One For the Road 1776
Claim This Podcastby erm76
Podcast Overview
<p>One for the Road 1776 focuses on contemporary political issues. We also explore historical ties, when applicable, to current issues.</p>
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
1/14/2026
1 verified contact email on file for One For the Road 1776
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
July 21, 2026
The Qatar Jet, Trump’s Magic Mystery Tour to Turkey and Emoluments. Analysis & Commentary
To read the full text of the podcast, to view a summary video and to access the links to the quoted materials, please see: https://erm76.substack.com/p/the-qatar-jet-trumps-magic-mystery Summary: As had been widely covered in the news, Qatar gifted Trump a 747-8 jet in 2025. And as was the case during the first Trump term, questions arose about the Constitution's emoluments clause. Qatar offered President Trump the jet, worth in the neighborhood of four hundred million dollars, and a constitutional question arose about the potential impropriety of this gift. But Trump was not deterred, This is not the first run in with the emoluments clauses. The Trump family has dealings with Qatar, for instance, the giver of the plane. There are other incidents including those wrapped around crypto currency and Truth Social. It appears that Trump may have flown the Qatar jet to Turkey but it may not have been fully equipped with protective systems. This is why, it's alleged, he flew back on the older jet before, once again, boarding the newer one in the UK to US leg of the trip. The Qatar jet will cost up to 1 billion dollars to retrofit. This is in addition to the billions already allocated for two replacement jets. This has raised fiscal responsibility questions. The question may be: do you want to fly coach or first class? Notes: (1) “Emolument,” Miriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emolument (2) “Trump feels the heat from MAGA over ‘great gesture' of a luxury jet from Qatar,” by Adam Wren and Felicia Schwartz, updated 05/12/2025. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/trump-maga-loomer-plane-qatar-00341653. (3) For more information about the Kushner multi-billion dollar deal, please see: "Before Giving Billions to Jared Kushner, Saudi Investment Fund Had Big Doubts," by David D. Kirkpatrick and Kate Kelly. The New York Times. April 10, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html. Saudi Arabia is also the country linked to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the well-known and respected Washington Post columnist. We're going to continue exploring this story, and the rising level of assaults and jailings faced by journalists, in later posts. (4) To read about the Boeing jets, and some of the modification that would have to be incorporated in the Qatar plane, please see: “The tradition of Air Force One; Tactical.” https://www.boeing.com/defense/air-force-one#comparison.  (5) “What Will It Cost to Renovate the ‘Free' Air Force One? Don't Ask.,” by David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, The New York Times. July 27, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/us/politics/air-force-one-trump-cost.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share (6) “Trump takes first flight on new Air Force One gifted by the Qatari government,” Heard on Morning Edition; Joel Rose. NPR. July 2, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/07/02/nx-s1-5877618/trump-takes-first-flight-on-new-air-force-one-gifted-by-the-qatari-government (7) “Trump Switches Back To Qatari Plane After Leaving Turkey On Old Air Force One,” by Sara Dorn and Siladitya Ray, Forbes. July 9, 2026. https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2026/07/09/trump-switches-back-to-qatari-plane-after-leaving-turkey-on-old-air-force-one/ (8) “Security Precaution Led Trump to Use Old Air Force One in Leaving Turkey,” by Tyler Pager, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt and Eric Lipton, The New York Times. July 8, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/08/us/politics/trump-air-force-one-security.html (9) “Times Journalists Subpoenaed as Trump Escalates Pressure on Media,” by Michael M. Grynbaum, The New York Times, July 11, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/11/business/media/new-york-times-trump-subpoenas.html?smid=em-share (10) “New York Times fights Trump administration subpoenas for reporters' testimony,” by Brian Stelter, CNN. July 15, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/15/media/new-york-times-trump-subpoenas-reporters (11) “Justice Department withdraws subpoenas that sought reporters' grand jury testimony, sources say,” by Alana Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker, AP. June 23, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-fbi-media-c4fcb4d718d8313940f7c19a8f3f8e26 (12) “Can Trump legally accept a $400 million plane from Qatar? What experts, Constitution say,” Politifact; Poynter Institute. https://politifact.com/article/2025/may/13/Trump-Qatar-plane-unconstitutional-gift/ (13) “Trump made more than $2.2bn last year. Experts say this extraordinary haul is only part of the story,” by George Chidi, The Guardian. July 1, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/01/trump-earnings-as-president (14) “Paying for early access to Trump's Truth Social could raise big money - and major ethical issues,” by Bernard Condon, AP business writer, ABC News. July 17, 2026. https://abcnews.com/Business/wireStory/paying-early-access-trumps-truth-social-raise-big-134862185 (15) “Trump Says New Air Force One Will Be Taken Out of Service to Be ‘Maxed Out',” by Maggie Haberman, The New York Times. July 20, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/19/us/politics/trump-air-force-modifications.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260720&instance_id=179020&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=57657450&segment_id=223379&user_id=423e5e0514430d734c860e2b14f2b4d7
July 17, 2026
Hegseth Bloquea Más Ascensos. Un Breve Informativo y Comentario. Una traducción al español.
