Speaker 1: Hello there, Happy Monday, and welcome to another episode of
Speaker 1: the Chuck Toodcast. Today. I hope you've enjoyed your first
Speaker 1: full double dose of football Week two, of college football
Speaker 1: Week one of the NFL football football football. I'm not
Speaker 1: footballed out. I really never get footballed out unless I'm
Speaker 1: watching some version of the UFL. And even then I
Speaker 1: find myself watching one quarter of that in March when
Speaker 1: I'm missing college and pro football. You know, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I also my guest over the weekend for my new
Speaker 1: sphere show is Chris Murphy, Democratic senator from Connecticut, somebody
Speaker 1: who wants to go harder at Donald Trump pre twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five was I think if some people were watching him,
Speaker 1: they say he wants to move to the left. He
Speaker 1: wants to be a bit more to the left of
Speaker 1: left of center wherever the party is. If the main
Speaker 1: if you know, if you just put a number on it, right,
Speaker 1: one hundred is sort of Joe Mansion on the scale
Speaker 1: of Democrats. Zero is Bernie Sanders. Chris Murphy wanted to
Speaker 1: be somewhere close to the fifty yard line, but closer
Speaker 1: to Bernie rather than closer to Mansion. And I say
Speaker 1: this and that the Chris Murphy I encountered as a
Speaker 1: guy who clearly is interested in trying to improve the
Speaker 1: Democratic brand, would like to be a leader of the party,
Speaker 1: is looking to see if there's an appetite for him
Speaker 1: to run for president. He did not sort of shy
Speaker 1: away from any of those questions. But what was interesting
Speaker 1: was how he really said, Look, the Democratic Party's got
Speaker 1: to figure out how to win voters that are much
Speaker 1: more conservative on cultural issues, that there is more of
Speaker 1: a common bond on economic issues, and something you'll hear
Speaker 1: from Abdul say ed that's else I ed, that's an
Speaker 1: argument he's making. It's an argument he made in his
Speaker 1: first candidate campaign for office in twenty eighteen. Same argument
Speaker 1: he's making there, that the economic pain is shared sort
Speaker 1: of on the ideological spec and that one way to
Speaker 1: sort of put Democrats and independent voters and maybe even
Speaker 1: some skeptical working class Republicans is to focus on economic
Speaker 1: issues and also security issues. Don't shy away from the
Speaker 1: security issues. What do I mean by the security issues,
Speaker 1: Whether it's the border and get a little tougher on immigration,
Speaker 1: or it's law and order in the cities, And it's
Speaker 1: all about whether how are you careful not to take
Speaker 1: the bait that the White House clearly is setting up
Speaker 1: here at the White House absolutely does not want to
Speaker 1: have a discussion about the economy right now, doesn't want
Speaker 1: to have a discussion about tariffs in particular, doesn't want
Speaker 1: to have a discussion about Epstein, doesn't want to have
Speaker 1: a discussion about Ukraine and Russia. What they do, what
Speaker 1: they would love to do, is continue to sort of
Speaker 1: bait Democrats into pushing back at the White House on
Speaker 1: the issue of how aggressive should these should these tactics
Speaker 1: when it comes to the cities, how aggressive is too aggressive?
Speaker 1: What is And there's no doubt that the ridiculous social
Speaker 1: media memes that the President has already retweeted, sort of
Speaker 1: him doing an Apocalypse Now parody when it comes to Chicago,
Speaker 1: it got the intended response, right, which was it got
Speaker 1: the entire sort of Illinois pushback, whether it was JB.
Speaker 1: Pritz Or as governor or others that it was the
Speaker 1: intended pushback that they wanted, which was this was over
Speaker 1: the top. And there's no doubt the public does not
Speaker 1: like the tactics. We continue to see polling that says
Speaker 1: they don't want to see the National Guard go in.
Speaker 1: But when you look at the two parties and you
Speaker 1: say which party seems to be more concerned about law
Speaker 1: and order, the Republicans are winning this argument, and they're
Speaker 1: winning it big time. And that's why it is interesting
Speaker 1: to watch how the different mayors handle this. Right I'm
Speaker 1: intrigued by what they're doing in Mayor Maryland, where I
Speaker 1: or the governor said, hey, we don't want any federal reinforcements,
Speaker 1: but we're going to help Baltimore and we're going to
Speaker 1: help with some state reinforcements. You've got a Mariel Bowser
Speaker 1: who was saying, Hey, I welcome the federal intervention. I
Speaker 1: don't like the masked ICE agents because that's pretty undemocratic
Speaker 1: and un American. But for the most part, I appreciate
Speaker 1: the extra resources in order to allow the police to
Speaker 1: focus where they need to focus, versus other cities that
Speaker 1: are thinking about a wholesale pushback on this. And I
Speaker 1: think you know, there is nothing the administration wants more
Speaker 1: than a showdown in Chicago. Now, does that mean rolling
Speaker 1: over on civil libertarian issues. I don't think anybody is
Speaker 1: suggesting rolling over on these issues. The question is can
Speaker 1: you take the issue away from it's like, look, we're
Speaker 1: focused on this too. We're trying to do it within
Speaker 1: the constitution, rather than only fighting the constitutional grounds and saying, hey,
Speaker 1: everything is fine and saying, look at how great these
Speaker 1: trends are. There's got to be sort of somewhere in
Speaker 1: between here because when you look at it, that perception
Speaker 1: and reality are blurred here, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: really hard to win that larger argument. And it is Look,
Speaker 1: at some point, it may be they use a tactic
Speaker 1: that goes too far and it will implode on them
Speaker 1: both politically and then some and I do think that
Speaker 1: that in the long term they're a I mean, just
Speaker 1: look at their trial balloon on trying to attack transgender
Speaker 1: Americans and take away their rights when it comes to
Speaker 1: two guns created a fascinating coalition that said you can't
Speaker 1: do that, that that's unconstitutional, that that essentially the gun
Speaker 1: rights groups going that that's a slippery slope. But it's
Speaker 1: also an acknowledgment that this idea of trying to label,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the two most dangerous things rhetorically
Speaker 1: that we've heard from some on the right are the
Speaker 1: attempt to label transgender Americans and lump them in with
Speaker 1: mental illness. That's what clearly the Justice Department was trying
Speaker 1: to do in order to get at that issue of guns.
Speaker 1: That's going to be a losing argument. I like to
Speaker 1: think that there's given that there is zero accepted science
Speaker 1: on this. And then the second is who you designate
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization? And who do you designate as terrorists?
