of local elections that will have
national significance. And he's not wrong, and they will have
national significance. What happens in Virginia. How strong is the
anti Trump vote? Well, we now have an easy measurement
to find out how strong, how powerful are anti Trump
feelings in Virginia. Are they powerful enough for somebody who's
(02:33):
not qualified. I think I think has pretty much made it,
you know, from what has rhetorically said. It's certainly I
think there are questions whether he's qualified to be attorney
general and Jay Jones, but if he wins, it's really
a bigger statement on Trump, arguably really than anybody else.
Not Mer's, not Jones, not anything, you know, because if
this election is held sort of in isolations, Joan doesn't win,
(02:56):
Mirs wins this thing, and he still probably wins the
you know, I'd still probably rather be him. But we
know in these statewide elections, gubernatorial the gubernatorial vote has
a huge impact, and anything north of five points or
more will bring at least one of the down ballots
with her, Abigail Spamberger. The question is does it bring two.
(03:20):
I told you that Jason Miaris has already basically thrown
the Republican nominee for governor under the bus. Since they
have divergent strategies on Abigail Spamberger's rhetoric on j Jones,
Miaris has decided to embrace her rhetoric, even as Winston
mertle Series has been trying to knock it down. But
the point is is that when you're doing a political
(03:40):
protest like this, the true way to measure its impact
and whether it's having an impact beyond just being an
event for the day, is whether it translates into political activity. Well,
the next measurement of political activity is going to be
the off off year elections that take place in three weeks.
(04:01):
The timing of this in some ways the smarter campaigns
in New Jersey, in Virginia, in mayor's races in California
with the proposition you have Pennsylvania with the Supreme Court races.
So all of those cases there was likely organizing. We
know that there was organizing going on in those places
where there was a direct tide of the election. So
(04:22):
the point is there's a couple of ways to measure this,
and that to me is an important way to measure
I do. I've done, with the help of a bunch
of news articles searching, I've tried to compile here some
turnout estimates in various cities. So you can hear here
(04:42):
in d C sort of the central organizing effort for
the no Kings protest. The estimate is about over two
hundred thousand of DC area residents. Look, this is a
bigger turnout than they had in the first one. And again,
the real you know will know how success full this
was based on how strong the democratic performance is in Virginia.
(05:06):
It has been you know, this Jay Jones thing has
taken a you know, has had a huge impact on
turnout efforts on a lot of things in Virginia. Does
this turn the page on that and help Democrats? That's
a way to measure there. In San Francisco, one organizer
estimate claimed half a million. Look, it's a city of
(05:28):
what I would call a protest culture, very comfortable out
there protesting, So not surprising that this would be the
city with the largest turnout. This tell to me. And
I've seen the polling, you know, if you want to
see anecdotal versus polling, and you saw this protest had
a real focus on the proposition campaign, on the redistricting
(05:50):
response to Texas there, So I think this tells you something.
Half a million. Chicago had one hundred thousand grant parks
Butler Field. It was a march that not surprisingly went
past Trump Tower as they wanted to do. New York
City had an estimate of one hundred thousand. The largest
protests were somewhere in Times Square. That's where you saw
(06:13):
the most. Portland, Oregon, claimed about forty thousand protesters there.
They were in a downtown area, carnival like atmosphere. The
inflatable costumes that we've seen at the detention centers as
the protesters that the administration keeps accusing of being part
of this organized effort that they claim as Antifa, the
(06:36):
inflatable costumes have become a hallmark of Portland. San Diego
sixty thousand. Not insignificant in a military town. Okay, that's
a pretty big number for San Diego. Not a protest
culture there. Speaking of places where you don't normally see
protest cultures in the deep South, Atlanta only had about
(06:57):
ten thousand filled the Atlantic CI Civic Center parking lot,
if you will. But again, the South in general a
little less of a protest culture. The protest culture California,
the Northeast, a little bit. In the midwest. Madison, Wisconsin,
fifteen thousand a march near the state capital. Hartford, Connecticut
(07:19):
estimate of twelve thousand. San Jose Silicon Valley an estimate
of twelve thousand, about four thousand in Eugene, Oregon. In
Pittsburgh downtown Pittsburgh about two to three thousand. It seems
to be the best estimate I could come up with.
Their in Sacramento, you had about five thousand. State Capitol
of California, Roseberg, Oregon. It's a conservative part of Oregon,
(07:44):
so they were affected. You had a couple thousand show
up there in a more rural community that's of significance.
Rice Lake, Wisconsin. Another This is a town of nine
thousand people, so they claimed essentially that almost ten percent
of the town turned out to protest at nearly a
thousand folks there. Juddville, Wisconsin, also a thousand. This is
(08:04):
Door County community event. This is a little bit closer
to the green Berry area, if you will, in another
eleven hundred. So they had a lot of small protests
turn out in Wisconsin, which isn't surprising, right We've we've
what we've seen Wisconsin. There's there's quite a bit. Both
parties I think have super activists in they will so
look the big what I was curious about and nervous about.
(08:30):
I was curious about the Republican response and nervous about
the administration's response. Was there anything that was going to
happen in these demonstrations that was essentially going to be
bait if you will, or an attempt or would the
you know was the was Stephen Miller uh and that
wing of the of the Trump administration where they're essentially
(08:51):
looking for a confrontation. Would they find a confrontation Here's
there was no major confrontations like that. So in the
official level, it feels as if Lawnforce essentially treated this
protest the way we've treated protests for decades in this country, responsibly,
with respect. It seems like protesters I saw there was
(09:11):
a among the tweets. I saw the Austin Police Department,
it's official Twitter account put out a thank you to
protesters in't too law enforcement, saying everybody was well behaved
and respectful, etc. But then we have the social media memes, right,
the absurdity, and the one that has gotten the most
(09:33):
is this head scratcher, And it goes to this larger
issue that I've brought up a few times, which is
why they were Republican administration, why Donald Trump does not
believe he's president for all the people. He really only
believes he's president for his base. It explains his rhetoric
and explains his decision making. It explains why he seems
to not care what swing voters think at all. And
(09:58):
he retweeted this that essentially had a AI personification of
Trump flying a plane and dropping poop on America, basically
flying over major cities and dropping poop. Seriously, really, I
(10:19):
mean it is you know, we're so used to sort
of the childlike behavior of him at times of this movement,
there is always I mean, one of the things that
I've said in the past about him is that there's
an arrested development quality, right that phrase, mean phrase isn't
just a great title of a great television show, or
(10:40):
at least three and a half seasons of a great
television show, sorry Ron Howard, but it is an actual
sort of you know, at times, it's as if Donald
Trump has been thirteen his whole life, right, the mentality
of a thirteen year old. What he thinks is humorous.
