Chuck’s Commentary - From Teflon To Velcro: Why The Epstein Files Could Trigger Trump’s Lame Duck Presidency + Mike Johnson Has Put Republicans In A Terrible Spot

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 THHC and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and simply help you unwine so if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul 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 get sold dot Com use the promo code podcast. Don't forget that code. That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off. Hello there, Happy Thursday. Welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. I got a loaded show for you today.

We're going to obviously tackle the question and I've gotten

a thousand times today from various walks of life, which is do these Epstein emails mean something more on Trump? Is this going to? Is this problem we're going to tell We're going to dive into that barely deep here. Then, of course after I'll do a little few more q and as, and I'll have my big college football preview going into the weekend. But I want to start, obviously with this question, and look, the world of independent media,

the world of content creators. Right, we are in an Epstein frenzy, and it's a deserved sort of feeding frenzy of the moment because there's new material out there, right there's new emails, there's new shock emails, and the and the swearing in of Adelita Garalva, the Arizona congresswoman who's been waiting to be sworn in for over a month now because of the Speaker Johnson's bizarre decision to keep

the House out. I really think he really did a disservice to his own party and his own members here, because it's a pretty indefensible you know, the lack of the lack of action, the lack of anything from the House Republicans, and they're running. They're on the ballot before anybody else, is right, it's the House Republicans are all on the ballot come in November twenty twenty six. And I think Mike Johnson has put his own members in

a terrible situation. Obviously, he made a it feels like he made a decision that the White House has him to do, not what was in the best interests of the House Republicans, and you know, these in some ways, this controversy over the Epstein file is the same thing. Mike Johnson is consistently doing what's in the best interest of the White House, which is a branch of government. He does not lead, nor is he a member of

He is actually the leader of the legislative branch. The Speaker of the House is essentially the de facto leader of that branch of government. Same way John Roberts as

the Chief Justice, is essentially the current leader of the judiciary branch, and he is essentially outsourced decision making on what Congress should do to the White House. You get it. Politically, I understand why they feel like they have to, and we live in this jerrymandered world where primary voters matter

more than the rest of us. But I will tell you, I think what Mike Johnson has done with House Republicans is so damaging, and I do not think they fully appreciate how much damage he's His decisions here again all were only to the benefit of one person, Donald Trump. None of it to the benefit of anybody that's actually going to be on the ballot, namely every single one of those House Republicans that he is charged with leading.

So the discharge position is here. It's interesting that the White House apparently was working Lauren Bobert seeing if they could talk her out of being a signer, trying to do whatever they can to stop this, and I think that. You know, the question is will this You know this is a guy you know Axis Hollywood didn't end him. January six didn't end him. I mean, look at the things he has done since coming into office. I mean,

I'm going to give you a quick rundown. These are just the people he pardoned on January sixth that have committed crimes since right and none of this has hit him yet. Edward Kelly, pardoned for January sixth, later convicted to conspiring to murder FBI agents. Daniel Charles Ball was pardoned in the January sixth pardons, and he was rearrested on federal gun charges. Kyle kle Elton was pardoned with his January sixth participation, later had to be indicted for

receiving child pornography. Christopher moynihan was pardoned for the January sixth pardons, and in October twenty twenty five with charge of threatening to kill the House Democratic leader Aqim Jeffreys. And then there's Robert Packer pardon another January sixth partony in September of twenty twenty five charge in connection with a dog attack that left four people injured. So people, he's pardoned have gone on to commit more crimes and

have become menaces to society. Never mind the other pardons

he's done of some really questionable figures, like the one where it looks like he sold the pardon with Sheng Peng Xiao, the finance founder. That guy's in business with his sons and he magically gets a pardon. I wonder how that worked. This guy apparently had billions and illicit transactions, and it was Trump's Department of Justice the first term that actually prosecuted him. But we digress. George Santos, the serial liar who defrauded voters, defrauded Congress, did all sorts

of things. He gets pardoned. Ed Martin, who who handles his pardons, he gets pardoned. He got convicted of financial crimes, misusing nonprofit funds, and he gets pardoned, and of course I think works for Trump. Denesh Desuza, who is traffics and made up Propa Canada with his Mules movie and all this stuff, well, he was convicted of illegal of the straw donor scheme. He received clemency. A couple of

other crypto fraud financiers that he's pardoned ever since. So he's got and I say this, none of this stuff has mattered, right, I throw all that out there. All of this happened this year. He's you know, did the bailout of Argentina instead of bailing out US beef producers. None of this has hit him, stuck to him yet, So why should the Epstein files stick to him? Well,

there's another way to look at this is that there are times in any presidency where you have Teflon as a president, and there are times in every presidency where it feels like you're dressed in velcrow. There was, you know, Richard Nixon had Teflon in his first term. By the second term, it was all velcrow and everything that was connected to Watergate or loosely connected to Watergate or any sort of presidential abuse of power seemed to stick to him and stick to him. But why did he go

from a Teflon guy to a velcrow guy? A simple reason. The economy sucked. Why did Bill Clinton not get essentially punished by the political system or by voters when it came to Monica Lewinsky, the economy was great. Why did the stuff in Trump's first term not stick to him? There was a perception that he oversaw a successful economy pre coronavirus. Why is this possible that this time he's and this is why could this time be different? Because

too many people in this country think this economy sucks. Because, as we've discussed, if you have money, you're doing okay. If you don't have money, you're struggling. You're barely out of you're barely above water. You're seeing your electric bill go up, You're seeing the grocery bills go up. You're seeing everything in your life go up in price. Trust me,

even if you have some savings, you're seeing everything go up. Right, The cost of everything has gone up and feels like it's going up substantially, particularly when you look at electricity. So you know, Epstein's been out there as an issue for Trump arguably for years. The question is when does it does a you know, why would it matter this time more than before. You can say, well, there's more

evidence that connects him that he knew something. I definitely think there's always going to be but you could make the argument you kind of knew right, Like there's this great quote from JD. Vance that actually which was you know, there's always a tweet right, this is JD. Vance Saraha

two thousand and one, So you'll be forgiven. I know the way. You have to go way back in his past, right some four whole years ago. But the quote, and I just want to get it directly here. I had it up. Remember this is him. He was a tweet he made in twenty twenty one. Remember when we learned that our wealthiest and most powerful people were connected to a guy who ran a literal child sex trafficking ring, and then that guy died mysteriously in jail, and now

we just don't talk about it. Of course, that was when there was a democratic administration that he did tweet this right number one, And that was back when the right was convinced this was a cover up having to do with Bill Clinton. But of course Jeffrey Epstein's closest friend was not Bill Clinton. It was Donald Trump. And with a the point I'm making here is do I think Trump could Jedi mind trick his way out of this? Well, he has for a long time. And why has he