Speaker 1: And you hear Stephen Miller's rhetoric increasingly tries to call
Speaker 1: sort of people that disagree with them on the left,
Speaker 1: equate them, uses the T word and terrorists and it
Speaker 1: doesn't take much. I mean, if you look at the
Speaker 1: rationale that's being used by the administration and targeting that
Speaker 1: ship outside Venezuela, it all began with the State Department
Speaker 1: designation of the cartel designating at a terrorist. That isn't
Speaker 1: It's not an Act of Congress that makes that decision.
Speaker 1: It's essentially an an interpretation of the current administration. How
Speaker 1: far are they going to go with that? Right? How
Speaker 1: much are they going to go with that? And this
Speaker 1: is going to get and I want to get at
Speaker 1: this debate here in a minute, but this gets at
Speaker 1: the when it comes to these law and order issues,
Speaker 1: and when it comes to these immigration sort of aggressive tactics,
Speaker 1: the White House is not going to back down, especially
Speaker 1: since it is the only thing they're doing, the only
Speaker 1: thing they're doing where there is positive poll response from
Speaker 1: the public. The base loves it and is more devoted
Speaker 1: than ever, and the goals themselves are seen as goals
Speaker 1: that the public wants and those want to see. Again,
Speaker 1: it's the tactics that are disagreed with, but when political
Speaker 1: opponents read that disagreement, they sometimes interpret it that it's
Speaker 1: the policy as well. Is also unpopular when it appears
Speaker 1: to be just the tactics. And this is why I'm
Speaker 1: intrigued by how Governor more has been handling this versus
Speaker 1: some of these versus Governor Pritzker, and I think it's
Speaker 1: it absolutely is worth a twenty twenty eight comparison. There.
Speaker 1: There's no doubt the base wants some fight, right And
Speaker 1: this is something I talked with Chris Murphy. This is
Speaker 1: why a government shut down is almost a given right
Speaker 1: now it given everything that's going on in Washington. So
Speaker 1: and Pritzker certainly sees what Gavin Newsom is doing. There's
Speaker 1: no doubt if you show some fight the base is
Speaker 1: going to reward you to a point. The question is
Speaker 1: how do you tactically do it without also keeping yourself
Speaker 1: electable In twenty twenty eight with swing voters and Pritzker
Speaker 1: is coming across a bit in denial about the problem
Speaker 1: in Chicago versus A Wes Moore saying, look, we know
Speaker 1: there's more work to do. We just don't think you
Speaker 1: should use unconstitutional means to do it. That is politically
Speaker 1: a much smarter place to be. But I understand you
Speaker 1: sort of need to do both. You need to fight
Speaker 1: on the civil libertarian grounds, make sure all the stuff
Speaker 1: gets forced through the courts. I think I'm one of
Speaker 1: those people that you know, that's what these interest groups
Speaker 1: are good at doing, and sort of forcing judicial review
Speaker 1: over controversial policies, and forcing judicial review is something that
Speaker 1: I think if you have a weak legislative branch, which
Speaker 1: we do right now, the only really recourse that you
Speaker 1: have besides protests in the ballot box is judicial in
Speaker 1: some sort of judicial review. So you can do that
Speaker 1: and at the same time accentuate policies that respond to
Speaker 1: what the electorate is seeing. But it sort of takes
Speaker 1: me to I guess the which is an eternal challenge
Speaker 1: with the Trump administration is that, you know, if you
Speaker 1: look at everything that's that sort of front and center
Speaker 1: right now with the administration, any one of those stories
Speaker 1: could be the dominating story for an entire week, and
Speaker 1: it would make everything else sort of disappear. We've seen this, right,
Speaker 1: the Epstein Files being the best example of a story
Speaker 1: that can just totally consume everything. Well, we're in the
Speaker 1: middle of apparently launching a war against Venezuela, right, We've
Speaker 1: stationed F thirty five's in the Caribbean. We've already blown
Speaker 1: up a ship, and I'm going to get to that.
Speaker 1: Because that debate, I think it opened up and gave
Speaker 1: us a preview of what could be a fascinating debate
Speaker 1: on the right in twenty twenty eight between the Rand
Speaker 1: Paul wing of what's left of the libertarian wing of
Speaker 1: the Republican Party and the JD Vance and the rhetorica.
Speaker 1: He used that basically, the ends, what I'm calling an
Speaker 1: ends justifies the means ideology, which borders on authoritarianism. If
Speaker 1: the goal is to destroy these cartels, then so what
Speaker 1: if you bomb them? So what if we don't due process?
Speaker 1: So what if we don't make the case to the
Speaker 1: world what we're doing. You know, once we start ignoring
Speaker 1: international norms that the United States helped set, that the
Speaker 1: United States over decades has helped champion, when we want
Speaker 1: to set those aside, we're just going to blow up
Speaker 1: a ship. I mean, why we didn't board the ship.
Speaker 1: There's a whole bunch of things to go with the
Speaker 1: story with Venezuela. One. If you're going to designate them
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization, get out there and make the case.
Speaker 1: The administration has not made a public case about this
Speaker 1: sort of When you think about all the criticism of
Speaker 1: the Bush administration, of the second Bush administration during the
Speaker 1: first decade of the century over the Iraq War, you
Speaker 1: know what they did do. They went in front of
Speaker 1: the United Nations to make the case. They went in
Speaker 1: front of the American people to make a case. Multiple times.
Speaker 1: They put out the evidence that they claim that they have.