And I always say what he thinks is humorous because
Donald Trump doesn't laugh. Donald Trump doesn't naturally laugh. Go
(11:02):
tell me where you've found him naturally laugh. He does
not sort of have the normal social interactions. You know,
there's always a lot of people attempt to normalize him.
He is much more normal in person, but in the
public setting he doesn't quite He doesn't ever use humor.
(11:24):
I remember the one time he was asked to use
humor was at the Al Smith dinner in twenty sixteen,
and he was just so bad at it. He didn't
know how to do it. He doesn't know how to
tell a joke, and he doesn't know how to laugh
very well. It's just if you want to chalk it up.
I'm not going to sit here and try to diagnose
him because I'm not trained in psychology to try to
(11:48):
do that diagnosis. But I find it odd that he
never ever laughs. Okay, he will laugh along when an
audience laughs with him, but tell me when you have
found him do a belly laugh when he's just hanging
with friends, you know. And I'd actually thrown an aside.
You know what phrase you never hear connected to Donald
(12:08):
Trump lifelong friend. There's nobody that is connected to him
that is ever described as Donald Trump's lifelong friend, Donald
Trump's former college roommate, Donald Trump's uh friend from grade school.
Think about that. Every other president we've ever had has
(12:30):
had a friend circle, particularly once they got to the
president that really did go back to their college and
high school years, Right, Because ultimately, who do you trust
people that knew you before you were somebody? Right, I'm
one of those one hundred percent true. Right, You're more
likely to sort of weirdly feel comfortable with people even
interacted with about if they knew you before you were,
(12:52):
before you were somehow a boldface name to somebody, not
Donald Trump. It's the it's one of the most Sometimes
with Donald Trump, I think we forget that there are
non stories, stuff that doesn't happen, which is worth reporting. Right,
One thing that doesn't happen anymore. He doesn't travel the country.
(13:14):
He just doesn't. He doesn't sell his agenda. He doesn't explain,
you know, he certainly takes plenty of questions. He seems active,
but he actually doesn't move very often. Yes, he goes
overseas and he wants his big summits. When's the last
time he just held a basic rally around the country
to sell the program. Doesn't do as much, certainly, not
(13:34):
like he did in the first run. It is a
reminder that why, I'm pretty confident even if he thought
he had the legal grounds to run for president, he wouldn't.
But I want to sum up with one other thing
about these protests. I said, there's two ways to measure them, right.
One measurement is going to be coming up on this
November election day. And you know, did you see you know,
(13:55):
did it truly? Did they find some new voters that
hadn't been paying attention? Did they do any voter registration?
So those are the things to measure. But here's something else.
You know, the rights very dismissive of this. Even some
in the center are dismissive. I've had some friends on
the left that are somewhat well, what are these protests game?
(14:16):
Here's what I would say. I think it's remarkable that
somebody wants to do this on a Saturday. There's we're
there's a lot of other things to do, particularly in
a fall Saturday. Right, I'm obsessed with college football. I'm
not alone in this. We're in the heart of some
incredible sports stories right now. Oh my god, show hey o'tani. Right,
(14:38):
there's so plenty to quote unquote to do. So the
fact that this got you know, millions across the country
to turn out these aren't you know you can they can.
Critics of this can say, well, it was paid for.
That to me is even more impressive. There's an entire
group of people willing to fund, willing to put organization
(14:59):
around it, and they were able to get people to
show up, you know, to me saying oh they're paid,
this was paid or all of these things are always
organized by some entity that has money, right, nobody does it. Yes,
there are volunteers, but somebody's paying for some. And look,
I remember, I'm old enough to remember when the left
(15:21):
was very dismissive of the tea Party protests. Oh, it's grasstops.
I was told, you know, you know, don't overrate it.
You know, that would be the pushback, just like I'm
hearing from the right. Last time I checked, those twenty
ten mid terms were pretty rough on the Democrats. Those
tea Party protests seemed to tap into something, and certainly
(15:42):
the tea parties I think is was a you certainly
you don't have Donald Trump without those tea Party protests
twenty ten, twenty nine, ten, twenty eleven, So just it
certainly had I think so I would not at all
be dismissive of this, and I think you know again,
(16:04):
will I think these protests effectiveness will be judged down
the road right initially election Day twenty twenty five and
then election Day twenty twenty six. But I want to
pivot here to what really is the main story I
want to focus on this weekend, and that is the growing,
(16:30):
I think controversial controversy that's taking place in the Caribbean
right now. And what is where even the administration isn't
quite sure of how legal their bombings are. And I'll
explain why even though they claim they're legal, their actions
are actually admitting that they know there are legal questions
about what they are up to. But before I get there,
(16:52):
it is weird for me not to talk about the
government shutdown. Right, here's what's amazing again. The most of
the Sunday shows were about the protests, or really about
this debate over is it legal? The what the administration
is doing targeting narco traffickers and just calling it a
Marco terrorist. Does that make them enemy combatants? Does that
(17:13):
mean they're really that? This does fall under a previously
passed congressional authority of a use of force mission whether
it's the one that I mean, it's it's astonishing that
this is sort of loosely. I understand the administration is
trying to claim the use of a few different authorizations
to justify this military action. But here's what hasn't happened.
(17:36):
Nobody really in Congress, I think, is very comfortable with this,
but there seems to be an odd amount of what
I would call not silence but muted concern about what
the administration is doing. And I think a tremendous is
just another reminder Congress is not working. Okay, Congress is
(17:58):
failing at its job of what that's what it's supposed
to do. Zero oversight takes place. You're supposed to do
oversight even when your party's in charge. This is the
exact thing that oversight was designed for. In fact, my
history lesson later in this episode is going to be
about the birth of congressional oversight. There was a scandal
in the twentieth century that where we didn't have oversight,
(18:20):
We didn't even have inspectors general until this scandal happened,
and then we got those things. So we are we
are seeing in a massive failure of the US Congress
here when it comes to this. But let me just
get to the shutdown here a second. Then I'll get
to this, get to the specifics of this fight, of
(18:41):
this battle over whether this is legal, what we're doing
in Venezuela. We're now at this full on stalemate. Donald
Trump is still not engaged in the shutdown negotiations. It
doesn't appear that Schumer and Jeffries, I mean again, they
do have the they do have the issue of health
care on their side. And we are about twelve days
(19:05):
away from premium notices, massive spikes in Obamacare premiums going
up on November first, massive spikes going up there. So
there will certainly be a cranky or public about the
issue of health care. But in the meantime, this not
keeping the government open. I just don't. I go back
(19:25):
to what I said, every single day this government is
shut is I think a day that Democrats lose whatever
they think they've gained out of this, and at some point,
a shuddered government simply harms people's everyday lives, whether it
is travel, which is the big one, food inspectors, whether
(19:49):
it's a national weather service. We're just this is ludicrous.
