Morning Joe - 'Self-inflicted fiasco': Deputy AG defends removal of Epstein files from website

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

'Self-inflicted fiasco': Deputy AG defends removal of Epstein files from website To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I'm actually going to be renaming a number of our other monuments as well. Trump Washington Monument. Trump Lincoln Memorial. And of course, big alphabet. That was just for fun. The third one's always the funny one. You know, people are saying, sir, why are you putting your name on so many buildings? And I say it's because we had to take it off of so many files.

Epstein redacted we had so many trumps in there we had to put them somewhere you know what I'm saying but with regard to files we're being very transparent because Jeffrey Epstein was a terrible

man and I didn't know him and I liked them a lot so we released all the files and I come out looking frankly very good we had to redact a few sensitive things but you'll get the gist here look at this

check it out Trump didn't do nothing bad Okay, Saturday Live's take on the massive redactions in the records related to Jeffrey Epstein, the DOJ released on Friday. We'll have the latest on why the administration says

all of the files were not released despite what the law requires. John, why we broke the law? It was all. Why the Justice Department broke the law? And why we only released things that had Bill Clinton's pictures in them. Lots of Bill Clinton.

Like, yeah, and like, we're supposed to go, oh, we're so shocked. Bill Clinton was in a hot tub back in the 90s. I mean, the thing is, they've redacted so much. They're holding so much back. We have Rokana coming at 7 o'clock. You say they're breaking the law. Yeah, every time the Trump administration responds to the Epstein story, they make it worse. They make it worse.

They make it worse. And the redactions here seeming very selective redactions. And then that some of the files that were, put online, were then pulled back. The DOJ pulled them back, including at least one that had Donald Trump's picture in it. It's only raising more questions and sparking anger on both sides of the aisle.

I mean, the cover-ups always worse, and the thing is it's so crazy is, all this is going to come out. You're Todd Blanche talking over the weekend, Pam Bonner. This is all going to come out. And when it does all come out eventually, the question is how exposed is the DOJ

going to be in not following the all? Let me say that again. Republicans and Democrats voted almost unanimously passed the law, and they're not following it right now. They're not. And the Epstein survivors have already said this is not nearly enough. They're going to be relentless in pushing for more. We heard Congressman Massey, just one of a few Republicans who spoke out and said, this is unacceptable. A number of Democrats as well. And there are going to be questions raised about the executive branch and the Department of Justice. Now, this all comes amid a growing divide within the MAGA base.

We'll take a look at how it played out over the weekend during a Turning Point USA event attended by top leaders of the movement. But just to be clear, J.D. Vance said everybody's welcome. Nick Fuentes, all of you, we're not going to cancel Nazis. We're not going to cancel white supremacists. We're not going to cancel anybody. Way to go, absolutist.

That's great. Isn't he? It's funny, John, he's an absolutist. When it comes to free speech, unless he's not. And then he wants you to get fired from your job. Right. Of course. I mean, after the Charlie Kirk's murder, J.D. Vance was leading the charge to terms of like...

Hunt them down, fire them. If they say anything that may remotely... One teacher gets fired for quoting Charlie Kirk, and he's all for that, but now he's Mr. Absoluteus. When it comes to Nick Fuentes, when it comes to these other people that have said incredibly racist, anti-Semitic things. Just, oh, we're for all free speech. All free speech.

And yet, when the shoes on the other foot, suddenly he becomes, you know, Pravda. The vice president, clearly looking towards 2020 already, secured the endorsement of Turning Point. He's trying to cultivate that base. But the larger point is there's a real schism emerging on the right. There were some really ugly scenes here and some really harsh rhetoric from some, you know, big names in the movement. on very opposite side.

Here's the deal. If you're a Jew at Turning Point, right? Watch out. If you're Ben Shapiro, a guy who got pummeled with more anti-Semitic trashed during the 2016 campaign and beyond, if you've been Shapiro or Mark Levin, man, you have been, you have just been totally savaged by this so-called, nothing conservative about them at all, they're radicals. They're not even close to being conservative, but you're getting absolutely trashed.

there, a turning point. But, you know, I guess Jews shouldn't apply. I don't know. I guess there's a problem when you have a guy who's openly anti-Semitic attacking Jews, and he gets

crushed for that? And embraced by Tucker Carlson and other big names on the right. I mean, Nick Fuentes is not only often deals with anti-Semitic tropes. He's an avowed white supremacist. And yet, these are people who are being embraced, welcomed into the fold here in the Republican Party. We'll have more on this coming up. Plus, the U.S. Coast

Guard says it is in active pursuit of another tanker off the coast of Venezuela. We'll dig into how this plays into President Trump's pressure campaign against the Venezuelan president. With us, we have an MS now national affairs analyst John Heilman. He is partner in chief political communist at Puck and staff writer at the Atlantic, Frank Ford. So our top story, there are a growing questions this morning with the Trump administration's slow and very redacted rollout of the Epstein files. Some key members of Congress are threatening legal action against Attorney General Pam Bondi over whether the White House is complying with the newly passed law. MS now reporter Britt Miller explains. From redaction to reaction, it's been a world win of a weekend in Washington. They're

flouting the spirit and the letter of the law. It's very troubling the posture that they've taken. So we're doing something here that is more transparent than we've done in any criminal investigation in the history of this country. At the center of it all, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, directing the Justice Department to release any and all files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by last Friday. Court documents, hard drives, and thousands of photos were rolled out, including never before seen pictures of former president Bill Clinton with Epstein. They were with celebrities like pop star Michael Jackson and in a jacuzzi with Maxwell and a person whose face is redacted. But these uploaded records left many wondering, where's the rest of it?

The reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that to protect victims. Not only was this release limited, reports of more than 500 pages were mostly or totally redacted. We saw some redactions reversed and some more files released. But according to NBC News, at least 15 files initially uploaded went missing less than 36 hours later without notice. One of them was this picture of President Donald Trump. On NBC's Meet the Press, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, said several pictures, including the photo of Trump, were pulled down because of concern from victims. So the absurdity of us pulling down a photo, single photo of because President Trump was in it, it's laughable.

