Chuck’s Commentary - Massive “No Kings” Protests + Trump’s Illegal War In The Caribbean

the podcast. I have promised I will keep my sports obsessions towards the end so that way the true diehards to the Toodcast. We'll get there. We'll get that fix. I have a lot to say about the game. I hate the idea that I may have predicted this exact outcome and how it went. I will get into it. I will get into a little bit more. In college football, we got another coach firing already, all fascinating to watch.

At some point, who's going to be left to hire all these the amount of money when you have Penn State in Florida and Arkansas, huge programs that are going to throw all sorts of dollars at their coaching search. Don't forget UCLA that has a lot of money. Who else follows right down that road? Virginia Tech thinks it's a major program. What about Clemson? It's clear that Dabo was actually worried about his job. Anyway, I said, I

was going to wait until the end and I will look. I think there was the big event of the weekend obviously was an O Kings protest. A frankly, a pretty I think it was a pretty impressive showing. I think what the question with these protests is is what we what do we learn from them? Do they translate into something? Look, the timing of this protest is not random, Okay, The timing of this protest comes basically in the middle of early voting here in Virginia. You've got the New Jersey elections.

You have a bunch of off your elections, right, this is these are these are as. My friend John Ellis said it's a bunch of local elections that will have national significance. And he's not wrong, and they will have

national significance. What happens in Virginia. How strong is the anti Trump vote? Well, we now have an easy measurement to find out how strong, how powerful are anti Trump feelings in Virginia. Are they powerful enough for somebody who's not qualified. I think I think has pretty much made it,

you know, from what has rhetorically said. It's certainly I think there are questions whether he's qualified to be attorney general and Jay Jones, but if he wins, it's really a bigger statement on Trump, arguably really than anybody else. Not Mer's, not Jones, not anything, you know, because if this election is held sort of in isolations, Joan doesn't win, Mirs wins this thing, and he still probably wins the

you know, I'd still probably rather be him. But we know in these statewide elections, gubernatorial the gubernatorial vote has a huge impact, and anything north of five points or more will bring at least one of the down ballots with her, Abigail Spamberger. The question is does it bring two. I told you that Jason Miaris has already basically thrown

the Republican nominee for governor under the bus. Since they have divergent strategies on Abigail Spamberger's rhetoric on j Jones, Miaris has decided to embrace her rhetoric, even as Winston mertle Series has been trying to knock it down. But the point is is that when you're doing a political protest like this, the true way to measure its impact and whether it's having an impact beyond just being an

event for the day, is whether it translates into political activity. Well, the next measurement of political activity is going to be the off off year elections that take place in three weeks. The timing of this in some ways the smarter campaigns in New Jersey, in Virginia, in mayor's races in California with the proposition you have Pennsylvania with the Supreme Court races. So all of those cases there was likely organizing. We know that there was organizing going on in those places

where there was a direct tide of the election. So the point is there's a couple of ways to measure this, and that to me is an important way to measure I do. I've done, with the help of a bunch

of news articles searching, I've tried to compile here some turnout estimates in various cities. So you can hear here in d C sort of the central organizing effort for the no Kings protest. The estimate is about over two hundred thousand of DC area residents. Look, this is a bigger turnout than they had in the first one. And again, the real you know will know how success full this was based on how strong the democratic performance is in Virginia.

It has been you know, this Jay Jones thing has taken a you know, has had a huge impact on turnout efforts on a lot of things in Virginia. Does this turn the page on that and help Democrats? That's a way to measure there. In San Francisco, one organizer estimate claimed half a million. Look, it's a city of what I would call a protest culture, very comfortable out there protesting, So not surprising that this would be the

city with the largest turnout. This tell to me. And I've seen the polling, you know, if you want to see anecdotal versus polling, and you saw this protest had a real focus on the proposition campaign, on the redistricting response to Texas there, So I think this tells you something. Half a million. Chicago had one hundred thousand grant parks Butler Field. It was a march that not surprisingly went past Trump Tower as they wanted to do. New York

City had an estimate of one hundred thousand. The largest protests were somewhere in Times Square. That's where you saw the most. Portland, Oregon, claimed about forty thousand protesters there. They were in a downtown area, carnival like atmosphere. The inflatable costumes that we've seen at the detention centers as the protesters that the administration keeps accusing of being part of this organized effort that they claim as Antifa, the

inflatable costumes have become a hallmark of Portland. San Diego sixty thousand. Not insignificant in a military town. Okay, that's a pretty big number for San Diego. Not a protest culture there. Speaking of places where you don't normally see protest cultures in the deep South, Atlanta only had about ten thousand filled the Atlantic CI Civic Center parking lot, if you will. But again, the South in general a little less of a protest culture. The protest culture California,

the Northeast, a little bit. In the midwest. Madison, Wisconsin, fifteen thousand a march near the state capital. Hartford, Connecticut estimate of twelve thousand. San Jose Silicon Valley an estimate of twelve thousand, about four thousand in Eugene, Oregon. In Pittsburgh downtown Pittsburgh about two to three thousand. It seems to be the best estimate I could come up with. Their in Sacramento, you had about five thousand. State Capitol

of California, Roseberg, Oregon. It's a conservative part of Oregon, so they were affected. You had a couple thousand show up there in a more rural community that's of significance. Rice Lake, Wisconsin. Another This is a town of nine thousand people, so they claimed essentially that almost ten percent of the town turned out to protest at nearly a thousand folks there. Juddville, Wisconsin, also a thousand. This is

Door County community event. This is a little bit closer to the green Berry area, if you will, in another eleven hundred. So they had a lot of small protests turn out in Wisconsin, which isn't surprising, right We've we've what we've seen Wisconsin. There's there's quite a bit. Both parties I think have super activists in they will so look the big what I was curious about and nervous about.

