Chuck’s Commentary - America Could Enter A “Reform Era” Post-Trump + Top 5 Most Absurd Awards Created To Soothe Trump’s Ego

nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The

Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code the todcast code. You use the promo code toodcast at checkout you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.

They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is worth giving Wildgrain to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain

dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. Hello, They're happy Wednesday, and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast A little rundown on today. It is Wednesday, which means you're gonna get a't a top five list.

I got a fun one for you. It involves the president and prestigious awards, so I give you a big hint. But maybe you still won't quite know where I'm headed with that. We'll do some letters, but I want to begin today with you know, one of the things that I'm mindful of is that sometimes we're so dark and negative that we sometimes can miss a big deal taken

place in plain sight. Right, And to start with an issue that has not really made the rounds on cable television, you haven't seen much of it on social media, and it certainly has yet to generate a Chiron countdown clock.

But it might matter a lot more than most of the headlines we've been dealing with over the last few weeks. And it's a constitutional amendment proposal that is now circulating in Congress that would allow congressional lawmakers to nullify a presidential pardon. This is not a bill that, while you may have, it's not an idea that would have gotten much traction or must interest even five years ago. But

something like this seems very plausible to me, and it's plausible enough that I wanted to give it a little extra attention. And that's sometimes the role I feel like I can play best here, which is like, hey, you know, I used to run a mainstream news supposed mainstream news organization, a couple of them. Here's what I would be leaning

into there, and you should be too. And that's sort of a role I like to play sometimes, but we may be seeing a major structural shift in conversation at a time that we really needed, and it may be to me. I hope it gives you a little bit of hope, because it gives me. I'm granted, I'm looking

for it. So I'm looking for this, which is that maybe we have begun a new era of reform that you know, like the progressive era of the early twentieth century, which created some needed constitutional reform that we're finally starting. I've been saying, we're going to get it, We're going to get it. Well, guess what. We're finally starting to

see a concrete proposal, and the fact that it starts with pardons is actually not surprising to me, because we knew something was going to trigger. Right I think you know, in reform eras happen when enough people on both sides of the aisle side, it's the rules that need to be tightened or changed that a singular president can't do. The fixes that we now know are systemic or structural.

So look, why did we start with pardons? Well, I think it's pretty obvious what triggered this right pardon power, and it's how it's been abused, particularly with this president. Under Donald Trump, the pardon power has become so politically charged in ways we haven't seen ever on the presidential level. We've seen governors sell pardons for profit, we have not seen presidents do it. It is aggressively as Trump has. We've seen what appear to be potential pay to play

pardons in some form or another. But it would be one controversial pardon by a president, you know, not essentially the entire process being monetized, which is what's happened here today. And so under Trump, you know, some of the most controversial ones. Right, there's the broad January sixth partons for anybody,

and that is that has allowed a lot of bad people who deserve to be behind bars not to be behind bars. Some of them have committed crimes as their pardon was made official. That's been a total a disaster by doing that. But we know why he did it. It's his own personal motivation, believing that somehow January sixth was not what it was, that it was somehow a

lawful protest. We know he pardons people that are represented by longtime political allies or people like Roger Stone who get paid as sort of an intermediary for the pardons. We know that's taking place. I mean, you know, you don't think the former president of Hondura's got pardoned for free,

do you. So you know that sits out there. And then there's this pattern of Trump where he pardons people that are accused of doing things that he's been accused of, always in the white collar space, in particular financial crimes and things like that. So we now know it's fair to say that the perception is that pardon power is now drifted towards the personal and political. It's no longer

what its original construct was about, which was constitutional mercy, if you will. Now it's about political protection. And look, it's like everything Trump does he's not the first to do, and he's not the you know, it's not as if it's not been done by members of both parties. He's just done it more aggressively and more you know, sort of like rubbing our nose and dog manure face, right,

like he's grotesque about it. But what Joe Biden did at the end of his term, I've always thought was just as bad as what Trump's doing because he almost gave Trump a license to do it when he did his preemptive pardons that involved family members that had no business getting a pardon at all or certainly seemed to get pardoned for, you know, not for the thing he claimed they were getting pardoned for, but you know, and even used clemency at times that did generate some partisan backlash,

and it seemed like some of his sweeping commutations were tied to some political issues that he wanted to bring

to the forefront. So again, while Biden didn't do it as ham handedly as Trump is, what he did with his family at the end was grotesque. The preemptive pardons using Trump as the as the as the rationale to do it was all the more awful, I'll be honest,

because it just assumed corruption in the process itself. And so I understand you assume Trump is corrupt, but then to essentially do it before Trump actually does what you fear, you know, you've suddenly committed your own slate of corruption there. So it is. And frankly, in order to get institutional change, you need bad actors on both sides. So, you know,

if we want to make the Biden pardons sort of the you know, the oh, by the way, I think it's worthy, those preemptive pardons. Let's not I'm not sure this is not equal both siderisms here. Okay, what Trump has done is on an unprecedented level. But to get this structural reform, you're going to need bipartisan buy in. And what Biden did was awful. What Trump does has

been worse. So no matter what, whether you support the individual actions or oppose them, the structural concern has become the same that the power of pardoning presidential pardons has become a high stakes political instrument now in the last decade, and it's got to change. And now that both parties are fearing how the other might wield this power, that's when you actually start getting reform conversations, and it is

incredibly important. So late last year, a Maryland Congressman by the name of Johnny Oulzuski introduced a constitutional amendment to