Let me just make sure everybody understands something. To the extent that he is, quote, in the Epstein files, it's not because he had anything to do with the horrific crimes. Full stop. The picture was back up by Sunday afternoon. The Department of Justice, now under scrutiny, many questioning whether Attorney General Pam Bondi broke the law. The key documents that our law basically said needed to be released, the 60-count indictment,

that actually implicates a lot of these people and the prosecution memo were not released. It's not about the timeline. It's about the selective concealment. The quickest way, and I think the most expeditious way, to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi. And that doesn't require going through the courts. Bring it on. We are doing everything we're supposed to be doing to comply with this statute. The DOJ says it still has hundreds of thousands of pages to release. This was a slap in the face of survivors. What do they want?

They want to know who are the rich and powerful men who visited Epstein's rape island and covered up the abuse. And we should mention authorities have never accused former President Clinton of any wrongdoing related to Epstein. Todd Blanche declined to answer if Clinton is now under investigation. Guys, back to you. Well, that's, thank you so much. That's MS now's Britt Miller. With that report, it's so interesting that Todd Blanche said, well, they're, can't comment on that. He said so many interesting things here. But it was Susie Wiles who's

looked through all the files and told Vanity Fair. No, Bill Clinton didn't do anything. She also said Donald Trump was in the files. How fascinating, though. You got any, hardly got any information from him, but it was a big day for Bill Clinton. I mean, it's fascinating. I really don't know how to sort through all of this, John Heilman. Do you call this projection or confession when you have Todd Blanche saying, and I love this, right? You do the least transparent release humanly possible considering there's a law that says you have to release everything. And he says, and I wrote it down here because this is going to come back and this is a real laugher. This is the most transparent process in U.S. history, he says, when it's, of course,

it's the least transparent. And then I really, I'm very concerned for Todd Blanche because Todd Blanche seemed to suggest that Donald Trump was in a picture of victims, of Epstein victims, when he said, we only took down Donald Trump's picture because we didn't want to expose the faces of victims. Oh, my gosh. Wait, let's, let's chew on that again. Yeah.

He said they had, why is everybody making such a big deal? We were trying to protect victims of Jeffrey Epstein when we took Donald Trump's pictured off the files. I don't know. If I were Donald Trump, I'd be very angry that. Todd Blanche accused him of being with Epstein victims when there's no evidence of that whatsoever. The two examples of this game. The first example is not protecting working passionations in line.

I'll tell you what. Hey, hey, hey, Hey, Hey, Eilman, you've got, you've got the Peter Frampton, 1976. Like, do you feel like we do, uh, effect on your, uh, can you say, do you feel like we feel like we feel like we do? Yeah, really quickly. Just say it. Just say it. Do you feel? Do you feel? Like we do. Get down. All right, let's bring in now, Frank, four. We'll see if he also has Todd, Peter Frampton's voice, my voice. I am not a robot. It was Vader-ass.

I had the Heilman bot. It was a high on my body. It was sort of a mix between, you're right, Darth Vader-esque, yeah. And Frampton comes alive, which is, you know. Joe, I am your father. Okay, so anyway, let's circle back to the week, the weekend that was Todd Blanche's

weekend where, oh, he seems. Contortionist. To confess, something that nobody's ever accused Donald Trump of doing. Like, we have said repeatedly Donald Trump is not on any list. He's in the files. maybe it's embarrassing. We don't know.

But Todd Blanche cleared this all up for us and said they had to take Donald Trump's picture down to protect all the victims in it. Right. If I were a psychologist, I'd say the behavior is very interesting. At every stage

in this scandal, they've had opportunities to try to put it behind them. And yet, when it looks like they could reach the point where they could put it behind them, they do something that suggests that there's more for that, that they're hiding something, that they're actually guilty. And that these episodes...

You know, Frank, this is what I always said about Hillary Clinton in 2016. She may not have been guilty of anything on the files. Yes. But every step of the way, she acted in a way that made reporters think, and Republicans, she's guilty. She ended up not being guilty. But it was just the way... Are you talking about the emails? Yeah, the emails.

The way they were acting. And here's the same thing we have heard from NBC reporters repeatedly. Donald Trump's done the filed. There's nothing in there that he's done. That's incriminating, maybe embarrassing, but not incriminating. And yet every step of the way, they have a chance to tap this down. And every step of the way, they do just the opposite. And people like Todd Blanche and I guess Pam Bondi make Donald Trump look guilty.

Terrible. Well, it tells you something at the very least about the culture of the Justice Department where Pam Bondi has said, explicitly that she's Donald Trump's lawyer and Todd Blanche was in fact Donald Trump's lawyer and that they're acting as if this is a legal proceeding and that, but more than that, they're acting as if that they do anything that makes him at all remotely implicated, even if not legally implicated, even if just connected to the scandal in ways that we all know that Donald Trump is connected to Jeffrey Epstein. They're tamping that down in this kind of wild

desire to avoid provoking the ire of the president or pleasing the evident uh the president it's really tells you something about the the the broken um uh self-serving nature of donald trump's justice department yeah um hey it appears that our friend in cam oh is now functioning properly oh it was so far hylman woke up this morning with a wine glass in his hand well who's wine is he sleeping what's wine he was still up where the hell did he do? Why don't you go to him for the next question? Lord Vader, thanks for joining us again. So let's talk about the politics of this.

I mean, Frank makes spells it out well there about how the DOJ is seemingly, obviously not just acts as Trump's personal attorneys, but is doing things and allegedly in his best interest, making it worse by the move. But this is also, we heard from Republicans this weekend saying, guys, this is simply unacceptable. Like, for even beyond pulling back that photo that Trump's in,

It's laughable to suggest that Trump's not in any of these other materials, that it just happens to be so heavy on the Bill Clinton material. And, of course, we know that so many of these files simply have not yet seen the light of day. Yeah, they're not subtle, John. It's not like there's a subtle thing happening here. And, you know, if you're going to, it's bad enough that you use the Justice Department as your personal attorneys rather than as the attorneys for the people of the United States. It's, if you combine that with their incompetence, just made.

makes it doubly bad. I was going to try. I thought we were doing all of Frampton comes alive, Joe. We are. Okay. I don't care if they cut my hair. Show me the way, right?

Yeah, I don't care if they cut my hair. All I want to be. Go ahead. Yeah. I think the politics of it, to John's question, yeah? You got it. You got me, all right?

Yeah, I'm just singing Frampton. I guess you only bought the singles in 76. I got the whole album and I'm still listening to it. Dude, if I tried to do the whole album here, Alex would, you know, firebomb my house. So I'm going to try not to do that. Wow. Just to come back to the point, I think that I know we have Rokana on the show later this morning. I think on the politics of this, you know, it's getting worse.