I was curious about the Republican response and nervous about the administration's response. Was there anything that was going to happen in these demonstrations that was essentially going to be bait if you will, or an attempt or would the you know was the was Stephen Miller uh and that wing of the of the Trump administration where they're essentially looking for a confrontation. Would they find a confrontation Here's

there was no major confrontations like that. So in the official level, it feels as if Lawnforce essentially treated this protest the way we've treated protests for decades in this country, responsibly, with respect. It seems like protesters I saw there was

a among the tweets. I saw the Austin Police Department, it's official Twitter account put out a thank you to protesters in't too law enforcement, saying everybody was well behaved and respectful, etc. But then we have the social media memes, right, the absurdity, and the one that has gotten the most is this head scratcher, And it goes to this larger issue that I've brought up a few times, which is why they were Republican administration, why Donald Trump does not

believe he's president for all the people. He really only believes he's president for his base. It explains his rhetoric

and explains his decision making. It explains why he seems to not care what swing voters think at all. And he retweeted this that essentially had a AI personification of Trump flying a plane and dropping poop on America, basically

flying over major cities and dropping poop. Seriously, really, I mean it is you know, we're so used to sort of the childlike behavior of him at times of this movement, there is always I mean, one of the things that I've said in the past about him is that there's an arrested development quality, right that phrase, mean phrase isn't just a great title of a great television show, or at least three and a half seasons of a great television show, sorry Ron Howard, but it is an actual

sort of you know, at times, it's as if Donald Trump has been thirteen his whole life, right, the mentality of a thirteen year old. What he thinks is humorous. And I always say what he thinks is humorous because Donald Trump doesn't laugh. Donald Trump doesn't naturally laugh. Go tell me where you've found him naturally laugh. He does not sort of have the normal social interactions. You know, there's always a lot of people attempt to normalize him.

He is much more normal in person, but in the public setting he doesn't quite He doesn't ever use humor. I remember the one time he was asked to use humor was at the Al Smith dinner in twenty sixteen, and he was just so bad at it. He didn't know how to do it. He doesn't know how to tell a joke, and he doesn't know how to laugh very well. It's just if you want to chalk it up. I'm not going to sit here and try to diagnose him because I'm not trained in psychology to try to

do that diagnosis. But I find it odd that he never ever laughs. Okay, he will laugh along when an audience laughs with him, but tell me when you have found him do a belly laugh when he's just hanging

with friends, you know. And I'd actually thrown an aside. You know what phrase you never hear connected to Donald Trump lifelong friend. There's nobody that is connected to him that is ever described as Donald Trump's lifelong friend, Donald Trump's former college roommate, Donald Trump's uh friend from grade school.

Think about that. Every other president we've ever had has had a friend circle, particularly once they got to the president that really did go back to their college and high school years, Right, Because ultimately, who do you trust people that knew you before you were somebody? Right, I'm

one of those one hundred percent true. Right, You're more likely to sort of weirdly feel comfortable with people even interacted with about if they knew you before you were, before you were somehow a boldface name to somebody, not Donald Trump. It's the it's one of the most Sometimes with Donald Trump, I think we forget that there are non stories, stuff that doesn't happen, which is worth reporting. Right, One thing that doesn't happen anymore. He doesn't travel the country.

He just doesn't. He doesn't sell his agenda. He doesn't explain,

you know, he certainly takes plenty of questions. He seems active, but he actually doesn't move very often. Yes, he goes overseas and he wants his big summits. When's the last time he just held a basic rally around the country to sell the program. Doesn't do as much, certainly, not like he did in the first run. It is a reminder that why, I'm pretty confident even if he thought he had the legal grounds to run for president, he wouldn't. But I want to sum up with one other thing

about these protests. I said, there's two ways to measure them, right. One measurement is going to be coming up on this November election day. And you know, did you see you know, did it truly? Did they find some new voters that hadn't been paying attention? Did they do any voter registration? So those are the things to measure. But here's something else. You know, the rights very dismissive of this. Even some

in the center are dismissive. I've had some friends on the left that are somewhat well, what are these protests game?

Here's what I would say. I think it's remarkable that somebody wants to do this on a Saturday. There's we're there's a lot of other things to do, particularly in a fall Saturday. Right, I'm obsessed with college football. I'm not alone in this. We're in the heart of some incredible sports stories right now. Oh my god, show hey o'tani. Right,

there's so plenty to quote unquote to do. So the fact that this got you know, millions across the country to turn out these aren't you know you can they can. Critics of this can say, well, it was paid for. That to me is even more impressive. There's an entire group of people willing to fund, willing to put organization around it, and they were able to get people to show up, you know, to me saying oh they're paid, this was paid or all of these things are always

organized by some entity that has money, right, nobody does it. Yes, there are volunteers, but somebody's paying for some. And look, I remember, I'm old enough to remember when the left was very dismissive of the tea Party protests. Oh, it's grasstops. I was told, you know, you know, don't overrate it. You know, that would be the pushback, just like I'm hearing from the right. Last time I checked, those twenty

ten mid terms were pretty rough on the Democrats. Those tea Party protests seemed to tap into something, and certainly the tea parties I think is was a you certainly you don't have Donald Trump without those tea Party protests twenty ten, twenty nine, ten, twenty eleven, So just it certainly had I think so I would not at all be dismissive of this, and I think you know again,

will I think these protests effectiveness will be judged down the road right initially election Day twenty twenty five and then election Day twenty twenty six. But I want to pivot here to what really is the main story I want to focus on this weekend, and that is the growing,

I think controversial controversy that's taking place in the Caribbean right now. And what is where even the administration isn't quite sure of how legal their bombings are. And I'll explain why even though they claim they're legal, their actions are actually admitting that they know there are legal questions about what they are up to. But before I get there, it is weird for me not to talk about the

government shutdown. Right, here's what's amazing again. The most of the Sunday shows were about the protests, or really about this debate over is it legal? The what the administration is doing targeting narco traffickers and just calling it a Marco terrorist. Does that make them enemy combatants? Does that mean they're really that? This does fall under a previously passed congressional authority of a use of force mission whether it's the one that I mean, it's it's astonishing that

this is sort of loosely. I understand the administration is trying to claim the use of a few different authorizations to justify this military action. But here's what hasn't happened. Nobody really in Congress, I think, is very comfortable with this, but there seems to be an odd amount of what