Well there's been other things. There's been And again I go back to the first term, even when Jeffrey Epstein was in custody, even when this whole thing consumed a cabinet secretary of his who had to essentially drop because

of his lenient sentencing that he oversaw down in South Florida. It was because the perception, well, yeah, we knew all this, this was all baked in. We kind of knew Trump was this. And this is why in some ways people already know. Remember when we learned that our wealthiest and most powerful people were connected to a guy hard Stop. So that's problem Number one for Trump is that Trump has made it clear he's been part of the establishment, part of the elite. He knows everybody, He knows all

these guys, he's been there. He himself has quotes of him, Oh yeah, Jeffrey likes him young, and he knows. There's that other quote that's floating around where he said, man,

it was the nineties, a lot of crazy stuff was happening. I don't remember, which is always code for I don't want to talk about what I might know, or what I might have seen, or what I might have participated in. The Point is, it isn't going to be hard for people to believe that he had a relationship with Epstein, that he was close with him. The difference is they're pissed off about he's not doing what he promised to do as president, which is bring down the costs. They're

doing anything. But if anything, his policies have hurt you, right, it is the price of coffee is up, not down. Notice the Treasury Secretary says, we're going to lower the price of coffee. We're going to lower the price of fruit. Translation, they realize these tariffs actually impacted everyday people. And when you teariff Brazil over a political obsession of yours, all you do is attack all Americans in their pocketbook because of the price of coffee. So I'm always has it

in to assume, ah, this is it. But look, every presidency comes to an end and their influence comes to an end. And the way we mark the end of a presidency as we say, oh, he's becoming a lame duck.

And you're starting to hear the words lame duck. I think when you measure when does a president become every president becomes a lame duck. The question is when does it begin. Well, trying to figure out when a presidency is an official lame duck status is like trying to guess when we're in recession. Right. There's a great line about economists with recessions, they can always tell you when it started. After the recession has started, there's not a

single economist that can tell you when it's going to begin. Right. They never tell you when it's going to be, and we always are. We're always informed of when it began. I actually think there's the same thing with when it comes to a lame duck presidency. Is this begun? Are we in the midst of it? Are we at the beginning of it? We're not going to know for sure,

I think for about six months or a year. But I'll tell you this if if we fast forward a year and the Democrats sweep the House in the Senate, which to me, you know and you're going to hear this actually in the Adam Jenlsen interview, and I think he sets this bar correctly, which is, if Democrats don't win the Senate, they don't win the mid terms. Right. Winning the House is simply participating, right, that's table stakes. Winning the Senate means you won an argument, You won

the campaign because you convinced people who normally aren't on your side to be on your side. That's winning right, Winning the House is simply participating. Winning the House is a participation trophy. Winning the Senate is winning the midterms. So a year from now, if we're in a situation where we say the Democrats swept the House in the Senate, we will then go back and say Donald Trump's lame duck presidency hit lame ducks status election Day twenty twenty five,

and arguably it probably happened a bit sooner. We might say that essentially the symbolic beginning of his lame duckness was the destruction of the East Wing when he became so consumed with his personal legacy and he stopped worrying about the American voter. Right. Look, Donald Trump's history is he wants to get everything he can out of you that benefits him, and once he drains, once you've given

him everything he can get out of you, he moves on. Right. My substeck this week is about how I think I think he has treated the Republican Party the way he treated many of the casinos that he operated or businesses that he's run, which is he essentially leveraged it for his benefit, left this entity with a huge debt. In this case, the debt he has left him as moral

and ethical bankruptcy, and then he's gonna walk away. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is going to be the pardon of shitty pardons, is going to be the party of that doesn't care about the rule of law unless it applies only to the other side, like he is gonna that they're part of that. The legacy is somehow the Republican Party is the party of crypto scammers. Like that's not a good legacy. And then you throw in Epstein here

and he's the party of protecting the pedophile. This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Waldgrain. Waldgrain is the first Bake from Frozen subscription box for artisaal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store boys options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can

pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. Wildgrains boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal and limited tiping products for you to enjoy it. In addition to their classic box. They now feature a gluten free box and a plant based box. I checked out the gluten free box and let me tell you, they have a gluten free sourdough bread. It is. We got two loads of it and we've done one loaf already. It's a

cranberry and almond sourdough bread. It's like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except it's not raisin. It's great. You're gonna love this. You know, it's hit or miss if you mess around in the gluten free bread world. This is a hit. Seriously. I was impressed. So look for a limited time. Wild Grain is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your first box, plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast.

To start your subscription, follow these instructions. Free croissants in every box, thirty dollars off your first box when you go to wildgrain dot com slash toodcast that's wildgrain dot com slash toodcast, or simply use the promo code toodcast at checkout. Always use the code, get the discount. I'm telling you, it's excellent, excellent, right, there's nothing more the Republican Party can do for Donald Trump, there is no

opportunity to run again. So now Donald Trump's worried about Donald Trump, and because of that, does it appears to not even be worried about the voter anymore. And this is where he goes from having a Teflon suit and he was Teflon Don and he's been teflon don. Right. You know, he can attack John McCain and not lose somebody. He could shoot somebody apparently on Fifth Avenue and not lose a supporter. But if this economy sucks, and if the grocery bills, he can't Jedi mind trick away a

grocery bill. And then suddenly when that happens, and they think, well, my life sucks, and this guy is worried more about the East wing of the White House. Oh yeah, and this guy protected a pedophile for decades, and this guy is going to commute or the sentence of said pedophiles

partner in crime, literal partner in crime. And Gallainne Maxwell. That's how this that's how this story matters, right, And now you've got this orchestration of a series of votes where you know Epstein is one of these few stories. We live in this siloed information world where literally, you know, I could say, you know, I mean, I'm gonna have an interview with Clay Travis in a couple of weeks. I don't think my mother knows who Clay Travis is. And I say this with no, you know, why should

she you know? He is? He he is in a different media ecosystem than my mother travels in. She doesn't, you know, she watches a lot of college football, but it happens she doesn't watch anything on Fox because Miami doesn't ever play on Fox. They usually play on the ESPN or ABC. So she might be aware of ESPN personalities, but she's not aware of any Fox sports personalities, let alone aware of his radio show or any of those things. And Epstein's one of these stories that every every single

silo has an Epstein corner. Right, Your Maga silo has an Epstein corner, Your sort of never Trump silo has