You guys have pointed out the fundamental reality of this is that projection, confession, combinations of the two, plus a whole bottle of just straightforward lying. Everything in the Trump administration has done on the Epstein files has only made the situation worse. By trying to delay this process and doing all these totally predictable and totally transparent, I mean transparent in the sense that we know exactly what they're doing things, they've managed not only to just elongate this, but to exacerbate it as it's gone along. And I think the question now is, you know, Rokana and Tom Plessy leading this charge have not just been doing the kind of the work of the righteous,

but also have been running a very effective, very sound tactical and strategic political campaign throughout this. And I think the questions, I mean, when Congressman Kana is on, this morning, you know, the part of why they have been potent politically is that they've had such an overwhelming mass of an unusually overwhelming massive bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. What can they do to keep that together going forward as a matter of just whipping votes? And what are the enforcement mechanisms that they can threaten the administration with? Because, again, not just as a substantive matter, but as a political matter, the reason that this has been so damaging is not just the Trump administration has been incompetent,

but that their opponents have been effective in capitalizing on all of the mistakes and all of the efforts to try to bury this that the Trump administration have done. The question now is kind of what's the next set of moves in that? Because we knew they were going to, we knew they were going to hold this stuff back. There's nobody surprised by this. So I think Massey and Kana have been thinking well ahead on this. And I think the next question is, the questions are how they combine that kind of legislative political leverage that they have to try to do what they're trying to get done here, but also to continue to make this situation more and more trying for Donald Trump and his people. Well, you know, in Frank Ford, the thing, this story should have been dead

three, four months ago. Yeah. Really should have. Instead of having the entire Senate, House Democrats and Republicans and the House and Senate alike, all lining up, all voting to release all of these files, if they had done this right and just released the documents, three, four, five months ago instead of just slowly but surely fighting, like Jeffrey Epstein's face is still going to be in newspapers and, and on news reports today, despite the fact this story should have been finished four months ago. They just can't help themselves. they can't help themselves

and as you're I guess implicit in your question is what a dumb thing to drag out over time I mean it's one of the few issues Frank I wanted to ask you is this a dumb thing to drag out over time well it's a good question Joe thank you so much I wrote that one last night saved it for you this morning

because it is I mean as we're pointing out it is one of the few issues where there's actual genuine bipartisanship in Washington and as John points out his enemies his opponents who are leading the charge have been incredibly savvy about how to continually box him in here. And, you know, there's, there's, I don't, it is so hard to comprehend why they would continually put themselves in this position outside of the fact that maybe there is actually something

more damning in there. But I think the point is also that it does reveal these deeper maladies in the way that this White House and this Justice Department operate where the desire to please the president or to avoid provoking his anger ends up dragging them deeper into this incredibly self-inflicted fiasco. All right. Let's bring in former U.S. Attorney and MS. Now legal analysts talk about this. Barbara McQuaid. Barbara, what stands out to you in terms of what has transpired during this release? And I'm just curious about the pictures that were released and then quickly.

pulled back in. Yeah, I think there are a couple of things that really stand out to me. You know, this was an enormous task that the Justice Department was required to perform. But I'm really struck by what appears to be either incompetence or duplicity or maybe both. Todd Blanche said, we had 200 lawyers. Look at this. Well, this was a hard deadline, December 19th. Maybe you needed 300.

This was a law. This was not a discretionary task. and the fact that they rolled out only a portion of the documents and not all of the documents by the deadline is illegal. It was a violation of a federal statute signed into law by President Trump. There's no excuse for not producing all of it. The duplicity part is also what concerns me. Remember, there is this exception that was given to Pam Bondi. In some ways, it's understandable, but because she has characterized herself or conducted herself as Trump's personal lawyer, it gives me great suspicion, and that is an exception that allows her to withhold from production

any document that pertains to an ongoing investigation. And then, lo and behold, just a couple weeks before the release at Donald Trump's direction, she announces there will be an investigation reopened against Democrats with relations with Jeffrey Epstein. Why is it then that we see all of these photos of Bill Clinton? Isn't he supposed to be the subject of an investigation? he as the person whose photos should have been withheld, not Donald Trump's or anyone else's. And then with regard to this clawback, this we had documents on and that they were off again, the explanation we've heard from the Justice Department is understandable and was posted on their initial website. It said to, you know, victims or anyone else, if you find personal information here that should not have been disclosed but did get disclosed inadvertently,

please let us know immediately and we'll take it down. They've said that's what happened. They heard from victims and survivors who said, oh, my gosh, you've got my date of birth in there. Please take it down, whatever it was. And they did. But the odd one is the one that you mentioned, which is this photo of Bill Clinton. What Todd Blanche said is it was removed to protect victims and survivors. The picture.

The picture of them is depicted with victims and survivors. And then it was put back up with saying, no, no, it turns out they weren't victims and survivors after all. So that's the part where, again, incompetence or duplicity, not sure what. What was so interesting was how incredulous he was about taking Donald Trump's picture down. Well, of course we're going to protect the big dogs. I mean, obviously. Yeah, he was, he couldn't imagine. He could not imagine.

So this is what we do. It's literally a picture of Donald Trump surrounded by young girls and they took it down. Well, it was a photograph of Trump surrounded by young women or girls on a desk that was in the back, a smaller image, part of a bigger photo. But it was plainly visible. The photo was on the desk. They took it down very, they took it down very quickly. Yeah. And then Todd Blank said the reason why it was.

There's a victims in that phone. I'm going to make it down. Otherwise. It's easy he said. That's right. So Barbara, in a theme of the Trump administration slash Republicans in Congress trying to hide things to make Donald Trump look better, there is Jack Smith. You have written about this. He testified before he appeared before the House last week.