give Congress the opportunity to nullify a pardon, and it would under certain conditions, and it would essentially it's the similar to what the power Congress has now to override vetos. Now, what made me interested in this story this last week is that this was a Democrat introducing it. So, and you sometimes can get these partisan ideas introduced and there's

nobody on the other side that's interested. Well, Don Bacon, a Republican from Omaha, Nebraska who's not running for reelection, decided to sign on as an early co sponsor and it made him the first Republican to support this constitutional amendment. And it's always important. The minute you can get something

by partisan it suddenly has traction and has an opportunity. Now, let me read you the proposal word for word here of this pardon amendment that Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, nullify any pardon granted by the President of the United States upon petition of twenty members of the House of Representatives and five members of the Senate. A vote shall be held within a specified period to determine whether such pardon shall stand. So again,

it's modeling. So this amendment specific amendment would model the

process after what is the veto override structure, So they wouldn't abolish the presidential pardon. Something I might consider there's not partisan punishment, but it's a good old fashioned constitutional check. Would be something the founders would be impressed with because it's a it's a high threshold to nullify a presidential pardon. That's not easy. Two thirds of each House of Congress and to get your sort of twenty members of the House,

five members of the Senate. That's probably the easy part. The hard part is getting that two thirds. I might argue that, you know, the I think the having leaving one person with any of that power is the mistake itself. And then maybe you create a pardon board that includes, you know, the two longest serving members of the Supreme Court, the you know, say, you know, the two longest serving members of the House and the Senate, the Attorney General,

the president, and the Vice president, something like that. That would become a pardon board where no one individual could decide, but you would bring bring individual cases there. But either way, the fact that Congress has a bipartisan amendment to potentially at least put a check on the pardon power of the president is a big deal, not a small deal. And I think it signifies the start of something. So

let's zoom out here. The last time Americans felt that the structure itself was compromised, we Americans amended the Constitution. And it wasn't an abstract it was all scandal driven. Let me tell you the story of the Seventeenth Amendment. All Right, before nineteen thirteen, state legislatures chose US Senators. The system had been rotting for years. Deadlocks had left too many Senate seats vacant. Party bosses essentially controlled the

appointment process. Wasn't the voters hadn't much say at all.

Wealthy interests with lobby state house votes. I mean, look, I'll be honest, I think you know, the lower down the ladder, you go the most corruptible institutions or state legislatures, then city councils, right, you keep going down. Right, The least corruptible these days has been Congress. So imagine all that power deciding a US Senate in the state level. It was a mess. But it took a big scandal to sober the public up and say, hey, enough of this shit. Let me tell you the story of a

gentleman named William Lowermer in the state of Illinois. He was elected by the state legislature to the US Senate, I believe in nineteen oh nine. Well, soon after, a state legislator confessed that he was paid one thousand dollars to vote for the guy. That's roughly thirty five thousand dollars today. Investigators then uncovered and what was called a jackpot slush fund that allegedly used was used to secure enough votes in a Chicago hotel bathroom. So the Senate investigated.

They cleared him once, but the public outrage exploded. New evidence emerged of just how this process worked, and so by nineteen twelve, the Senate declared his election corrupt and vacated the seat. But what America saw was a Senate

seat that was effectively purchased. So guess what happened? We finally changed the constitution. It had been building for a while, but it took a scandal like that one to sober ebody up and say yeah, seventeenth Amendment suddenly moved Senate elections directly to voters. So corruption became visible and the reform followed. That's what we have here with partons. This episode of the Chuck Podcast is being brought to you

by Quints. As you know, a well built wardrobe is about the pieces that work together, hold up over time, and frankly allow you to be flexible and sort of business casual to say, social casual. Quins does this really well. They have premium material, thoughtful design and some everyday staples

that feel easy to wear, easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. I've got some sweaters from Quints. I love them. I can use them for here on the podcast. I can do a business meeting with them. They have every day essentials. I love the quality so far. It's lasting really well. I've had it for a while. They have organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion. They have some nice jackets, including you know, lighter jackets as things I hope warm up at some point down here

in the mid Atlantic. The list goes on. All of it is built to hold up for you to wear this stuff all the time, right, Not just something you pull out once a quarter to look nice at work. No stuff that you might wear every week. They only partner with factories that meet some rigorous standards for crashmanship and ethical product. Bottom line, I wear it. I'm happy.

It's been really good. It isn't gonna break the bank. So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go to quins dot com slash chuck for free shipping on your order and a three hundred and sixty five day opportunity to return it. Now available in Canada too. That's qui nc dot com slash chuck free shipping three hundred and sixty five day returns. Quints dot com slash chuck. Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the

social buzz without the next day regret. They're best selling. Out of office Gummanies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram micro to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.

And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul

is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious HEMP derived THCHC and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwine. So if you struggle to switch off at night. Sol also has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help you get a better night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the

good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order. So go to gitsold dot com use the promo code todcast. Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code todcast for thirty percent off. Let me tell you the story of the sixteenth Amendment. Right, they've ability to tax income. Right that has its roots in income inequality of the early parts of the Industrial Revolution. Right right around that

same period, industrial wealth was exploding. Sound familiar. Tariffs taxes on consumption were the federal government's primary revenue source. Working families paid disproportionately a larger share of tariff revenue to the government treasury than the wealthy people did. The wealthiest

industrialists paid relatively little in any kind of taxation. Supreme Court even struck down an earlier attempt to create an income tax. He said it was unconstitutional. Well, so reformers amended the Constitution to make a federal income tax unquestionably legal. And the sixteen Amendment wasn't subtle. Subtle. It was all about shifting the burden upward. And why was there traction for that at that time? Because you had these wealthy industrialists.