Epstein corners, your sort of center, your sort of mainstream media has an Epstein corner, Your progressive wing has an Epstein corner. Right, there is this collective interest in Epstein, And let's be honest, why there is. It's all. You know, at first, the rights interest in Epstein was all about Bill Clinton. Nothing. It was always about Bill Clint. That's

how the right got fascinated by this. They were hoping to paint and it was all these you know, democratics are all part of this weird pedophilia conspiracy that QAnon launched. All this, it's all sort of wrapped up in that. And then Trump's names showed up in the Epstein files. Right then we realized. And then Trump became a cornerstone of Mega and sort of created somebody's created Mega, right, Certainly, it's always a question, you know, like anything, Trump doesn't

create anything. He just sort of got in front of a parade that was that was starting to form, and then suddenly he became their leader and their unifier. But

here we are, and now everybody else is interested in it because you're like, whoa, So Trump's involved in this and this side, you know, and it's just one of those stories that everybody's got a stake in. So this is going to be a story that constantly, just like the economy is right, the economy breaks through every because you can't sort of information silo your grocery bill, you know, there isn't a Fox News version of the Grocery Bill

or an MSNBC version of Grocery Bill. So you can't do that with the economy, and in this unique case, you can't do it with the Epstein story. And this is why this feels like a very lame that this is what lame duck. What happens to lame duck presidencies is that they can't stop feeding frenzies anymore. You know, this happened with George W. Bush. You know a lot of people will say the feeding frenzies, you know, sort of the lame duck period of the Bush presidency began

with the twenty oh six midterms. I'd actually argue, or you could go backwards and say it began with the Terry Schivo thing, when they went full bore on that and the public revolted and they couldn't sort of, you know, their typical positions didn't work, their typical media spin didn't work. And then you realize, you know, his credibility was shot, It was already weakening due to a rock. Terry Schivo hits. Then Katrina happens, and then the whole thing is over.

But Katrina didn't start the lame duck period. The lame duck period actually began at the tail at the at the beginning of five when he started messing around with the Shaivo business and Social security investments, et cetera. And so that's where I think this if we're if indeed we're able to in a year from now, really in it. We have the environment that we have and it does

turn into a democratic suite. We will say this lame duck period began in the fall of in the fall of this year, just like with Joe Biden's presidency, it turned out the beginning of the end of his presidency happened really early in his presidency, right with the Afghanistan withdrawal and the inability to to sort of hold anybody accountable, fix it, explain it. And he never recovered from there.

And while because he was a first term president, you'd never say lame duck in hindsight, you know, that's when he lost. That's when he lost the plot and it was and everything went downhill from there. You know. That's I think the situation we may be living him now.

And the nightmare for the White House press shop is is you know, Trump has not helped them at all.

You know, I would argue that he actually had a you know, Trump's problem is going soft on Maxwell because by going soft on Maxwell, but he is essentially confirmed the idea that Maxwell knows some stuff, that he's friendly with her, that he knows her, and it undermines the story that he had sort of lived with for a while when it came to Epstein that I that mostly worked with his supporters, which was, yeah, I knew Jeffrey Epstein very well, and then our relationship ended because I

didn't like what he was doing to you know, women on my at mar A Lago. So we had this sort of story that was that had some credibility to it that you know, he didn't because there was it was true he recruited apparently he recruited one of these women from mar Alago, and Trump says kicked him out of mar A Lago and said, you can't come back here. Now we now learn that the reason for the real breakup between Epstein and Trump wasn't that it was over

a piece of property in Palm Beach. We eventually learned about that later, But he had a story that he was feeding his supporters that yeah, I knew Epstein, and

then when I realized what he was doing, I was out. I didn't want that Slee's bag around. Okay, then why are you soft on Glene Maxwell. If you're so outraged by what Jeffrey Epstein did, then your Justice Department should have made life harder for Maxwell, not easier. But you went soft on her, and what he did was is

essentially made it impossible to defend Trump's actions. You couldn't say, you know, if he was as disgusted by what Epstein did as he said, and he's as disgusted as his supporters say they are disgusted, then this idea of leniency on her, giving her, you know, the club fed treatment when it comes to transferring her prison, sending your personal attorney who happens to be the Deputy Attorney General, to coax answers out of her, including the I never saw

anything untoward. Uh, it was so important to him to get that on the record. But Trump seems to be worried about something with Maxwell, when if he actually wanted to keep his con up on Epstein, and let's assume I'm gonna assume it's a con and you know, with Trump,

it's it's hard not to assume that. So let's I'm gonna assume it's a con. He'd have been better off playing he said, she said with her, and said he'd and then made life tougher on her. And and if and if she threatened to go public with stuff, let her go public. She's the one sitting in prison. She's got the credibility problem. And then if you were being tough on her and she was then pushing back, it

could simply be she's squealing. But the fact he didn't do that right, whatever he thinks, she knows, he seems to be fearful enough of that. It's leveraged that she's successfully used with him and with Todd Blanche and that's why his story falls apart. Now again, does any of this matter politically? Well, I go back to every republican's been carrying around Trump baggage for a long time, and

in some ways they're now used to it. But when the economy is as bad as it is right now for so many people, and as frustrating of an economy as this is, and that's what it is, it's a you know, it's one of these things that you can look at it statistically and say, well, this is going well. Like I saw a stat today that said that publicly traded companies are having one of the best years earning wise that we've seen. Ninety two percent of them are

reporting earnings above the normal average. And you're just like wow, And yet jobs are decreasing, not increasing, Right, So that means Wall Street's being rewarded for or its efficiencies in its companies. Wall Street's being as they as a company should you make. Your productivity is up and your labor costs are down. Good for you investors like that, But that means there's a whole bunch of people in this

economy not succeeding. And so that's why it's very hard to you know, when Trump's using the stock market as a as a as proof that his economy is doing well, it's like, yeah, you're you're you're with the hat your

your economy is working for the haves. Your economy is not working for the have nots. And the irony is that he built his political coalition on the have nots very successfully and now he doesn't seem to care about the have nots anymore. And that's where what when these that's when I go back to Epstein for the longest time. It is basically run into teflon don and has slid off of him. Well, I think it's I think he is now has a suit of velcrow on. More things

are sticking to him than ever before. Right, you've got sleepy eyes Trump, now that's sticking to him. You've got the medical issues. Huh, something's going on. If he passed his MRI. You don't pass an MRI. But congratulations, I guess you know you're not at You don't do an MRI unless they're wondering what, unless they can't find the problem of something that's bothering you. So you got that.

He's just doesn't seem healthy, doesn't look healthy, doesn't behave low And you can see he's really aged a lot in the last six months. Go look at clips from April and then look at clips in the last two weeks. His voice is thinner. Maybe there are days that you know you could just tell he there are days where you know he's tired, and that's always a sign of aging.