Close doors because the Republicans did not want him to be able to talk about his investigation into January 6th or the classified. documents found at Marlago. There's some thought that maybe the Senate would let him appear in an open hearing. That is TBD. But you say what he's already talked about should be released, put out the transcripts. Absolutely. He testified in a deposition. You know, if this Justice Department wants to be the most transparent in the history of the country, well, let's see it then. What are they afraid of? I think the danger of a deposition is that it allows political opponents to cherry pick from what was said that day to say he agreed with this or he admitted that, but we don't get to see the context and we don't get to see all of the other things. We know he did give a very powerful

opening statement in which he said he believed that he had amassed evidence sufficient to convict Donald Trump beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's see what some of that evidence is. If they put hard questions to him, let's see his answers to those hard questions. Whenever we do things behind closed doors, there needs to be a good reason. Protecting the national security, that could be a good reason. Protecting sources and methods of collection of intelligence information. That can be a good reason. Simply protecting individuals from embarrassment or other things in a completed investigation, there's just no basis for it. Let's release that transcript or have the Senate called Jack Smith to testify in person where people can see the whole story for themselves. Well, I mean, it's so funny

they attack him repeatedly. Which hunt, this, that, the other, fake news, this, that the other. And the last thing they want to do, they are, these Republicans that have Jack Smith testifying, that is not the dog. They caught the car. That's the dog. They caught the Mack truck. And that Mack truck was going about 80 miles an hour down the road. And then they decided they wanted no part of it. I think the last thing they want to do, Mika, is actually have Americans see what Jack Smith has to say because televised. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. Guy scares me just in when he's wearing those robes in that hat. It's either from the Hague or some out of rim planet in Star Wars. Exactly. But the information that he has in that investigation from people who testify, Republicans

don't want that publicly. And if I'm at the White House, I'm saying, hey, why don't you just let Jack Smith go back and put him those funny robes and go back overseas? He was ready. We don't I don't want this guy in Washington. That doesn't end well for Republicans. All right, the new piece available to read online now. MS Now, legal analyst Barbara McQuaid, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe. The U.S. Coast Guard says it is pursuing a third oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela.

What we know about that and what it could mean for the escalating tensions between President Trump and Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. A fascinating story I saw this weekend. And actually, what they're doing with Venezuela is crushing Cuba's economy. Yeah, those two nations are linked. They're trading partners. It hurts both. There are a lot of people that would be very happy to see, you know, Castro's Cuba after all these years, collapse. And that appears to be a part of this.

A lot to cover ahead. But as we go to break up. Wonder what Bernie is going to say about it. A quick look at the travelers forecast this morning with Accuethers, Bernie Raynow. Bernie, how's it looking this morning? Mika, a huge travel day today, your exclusive ACWether forecast from Texas toward Florida, sunshine. How about 70s in Dallas in the 50s in Atlanta? Now, it's a little cold and once you head into the north, 30s from Boston and toward New York City, Washington, D.C. at 46, with clouds and sunshine, no precipitation, at least during the day.

Traveling, we're not looking for any delays today. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the ACUweather app today. a little music, then we'll end it with a view. Welcome back. We were talking really quickly about football and started talking about a giant, a New York giant, taking off. One of the, offensive linemen, took the day off. Morning, everybody, because his wife was having a child. That led to a conversation here.

Exactly. Did you take time off at the White House when you had children? It's still the most expensive honeymoon I never took. I took it with Brent Skowcroft and President Bush. I still pay for that one. Yeah, I bet you did. I took a few hours off when I was tough. It was a war going on. I took an hour or two off.

And Mika, Mika didn't even take an hour or two off. Of the goat. Mika, you got to tell the story about you. Well, I was in local news, which I love so much. But now what station you were working for at the time? WFSB Channel 3 Eyewitness News. Daybreak. You did the weather?

Welcome to eyewitness News Daybreak. I'm Mika Brzeinsky. Top of the hour. West Hartford. You're looking good. Fury with the weather. Hi, Joe. Like, I remember. Joe Tessitore. You worked with Joe Tessitore. So, we're sitting there watching a football

game this year. And I'm like, oh my God, that voice. And she goes, what is Joe Tessitore? What is, what's a Hartford station doing on it? Yeah, in Florida. I know. And New York. And so we walked in. I was there for a long time. And she goes, I worked with that. I worked with Joe Tessitore. Both have done well. Exactly. You all have both done very well. As for my baby, I had her at 915, Amelia. And I was on the 11 o'clock news announcing her.

That's pretty good. On two stations at once. It's a long story. That's pretty impressive. Neil Young would say Russ never salips. She just keeps on, keeping on. So, in other news. In other news.

Yeah, in other news, the U.S. Coast Guard is an active pursuit of a sanctioned vessel in international waters near Venezuela. That's according to two of U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter. One said the ship, known as the Bella One. is accused of evading sanctions and flying a false flag. The other official said the ship was sanctioned because of ties to a Houthi financial network. The pursuit follows the Defense Department's seizure of a second tanker carrying sanctioned oil. Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam said the operation targeted the illicit movement of sanctioned oil funding,

narco-terrorism, adding, we will find you and we will stop you. Everything is narco-terrorism with them. And we will find you and we will tell you. Everything. Everything, except for the narco-terrorist that put more coke in the United States and anybody else over the past couple decades. And he gets pardoned. They're not headed to the U.S. No.

No, they weren't going. Venezuela gives cocaine to Europeans. Are we helping out the Europeans? Yes, we are. And I don't know why Christine Ome is so obsessed with the Europeans. It's like, why are taxpayers our support of our partners? Can I say, we really need to know. Why are taxpayers footing the bill to stop cocaine from getting to Europe?

I'm sure the good folks in Berlin and Paris are very grateful. They're grateful, but don't they have enough money to do that themselves? You would think so. This has been, from the beginning, the explanations for the operation here has never quite lined up. We know President Trump wants to attack, stop fentanyl from coming to the U.S., but we know. You do that through China or Mexico? You've to stop it from coming into the U.S. China, via Mexico, not these boats are not bringing drugs in the United States.

And usually you stop the boats rather than just blowing them up. That's normally how this works. And they call them narco-terrorists, but what happens post-September 2nd when they go, wait a second, maybe we can't commit a war crime and actually blow people up. They pick them up. And what do they do with these so-called narco-terrorists? Well, you'd think they would charge them and arrest them. Let's bring them to the United States.

And then Christy Knoem can go and stand in front of the jail cell and say, look how tough I am. But what do they do instead? No, they sent them home because they don't want to expose them to the fact-finding process and the legal system. They let the State Department take these people that they rescue and send them home. So basically they either kill them or they give them a one-way ticket on the love boat back home to wherever they came from. Huh. Doesn't sound sketchy at all, does it, Richard? Oz. Not at all. All right, so. So here we go. We'll sketch it out. The hardened, because I am

actually a conservative and unfortunately, very few people left in the Republican Party are, but because I'm a hardened, I grew up in a cold warrior family. You know, we did not have a picture of Dr. Brasinski on the wall, but if we knew how much he contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, I would have had his picture and two candles on both sides when I was a seven-year-old kid. Instead, it was just Paul McCartney posters, but I'm a cold warrior. So when I hear this could also take down China, not China, could also take down Cuba. I like it. So, where to begin?