And then we're getting you know, we have an administration
that doesn't believe that their job is to govern for
all the people. It is the weirdest thing. I do
not understand why more people aren't upset about the fact
that this administration intentionally governs essentially makes decision based on
(20:09):
who supports them and who does it. And if they
think a piece of policy is a democratic policy, they
cut it. You know, they're just cutting it off. They
think a cabinet agency is a democratic cabinet agency. They've
decided the Education Department said democratic cabinet agency, so they
want to get rid of it. And as I've told you,
the Department of Homeland Securities they quote Republican agency. And
(20:31):
there's been hardly any furloughs at all, other than the
fact that they're getting they're going to get paid late.
They're not going to get paid on time, and we
don't know when these folks are going to get paid.
So this is I think this has turned into a
cluster of deep if you want, you know, it just is.
(20:52):
And at some point Democrats are going to have to
suck it up and open the government. They're going to
win this healthcare fight political, but they risk sort of losing.
I go back to this adult in the room issue,
the fact that they are, the fact that they have
(21:15):
this power in their hands. And yes, technically Republicans could
open the government if they got rid of the filibuster.
I'm not sure anybody. I'm sure all Democrats want to
see that happen at this point. The fact the only
reason they have leverage is because the filibuster is still there.
And I do think there might be some progressives that
would love to see the filibuster go away, but I
don't think everybody in the Democratic Party wants to see that,
(21:40):
So I think they're you know, and again I go
back to the Democratic Party's inability to know how to
declare victory, to know when to essentially to know. Look,
you know, it's like you're trying to maximize profits all
the way to the end. Sometimes you sell even if
you think the stock's going to keep going on, but
you sell because you have actually think this doctor would
(22:01):
nose dive, and you may not be there in time
to sell. There's a reason results matter more than promises,
just like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's
largest injury law firm for the last thirty five years,
they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half
a million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered
(22:25):
next to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying
as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan fought back ended
up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was
awarded twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty
times the amount that the insurance company originally offered. That
original offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six million,
six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So with more than
(22:46):
one thousand lawyers across the country, they know how to
deliver for everyday people. If you're injured, you need a lawyer.
You need somebody to get your back. Check out for
the People dot com Slash podcast, or dial pound Law
Pound five two nine law on your cell phone. And
remember all law firms are not the same. So check
out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win.
(23:13):
Let me move to I feel like I should do
a pretty large dive now on the issue of Venezuela
in Colombia because the biggest thing we have learned and
the biggest sort of tell now that this administration isn't
(23:34):
sure what it's doing is legal is the decision to
repatriate two survivors from one of these bombings to their
home countries. That is the single biggest development of the weekend.
For that. The resignation, the decision by the head of
Southern Command to resign is another big development. And look,
(23:54):
he has not said why he resigned, but I will
tell you what Jim Stavridi's who also former head of
Southern Command, also former NATO Suprema like commander, what he
told me on my news Sphere show last week if
you were in a similar situation and he weren't sure
whether an order was legal, and he truly had questions
about it and worried because remember, if you end up
(24:15):
executing an illegal order, you will be held accountable in
our law. So this is not you know, this is
it didn't work at Nuremberg, right, this is not Ay,
I just followed an illegal order. Well, if you're concerned
it's an illegal order, your job is to bring that
up and then if you're still being ordered to do it,
basically the honorable thing to do is to resign, and
(24:35):
that and So this is a case where we're putting two,
two and two together and we think we're giving four here.
But to me, you had that resignation and then you
had this repatriation announcement. This is the tell this administration
knows it's on unsteady legal ground. So here's what we
(24:59):
do know. And I'm sure you haven't been paying. Unfortunately,
this story is not getting the type of attention that
I think it would get if this were happening in
the Middle East, this were happening in Asia, this were
happening in a Mediterranean Sea. But it's happening in the
Western Hemisphere. And for some reason, when shit happens in
the Western Hemisphere, we don't prioritize it either in news coverage.
(25:20):
We don't prioritize it politically, neither party does. We've not
had a president do it, and in fact, we now
have a president who I think is about to make
some of the same mistakes, grave historical mistakes that have
happened in the past on Latin America. So let me
get started. So here's the pattern. We keep sinking the
United States keep sinking boats in the Caribbean, and they
keep trying to call it something other than war. Right,
(25:44):
it's not a war, but it's not a law enforcement action.
They've now carried out seven military strikes and suspected drug
smuggling vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The latest strike
has left three people and there were two survivors captured
and they have been quietly This is the two survivors
that were patriated to their home countries. One is Columbia
Colombian and one was Econdorian. So why did they do this? Well,
(26:07):
that last decision to send them home rather than bring
them into US custody. Right, Why aren't we boarding these
boats and seizing this stuff? Right? Why are we just
deciding to destroy it? Well, it's the most revealing clue
yet about what's really going on here. So here's what
officials said on the repatriation decision. Officials said that this
(26:28):
was a humanitarian gesture, but to legal experts, repatriation looks
like something else. Entirely. It is a way to avoid
tough questions about the legal status of these survivors. Are
they criminals? Are they enemy combatants? Remember we went through
this during nine to eleven and getmo some of this
language is going to sound familiar to those of you
(26:51):
that remember all of those decisions about people. How are
they picked up these terrorists, these Alcaedo folks. Anyway, So criminals,
enemy combatants? Are they victims? Because the answer matters a ton.
It determines what laws end up applying. Do our laws apply,
do maritime laws apply? Do military courts have the upper
(27:14):
hand here? If they're treated as combatants, then the US
is admitting it's an armed conflict. If they're treated as criminals,
then they have rights to do process, to counsel, to trial.
That pesky constitution suddenly is in the way. Right by
sending them back to their home countries, the administration doesn't
(27:36):
have to choose. It avoids putting anyone in US custody
and therefore avoids the legal test case that could force
a court to decide whether America is now at war
with Venezuela in the Caribbean. I'll tell you this, this
is at some point, this is going to end up
(27:59):
in our court. Anyway. You will have perhaps the families
of victims claim, hey, they were fishing, they weren't part
of this. Maybe they were simply a worker on one
of these boats. Maybe they were hired hands. They weren't
necessarily part of the of the of of whatever the
(28:19):
narco business that we claim we know what's happening was
a part of. And it's likely they will try to
They're gonna look for some sort of uh, they'll probably
be looking for some sort of monetary justice, and it
could very well happen in our courts. So we're trying
(28:40):
to do this repatriation to avoid that. That's what survivors,
what about with those that didn't survive, just saying this
is a legal quagmire that is coming, I promise you.
So the administration, Pete Egseth has been pretty blunt. Here's
what he said on the Sunday shows this week. The
United States military will treat these organizations like the terrorists
(29:02):
they are. They will be hunted and killed just like
al Qaeda. So he is claiming these are terrorist organizations. Now.