Income inequality was massive, you know, you had an explosion in sort of abused labor, child labor. It was terrible. So this is why the public appetite for this was huge. The public believed these elites, these robber barons. That's why they got the name. We're gaming the system, We're robbing the system. So the system was changed. And let's not forget the nineteen Amendment, which also came in this same period. Half the population wasn't allowed to vote simply because of

their gender. Nineteen the amendment corrected that it was an incremental reform. It was structural expansion of small d democratic power at a time when the public felt that the democracy was slipping away. So it looked like the elites were gaming the system. The wealthy were getting wealthier while the rest of us were being left behind. And oh, by the way, the democracy wasn't really even representing the most of the country. Because half the country couldn't couldn't

vote that structural reform. That's a reform era. Question is are we about to do the same thing now. Look, not every reform from that era was a good idea. The eighteenth Amendment Prohibition was born of moral urgency, right temperance movements believed alcohol was destroying families, corrupting politics, and undermining public virtues. So basically at the same time of distrust of politicians, distrust of elites, this is why one

of these this moral amendment got through, right to ban the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. Well, that ended up actually jumpstarting crime, arguably created the modern mob system that we still deal with today. Black markets, organized crime, all that mess. And so within fourteen years we're like, ooh, that was a bad idea, and so the twenty first Amendment repealed prohibition. So it's an important lesson because reform

eras are powerful and they're also potentially risky. When we amend the constitution, we are playing with the architecture of the country itself. Some reforms will stabilize the democracy. Direct election of senators, did the income tax, did women the right to vote? Did others overcorrect like prohibition It's something I think about about the balance budget Amendment. I'm sort of intrigued by it. I kind of in theory agree to it. And then you're like, what would this mean?

Could this create an economic catastrophe for us in ways that we have not, you know, because of the unintended consequence. So and I'm mindful. I think we're going to have an era of reform. So the question is what does that look like. I do think this that historians may one day say see the Obama and Trump presidencies as bookends of the same structural frustration. They had different ideologies,

but it was the same demand. They were elected to shake things up, to change the system, fix what feels broken. At the time, the public thought, well, maybe a president could restore some balance. Turns out structural corrosion requires structural repair, and structural repair requires constitutional thinking. They alone cannot fix it, meaning a singular president Obama couldn't do it. Trump clearly

cannot do it. So if this pardon conversation gains traction, expect more to follow. And this one should. This one, to me is an easy one to get traction for. And I think, you know, it's one of those things that could be an interesting way for Republicans to show some independence from Trump but grounding it in the Constitution and for protection of future presidents abusing the power of the pardon. So it's also a pretty good way to

sort of keep track of Huh. You know, it's almost like, you know, if I were a Republican strategist trying to mitigate the damage that's coming in this midterm year, I might want a vehicle like this pardon constitutional amendment where I can sign on as a co sponsor to show my independence, to show that I still care about some sort of I have some ethical lines that I'd like to draw here. So if this pardon thing gains traction, where else could we see some reform attempts of the

constitutional sort. Well, I think we could have limits on executive emergency authority. If Congress won't do it, maybe we'll put a constitutional amendment into force Congress to realize it's

authority there. Maybe there's clearly if we want to do anything in the in campaign finance, whether it's limits or transparency, basically outlawing anonymous contributions, you're going to need Since the courts have used the First Amendment as a shield on anything to reform and to reform in the campaign money era area, then you need a constitutional amendment. I think that will get traction in some form. I think transparency

is the way to go, because again, when you're trying to pass the constitutional amendment two thirds support in the House, you know it's got to pass the House, in the Senate plus thirty eight states. You've got to have something that you can talk everybody into. You know, my pet issue on this run is indicates the expansion of the House representative. It's been capped at four and thirty five

since their early twentieth century. It is, you know, we should not have congressional districts that are sized of major cities eight hundred thousand people. We should have congressional districts that are somewhere between three hundred and fifty and four hundred thousand. And you could put a constitutional amendment and say no congressional district can have a population more than you know, point oh three percent of the population. Basically

you can. You can have it as right now, right if you base it on three hundred fifty million people you're looking at you know, I think it is I think it's point oh one point oh three would get you about three fifty four hundred. So that's the hope is that reform eras cascade. It doesn't stop at one idea, that you actually have a series of amendments. And that's

that's the moment. I think we're headed to the And this this is why this symbolic decision by Bacon to become the first Republican on this particular constitutional amendment, one that I think would have broad support. If you polled it in my polling for and put it out there show that it does, you could you could see the beginning of something here. And I think it's important because an individual can at least can re establish norms, but

they can't protect us from future demagogues. Constitutional amendments, though, are not easy, right they require two thirds of Congress, a ratification of thirty eight states. But guess what, It was a daunting challenge to do that when we were stripping state legislatures of Senate selection power, when we imposed an income tax on the richest people in America and the public won that argument, right, seems daunting these days to go after the tech titans doubling the electorate through

women's suffrage, that was a big deal. So the point is, and that wasn't easy, and it was never going to be easy. But here's how you kind of know when reform begins. Reform begins when exhaustion becomes bipartisan and exasperation becomes by partisan. And we're starting to get there. We're approaching bipartisan exhaustion with all of this executive overreach, and there are more sort of Republicans understanding that, you know, the next time it could be a Gavin Newsom that's