Well, why don't we start with, is it illegal? Number one, what they're doing with these tankers. One, is it illegal? Two, what's the end game? And three, how is this having such a negative impact on Cuba? One, the legality of this is how we say. sketchy to use your word of the one. This is twisted. We're trying to come up with pretexts and excuses. I think it's questionable. Two. But other presidents, again, I'm not justifying any of this,

of course, to my MS now followers, but other presidents do things that have skirted the law. Like Barack Obama actually did drone attacks that killed Americans. Again, the issue, that to me, quite honestly, at the risk of offending every lawyer watching this, that is not the critical question here. Whether this is legal or illegal. What this is about, is not about drugs. This is not about emigration. Eight million people have left Venezuela, but they're not hemorrhaging people now. This is about regime change. And Donald Trump was very explicit about it. He wants, he says, they stole our oil. They stole our land. But that's not true. They stole our assets. But they didn't. The United States at the time, the dictator in

Venezuela, just for people that don't know this, Frank Ford, the dictator in Venezuela at the time, had basically given away all of their oil rights. And so the United States, one president after another, administration after another, Republican and Democrat alike, had wanted the Venezuelans to strengthen their government and strengthen their economy by taking more control back of oil resources. They didn't seize U.S. oil company resources. That's just a lie. And they still have a pretty good relationship with Chevron. Chevron, by the way, still takes some of the oil and brings it into the United States, among other places, probably about 150,000 barrels a day. But look, the oil is what matters. Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil.

reserves. About one out of every five barrels in the world is underground in Venezuela. But they produce hardly anything. Why? Because the oil facilities are in such terrible, terrible shape for years of... And the whole country's a basket case, and it's been a basket case for 20 years. Right. For Sunder Chavez, now on Demdor, which is too bad, by the way. This ought to be one of the most successful countries in Latin America. Cuba connection. One of the places Venezuela sends its oil to is Cuba. You know, for China, this is an annoyance. For Cuba, this is a matter, quite honestly, of economic survival.

So you've got two countries potentially on the edge here. One is Venezuela, one is Cuba. And what this is about, it's not about drugs, again, this is about regime change. And this is about regime change, I believe, motivated in Venezuela's case, we want access to the oil, which, by the way, is consistent with an administration, Joe, that constantly puts commercial interests before anything else. That's what this is about. And they would, I think, clearly the Secretary of State and the National

National Security vizer, Marco Rubio, would also like to use this as a way of weakening the regime in Cuba. Now, there was some foreshadowing here. We showed Frank Ford's face. That's just to draw people. And that's what you call the deep-tees. Now we're going to go back to Frank Four. Here he is. And now everybody's coming up rushing. No, no, he's not going to contradict. It's an effective tactic. It's very effective. So let's talk about how this is so predictable. Remember Donald Trump? We'd shown clips of Pete Hegs had saying that what Donald Trump was suggesting in 2016 were war crimes and that people should not follow war crimes or troops should not follow war crimes.

There's another thing that he was saying throughout 2016, and that is that we should have in Iraq, we should have seized all the oil fields for ourselves. And people said war crime. Can't do that. And so it's not really shocking that nine years later, he's going after Venezuela. And what is he talking? We can talk about regime change. We can talk about narco-terrorists sending Coke to Berlin.

This is all of, I hate to sound like a lib from 2003, but this is all about the oil. When the shoe fits, wears it, and Donald Trump wants that oil, he's been talking about it since his first campaign. if you go to war, seize their oil. Right, Joe. Air America is calling and it wants its pundit back. No, I'm with you, Joe. I can see some of the compelling human rights and democracy reasons

for doing regime change in Venezuela. Maduro is a terrible guy. Deporable. And there is this connection with the health of the Cuban regime. And he's been involved in sanctions busting. And a lot of that oil has been going to Russia and Iran. But, I mean, the fact that we have done this in such an illegal way, the fact that

our democracy is deteriorating at home, our human rights are deteriorating at home. I mean, our moral license to be able to talk about this regime in Venezuela is exactly nil. And in fact, all of our actions in the course of the last couple months further degrade our moral authority to talk about the problems of this regime. You can be the war crimes? Yes. Are you going to the war crimes that we think are likely committed? I'm talking about the war crimes.

And I go back to the president's inaugural address, where he talked about the Panama Canal. And clearly when he talks about this hemisphere, there's this kind of neo-Munreau doctrine that he's been cooking up. And it's really consistent with the way that his businesses operate, the way that he thinks about accepting tribune from those closest to him. when there is something that he can grab in his proximity, he likes to grab it. And because the moral and case for doing what he's doing is so thin and so inconsistent and so hypocritical, you have to go to the darker explanations for why he's doing this. Yeah, well, you know, I mean, I don't want to minimize it, but it is like the Kennedy Center. It is like, you know, what is his lasting legacy?

That's what it seems he's desperate for right now. So his name's on the Kennedy Center. But what, you know, what about Greenland? What about the Panama Canal? What about Venezuela? That's what he's, he's looking for a legacy. He's got peacemaker over here. He's got warmonger in this hemisphere and wants to be able to say, Trump brought you Greenland.

Trump got the Panama Canal back. Trump got oil from Venezuela. Yeah, and it's expansionist and trying to dominate the sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, even Canada. Let's add them to the list. Oh, that's right, 50 first state. of places he's trying to acquire or intimidate. But John Hammond, there's politics to this, of course. You know, this is a president that, you know, when he was a first candidate in 2016,

argued, frankly, very effectively that he would end the Forever Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said, I won't make military commitments like that, and that was appealing to a lot of people. He is someone who's made very clear. He doesn't want to put boots on the ground. But yet, if they were going in the direction of regime change and Maduro won't leave, like he's going to have to escalate. it would seem, and that's something that Americans simply don't want, including, it appears, a lot of his base.

