Speaker 1: Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
Speaker 1: of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
Speaker 1: day regret. Their best selling out of Office gummies were
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
Speaker 1: gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
Speaker 1: fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
Speaker 1: beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
Speaker 1: glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
Speaker 1: prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
Speaker 1: believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
Speaker 1: in delicious HEMP derived THHC and CBD products, all designed
Speaker 1: to boost your mood and simply help you unwine so
Speaker 1: if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also
Speaker 1: has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
Speaker 1: help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
Speaker 1: selling Sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
Speaker 1: So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Speaker 1: Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order. So go to get sold
Speaker 1: dot Com use the promo code podcast. Don't forget that code.
Speaker 1: That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.
Speaker 1: Hello there, Happy Thursday. Welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Chuck Podcast. I got a loaded show for you today.
Speaker 1: We're going to obviously tackle the question and I've gotten
Speaker 1: a thousand times today from various walks of life, which
Speaker 1: is do these Epstein emails mean something more on Trump?
Speaker 1: Is this going to? Is this problem we're going to
Speaker 1: tell We're going to dive into that barely deep here. Then,
Speaker 1: of course after I'll do a little few more q
Speaker 1: and as, and I'll have my big college football preview
Speaker 1: going into the weekend. But I want to start, obviously
Speaker 1: with this question, and look, the world of independent media,
Speaker 1: the world of content creators. Right, we are in an
Speaker 1: Epstein frenzy, and it's a deserved sort of feeding frenzy
Speaker 1: of the moment because there's new material out there, right
Speaker 1: there's new emails, there's new shock emails, and the and
Speaker 1: the swearing in of Adelita Garalva, the Arizona congresswoman who's
Speaker 1: been waiting to be sworn in for over a month
Speaker 1: now because of the Speaker Johnson's bizarre decision to keep
Speaker 1: the House out. I really think he really did a
Speaker 1: disservice to his own party and his own members here,
Speaker 1: because it's a pretty indefensible you know, the lack of
Speaker 1: the lack of action, the lack of anything from the
Speaker 1: House Republicans, and they're running. They're on the ballot before
Speaker 1: anybody else, is right, it's the House Republicans are all
Speaker 1: on the ballot come in November twenty twenty six. And
Speaker 1: I think Mike Johnson has put his own members in
Speaker 1: a terrible situation. Obviously, he made a it feels like
Speaker 1: he made a decision that the White House has him
Speaker 1: to do, not what was in the best interests of
Speaker 1: the House Republicans, and you know, these in some ways,
Speaker 1: this controversy over the Epstein file is the same thing.
Speaker 1: Mike Johnson is consistently doing what's in the best interest
Speaker 1: of the White House, which is a branch of government.
Speaker 1: He does not lead, nor is he a member of
Speaker 1: He is actually the leader of the legislative branch. The
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House is essentially the de facto leader
Speaker 1: of that branch of government. Same way John Roberts as
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice, is essentially the current leader of the
Speaker 1: judiciary branch, and he is essentially outsourced decision making on
Speaker 1: what Congress should do to the White House. You get it. Politically,
Speaker 1: I understand why they feel like they have to, and
Speaker 1: we live in this jerrymandered world where primary voters matter
Speaker 1: more than the rest of us. But I will tell you,
Speaker 1: I think what Mike Johnson has done with House Republicans
Speaker 1: is so damaging, and I do not think they fully
Speaker 1: appreciate how much damage he's His decisions here again all
Speaker 1: were only to the benefit of one person, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: None of it to the benefit of anybody that's actually
Speaker 1: going to be on the ballot, namely every single one
Speaker 1: of those House Republicans that he is charged with leading.
Speaker 1: So the discharge position is here. It's interesting that the
Speaker 1: White House apparently was working Lauren Bobert seeing if they
Speaker 1: could talk her out of being a signer, trying to
Speaker 1: do whatever they can to stop this, and I think that.
Speaker 1: You know, the question is will this You know this
Speaker 1: is a guy you know Axis Hollywood didn't end him.
Speaker 1: January six didn't end him. I mean, look at the
Speaker 1: things he has done since coming into office. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm going to give you a quick rundown. These are
Speaker 1: just the people he pardoned on January sixth that have
Speaker 1: committed crimes since right and none of this has hit
Speaker 1: him yet. Edward Kelly, pardoned for January sixth, later convicted
Speaker 1: to conspiring to murder FBI agents. Daniel Charles Ball was
Speaker 1: pardoned in the January sixth pardons, and he was rearrested
Speaker 1: on federal gun charges. Kyle kle Elton was pardoned with
Speaker 1: his January sixth participation, later had to be indicted for
Speaker 1: receiving child pornography. Christopher moynihan was pardoned for the January
Speaker 1: sixth pardons, and in October twenty twenty five with charge
Speaker 1: of threatening to kill the House Democratic leader Aqim Jeffreys.
Speaker 1: And then there's Robert Packer pardon another January sixth partony
Speaker 1: in September of twenty twenty five charge in connection with
Speaker 1: a dog attack that left four people injured. So people,
Speaker 1: he's pardoned have gone on to commit more crimes and
Speaker 1: have become menaces to society. Never mind the other pardons
Speaker 1: he's done of some really questionable figures, like the one
Speaker 1: where it looks like he sold the pardon with Sheng
Speaker 1: Peng Xiao, the finance founder. That guy's in business with
Speaker 1: his sons and he magically gets a pardon. I wonder
Speaker 1: how that worked. This guy apparently had billions and illicit transactions,
Speaker 1: and it was Trump's Department of Justice the first term
Speaker 1: that actually prosecuted him. But we digress. George Santos, the
Speaker 1: serial liar who defrauded voters, defrauded Congress, did all sorts
Speaker 1: of things. He gets pardoned. Ed Martin, who who handles
Speaker 1: his pardons, he gets pardoned. He got convicted of financial crimes,
Speaker 1: misusing nonprofit funds, and he gets pardoned, and of course
Speaker 1: I think works for Trump. Denesh Desuza, who is traffics
Speaker 1: and made up Propa Canada with his Mules movie and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, well, he was convicted of illegal of
Speaker 1: the straw donor scheme. He received clemency. A couple of
Speaker 1: other crypto fraud financiers that he's pardoned ever since. So
Speaker 1: he's got and I say this, none of this stuff
Speaker 1: has mattered, right, I throw all that out there. All
Speaker 1: of this happened this year. He's you know, did the
Speaker 1: bailout of Argentina instead of bailing out US beef producers.
Speaker 1: None of this has hit him, stuck to him yet,
Speaker 1: So why should the Epstein files stick to him? Well,
Speaker 1: there's another way to look at this is that there
Speaker 1: are times in any presidency where you have Teflon as
Speaker 1: a president, and there are times in every presidency where
Speaker 1: it feels like you're dressed in velcrow. There was, you know,
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon had Teflon in his first term. By the
Speaker 1: second term, it was all velcrow and everything that was
Speaker 1: connected to Watergate or loosely connected to Watergate or any
Speaker 1: sort of presidential abuse of power seemed to stick to
Speaker 1: him and stick to him. But why did he go
Speaker 1: from a Teflon guy to a velcrow guy? A simple reason.
Speaker 1: The economy sucked. Why did Bill Clinton not get essentially
Speaker 1: punished by the political system or by voters when it
Speaker 1: came to Monica Lewinsky, the economy was great. Why did
Speaker 1: the stuff in Trump's first term not stick to him?
Speaker 1: There was a perception that he oversaw a successful economy
Speaker 1: pre coronavirus. Why is this possible that this time he's
Speaker 1: and this is why could this time be different? Because
Speaker 1: too many people in this country think this economy sucks. Because,
Speaker 1: as we've discussed, if you have money, you're doing okay.
Speaker 1: If you don't have money, you're struggling. You're barely out
Speaker 1: of you're barely above water. You're seeing your electric bill
Speaker 1: go up, You're seeing the grocery bills go up. You're
Speaker 1: seeing everything in your life go up in price. Trust me,
Speaker 1: even if you have some savings, you're seeing everything go up. Right,
Speaker 1: The cost of everything has gone up and feels like
Speaker 1: it's going up substantially, particularly when you look at electricity.
Speaker 1: So you know, Epstein's been out there as an issue
Speaker 1: for Trump arguably for years. The question is when does
Speaker 1: it does a you know, why would it matter this
Speaker 1: time more than before. You can say, well, there's more
Speaker 1: evidence that connects him that he knew something. I definitely
Speaker 1: think there's always going to be but you could make
Speaker 1: the argument you kind of knew right, Like there's this
Speaker 1: great quote from JD. Vance that actually which was you know,
Speaker 1: there's always a tweet right, this is JD. Vance Saraha
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, So you'll be forgiven. I know
Speaker 1: the way. You have to go way back in his past,
Speaker 1: right some four whole years ago. But the quote, and
Speaker 1: I just want to get it directly here. I had
Speaker 1: it up. Remember this is him. He was a tweet
Speaker 1: he made in twenty twenty one. Remember when we learned
Speaker 1: that our wealthiest and most powerful people were connected to
Speaker 1: a guy who ran a literal child sex trafficking ring,
Speaker 1: and then that guy died mysteriously in jail, and now
Speaker 1: we just don't talk about it. Of course, that was
Speaker 1: when there was a democratic administration that he did tweet
Speaker 1: this right number one, And that was back when the
Speaker 1: right was convinced this was a cover up having to
Speaker 1: do with Bill Clinton. But of course Jeffrey Epstein's closest
Speaker 1: friend was not Bill Clinton. It was Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: with a the point I'm making here is do I
Speaker 1: think Trump could Jedi mind trick his way out of this? Well,
Speaker 1: he has for a long time. And why has he
Speaker 1: Well there's been other things. There's been And again I
Speaker 1: go back to the first term, even when Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: was in custody, even when this whole thing consumed a
Speaker 1: cabinet secretary of his who had to essentially drop because
Speaker 1: of his lenient sentencing that he oversaw down in South Florida.