making their lives miserable. It's a lot easier to get bipartisan support for structural changes than it is, frankly, for policy changes. And I think we can get bipartisan support to check unchecked power, and the pardon power is one of those. So look, as we approach America's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, the question isn't whether the Constitution is sacred, it's whether we are willing to maintain it and use the tools that we have at our disposal right now

to demand a better structure for our democracy. The pardon debate may be the first crack. And I want to jump on this with enthusiasm. This is great news. You feel down about the direction in this country. The fact is you're not alone. People are very frustrated with it, and we know we've got to make some structural repairs. This is an important symbolic moment. What Don Bacon did O Losewinsky. My apologies for mangling your name there, Congressman Johnny,

but this is a big deal. I think we are at the early stages of what's going to be a ten to fifteen year run of important reforms that we will Some of them will be incorrect, what we reforms with unintended consequences, perhaps just like with prohibition. You know, I'm not guaranteeing every reform we make will work, but once we start, this one is a common sense one.

I think everybody can agree to it. Nobody should, No president should basically sell pardons, and we need to have some mechanism to prevent when we know it's happened or it looks really awful. And I can tell you those January sixth pardons probably would not have would have been nullified. So you know, the presidential pardon power might not be, to you, the worst thing Trump does, but it is a structural change that I think can lead to other change.

So in Congress finally starts debating constitutional guardrails. If we can get them there instead of partisan revenge, then we're getting somewhere that becomes durable. So look, reform eras don't start with certainty. They start with the feeling we have right now, discomfort. We know it's not working, we know something's wrong. This system doesn't work. And if you're truly honest with yourself, if you're an Obama Trump voter, you thought an individual could fix this, I hope you're now

convinced no individual can fix this. We need structural change. And if this week is any indication it's possible a reform era has finally begun. Yes, I'm looking for it, but goddamn it, we need it. And there's no better place I think to start than what is staring at in the face the misuse and abuse of the presidential park pattern. This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to you by American Financing. Let's be honest, the math

just isn't adding up lately. Between the grocery store and those skyrocketing insurance premiums, even with a steady job, more families are being forced to rely on high interest credit cards to cover expenses. So if you're a homeowner caught in this cycle, carrying balances with interest rates in the twenties, frankly even the thirties, it's time to get some relief.

Right now, mortgage rates are at a three year low, and my friends at American Financing are helping homeowners pay off that high interest debt at rates in the low fives. Their salary based mortgage consultants don't just push loans on you, they build exit strategies from debts. On average, they're saving their customers eight hundred dollars a month, so if you start today, you may even delay the next two mortgage payments. There are no upfront fees or obligations. To find out

how much you can save. America's Home for home loan owns is American Finance eight six six eight eight five ten eighty one. That's eight six six eight eight five ten eighty one or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chuck toodcast.

Important disclaimer nm LS one A two three three four NMLS Consumer Access dot Org APR for rates in the five start at six point one ninety six percent for well qualified buyers call eight six six eight eight five one zero eight one for details about credit costs and terms, or American financing dot net slash the Chuck Toodcast. Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't

have any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow. Myself sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance policy that found wasn't a lot, but it was important at the time, and it's why I was able to go to college. Little did he know how important that would be in that moment. Well guess what. That's why

I am here to tell you about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you just answer

a few health questions online. You can get a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home. You can get up to three million dollars in coverage, and some policies start as low as two dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted ethos dot com

slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is something you

should really think about it, especially if you've got a growing family. We've got to hope we get a consensus at some point when it comes to America's role in the world. As much as you know we can have healthy disagreements on a lot of domestic issues, America's role in the world is one we're gonna have to accept the premise that one's sixty percent of us agree in

a direction that we ought to take it. Just a few quick observations, I've got a fun little top five list for you here, but I wanted to do a few quick observations, and I wanted to do it following Bob the Bob Blackwell interview about what we saw in Munich and the different roles. It was interesting to see Rubio and the reception he got. You know, Marco's reception

by the Europeans at the Munich Security Conference reminded me of bringing thirsty people water. He didn't bring them cold water. He just brought them some hydration. It wasn't as antagonistic as Jade Vance a year earlier. It wasn't as pointed as it was a year earlier. It wasn't as personal, it wasn't as as doom and gloom. And it's sort of the role Rubio has been playing, right, And you

heard the conversation that Bob and I had about sort of this interesting role Rubyo is, in some ways, I think, seize himself as a potential bridge between sort of Trump's destruction of the world order and those that would like to preserve some form of the old world order. And what does this look like. Obviously Rubya hopes to be the guy that builds it, right, he would like to be the president, or maybe this is his portfolio if he is, if there's some sort of Vance Rubio ticket

that succeeds Trump on this front. But you know, make no mistake. I mean, you know, Rubio still gave it tough love, but he at least showed that he knows how to use diplomatic language. And when you're the secretary of State, you better be pretty good at using diplomatic language.