I would call not silence but muted concern about what the administration is doing. And I think a tremendous is just another reminder Congress is not working. Okay, Congress is failing at its job of what that's what it's supposed to do. Zero oversight takes place. You're supposed to do oversight even when your party's in charge. This is the exact thing that oversight was designed for. In fact, my history lesson later in this episode is going to be

about the birth of congressional oversight. There was a scandal in the twentieth century that where we didn't have oversight, We didn't even have inspectors general until this scandal happened, and then we got those things. So we are we are seeing in a massive failure of the US Congress here when it comes to this. But let me just get to the shutdown here a second. Then I'll get to this, get to the specifics of this fight, of this battle over whether this is legal, what we're doing

in Venezuela. We're now at this full on stalemate. Donald Trump is still not engaged in the shutdown negotiations. It doesn't appear that Schumer and Jeffries, I mean again, they do have the they do have the issue of health

care on their side. And we are about twelve days away from premium notices, massive spikes in Obamacare premiums going up on November first, massive spikes going up there. So there will certainly be a cranky or public about the issue of health care. But in the meantime, this not

keeping the government open. I just don't. I go back to what I said, every single day this government is shut is I think a day that Democrats lose whatever they think they've gained out of this, and at some point, a shuddered government simply harms people's everyday lives, whether it is travel, which is the big one, food inspectors, whether it's a national weather service. We're just this is ludicrous.

And then we're getting you know, we have an administration that doesn't believe that their job is to govern for all the people. It is the weirdest thing. I do

not understand why more people aren't upset about the fact that this administration intentionally governs essentially makes decision based on who supports them and who does it. And if they think a piece of policy is a democratic policy, they cut it. You know, they're just cutting it off. They think a cabinet agency is a democratic cabinet agency. They've decided the Education Department said democratic cabinet agency, so they want to get rid of it. And as I've told you,

the Department of Homeland Securities they quote Republican agency. And there's been hardly any furloughs at all, other than the fact that they're getting they're going to get paid late. They're not going to get paid on time, and we don't know when these folks are going to get paid. So this is I think this has turned into a

cluster of deep if you want, you know, it just is. And at some point Democrats are going to have to suck it up and open the government. They're going to win this healthcare fight political, but they risk sort of losing. I go back to this adult in the room issue, the fact that they are, the fact that they have this power in their hands. And yes, technically Republicans could open the government if they got rid of the filibuster. I'm not sure anybody. I'm sure all Democrats want to

see that happen at this point. The fact the only reason they have leverage is because the filibuster is still there. And I do think there might be some progressives that would love to see the filibuster go away, but I don't think everybody in the Democratic Party wants to see that, So I think they're you know, and again I go back to the Democratic Party's inability to know how to declare victory, to know when to essentially to know. Look, you know, it's like you're trying to maximize profits all

the way to the end. Sometimes you sell even if you think the stock's going to keep going on, but you sell because you have actually think this doctor would nose dive, and you may not be there in time to sell. There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan and Morgan is America's largest 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 the People dot com Slash podcast, or dial 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. Let me move to I feel like I should do a pretty large dive now on the issue of Venezuela in Colombia because the biggest thing we have learned and the biggest sort of tell now that this administration isn't sure what it's doing is legal is the decision to repatriate two survivors from one of these bombings to their home countries. That is the single biggest development of the weekend.

For that. The resignation, the decision by the head of

Southern Command to resign is another big development. And look, he has not said why he resigned, but I will tell you what Jim Stavridi's who also former head of Southern Command, also former NATO Suprema like commander, what he told me on my news Sphere show last week if you were in a similar situation and he weren't sure whether an order was legal, and he truly had questions about it and worried because remember, if you end up executing an illegal order, you will be held accountable in

our law. So this is not you know, this is it didn't work at Nuremberg, right, this is not Ay, I just followed an illegal order. Well, if you're concerned it's an illegal order, your job is to bring that up and then if you're still being ordered to do it,

basically the honorable thing to do is to resign, and that and So this is a case where we're putting two, two and two together and we think we're giving four here. But to me, you had that resignation and then you had this repatriation announcement. This is the tell this administration knows it's on unsteady legal ground. So here's what we

do know. And I'm sure you haven't been paying. Unfortunately, this story is not getting the type of attention that I think it would get if this were happening in the Middle East, this were happening in Asia, this were happening in a Mediterranean Sea. But it's happening in the Western Hemisphere. And for some reason, when shit happens in the Western Hemisphere, we don't prioritize it either in news coverage.

We don't prioritize it politically, neither party does. We've not had a president do it, and in fact, we now have a president who I think is about to make some of the same mistakes, grave historical mistakes that have happened in the past on Latin America. So let me get started. So here's the pattern. We keep sinking the United States keep sinking boats in the Caribbean, and they keep trying to call it something other than war. Right, it's not a war, but it's not a law enforcement action.

They've now carried out seven military strikes and suspected drug smuggling vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The latest strike has left three people and there were two survivors captured and they have been quietly This is the two survivors that were patriated to their home countries. One is Columbia Colombian and one was Econdorian. So why did they do this? Well, that last decision to send them home rather than bring them into US custody. Right, Why aren't we boarding these

boats and seizing this stuff? Right? Why are we just deciding to destroy it? Well, it's the most revealing clue yet about what's really going on here. So here's what officials said on the repatriation decision. Officials said that this was a humanitarian gesture, but to legal experts, repatriation looks like something else. Entirely. It is a way to avoid tough questions about the legal status of these survivors. Are they criminals? Are they enemy combatants? Remember we went through

this during nine to eleven and getmo some of this language is going to sound familiar to those of you that remember all of those decisions about people. How are they picked up these terrorists, these Alcaedo folks. Anyway, So criminals, enemy combatants? Are they victims? Because the answer matters a ton. It determines what laws end up applying. Do our laws apply, do maritime laws apply? Do military courts have the upper hand here? If they're treated as combatants, then the US

is admitting it's an armed conflict. If they're treated as criminals, then they have rights to do process, to counsel, to trial. That pesky constitution suddenly is in the way. Right by sending them back to their home countries, the administration doesn't have to choose. It avoids putting anyone in US custody and therefore avoids the legal test case that could force a court to decide whether America is now at war

with Venezuela in the Caribbean. I'll tell you this, this is at some point, this is going to end up in our court. Anyway. You will have perhaps the families

of victims claim, hey, they were fishing, they weren't part of this. Maybe they were simply a worker on one of these boats. Maybe they were hired hands. They weren't necessarily part of the of the of of whatever the narco business that we claim we know what's happening was a part of. And it's likely they will try to They're gonna look for some sort of uh, they'll probably be looking for some sort of monetary justice, and it could very well happen in our courts. So we're trying

to do this repatriation to avoid that. That's what survivors, what about with those that didn't survive, just saying this

is a legal quagmire that is coming, I promise you. So the administration, Pete Egseth has been pretty blunt. Here's what he said on the Sunday shows this week. The United States military will treat these organizations like the terrorists they are. They will be hunted and killed just like al Qaeda. So he is claiming these are terrorist organizations. Now. To truly be a terrorist organization, the basic definition means

you're using let's say you're narco terrorists. I means you're using your drug money to essentially fund this sort of political uprising. What political uprisings being funded here? This may be simply a criminal enterprise. But I digress. Here's another thing. Hag Seth admitted though on Sunday, We've sunk seven boats,