Speaker 1: It was because the perception, well, yeah, we knew all this,
Speaker 1: this was all baked in. We kind of knew Trump
Speaker 1: was this. And this is why in some ways people
Speaker 1: already know. Remember when we learned that our wealthiest and
Speaker 1: most powerful people were connected to a guy hard Stop.
Speaker 1: So that's problem Number one for Trump is that Trump
Speaker 1: has made it clear he's been part of the establishment,
Speaker 1: part of the elite. He knows everybody, He knows all
Speaker 1: these guys, he's been there. He himself has quotes of him,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Jeffrey likes him young, and he knows. There's
Speaker 1: that other quote that's floating around where he said, man,
Speaker 1: it was the nineties, a lot of crazy stuff was happening.
Speaker 1: I don't remember, which is always code for I don't
Speaker 1: want to talk about what I might know, or what
Speaker 1: I might have seen, or what I might have participated in.
Speaker 1: The Point is, it isn't going to be hard for
Speaker 1: people to believe that he had a relationship with Epstein,
Speaker 1: that he was close with him. The difference is they're
Speaker 1: pissed off about he's not doing what he promised to
Speaker 1: do as president, which is bring down the costs. They're
Speaker 1: doing anything. But if anything, his policies have hurt you, right,
Speaker 1: it is the price of coffee is up, not down.
Speaker 1: Notice the Treasury Secretary says, we're going to lower the
Speaker 1: price of coffee. We're going to lower the price of fruit. Translation,
Speaker 1: they realize these tariffs actually impacted everyday people. And when
Speaker 1: you teariff Brazil over a political obsession of yours, all
Speaker 1: you do is attack all Americans in their pocketbook because
Speaker 1: of the price of coffee. So I'm always has it
Speaker 1: in to assume, ah, this is it. But look, every
Speaker 1: presidency comes to an end and their influence comes to
Speaker 1: an end. And the way we mark the end of
Speaker 1: a presidency as we say, oh, he's becoming a lame duck.
Speaker 1: And you're starting to hear the words lame duck. I
Speaker 1: think when you measure when does a president become every
Speaker 1: president becomes a lame duck. The question is when does
Speaker 1: it begin. Well, trying to figure out when a presidency
Speaker 1: is an official lame duck status is like trying to
Speaker 1: guess when we're in recession. Right. There's a great line
Speaker 1: about economists with recessions, they can always tell you when
Speaker 1: it started. After the recession has started, there's not a
Speaker 1: single economist that can tell you when it's going to begin. Right.
Speaker 1: They never tell you when it's going to be, and
Speaker 1: we always are. We're always informed of when it began.
Speaker 1: I actually think there's the same thing with when it
Speaker 1: comes to a lame duck presidency. Is this begun? Are
Speaker 1: we in the midst of it? Are we at the
Speaker 1: beginning of it? We're not going to know for sure,
Speaker 1: I think for about six months or a year. But
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this if if we fast forward a
Speaker 1: year and the Democrats sweep the House in the Senate,
Speaker 1: which to me, you know and you're going to hear
Speaker 1: this actually in the Adam Jenlsen interview, and I think
Speaker 1: he sets this bar correctly, which is, if Democrats don't
Speaker 1: win the Senate, they don't win the mid terms. Right.
Speaker 1: Winning the House is simply participating, right, that's table stakes.
Speaker 1: Winning the Senate means you won an argument, You won
Speaker 1: the campaign because you convinced people who normally aren't on
Speaker 1: your side to be on your side. That's winning right,
Speaker 1: Winning the House is simply participating. Winning the House is
Speaker 1: a participation trophy. Winning the Senate is winning the midterms.
Speaker 1: So a year from now, if we're in a situation
Speaker 1: where we say the Democrats swept the House in the Senate,
Speaker 1: we will then go back and say Donald Trump's lame
Speaker 1: duck presidency hit lame ducks status election Day twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: and arguably it probably happened a bit sooner. We might
Speaker 1: say that essentially the symbolic beginning of his lame duckness
Speaker 1: was the destruction of the East Wing when he became
Speaker 1: so consumed with his personal legacy and he stopped worrying
Speaker 1: about the American voter. Right. Look, Donald Trump's history is
Speaker 1: he wants to get everything he can out of you
Speaker 1: that benefits him, and once he drains, once you've given
Speaker 1: him everything he can get out of you, he moves on. Right.
Speaker 1: My substeck this week is about how I think I
Speaker 1: think he has treated the Republican Party the way he
Speaker 1: treated many of the casinos that he operated or businesses
Speaker 1: that he's run, which is he essentially leveraged it for
Speaker 1: his benefit, left this entity with a huge debt. In
Speaker 1: this case, the debt he has left him as moral
Speaker 1: and ethical bankruptcy, and then he's gonna walk away. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is going to be the pardon of
Speaker 1: shitty pardons, is going to be the party of that
Speaker 1: doesn't care about the rule of law unless it applies
Speaker 1: only to the other side, like he is gonna that
Speaker 1: they're part of that. The legacy is somehow the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is the party of crypto scammers. Like that's not
Speaker 1: a good legacy. And then you throw in Epstein here
Speaker 1: and he's the party of protecting the pedophile. This episode
Speaker 1: of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Waldgrain.
Speaker 1: Waldgrain is the first Bake from Frozen subscription box for
Speaker 1: artisaal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all items
Speaker 1: conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many
Speaker 1: store boys options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can
Speaker 1: pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be easier
Speaker 1: on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. Wildgrains
Speaker 1: boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and limited
Speaker 1: tiping products for you to enjoy it. In addition to
Speaker 1: their classic box. They now feature a gluten free box
Speaker 1: and a plant based box. I checked out the gluten
Speaker 1: free box and let me tell you, they have a
Speaker 1: gluten free sourdough bread. It is. We got two loads
Speaker 1: of it and we've done one loaf already. It's a
Speaker 1: cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's like the best raisin
Speaker 1: bread you've ever had, except it's not raisin. It's great.
Speaker 1: You're gonna love this. You know, it's hit or miss
Speaker 1: if you mess around in the gluten free bread world.
Speaker 1: This is a hit. Seriously. I was impressed. So look
Speaker 1: for a limited time. Wild Grain is offering our listeners
Speaker 1: thirty dollars off your first box, plus free croissants in
Speaker 1: every box when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 1: To start your subscription, follow these instructions. Free croissants in
Speaker 1: every box, thirty dollars off your first box when you
Speaker 1: go to wildgrain dot com slash toodcast that's wildgrain dot
Speaker 1: com slash toodcast, or simply use the promo code toodcast
Speaker 1: at checkout. Always use the code, get the discount. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you, it's excellent, excellent, right, there's nothing more the
Speaker 1: Republican Party can do for Donald Trump, there is no
Speaker 1: opportunity to run again. So now Donald Trump's worried about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and because of that, does it appears to
Speaker 1: not even be worried about the voter anymore. And this
Speaker 1: is where he goes from having a Teflon suit and
Speaker 1: he was Teflon Don and he's been teflon don. Right.
Speaker 1: You know, he can attack John McCain and not lose somebody.
Speaker 1: He could shoot somebody apparently on Fifth Avenue and not
Speaker 1: lose a supporter. But if this economy sucks, and if
Speaker 1: the grocery bills, he can't Jedi mind trick away a
Speaker 1: grocery bill. And then suddenly when that happens, and they think, well,
Speaker 1: my life sucks, and this guy is worried more about
Speaker 1: the East wing of the White House. Oh yeah, and
Speaker 1: this guy protected a pedophile for decades, and this guy
Speaker 1: is going to commute or the sentence of said pedophiles
Speaker 1: partner in crime, literal partner in crime. And Gallainne Maxwell.
Speaker 1: That's how this that's how this story matters, right, And
Speaker 1: now you've got this orchestration of a series of votes
Speaker 1: where you know Epstein is one of these few stories.
Speaker 1: We live in this siloed information world where literally, you know,
Speaker 1: I could say, you know, I mean, I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: an interview with Clay Travis in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: I don't think my mother knows who Clay Travis is.
Speaker 1: And I say this with no, you know, why should
Speaker 1: she you know? He is? He he is in a
Speaker 1: different media ecosystem than my mother travels in. She doesn't,
Speaker 1: you know, she watches a lot of college football, but
Speaker 1: it happens she doesn't watch anything on Fox because Miami
Speaker 1: doesn't ever play on Fox. They usually play on the
Speaker 1: ESPN or ABC. So she might be aware of ESPN personalities,
Speaker 1: but she's not aware of any Fox sports personalities, let
Speaker 1: alone aware of his radio show or any of those things.
Speaker 1: And Epstein's one of these stories that every every single
Speaker 1: silo has an Epstein corner. Right, Your Maga silo has
Speaker 1: an Epstein corner, Your sort of never Trump silo has
Speaker 1: Epstein corners, your sort of center, your sort of mainstream
Speaker 1: media has an Epstein corner, Your progressive wing has an
Speaker 1: Epstein corner. Right, there is this collective interest in Epstein,
Speaker 1: And let's be honest, why there is. It's all. You know,
Speaker 1: at first, the rights interest in Epstein was all about
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton. Nothing. It was always about Bill Clint. That's
Speaker 1: how the right got fascinated by this. They were hoping
Speaker 1: to paint and it was all these you know, democratics
Speaker 1: are all part of this weird pedophilia conspiracy that QAnon launched.
