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