But I think what you heard there, and that's, you know, the whole the open question I have about Rubio and is and his decision to to try to work with trump Ism rather than fight against it like he did for a few years when it first came aboard, was is you know at some point if he if Trump thinks Rubio is causing problems, he will throw Ruby onto the bus. If what Rubio has suggested becomes unpopular, he

will throw Ruby onto the bus. Then again, the same is true with Jadie Vance as well. And that's why it's very precarious when you build a political identity based on the whims of a single individual. You know, I think the thing that you know, Rubio may not ever be able to win over a MAGA voter on his own. He may need the endorsement and the stamp of approval by Donald Trump. The question is, one, is that still a big enough constituency by twenty twenty eight. That's an

open question I have in my head. And two, can Rubio be both a MAGA person and at the same time be trusted by either side to help build a new world order to engage in multilateralism, which Rubio himself I think does believe in multilateralism, even if Donald Trump does not, And so that's an open question. The other story coming out of Munich is the reception that alexandri

O Cassio Cortez got. And you know, it's a classic case of if you want her to succeed, you said, oh, look she's made her debut on the foreign policy stage. If you want her to fail, you're like, oh, look at how much she flubbed on her debut on the

foreign policy stage. I will just say this, look, I think that that she could have. It did look like she didn't study for the test enough, and I'm surprised she, you know, didn't have a more you know, prepared answer. At the same time, I think it's healthy to if you're thinking about running for national office too I'm glad she went to this event. Get to know some of the players make some early mistakes. If you're going to make mistakes, make them now, not in the actual campaign. Here,

learn what you don't know. Learn uh those and you know, when it comes to foreign policy and political campaigns, you know, the key is not to block put yourself in a rhetorical corner that will become problematic down the road. Right. The best example of this is when Barack Obama drew a red line of chemical weapons being used by Bashar al Asad at Syria. Once he did it, he said it was a red line. Well, how are you going

to enforce that red line if he crosses it? Sure enough, Asad crossed it, and we didn't enforce the red line. I don't think Obama regrets not enforcing the red line. I think he regrets ever drawing that sort of hard and fast rule on that. So I think that that's a lesson that all newcomers to presidential politics, as they dabble, as they dip their toe in the foreign policy water's got to learn that. But the second observation I have about the AOC issue is it's just amusing to me

how many people on the right one and dunk on her for a small mistake. Here a flubb there but the equator in Venezuela. And you're sitting there going, really, we're going to hold her to account on a geographic mistake when we've got Donald Trump and all of the crazy and geographic nonsense that he talks about. Where he doesn't, I mean, he literally is the John Belushi character in Animiles.

You know, he might as well be saying things like when the Germans on Pearl Harbor, you know, type of mindset. And I don't you know whether this is about her and there's an obsession on the right to just dunk on her whenever you get a chance, which there's something to that, or if it's a sign that maybe maybe folks are embarrassed by how ignorant Trump comes across about so many things in foreign affairs and about geography. I mean, you know, do you think he can name fifteen countries

in Africa? Let alone all the countries in Africa? But do you think he can name fifteen? Ten? What number would I have to lower myself to before you think he can name? You know, I think he'd struggle at ten. You know, I think many Americans would struggle at ten. But many Americans are not president of the United States.

So the point is is that it is amusing to me when we want to hold our political opponents to higher standards than we will hold people that are quote unquote on our side or that we're sympathetic too. And let's just say I saw a lot of that on the right this week when it came to AOC All right, now, I want to have a little fun with my top five lists this week. As you know, sometimes it's serious

and sometimes it's whacky. And I thought there was a We've had some ridiculous attempts at currying favor with Donald

Trump take place over the last couple of years, and I thought it would be worth doing a top five list on the most ridiculous awards Donald Trump has received in order for in order for entities to try to curry favor, and it's usually corporations or in one case an international entity and in another case. So I'm giving you my top five most absurd awards manufactured and created to soothe Donald Trump's ego. Top So, number five on

the list is one that he got in twenty twenty four. It's the McDonald's French Fry Certification pin. It is, you know, after his stint working the friar at a Pennsylvania McDonald's during the campaign. So as pre president, he was given a commemorative pin and a certificate for his service, and of course Donald Trump treated it with the gravity as if it was a state dinner, the ultimate everyman award.

Who famously loves a quarter pounder. So his French Fry Certificate pin is number five on my list of most ridiculous awards that He's been given by companies and corporations in order to curry favor. It's this most recent award that triggered the idea for this list. This one he just received. Number four on my list is the Undisputed

Champion of Beautiful Clean Coal Award. I bet you didn't know that that existed. Well, it is. The Washington Coal Club recently bestowed that actual title upon Donald Trump. So it's not just a coal award, you know, looking out for the coal. I mean it's not the first time, but this one is specific and it uses some of Trump's favorite phrases. Right, undisputed champion beautiful clean coal. Right, So this is the award the undisputed champion, a beautiful

clean coal. I mean it is right out of like the old WWF and all the crazy names they used to give to their various championship belts. Right you had the you'd have the the the world champion. Then you'd have the inter continental champion. Nobody ever explained what the hell the inter continental champion was. I think my man Paul Orndorf was that. I think uh uh was the was the inter continental champion? I don't think, but that was never You know, hul Cogan was bigger than just

being the intercontinental champ, if you will. So he is. Now this this feels like that that you gotta I

gotta hand it to the Washington coal Club. That's that's impressive. That was impressive. Number three on the list is FIFA and the Peace Prize. Right in the middle, right deep of the arden. Last year, when Trump was campaigning and begging for the Noble l Peace Prize, our friends at FIFA who loved to curry favor with those in power, no matter how corrupting it looks to them. FIFA doesn't care. They manufactured a peace Prize because why not. They knew

that Donald Trump wanted a Peace Prize. So FIFA gave him the Peace Prize. So they did it during at the Trump Kennedy Center, right, and the final draw for the twenty twenty six World Cup, and they decided to create this brand new accolade just in time for Trump's return to office. Right. You know, it's you know, it's like getting an award from your barber that says you're the you're the best haircut customer this week, you know.