To truly be a terrorist organization, the basic definition means
you're using let's say you're narco terrorists. I means you're
using your drug money to essentially fund this sort of
political uprising. What political uprisings being funded here? This may
(29:22):
be simply a criminal enterprise. But I digress. Here's another thing.
Hag Seth admitted though on Sunday, We've sunk seven boats,
We've seized nineteen tons of coke. No fentanyl yet, but
that's next. Whoabody what this whole thing is supposed to
be about fentanyl. You haven't gotten any fentanyl yet. There's
(29:47):
a reason for that. Ventanyl ain't a part of Venezuela's
drug trade. Then I'm going to get to that. But
no fentanyl yet. It totally undercuts the entire public rationale
of what Trump and Ruby have been saying about why
this is legal and about why it should be done
the way they're doing it. The fentanyl crisis, which we
(30:09):
do have one, has nothing to do with Venezuela or Columbia.
It has everything to do with Mexico and China. But
that's not where we're focused here. So none of these strikes,
they at least are admitting it. You got to give
haig Seth credit have actually stopped the flow of fedel
(30:30):
because they haven't found any fentyl. That's not where it is.
It's Chinese ingredients being manufactured in Mexico. We've known this
forever and ain't Venezuela. This is an obsession to get
rid of Maduro. Frankly, it's a worthy obsession. I empathize
(30:52):
with it. He's illegally in office. He lost an election,
a small d democratic election. The lack, frankly that of
international community of coming down harder on Venezuela over Maduro
essentially not abiding by the elections, has been extraordinarily disappointed.
(31:13):
Why this, If this is the you could argue, you
could make this the rationale. I don't know if a
lot of people would love it, because I do think
one of the reasons Trump has a has been able
to build MAGA and his base is by at least
rhetorically claiming that America First means we're not going to
(31:34):
get involved in other people's business, and in this case,
Venezuela would be other people's business. But the Defense secretary
admitted they've yet to seize any Fennol here, so you're
you're essentially bullshit. Rationale for this is going to come
home to rust. Marco Rubio defended the strikes. He called them,
(31:56):
quote lethal strikes on drug vessels operated by designated narco
terrorist organizations. Well, it's a designation that's not quite made up,
but kind of because we've never really had a narco
terrorist organization that we've that we've gone after. You could
loosely claim al Qaeda was narco terrorists because they certainly
(32:16):
they certainly had the poppy trade in Afghanistan, and certainly
they were using that money to fund their war within Afghanistan. Now,
Rubio has been he's trying to be extraordinary careful in
what he says in public. He insists that hits are targeted,
(32:36):
that they're not invasions, and that the president is not
is simply waging war on narco terrorists, not on the
people of Venezuela. And now here's what's fascinating. This latest
boat that they that they bombed wasn't even head of
the United States. Rubio noted the latest sub was likely
bound for Trinidad and Tobago or some other country in
the Caribbean, not the US mainland. He had another inconvenient fact,
(33:01):
if the goal is to stop drugs from reaching American streets,
so here's where the story gets even a bit murcurer.
Congress has not authorized any of this. What the administration
is trying to do is use older authorization use of
military force. Other aumfs out there, the big one from
(33:23):
two thousand and one, which never named a single organization
in it. This is what's been used for all sorts
of operations by multiple presidents, even as multiple even as
a both Obama and Trump and Biden, all three of
them at some point admitted that this AAMF needs to change,
but they didn't exactly urge Congress to do it. They said, yeah,
(33:45):
if Congress sends me something I would I would sign it.
Congress has not been able because it is a It
is a fake. This is one of those fake issues
in Washington where everybody says that what the correct answer,
but behind the scenes they do everything they can to
make sure that answer doesn't come to fruition, right, and
getting rid of this authorization use of Military Force Post
(34:06):
nine to eleven that has been used for all sorts
of questionable military activity every time there's been bipartisan efforts
to get rid of it, and just when those bipartisan
efforts happened, there's bipartisan efforts to kill it, and there's
always enough force to kill it behind the scenes. But
it makes it look like, oh, they're trying, but I digress.
(34:28):
So here's what various members of Congress have said. None
of them believe this has been authorized. Mark Kelley, Democrat,
said after a classified briefing on these issues. He said
they had a very hard time explaining the legal rationale
and the constitutionality of doing it. He said the brief
we got referring to the US Senate had a tremendous number
of holes in it. Tim Kaine went further, Tim Kaine
(34:49):
has been on this trying to repeal the original AMF
or redo it. He's been trying to do it for
essentially most of his time in the A Senate. If
my colleagues think of war with Venezuela is a good idea,
they need to pass an AUMF about just that stop
the administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and
(35:10):
escalating military conflict. And then there's course the loudest Republican
who's questioned these things. It's Ran Paul, much more of
a libertarian and frankly, very consistent on these issues in general.
He said, all of these people have been blown up
without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.
We are simply supposed to take the word of Pete
(35:30):
Hagsat Marco Rubie. All of these folks who are not
under oath. When they're saying these things, they're simply on camera.
Keep that in mind. So so far, there's been no
formal vote, no war powers authorization, no clear oversight, just
a White House declaring an armed conflict with cartels and
expanding operations under that banner. By redefining traffickers as unlawful combatants,
(35:54):
the administration claims the right to use lethal force without
the normal checks that apply to law enforcement operations or
to wars formally declared by Congress. Essentially, by having this
murky nature trumpet, we're just green lighting just the killing
(36:15):
of folks without having to make a legal case that
we can do this. It's pretty unconstitutional, it's pretty undemocratic,
and it is a terrible precedent for us to say,
I mean, who are we to ever lecture any other
lecture China on the Wigers. Who are we to lecture
Putin on Ukraine and his sphere of influence for the
(36:37):
way we're behaving in the Western hemisphere here? There are
legal ways to do this. The case against Maduro is strong,
make the goddamn case against Maduro and is illegal co
opting of the government itself. He lost a free and
fair election there are actually reasons to do this, instead
(37:01):
of pretending it's something having to do with fentanyl when
it has nothing to do with fentyl. The administration's argument
is that these maritime operations right there claiming it's a
direct response to the overdose crisis in America and that
these cartels are killing Americans, so this is self defense.
(37:21):
But here's the disconnect. Fentanyl, the drug responsible for the
nearly two hundred thousand US deaths last year, is not
coming for the Caribbean or Venezuela, according to the DEA.