Speaker 1: All this, it's all sort of wrapped up in that.
Speaker 1: And then Trump's names showed up in the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: Right then we realized. And then Trump became a cornerstone
Speaker 1: of Mega and sort of created somebody's created Mega, right, Certainly,
Speaker 1: it's always a question, you know, like anything, Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: create anything. He just sort of got in front of
Speaker 1: a parade that was that was starting to form, and
Speaker 1: then suddenly he became their leader and their unifier. But
Speaker 1: here we are, and now everybody else is interested in
Speaker 1: it because you're like, whoa, So Trump's involved in this
Speaker 1: and this side, you know, and it's just one of
Speaker 1: those stories that everybody's got a stake in. So this
Speaker 1: is going to be a story that constantly, just like
Speaker 1: the economy is right, the economy breaks through every because
Speaker 1: you can't sort of information silo your grocery bill, you know,
Speaker 1: there isn't a Fox News version of the Grocery Bill
Speaker 1: or an MSNBC version of Grocery Bill. So you can't
Speaker 1: do that with the economy, and in this unique case,
Speaker 1: you can't do it with the Epstein story. And this
Speaker 1: is why this feels like a very lame that this
Speaker 1: is what lame duck. What happens to lame duck presidencies
Speaker 1: is that they can't stop feeding frenzies anymore. You know,
Speaker 1: this happened with George W. Bush. You know a lot
Speaker 1: of people will say the feeding frenzies, you know, sort
Speaker 1: of the lame duck period of the Bush presidency began
Speaker 1: with the twenty oh six midterms. I'd actually argue, or
Speaker 1: you could go backwards and say it began with the
Speaker 1: Terry Schivo thing, when they went full bore on that
Speaker 1: and the public revolted and they couldn't sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: their typical positions didn't work, their typical media spin didn't work.
Speaker 1: And then you realize, you know, his credibility was shot,
Speaker 1: It was already weakening due to a rock. Terry Schivo hits.
Speaker 1: Then Katrina happens, and then the whole thing is over.
Speaker 1: But Katrina didn't start the lame duck period. The lame
Speaker 1: duck period actually began at the tail at the at
Speaker 1: the beginning of five when he started messing around with
Speaker 1: the Shaivo business and Social security investments, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: so that's where I think this if we're if indeed
Speaker 1: we're able to in a year from now, really in it.
Speaker 1: We have the environment that we have and it does
Speaker 1: turn into a democratic suite. We will say this lame
Speaker 1: duck period began in the fall of in the fall
Speaker 1: of this year, just like with Joe Biden's presidency, it
Speaker 1: turned out the beginning of the end of his presidency
Speaker 1: happened really early in his presidency, right with the Afghanistan
Speaker 1: withdrawal and the inability to to sort of hold anybody accountable,
Speaker 1: fix it, explain it. And he never recovered from there.
Speaker 1: And while because he was a first term president, you'd
Speaker 1: never say lame duck in hindsight, you know, that's when
Speaker 1: he lost. That's when he lost the plot and it
Speaker 1: was and everything went downhill from there. You know. That's
Speaker 1: I think the situation we may be living him now.
Speaker 1: And the nightmare for the White House press shop is
Speaker 1: is you know, Trump has not helped them at all.
Speaker 1: You know, I would argue that he actually had a
Speaker 1: you know, Trump's problem is going soft on Maxwell because
Speaker 1: by going soft on Maxwell, but he is essentially confirmed
Speaker 1: the idea that Maxwell knows some stuff, that he's friendly
Speaker 1: with her, that he knows her, and it undermines the
Speaker 1: story that he had sort of lived with for a
Speaker 1: while when it came to Epstein that I that mostly
Speaker 1: worked with his supporters, which was, yeah, I knew Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein very well, and then our relationship ended because I
Speaker 1: didn't like what he was doing to you know, women
Speaker 1: on my at mar A Lago. So we had this
Speaker 1: sort of story that was that had some credibility to
Speaker 1: it that you know, he didn't because there was it
Speaker 1: was true he recruited apparently he recruited one of these
Speaker 1: women from mar Alago, and Trump says kicked him out
Speaker 1: of mar A Lago and said, you can't come back here.
Speaker 1: Now we now learn that the reason for the real
Speaker 1: breakup between Epstein and Trump wasn't that it was over
Speaker 1: a piece of property in Palm Beach. We eventually learned
Speaker 1: about that later, But he had a story that he
Speaker 1: was feeding his supporters that yeah, I knew Epstein, and
Speaker 1: then when I realized what he was doing, I was out.
Speaker 1: I didn't want that Slee's bag around. Okay, then why
Speaker 1: are you soft on Glene Maxwell. If you're so outraged
Speaker 1: by what Jeffrey Epstein did, then your Justice Department should
Speaker 1: have made life harder for Maxwell, not easier. But you
Speaker 1: went soft on her, and what he did was is
Speaker 1: essentially made it impossible to defend Trump's actions. You couldn't say,
Speaker 1: you know, if he was as disgusted by what Epstein
Speaker 1: did as he said, and he's as disgusted as his
Speaker 1: supporters say they are disgusted, then this idea of leniency
Speaker 1: on her, giving her, you know, the club fed treatment
Speaker 1: when it comes to transferring her prison, sending your personal
Speaker 1: attorney who happens to be the Deputy Attorney General, to
Speaker 1: coax answers out of her, including the I never saw
Speaker 1: anything untoward. Uh, it was so important to him to
Speaker 1: get that on the record. But Trump seems to be
Speaker 1: worried about something with Maxwell, when if he actually wanted
Speaker 1: to keep his con up on Epstein, and let's assume
Speaker 1: I'm gonna assume it's a con and you know, with Trump,
Speaker 1: it's it's hard not to assume that. So let's I'm
Speaker 1: gonna assume it's a con. He'd have been better off
Speaker 1: playing he said, she said with her, and said he'd
Speaker 1: and then made life tougher on her. And and if
Speaker 1: and if she threatened to go public with stuff, let
Speaker 1: her go public. She's the one sitting in prison. She's
Speaker 1: got the credibility problem. And then if you were being
Speaker 1: tough on her and she was then pushing back, it
Speaker 1: could simply be she's squealing. But the fact he didn't
Speaker 1: do that right, whatever he thinks, she knows, he seems
Speaker 1: to be fearful enough of that. It's leveraged that she's
Speaker 1: successfully used with him and with Todd Blanche and that's
Speaker 1: why his story falls apart. Now again, does any of
Speaker 1: this matter politically? Well, I go back to every republican's
Speaker 1: been carrying around Trump baggage for a long time, and
Speaker 1: in some ways they're now used to it. But when
Speaker 1: the economy is as bad as it is right now
Speaker 1: for so many people, and as frustrating of an economy
Speaker 1: as this is, and that's what it is, it's a
Speaker 1: you know, it's one of these things that you can
Speaker 1: look at it statistically and say, well, this is going well.
Speaker 1: Like I saw a stat today that said that publicly
Speaker 1: traded companies are having one of the best years earning
Speaker 1: wise that we've seen. Ninety two percent of them are
Speaker 1: reporting earnings above the normal average. And you're just like wow,
Speaker 1: And yet jobs are decreasing, not increasing, Right, So that
Speaker 1: means Wall Street's being rewarded for or its efficiencies in
Speaker 1: its companies. Wall Street's being as they as a company
Speaker 1: should you make. Your productivity is up and your labor
Speaker 1: costs are down. Good for you investors like that, But
Speaker 1: that means there's a whole bunch of people in this
Speaker 1: economy not succeeding. And so that's why it's very hard
Speaker 1: to you know, when Trump's using the stock market as
Speaker 1: a as a as proof that his economy is doing well,
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, you're you're you're with the hat your
Speaker 1: your economy is working for the haves. Your economy is
Speaker 1: not working for the have nots. And the irony is
Speaker 1: that he built his political coalition on the have nots
Speaker 1: very successfully and now he doesn't seem to care about
Speaker 1: the have nots anymore. And that's where what when these
Speaker 1: that's when I go back to Epstein for the longest time.
Speaker 1: It is basically run into teflon don and has slid
Speaker 1: off of him. Well, I think it's I think he
Speaker 1: is now has a suit of velcrow on. More things
Speaker 1: are sticking to him than ever before. Right, you've got
Speaker 1: sleepy eyes Trump, now that's sticking to him. You've got
Speaker 1: the medical issues. Huh, something's going on. If he passed
Speaker 1: his MRI. You don't pass an MRI. But congratulations, I
Speaker 1: guess you know you're not at You don't do an
Speaker 1: MRI unless they're wondering what, unless they can't find the
Speaker 1: problem of something that's bothering you. So you got that.
Speaker 1: He's just doesn't seem healthy, doesn't look healthy, doesn't behave
Speaker 1: low And you can see he's really aged a lot
Speaker 1: in the last six months. Go look at clips from
Speaker 1: April and then look at clips in the last two weeks.
Speaker 1: His voice is thinner. Maybe there are days that you
Speaker 1: know you could just tell he there are days where
Speaker 1: you know he's tired, and that's always a sign of aging.
Speaker 1: And of course when you're at a certain age, and
Speaker 1: this happened with Biden just because things are fine six
Speaker 1: months ago, you know this is one of those things.