Speaker 1: Now now it turned out to be wrong. It turned
Speaker 1: out to be bad intelligence. And we've had a debate
Speaker 1: about whether it was intentional miss you know, whether the
Speaker 1: public and the and Congress was intentionally misled, or if
Speaker 1: it was just simply bad interpretation of intelligence. Regardless, he
Speaker 1: just didn't go into a rock before getting a vote
Speaker 1: in Congress. This is you know, you know, it's interesting
Speaker 1: and I can't help but looking at his what's going
Speaker 1: on here with Venezuela here in the moment and sort
Speaker 1: of see it as sort of, you know, Trump just
Speaker 1: glorifies the eighties, right, he glorifies sort of two decades,
Speaker 1: the fifties, in the eighties, right, he kind of wishes
Speaker 1: all energy. He's trying to turn the Kennedy Center into
Speaker 1: some sort of combination of the two. Right, that that
Speaker 1: sort of glorifies those decades. But in the eighties there
Speaker 1: were sort of two. There were two sort of moments
Speaker 1: where the United States played bully a little bit with
Speaker 1: a small country. Right. We had Granada, where where Reagan
Speaker 1: went there in a sort of overnight deal. It was
Speaker 1: seemed to be a bit over the top, some loose
Speaker 1: connection to communists in Cuba, but it was a pretty
Speaker 1: aggressive action for but it was almost it was quote
Speaker 1: unquote sending a message and it was in and it
Speaker 1: was out, and it was a quick success, so fast
Speaker 1: before Congress could really belch clear their throat. And then
Speaker 1: there was George H. W. Bush and the and the
Speaker 1: essentially the seizing of Noriega. And I guess you could
Speaker 1: kind of put this what is going on here in
Speaker 1: Venezuela with what was done with Panama, where Noriega was
Speaker 1: appeared to be a part of the drug trade. We
Speaker 1: were trying to crack down down on various ways that
Speaker 1: drugs were getting into the United States, and here was,
Speaker 1: you know, a puppet in Panama who was once sort
Speaker 1: of a puppet for the United States or for the West.
Speaker 1: And I'm being a little over the top with the
Speaker 1: use of the word puppet here, but the point was
Speaker 1: there was a time he was our ally and then
Speaker 1: he got himself engrossed in the drug trade. And so
Speaker 1: we sort of did a military ish operation, right to
Speaker 1: go get noriek and hold them and hold him to
Speaker 1: account for his role in the drug trade. So Trump
Speaker 1: sent followed the war powers. You know, he's got to
Speaker 1: send within a quick period of time. He's got to
Speaker 1: send within twenty four hours his justification for the attack.
Speaker 1: And here's and he writes the Senate President pro ten
Speaker 1: which in this case is Juck Grassley in the Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House, which is Mike Johnson, And here's the
Speaker 1: letter because the letter's not got enough attention, because I
Speaker 1: right to apprise you military action taken on September second,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five in the Caribbean Sea, and of the
Speaker 1: potential for further such actions. And then he writes this
Speaker 1: extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels that the United States is
Speaker 1: designated as terrorist organizations. Again, the United States has designated
Speaker 1: as terroist organizations have wrought devastating consequences on American communities
Speaker 1: for decades, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: United States citizens each year and threatening our national security
Speaker 1: and our foreign policy interests both at home and abroad.
Speaker 1: These organizations have evolved into complex structures with the financial
Speaker 1: means and paramilitary capabilities needed to operate with impunity, engaging
Speaker 1: in violence and terrorism that threaten the United States and
Speaker 1: destabilize other nations in our own hemisphere. Friendly foreign nations
Speaker 1: have made significant efforts to combat these organizations, suffering significant
Speaker 1: losses of life due to organized violence at the hands
Speaker 1: of the groups designated as terrorist organizations. But these groups
Speaker 1: are now transnational and operate throughout the Western hemisphere. In
Speaker 1: the face of the inability or unwillingness of some state
Speaker 1: in the region to address the continuing threat to the
Speaker 1: United States and its persons and interests emanating from their territories.
Speaker 1: We have now reached a critical point where we must
Speaker 1: meet this threat to our citizens and our most vital
Speaker 1: national interests with the United States military force in self defense. Accordingly,
Speaker 1: at my direction, on September two, twenty twenty five, the
Speaker 1: United States Forces struck a vessel at a location beyond
Speaker 1: the territorial seas of any nation that was assessed to
Speaker 1: be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and to be
Speaker 1: engaged in illicit drug trafficking activities. It is not possible
Speaker 1: at this time to know the full scope and duration
Speaker 1: of military operations that will be necessary. United States Forces
Speaker 1: remained postured to carry out further military operations. I am
Speaker 1: providing this report as part of my efforts to keep
Speaker 1: the Congress fully informed. Well, I'm not sure there was
Speaker 1: much fully informed there. If you look any any signs
Speaker 1: at Donald J. Trump again, So you take this this gang,
Speaker 1: they've they've taken this Venezuelan national gang of a lot
Speaker 1: of Venezuelan national gang and they've designated a terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: And then because it's a terrorist organization. Essentially, you see him,
Speaker 1: he's making the case, Hey, they're beyond this is They're
Speaker 1: not a nation state, They're not one nation. He's not.
Speaker 1: It's fascinating that he does not mention the word Venezuela here,
Speaker 1: because if if he was talking about a country, he'd
Speaker 1: have to go to Congress. But they're trying to make
Speaker 1: the case that this is this is not about a
Speaker 1: specific country, but a specific country hasn't done any work,
Speaker 1: and therefore there's a threat to the United States and
Speaker 1: taking out this ship, not boarding it, not sending the
Speaker 1: message that way, not arresting these individuals or boarding the
Speaker 1: ship or frankly, to make sure you know what you know,
Speaker 1: they quote just decided to send message. This is what
Speaker 1: Secretary Review said. And again, I know politically this is
Speaker 1: going to seem popular and justifies the means we're getting
Speaker 1: rid of these bad Narco traffickers. This is good Venezuela.
Speaker 1: If Maduro's upset, this is good. But we have a constitution,
Speaker 1: we have a process. We're sitting here behaving no different
Speaker 1: than Putin's been behaving in his region. He designated Ukraine
Speaker 1: is essentially a threat like this. They were not he
Speaker 1: used the word Nazis, and all of this has been
Speaker 1: his rationale for invading this country in their own sort
Speaker 1: of again claiming some version of self defense. This is
Speaker 1: the same crap that Putin's pulling, except he's not in
Speaker 1: a democracy. And we are show us your evidence that
Speaker 1: you knew what was on that boat before you blew
Speaker 1: it up. You just decided to blow it up. Are
Speaker 1: they going to share this intelligence when we have a
Speaker 1: Congress that's acting as if it is an equal, coequal
Speaker 1: branch of government, there'd be some immediate hearings. I haven't
Speaker 1: heard anything. It's been crickets on this, and it appears
Speaker 1: we're going to do more. And it's interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: you see the political fallout from this was, you know,
Speaker 1: Jade Vance is sort of the social media defender, mainstream
Speaker 1: social media defender. Trump does this crazy truth social posts
Speaker 1: that you make it into sort of mainstream social media
Speaker 1: with retreats and all this stuff. But Vance is the
Speaker 1: one he actively is on there, and he basically said
Speaker 1: he thought this was the highest and best use of
Speaker 1: the military. And he had this back and forth with
Speaker 1: an anti Trump, a guy named Brian Crassenstein and who
Speaker 1: denounced the strike. Then called it a war crime, and
Speaker 1: then Vance just simply wrote back, I don't give a
Speaker 1: shit what you call it. Well, what's interesting about that statement,
Speaker 1: because again, what we did and our lack of rationale
Speaker 1: and our lack of justification before we did the attack
Speaker 1: and just waiting until after the fact, because we have
Speaker 1: to take the Trump administration's word for this. His word
Speaker 1: is not good with the American people. At best. It's
Speaker 1: forty percent of the country that accept accept things he says,
Speaker 1: a face value majority does not. Certainly a majority of
Speaker 1: the world does not. So Vance basically says, I don't
Speaker 1: give a shit. And that's when Rand Paul jumps in,
Speaker 1: Republican senator from Kentucky, who's, of course more of a libertarian,
Speaker 1: and he's certainly somebody who believes that Congress has a
Speaker 1: lot more authority to exert when it comes to military decisions,
Speaker 1: and he called that statement, what a despicable and thoughtless
Speaker 1: sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.