You know, again, this administration struggles facts sometimes, but there's
actual facts that sit out there, and there's data that
tells you where this fricking fentanyl's coming from. More than
(37:43):
ninety percent of fentanyl enters through US Mexico lands ports
of entry. It gets through the regular port of entry
because it's been impossible to seize. We seize it, but
other stuff gets through. This fentanyl is produced by Mexican
car tells, not these Venezuelan cartels, and they're using precursor
(38:04):
chemicals that they import from China, all of which we
do know already, all of which the Administration does cherry
pick whenever they want to get tough on Mexico or
whenever they want to get tough on China. But what
they're doing here with Venezuela is manufacturing an argument. That
is an argument if you wanted to make it with Mexico.
(38:25):
But we're not. We're not going down that road. That's
a different story. They're just essentially trying, and they realize
they're hoping that you, the American taxpayer, and you the
American public, is just going to conflate Ah, the Venezuelans, Mexico.
It's all the same. That's how stupid this administration thinks
(38:47):
you are. They think you're this stupid. They think you're
that you're going to be able to say all drug
smugglers are the same. They all look alike. That's how
stupid they think you are. Nobody says we don't have
a cocaine problem still in Columbia, a cocaine trafficking issue
in Venezuela, but it is not the one driving American
(39:10):
overdose deaths. If this is the rationale, and you better
be declaring war against these Mexican cartels. Basically, the current
US campaign has focused on geography. Marco Rubio has been
obsessed with Venezuela. Understandably, he's a South Floridian. Okay. I
always said that there's all sorts of biases that people have.
(39:33):
Some of it is just bias from where you're from.
I grew up down there. I get it. I have
Venezuelan friends. I see this. This guy's bad. We've destroyed
a great country, an incredible culture, and he is it is.
We got to do more to get the world community,
get this guy out of here. There's a variety of
ways to do it. This seems to be a way
(39:56):
that risks American lives one two risks creating a martyr.
I mean, we're gonna we haven't ruled out striking targets
in Venezuela. My guess is will say, it's places where
they're manufacturing the drug. This ain't gonna be the jungles
(40:17):
of Venezuela. Ain't gonna be an easy place to fight
a war. And you know, let's you know it was
this is how we get Mission creep. Go look at
the history in the very beginning of Vietnam. Okay, this
is how Mission Creep happens. But let's go back to
(40:40):
what this repatriation really reveals here, because it really is
the Big Toe. The United States is now flying B
fifty twos over the Caribbean, deploying Special operation helicopters, sinking boats,
killing people. It calls narco terras. But when two of
those survivors are captured alive, they quietly are sent back
to their home countries, out of sight, out of US,
and out of court. What the decision tells us is
(41:02):
that the administration understands they're in a legal gray area
that they're operating in. And if these men were brought
back here, judges and journalists would start asking questions, and
they don't want to have to answer those questions. They'd
have to answer questions about evidence, about jurisdiction, and what
rules would actually apply. Congress hasn't authorized this war. None
of these strikes are legal. The targets aren't attacking the
(41:23):
United States, the drugs that carry aren't the ones killing Americans,
and yet the White House keeps calling the self defense,
which brings us to the term. You've heard the President
and his cabinet repeat over and over again, narco terrorists.
What the hell does the term mean? Where did it
come from? Okay, well, let me tell you it's certainly
(41:45):
here's the actual definition for Merriam Webster terrorism financed by
profits from illegal drug trafficking, right, Meaning it's the drugs
are the drugs are sold to finance the terrorism. Is
that what's happening? All right? It's a generic term narco terrorism,
and it refers to the nexus between terrorism, insurgency, and
(42:06):
drug trafficking. So, as a working definition, a narco terrorist
is a person or group that uses drug trafficking or
profits funded to funder carried out acts of violence, intimidation,
or political corrosion, blurring the lines between criminal and politically
motivated violence. Can you make an argument Maduro's doing that?
(42:26):
Maybe you could, Right, Maduro is certainly repressing his people.
He's illegally in office, and he certainly has some sort
of influence and control over some of these gangs. Now,
it's not a brand new term. It was first used
actually in Peru Tero Rissimo. It was used by the
(42:49):
Peruvian president in nineteen eighty three to describe attacks by
traffickers on anti narcotics police. But it isn't clear the
first time the US this government ever really formally used
it was this year the executive order that Donald Trump,
signed on his first day back in office, uses the
vehicle of designating cartels and other organizations as force foreign
(43:11):
terrorist organization and specifically designated global terrorists. So essentially, it
was trying to create They created a definition to fit
the already previous authorized use of military force. That's what
this is all about. This does not mean Maduro is
(43:33):
a victim here. Okay, I don't want that. I'm not
interested in that coming across. But the United States has
succeeded being the leader of the free world because we rationalized, justify,
and we make legal arguments for what we do. This
administration doesn't believe in anything having to do with this Constitution.
(43:55):
They view the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around,
and they're always in search of a loophole in the
Constitution rather than upholding the spirit and the values of it.
And this is a clear and present danger. You see
what I did there, This is a clear and present
danger for the US's influence over Look, he's now mad
(44:17):
at the Colombian president. Look this guy, they're sort of
you know, it wasn't the friendliest Colombian leader to get elected.
That's true. He seems to be a bit more lenient
with the more socialist leaning Latin American leaders. But you
know what, he's unpopular in his own country because what
(44:38):
he promised has not come to fruition. He is likely
to not survive politically. This is a strong Columbia is
a strong democracy. The last thing we want to do
is create a martyr out of this current president. And
I would just warn this administration if backing out of
(44:58):
legal deals that we've made with the small This man
is a democratic small the democratic elected president of Colombia.
This is not like Maduro the risk of suddenly giving
him because Colombians don't want to look like that any
of their leaders are simply puppets of this administration, puppets
(45:21):
of the United States. The Trump's actions while he's trying
to send a message to Petro to work with the
United States instead of working quiet. Look, he's got his
own migration issues coming from Venezuela. You know, you think
we've got issues of Venezuela's coming over the border because
they're trying to flee the oppression of Madurea. So does Colombia.
(45:41):
But this, you know, our history in Latin America is
atrocious because we just go down there, always worried only
about our interests, never seeming to be concerned about the
people themselves. And we find a way to make more
enemies out of this place than we do allies. It
is been you know, fricking China has more allies in
(46:04):
South America than the United States does. That is a
big problem. And doing legally questionable military action like this
only makes it harder for the United States to sort
of win back Latin America into the US ecosystem rather
as they're drifting away into the China orbit. So I'm
(46:27):
gonna stop there. And on the other side, it's the
toodcast time machine. It's a doozy today. It is not
Nixon related. That's my only clue. And with that, I'll
see any other side. It is time for the todcast
(46:53):
time machine. Where are we going? Where could we be going? Well?