Right. I mean, it's a, John, it's a truism that you can't repeat enough times that, you know, we often talk about all the issues that drove Donald Trump's victories in 2016 and 2024 and his sustained a place in American life and how strong his bases. We often, you know, we list, make a long list of issues. We often forget, I think, just how central the anti-war sentiment among the isolation. sentiment among the MAGA base is. So that's, that is one thing. But I also think that on a broader scale, if you think about the story, you know, the issues that has mattered the most over

the course of this year, obviously has been affordability and prices and the economy and so on. But if you combine that with the Epstein story and a variety of other stories, what the bigger cut meta story is for not just the Republican base, but for a lot of voters who voted for Donald Trump and supported him in the Republican Party. in the last election is they are not getting what they thought they bought. I mean, across a range. These are not the people that they thought they, the Donald Trump and the Republican Party that these voters flock to has not turned out to be focused on the issues they care about

and on a whole range of issues is turning out to be not, you know, not what was on the packaging, not as advertised, right? And so that sense of disillusionment with the administration that's driving, driving a lot of Donald Trump and the Republican Party's low poll numbers, I think he's about this bigger, broader concept of, you know, this is not what we signed up for. And I think that's true on immigration issues and other things. This stuff in Venezuela is a prime example of that, even though, you know, we think of foreign policy is not having that much domestic political implication. I think it does, it's a big, important part of the larger picture here. Boy, there's so many fascinating reports out of North Carolina, the North Carolina speech the president did on Friday. So many out of Pennsylvania, time. And again, people kept talking about the tough times they were going through. They hoped Donald Trump would turn things around. But anytime you talk about Venezuela, they're going, wait, I can't afford my electric bills.

I can't buy a Trump act. And anytime you're talking about other foreign engagements, they're going, I can't afford my health care on and on and on. So foreign policy does matter here in that it distracts the American people think from what Donald Trump's first job should be in their mind. John Heilman, with and without Frampton's voice box. Thank you so much for being with us. It was entertaining. Maybe I love your way, Joe. I do.

I do. And again, sadly, only the singles. He only knows the singles. Frank Four, thank you so much. And coming up, football rule this weekend from the NFL to college. We have ESPN's Paul Feinbaum. We'll just call him Sinida. He joins us along with Pablo Tori.

We're back in a minute. Cook, single setback, second and four, Buffalo. Handoff. Cook gets around three defenders and then kicks it to another gear. Cook, still going. Looking for the angle. Touchdown. So these second down and seven plays are big.

Shot down the field. End zone. It is held out to by Johnston for the touchdown. Young. He is trying to scramble out of it, and he cuts back. Flood, touchdown. Third down and one. Gino is intercepted.

It's Derek Stingley on the return. Stingley with a touchdown. And now first. goal at the 10. E.T.N. out of the backfield. On the edge, the cutback, the broken tackle, the touchdown for Jacksonville. Second and five. Tossed to Warren.

Found a little opening. And away he goes. Jaylon Warren with the touchdown. Oh, wow. Did I just say that? Those are some of the big touchdowns from the NFL. I hope they didn't catch that. Actually, I was explaining to it.

end of this game, which was about as bizarre as the Rams' charges last week. It was our Seahawks last week. It was crazy. Anyway, Pittsburgh secured its third straight win on the final play of the game after Detroit's go-ahead touchdown was negated by an offensive fast interference penalty. The 29-24 Steelers victory puts the lines on the brink of elimination while Pittsburgh moves a step closer in its first division crown in five years. And what happened there was, it was St. Brown. You saw it, right? There were two different Lions touchdowns in the last 45 seconds

or so called back because of offensive penalties, offensive interference calls, including that last one we just saw, which would have been this wild ending where there's he laddered back to the cornerback. St. Brown's going down. He laterals jacked golf. Yeah. Who flies over a couple of Steelers

scores the game winning touchdown. And then they're sitting out there and you actually had hippie standing next to golf and they're staring up at the dark, you know, dark hippie who goes in the night for years. Yeah, we just call him hippie around our house. And they're staring up, they're staring up at the screen, trying to figure out after the game on the field what exactly happened. Meanwhile, and then the ref came out and said, it's a touchdown. And the place starts to go crazy.

It's like, but there's a penalty. Offensive penalty at the end. Anyway, in Baltimore, the Ravens lost again. Again, I don't get the Ravens falling last night to. The Patriots. quarterback Drake May, leading New England, to a playoff berth for the first time since 2021, where they will lose two, the bills. Strowing for a career best, 380 yards, and two touchdowns. The game is who rally the pats

from an 11-point deficit in the fourth quarter. I said that only because it's the opposite of what I say about the Red Sox. Oh, we're going to be in the last place, and then you see that's sort of reversed. Yeah, I don't know which rule I'm supposed to follow here. Yeah, exactly. No, always talk bad. Like Alabama, Alabama's going to lose.

I think probably by four or five. touchdowns to Indiana. At least. Like, if we even get on the field without tripping, see, that's what we do in the South. Bear Bryant wins 63 to 3 over Old Miss. He goes, oh, boys, we're lucky.

Just get out. We get out live. I'm so ashamed of people, Alabama. Shia, Mama's and dad is. Trust me with the boys. I believe. The plaque says that. I swear to God, we would, we would lose.

Let me bring you Paul 5 mom here, because Paul remembers this better than anything. Paul is like these. I still. I never really got used to the Steve Spuriers and everybody that would go out and brag when their team. Not to knock Steve because he needed to do that for Florida at that time. But people will never appreciate what Bear Bryant could do with his golden flake chips and co-cola, where we would win 63 to 3 and he would spend 30 minutes the next morning apologizing to the mamas and daddies of Alabama

who trusted him with the boys and he let him down because they played such a sorry, sorry. game. But what you know, Joe, is he had the golden plate potato chips and the coke. Those were the sponsors. But in the Coke was about three quarters full of about eight ounces of Jack Daniels. So he was able to break through the ice. The only thing Bryant really cared about most of the time was whether his friends had covered. I'll never forget a Vanderbilt game was 45 to 3. And Brian put the starting lineup in to cover the spread. Oh, I'll tell you what. Somebody needs to do a movie, and I'm serious about Bear Bryant and Joe Willie.

Going to Vegas? Oh, and what a story that would be. Anyway, so we've also have MSNL contributor in a host of Pablo Tori finds out Pablo Tori, and of course, Paul Feinbaum. Why don't we start with the computer rankings, and only because Pablo, you know, the computer, like the first four run-throughs, just spit out of, are you kidding? Yeah. Are you just? Do we really have to do this? That's a data center?