Speaker 1: And that was the point he even said, it was
Speaker 1: really interesting. He goes, I should read you the whole tweet.
Speaker 1: Some of you may have seen it, but let me
Speaker 1: read you the whole tweet. JD. I don't give a shit.
Speaker 1: Advance says, killing people he accuses of a crime is
Speaker 1: the quote highest and best use of the military unquote.
Speaker 1: And then Paul goes here, he goes, did he ever
Speaker 1: read to kill a mockingbird? Did he ever wonder what
Speaker 1: might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial
Speaker 1: or representation? And then the next sentence, which has gotten
Speaker 1: some mainstream play. What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it
Speaker 1: is to glorify killing someone without a trial. So look,
Speaker 1: I don't expect this current makeup of Congress to engage
Speaker 1: in this, right, I mean part of the problem. Again,
Speaker 1: this is the whole. The Trump administration does five or
Speaker 1: six things that deserve extra scrutiny. In messing with the
Speaker 1: independence of the FED is another one. The use of
Speaker 1: the military as domestic police officers is one. Then there's
Speaker 1: this and essentially conducting military action against a foreign country.
Speaker 1: We didn't say it here that it's Venezuela. Venezuela sees
Speaker 1: it as an attack. So are we at war with Venezuela?
Speaker 1: Are we about to go to war? Are we about
Speaker 1: to do regime change? Now? Trump was smart enough some lawyer,
Speaker 1: his White House Council got to him. He did not
Speaker 1: go down that road. He can be very sloppy with
Speaker 1: his argument with his statements sometimes, but he did not
Speaker 1: say anything about that. He said no, no, no, because
Speaker 1: the minute he says that, then he essentially lied in
Speaker 1: in the statement of Congress when he informed them based
Speaker 1: on the Warpowers Act. So this is one of those stories.
Speaker 1: It should be consuming Washington in a world without social
Speaker 1: media algorithms that are more obsessed about Jeffrey Epstein. And
Speaker 1: I sit here and I understand this, But when you
Speaker 1: look at all the stories that we're all dealing with
Speaker 1: right now, it's still Jeffrey Epstein that seems to be
Speaker 1: where traditional media is trying to go because it trends better,
Speaker 1: or because social media algorithms report it. Whatever it is.
Speaker 1: This has totally warped the news cycle a little bit.
Speaker 1: This issue with Venezuela should be first and foremost right now.
Speaker 1: The economy is right there, and law enforcement in our cities,
Speaker 1: these sort of collectively here, this is sort of challenges
Speaker 1: to the constitution right in front of our face, right
Speaker 1: in front of our face, and most of the obsession
Speaker 1: and the coverage and even political attention elected leaders, where
Speaker 1: are they gravitating to? They're not gravitating towards many of
Speaker 1: these stories on this anyway. But what have we learned
Speaker 1: from sort of all of this? Over the weekend, we'll
Speaker 1: say this a vance Rand Paul primary is going to
Speaker 1: be fascinating, it's going to be interesting, and it's going
Speaker 1: to be nasty. We'll see how far we get there.
Speaker 1: We'll see whether Rand Paul his what his political standing
Speaker 1: looks like in two years. But he's now. It's interesting
Speaker 1: to me watching him. He is been a bit more
Speaker 1: combative with the Trump administration. He doesn't do it as
Speaker 1: much sort of on the floor of the Senate, and
Speaker 1: he's not really been you know, it's not like he's organic.
Speaker 1: It's not like he went out of his way to
Speaker 1: try to get more people to stop the one Big
Speaker 1: Beautiful Bill, even though he wasn't a fan of it.
Speaker 1: But he does seem to be carving out a place
Speaker 1: he's trying to He's going to try to make an
Speaker 1: ideological argument. Now, the question is whether the party is
Speaker 1: interested in an ideological debate or this is a cult
Speaker 1: of personality debate. And I think, you know, Rand Paul
Speaker 1: was hoping to have this ideological debate in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: and a guy came down the escalator and turned it
Speaker 1: into a cult of personality debate and the rest his history.
Speaker 1: All Right, I told you before I get to my
Speaker 1: little sports page for the week, I'm day viewing a
Speaker 1: new segment, and I am calling this segment this Week
Speaker 1: in History, basically your history and Chuck Todd's history lesson.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I find shocking is how
Speaker 1: often I see, really, you know, this current generation, whether
Speaker 1: it's political reporters, elected officials, sometimes how little they know
Speaker 1: about information about things that happen in the twentieth century. Now,
Speaker 1: not everything I'm going to do is this going to
Speaker 1: be twentieth century. But each week I'm going to be
Speaker 1: looking for an event that happened in that week sometime
Speaker 1: in the last one hundred years, and we're going to
Speaker 1: do a quickly explainer about it and go from there.