Speaker 1: At some point in your late seventies early eighties, you
Speaker 1: can you know, you don't age at a at an
Speaker 1: equal rate. Okay, you sort of go. You have fits
Speaker 1: and starts, and then you know, we've seen that, I've
Speaker 1: had elderly relatives where everything's fine, and then you don't
Speaker 1: see him for six months and you're like, holy cow,
Speaker 1: what happened to uncle Joe? Or I have a real
Speaker 1: uncle Joe. So no, nothing's happened to uncle Joe. I
Speaker 1: don't want uncle Joe. That isn't about about you. I
Speaker 1: was just using like Jane, and I'll go uncle John, Doe.
Speaker 1: I don't have an uncle John, so I'll do uncle John.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, what happened uncle John? Or what happened
Speaker 1: at Jane? And you know that happens in these three
Speaker 1: and six months. And the point is is that you know,
Speaker 1: it's like the you know, it's like in business, your
Speaker 1: hockey stick moment, but going the wrong way, you're going along,
Speaker 1: you're going along and all of a sudden, yep, it's
Speaker 1: off a cliff. It just collectively feels like he has
Speaker 1: now got a suit of valcrow. And so if we
Speaker 1: have essentially six weeks of every couple of days there's
Speaker 1: an Epstein development, which now there's going to be now
Speaker 1: that this discharge petition has happened, they're going to have
Speaker 1: this vote at some point in the next couple of
Speaker 1: weeks that will be there. Then you then it has
Speaker 1: to go to the Senate. I you know, there was
Speaker 1: a time I thought, Eh, the Senate will kill it.
Speaker 1: I don't know anymore. Right, it's going to be an
Speaker 1: interesting test. How many Republicans will there be thirty? Will
Speaker 1: there be thirteen Republicans who joined forty seven Democrats to
Speaker 1: force this release and force it on? Is you know,
Speaker 1: for you know, have both the House and the Senate
Speaker 1: have this? That's an interesting development. Is it a moment
Speaker 1: where some Republicans decide, I need to show some independence
Speaker 1: from Trump? Is this the safest place to do it? Right?
Speaker 1: It could be the healthcare subsidies could be a way
Speaker 1: that Republicans distance from Trump. The ruling when it comes
Speaker 1: out likely saying that his his tariffs are unconstitutional. Is
Speaker 1: that the moment? Is it the Epstein files? The point
Speaker 1: is there's a lot of ways now that Republicans can
Speaker 1: start to put some distance in a in what will
Speaker 1: look like a baby step right, just voting against him
Speaker 1: on Epstein, or voting against him on tariffs, or voting
Speaker 1: against them on health care subsidies. That suddenly what is
Speaker 1: a trickle turns into uh, you know, a rush of
Speaker 1: you well of water coming out of the faucet, essentially
Speaker 1: trying to get away from him. So that's how I
Speaker 1: think this story is potentially that you know, it's it's like, javert,
Speaker 1: do you got him? Now? You know? It's it's the accumulation,
Speaker 1: and it's the fact because of this sour economy, he
Speaker 1: he's now wearing a suit with velcrow on it and
Speaker 1: more things, more of this other stuff is now going
Speaker 1: to start to stick to him because he didn't handle
Speaker 1: the main thing. He was elected for one reason, and
Speaker 1: one reason only bring down costs, and he's failing massively
Speaker 1: at that, which means every other secondary issue becomes a
Speaker 1: problem for that voter because they think, well, he can't
Speaker 1: do this, well, he must be that. He must be that,
Speaker 1: he must be that. And that's why this Epstein story
Speaker 1: could be just yet another sign that the lame duck
Speaker 1: status is now the You know, if you were to
Speaker 1: go to Trump's Facebook page, he should change. He may
Speaker 1: have to change his status to lame duck. So with that,
Speaker 1: I'll sneak at a break and we'll bring in Adam Jennisen.
Speaker 1: There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
Speaker 1: there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's large injury
Speaker 1: law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
Speaker 1: twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
Speaker 1: It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
Speaker 1: just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Speaker 1: Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
Speaker 1: which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
Speaker 1: insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across
Speaker 1: the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.
Speaker 1: If you're injured, you need a lawyer, you need somebody
Speaker 1: to get your back. Check out for Thepeople dot Com,
Speaker 1: Slash podcast or Dow Pound Law Pound five two nine
Speaker 1: law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms
Speaker 1: are not the same, so check out Morgan and Morgan.
Speaker 1: Their fee is free unless they win as check first
Speaker 1: one comes from XW from Alexandria here in the DMVs.
Speaker 1: I've been a fan since before you hosted me the Press.
Speaker 1: Thank you, and I particularly enjoy your political analysis and
Speaker 1: how you use American history explain what we are going
Speaker 1: through towards that end. Have you watched Death by Lightning
Speaker 1: on Netflix? I am in the middle of it. I
Speaker 1: finished part one. It's four part series telling the story
Speaker 1: of James Garfield's rise to the presidency after winning the
Speaker 1: nomination on the thirty six ballot at the Republican National
Speaker 1: Convention in eighteen eighty and his assassination after only three
Speaker 1: months in office. It's filled with political intrigue, corruption, spoils,
Speaker 1: and patronage near the end of the nineteenth century. Right
Speaker 1: up your ally, Max, You're right, and I will sort
Speaker 1: of give you a little insight here. I've been obsessed
Speaker 1: with the Garfield story for a long time. Have a
Speaker 1: writing partner off and on by the name of Adam Pearlman,
Speaker 1: who has done some terrific work. Billions in particulars and
Speaker 1: he and I have and I have a pilot script
Speaker 1: actually that we had once been working with a major
Speaker 1: production company and the Game of Throne guys Benny Off
Speaker 1: and Weisse got the Netflix deal and they ended up
Speaker 1: pitching a Netflix a Garfield series. And let's just say
Speaker 1: they had a longer track record than my Adam and
Speaker 1: I did on this. I have watched episode one. I've
Speaker 1: enjoyed it. It is not the take I would have done.
Speaker 1: And I'm not this is not to be critical. I
Speaker 1: think they've made an interest, They've made some interesting decisions.
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to where they go. And that is
Speaker 1: the beauty of this story. I'm I'm obsessed with the
Speaker 1: period itself. Right this was we were so close to
Speaker 1: getting reconstruction back. And I'm somebody who thinks a Garfield presidency,
Speaker 1: you know, the Garfield presidency got a civil service reform,
Speaker 1: which was not a small thing. Trump's actually trying to
Speaker 1: the Trump now is trying to undo some of the
Speaker 1: civil service reform that that Chester Arthur, who ends up
Speaker 1: the you know, a forced vice president on by the
Speaker 1: political machine in New York, ends up after the death
Speaker 1: of Garfield, sort of sees the light and stops being
Speaker 1: a cog in the Roscoe Conkling New York political machine
Speaker 1: and actually pledges to fulfill a Garfield presidency. But I
Speaker 1: think Garfield himself, had he lived, I think you might
Speaker 1: have seen reconstruction come back. I think, you know, he
Speaker 1: he was. He's the closest thing we've had to sort
Speaker 1: of the out of nowhere president. Right. It's the you know,
Speaker 1: I've always said the mythology. I was telling this to
Speaker 1: my wife when we were watching, and I said, you know,
Speaker 1: the mythology that you know, the out of nowhere candidate
Speaker 1: can get the nomination with a speech. The reason the
Speaker 1: mythology existed with conventions is because it happened once right,
Speaker 1: James Garfield, right, his speech moved enough people to suddenly
Speaker 1: start considering him because of this sort of deadlock when
Speaker 1: it came to the Grant side and the machines and
Speaker 1: all of this stuff. So, you know, Gettau and I
Speaker 1: think there. I like how they're portraying Getteau because I
Speaker 1: think he was mentally ill and sort of a guy
Speaker 1: with delusions of grandeur who clearly had a troubled upbringing,
Speaker 1: had a troubled relationship with his father. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, not to play spoiler here,
Speaker 1: but you know, Gaeto ends up trying to defend defends himself.
Speaker 1: When the first real sort of feeding frenzied trial of
Speaker 1: the century that the media was obsessed with was actually
Speaker 1: the trial and the Geteau trial, which began before Garfield died.
Speaker 1: Because Garfield's you know, Getau Getteau, you could argue didn't
Speaker 1: kill Garfield. The doctors who didn't know what they were
Speaker 1: doing killed Garfield, right they stuck There. There's a guy
Speaker 1: named doctor Doctor and I haven't I don't know if
Speaker 1: they're going to portray him or not, but the guy's
Speaker 1: name really was doctor Doctor. Like sometimes you just can't
Speaker 1: make it up, right, it's going to sound like it's
Speaker 1: been fictionalized. But he didn't believe that you had to
Speaker 1: wash your hands before you I mean, this was still
Speaker 1: like debated medical science. Do you do you do? You do? You?
Speaker 1: Should you wash your hands? Do you need a sterile
Speaker 1: environment before you? You know? Which I know seems but
Speaker 1: it was a guy there was this was so called
Speaker 1: new medicine, new medical practices that was coming out of Europe,
Speaker 1: and it was a guy named doctor Lister, which if
Speaker 1: you're wondering if doctor Lister invented listerine, he did not.
Speaker 1: But doctor Lister was sort of the godfather of this
Speaker 1: sort of idea that you wash your hands and you
Speaker 1: need a sterile environment before as a doctor, before you
Speaker 1: give medical care. So Lister Reene was though named after
Speaker 1: you know Lister, is that part. But no, the treatment,
Speaker 1: the attempt to save Garfield's life killed him. It's possible
Speaker 1: if nobody touched them that he that he might have
Speaker 1: that the bullet wouldn't have killed them, and he might
Speaker 1: have lived and recovered with the bullet in him. But
Speaker 1: the attempt to get the bullet out actually killed him.