But good old FIFA, you can count on that number two on the list. This one is the Tim Cook Special. Right. I'm sure some of you were thinking, well, you got to include the Tim Cook thing. So and this is not the first time Tim Cook has actually given him a couple of awards over the year. And the first term, Cook gave him a commemorative plaque, right, it was a

circular piece of mac pro glass. But you know, for the second one, he had to really up the stakes, so he gave the twenty four carrot golden glass statue featuring a circular piece of gorilla glass on a gold base. What it really was was a physical manifestation of the trade deal Apple needed. It was less an award and more of a please don't tax our iPhones trophy at the time that it was given, but it was you know, the gold played gold carrot, all that business. It was

just it was just awful. But number one on the

list matters because of how much it mainstream Donald Trump back into the Republican Party post January sixth. And it was when the NRSC, when it was chaired by Rick Scott, he created the Champion for Freedom Bowl as an award in twenty twenty one for Donald Trump. And this is April of twenty twenty one. He gets this award. This is three months after January sixth. He's supposed to be persona non grata, but neither Kevin McCarthy, who stood next

to him, and then Rick Scott. They were the two people who greased the skids the most for bringing Trump back into the mainstream and this award. So Scott presents Trump with the inaugural NRSC Champion for Freedom Award. And it was a bowl. It was a large engraved silver serving bowl. There were some people that joked that Scott didn't know what to give him, so he grabbed the first punch bowl he could find from the office kitchen

at the NRSC. Had it engraved, and it was all about making sure Trump knew, or that Trump's supporters knew Rick Scott was on his side. But it was that award that moment. It was not just the award itself. And so while I'm having a little bit of fun here and how all of these people right, you know, we'd think Trump looks ridiculous for taking these awards seriously,

but the people given these awards really it's not a good look. Rick Scott doing what he did post January six just a bad look. You know, maybe it held party unity, but really we're gonna pick party unity over the disaster of January sixth, or Tim Cook and his gold statue, or FIFA and the absurdity of their Peace Prize. You know, in some ways the most honest is the Cole folks man. You know what they know what they want, they know what they're focused on, and they know they

have a guy, and so in that sense it's an honest one. And you know, the French Fried French fry pen is just sort of amusing. Notice what I didn't put on here was the actual peace Nobel Peace Prize that Machado that the winner of last year's Peace Prize gave to Trump, and she like took it to a

frame store and had it like put together. Like it was like a like you were featured in a newspaper article for the first time, and you get these companies that want to sell you a framed version of it so you can display it in your office with a plaque. She basically did that, took it and then gave him her Peace Prize. So but I didn't think it belonged in the top five because it was the prize itself is not it was not awarded to him, And I

don't know what to call it. I guess you would call it the Machado Peace Prize, but it's its own category and it's the But I'll tell you we're you know, we complained my generation links to complain that we gave away too many trophies to millennials, right they where that

everybody gets a trophy. Generation. Please let's not keep doing this to our presidents. I mean, I know that Trump is arrested development and he's desperate for accolades, and if he can't get accolades that have historic meaning, then make them up and it makes him happy. Apparently, I get it. A lot of these people have business in front of the government, and if this is what it takes, and sadly we know how easy you know this, you know, and a few bucks. It was a long way to

persuading this president. This is why we had to do something about about this unilateral This is why you always need to check on the executive all right, now it's

time for a little ask, Chuck, Ask Chuck. Matt ah trom Manchester, Tennessee. All right, Manchester, Tennessee. I wonder how

many Manchesters there are around the country, right, Manchester, New Hampshire. Of course it's the Manchester I spend the most time in. But Manchester, Tennessee, all right, didn't know that one, Matt h And Hey, I've been a fan since your rested days and your show is now my go to for BLAE Insight. And enjoyed your interview with doctor and Andrews, which got me thinking, as a center left voter in deep red Tennessee, do you think I'll live to see

a Democrat win state white here again? I missed the days of Phil Bredison and Al Gore, but they feel along, they feel long gone. You know, it's interesting, Matt, you know, when I was in the eighties, the South was splitting up between sort of new South, old South, right, and there was in the new South states were Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee. And then supposedly the old South states here you're Alabama's or Mississippi, or South Carolina

you're Arkansas. You get where I'm going. And you've seen, right, the new South states have swung either or swing swinging, have been or competitive or you know, in the case of Virginia a little more blue, case of Florida a little more red. But you've seen that. The head scratcher

to me has been Tennessee. That the fact that Tennessee hasn't moved in the directionally the same way that both Virginia and North Carolina have moved has always been mildly surprising to me because it particularly with the growth of Nashville, right, Nashville is now like this artist's hub, particularly for on

the on the music side of things. And you know, look what Austin did to to you know, became bluer, and obviously you know, Hollywood itself and being a has certainly given a very you know, darker blue tint to southern California than it used to have in itself. So I think there was I think I certainly I thought nash the growth of Nashville would naturally create more competition in the state that all of that, and we haven't seen that. Now. There's a few things. My friend Brad Todd,

a Republican consultant from Tennessee. He says, you know, the growth of Nashville has been different than say the Research Triangle or Atlanta, Atlanta, or northern Virginia. And I thought Nashville would sort of behave the same way has And he said, part of it is you've had a lot of Midwesterners moved to particularly the sort of the larger Nashville ex scerbs right Franklin County in particular, but the

excerbs of Nashville. And he says, like on a Saturday, you can go to some of these subdivisions and you don't see it falls. You don't see any Tennessee Vall's flag in the fall, but you do see Michigan, Indiana,

Ohio State, Wisconsin. And he said there's been a lot of sort of Republicans have left those states and moved to a lower tech state like Tennessee and the expanding excurbs of Nashville, and that that is that the migration has not been as as swing voter or as liberal as the migration you saw in northern Virginia Research Triangle or Austin or the Atlanta suburbs. But look, we've seen

some signs at Nashville itself gets competitive. So look, I think the biggest problem that Tennessee Democrats have in general's Memphis. Memphis is just it's a city that has fallen behind. Right, there was a time that Memphis was a growing city FedEx being headquarters. There was I'll be honest with you.