And of course when you're at a certain age, and this happened with Biden just because things are fine six months ago, you know this is one of those things.

At some point in your late seventies early eighties, you can you know, you don't age at a at an equal rate. Okay, you sort of go. You have fits and starts, and then you know, we've seen that, I've had elderly relatives where everything's fine, and then you don't see him for six months and you're like, holy cow, what happened to uncle Joe? Or I have a real uncle Joe. So no, nothing's happened to uncle Joe. I

don't want uncle Joe. That isn't about about you. I was just using like Jane, and I'll go uncle John, Doe. I don't have an uncle John, so I'll do uncle John. Oh my god, what happened uncle John? Or what happened at Jane? And you know that happens in these three and six months. And the point is is that you know, it's like the you know, it's like in business, your hockey stick moment, but going the wrong way, you're going along, you're going along and all of a sudden, yep, it's

off a cliff. It just collectively feels like he has now got a suit of valcrow. And so if we have essentially six weeks of every couple of days there's an Epstein development, which now there's going to be now that this discharge petition has happened, they're going to have this vote at some point in the next couple of weeks that will be there. Then you then it has to go to the Senate. I you know, there was a time I thought, Eh, the Senate will kill it.

I don't know anymore. Right, it's going to be an interesting test. How many Republicans will there be thirty? Will there be thirteen Republicans who joined forty seven Democrats to force this release and force it on? Is you know, for you know, have both the House and the Senate have this? That's an interesting development. Is it a moment where some Republicans decide, I need to show some independence from Trump? Is this the safest place to do it? Right?

It could be the healthcare subsidies could be a way that Republicans distance from Trump. The ruling when it comes out likely saying that his his tariffs are unconstitutional. Is that the moment? Is it the Epstein files? The point is there's a lot of ways now that Republicans can start to put some distance in a in what will look like a baby step right, just voting against him on Epstein, or voting against him on tariffs, or voting

against them on health care subsidies. That suddenly what is a trickle turns into uh, you know, a rush of you well of water coming out of the faucet, essentially trying to get away from him. So that's how I think this story is potentially that you know, it's it's like, javert,

do you got him? Now? You know? It's it's the accumulation, and it's the fact because of this sour economy, he he's now wearing a suit with velcrow on it and more things, more of this other stuff is now going to start to stick to him because he didn't handle the main thing. He was elected for one reason, and one reason only bring down costs, and he's failing massively at that, which means every other secondary issue becomes a problem for that voter because they think, well, he can't

do this, well, he must be that. He must be that, he must be that. And that's why this Epstein story could be just yet another sign that the lame duck status is now the You know, if you were to go to Trump's Facebook page, he should change. He may have to change his status to lame duck. So with that, I'll sneak at a break and we'll bring in Adam Jennisen. There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's large injury

law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients. It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was a staggering forty times the amount that the

insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured, you need a lawyer, you need somebody to get your back. Check out for Thepeople dot Com, Slash podcast or Dow Pound Law Pound five two nine

law on your cell phone. And remember all law firms are not the same, so check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win as check first one comes from XW from Alexandria here in the DMVs.

I've been a fan since before you hosted me the Press. Thank you, and I particularly enjoy your political analysis and how you use American history explain what we are going through towards that end. Have you watched Death by Lightning on Netflix? I am in the middle of it. I finished part one. It's four part series telling the story of James Garfield's rise to the presidency after winning the

nomination on the thirty six ballot at the Republican National Convention in eighteen eighty and his assassination after only three months in office. It's filled with political intrigue, corruption, spoils, and patronage near the end of the nineteenth century. Right up your ally, Max, You're right, and I will sort of give you a little insight here. I've been obsessed with the Garfield story for a long time. Have a writing partner off and on by the name of Adam Pearlman,

who has done some terrific work. Billions in particulars and he and I have and I have a pilot script actually that we had once been working with a major production company and the Game of Throne guys Benny Off and Weisse got the Netflix deal and they ended up pitching a Netflix a Garfield series. And let's just say they had a longer track record than my Adam and I did on this. I have watched episode one. I've enjoyed it. It is not the take I would have done.

And I'm not this is not to be critical. I think they've made an interest, They've made some interesting decisions. I'm looking forward to where they go. And that is the beauty of this story. I'm I'm obsessed with the period itself. Right this was we were so close to getting reconstruction back. And I'm somebody who thinks a Garfield presidency, you know, the Garfield presidency got a civil service reform,

which was not a small thing. Trump's actually trying to the Trump now is trying to undo some of the civil service reform that that Chester Arthur, who ends up the you know, a forced vice president on by the political machine in New York, ends up after the death of Garfield, sort of sees the light and stops being a cog in the Roscoe Conkling New York political machine and actually pledges to fulfill a Garfield presidency. But I think Garfield himself, had he lived, I think you might

have seen reconstruction come back. I think, you know, he he was. He's the closest thing we've had to sort of the out of nowhere president. Right. It's the you know, I've always said the mythology. I was telling this to my wife when we were watching, and I said, you know, the mythology that you know, the out of nowhere candidate

can get the nomination with a speech. The reason the mythology existed with conventions is because it happened once right, James Garfield, right, his speech moved enough people to suddenly start considering him because of this sort of deadlock when it came to the Grant side and the machines and all of this stuff. So, you know, Gettau and I

think there. I like how they're portraying Getteau because I think he was mentally ill and sort of a guy with delusions of grandeur who clearly had a troubled upbringing, had a troubled relationship with his father. I mean, there's a lot of you know, not to play spoiler here, but you know, Gaeto ends up trying to defend defends himself.

When the first real sort of feeding frenzied trial of the century that the media was obsessed with was actually the trial and the Geteau trial, which began before Garfield died. Because Garfield's you know, Getau Getteau, you could argue didn't kill Garfield. The doctors who didn't know what they were doing killed Garfield, right they stuck There. There's a guy named doctor Doctor and I haven't I don't know if they're going to portray him or not, but the guy's

name really was doctor Doctor. Like sometimes you just can't make it up, right, it's going to sound like it's been fictionalized. But he didn't believe that you had to wash your hands before you I mean, this was still like debated medical science. Do you do you do? You do? You? Should you wash your hands? Do you need a sterile

environment before you? You know? Which I know seems but it was a guy there was this was so called new medicine, new medical practices that was coming out of Europe, and it was a guy named doctor Lister, which if you're wondering if doctor Lister invented listerine, he did not. But doctor Lister was sort of the godfather of this sort of idea that you wash your hands and you need a sterile environment before as a doctor, before you give medical care. So Lister Reene was though named after

you know Lister, is that part. But no, the treatment, the attempt to save Garfield's life killed him. It's possible if nobody touched them that he that he might have that the bullet wouldn't have killed them, and he might have lived and recovered with the bullet in him. But the attempt to get the bullet out actually killed him. So but that's obviously stuff that you've scientifically figure out later, which in the moment we didn't have. But I am

obsessed with the entire period. Again, it's interesting how they chose to sell it, which is, here's two guys you've never heard of or you've forgotten, who have been forgotten to history. One was the twentieth president of United States. It was It's an interesting choice. I get it, they're trying to mass appeal it, and I'm enjoying it. I fully will confess I would have had a slightly different way. I would have done it different way. I would have started.