Where are we going? We are going? And give you
the date, the specific date here. We are going to
October twenty fifth. As you know, right, I'm always looking
(47:15):
at the week, the week we're in, So October twenty fifth,
this week, where that is the date I am latching
onto because in October twenty fifth, nineteen twenty nine, the
United States government and a jury, and a jury made
up of US citizens convicted the first ever cabinet secretary
(47:37):
to prison. And it all had to do and in fact,
it all happened. He gets convicted and a couple of
days later, the stock market crash and the Roaring Twenties
come to a total and complete end. But that's where
I want to bring you. So October twenty fifth, nineteen
twenty nine. How did we get to that point where
(47:58):
we prosecuted a cabinet secretary? He was prosecuted for his
role in so called teapot Dome. So this is I've
been teasing about this. Let's talk about it. It was the
Roaring twenties. It was a decade that treated oil like
we treat data today, the fuel of the future, limitless
(48:18):
and irresistible. Right, the car was just coming up. Everybody
realized how important oil was. Well, data is that thing today.
Just setting that aside there, just be thinking about that.
But let's go back to the twenties. At the center
of all of it sat a rock formation in the
Wyoming Desert that was shaped like a teapot. This is
how the scandal got its name. Beneath it the US
(48:39):
Navy had stored millions of barrels of crude oil for
wartime emergencies. This site was called Teapot Dome. When Warren G.
Hardy became president in nineteen twenty one, he promised to
make Washington run like a business. We've heard that before, right.
He was genial, handsome, little bit more of a salesman
than man. And his poker knights in the White House
(49:02):
reflected that the press called his inner circle the Ohio Gang.
These were members of his regular poker gang. They were
his friends from Marion, Ohio, Harding's newspaper pals. They were
campaign backers and other hanger ons who followed into DC.
The Attorney General Harry Daughtry. He used the Justice Department
as a political machine, part of the Ohio Gang. Charles
(49:25):
Forbes at the Veterans Bureau skimmed hospital construction contracts and
fled to Europe when he got caught. Jess Smith was
the fixer for Harry Daughtry at Justice. He killed himself
as investigations began to close in. It was a government
that looked like a poker table full of cigars and whiskeys,
and IOUs into that circle stepped another man, Albert Bacon Fall.
(49:52):
He was a hard drinking former senator from New Mexico.
Harding admired his frontier swagger. This is New Mexico in
the nineteen teens and twenties. Right Fall ran the Interior
Department and he saw those idle Navy oil reserves as
wasted assets. Harding, trusting his friend mister Fall, signed an
(50:12):
executive order that quietly transferred control of those fields from
the Navy to the Interior Department. Fall then leased them
without competitive bidding to two oil barons, Harry F. Sinclair,
founder of Sinclair Oil. He took Teapot Dome in Wyoming,
and yes, that's the same Sinclair era with the green
(50:34):
Dinosaur logo still operating out of Tulsa today. Edward L.
Dohiney was the head of the Pan American Petroleum and
Transport Company. He received the California naval reserves at oil
reserves at Elk's Elk Hills and Buena Vista. Dony's firm
would eventually be absorbed into Standard Oil of Indiana, later
(50:56):
Amaco and then BP Corporate Fossil that still traces roots
to this deal. So what did Fall get in return? Well,
he got four hundred thousand dollars, which is seven million
dollars in today's dollars in loans and gifts. One infamous
delivery saw Downie's Sun carry a black bag full of
(51:19):
cash straight into falls Washington apartment. We haven't had fifty
thousand dollars paper bags of cash in any story lately,
have we? But I digress. When the story leaked in
nineteen twenty two, the US Senate decided to launch hearings
led by Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana, a Democrat. Harding,
weary and embarrassed, set off on a cross country voyage
(51:40):
of understanding in order to reconnect with the public, Essentially,
pay no attention to these scandal headlines that you're seeing.
By the summer of nineteen twenty three, twenty three, rumors
were swirling not just about Teapot Dome, but about Harding's
personal life as well. He had carried on a long
affair with a woman named Nan Britton, who claimed her
daughter was Harding's child. It's a claim that would be
(52:03):
confirmed by DNA tests in twenty fifteen. By the way,
another mistress, Carrie Phillips, had written him hundreds of steamy
letters the Republican Party would pay to suppress. So when
Harding collapsed in San Francisco that August nineteen twenty three
and died suddenly at the age of fifty seven. Remember
(52:24):
he was a little bit overweight, the whispers spread faster
than the telegrams. Had he been poisoned this this is
something to do with teapot, don't had he died in
bed with another woman. The truth, of course, was more mundane.
He likely had a heart attack brought on by exhaustion
and bad health. But the gossip boy did that stick
because the corruption already felt contagious after his death, President
(52:47):
Calvin Coolidge silent cow allowed investigators to keep digging because
he really wasn't that involved in this. In nineteen twenty seven,
the Supreme Court voided both leases, calling them products of
corruption and fraud. And on October twenty fifth, which will
be coming up pretty soon, so we're almost at the
one hundredth anniversary, that's the ninety sixth anniversary, Albert Fall
(53:08):
was convicted of bribery. He'd be the first U. S
Cabinet member ever sent to prison. He served nine months,
and he died penniless a decade later. He didn't. I
guess he didn't have a president that was willing to
pardon him or commute his sentence. But I digress. That
convention came the very same week the stock market crash,
ending the Roaring twenties with some poetic symmetry, a nation
(53:31):
drunk on speculation finally waking up with a hangover. Look.
I bring this up not because it's an interesting nugget
in history, but because, as we know, history as a
way of not quite repeating itself. But boyd does it run.
So here we are a century later. The names have changed,
(53:51):
but the temptation hasn't. One Hundred years ago, it was oilies.
Now it's the public private partnerships, infrastructure megaprojects, defense start up.
It's crypto mining zones, social media ventures, all dressed up
as innovation, all blurring who's serving whom. President Trump has
made these deals a centerpiece of his second term. Some
may be legitimate, but, as with Harding, personal loyalty often
(54:15):
outruns public accountability. The language is even eerily familiar. Right efficiency,
cutting red tape, bringing business savvy to government. Harding used
that language, so does Trump. Albert Fall use those phrases
to justify bypassing the competitive bidding rules. Teapot Dome taught
(54:36):
Congress why oversight is not bureaucracy, it's protection. It birthed,
in fact, the modern system of inspectors general at different
cabinet agencies. We didn't have them before this financial disclosures
Senate investigations that still bear Washle's fingerprints, the Montana Senator.
But the guardrails only work if we use them, and
this Congress does no oversight. We've gone through this the politically,
(55:01):
we only will do Congress will only do oversight if
the president, and if Congress is controlled by a different
party than the president in the White House, it actually
probably we ought to change our oversight rules. I believe
Japan does it this way, where the out party should
always be in charge of oversight, just pure and simple.