I've traveling and out of Memphis a lot always have gone back thirty years now and you know, just just in the in the areas in and you know, I think about the area in and around of Graceland now, the airport hotels, you know, the crime issues pretty pretty bad these days. All the airport hotels are like behind these like huge, you know, ten foot iron fences, black you know, sort of those black iron you know fences, and it screams like not welcoming all around that part

of Memphis. And so you know, it is it is sort of stagnanted. You know whether this Look, Tennessee Republicans have made a living running against Memphis forever, and Memphis was racial code words. You know, it was the largest African American population in Tennessee concentrated wise, was in Memphis. But it is stalled growth wise. I wish I had

a better explanation. I haven't studied it enough, but you know, Memphis feels like it's headed in the wrong direction in you know, there was a time both in Memphis and Nashville felt like where they were both growing. And I think, you know, better democratic governance of Memphis and more success in Memphis might I think raise the prospects of of more credibility for Democratic candidate statewide. Look, I think that

there is just and there's no pipeline anymore. Right when they carved up the Nashville seat so that they did it as a hub and spoke where they just took pieces of Nashville to try to make it so that essentially, I think the only Democrat you really are going to end up with is the is the congressman from Memphis. You don't have somebody that wins in swing districts that then become that become like a Phil Bretison that knows how to run stay wide. And you've also had that

scandal with the Nashville mayor. So when you think about the places where the benches would develop, where there could be benches for candidates to develop, mayor of Nashville is a big one. The congressional you haven't had that. So let's just say it's a lot of work to do. If I were advising Tennessee Democrats, I'd be like, go get your Memphis house in order and then get started at sort of change, you know, improving your brand in

the Nashville area. Next question comes from Ann and should I say love listening to your time machine message today. I'm a high school US history and US government teacher. I've always argued that some years in history require a book addressing events in just that year. You hit one of those years today, eighteen forty eight. You are so right. I'm not bright enough to write it and to just

diletantese to focus my attention. I'm passing the baton to you get writing. If eighteen forty eight is it your cup of tea, maybe nineteen sixty eight would be more to your taste, and no, you're right. I mean it was a time of disruption. There was. It was sort of peak fear of the industrial age, and it was more in Europe. It was you know, brewing in this country, but it was definitely something hit in London more, which

is hence why that came. You're absolute right, there is more to eighteen forty eight as a touchdowne in history. Just to put some meat on the eighteen forty eight bones there, and I do expect you to grade me and tell me. I just want to give folks a quick run through. Why do you put that way? So what makes eighteen forty eight unique is that it wasn't one single war. There were spontaneous, contagious irruption of over fifty different revolts across Europe, and all of it was

without our modern communications of the moment. Right, This wasn't the Internet. This didn't get contagious that way. You know. You had the fire started arguably in Sicily in January. Then there was Paris in February, where the monarchy went away, the revolutionary spirit kept going. You had you had the Austrian Empire, the prince fleeing to London, you had the Prussians agreeing to a promise of a constitution and a parliament.

You had Italian reunification. One could argue there was a collision of isms liberalism, the middle class wanting constitutions, free speech, the right to vote, that was happening over Europe. You had nationalism. You had ethnic groups Hungarians, Germans, Italians, checks they wanted their own independent countries. Right, we still had a Prussia at that time, No Germany. Socialism was on the rise with obviously with what I pointed out, with Marx and all of that. So she was saying, yes,

there needs to be a book. Well. The historian GM Trevellion called eighteen forty eight the turning point at rich modern history failed to turn. Its a great turn of phrase that he had. Everything seemed to collapse that year, and then by eighteen forty nine there was a conservative snapback. Monarchs regained their nerve, the Russian czars three hundred thousand troops to help Austria across the Hungarian revolt. The French

Republic ended when Napoleon's nephew declared himself the emperor. So it was sort of but eighteen forty eight served as a bit of a precursor to what was to come, right, and we ended up with the Russian Revolution about fifty years later, and you know, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and all of that, so sort of it was it was sort of like the first tremors of the big breakup that would eventually take place in the late nineteenth thirty twentieth century. But you're right, eighteen forty eight

worthy of its own book. It's a really good podcast serial idea too. Sort of you know some years, you know years where you know where, years where decades happened, and decades where years happened. Right, So thank you for that suggestion, Anne, And I don't know if I did did the answer to your question a service? Hopefully I got more people interested in eighteen forty eight, which is the real goal. All Right, I'm just gonna sneak in

two more questions here because I am. As soon as I'm done with this taping, I'm going to go celebrate my grandmother's ninety ninth birthday. She turns ninety nine this week. How about that? Ninety nine? And she is well aware of everything that's going around around the world. She can't read the way she used to do anymore because of her eyesight. But she listens probably to like two books a day. I mean, she's a book on tape connoisseur.