We've seized nineteen tons of coke. No fentanyl yet, but that's next. Whoabody what this whole thing is supposed to be about fentanyl. You haven't gotten any fentanyl yet. There's a reason for that. Ventanyl ain't a part of Venezuela's drug trade. Then I'm going to get to that. But no fentanyl yet. It totally undercuts the entire public rationale of what Trump and Ruby have been saying about why this is legal and about why it should be done

the way they're doing it. The fentanyl crisis, which we do have one, has nothing to do with Venezuela or Columbia. It has everything to do with Mexico and China. But that's not where we're focused here. So none of these strikes, they at least are admitting it. You got to give haig Seth credit have actually stopped the flow of fedel because they haven't found any fentyl. That's not where it is. It's Chinese ingredients being manufactured in Mexico. We've known this

forever and ain't Venezuela. This is an obsession to get rid of Maduro. Frankly, it's a worthy obsession. I empathize with it. He's illegally in office. He lost an election, a small d democratic election. The lack, frankly that of

international community of coming down harder on Venezuela over Maduro essentially not abiding by the elections, has been extraordinarily disappointed. Why this, If this is the you could argue, you

could make this the rationale. I don't know if a lot of people would love it, because I do think one of the reasons Trump has a has been able to build MAGA and his base is by at least rhetorically claiming that America First means we're not going to get involved in other people's business, and in this case, Venezuela would be other people's business. But the Defense secretary admitted they've yet to seize any Fennol here, so you're you're essentially bullshit. Rationale for this is going to come

home to rust. Marco Rubio defended the strikes. He called them, quote lethal strikes on drug vessels operated by designated narco

terrorist organizations. Well, it's a designation that's not quite made up, but kind of because we've never really had a narco terrorist organization that we've that we've gone after. You could loosely claim al Qaeda was narco terrorists because they certainly they certainly had the poppy trade in Afghanistan, and certainly they were using that money to fund their war within Afghanistan. Now, Rubio has been he's trying to be extraordinary careful in

what he says in public. He insists that hits are targeted, that they're not invasions, and that the president is not is simply waging war on narco terrorists, not on the people of Venezuela. And now here's what's fascinating. This latest boat that they that they bombed wasn't even head of the United States. Rubio noted the latest sub was likely bound for Trinidad and Tobago or some other country in

the Caribbean, not the US mainland. He had another inconvenient fact, if the goal is to stop drugs from reaching American streets, so here's where the story gets even a bit murcurer. Congress has not authorized any of this. What the administration is trying to do is use older authorization use of military force. Other aumfs out there, the big one from two thousand and one, which never named a single organization

in it. This is what's been used for all sorts of operations by multiple presidents, even as multiple even as

a both Obama and Trump and Biden, all three of them at some point admitted that this AAMF needs to change, but they didn't exactly urge Congress to do it. They said, yeah, if Congress sends me something I would I would sign it. Congress has not been able because it is a It

is a fake. This is one of those fake issues in Washington where everybody says that what the correct answer, but behind the scenes they do everything they can to make sure that answer doesn't come to fruition, right, and getting rid of this authorization use of Military Force Post nine to eleven that has been used for all sorts of questionable military activity every time there's been bipartisan efforts to get rid of it, and just when those bipartisan

efforts happened, there's bipartisan efforts to kill it, and there's always enough force to kill it behind the scenes. But it makes it look like, oh, they're trying, but I digress. So here's what various members of Congress have said. None of them believe this has been authorized. Mark Kelley, Democrat, said after a classified briefing on these issues. He said they had a very hard time explaining the legal rationale

and the constitutionality of doing it. He said the brief we got referring to the US Senate had a tremendous number of holes in it. Tim Kaine went further, Tim Kaine has been on this trying to repeal the original AMF or redo it. He's been trying to do it for essentially most of his time in the A Senate. If

my colleagues think of war with Venezuela is a good idea, they need to pass an AUMF about just that stop the administration from dragging our country into an unauthorized and escalating military conflict. And then there's course the loudest Republican who's questioned these things. It's Ran Paul, much more of a libertarian and frankly, very consistent on these issues in general. He said, all of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.

We are simply supposed to take the word of Pete Hagsat Marco Rubie. All of these folks who are not under oath. When they're saying these things, they're simply on camera. Keep that in mind. So so far, there's been no formal vote, no war powers authorization, no clear oversight, just a White House declaring an armed conflict with cartels and

expanding operations under that banner. By redefining traffickers as unlawful combatants, the administration claims the right to use lethal force without the normal checks that apply to law enforcement operations or to wars formally declared by Congress. Essentially, by having this murky nature trumpet, we're just green lighting just the killing of folks without having to make a legal case that

we can do this. It's pretty unconstitutional, it's pretty undemocratic, and it is a terrible precedent for us to say, I mean, who are we to ever lecture any other lecture China on the Wigers. Who are we to lecture Putin on Ukraine and his sphere of influence for the way we're behaving in the Western hemisphere here? There are legal ways to do this. The case against Maduro is strong, make the goddamn case against Maduro and is illegal co

opting of the government itself. He lost a free and fair election there are actually reasons to do this, instead of pretending it's something having to do with fentanyl when it has nothing to do with fentyl. The administration's argument is that these maritime operations right there claiming it's a direct response to the overdose crisis in America and that these cartels are killing Americans, so this is self defense.