Speaker 1: So this week, and by week is September eighth through
Speaker 1: the fourteenth. That's the window. And each week it'll be
Speaker 1: Monday through the Sunday. That's the window. I'm going to
Speaker 1: choose each week. Well, September eighth, nineteen seventy four is
Speaker 1: one of the more momentous occasions in the history of
Speaker 1: American of the American legal system. On October eight, nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy four, just one month after Richard Nixon's resignation, the
Speaker 1: new President Gerald Ford issued a full and preemptive pardon
Speaker 1: for all federal crimes that Richard Nixon quote committed or
Speaker 1: may have committed during his presidency. The decision at the
Speaker 1: time was unprecedented, it was controversial, and it was probably
Speaker 1: the defining moment of Ford's very short presidency. My longtime mentor,
Speaker 1: Doug Bailey may rest in peace. I don't think he's
Speaker 1: I worry sometimes he sees what's happening right now. It's
Speaker 1: not a he's not at the piece he would like
Speaker 1: to be at. But Doug Bailey was Gerald Ford sort
Speaker 1: of chief, one of his chief media strategists in that
Speaker 1: seventy six campaign. And when you look at all of
Speaker 1: the baggage that Nixon was carrying into that campaign, inflation
Speaker 1: was a big one, right, Stagflation. Being Nixon's vice president,
Speaker 1: it was the part. It was the part, and they
Speaker 1: came with it. Look, when you only lose by a
Speaker 1: percentage point in the national popular vote. It's pretty easy
Speaker 1: to look at anything and say, oh, jeezs Bob Dole
Speaker 1: hadn't accused the Democratic Party of starting World War Two,
Speaker 1: that would have maybe that was worth a point, maybe,
Speaker 1: but that the umbrella issue that was hanging over the head.
Speaker 1: Why did Jimmy Carter end up the nominee not somebody
Speaker 1: else in the Democratic Party because he was completely from
Speaker 1: outside Washington of faith right, So it was Nixon informed
Speaker 1: the entire political environment at the time, and he lost
Speaker 1: for the part. Now here was the case for the
Speaker 1: part at the time. Ford made the argument for national
Speaker 1: healing right, our long national nightmare, although that was mixing
Speaker 1: my speeches there, but essentially that was the message. He
Speaker 1: argued the country needed to move beyond Watergate focus on
Speaker 1: the economic and the Cold War challenges that were very
Speaker 1: real in the seventies. This country was very We had
Speaker 1: really crappy economy, so that was a problem, and there
Speaker 1: was a real belief that a war with Russia with
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union wasn't it if it was simply a win.
Speaker 1: Another case for it was that the there would have
Speaker 1: been endless trials. And this is the political reason for
Speaker 1: if you're Ford or you're the Ford White House. It
Speaker 1: would have been a complete utter distraction. The prosecution would
Speaker 1: have dominated his presidency, and it would have probably destabilized
Speaker 1: our politics. How well did the Trump trials? How did
Speaker 1: the country handle that he wasn't a city in as
Speaker 1: a former president. Accepting the pardon meant that Nixon sort
Speaker 1: of confessed that that was one of the other arguments
Speaker 1: that the pardon worked. By accepting the pardon, Nixon implied
Speaker 1: guilt under Urdick versus the United States in nineteen fifteen,
Speaker 1: which is as if you accept the pardon, essentially you're
Speaker 1: accepting you committed some crime. Now the quest and it's
Speaker 1: and in two thousand and one he got the Kennedy
Speaker 1: family gave him the Profile and Courage Award because it
Speaker 1: has been interpreted as if that it was politically courageous
Speaker 1: because Ford did it even though he knew would hurt
Speaker 1: him politically, but he acted for what he viewed was
Speaker 1: the greater good. I think you could easily look at
Speaker 1: it as that he was trying to do what was
Speaker 1: in the best interests of the Ford presidency, which was
Speaker 1: to get all things Nixon behind him. So I think
Speaker 1: it's sort of I really think It depends where you
Speaker 1: sit on whether it was a courageous argument putting country
Speaker 1: over party, or did you put his presidency over the
Speaker 1: rule of law as well? Right, But that to me's
Speaker 1: debate points now, well, the arguments against the pardon, both
Speaker 1: at the time and today are pretty much the same.
Speaker 1: The pardon meant you're going to lose accountability, right, that
Speaker 1: it undermined the principle that no one is above the law,
Speaker 1: even the president, and that by issuing this pardon we
Speaker 1: essentially said political leaders are immune from the basic laws
Speaker 1: of prosecutions because of who you know. Right. I certainly
Speaker 1: think that over time this isn't aged. Well, I'm giving
Speaker 1: it away where I sort of lean on this, And
Speaker 1: there was a time twenty years ago I might have
Speaker 1: argued that I might have accepted the historical verdict that said, oh,
Speaker 1: this was the right thing to do. It he of
Speaker 1: the country allowed us to move on. But it's set
Speaker 1: a dangerous president, and I think now, in hindsight, we
Speaker 1: have decided that trying to get political accountability is too hard.
Speaker 1: Right now, Look, I do think the founders were right
Speaker 1: that the best place to put a president on trial
Speaker 1: was in the United States, Senate, the Democrats, not just
Speaker 1: the Democrats, Republicans obviously in the second one that was
Speaker 1: attempted with Trump twice, and he was acquitted in that
Speaker 1: court twice. Now I could argue that that should have
Speaker 1: probably preempted that when you know, that was the where
Speaker 1: the Founder said a president, an elected president, is held accountable.
Speaker 1: And I could make the case in hindsight that all
Speaker 1: those other independent jurisdiction sort of laid down their arms,
Speaker 1: if you know, that was the most appropriate place to
Speaker 1: try to hold them accountable was in the United States.
Speaker 1: But had Ford never pardoned Nixon and we'd had a
Speaker 1: trial and he had been convicted and had served time,
Speaker 1: Here's what we don't know, right there was an assumption
Speaker 1: that somehow it might have it might have created, it
Speaker 1: might have turned him into a political martyr in some cases.
Speaker 1: I guess we're seeing an alternative universe here in Brazil
Speaker 1: right where instead of letting it go with Bolsonaro, the
Speaker 1: current administration is deciding to go ahead with a prosecution
Speaker 1: on Bolsnaro and banning him from the ballot and all
Speaker 1: those things that come with it. Perhaps that's what could
Speaker 1: have been done with Nixon, was our system strong enough
Speaker 1: to handle it. Ford's decision implies that he didn't think
Speaker 1: the country was going to be able to handle it.