Nothing wrong with what they did. And here's my goal. I want this to be successful enough that there is more appetite for more. I think Roscoe Conkling if you want to go and read about one of the most you know, the Mitch Mcca or Nancy Pelosi of their day, and I say both right. He was a congressional leader. Congressional leaders are both lionized and backroom transactionalists at the same time. And don't let anybody tell you that you

got to have the mix of both of them. Conkling was an interesting cat, and he's going to be portrayed sort of, I think a bit simply here. It's less simple than it is. But boy, is is he a character that if there really was a demand for more about this era, he could get his own mini series, Like you could really develop something just on him. He's that colorful of a character. And yes, the way they have him dressing, he was always for the day, dressing

in brighter colors than everybody else. He was flamboyant man about town. I don't think he ever spent a night alone, so there's a it is you are right, max At, It is up my alley. It was so up my alley. I wanted to make my own version of it. So there, all right, But kudos to those guys, and thank you Netflix for green lighting a period piece like that. There's great history to be told through incredible storytelling, and I'd love to see more production companies support stuff like that.

Next question comes from Stafford from downtown la Hey. I've been a fan since your days of Meet the Press, and I'm loving the new podcast. Before my question, I wanted to say that you appear to have done the impossible. You've gotten me interested in both professional and college football. Having grown up a Chargers fan, I had largely washed my hands of the sport after nineteen ninety five. My question is this, Can anything be done in the short

to medium term about electricity costs. I'm a school teacher

and my partner is a grad student at USC fight On. We live in a one bedroom apartment in la and while our incomes are enough to get by, it's starting to pinch. I just opened our electric bill for a single month and it's easily fifty percent more than we were paying. A couple of years ago. I know data centers are affecting energy prices, but more to it. Thanks for all the wonderful analysis and for making your episodes lengthy. I really get a lot of detail I can't get elsewhere. Sincerely,

Stafford from downtown LA. How about that somebody thanking me for the length. I'm not gonna go Joe Rogan on you. I promise no three hour podcasts. Right, Simmons pushes the envelope in the two hour plus range. I'm going to still try to keep a one in front of that number on that front. So it's interesting with electricity, it's such a complicated thing. I was digging into this, and in fact, I'm going to be when you hear this.

I'm going to be down in Austin, Texas, interviewing the governor of Maryland, Wes Moore, and I was talking with his staff about a few issues, and we were talking about electricity, and I said, you know, I was asking about the data center issue in Maryland and Maryland, doesn't you know Virginia is a data center state? And he was noting, how you know? He says, Maryland's a transmission state. You know, a lot of electricity goes through our state

and we pass it through. And you know, some states are elect energy producing and they add to the grid, Others only take from the grid, Others help, you know, sort of. The grid itself is a complicated thing. California has its own set of rules that only add to it, and it's it's one of those things that I think that you know, we're we're in this. You know, elect elect electric companies are are private companies, but they're but they have to get public approval for what they do

and how they do it. And I think that we're about to see, especially with the data center, you know, obsession and drain, and it's a real issue in the state I live in Virginia because it is like Virginia is a huge got a bunch of data centers, and we have some of the highest spikes in electricity. So I think there's going to have to be some federal legislation here because I do think that, you know, every

state is set up to try to regulate itself. Right, You're in a state where they're using a lot of air conditioning and there's always a high a little more usage of energy, particularly in the southern part where you know, they're constantly having to regulate it, and it is done on a state basis, based on state usage. But if we're going to have more of these sort of drags on the grid coming from other states, and all of

this is interconnected. So look, I think this is going to be I think the electric bill issue is going to be what the price of eggs were, right and grocery bills were in twenty twenty four. You know that this is going to be the thing that everybody comes back to. We saw it in the New Jersey race because this is happening across the board. Everybody's electric bills

are going up. There's just a more and they're you know, and what people do is they cherry pick the thing that they don't like to say this is the reason

it's going up. It's just everything is the reason. And I think that there's some argument that what Trump has done with canceling some of these all of the above energy strategies, that he's actually limiting new energy getting onto the grid, like we need more diversified sources of energy in order to keep everything going that we're going and him sort of you know, essentially torpedoing the Biden Energy bill mandates when it came to wind and solar and

things like that, it's going to directly impact the cost of electric bills. So I don't think there's anything short term that's going to get done. But I will say this, I think you're going to have more political rhetoric about it. You know, we're all going to have to start to recalibrate what's warm and cold in order to save a few dollars. I can tell you what I'm looking into is trying to figure out is there's some solar alternatives,

you know, to at least minimizing the cost on some things. Right, is there and it may be tough in an apartment situation to get the benefit of that. But will you start to see landlords who maybe maybe you know, I don't know how you're building a set up, and sometimes you everybody sort of splits the utility costs. It's part of a larger fee, and in that sense, the landlord is incentivized to want to maybe put you know, solar

panels and come up with a different way. But I think you're going to see a lot of people looking for alternative ways to minimize their drag on the grid. But they're still going to want need energy to power their electronics or power their car power whatever. So but I I you know, I'm not gonna I'm going to keep researching this more and more to give you a

better answer to this question, Stafford. But I can tell you I think this is this is an issue that isn't is only going to get more in the mainstream in the conversation because it's the type of issue that everybody feels, right, everybody sees the cost of that, and we're seeing these giant spikes throw in extreme weather where in some places you're using your air conditioner longer than you normally do, or in some places you're using heat

maybe at a time you never used it before. That also does weird things to the grid and ups the costs of what you're doing on it. So I think there never definitely needs to be a little more federal involvement with how this grid, with how the electric grid is operating, because it's it definitely feels and you know who knows Texas is not on the grid. They sort

of created their own system. That thing it, you know, feels like it's it could trigger a bigger problem if they have a tough winner it's always the winners that really put a lot of stress on that Texas grid, And if that collapses and it's come close a couple of times, it could really sort of sober up everybody and realize that we have a federal problem here. This isn't going to be solved in one state. I don't

think states have this, have the ability to do this. No, you may get some states try to find financial help for people, but I'm not sure there's only only so much money that might be available for that. But I do think this is going to become the most symbolic issue that's talked about when it comes to cost of living challenges. Next question comes from Jim Philadelphia's This Big Fans in c NBC Day's congrats on a great start

to the new chapter. One't been wondering, what do you think Trump's real motivation is for intervening in Venezuela under the Narco terrorism label. He's never shown much interest in preserving democracy. Is this really about removing Is it just

another self serving move, maybe even a play for a Nobel Peace Prize. Jim, I'll tell you what my thesis is on this. So Marco Rubio, you know after starting off his relationship with Trump making Dick jokes about him right at a debate talking about his hands. Right, Why is the hands part of the thing? Right? It is