But here's the disconnect. Fentanyl, the drug responsible for the nearly two hundred thousand US deaths last year, is not coming for the Caribbean or Venezuela, according to the DEA.

You know, again, this administration struggles facts sometimes, but there's actual facts that sit out there, and there's data that tells you where this fricking fentanyl's coming from. More than ninety percent of fentanyl enters through US Mexico lands ports of entry. It gets through the regular port of entry because it's been impossible to seize. We seize it, but

other stuff gets through. This fentanyl is produced by Mexican car tells, not these Venezuelan cartels, and they're using precursor chemicals that they import from China, all of which we do know already, all of which the Administration does cherry pick whenever they want to get tough on Mexico or whenever they want to get tough on China. But what they're doing here with Venezuela is manufacturing an argument. That is an argument if you wanted to make it with Mexico.

But we're not. We're not going down that road. That's a different story. They're just essentially trying, and they realize they're hoping that you, the American taxpayer, and you the American public, is just going to conflate Ah, the Venezuelans, Mexico. It's all the same. That's how stupid this administration thinks you are. They think you're this stupid. They think you're that you're going to be able to say all drug smugglers are the same. They all look alike. That's how

stupid they think you are. Nobody says we don't have

a cocaine problem still in Columbia, a cocaine trafficking issue in Venezuela, but it is not the one driving American overdose deaths. If this is the rationale, and you better be declaring war against these Mexican cartels. Basically, the current US campaign has focused on geography. Marco Rubio has been obsessed with Venezuela. Understandably, he's a South Floridian. Okay. I always said that there's all sorts of biases that people have. Some of it is just bias from where you're from.

I grew up down there. I get it. I have Venezuelan friends. I see this. This guy's bad. We've destroyed a great country, an incredible culture, and he is it is. We got to do more to get the world community, get this guy out of here. There's a variety of ways to do it. This seems to be a way that risks American lives one two risks creating a martyr. I mean, we're gonna we haven't ruled out striking targets in Venezuela. My guess is will say, it's places where

they're manufacturing the drug. This ain't gonna be the jungles of Venezuela. Ain't gonna be an easy place to fight a war. And you know, let's you know it was this is how we get Mission creep. Go look at the history in the very beginning of Vietnam. Okay, this is how Mission Creep happens. But let's go back to what this repatriation really reveals here, because it really is

the Big Toe. The United States is now flying B fifty twos over the Caribbean, deploying Special operation helicopters, sinking boats, killing people. It calls narco terras. But when two of those survivors are captured alive, they quietly are sent back to their home countries, out of sight, out of US,

and out of court. What the decision tells us is that the administration understands they're in a legal gray area that they're operating in. And if these men were brought back here, judges and journalists would start asking questions, and they don't want to have to answer those questions. They'd have to answer questions about evidence, about jurisdiction, and what rules would actually apply. Congress hasn't authorized this war. None

of these strikes are legal. The targets aren't attacking the United States, the drugs that carry aren't the ones killing Americans, and yet the White House keeps calling the self defense, which brings us to the term. You've heard the President and his cabinet repeat over and over again, narco terrorists. What the hell does the term mean? Where did it

come from? Okay, well, let me tell you it's certainly here's the actual definition for Merriam Webster terrorism financed by profits from illegal drug trafficking, right, Meaning it's the drugs are the drugs are sold to finance the terrorism. Is that what's happening? All right? It's a generic term narco terrorism, and it refers to the nexus between terrorism, insurgency, and

drug trafficking. So, as a working definition, a narco terrorist is a person or group that uses drug trafficking or profits funded to funder carried out acts of violence, intimidation, or political corrosion, blurring the lines between criminal and politically motivated violence. Can you make an argument Maduro's doing that? Maybe you could, Right, Maduro is certainly repressing his people. He's illegally in office, and he certainly has some sort

of influence and control over some of these gangs. Now, it's not a brand new term. It was first used actually in Peru Tero Rissimo. It was used by the Peruvian president in nineteen eighty three to describe attacks by

traffickers on anti narcotics police. But it isn't clear the first time the US this government ever really formally used it was this year the executive order that Donald Trump, signed on his first day back in office, uses the vehicle of designating cartels and other organizations as force foreign terrorist organization and specifically designated global terrorists. So essentially, it was trying to create They created a definition to fit

the already previous authorized use of military force. That's what this is all about. This does not mean Maduro is a victim here. Okay, I don't want that. I'm not interested in that coming across. But the United States has succeeded being the leader of the free world because we rationalized, justify, and we make legal arguments for what we do. This administration doesn't believe in anything having to do with this Constitution.

They view the Constitution as an impediment to be worked around, and they're always in search of a loophole in the Constitution rather than upholding the spirit and the values of it. And this is a clear and present danger. You see what I did there, This is a clear and present danger for the US's influence over Look, he's now mad at the Colombian president. Look this guy, they're sort of you know, it wasn't the friendliest Colombian leader to get elected.

That's true. He seems to be a bit more lenient

with the more socialist leaning Latin American leaders. But you know what, he's unpopular in his own country because what he promised has not come to fruition. He is likely to not survive politically. This is a strong Columbia is a strong democracy. The last thing we want to do

is create a martyr out of this current president. And I would just warn this administration if backing out of legal deals that we've made with the small This man is a democratic small the democratic elected president of Colombia. This is not like Maduro the risk of suddenly giving him because Colombians don't want to look like that any of their leaders are simply puppets of this administration, puppets

of the United States. The Trump's actions while he's trying to send a message to Petro to work with the United States instead of working quiet. Look, he's got his own migration issues coming from Venezuela. You know, you think we've got issues of Venezuela's coming over the border because they're trying to flee the oppression of Madurea. So does Colombia.

But this, you know, our history in Latin America is atrocious because we just go down there, always worried only about our interests, never seeming to be concerned about the people themselves. And we find a way to make more enemies out of this place than we do allies. It is been you know, fricking China has more allies in South America than the United States does. That is a

big problem. And doing legally questionable military action like this only makes it harder for the United States to sort of win back Latin America into the US ecosystem rather as they're drifting away into the China orbit. So I'm gonna stop there. And on the other side, it's the toodcast time machine. It's a doozy today. It is not Nixon related. That's my only clue. And with that, I'll see any other side. It is time for the todcast time machine. Where are we going? Where could we be going? Well?