Speaker 1: So but that's obviously stuff that you've scientifically figure out later,
Speaker 1: which in the moment we didn't have. But I am
Speaker 1: obsessed with the entire period. Again, it's interesting how they
Speaker 1: chose to sell it, which is, here's two guys you've
Speaker 1: never heard of or you've forgotten, who have been forgotten
Speaker 1: to history. One was the twentieth president of United States.
Speaker 1: It was It's an interesting choice. I get it, they're
Speaker 1: trying to mass appeal it, and I'm enjoying it. I
Speaker 1: fully will confess I would have had a slightly different way.
Speaker 1: I would have done it different way. I would have started.
Speaker 1: Nothing wrong with what they did. And here's my goal.
Speaker 1: I want this to be successful enough that there is
Speaker 1: more appetite for more. I think Roscoe Conkling if you
Speaker 1: want to go and read about one of the most
Speaker 1: you know, the Mitch Mcca or Nancy Pelosi of their day,
Speaker 1: and I say both right. He was a congressional leader.
Speaker 1: Congressional leaders are both lionized and backroom transactionalists at the
Speaker 1: same time. And don't let anybody tell you that you
Speaker 1: got to have the mix of both of them. Conkling
Speaker 1: was an interesting cat, and he's going to be portrayed
Speaker 1: sort of, I think a bit simply here. It's less
Speaker 1: simple than it is. But boy, is is he a
Speaker 1: character that if there really was a demand for more
Speaker 1: about this era, he could get his own mini series,
Speaker 1: Like you could really develop something just on him. He's
Speaker 1: that colorful of a character. And yes, the way they
Speaker 1: have him dressing, he was always for the day, dressing
Speaker 1: in brighter colors than everybody else. He was flamboyant man
Speaker 1: about town. I don't think he ever spent a night alone,
Speaker 1: so there's a it is you are right, max At,
Speaker 1: It is up my alley. It was so up my alley.
Speaker 1: I wanted to make my own version of it. So there,
Speaker 1: all right, But kudos to those guys, and thank you
Speaker 1: Netflix for green lighting a period piece like that. There's
Speaker 1: great history to be told through incredible storytelling, and I'd
Speaker 1: love to see more production companies support stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from Stafford from downtown la Hey. I've
Speaker 1: been a fan since your days of Meet the Press,
Speaker 1: and I'm loving the new podcast. Before my question, I
Speaker 1: wanted to say that you appear to have done the impossible.
Speaker 1: You've gotten me interested in both professional and college football.
Speaker 1: Having grown up a Chargers fan, I had largely washed
Speaker 1: my hands of the sport after nineteen ninety five. My
Speaker 1: question is this, Can anything be done in the short
Speaker 1: to medium term about electricity costs. I'm a school teacher
Speaker 1: and my partner is a grad student at USC fight On.
Speaker 1: We live in a one bedroom apartment in la and
Speaker 1: while our incomes are enough to get by, it's starting
Speaker 1: to pinch. I just opened our electric bill for a
Speaker 1: single month and it's easily fifty percent more than we
Speaker 1: were paying. A couple of years ago. I know data
Speaker 1: centers are affecting energy prices, but more to it. Thanks
Speaker 1: for all the wonderful analysis and for making your episodes lengthy.
Speaker 1: I really get a lot of detail I can't get elsewhere. Sincerely,
Speaker 1: Stafford from downtown LA. How about that somebody thanking me
Speaker 1: for the length. I'm not gonna go Joe Rogan on you.
Speaker 1: I promise no three hour podcasts. Right, Simmons pushes the
Speaker 1: envelope in the two hour plus range. I'm going to
Speaker 1: still try to keep a one in front of that
Speaker 1: number on that front. So it's interesting with electricity, it's
Speaker 1: such a complicated thing. I was digging into this, and
Speaker 1: in fact, I'm going to be when you hear this.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be down in Austin, Texas, interviewing the
Speaker 1: governor of Maryland, Wes Moore, and I was talking with
Speaker 1: his staff about a few issues, and we were talking
Speaker 1: about electricity, and I said, you know, I was asking
Speaker 1: about the data center issue in Maryland and Maryland, doesn't
Speaker 1: you know Virginia is a data center state? And he
Speaker 1: was noting, how you know? He says, Maryland's a transmission state.
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of electricity goes through our state
Speaker 1: and we pass it through. And you know, some states
Speaker 1: are elect energy producing and they add to the grid,
Speaker 1: Others only take from the grid, Others help, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of. The grid itself is a complicated thing. California
Speaker 1: has its own set of rules that only add to it,
Speaker 1: and it's it's one of those things that I think
Speaker 1: that you know, we're we're in this. You know, elect
Speaker 1: elect electric companies are are private companies, but they're but
Speaker 1: they have to get public approval for what they do
Speaker 1: and how they do it. And I think that we're
Speaker 1: about to see, especially with the data center, you know,
Speaker 1: obsession and drain, and it's a real issue in the
Speaker 1: state I live in Virginia because it is like Virginia
Speaker 1: is a huge got a bunch of data centers, and
Speaker 1: we have some of the highest spikes in electricity. So
Speaker 1: I think there's going to have to be some federal
Speaker 1: legislation here because I do think that, you know, every
Speaker 1: state is set up to try to regulate itself. Right,
Speaker 1: You're in a state where they're using a lot of
Speaker 1: air conditioning and there's always a high a little more
Speaker 1: usage of energy, particularly in the southern part where you know,
Speaker 1: they're constantly having to regulate it, and it is done
Speaker 1: on a state basis, based on state usage. But if
Speaker 1: we're going to have more of these sort of drags
Speaker 1: on the grid coming from other states, and all of
Speaker 1: this is interconnected. So look, I think this is going
Speaker 1: to be I think the electric bill issue is going
Speaker 1: to be what the price of eggs were, right and
Speaker 1: grocery bills were in twenty twenty four. You know that
Speaker 1: this is going to be the thing that everybody comes
Speaker 1: back to. We saw it in the New Jersey race
Speaker 1: because this is happening across the board. Everybody's electric bills
Speaker 1: are going up. There's just a more and they're you know,
Speaker 1: and what people do is they cherry pick the thing
Speaker 1: that they don't like to say this is the reason
Speaker 1: it's going up. It's just everything is the reason. And
Speaker 1: I think that there's some argument that what Trump has
Speaker 1: done with canceling some of these all of the above
Speaker 1: energy strategies, that he's actually limiting new energy getting onto
Speaker 1: the grid, like we need more diversified sources of energy
Speaker 1: in order to keep everything going that we're going and
Speaker 1: him sort of you know, essentially torpedoing the Biden Energy
Speaker 1: bill mandates when it came to wind and solar and
Speaker 1: things like that, it's going to directly impact the cost
Speaker 1: of electric bills. So I don't think there's anything short
Speaker 1: term that's going to get done. But I will say this,
Speaker 1: I think you're going to have more political rhetoric about it.
Speaker 1: You know, we're all going to have to start to
Speaker 1: recalibrate what's warm and cold in order to save a
Speaker 1: few dollars. I can tell you what I'm looking into
Speaker 1: is trying to figure out is there's some solar alternatives,
Speaker 1: you know, to at least minimizing the cost on some things. Right,
Speaker 1: is there and it may be tough in an apartment
Speaker 1: situation to get the benefit of that. But will you
Speaker 1: start to see landlords who maybe maybe you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know how you're building a set up, and sometimes
Speaker 1: you everybody sort of splits the utility costs. It's part
Speaker 1: of a larger fee, and in that sense, the landlord
Speaker 1: is incentivized to want to maybe put you know, solar
Speaker 1: panels and come up with a different way. But I
Speaker 1: think you're going to see a lot of people looking
Speaker 1: for alternative ways to minimize their drag on the grid.