Rubio that made that meme famous. Rubio has since done a one ady Entrump right, we saw it sometime during the first term, and he has gone out of his way to endear him, endear the Latin American political activist community that is on the side of ousting some of these guys, but that diaspora that has a lot of political and financial power in South Florida who've been very

supportive of Rubio's politics over the years. He essentially, because Trump is such an important figure now in South Florida, he essentially helped Trump cement whatever you know, cement this, or you could argue Rubio had to catch up to where all these folks, they all were going, they were going to gravitate towards Trump anyway, but this began where Trump, where Trump started. Basically doesn't make any decision in Latin

America without Marco Rubio. And that was true in sort of the last year or two of the Trump era, the first Trump term, and it is and then you know, Rubio really ingratiated himself during Trump's exile at mar A Lago. He'd constantly go there. He'd bring these Latin American figures to meet with them. He'd be So this is a long way of me making the case that this is not a Donald Trump obsession. This is a Marco Rubio obsession.

And I think that Rubio has you know, there is there is a demand and look, go see the I hope you heard my conversation with Billy Corbin, and he did a documentary called Men of War about a failed sort of bizarre coup, you know, group of US mercenaries working with a former bodyguard of Trump's to somehow get on the get get into Venezuela and overthrow Maduro. Kind of a bay of pigs, Venezuelan style type of story. It's one of those you can't believe this is true,

but you know, Billy always has the receipts. There is a group of folks in South Florida that that are, you know, frustrated with Maduro, and this is Rubio cares about this. Rubio believes in this, and I think Rubio has got enough stature and status in Trump's world. He's both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor that it is Rubio that is helping to steer him in this direction.

And I think that there's no doubt in my mind that this is a Rubo project that Trump has adopted and he's you know, this narco terrorism thing is you know, if you had to prove it, I don't know how they would, right. You know, where do you prove that the drug money is being used to fund terrorism? That's number one? Number two what fentanyl? You know that this is not where our fentanyl problem comes from. It's not in Venezuela. It comes from Mexico and China. So this

is a pretext that's sort of been created. Look, I would feel better about this if the argument were we're trying to enforce democratic norms, then we can debate whether we should be using the military to do that. That should be the debate we should be having as a country about this Venezuela move. But instead are essentially lying to us about the rationale for what they're doing, saying this is not about regime changes, it's not about the democracy.

This is about a specific thing. And yet what are we doing? It looks like we're on the verge of

overthrowing a government. So it feels like we're you know, it feels like we're doing this all the wrong way, which is why a couple of weeks ago, in my toodcast time machine, I wanted to make the Panama Canal Anniversary the Liberation of Panama, if you will, an important story because anytime, you know, whenever we're involved and we lie about why we're involved, we do not help our long term ability to have influenced the right way in Latin America. And I just, you know, I am, I

want to see Maduro go. I am, you know, sort of like it's like it's like Saddam. I'm glad Saddam left. But was that the way to do it? I don't know if this is the right way to get rid of a DUREA. Next question comes from Dan, and then I'm going to get into my college football preview for the weekend. We'll do it through the prism of the college football playoff. He goes, I've been enjoying the podcast

is always. Something I noticed is that the election coverage shows that Andrew Cuomo outperforms on Mam Donnie among voters without a college degree. NBC reports that Mom Donnie won only twenty six percent of white non college graduates, and similar trends appeared in the gubernatorial races. Despite overall wins, Democrats still seem to underperform among non college educated voters, raising concerns about their strengthen states like Michigan and Nebraska.

Is it fair to interpret these results as evidence that Democrats have not yet repaired their image with working class white voters. If so, what steps should the party take to become more competitive with this group? Thanks? Dan, Well, look, hopefully you're listening to the answer this question after you've

heard the interview with Adam Gentilsen. It's exactly what he's trying to do, which is how do you get you know, the irony is, you know, I think Democrats have struggled culturally to connect to this group of voters for some time. They used to be sort of Democrats and they were just sort of Democrats, and it was they were culturally Democrats. That that and the Democrats they thought economically were looking

out for him as it is. That explains why there were two US senators in Nebraska for you know, not an insignificant period of time, and almost always one a state that you know, was the birthplace of the the perhaps the original Prairie populace William Jennings Bryan, right, So

I think you're right to point out those things. I think this is to me the great danger of the midterms on the Democrats, which is they don't need they could do as mediocre as they did with non college educated whites in the midterms because they won't turn out in the same numbers that they'll turn out in a presidential election, giving Democrats an opportunity because they'll they'll sort of over index on their more frequent voters and college education voters, and they will be a bigger share of

the electorate in a midterm than they will be in a general. It's why, you know, had they been a presidential like turnout in say Virginia, maybe she only wins by eight instead of fifteen, and maybe if you got although you know, to me, the New Jersey thing is why I why I believe this was a Trump referendum.

When you have the Republican candidate actually getting more raw vote than he got four years earlier, but he lost by ten percentage points more than when he lost before, shows you a whole bunch of voters that didn't show up four years ago that decided to show up. Well, you didn't have an basically a whole bunch of presidential only voters decided to show up in a governor's race on the Democratic side. You didn't get the presidential only voters to suddenly show up in a governor's race on

the Republican side. And then you can see how lopsided things can get. I think the biggest, the potential worst outcome for the Democrats hopes in twenty twenty eight. Weirdly will be thinking that if they win the House in the Senate, that they've solved their problems and it's just a it's you know, they're going to just coast to the presidency like what happened in six going into eight. And I would just say it's very possible they could

have a midterm revival. Eighty six midterms were terrific midterms for the Democrats, and then after getting clobbered in eighty four, and then they go and get clobbered in eighty eight. So I do think the Democratic makeup of their more likely voter automatically puts them at advantage to overperform in

the midterms. It's why even in a bad midterm year like twenty two was, they didn't get clobbered the way they that an out party gets clobbered or an in party gets clobbered simply because more of their voters are just are more regular voters. No, I think that the party still as a problem and until it you know, in fairness to the party on this one, neither Virginia nor New Jersey is a huge It had a rural

vote that the candidate had to make an effort. That's not going to be the case in trying to win an election in North Carolina. That's not going to be the case. In trying to win in Ohio. That's not going to be the case in trying to win in Iowa or Alaska, or Kansas or Mississippi or even Texas. You know, you can't win Texas just by winning the cities that a Roar came close, but he couldn't do it. He want all the he won all the cities, and he won all the the big media markets, but he couldn't.