Where are we going? We are going? And give you the date, the specific date here. We are going to October twenty fifth. As you know, right, I'm always looking

at the week, the week we're in, So October twenty fifth, this week, where that is the date I am latching onto because in October twenty fifth, nineteen twenty nine, the United States government and a jury, and a jury made up of US citizens convicted the first ever cabinet secretary to prison. And it all had to do and in fact, it all happened. He gets convicted and a couple of days later, the stock market crash and the Roaring Twenties come to a total and complete end. But that's where

I want to bring you. So October twenty fifth, nineteen twenty nine. How did we get to that point where we prosecuted a cabinet secretary? He was prosecuted for his role in so called teapot Dome. So this is I've been teasing about this. Let's talk about it. It was the Roaring twenties. It was a decade that treated oil like we treat data today, the fuel of the future, limitless and irresistible. Right, the car was just coming up. Everybody

realized how important oil was. Well, data is that thing today. Just setting that aside there, just be thinking about that. But let's go back to the twenties. At the center of all of it sat a rock formation in the Wyoming Desert that was shaped like a teapot. This is how the scandal got its name. Beneath it the US Navy had stored millions of barrels of crude oil for wartime emergencies. This site was called Teapot Dome. When Warren G.

Hardy became president in nineteen twenty one, he promised to make Washington run like a business. We've heard that before, right. He was genial, handsome, little bit more of a salesman than man. And his poker knights in the White House reflected that the press called his inner circle the Ohio Gang. These were members of his regular poker gang. They were his friends from Marion, Ohio, Harding's newspaper pals. They were campaign backers and other hanger ons who followed into DC.

The Attorney General Harry Daughtry. He used the Justice Department as a political machine, part of the Ohio Gang. Charles Forbes at the Veterans Bureau skimmed hospital construction contracts and fled to Europe when he got caught. Jess Smith was the fixer for Harry Daughtry at Justice. He killed himself as investigations began to close in. It was a government that looked like a poker table full of cigars and whiskeys, and IOUs into that circle stepped another man, Albert Bacon Fall.

He was a hard drinking former senator from New Mexico. Harding admired his frontier swagger. This is New Mexico in

the nineteen teens and twenties. Right Fall ran the Interior Department and he saw those idle Navy oil reserves as wasted assets. Harding, trusting his friend mister Fall, signed an executive order that quietly transferred control of those fields from the Navy to the Interior Department. Fall then leased them without competitive bidding to two oil barons, Harry F. Sinclair, founder of Sinclair Oil. He took Teapot Dome in Wyoming, and yes, that's the same Sinclair era with the green

Dinosaur logo still operating out of Tulsa today. Edward L. Dohiney was the head of the Pan American Petroleum and Transport Company. He received the California naval reserves at oil reserves at Elk's Elk Hills and Buena Vista. Dony's firm would eventually be absorbed into Standard Oil of Indiana, later Amaco and then BP Corporate Fossil that still traces roots to this deal. So what did Fall get in return? Well, he got four hundred thousand dollars, which is seven million

dollars in today's dollars in loans and gifts. One infamous

delivery saw Downie's Sun carry a black bag full of cash straight into falls Washington apartment. We haven't had fifty thousand dollars paper bags of cash in any story lately, have we? But I digress. When the story leaked in nineteen twenty two, the US Senate decided to launch hearings

led by Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana, a Democrat. Harding, weary and embarrassed, set off on a cross country voyage of understanding in order to reconnect with the public, Essentially, pay no attention to these scandal headlines that you're seeing. By the summer of nineteen twenty three, twenty three, rumors were swirling not just about Teapot Dome, but about Harding's personal life as well. He had carried on a long affair with a woman named Nan Britton, who claimed her

daughter was Harding's child. It's a claim that would be confirmed by DNA tests in twenty fifteen. By the way, another mistress, Carrie Phillips, had written him hundreds of steamy letters the Republican Party would pay to suppress. So when Harding collapsed in San Francisco that August nineteen twenty three and died suddenly at the age of fifty seven. Remember he was a little bit overweight, the whispers spread faster

than the telegrams. Had he been poisoned this this is something to do with teapot, don't had he died in bed with another woman. The truth, of course, was more mundane. He likely had a heart attack brought on by exhaustion and bad health. But the gossip boy did that stick because the corruption already felt contagious after his death, President

Calvin Coolidge silent cow allowed investigators to keep digging because he really wasn't that involved in this. In nineteen twenty seven, the Supreme Court voided both leases, calling them products of corruption and fraud. And on October twenty fifth, which will be coming up pretty soon, so we're almost at the one hundredth anniversary, that's the ninety sixth anniversary, Albert Fall was convicted of bribery. He'd be the first U. S Cabinet member ever sent to prison. He served nine months,

and he died penniless a decade later. He didn't. I

guess he didn't have a president that was willing to pardon him or commute his sentence. But I digress. That convention came the very same week the stock market crash, ending the Roaring twenties with some poetic symmetry, a nation drunk on speculation finally waking up with a hangover. Look. I bring this up not because it's an interesting nugget in history, but because, as we know, history as a way of not quite repeating itself. But boyd does it run.

So here we are a century later. The names have changed, but the temptation hasn't. One Hundred years ago, it was oilies. Now it's the public private partnerships, infrastructure megaprojects, defense start up.

It's crypto mining zones, social media ventures, all dressed up as innovation, all blurring who's serving whom. President Trump has made these deals a centerpiece of his second term. Some may be legitimate, but, as with Harding, personal loyalty often outruns public accountability. The language is even eerily familiar. Right efficiency, cutting red tape, bringing business savvy to government. Harding used that language, so does Trump. Albert Fall use those phrases

to justify bypassing the competitive bidding rules. Teapot Dome taught Congress why oversight is not bureaucracy, it's protection. It birthed, in fact, the modern system of inspectors general at different cabinet agencies. We didn't have them before this financial disclosures Senate investigations that still bear Washle's fingerprints, the Montana Senator. But the guardrails only work if we use them, and

this Congress does no oversight. We've gone through this the politically, we only will do Congress will only do oversight if the president, and if Congress is controlled by a different party than the president in the White House, it actually probably we ought to change our oversight rules. I believe Japan does it this way, where the out party should always be in charge of oversight, just pure and simple.