Speaker 1: But they're still going to want need energy to power
Speaker 1: their electronics or power their car power whatever. So but
Speaker 1: I I you know, I'm not gonna I'm going to
Speaker 1: keep researching this more and more to give you a
Speaker 1: better answer to this question, Stafford. But I can tell
Speaker 1: you I think this is this is an issue that
Speaker 1: isn't is only going to get more in the mainstream
Speaker 1: in the conversation because it's the type of issue that
Speaker 1: everybody feels, right, everybody sees the cost of that, and
Speaker 1: we're seeing these giant spikes throw in extreme weather where
Speaker 1: in some places you're using your air conditioner longer than
Speaker 1: you normally do, or in some places you're using heat
Speaker 1: maybe at a time you never used it before. That
Speaker 1: also does weird things to the grid and ups the
Speaker 1: costs of what you're doing on it. So I think
Speaker 1: there never definitely needs to be a little more federal
Speaker 1: involvement with how this grid, with how the electric grid
Speaker 1: is operating, because it's it definitely feels and you know
Speaker 1: who knows Texas is not on the grid. They sort
Speaker 1: of created their own system. That thing it, you know,
Speaker 1: feels like it's it could trigger a bigger problem if
Speaker 1: they have a tough winner it's always the winners that
Speaker 1: really put a lot of stress on that Texas grid,
Speaker 1: And if that collapses and it's come close a couple
Speaker 1: of times, it could really sort of sober up everybody
Speaker 1: and realize that we have a federal problem here. This
Speaker 1: isn't going to be solved in one state. I don't
Speaker 1: think states have this, have the ability to do this. No,
Speaker 1: you may get some states try to find financial help
Speaker 1: for people, but I'm not sure there's only only so
Speaker 1: much money that might be available for that. But I
Speaker 1: do think this is going to become the most symbolic
Speaker 1: issue that's talked about when it comes to cost of
Speaker 1: living challenges. Next question comes from Jim Philadelphia's This Big
Speaker 1: Fans in c NBC Day's congrats on a great start
Speaker 1: to the new chapter. One't been wondering, what do you
Speaker 1: think Trump's real motivation is for intervening in Venezuela under
Speaker 1: the Narco terrorism label. He's never shown much interest in
Speaker 1: preserving democracy. Is this really about removing Is it just
Speaker 1: another self serving move, maybe even a play for a
Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize. Jim, I'll tell you what my thesis
Speaker 1: is on this. So Marco Rubio, you know after starting
Speaker 1: off his relationship with Trump making Dick jokes about him
Speaker 1: right at a debate talking about his hands. Right, Why
Speaker 1: is the hands part of the thing? Right? It is
Speaker 1: Rubio that made that meme famous. Rubio has since done
Speaker 1: a one ady Entrump right, we saw it sometime during
Speaker 1: the first term, and he has gone out of his
Speaker 1: way to endear him, endear the Latin American political activist
Speaker 1: community that is on the side of ousting some of
Speaker 1: these guys, but that diaspora that has a lot of
Speaker 1: political and financial power in South Florida who've been very
Speaker 1: supportive of Rubio's politics over the years. He essentially, because
Speaker 1: Trump is such an important figure now in South Florida,
Speaker 1: he essentially helped Trump cement whatever you know, cement this,
Speaker 1: or you could argue Rubio had to catch up to
Speaker 1: where all these folks, they all were going, they were
Speaker 1: going to gravitate towards Trump anyway, but this began where Trump,
Speaker 1: where Trump started. Basically doesn't make any decision in Latin
Speaker 1: America without Marco Rubio. And that was true in sort
Speaker 1: of the last year or two of the Trump era,
Speaker 1: the first Trump term, and it is and then you know,
Speaker 1: Rubio really ingratiated himself during Trump's exile at mar A Lago.
Speaker 1: He'd constantly go there. He'd bring these Latin American figures
Speaker 1: to meet with them. He'd be So this is a
Speaker 1: long way of me making the case that this is
Speaker 1: not a Donald Trump obsession. This is a Marco Rubio obsession.
Speaker 1: And I think that Rubio has you know, there is
Speaker 1: there is a demand and look, go see the I
Speaker 1: hope you heard my conversation with Billy Corbin, and he
Speaker 1: did a documentary called Men of War about a failed
Speaker 1: sort of bizarre coup, you know, group of US mercenaries
Speaker 1: working with a former bodyguard of Trump's to somehow get
Speaker 1: on the get get into Venezuela and overthrow Maduro. Kind
Speaker 1: of a bay of pigs, Venezuelan style type of story.
Speaker 1: It's one of those you can't believe this is true,
Speaker 1: but you know, Billy always has the receipts. There is
Speaker 1: a group of folks in South Florida that that are,
Speaker 1: you know, frustrated with Maduro, and this is Rubio cares
Speaker 1: about this. Rubio believes in this, and I think Rubio
Speaker 1: has got enough stature and status in Trump's world. He's
Speaker 1: both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor that it
Speaker 1: is Rubio that is helping to steer him in this direction.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's no doubt in my mind
Speaker 1: that this is a Rubo project that Trump has adopted
Speaker 1: and he's you know, this narco terrorism thing is you know,
Speaker 1: if you had to prove it, I don't know how
Speaker 1: they would, right. You know, where do you prove that
Speaker 1: the drug money is being used to fund terrorism? That's
Speaker 1: number one? Number two what fentanyl? You know that this
Speaker 1: is not where our fentanyl problem comes from. It's not
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. It comes from Mexico and China. So this
Speaker 1: is a pretext that's sort of been created. Look, I
Speaker 1: would feel better about this if the argument were we're
Speaker 1: trying to enforce democratic norms, then we can debate whether
Speaker 1: we should be using the military to do that. That
Speaker 1: should be the debate we should be having as a
Speaker 1: country about this Venezuela move. But instead are essentially lying
Speaker 1: to us about the rationale for what they're doing, saying
Speaker 1: this is not about regime changes, it's not about the democracy.
Speaker 1: This is about a specific thing. And yet what are
Speaker 1: we doing? It looks like we're on the verge of
Speaker 1: overthrowing a government. So it feels like we're you know,
Speaker 1: it feels like we're doing this all the wrong way,
Speaker 1: which is why a couple of weeks ago, in my
Speaker 1: toodcast time machine, I wanted to make the Panama Canal
Speaker 1: Anniversary the Liberation of Panama, if you will, an important
Speaker 1: story because anytime, you know, whenever we're involved and we
Speaker 1: lie about why we're involved, we do not help our
Speaker 1: long term ability to have influenced the right way in
Speaker 1: Latin America. And I just, you know, I am, I
Speaker 1: want to see Maduro go. I am, you know, sort
Speaker 1: of like it's like it's like Saddam. I'm glad Saddam left.
Speaker 1: But was that the way to do it? I don't
Speaker 1: know if this is the right way to get rid
Speaker 1: of a DUREA. Next question comes from Dan, and then
Speaker 1: I'm going to get into my college football preview for
Speaker 1: the weekend. We'll do it through the prism of the
Speaker 1: college football playoff. He goes, I've been enjoying the podcast
Speaker 1: is always. Something I noticed is that the election coverage
Speaker 1: shows that Andrew Cuomo outperforms on Mam Donnie among voters
Speaker 1: without a college degree. NBC reports that Mom Donnie won
Speaker 1: only twenty six percent of white non college graduates, and
Speaker 1: similar trends appeared in the gubernatorial races. Despite overall wins,
Speaker 1: Democrats still seem to underperform among non college educated voters,
Speaker 1: raising concerns about their strengthen states like Michigan and Nebraska.
Speaker 1: Is it fair to interpret these results as evidence that
Speaker 1: Democrats have not yet repaired their image with working class
Speaker 1: white voters. If so, what steps should the party take
Speaker 1: to become more competitive with this group? Thanks? Dan, Well, look,
Speaker 1: hopefully you're listening to the answer this question after you've
Speaker 1: heard the interview with Adam Gentilsen. It's exactly what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do, which is how do you get you know,
Speaker 1: the irony is, you know, I think Democrats have struggled
Speaker 1: culturally to connect to this group of voters for some time.
Speaker 1: They used to be sort of Democrats and they were
Speaker 1: just sort of Democrats, and it was they were culturally Democrats.
Speaker 1: That that and the Democrats they thought economically were looking
Speaker 1: out for him as it is. That explains why there
Speaker 1: were two US senators in Nebraska for you know, not
Speaker 1: an insignificant period of time, and almost always one a
Speaker 1: state that you know, was the birthplace of the the
Speaker 1: perhaps the original Prairie populace William Jennings Bryan, right, So
Speaker 1: I think you're right to point out those things. I
Speaker 1: think this is to me the great danger of the
Speaker 1: midterms on the Democrats, which is they don't need they
Speaker 1: could do as mediocre as they did with non college
Speaker 1: educated whites in the midterms because they won't turn out
Speaker 1: in the same numbers that they'll turn out in a
Speaker 1: presidential election, giving Democrats an opportunity because they'll they'll sort
Speaker 1: of over index on their more frequent voters and college
Speaker 1: education voters, and they will be a bigger share of
Speaker 1: the electorate in a midterm than they will be in
Speaker 1: a general. It's why, you know, had they been a
Speaker 1: presidential like turnout in say Virginia, maybe she only wins
Speaker 1: by eight instead of fifteen, and maybe if you got
Speaker 1: although you know, to me, the New Jersey thing is
Speaker 1: why I why I believe this was a Trump referendum.
Speaker 1: When you have the Republican candidate actually getting more raw
Speaker 1: vote than he got four years earlier, but he lost
Speaker 1: by ten percentage points more than when he lost before,
Speaker 1: shows you a whole bunch of voters that didn't show
Speaker 1: up four years ago that decided to show up. Well,
Speaker 1: you didn't have an basically a whole bunch of presidential
Speaker 1: only voters decided to show up in a governor's race
Speaker 1: on the Democratic side. You didn't get the presidential only
Speaker 1: voters to suddenly show up in a governor's race on
Speaker 1: the Republican side. And then you can see how lopsided
Speaker 1: things can get. I think the biggest, the potential worst
Speaker 1: outcome for the Democrats hopes in twenty twenty eight. Weirdly
Speaker 1: will be thinking that if they win the House in
Speaker 1: the Senate, that they've solved their problems and it's just
Speaker 1: a it's you know, they're going to just coast to
Speaker 1: the presidency like what happened in six going into eight.
Speaker 1: And I would just say it's very possible they could
Speaker 1: have a midterm revival. Eighty six midterms were terrific midterms
Speaker 1: for the Democrats, and then after getting clobbered in eighty four,
Speaker 1: and then they go and get clobbered in eighty eight.
Speaker 1: So I do think the Democratic makeup of their more
Speaker 1: likely voter automatically puts them at advantage to overperform in
Speaker 1: the midterms. It's why even in a bad midterm year
Speaker 1: like twenty two was, they didn't get clobbered the way
Speaker 1: they that an out party gets clobbered or an in
Speaker 1: party gets clobbered simply because more of their voters are
Speaker 1: just are more regular voters. No, I think that the
Speaker 1: party still as a problem and until it you know,
Speaker 1: in fairness to the party on this one, neither Virginia
Speaker 1: nor New Jersey is a huge It had a rural
Speaker 1: vote that the candidate had to make an effort. That's
Speaker 1: not going to be the case in trying to win
Speaker 1: an election in North Carolina. That's not going to be
Speaker 1: the case. In trying to win in Ohio. That's not
Speaker 1: going to be the case in trying to win in
Speaker 1: Iowa or Alaska, or Kansas or Mississippi or even Texas.