He got killed in the excerbs and the world voters. So, uh yeah, I don't think they've solved any other problems on that front, and I still think they the Democrats are you know, they have to be seen as a stronger party. Strength And I know that's an elusive word, but I think strengths big a big thing with with this voting group. If they're going to try to reconnect back with them, and you know, the economy will be an entree. It's not lost on me if you think

about it. The last four Democratic presidents in my lifetime who've won all one during an economic downturn. You know, it's possible that Democrats are just you know, in my lifetime have culturally been on the wrong side of where the country is, and Republicans of culturally have been on the right side where the country is. But that Democrats

when the economies in the tank. It was true in seventy six, It's true in ninety two, and although the economy was recovering by the time Trump Clinton won, but the perception was it was in the tank. It was true in eight, it's true in twenty right, it was certainly virus related, but still it was an economic downturn. Sadly, it may be that there's an economic downturn in twenty

eight and and that powers every thing. And let me just tell you this, when you have an election that's all about the economy, it suddenly papers over all of your different interest script problems, right because everything becomes about that. So for Miami, it's their last home game. I know you're on pins and needles. The College Football Playoff Committee is getting a little better at giving some respect to the University of Miami, though not a ton. The guy

who runs the committee, who was the spokesperson, basically said Miami is the only team in the ACC that has won a decent non conference game, like completely forgetting that Ala Fingbama lost to Florida State in Week one. And so what you see as you see. And this is why I do not trust the ESPN Invitational Committee. I think all of these athletic directors and they're all I mean, my god, they've all realized they work for ESPN and the SEC and nobody else. Apparently. It is it is

why we have to get rid of this committee. They are not you know I And if you ask me, you know, you could say I'm being you know, yeah, I'm being biased towards the ACC. My bias is I want the ACC to get treated fairly I'm just asking for fair treatment. This is a committee, and this is a network that has already punished the ACC two years ago with denying an undefeated ACC champion access to the

playoff of Florida State. This is a ESPN Invitational committee that denied the number one ranked offense in the country with ten wins and two losses, the Oderrich of Miami. They did not put him in the playoff simply because they were in ACC school the exact same resume, but an SEC school. And I promise you they would have made it when you're literally the top ranked offense in

the country because supposedly those outside metrics matter. No, their metrics matter only when it is about getting the matchups that they want for the television show. And now it is a head scratcher to me that they didn't think cam Ward was good for their television show. I would argue cam Ward would have been great for their television show last year in the exhibition that is the ESPN Invitational.

But the fact that the committee is literally lying about the ACC's resume on national television with Rhys Davis or misinformed, okay, lying and inquires motive, But there is a motive here. They're going out of their way to make the case against the ACC because apparently, if you're if you're in the ACC and you have a competitive conference, your conference must suck. If you're in the SEC and have a competitive conference, it's proof that your conference is great. I mean,

I'm just sorry, it's subjective bullshit on this, Okay. Yes, is it true that the SEC program spend more money collectively than the ACC does, so you assume you have more talent. Yes, but you know he's produced like something I like, if you want to sit here and play that game. The ACC is I think produced the second most amount of first round draft picks over the last ten years, about right behind the SEC and ahead of

the Big ten in the Big twelve. But again, we can you can find little things like that all the time to slice and dice things. But they went out of their way to punish to and it would have been some other ACC school and they've done it. And again this goes back to the where the hell is the commissioner. Jim Phillips is way too meek in this conversation. He lets Greg SANKEI go move around with them up

and down. I told you last week about my source that told me how much that every week Greg Greg SANKI must have had a hissy fit that that Herbstreet and Fowler we're out doing a Texas Tech game. That must have freaked them out. But that every week he lobbies that you must be in the SEC. You must be in the SEC. And again I get it, ESPN's and business the SEC, but they're also in business with the ACC. And I think the ACC could be suing

ESPN for breach of contract. This is a network that has gone out of their way to diminish the value of the ACC. The ACC has increased its value, and ESPN tries to diminish the value of the ACC. And they're your biggest business partner. The ACEC should be in court. Don't sue each other, sue ESPN for for essentially for diminishing the value of ACC sports in general and ACC

football in particular. I'm sorry the lack of pushback, and again it's you know, ESPN controls the college football Playoff, a mistake, which is why you got to get rid of this committee. We ultimately got get rid of this committee.

There is a way to make all of this and on the field issue, you can you know, if you basically say, you know, if a conference, i'd love to see sort of actually an eighteen playoff that essentially had each conference have their own sort of sixteen round robin of some sort that decided who their representative was in the eight and you'd have your four conference champions, your group of five champion after they had a little tournament.

But again, you had to win on the field to get in, and then you might and you might have three wildcards, which Notre Dame would be eligible for, and the next two highest winning percentages in the power for just like the NFL wildcard works. And yes, sometimes you might have somebody left out, but it was done on the field with metrics. Everybody understands at the beginning, you know what nobody says from this committee. They can't tell you to this day. What matters more. Your wins are

your losses. It's a win right. If they want to make the case that Miami is in, they will make a big deal out of their wins. If you want to make the case that Miami is out, you will make a big deal about their losses. Ditto with Notre Dame. What's the case to put them in? They lost two of their losses by a collective of four points against two of the most talented teams in the country. What's the case not to put Notre Dame in The two times they faced talented teams in the country that belong

in the playoffs, they couldn't beat them. But Notre Dame is a brand. Now, Look, Miami has been a brand. Miami is the number one rated ACC school as far as television audience is concerned. It has been the last couple of years. You know, for the most part, Miami's been a brand, and that usually helps them in situations

like this. I do believe when college football continues this what they've done to the conference with the SEC and the Big Ten have done everybody else, Miami will probably be a half And unfortunately, my friends at NC State, Miami's opponent this week may end up being a poor have not. Now. I don't think that's healthy for college football. I think we could be doing this a better way. But anyway, here we are, so college football playoff rant over.

It does look like Miami's path is not crazy anymore. They finally have them. They're still a bit under ranked. You know, are you're really ranking Miami behind Utah no offense. To my producer, Lauren is a big Utah guy, and you know they do the you the wrong way. It's not this way, guys, it's like this. But that's okay. Uh. That said, do you think I have a lot of

confidence in a in this coaching staff to be ready to put a licking on NC State on Senior Day at Miami? You know, I got a sixty five percent confidence level, but I don't have a ninety percent confidence level. You know, Miami should be able to put a number up on NC State. A forty five to ten victory should be what they do if they want to make the playoff. They kind of need a forty five to ten.