At the data center? No, no, no. That's a, the NFL is so bad this year. It is so boring because there's not a good team, but this is what they came up with. What are we got? I'm skeptical. Every one of these teams, except for maybe the Rams could lose in the first round. But the Rams, the Eagles only because everybody's so bad, you know, the Eagles, who knows,

maybe they're catching the Patriots, we'll see. The Broncos, which we all thought were the giant killers. they get crushed by young hippie. Yeah. Mind you, the Rams lost this week. To the Seahawks. And they go to number one. Like, that's how that's how bad it is.

And then the builds and the Seahawks. I want everybody to look at that and tell me who is the most likely. Probably, like, for instance, you look at that list. Who's the most likely to win the Super Bowl? Well, my own data center is functional. Yeah. I mean, human brain, Jill, the most glorious computer of all. And here is my rankings.

And font is incredible. You're doing that just to own up. I just think it's time for the coronation. Do we have the banners yet? Can we ram them to the rafter? This is reverse psychology. Let's not be crazy. You're getting back at us.

We're saying the Yankees are going to win in five next year. I dare say that the through line through this segment so far has been self-deprecation as a defense mechanism. Suddenly, little old Alabama can't win a football game. Yeah, exactly. And the Patriots, the New England Patriots are a dynasty that wasn't. Meanwhile, they're number one. So can I ask you, seriously, can I ask you, if you had to pick one team right now to win the Super Bowl, who would it be? So I would say, and again, my rankings are just Talmudic in their precision.

The bills. So you think the bill. You think the bill. Theologically, that's a debate. You think this could be the year, actually, that Josh Allen comes to. In terms of who comes in with the most talent and who has lived up to that, anything like what we're seeing in the actual standings, it's the bills. They almost lost to the ball. Brown just today. They did not play well. James Cook saved them. But I agree with

Pablo. I think Josh Allen is the best player in the league. And because it is such a wide open, frankly, very down year in the NFL, the team with the best player is probably the team you should bet on. And it's also their nemesis is gone. I don't think we should arrest the fact the Chiefs are out of this. They could never beat Mahomes in the playoffs. That is huge. But they are going to have to go on the road. Likely go on the road. They're not going to be a division chance. Hey, Paul, let me bring you in here. You know, on the NFL, Well, last week we were all saying, rightfully, the Broncos were looking like giant killers. They were, well, not giant killers.

Anybody can beat the New York Giants. And they did. And they did. And they were looking great. But we all were talking about that home-filled advantage at mile high. Because for decades, it's been a really difficult place to play. Got a great defense, got a great coach. But, man, they just get absolutely drubbed yesterday by Jacksonville.

So who's your team? Well, I actually like the Rams, although the question was about the Broncos. But as you were asking me that question, I was thinking about Bo Nix, spending three years at Auburn and then departing for his final year to go to Oregon. But he has been, he's been sensational to watch. And Joe, as you may remember, his father was also the quarterback at Auburn in the 90s. So he comes from quite a long lineage. But I'm just going to keep quiet here because I am saving up. for the next segment when we switch to college.

Because I need pictures, Joe, and I need ID of where you were. I was out in Norman on Friday night about 9 o'clock Eastern time, but I would like pictures of your state of mind, whether you were standing upright or lying down when Alabama went down 17 to nothing against Oklahoma. We have a story. Well, why don't we just go to it right now? Just a very, a practice political pivot. at this point at paul uh when when they went up 17 to nothing right there jack turns to mika

and says get out yep get out now we are a very very superstitious family when it comes to alabama football where we're sitting everything else and so mika goes to the other room and we just and then when this happened my feet up so so when we scored our first touchdown uh jack yells out of the room. Where are you? What are you doing? Don't move. And so Mika had to listen to who was singing Bridge Over Troubled Waters. What I was doing at the time was I was listening to Clay Aiken, who came in second, an American Idol back in 2006, I believe. I was listening to him performed like a bridge over troubled water with the choir for the American Idol audience. And Jack said, you have to keep doing it. So for the next three hours, Paul, Mika literally

was listening, because we would not let her stop. They would only let her come in and watch touchdowns, and so we know what she's going to be doing on New Year's Day. So that's what about you. I did, you know, actually what I had said to Jack is, why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we do when it was 17 to nothing? I'm curious what your thoughts were there,

and also curious about how you think this sets us up for Indiana, because really the real question over the past five weeks has been Ty, just being. absolutely miserable because he's lacked confidence. I'm wondering if this is the game that gives him his confidence back. I think it will. And what I was doing was looking at my phone while I was at the game, watching the boasting and the bragging of the Notre Dame nation saying Alabama did not belong.

In the playoffs, they are losers. And, of course, pointing fingers of people like us, Joe, who argued. That was my greatest joy of the night even more than watching Alabama come back. but was to watch the Notre Dame fan base in this country suffer mightily. But moving on to the Rose Bowl, I like the matchup. And I know statistically it's a bad matchup for Alabama because Indiana is such a good defensive team. But the idea that Alabama goes into the Rose Bowl, the most hallowed field in college football as an underdog and nobody giving them a chance against the losing his program in college football is remarkable. Yeah.

I mean, the fact that we're six and a half point underdogs is really something. You know, tell me, by the way, if JMU and Tulane weren't in, Notre Dame shouldn't have been in anyway. Texas should have been in. Vandy should have been in. And if Notre Dame wants to actually get in, no, I'm serious. If they want to get in, if Notre Dame wants to get in, they need to.

We don't need to do this. Pablo, they need to start playing teams. And I'm dead serious. Every year they have the weakest schedule. They played against two bad teams. We found out just how bad A&M in Miami is, even though I love Miami. And they lost. And Notre Dame lost.

Why won't Notre Dame schedule tough teams to play? Well, Notre Dame, as Paul Feinbaum knows, they are a program on a hill. They get to say, we're not in any of these conferences. We'll take the Acese's money through the other stuff. Well, now you're not going to be in the playoffs either. Well, now this is why next year, our fascinating political bit of legislation has already been passed. If they're top 12, they are guaranteed, apparently, to be in the playoff. And so this is a money story.

It's a money story to me. And Paul Feinbaum, by the way, I want you on Capitol Hill, speaking of people and things on hills. Why is he here in that box and not in our Senate? How did that happen? Senator. Because he's too good for him. He wasn't going to trash. They wanted him to trash his employer.