You know, whatever party the president is the chairman of the oversight committee with subpoena power ought to be ought to be from the other party. But I digress. So making government run like a business sounds good until the business becomes self dealing. And that's what happened with Harding, and that is a concern of what's happening today. Harding's friends called him the most likable man alive, and that was the problem. He couldn't say no to anyone he liked.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Today is the federal government signs profit sharing deals with companies tied to the president's allies and family network. The same question lingers that haunted Teapot don't. Where does public service end and private profit begin? If history has a lesson, it's this when secrecy and self

interest merge, the scandal isn't an accident, it's inevitable. So before we all call every new venture a partnership, remember what happened in October twenty fifth, nineteen twenty nine, when Albert Fall traded the nation's trust for personal gain. And he fell hard enough to give his name to history on this one. So there's your history lesson for the day,

Teapot Dome. I'm telling you, folks, forget Watergate. Are you looking for a parallel of an uncomfortable situation we're in right now with the government's relationship with the tech industry.

Go back to the twenties, my friend, Go back to the twenties. All right, with that, let's take a new Let's do a couple of questions and I'll get in quickly to my college football takes. Ask Chuck, I'm going

to do just a couple of questions because I went a little bit long. Here's the first one, Rich from New York. Hi, Chuck, love the show. Appreciate all you do for all of us keeping a level head in politics. On Saturday, I participated in the No Kings march. Had

great energy, but at a minimum made me feel like I'm not crazy for my outrage other than my own personal feelings. Does it have any impact on politics? It seems to me these protests were large and blue northern cities where the Trump administration has been hostile. Additionally, this will have zero to no effect on Mike Johnson or John Thune and it also won't have any real effects on the midterms. Lay it to me straight, Did I

waste my Saturday or is there something accomplished from the protest? Thanks? Well, look, I'm curious what you think of the what I said the two measurables were measurables were of this? I do think, like, you know, if Democrats overperform in Virginia in November, and to me, overperform is you know, getting north of fifty five state house seats, winning all three of the state wide elections, even with an extraordinarily flawed, if not unqualified

candidate for attorney general. Well, I will tell you these protests were certainly helped with political organizing. I think the fact that the president expressed his feelings escally and there's been this sort of demonization of Americans here. I think that actually is going to have some legs that that likely won't go well politically for the Republicans. But again,

you're not wrong for asking this question. It was the question I essentially led the podcast with today to which if you're listening all the way through, you you already know this, But I will say this, be careful underestimating

the impact of these protests. I think it's quite remarkable that where there was an incredibly nice day all over the country in many places, well actually, unless you were in Fayetteviell, Arkansas, where they had a two hour rain delay for that football game, it was pretty nice day. In a lot of these cities, there was plenty of reasons to do other things. I think this, You know, if if it's a trigger in political organization and voter registration,

then that's how you can call these effective. All right, let me dig the next questionnaire. David from Baltimore. Since most people assume that liberals control the mainstream media. While there may be a moderate liberal slant in much of the news, or at least in what's left of it, I feel that MAGA actually dominates the talking points. Trump in particular, has mastered the art of deflection when it

comes to media coverage. Simple remarks, some like suggesting he might run again, end up distracting the public from issues such as the legality of ice raids, military actions in Venezuela,

or the blatant corruption involving Trump and his family, all three topics that I think we've already discussed in this episode and didn't do too much on Ice. How can democrats regain control of the narrative and keep public attention focused on the issues that matter most, especially those that could make a real difference in future elections. David from Baltimore. Look,

I do think you know it's funny. I do think that all media consumption has a right lean right if you look at the totality of social media, the totality of if you put it all together, the ideological lean and the sort of impact is on the right. Right, there's definitely more on the right than on the left. The right's a bit more comfortable, sort of sort of rallying around one large talking point. The left is more diffuse. Right.

I think the fact is that Trump, the anti Trump coalition does not have a lot in common other than anti Trump, the pro Trump coalition has a ton in common. They feel grievance and victimhood and all of this in that sense, and that has fueled so right. Social media really has proved to be an accelerant for victimhood and grievances, and I think because of that it has allowed the right to essentially control the narrative right. And that's essentially

what you're saying. Chris Hayes, an MSNBC host. He's written he's written a pretty good interesting I've had today in the Times that I would tell you to check it out. And he's wrote a book about this issue of the attention economy, and his essentially his answer to this question is Democrats have to essentially do what they can to dominate the attention economy, even if it's on issues that have nothing to do with politics. That Donald Trump essentially

and it goes back to sort of a philosophy. He would sort of adopt somebody else's grievance on anything. Almost like that's sort of where this Maha movement. How did

it end up in the Maga movement? These are folks who are pretty liberal on a lot of issues, but they have sort of they have some antiquated views of science, and they found their grievance partner in Donald Trump, right, And so you know, I wonder if it's attitudinal right that if the left wants to But I just you know, I go back to something my mother said, why she's a Democrat because she doesn't want to agree with everything

someone says. She views the Democratic Party is more diverse on disagreeing with each other, more open to being although I think that's less and less. I think there was a time the Democratic Party was the bigger tent, and now the Republican Party has become the bigger tent, or the perceived bigger tent. And when you look at where young men are, where this Maha movement is, there certainly

are in Latino voters. There's certainly some pieces there. There seems to be more rules, you know, and that's where if you're looking for add initudinal. The left seems to have a bunch of rules that keep people from supporting them. The right has no rules, but in a weird way, it makes it a bit more inviting, or it feels as if you can you're not going to get judged if you decide you're going to support them on one issue and none of the others. So that's basically where

I come out. I do think the point you make those an important one, which is, let's not forget. Yes, the New York Times may lean left, but overall most the totality of media people consume it all leans right. People are getting a right leaning media narrative on a more consistent basis than anything being driven being driven by the left, and that's born out by actual data. Right, there's this perception you say something enough people believe it.