You know, whatever party the president is the chairman of
(55:21):
the oversight committee with subpoena power ought to be ought
to be from the other party. But I digress. So
making government run like a business sounds good until the
business becomes self dealing. And that's what happened with Harding,
and that is a concern of what's happening today. Harding's
friends called him the most likable man alive, and that
was the problem. He couldn't say no to anyone he liked.
(55:42):
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Today is the federal government signs
profit sharing deals with companies tied to the president's allies
and family network. The same question lingers that haunted Teapot don't.
Where does public service end and private profit begin? If
history has a lesson, it's this when secrecy and self
interest merge, the scandal isn't an accident, it's inevitable. So
(56:05):
before we all call every new venture a partnership, remember
what happened in October twenty fifth, nineteen twenty nine, when
Albert Fall traded the nation's trust for personal gain. And
he fell hard enough to give his name to history
on this one. So there's your history lesson for the day,
Teapot Dome. I'm telling you, folks, forget Watergate. Are you
looking for a parallel of an uncomfortable situation we're in
(56:28):
right now with the government's relationship with the tech industry.
Go back to the twenties, my friend, Go back to
the twenties. All right, with that, let's take a new
Let's do a couple of questions and I'll get in
quickly to my college football takes. Ask Chuck, I'm going
to do just a couple of questions because I went
(56:49):
a little bit long. Here's the first one, Rich from
New York. Hi, Chuck, love the show. Appreciate all you
do for all of us keeping a level head in politics.
On Saturday, I participated in the No Kings march. Had
great energy, but at a minimum made me feel like
I'm not crazy for my outrage other than my own
personal feelings. Does it have any impact on politics? It
seems to me these protests were large and blue northern
(57:09):
cities where the Trump administration has been hostile. Additionally, this
will have zero to no effect on Mike Johnson or
John Thune and it also won't have any real effects
on the midterms. Lay it to me straight, Did I
waste my Saturday or is there something accomplished from the protest? Thanks? Well, look,
I'm curious what you think of the what I said
the two measurables were measurables were of this? I do think, like,
(57:31):
you know, if Democrats overperform in Virginia in November, and
to me, overperform is you know, getting north of fifty
five state house seats, winning all three of the state
wide elections, even with an extraordinarily flawed, if not unqualified
candidate for attorney general. Well, I will tell you these
protests were certainly helped with political organizing. I think the
(57:56):
fact that the president expressed his feelings escally and there's
been this sort of demonization of Americans here. I think
that actually is going to have some legs that that
likely won't go well politically for the Republicans. But again,
(58:19):
you're not wrong for asking this question. It was the
question I essentially led the podcast with today to which
if you're listening all the way through, you you already
know this, But I will say this, be careful underestimating
the impact of these protests. I think it's quite remarkable
that where there was an incredibly nice day all over
the country in many places, well actually, unless you were
(58:43):
in Fayetteviell, Arkansas, where they had a two hour rain
delay for that football game, it was pretty nice day.
In a lot of these cities, there was plenty of
reasons to do other things. I think this, You know,
if if it's a trigger in political organization and voter registration,
(59:05):
then that's how you can call these effective. All right,
let me dig the next questionnaire. David from Baltimore. Since
most people assume that liberals control the mainstream media. While
there may be a moderate liberal slant in much of
the news, or at least in what's left of it,
I feel that MAGA actually dominates the talking points. Trump
in particular, has mastered the art of deflection when it
comes to media coverage. Simple remarks, some like suggesting he
(59:26):
might run again, end up distracting the public from issues
such as the legality of ice raids, military actions in Venezuela,
or the blatant corruption involving Trump and his family, all
three topics that I think we've already discussed in this
episode and didn't do too much on Ice. How can
democrats regain control of the narrative and keep public attention
focused on the issues that matter most, especially those that
(59:46):
could make a real difference in future elections. David from Baltimore. Look,
I do think you know it's funny. I do think
that all media consumption has a right lean right if
you look at the totality of social media, the totality
of if you put it all together, the ideological lean
(01:00:07):
and the sort of impact is on the right. Right,
there's definitely more on the right than on the left.
The right's a bit more comfortable, sort of sort of
rallying around one large talking point. The left is more diffuse. Right.
I think the fact is that Trump, the anti Trump
coalition does not have a lot in common other than
(01:00:29):
anti Trump, the pro Trump coalition has a ton in common.
They feel grievance and victimhood and all of this in
that sense, and that has fueled so right. Social media
really has proved to be an accelerant for victimhood and grievances,
and I think because of that it has allowed the
right to essentially control the narrative right. And that's essentially
(01:00:53):
what you're saying. Chris Hayes, an MSNBC host. He's written
he's written a pretty good interesting I've had today in
the Times that I would tell you to check it out.
And he's wrote a book about this issue of the
attention economy, and his essentially his answer to this question
is Democrats have to essentially do what they can to
(01:01:17):
dominate the attention economy, even if it's on issues that
have nothing to do with politics. That Donald Trump essentially
and it goes back to sort of a philosophy. He
would sort of adopt somebody else's grievance on anything. Almost
like that's sort of where this Maha movement. How did
it end up in the Maga movement? These are folks
(01:01:37):
who are pretty liberal on a lot of issues, but
they have sort of they have some antiquated views of science,
and they found their grievance partner in Donald Trump, right,
And so you know, I wonder if it's attitudinal right
that if the left wants to But I just you know,
(01:02:02):
I go back to something my mother said, why she's
a Democrat because she doesn't want to agree with everything
someone says. She views the Democratic Party is more diverse
on disagreeing with each other, more open to being although
I think that's less and less. I think there was
a time the Democratic Party was the bigger tent, and
(01:02:24):
now the Republican Party has become the bigger tent, or
the perceived bigger tent. And when you look at where
young men are, where this Maha movement is, there certainly
are in Latino voters. There's certainly some pieces there. There
seems to be more rules, you know, and that's where
if you're looking for add initudinal. The left seems to
have a bunch of rules that keep people from supporting them.
(01:02:47):
The right has no rules, but in a weird way,
it makes it a bit more inviting, or it feels
as if you can you're not going to get judged
if you decide you're going to support them on one
issue and none of the others. So that's basically where
I come out. I do think the point you make
those an important one, which is, let's not forget. Yes,
(01:03:09):
the New York Times may lean left, but overall most
the totality of media people consume it all leans right.
People are getting a right leaning media narrative on a
more consistent basis than anything being driven being driven by
the left, and that's born out by actual data. Right,
(01:03:30):
there's this perception you say something enough people believe it.
Media is liberal. Media is liberal. Media is liberal. Media
is liberal. The media is much bigger than what you know.