Speaker 1: You know, you can't win Texas just by winning the
Speaker 1: cities that a Roar came close, but he couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: He want all the he won all the cities, and
Speaker 1: he won all the the big media markets, but he couldn't.
Speaker 1: He got killed in the excerbs and the world voters. So,
Speaker 1: uh yeah, I don't think they've solved any other problems
Speaker 1: on that front, and I still think they the Democrats
Speaker 1: are you know, they have to be seen as a
Speaker 1: stronger party. Strength And I know that's an elusive word,
Speaker 1: but I think strengths big a big thing with with
Speaker 1: this voting group. If they're going to try to reconnect
Speaker 1: back with them, and you know, the economy will be
Speaker 1: an entree. It's not lost on me if you think
Speaker 1: about it. The last four Democratic presidents in my lifetime
Speaker 1: who've won all one during an economic downturn. You know,
Speaker 1: it's possible that Democrats are just you know, in my
Speaker 1: lifetime have culturally been on the wrong side of where
Speaker 1: the country is, and Republicans of culturally have been on
Speaker 1: the right side where the country is. But that Democrats
Speaker 1: when the economies in the tank. It was true in
Speaker 1: seventy six, It's true in ninety two, and although the
Speaker 1: economy was recovering by the time Trump Clinton won, but
Speaker 1: the perception was it was in the tank. It was
Speaker 1: true in eight, it's true in twenty right, it was
Speaker 1: certainly virus related, but still it was an economic downturn. Sadly,
Speaker 1: it may be that there's an economic downturn in twenty
Speaker 1: eight and and that powers every thing. And let me
Speaker 1: just tell you this, when you have an election that's
Speaker 1: all about the economy, it suddenly papers over all of
Speaker 1: your different interest script problems, right because everything becomes about that.
Speaker 1: So for Miami, it's their last home game. I know
Speaker 1: you're on pins and needles. The College Football Playoff Committee
Speaker 1: is getting a little better at giving some respect to
Speaker 1: the University of Miami, though not a ton. The guy
Speaker 1: who runs the committee, who was the spokesperson, basically said
Speaker 1: Miami is the only team in the ACC that has
Speaker 1: won a decent non conference game, like completely forgetting that
Speaker 1: Ala Fingbama lost to Florida State in Week one. And
Speaker 1: so what you see as you see. And this is
Speaker 1: why I do not trust the ESPN Invitational Committee. I
Speaker 1: think all of these athletic directors and they're all I mean,
Speaker 1: my god, they've all realized they work for ESPN and
Speaker 1: the SEC and nobody else. Apparently. It is it is
Speaker 1: why we have to get rid of this committee. They
Speaker 1: are not you know I And if you ask me,
Speaker 1: you know, you could say I'm being you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm being biased towards the ACC. My bias is I
Speaker 1: want the ACC to get treated fairly I'm just asking
Speaker 1: for fair treatment. This is a committee, and this is
Speaker 1: a network that has already punished the ACC two years
Speaker 1: ago with denying an undefeated ACC champion access to the
Speaker 1: playoff of Florida State. This is a ESPN Invitational committee
Speaker 1: that denied the number one ranked offense in the country
Speaker 1: with ten wins and two losses, the Oderrich of Miami.
Speaker 1: They did not put him in the playoff simply because
Speaker 1: they were in ACC school the exact same resume, but
Speaker 1: an SEC school. And I promise you they would have
Speaker 1: made it when you're literally the top ranked offense in
Speaker 1: the country because supposedly those outside metrics matter. No, their
Speaker 1: metrics matter only when it is about getting the matchups
Speaker 1: that they want for the television show. And now it
Speaker 1: is a head scratcher to me that they didn't think
Speaker 1: cam Ward was good for their television show. I would
Speaker 1: argue cam Ward would have been great for their television
Speaker 1: show last year in the exhibition that is the ESPN Invitational.
Speaker 1: But the fact that the committee is literally lying about
Speaker 1: the ACC's resume on national television with Rhys Davis or misinformed, okay,
Speaker 1: lying and inquires motive, But there is a motive here.
Speaker 1: They're going out of their way to make the case
Speaker 1: against the ACC because apparently, if you're if you're in
Speaker 1: the ACC and you have a competitive conference, your conference
Speaker 1: must suck. If you're in the SEC and have a
Speaker 1: competitive conference, it's proof that your conference is great. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just sorry, it's subjective bullshit on this, Okay. Yes,
Speaker 1: is it true that the SEC program spend more money
Speaker 1: collectively than the ACC does, so you assume you have
Speaker 1: more talent. Yes, but you know he's produced like something
Speaker 1: I like, if you want to sit here and play
Speaker 1: that game. The ACC is I think produced the second
Speaker 1: most amount of first round draft picks over the last
Speaker 1: ten years, about right behind the SEC and ahead of
Speaker 1: the Big ten in the Big twelve. But again, we
Speaker 1: can you can find little things like that all the
Speaker 1: time to slice and dice things. But they went out
Speaker 1: of their way to punish to and it would have
Speaker 1: been some other ACC school and they've done it. And
Speaker 1: again this goes back to the where the hell is
Speaker 1: the commissioner. Jim Phillips is way too meek in this conversation.
Speaker 1: He lets Greg SANKEI go move around with them up
Speaker 1: and down. I told you last week about my source
Speaker 1: that told me how much that every week Greg Greg
Speaker 1: SANKI must have had a hissy fit that that Herbstreet
Speaker 1: and Fowler we're out doing a Texas Tech game. That
Speaker 1: must have freaked them out. But that every week he
Speaker 1: lobbies that you must be in the SEC. You must
Speaker 1: be in the SEC. And again I get it, ESPN's
Speaker 1: and business the SEC, but they're also in business with
Speaker 1: the ACC. And I think the ACC could be suing
Speaker 1: ESPN for breach of contract. This is a network that
Speaker 1: has gone out of their way to diminish the value
Speaker 1: of the ACC. The ACC has increased its value, and
Speaker 1: ESPN tries to diminish the value of the ACC. And
Speaker 1: they're your biggest business partner. The ACEC should be in court.
Speaker 1: Don't sue each other, sue ESPN for for essentially for
Speaker 1: diminishing the value of ACC sports in general and ACC
Speaker 1: football in particular. I'm sorry the lack of pushback, and
Speaker 1: again it's you know, ESPN controls the college football Playoff,
Speaker 1: a mistake, which is why you got to get rid
Speaker 1: of this committee. We ultimately got get rid of this committee.
Speaker 1: There is a way to make all of this and
Speaker 1: on the field issue, you can you know, if you
Speaker 1: basically say, you know, if a conference, i'd love to
Speaker 1: see sort of actually an eighteen playoff that essentially had
Speaker 1: each conference have their own sort of sixteen round robin
Speaker 1: of some sort that decided who their representative was in
Speaker 1: the eight and you'd have your four conference champions, your
Speaker 1: group of five champion after they had a little tournament.
Speaker 1: But again, you had to win on the field to
Speaker 1: get in, and then you might and you might have
Speaker 1: three wildcards, which Notre Dame would be eligible for, and
Speaker 1: the next two highest winning percentages in the power for
Speaker 1: just like the NFL wildcard works. And yes, sometimes you
Speaker 1: might have somebody left out, but it was done on
Speaker 1: the field with metrics. Everybody understands at the beginning, you
Speaker 1: know what nobody says from this committee. They can't tell
Speaker 1: you to this day. What matters more. Your wins are
Speaker 1: your losses. It's a win right. If they want to
Speaker 1: make the case that Miami is in, they will make
Speaker 1: a big deal out of their wins. If you want
Speaker 1: to make the case that Miami is out, you will
Speaker 1: make a big deal about their losses. Ditto with Notre Dame.
Speaker 1: What's the case to put them in? They lost two
Speaker 1: of their losses by a collective of four points against
Speaker 1: two of the most talented teams in the country. What's
Speaker 1: the case not to put Notre Dame in The two
Speaker 1: times they faced talented teams in the country that belong
Speaker 1: in the playoffs, they couldn't beat them. But Notre Dame
Speaker 1: is a brand. Now, Look, Miami has been a brand.
Speaker 1: Miami is the number one rated ACC school as far
Speaker 1: as television audience is concerned. It has been the last
Speaker 1: couple of years. You know, for the most part, Miami's
Speaker 1: been a brand, and that usually helps them in situations
Speaker 1: like this. I do believe when college football continues this
Speaker 1: what they've done to the conference with the SEC and
Speaker 1: the Big Ten have done everybody else, Miami will probably
Speaker 1: be a half And unfortunately, my friends at NC State,
Speaker 1: Miami's opponent this week may end up being a poor
Speaker 1: have not. Now. I don't think that's healthy for college football.
Speaker 1: I think we could be doing this a better way.
Speaker 1: But anyway, here we are, so college football playoff rant over.
Speaker 1: It does look like Miami's path is not crazy anymore.
Speaker 1: They finally have them. They're still a bit under ranked.
Speaker 1: You know, are you're really ranking Miami behind Utah no offense.
Speaker 1: To my producer, Lauren is a big Utah guy, and
Speaker 1: you know they do the you the wrong way. It's
Speaker 1: not this way, guys, it's like this. But that's okay. Uh.