Speaker 1: But this was one of those cases where if you know,
Speaker 1: and I go back to if you don't trust the voters,
Speaker 1: and what are we doing with this experiment anyway? Right,
Speaker 1: like the argument about the Constitutional convention. Oh no, if
Speaker 1: you do that, there might be some people who who
Speaker 1: may have some wacko wacko ideas that they introduce. Yeah,
Speaker 1: welcome to America. Okay, we we have people on every
Speaker 1: single notch of the political spectrum. Of course, there's going
Speaker 1: to be all sorts of but there's a process, and
Speaker 1: there's there's a process that should make it so that
Speaker 1: it's fairly mainstream. But the minute you start making decisions
Speaker 1: that take away the ability of the American voter or
Speaker 1: the American system to do its thing, to essentially usurped
Speaker 1: the democratic process, which is what Ford did. I think
Speaker 1: it turns out, especially given what we've gone through over
Speaker 1: the last decade, that despite what was over time and
Speaker 1: what's interesting pulling over time right at the time, a
Speaker 1: majority of the country, including according to an exit poll
Speaker 1: in the seventy six presidential race, a majority of the
Speaker 1: country thought the pardon was wrong. Fifty five percent thought
Speaker 1: it was a mistake. By the early eighties, it was
Speaker 1: sort of a split decision. In eighty six, it was
Speaker 1: the first time any pole ever showed a majority support
Speaker 1: for the part. Part of that may have been sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, Reagan's popularity helped the country had sort of
Speaker 1: moved sort of into center right situation. Maybe that is
Speaker 1: why Nixon had sort of rehabbed himself, had become mister
Speaker 1: foreign dignitary, if you will, writing books, mister foreign policy advisor.
Speaker 1: A few months later, Bill Clinton, you know, I remember
Speaker 1: when Bill Clinton made the trek to visit with former
Speaker 1: President Nixon before he died. But I think when you
Speaker 1: think about the situation we're in now, where it's not
Speaker 1: clear there's a rule of lawe where we've now had
Speaker 1: a president, we've had a fear that presidents would issue
Speaker 1: preemptive pardons, and out of fear of a president weaponizing
Speaker 1: the legal system, a president went ahead and issued a
Speaker 1: preemptive pardon for a bunch of his family members. And
Speaker 1: I'm referring, of course, to Joe Biden. Does any of
Speaker 1: this happen without the initial decision by Gerald Ford to
Speaker 1: pardon Richard Nixon. Some of you may say, obviously the
Speaker 1: best I think the best outcome would have been. I
Speaker 1: don't think the former president of the United States should
Speaker 1: serve time. I might have drawn the line on that.
Speaker 1: You commute the sentence, but you let you make him
Speaker 1: go under on trial, you go through that whole process.
Speaker 1: Then you commute the sentence. You see if he's guilty
Speaker 1: or not. He should have his due process. Nixon never
Speaker 1: got his due process. So I think it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting the Ford pardon for the longest period of time,
Speaker 1: aged very well, and I think when we look back
Speaker 1: on it, and I look back on it and everything
Speaker 1: I did when you it is just this. This was
Speaker 1: the wrong action at the wrong time, in the wrong country.
Speaker 1: You know it just it is if if you believe
Speaker 1: in the rule of law, you should have let it
Speaker 1: work its will. That everything about our system is supposed
Speaker 1: to make us different, including that, but instead that pardon. Essentially,
Speaker 1: what we've done is that was the beginning of treating
Speaker 1: the presidency like a monarchy where they're kind of untouchable.
Speaker 1: All right, there's your history lesson. It was September eighth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy four that this pardon was issued, and fifty
Speaker 1: one years later, Let's just say I think it's now
Speaker 1: a stain unpresidential decision making. Joe Ford was a good man,
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. This was a patriot, but they
Speaker 1: made the wrong call. All right, my quick little Before
Speaker 1: I get to a few questions, you gotta understand how
Speaker 1: how I viewed college football. I mean, is it is
Speaker 1: for me? It's everything. So I watched every second of
Speaker 1: the Miami Bethune Cookman game. Here are things that made
Speaker 1: me extraordinarily excited. First of all, they unleashed the offense
Speaker 1: a little bit. Carson had zip on his ball. It
Speaker 1: now makes me think that the Notre Dame game plan
Speaker 1: was very conservative, was very careful, and this is an
Speaker 1: offense that is very likely to get better as they
Speaker 1: keep adding more things. So let's just say I am
Speaker 1: cautiously enthusiastic. Miami plays at the University of South Florida
Speaker 1: next week, which is just upended poor Sunbup Billy Billy Napier,
Speaker 1: the coach of the Gators. I just find that they'd
Speaker 1: be the funniest nickname for it. That's one of those
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna explain if you know, you know, but
Speaker 1: sunbout poor sunbup Billy losing to a group of five teams,
Speaker 1: and South Florida may be the best group of five teams.
Speaker 1: Maybe not? Is Boise State any good? You know? The
Speaker 1: thing that I had to remind my own son right,
Speaker 1: is LSU any good? Clemson was losing to Troy. We
Speaker 1: don't know who's good or not yet. I think Miami's good.
Speaker 1: I think Florida State's good. I think Ohio State's good.
Speaker 1: I think Penn State's good. Looks like Texas is going
Speaker 1: to be pretty good. What about Alabama? Alabama? Man, they
Speaker 1: they certainly got their act together. And yes, it was,
Speaker 1: you know, against the little sisters, you know, and there's
Speaker 1: week two has a lot of little Sisters of the
Speaker 1: poor games. It's amazing how many, how many, how many
Speaker 1: teams the Little Sisters play. It's one of my favorite
Speaker 1: cliches to use in college football. So you're gonna hear
Speaker 1: me do it a lot. But I uh. The couple
Speaker 1: other things that jumped out of me from over the
Speaker 1: weekend was I was bummed to see what happened with Duke. Financially,
Speaker 1: I had I had a good week that would have
Speaker 1: been fantastic had my my friend Manny Diaz, the head
Speaker 1: coach of the Duke Blue Devils, had showed up. But man,
Speaker 1: every time I turned around, they were turning the ball over.
Speaker 1: That is one of the biggest misleading finals of the weekend.
Speaker 1: Be very careful, assuming you know for sure that Illinois
Speaker 1: is good and is the new Indiana they were. Duke
Speaker 1: gave away so many possessions in that game, So be careful,
Speaker 1: be very very careful. And then I have to close
Speaker 1: with the disappointment of my one of my new teams.