But if you told me this was a thirty one, twenty four to twenty seven game that Miami eked out or somehow screwed it up at the end due to poor coaching decisions, I let's just say I fear it a little bit now. I don't think NC State has the defense and I think Miami's defense. You know, again, we're I'm going to learn a lot about how much these players want to play for these coaches, because if

they do. I did not like the first half of what I saw in the Miami Syracuse game, it looked like it didn't look like I mean, it does feel like the offensive coordinator, Shannon Dawson is just out of ideas. They continue. They are clearly not comfortable with Carson Beck making some decisions because they seem to fear putting him in positions to win it, you know, to either make a big player potentially you know, put him in a precarious position. It's a shame how they coach it, how

they do this. So we'll see. I'm I'm nervous. I'm very nervous. I'm not gonna lie to you. I'm very nervous about this game because I actually think coach Crystal Ball is feeling the pressure. I think Shannon Dawson's feeling the pressure. And sometimes pressure is good on people respond to the pressure and they give you their best work. And sometimes the pressure puts them and they get paralyzed.

We'll see. The biggest game on the board as far as Miami's playoff rankings are concerned, is actually at the sight of where game day decided to go, which is an interesting decision. They're in Pittsburgh and they're for the Notre Dame pit game. This is arguably Notre Dame's toughest game left, which is really so they're there because you know, Notre Dame has they can't lose in order to have

a shot at the playoff. They went out, They're going to get in because a ten and two Notre Dame team will always make the playoff, no matter who their two losses are to, and no matter if the ten wins are against the entire MAC Conference. It's Notre Dame. You know, it's TV show people, So as long as it's an invitational, they'll always get the invite. Pitt's been an interesting team ever since they put in this freshman quarterback. He's been on. He's lit it up. A patn our

doozy team usually isn't this free flowing on offense? Right. Miami has to play Pitt last game of the year, so this will be a common opponent. So everything about this game I have to I'm going to be watching every inch of it. It's on, it's the noon game, it'll be on before the Miami game, which is a three thirty. This is a huge game for the playoff. It's a huge game for Notre Dame. It's a huge game for the ACC, It's a huge game for Miami. It is this is interesting, right, what's better for Miami

Notre Dame winning. I think I want Notre Dame to win by a field goal and then Miami to beat Pitt by thirty. That's probably the best outcome because this will be if Miami and Notre Dame are both tenant to the Pit. Game will be the most recent comparative they'll both have played at Pitt. So I have a feeling Pitt. And by the way, Pitt seven to two. They're not out of this, all right, I'm not, you know. I don't know if they can make it all the

way through their schedule and finish it off right. The two of their two of their next three games are Notre Dame and Miami, and the other one is Georgia Tech. So Pitt literally might be facing three playoff teams at the end of their season. But they certainly are going to have an impact on Notre Dame's chances, Miami's chances, and Georgia Tech's chances. And they's their last three games.

So look, Pitt's had kind of an easy schedule. We still don't know how they lost to West Virginia, and I think they're trying to figure out how they lost to West Virginia. And then there are only other losses Louisville, which is a loss that Miami also has, but they've not They've not had the toughest of schedules. They opened with Ducaine and Central Michigan and then West Virginia was their third game of the year, which because it's a

it's a re rivalry. You throw the records out, right, But it's a It's easily the single most important game as far as the playoff is concerned. That's on the board. A few other games. Uh, do you buy that Wisconsin can play two good games in a row and give Indiana and Indiana plays two bad games in a row?

Hard hard to see that one. This one's at Indiana. Boy, Yeah, after this, Indiana only has Purdue, you know, the end of the season, and that's that could be fun, right, even though Purdue is winless, they're gonna they care about this game. It's do you throw the records out? We shall see South Carolina, Texas A and m I was

not going to pay attention to this game. And one of my favorite betting podcasts made the point that South Carolina is coming off of bye after firing their offensive coordinator, a guy named Shula, one of the grandson of Don Shula, and uh that they're going to make you know, and they already know that. Miami and other schools are already sniffing around Leonora's Sellers for the for their portal QB

for next season. I have a feeling that South Carolina's offense is going to be a bit different showcasing Sellers, let him do his thing a lot more. It's going to be an open offense. So either it works and we see an exciting game and Lenora's sellers is the is the quarterback we all thought he was at the beginning of this season, or an m just roles and they win by three touchdowns. Anyway, it's certainly worth turning on that game. U don't sleep on South Florida Navy South.

You know, this is just the type of game that could turn into a weird shootout. The way Navy now can score South Florida can score, it will this This shouldn't be close, but it is at the Naval Academy. It will be a little chilly in Annapolis. You know, this is just the type of game that that USF could blow. Do you believe in Oklahoma? I don't so I think Alabama pays them. But it is worth noting Alabama is not the best favorite all the time in

this Caleb de Borrera so far. But I just I just, you know, I just don't buy that that Oklahoma can score much on them. And do you how do you think they have a good I know they statistically have a good defense. Do you believe they have a good defense? Have they really played anybody? Just something to think about. I guess their Tennessee win that was that was a pretty good performance. You got to give them that. But obviously still has playoff implications right now Oklahoma has to win.

Uh and uh. I guess Alabama doesnt because it would only be their second loss, and and you know they and apparently their first loss doesn't even count anymore as far as the College Football Committee is concerned. Other than that, Iowa USC, you know, USC still has the outside chance. I was lost, Iowa had it all it was there for the taking. If they beat Oregon. This game is a whole, but it's a big a lot different. It suddenly becomes a playoff game. Now, does Iowa know it's over?

And if they do know it's over, USC could pace them. The only other game that might be intriguing to keep an eye on, of course, it is Georgia and Texas. Texas can't lose. They have to keep winning. This game's at Georgia. There's been a part of me that's wondered, what does all the arch Manning commentary of the last

two months, what happens to all of it? If suddenly Texas beats Georgia this week, beats Texas A and M in the last game of the year, and is sitting there at ten and two, and suddenly, with wins over Georgia and Texas A and M, they're probably a top ten team if that's what happens. Oh, by the way, so that's anyway. Let's see what arch Manning looks like. Let's see if the Georgia defense. You know, I think Georgia can score on anybody. They've proven that that offense

has turned out to be pretty good this year. This Texas defense show up and slow down Georgia. Obviously. The good news is this is the primetime game and we'll all have a lot of time to watch it. So with that, let's go Canes and I'll see you next week.