Okay. The people, Mika, don't start this okay. We're going to be doing this for 20 minutes, so just hold on. Rose over there, we're going to get to row. Get the clay acin going. Get the clay acin. We'll be within about three hours. But Paul, you can talk about the Senate or you can also talk about the fact that the committee

gave us two teams that just didn't belong to. Listen, I love JMU. It's an exciting story. I've always loved Tulane. they didn't belong there, and we saw that. And Pablo, I'm going to torch my political career by saying this what I'm about to say, but I'm going to be as objective as one of the current members of the Roberts Supreme Court and say that Joe is completely right about this.

Notre Dame does not belong in this, until they can get some jurisdiction because they don't play a conference championship game, and the idea of putting James Madison and Tulane in into the audience, It's not that we need to go back. But James Madison lucked into it. One group of five team is allowed in. That was too lame. But JM, you got in because the ACC had this convoluted tiebreaker, Joe.

But it's a disgrace. I mean, after the first game on Saturday with Miami and Texas A&M, the other two games were unwatchable. And this is one of the biggest moments in college football trying to compete with the NFL. There were two NFL games on Saturday afternoon and Saturday night. Exactly. And we have to watch Garb. I mean, these are not even.

Those are bad games. Thursday night games again in September. Yeah, there were horrible games, and I was thinking about this during, while we were watching what unfolded Saturday, I love college football. I'm from the South. The NFL, whatever. It's a communist plot. I love watching SEC football. I love college football, but I could not watch those games.

And I really wanted to watch JMEU. I love their story, and I love their coach. Couldn't do it, so I had to turn over to see a football game, an NFL game that just didn't matter. And I was thinking all along, this serves the committee right. This serves college football right for putting in two teams that just didn't belong. Two absolute blowouts. I mean, JM, you put up some points. They acquitted themselves okay.

But the game was never competitive. Neither game was ever in doubt. So, yeah, I'm sure when the ratings come out, we will see that Eagles Commanders, a game that met very, very little. Right. Probably trounce the college football playoffs. In Packers' Bears at night was a good game, and that game mattered. But it shows that there's, obviously, will flaw. still with this system as they try to perfect the playoffs.

I mean, Paul, imagine if you had Texas in there, or Vandy in there, you know, or, you know, playing against these, everybody would have watched Texas and Oregon. That would have been an incredible match. I mean, even Notre Dame. I mean, they would have lost whoever they played, but even Notre Dame, put Notre Dame in there because they certainly were better than the other two teams. And Joe, the reason Texas wasn't in because they had three losses, and they opened the season at Ohio State. So if they had played the Notre Dame schedule of the Sisters of the Poor, they would have been 10 and 2 and in the playoffs.

Yeah, exactly. Hey, let me ask you this, Paul. Something that we were talking about over the weekend. It makes no sense for teams in the SEC to play the SEC championship game. No sense. You look at Alabama, we got beaten up. It blew our confidence. You know, I think if we face Georgia again, we could, it's about a 50-50 chance.

We could beat Georgia. But we were beaten and battered by playing four, five, six ranked teams by that point. I think if I were an SEC coach, I'd say, I don't want to go in. And if you put me in the championship game, I'm going to start all my second stringers and give them experience. I'm dead serious, Paul. What purpose in this new world that we live in? it does why would Georgia and Texas want to go in for let's take Alabama out of this and beat the hell out of each other get guys injured and be in worse position to play when when the games really matter and Joe you're right it gets worse next year you know this year the SEC played eight conference games next year they go to nine and they'll still have the SEC championship one thing that's going to happen here and it could happen Charlie soon we have 12

teams in the playoff right now. Two years ago, there were only four. It's going to go to 16, and the moment it does that that championship weekend is going to go by the wayside. And you've been there at meaningful conference games. I was there a couple weeks ago, and it just didn't feel, it was somewhat of a waste of time. Pablo, I see your hand up.

No, I was just, my back was straightening. I was slouching on television. Oh, my God. I'm too comfortable. This morning, Joe, you're supposed to slouching on television. It sounds like a dinner party in the morning. So, Paul, I'll ask you the question about college football that we asked around the table for pro football. Who do you think has the best shot of winning the national championship right now?

I mean, Indiana probably has the best path, but I think Ohio State is the best team. The reason why Ohio State has a more difficult path is they have to get past Georgia, which I think is probably the most dangerous team in the playoffs. So here's something interesting, Joe, on the Alabama side. Should they get past Indiana? I mean, I'm not saying Texas Tech and Oregon or cupcakes, but I'd rather be having to beat the winner of that game than on the other side with Ohio State or Georgia.

So I know I felt like I'm sitting in Alabama this morning, which I am. No, no, no. But Alabama can beat Indiana and have a possible path in there. I have one final question for you as Mika starts to wind down on Bridge Over Troubled Water. The game that we saw on Saturday, Texas A&M and Miami, first of all, A&M's quarterback just looked terrible. And he's looked terrible before first half at the South Carolina game. I'm curious, were both of those offenses that bad or do the hurricanes have a great defense that could actually, because I think I dismissed them too quickly?

They have an incredible defense. I'm wondering whether Miami could give Ohio State a game in a couple weeks. I think they can. A&M had been a very good offensive team all year. They have two great receivers, and Marcel Reed had played well. But Miami is that good. They struggled in the middle of the season, losing to Louisville and SMU. But that went over Notre Dame, bringing this back to Notre Dame again,

the beginning of the season, was a very significant moment. Owned them. And this was just incredible how the game ended. That was about 11 seconds left, Joe, Marcel Reed, throwing the interception. Yeah, you know, I will, source Notre Dame goes, and I'm serious, when they start playing good teams, I'll give them a little more credit. I just can't, I can't, you can't want, I love Notre Dame as an institution. I always have, but they need to play some good football teams, like the Giants. Well, their coach is the leading candidate to be the Giants' new head coach.

There you go. Well, done. How did the Giants do this weekend? Well, they won. Number one draft pick, Richard. Number one draft pick. Pablo, any final thoughts? Oh, my God. Yeah.

Fine bomb 2020, what, 2030? 2030. I think so. I think so. And commentator. Paul Feinbaum, Senator. Thank you very much. Pablo, stay with us.

Pablo, stay with us. Fair. Paul, hey, Paul, thank you so much. We'll talk to you soon.