Speaker 1: The way we look at it, anytime I have a
Speaker 1: family connection, that becomes one of my teams that I
Speaker 1: keep an eye on and I try to root for
Speaker 1: as long as they're not playing Miami. So Florida State
Speaker 1: is now back in there. That's my wife, Alum. I
Speaker 1: have now family connections to Auburn, So I'm i'm I'm
Speaker 1: trying to be nice and not say bad things about
Speaker 1: coach Freeze. Obviously I've got I'm paying money over at
Speaker 1: SMU these days that oh can't blow it to score lyad.
Speaker 1: As I said to my son, SMU has the offense
Speaker 1: of a playoff team, But the defense of a group
Speaker 1: of five teams, so that but fear not, SMU fans,
Speaker 1: they're spending real money. They're going to be in the
Speaker 1: top tier. They lost a whole bunch of great defensive
Speaker 1: linemen to the NFL, so that's why they were so
Speaker 1: poorous and it was so easy to run on them.
Speaker 1: They'll fix this, maybe not this season, maybe not in
Speaker 1: time to be playoff contender, but still don't sleep on
Speaker 1: them because they can score a lot of points and
Speaker 1: it can be an exciting game. By the way, my
Speaker 1: favorite game might have been the Kansas Missouri game, the
Speaker 1: old border war. Speaking of history lessons, I would encourage
Speaker 1: you to take a look at the history of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it really was. When they first started playing,
Speaker 1: blood was really bad. It was Civil War blood, like
Speaker 1: the actual Civil War type of disputes. Still that was
Speaker 1: still lingering when that rivalry began. So always fun when
Speaker 1: you see a rivalry that hadn't been going on for
Speaker 1: a while come back like that. That's what makes college
Speaker 1: football great. That's why I love college football so much,
Speaker 1: and that's why I wish the two major conferences weren't
Speaker 1: trying to squeeze everybody else of this all right, I'm
Speaker 1: off my quick sports soapbox. So with that, let's take
Speaker 1: a few questions, sneak in some mess chuck ass chuck.
Speaker 1: All right, I've gone all along with my little history
Speaker 1: thing today, so I'll probably do the lion's share of
Speaker 1: question answering for the Thursday episode, but let me sneak
Speaker 1: in a couple here this week. First question comes from
Speaker 1: overseas Dublin, Ireland. Comes from Danny Oh, Danny Boy from Dublin, Ireland.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, love the podcast. I don't think
Speaker 1: Putin could handle Trump the way you suggested. He knows
Speaker 1: Trump would spin even a short CeaseFire's proof of his influence.
Speaker 1: Putin granted a ceasefire because I asked him, and Trump
Speaker 1: would never stop boasting about it. That would quickly become magadogma,
Speaker 1: which would be excruciating for Putin, worse than any short
Speaker 1: lived credit he'd get for the ceasefire. Thoughts, keep up
Speaker 1: the good work. It's an interesting way to look at it.
Speaker 1: But here's the other thing Putin has made him look ridiculous. Right,
Speaker 1: look at what Putin is doing now with Ukraine. He
Speaker 1: is being more aggressive. He is going after government officials,
Speaker 1: he's gone after European officials, He's gone after places in
Speaker 1: Ukraine that haven't been touched before. He's doing it with impunity,
Speaker 1: and the United States is sitting here in silence. And
Speaker 1: that I mean, look, I go back. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I am surprised that Putin didn't try to strengthen Trump,
Speaker 1: the perception of Trump by giving him a short cease fire.
Speaker 1: That's why I think this is one of those if
Speaker 1: you're the if you're the KGB operative portion of Putin's brain, right,
Speaker 1: you give a little something so that the Europeans are
Speaker 1: of no choice. But now by totally snubbing, he is
Speaker 1: potentially making it. It's making it harder for Trump to
Speaker 1: somehow defend Putin and serve as this buffer that he's
Speaker 1: been serving as against the West. And I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're going to have h Look, you've a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of Republican senators who are spineless about going up against
Speaker 1: Trump on all these other things, but they are willing
Speaker 1: to to to get tough on Russia, and I'm Putin.
Speaker 1: I think it's inevitable that this is coming. Uh, But
Speaker 1: I do think this has been what what when you
Speaker 1: just look at it as far as you know, people
Speaker 1: like to say, oh, Putin is such a chess player.
Speaker 1: It's not a chess move. This is sort of dumb checkers.
Speaker 1: He's just counting on Trump being weak and right now
Speaker 1: Trump is extraordinarily weak, and that's a you know, and
Speaker 1: that has emboldened that weakness is emboldened Putin. Now, if
Speaker 1: you want to talk about political messaging, I don't know
Speaker 1: where the where the opposition to this is in the
Speaker 1: in in you know, it's it's it's sort of there.
Speaker 1: But the way to go after Trump on this is
Speaker 1: he is weak. Putin has spit. He is He has
Speaker 1: done what Jalen Carter did to Dak Prescott. He has
Speaker 1: literally spit on Trump's red tie. And Trump's not can
Speaker 1: do anything about it, not a thing, all right? Next
Speaker 1: question Sandro from Italy. Wow, we have a we have
Speaker 1: a theme today. Hello check Sandro, a listener from Italy.
Speaker 1: The reason Epstein File's discussion made me think about public
Speaker 1: trust in victims. Watching the Depth versus Herd trial at seventeen,
Speaker 1: I saw how misogynistic attacks and online trolling dehumanized Herd,
Speaker 1: turning serious abuse allegations into jokes and fueling a one
Speaker 1: sided narrative. I worry Epstein's victims could face similar treatment,
Speaker 1: defamation suits, tax and credibility, and a loss of political support.
Speaker 1: Why do female victims and even female politicians face this
Speaker 1: dehumanization while Trump has avoided the same level of scrutiny
Speaker 1: from the media. Thanks well, I think he's gotten I
Speaker 1: don't know if I agree that he hasn't gotten scrutiny
Speaker 1: from the media. I think he's gotten scrutiny from the media.
Speaker 1: That's not the issue. The question is why doesn't it stick? Right?
Speaker 1: Why do these things stick to others but it doesn't
Speaker 1: to him? Now, in part, he's got all sorts, you know.
Speaker 1: Part of it is, you know he's he is mister distraction,
Speaker 1: and everybody always thinking, so this is a distraction for
Speaker 1: this there's no one thing that's a distraction specifically for
Speaker 1: another thing. It is this is how he wants. He
Speaker 1: wants seven things, seven balls in the air, so that
Speaker 1: it looks like he's there's always something going on, and
Speaker 1: you know he can do is and and and it
Speaker 1: has allowed them what what what second term Trump is?