All right. This one comes from Max w Out of Alexandria. Here use of historical precedent to help analyze kurtent political actions leads me to ask about the Bill of Rights. Trump administration is assaulted the first, the fourth, fifth, and the six amendments numerous times, and it has recently gone after the second Amendment when it justified the alex Pretty

shooting because he brought a gun to the protest. So what's left is the third Amendment quartering soldiers the only one in the Bill of Rights left unmolested by this administration? Maybe the eighth, maybe the ninth. And where's the libertarian outrage at the demolition of their personal rights? I'll hang up and listen. Let's seez a remax w Actually, I think this is where you're starting to see some libertarians get cranky about it. I follow a whole bunch of libertarians.

I'm going to have the editor in chief of Reason magazine on soon to actually talk about this very issue. I know. This is Here's how I view these tests of liberties that are challenged by Trump. You know, the Republicans that are exhausted from defending Trump when they're willing to speak out on these things, and so they're they're

kind of MRIs for who's got any principles left? So I find these moments useful in figuring out which one of these guys in cos will put the country before the party if the chips are truly down, and which ones won't. It's moments like this they give us this. You're right about this, I mean, I would argue that you know, in any given day, I mean it is it does feel like half the Bill of Rights get

violated on any given day by this administration. But you know, does anybody believe do you think Donald Trump's read one federalist paper in the last twenty years. Maybe he read one in high school? Maybe? All right, last question for this episode comes from Dennis Dennis Rights. Why isn't anybody talking about the real possibility that potentially two conservative Supreme Court justices could resign Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, especially

if the Democrats are likely to win the Senate to allow Trump to nominate one, possibly two young, mega friendly justices to the Supreme Court, extending his legacy forward for decades. Even if the Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate following the twenty twenty sixth election, the real possibility still remain that either one or two of the justices would resign prior to Trump leaving office in twenty twenty nine, allowing him to have nominated five Supreme Court justices during

his time as president. Thank you, Dennis. Look, you know, I think you will know when the White House finally fears losing the Senate in twenty twenty six when you start to hear those whispers grow louder about Alito and or Thomas. My friend Bruce Melman, you should check out

his sub stack. Every Sunday he puts out these terrific PowerPoint slides, and he didn't want to basically anticipating the potential for a Supreme Court opening, and he said, look, Trump loves to try to try to set records or to surpass or be and he would love to nominate, you know, to get up to five. I think in Bruce's telling, let me get the Bruce charts out here a minute, because they were terrific on this topic. He pointed out that right now, Trump has, as you point out,

has had three. He's right now he's in a seven way tie for the thirteenth most Supreme Court justices appointed. But if he gets two more, he's then tied with Lincoln for the fourth most all time. In case you keep it score, George Washington is appointed the most members of the Supreme Court eleven, followed by FDR. Took him three terms plus a month to do nine. Andrew Jackson

did six. And then you have three guys at five. Taft, Eisenhower, Lincoln, Grant, Nixon, Cleveland, Harding, Truman, Harrison all had four, and then Reagan got three, and he's the most, and Trump has three. No, there's no other modern era with three. You have to go back to before then you have to go back to It appears Hoover got three, and then before that Woodrow Wilson, before that Teddy Roosevelt. So look, I think Alitos seemed to give hints that he sort of exhausted from doing this.

There's a lot of assumptions that Thomas is ready to take the RV on the road and just do more trips on his RV. He loves to do that, and I think they're both true believers right there. You know, it's a it's a tough decision for Trump because the two oldest are also the two most supportive right They vote with Trump more than any other two members of the Supreme Court, So, you know, and you look at

his appointments. Do you know that Amy Coney Barrett voted gave him fifty three percent of the time voted in favor of the Biden administration when she was you know, so did Roberts, but she voted more with Roberts than she did. You know, Alito and Gorsage ninety five percent of the time do they vote with Trump, and only Gorse it's twenty nine percent of the time voted with with Biden. But both Thomas and Alito voted only eighteen percent of the time with the Biden administration whenever they

were in front of the Supreme Court. So they're Trump's most support you know, two of their most supportive justices. So you push them out. You know, Kavanaugh Barrett have both been you know, a little you know, more center right than right wing. Gorsas has been more right wing, but he's been unpredictable in a couple of different issues, So you know, nothing always goes to plan. And the irony is that he would be getting rid of his two most supportive justices if he pushed them out. But

I think this is coming. I think there are going to be Republicans whispering in Trump's ear that, hey, nothing will help rally the base more than a Supreme Court opening. This is what worked in twenty eighteen. It kept you know, it helped Republicans win a couple of Senate seats even in a bad midterm year. Maybe this does the same. Now here's a question that I have that was in a pre Dobbs environment, who gets more fired up now

for open Supreme Court justices? But when it was Roe v. Wade that the right way was fired up about, it was clear that anytime the Supreme Court was an issue, it motivated the right more than the left. Does that change in the era of Dobbs that you know will will a Supreme Court opening motivate the left more than the right? This time? We haven't had that in a while.

But usually, when you know, it's whoever feels the side that feels as if the courts are the most against them, And right now I think the left feels like the courts are more rigged against them than the right feels like the courts are rigged against them. Right, there's not as many liberal judges are doing this to us type of victimhood these days on the right, because Trump's had quite a few you know, they've they've gotten quite a few wins. So that's you know, Do I think that

Republican strategists will believe this will help them? I do? Are they right? I'm not one hundred percent convinced. And with that, I'm going to go figure out what. Let me tell you one thing about my I got a great anecdote about my great my mother. She's made in ninety nine years. You know, the single thing she hates eating the most fresh vegetables, So there you go, all right, but she eats the most of anything chocolate or sweet,

and she's still going strong. I'm not saying so hey, mister Pross, you know the healthy food guy doesn't always worked that way. All right, with that, I'll see you in twenty four hours.