Speaker 1: That said, do you think I have a lot of
Speaker 1: confidence in a in this coaching staff to be ready
Speaker 1: to put a licking on NC State on Senior Day
Speaker 1: at Miami? You know, I got a sixty five percent
Speaker 1: confidence level, but I don't have a ninety percent confidence level.
Speaker 1: You know, Miami should be able to put a number
Speaker 1: up on NC State. A forty five to ten victory
Speaker 1: should be what they do if they want to make
Speaker 1: the playoff. They kind of need a forty five to ten.
Speaker 1: But if you told me this was a thirty one,
Speaker 1: twenty four to twenty seven game that Miami eked out
Speaker 1: or somehow screwed it up at the end due to
Speaker 1: poor coaching decisions, I let's just say I fear it
Speaker 1: a little bit now. I don't think NC State has
Speaker 1: the defense and I think Miami's defense. You know, again,
Speaker 1: we're I'm going to learn a lot about how much
Speaker 1: these players want to play for these coaches, because if
Speaker 1: they do. I did not like the first half of
Speaker 1: what I saw in the Miami Syracuse game, it looked
Speaker 1: like it didn't look like I mean, it does feel
Speaker 1: like the offensive coordinator, Shannon Dawson is just out of ideas.
Speaker 1: They continue. They are clearly not comfortable with Carson Beck
Speaker 1: making some decisions because they seem to fear putting him
Speaker 1: in positions to win it, you know, to either make
Speaker 1: a big player potentially you know, put him in a
Speaker 1: precarious position. It's a shame how they coach it, how
Speaker 1: they do this. So we'll see. I'm I'm nervous. I'm
Speaker 1: very nervous. I'm not gonna lie to you. I'm very
Speaker 1: nervous about this game because I actually think coach Crystal
Speaker 1: Ball is feeling the pressure. I think Shannon Dawson's feeling
Speaker 1: the pressure. And sometimes pressure is good on people respond
Speaker 1: to the pressure and they give you their best work.
Speaker 1: And sometimes the pressure puts them and they get paralyzed.
Speaker 1: We'll see. The biggest game on the board as far
Speaker 1: as Miami's playoff rankings are concerned, is actually at the
Speaker 1: sight of where game day decided to go, which is
Speaker 1: an interesting decision. They're in Pittsburgh and they're for the
Speaker 1: Notre Dame pit game. This is arguably Notre Dame's toughest
Speaker 1: game left, which is really so they're there because you know,
Speaker 1: Notre Dame has they can't lose in order to have
Speaker 1: a shot at the playoff. They went out, They're going
Speaker 1: to get in because a ten and two Notre Dame
Speaker 1: team will always make the playoff, no matter who their
Speaker 1: two losses are to, and no matter if the ten
Speaker 1: wins are against the entire MAC Conference. It's Notre Dame.
Speaker 1: You know, it's TV show people, So as long as
Speaker 1: it's an invitational, they'll always get the invite. Pitt's been
Speaker 1: an interesting team ever since they put in this freshman quarterback.
Speaker 1: He's been on. He's lit it up. A patn our
Speaker 1: doozy team usually isn't this free flowing on offense? Right.
Speaker 1: Miami has to play Pitt last game of the year,
Speaker 1: so this will be a common opponent. So everything about
Speaker 1: this game I have to I'm going to be watching
Speaker 1: every inch of it. It's on, it's the noon game,
Speaker 1: it'll be on before the Miami game, which is a
Speaker 1: three thirty. This is a huge game for the playoff.
Speaker 1: It's a huge game for Notre Dame. It's a huge
Speaker 1: game for the ACC, It's a huge game for Miami.
Speaker 1: It is this is interesting, right, what's better for Miami
Speaker 1: Notre Dame winning. I think I want Notre Dame to
Speaker 1: win by a field goal and then Miami to beat
Speaker 1: Pitt by thirty. That's probably the best outcome because this
Speaker 1: will be if Miami and Notre Dame are both tenant
Speaker 1: to the Pit. Game will be the most recent comparative
Speaker 1: they'll both have played at Pitt. So I have a
Speaker 1: feeling Pitt. And by the way, Pitt seven to two.
Speaker 1: They're not out of this, all right, I'm not, you know.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they can make it all the
Speaker 1: way through their schedule and finish it off right. The
Speaker 1: two of their two of their next three games are
Speaker 1: Notre Dame and Miami, and the other one is Georgia Tech.
Speaker 1: So Pitt literally might be facing three playoff teams at
Speaker 1: the end of their season. But they certainly are going
Speaker 1: to have an impact on Notre Dame's chances, Miami's chances,
Speaker 1: and Georgia Tech's chances. And they's their last three games.
Speaker 1: So look, Pitt's had kind of an easy schedule. We
Speaker 1: still don't know how they lost to West Virginia, and
Speaker 1: I think they're trying to figure out how they lost
Speaker 1: to West Virginia. And then there are only other losses Louisville,
Speaker 1: which is a loss that Miami also has, but they've
Speaker 1: not They've not had the toughest of schedules. They opened
Speaker 1: with Ducaine and Central Michigan and then West Virginia was
Speaker 1: their third game of the year, which because it's a
Speaker 1: it's a re rivalry. You throw the records out, right,
Speaker 1: But it's a It's easily the single most important game
Speaker 1: as far as the playoff is concerned. That's on the board.
Speaker 1: A few other games. Uh, do you buy that Wisconsin
Speaker 1: can play two good games in a row and give
Speaker 1: Indiana and Indiana plays two bad games in a row?
Speaker 1: Hard hard to see that one. This one's at Indiana. Boy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: after this, Indiana only has Purdue, you know, the end
Speaker 1: of the season, and that's that could be fun, right,
Speaker 1: even though Purdue is winless, they're gonna they care about
Speaker 1: this game. It's do you throw the records out? We
Speaker 1: shall see South Carolina, Texas A and m I was
Speaker 1: not going to pay attention to this game. And one
Speaker 1: of my favorite betting podcasts made the point that South
Speaker 1: Carolina is coming off of bye after firing their offensive coordinator,
Speaker 1: a guy named Shula, one of the grandson of Don Shula,
Speaker 1: and uh that they're going to make you know, and
Speaker 1: they already know that. Miami and other schools are already
Speaker 1: sniffing around Leonora's Sellers for the for their portal QB
Speaker 1: for next season. I have a feeling that South Carolina's
Speaker 1: offense is going to be a bit different showcasing Sellers,
Speaker 1: let him do his thing a lot more. It's going
Speaker 1: to be an open offense. So either it works and
Speaker 1: we see an exciting game and Lenora's sellers is the
Speaker 1: is the quarterback we all thought he was at the
Speaker 1: beginning of this season, or an m just roles and
Speaker 1: they win by three touchdowns. Anyway, it's certainly worth turning
Speaker 1: on that game. U don't sleep on South Florida Navy South.
Speaker 1: You know, this is just the type of game that
Speaker 1: could turn into a weird shootout. The way Navy now
Speaker 1: can score South Florida can score, it will this This
Speaker 1: shouldn't be close, but it is at the Naval Academy.
Speaker 1: It will be a little chilly in Annapolis. You know,
Speaker 1: this is just the type of game that that USF
Speaker 1: could blow. Do you believe in Oklahoma? I don't so
Speaker 1: I think Alabama pays them. But it is worth noting
Speaker 1: Alabama is not the best favorite all the time in
Speaker 1: this Caleb de Borrera so far. But I just I just,
Speaker 1: you know, I just don't buy that that Oklahoma can
Speaker 1: score much on them. And do you how do you
Speaker 1: think they have a good I know they statistically have
Speaker 1: a good defense. Do you believe they have a good defense?
Speaker 1: Have they really played anybody? Just something to think about.
Speaker 1: I guess their Tennessee win that was that was a
Speaker 1: pretty good performance. You got to give them that. But
Speaker 1: obviously still has playoff implications right now Oklahoma has to win.
Speaker 1: Uh and uh. I guess Alabama doesnt because it would
Speaker 1: only be their second loss, and and you know they
Speaker 1: and apparently their first loss doesn't even count anymore as
Speaker 1: far as the College Football Committee is concerned. Other than that,
Speaker 1: Iowa USC, you know, USC still has the outside chance.
Speaker 1: I was lost, Iowa had it all it was there
Speaker 1: for the taking. If they beat Oregon. This game is
Speaker 1: a whole, but it's a big a lot different. It
Speaker 1: suddenly becomes a playoff game. Now, does Iowa know it's over?
Speaker 1: And if they do know it's over, USC could pace them.
Speaker 1: The only other game that might be intriguing to keep
Speaker 1: an eye on, of course, it is Georgia and Texas.
Speaker 1: Texas can't lose. They have to keep winning. This game's
Speaker 1: at Georgia. There's been a part of me that's wondered,
Speaker 1: what does all the arch Manning commentary of the last
Speaker 1: two months, what happens to all of it? If suddenly
Speaker 1: Texas beats Georgia this week, beats Texas A and M
Speaker 1: in the last game of the year, and is sitting
Speaker 1: there at ten and two, and suddenly, with wins over
Speaker 1: Georgia and Texas A and M, they're probably a top
Speaker 1: ten team if that's what happens. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: so that's anyway. Let's see what arch Manning looks like.
Speaker 1: Let's see if the Georgia defense. You know, I think
Speaker 1: Georgia can score on anybody. They've proven that that offense
Speaker 1: has turned out to be pretty good this year. This
Speaker 1: Texas defense show up and slow down Georgia. Obviously. The
Speaker 1: good news is this is the primetime game and we'll
Speaker 1: all have a lot of time to watch it. So
Speaker 1: with that, let's go Canes and I'll see you next week.