Speaker 1: Guys like to Stephen Miller and others have figured out
Speaker 1: how to use the fog of Trump set a fog
Speaker 1: of war, right, using the fog of Trump to sort
Speaker 1: of manipulate and take advantage of him and get him
Speaker 1: to do things in extraordinarily aggressive actions, like what he's
Speaker 1: doing right now in Venezuela. But I would argue, I mean,
Speaker 1: my goodness, I mean the singling out Trump's misogynistic behavior
Speaker 1: and his character. I mean the entire Access Hollywood tape.
Speaker 1: I mean, we had a And I think that's the
Speaker 1: problem sometimes with our politics. You know, you have such
Speaker 1: a high profile moment like that, and it dominates a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks of the final four weeks of that campaign,
Speaker 1: and then there's this sense so we got by it,
Speaker 1: so don't ever worry about using it again. Like there's
Speaker 1: this weird mindset in political campaigns that once you survive,
Speaker 1: if you get elected, and the attacks thrown at you
Speaker 1: don't stick enough to cause you enough to win that election,
Speaker 1: to cause you to lose that election, and you win
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, political opponents stop using the same material
Speaker 1: they think, well, we can't like. And there is an
Speaker 1: old news thing, right that has been effective for Corpa
Speaker 1: politicians in the past've been able to say, oh, that's
Speaker 1: old news. I don't know why we're bringing that up. Well,
Speaker 1: I know why you're bringing it up, because it deserves
Speaker 1: to be brought up. But the point is is that
Speaker 1: because it's it's part of trying to figure out what
Speaker 1: makes these politicians stick. But you're right, I mean, this
Speaker 1: hasn't gotten the same and I think in some ways,
Speaker 1: you know, so those that don't like Trump have their
Speaker 1: point of view. Those that do have decided to compartmentalize this.
Speaker 1: You know, it goes to it's sort of like why
Speaker 1: did the character attacks. It's funny they never worked against Clinton,
Speaker 1: the Democrats when Clinton was in office, but when he
Speaker 1: was leaving office, the sort of the character stuck, stuck
Speaker 1: a little bit the gore, and he had to figure
Speaker 1: out a way to distance himself from it. Right, it
Speaker 1: was like the country was like, we're not going to
Speaker 1: do it again. And that's why I am skeptical of
Speaker 1: behaving like Trump. That the answer that I think the
Speaker 1: next president wins because they're they have higher they have
Speaker 1: a higher they have perceived higher character than Trump. I
Speaker 1: say perceived, because you can have people that can hold
Speaker 1: themselves up as high character and they're they're hiding low character. Tendencies.
Speaker 1: But my assumption is the public doesn't want this kind
Speaker 1: of self enrichment, amoral and immoral behavior out of their
Speaker 1: chief executives. I just I don't buy that. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna steak in one more question here, uh, and
Speaker 1: this one comes, We're going to go stateside here, Adam
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis, he said, I love hearing your discussion on
Speaker 1: the best comedy Satirical writers a while back and was
Speaker 1: very excited to hear you conclude with Trey Parker and
Speaker 1: Matt Stone in South Park. Curious to hear if you
Speaker 1: have tuned into the current season a spoiler alert. I have. Personally,
Speaker 1: I had to spit out my drink moment when I
Speaker 1: saw Trump with the classics that I'm cut out face
Speaker 1: and voice. Love to hear any thoughts on the political
Speaker 1: salience of the direction this season best, Adam, Well, it's
Speaker 1: interesting because you know, they're they're they're to me, they're
Speaker 1: calling card. Over the last decade has really been on
Speaker 1: on trying to sort of call out cultural hypocrisy from
Speaker 1: both from the woke left and the grievance right, and
Speaker 1: Andy they've so effectively, I think culturally still even in
Speaker 1: these episodes I think have mocked both quite well. You know,
Speaker 1: It's funny. What I've noticed is that the coverage of
Speaker 1: each South Park episode is almost done exclusively through the
Speaker 1: prism of Trump. But I thought I thought the uh
Speaker 1: I thought the last episode or no, I think it
Speaker 1: was two episodes ago, the one that featured Tim Cook
Speaker 1: was as much about the tech world and the sort
Speaker 1: of the bowing down. Anyway, the point is is that
Speaker 1: I think, what's I again, They're They're not They're not
Speaker 1: late leaving anything untouched here at all. But it is
Speaker 1: a direct There's no doubt this is a direct response
Speaker 1: to sort of what I would say is almost maga
Speaker 1: and and sort of a morality of Trump. But look,
Speaker 1: it's been let's just say, they've done things that I
Speaker 1: can't even feel like I can repeat. Obviously I could.
Speaker 1: There's you know, this is the world of independent media.
Speaker 1: We can do what we want, but it feels next
Speaker 1: level over the top. But then I could also argue
Speaker 1: that in this day and age, in order for anything
Speaker 1: to break through the algorithms and break through in some ways,
Speaker 1: do you have to go that far. So there's there's
Speaker 1: a there's a part of me that you know we have,
Speaker 1: really I don't think we have fully appreciated how much
Speaker 1: we've sort of gotten rid of every guard rail possible
Speaker 1: when it comes to sort of political satire and commentary.
Speaker 1: There's pretty much there's no line, there's no guardrail, there's
Speaker 1: no norm, and some of it is funny, but we're
Speaker 1: actually doing what I would say is real satire, because
Speaker 1: the best satire should make you a little uncomfortable before
Speaker 1: it makes you laugh. And I think this season South
Speaker 1: Park is making you a little bit uncomfortable just before
Speaker 1: you laugh. All right with that, I think we can
Speaker 1: put a pin in this episode. Appreciate you out there.
Speaker 1: We've been by the way, response has been terrific, and
Speaker 1: people are out of their August doldrums. That's exciting. I'm
Speaker 1: having the I'm enjoying this, enjoying this medium, appreciate the
Speaker 1: opportunity it gives me to sort of complete whole thoughts
Speaker 1: and to sort of do, as Trump likes to say,
Speaker 1: my own little weave about sort of how I'm watching
Speaker 1: the current American political system as it potentially unravels in
Speaker 1: front of our very eyes, and so I feel like
Speaker 1: chronicling this almost on a daily basis is necessary as
Speaker 1: we figure out how we can navigate our way out
Speaker 1: of this mess, and so with that, I will upload
Speaker 1: again in approximately forty eight hours. Y