If you want to say Dan Rather was liberal, or
you want to say The New York Times was liberal,
or you want to say CNN or MEMBSBC, but it
is not the dominant to sort of. It may have
(01:03:53):
the more famous names that run those news organizations, but
it's not actually the dominant content that's out there. The
content of the Internet leans right. All right, let me
dig into my weekend from hell, the loss, the University
of Miami's loss. Now, look as I sort of as
(01:04:17):
I previewed, I said, this was Louisville's most important game
of the year. It always is. This is one of
those every every major football program has rivalries that they
don't care about as much as the other team cares about.
Right in the Big Ten, there's a ton of them. Right,
Michigan Minnesota. I think they do the Brown jug game.
Boyd does Minnesota care about that? Eh? Michigan Right, Michigan
(01:04:40):
Michigan State. Boy does Michigan State care about that game?
Michigan doesn't want to lose it. They hate when Little
Brother wins, but they care more about Ohio State for
Miami we care about. I care about the Florida State game,
and I think Florida State equally cares about the Miami
That's one of those where the rivalries. It's kind of
(01:05:01):
like Michigan iast day, but Florida doesn't care about the
Miami game as much as Miami cares about beating Florida.
I think there was a time Miami Notre Dame was
pretty equal, and maybe that comes back if they start
playing each other a tad more frequently because of this
acc rotation and because they're going to drop USC Miami
Notre Dame. I just you know, and you know, it's
(01:05:22):
a there is. It has just a little bit of everything,
but it is one of those Notre Dame fans care
about it. They don't like listen to Miami because of
those memories, at least at least there. But it's still
it's it's a point in time rivalry. So I don't
know they need to play more for it to come back.
Now Louisville and Miami are going to play more. It's
(01:05:42):
really important to Louisville to win this game, so they
put everything into it. You know, this isn't a game
where we can you know, there's been this assumption, and frankly,
Miami's done this for years. Even in their national title years,
there was always a game they almost blew out of nowhere.
I remember ed Reid saving a game against Boston College
in Boston College. We were playing terribly and Boston College
(01:06:05):
is about to go in for the winning touchdown and
he just grabs a ball. We get a turnover, and
then he grabs the ball and runs it in for
a touchdown and just puts the game away. But it
was like Edward wasn't going to let us lose. But
we almost blew a game that we had no I
think we were three or four touchdown favorites in that one.
Every year there's a game like this, there's been this reputation,
(01:06:26):
is Mario Christoval going to like, you know, screw up
you know, the clock management game or something like this,
like that infamous Georgia Tech game two years ago. There
was none of that there. This was Carson Beck trying
to be a hero. I saw a lot of Georgia
fans pop up in my feed to say, hey, we
know this version of Carson Beck. Look he did, he
(01:06:46):
tried to be a hero, and yet we still almost
won the game. So I'm weirdly I expected this or
Pitt to be the game that bit us Pitt is
our last game of the year, and that's that pit. Hopefully.
Now this means we are super focused in every game
and we look they scored. When you look at what
Louisville had to do, they used every They literally created
(01:07:07):
an entirely new first drive game plan. They got their touchdown.
They never ran any of those plays again because you
only can really run them once, and they essentially they
scored quickly fourteen points and then and then Miami won
the rest of the game twenty one to ten. But
I wasn't enough. Fourtune nerves are going to do that,
(01:07:29):
pure and simple. So I'm disappointed, sadly a little not surprised.
I hate these Friday Island games. They suck, all right,
they simply suck. So what does that tell us about
college foot? Look, I I think it's still possible that everybody,
everybody in the playoff will have one loss. That's that's
(01:07:53):
my bold, hot take prediction. Everybody in the playoff will
have at least one law us. Now, of course, the
question is who beats Ohio State. Well won't be Penn
State in two weeks, that, I promise you. But UCLA
goes to Ohio State, are you betting against I bet.
I'm certainly not gonna bet on UCLA winning that game,
(01:08:16):
but I bet you that's close. They play Michigan and
then I'll have the Big ten title game. I think
they have three games on their schedule that there are
that they need to be a little bit concerned about
the UCLA game, the Michigan game, which will be at Michigan,
and then of course the likely title game against Indiana.
The potential for them to have one loss is certainly there.
(01:08:39):
How about Indiana, where would they get their one loss? Well,
Indiana has remaining. I think we're all curious ab how
UCLA does against You know, the UCLA is a totally
different team now, right, they should be fine at Maryland
and at Penn State, But aren't you kind of curious
(01:08:59):
to see how those road games go. Indiana is different
on the road. They almost they should have lost Iowa.
Maybe that's the game that will be the one that
they should have lost, and there'll be none on others.
And don't sleep on their last game of the season
against Purdue. It's at Purdue, right and these in state
rivalries throw the records out. Then of course there's a
big Ten title game Texas, A and m that's the
(01:09:21):
other big undefeated that's left. I think, what do we
have left in the undefeated? That's it? Really. I think
that's the major undefeateds that could be in the playoff
A and M I think I said told you they
would get a scare in this one. They have LSU
next week. Although this feels like we're gonna find out
everything we need to know about Brian Kelly. Billy Napier
was the firing so far. I boa is LSU gonna
(01:09:41):
also have an open I mean, my god, the level
of jobs out there, I mean, what the hell is
Virginia Tech gonna do? Right? They're behind Penn State, They're
behind Florida, now behind UCLA. Does LSU change? Arkansas already
has big money that they're throwing at their potential coaching opening.
So next week LSU loses, Kelly gets fired. That's because
(01:10:04):
the game's at LSU. We're going to find out how
much this team likes Brian Kelly. Will they rally for him?
It's a huge game, and then plays at Missouri, And
of course they have the big game against Texas at
the end of the season. So there's certainly plenty of
ways that they that they are likely to go down.
So the likelihood that everybody has one loss, right, b
(01:10:26):
YU still undefeated. I doubt they finish their season undefeated.
It's just unlikely that's going to happen Georgia Tech's undefeated.
That's another one. They got. Georgia left on their schedule,
and they're going to face a Miami or a Louisville
or somebody like that in the in the ACC title game.
So just consider that. Maybe I'm just saying that it
make myself feel better about Miami. There's a tiny bit
(01:10:48):
of that in me. I'm not gonna lie, but it's
also the way this college football season's going. I think
if you could find a bet out there that say
there'll be no undefeated team in the playoff wick. I
have no idea whether Fandel, DraftKings, bet MGM, whoever wants
to sponsor my little segment here. They're welcome to sponsor it.
So we'll only pick one of you. But that would
(01:11:11):
be a fun bet to lay that no undefeated team
will be invited to the claff mark it down. That's
my prediction. All right? With that, I will see in
forty eight hours. Thanks for investing some time in the show.
Appreciate your support, Appreciate your listenership. Thank you for all
those likes. Tell your friends more subscriptions. We appreciate it.
(01:11:34):
See in forty eight hours.