Media is liberal. Media is liberal. Media is liberal. Media is liberal. The media is much bigger than what you know. If you want to say Dan Rather was liberal, or you want to say The New York Times was liberal, or you want to say CNN or MEMBSBC, but it is not the dominant to sort of. It may have the more famous names that run those news organizations, but it's not actually the dominant content that's out there. The

content of the Internet leans right. All right, let me dig into my weekend from hell, the loss, the University of Miami's loss. Now, look as I sort of as I previewed, I said, this was Louisville's most important game of the year. It always is. This is one of those every every major football program has rivalries that they don't care about as much as the other team cares about.

Right in the Big Ten, there's a ton of them. Right, Michigan Minnesota. I think they do the Brown jug game. Boyd does Minnesota care about that? Eh? Michigan Right, Michigan Michigan State. Boy does Michigan State care about that game? Michigan doesn't want to lose it. They hate when Little Brother wins, but they care more about Ohio State for Miami we care about. I care about the Florida State game, and I think Florida State equally cares about the Miami

That's one of those where the rivalries. It's kind of like Michigan iast day, but Florida doesn't care about the Miami game as much as Miami cares about beating Florida. I think there was a time Miami Notre Dame was pretty equal, and maybe that comes back if they start playing each other a tad more frequently because of this acc rotation and because they're going to drop USC Miami Notre Dame. I just you know, and you know, it's

a there is. It has just a little bit of everything, but it is one of those Notre Dame fans care about it. They don't like listen to Miami because of those memories, at least at least there. But it's still it's it's a point in time rivalry. So I don't know they need to play more for it to come back. Now Louisville and Miami are going to play more. It's really important to Louisville to win this game, so they

put everything into it. You know, this isn't a game where we can you know, there's been this assumption, and frankly, Miami's done this for years. Even in their national title years, there was always a game they almost blew out of nowhere. I remember ed Reid saving a game against Boston College in Boston College. We were playing terribly and Boston College is about to go in for the winning touchdown and he just grabs a ball. We get a turnover, and then he grabs the ball and runs it in for

a touchdown and just puts the game away. But it was like Edward wasn't going to let us lose. But we almost blew a game that we had no I think we were three or four touchdown favorites in that one. Every year there's a game like this, there's been this reputation, is Mario Christoval going to like, you know, screw up you know, the clock management game or something like this, like that infamous Georgia Tech game two years ago. There was none of that there. This was Carson Beck trying

to be a hero. I saw a lot of Georgia fans pop up in my feed to say, hey, we know this version of Carson Beck. Look he did, he tried to be a hero, and yet we still almost won the game. So I'm weirdly I expected this or Pitt to be the game that bit us Pitt is our last game of the year, and that's that pit. Hopefully. Now this means we are super focused in every game and we look they scored. When you look at what Louisville had to do, they used every They literally created

an entirely new first drive game plan. They got their touchdown. They never ran any of those plays again because you only can really run them once, and they essentially they scored quickly fourteen points and then and then Miami won the rest of the game twenty one to ten. But I wasn't enough. Fourtune nerves are going to do that, pure and simple. So I'm disappointed, sadly a little not surprised. I hate these Friday Island games. They suck, all right,

they simply suck. So what does that tell us about college foot? Look, I I think it's still possible that everybody, everybody in the playoff will have one loss. That's that's my bold, hot take prediction. Everybody in the playoff will have at least one law us. Now, of course, the question is who beats Ohio State. Well won't be Penn State in two weeks, that, I promise you. But UCLA goes to Ohio State, are you betting against I bet. I'm certainly not gonna bet on UCLA winning that game,

but I bet you that's close. They play Michigan and then I'll have the Big ten title game. I think they have three games on their schedule that there are that they need to be a little bit concerned about the UCLA game, the Michigan game, which will be at Michigan, and then of course the likely title game against Indiana. The potential for them to have one loss is certainly there. How about Indiana, where would they get their one loss? Well,

Indiana has remaining. I think we're all curious ab how UCLA does against You know, the UCLA is a totally different team now, right, they should be fine at Maryland and at Penn State, But aren't you kind of curious to see how those road games go. Indiana is different on the road. They almost they should have lost Iowa. Maybe that's the game that will be the one that they should have lost, and there'll be none on others. And don't sleep on their last game of the season

against Purdue. It's at Purdue, right and these in state rivalries throw the records out. Then of course there's a big Ten title game Texas, A and m that's the other big undefeated that's left. I think, what do we have left in the undefeated? That's it? Really. I think that's the major undefeateds that could be in the playoff A and M I think I said told you they would get a scare in this one. They have LSU next week. Although this feels like we're gonna find out

everything we need to know about Brian Kelly. Billy Napier was the firing so far. I boa is LSU gonna also have an open I mean, my god, the level of jobs out there, I mean, what the hell is Virginia Tech gonna do? Right? They're behind Penn State, They're behind Florida, now behind UCLA. Does LSU change? Arkansas already has big money that they're throwing at their potential coaching opening. So next week LSU loses, Kelly gets fired. That's because the game's at LSU. We're going to find out how

much this team likes Brian Kelly. Will they rally for him? It's a huge game, and then plays at Missouri, And of course they have the big game against Texas at the end of the season. So there's certainly plenty of ways that they that they are likely to go down. So the likelihood that everybody has one loss, right, b YU still undefeated. I doubt they finish their season undefeated. It's just unlikely that's going to happen Georgia Tech's undefeated.

That's another one. They got. Georgia left on their schedule, and they're going to face a Miami or a Louisville or somebody like that in the in the ACC title game. So just consider that. Maybe I'm just saying that it make myself feel better about Miami. There's a tiny bit of that in me. I'm not gonna lie, but it's also the way this college football season's going. I think if you could find a bet out there that say

there'll be no undefeated team in the playoff wick. I have no idea whether Fandel, DraftKings, bet MGM, whoever wants to sponsor my little segment here. They're welcome to sponsor it. So we'll only pick one of you. But that would be a fun bet to lay that no undefeated team will be invited to the claff mark it down. That's my prediction. All right? With that, I will see in forty eight hours. Thanks for investing some time in the show.

Appreciate your support, Appreciate your listenership. Thank you for all those likes. Tell your friends more subscriptions. We appreciate it. See in forty eight hours.