Para leer el texto completo del podcast y los enlaces a los materiales citados, consulte: https://erm76.substack.com/p/hegseth-bloquea-mas-ascensos-un-breve Disculpen cualquier error de traducción. Se utilizó Google Translate para la traducción del inglés al español. Gracias. Este fue un One for the Road 1776 News Brief. Según un artículo reciente de The New York Times, el secretario Hegseth eliminó de una lista de ascensos los nombres de más mujeres y personas pertenecientes a minorías raciales. Se trata de personas que han servido honorablemente a su país durante años y que fueron evaluadas y recomendadas para el ascenso por oficiales de alto rango. Sin embargo, fueron retiradas de la lista sin explicación alguna. Y aunque Hegseth tiene la autoridad para tomar esa decisión, la verdadera pregunta es: ¿debería hacerlo? Es un insulto para estos oficiales, porque da a entender que fueron incluidos en la lista únicamente debido a políticas de diversidad, equidad e inclusión o D E I. Además, —es un insulto para los oficiales que evaluaron y recomendaron a estas personas para el ascenso. Esta decisión también socava su criterio profesional y su autoridad. —representa una pérdida de talento y liderazgo. En lugar de respaldar a personas que han demostrado méritos para asumir mayores responsabilidades, la administración está frenando ascensos que fueron obtenidos por mérito. Es un caso en el que la política se antepone al país, con claros matices de sexismo y racismo. — Habitualmente, un secretario solo interviene en un proceso de ascensos cuando existen razones de peso relacionadas con un candidato, como una conducta impropia o una falta ética grave. En el caso de estas personas, no se ha presentado ninguna evidencia de ese tipo. —ha habido cierta reacción en el Congreso, incluida una carta de investigación firmada por los senadores demócratas Elissa Slotkin, de Michigan; Jon Ossoff, de Georgia; Richard Blumenthal, de Connecticut; Kirsten Gillibrand, de Nueva York; Dick Durbin, de Illinois; Cory Booker, de Nueva Jersey; y Jeff Merkley, de Oregón. Un fragmento de esa carta dice: Si bien existen razones válidas para retirar a oficiales de la consideración para un ascenso, razones que con frecuencia implican información delicada o desfavorable, los informes públicos indican que sus acciones podrían estar motivadas por razones políticas, ignoran los numerosos logros de estos oficiales y contradicen el principio de unas Fuerzas Armadas apolíticas. Además, existen informes de que sus decisiones están afectando la moral del personal en todos los niveles del cuerpo de oficiales. (3) Y aunque algunos miembros del Congreso han alzado la voz, ¿por qué no hay más nombres en esa carta? Sin duda, la situación lo amerita. Y así, la estupidez continúa. Este fue un One for the Road 1776 News Brief. Gracias por escucharnos. Notas: (1) “Las oportunidades se reducen para las mujeres a medida que Hegseth bloquea más ascensos”, por Greg Jaffe, The New York Times. 14 de julio de 2026. (2) 10 USC 629: Eliminación de una lista de funcionarios recomendados para ascenso. Texto con las leyes vigentes al 13 de julio de 2026. (3) “Slotkin, los demócratas cuestionan a Hegseth sobre los ascensos militares bloqueados”, por Ben Solis, Michigan Advance. 8 de julio de 2026.
July 15, 2026
Hegseth Blocks More Promotions. A News Brief & Commentary.
According to a recent New York Times article, Secretary Hegseth removed the names of more women and people of color from a promotions list. (1) Individuals who have honorably served the country for years and have been vetted by senior officers have been removed without explanation. And while Hegseth has the authority to take this step, the question is, should he? It's an insult to these officers, as the assumption is they're on this list because of DEI mandates. Further —it's an insult to the officers who vetted and approved these individuals for promotion. This action also undercuts their authority. —it's a brain drain. Instead of supporting individuals with leadership qualities, the administration is quashing merited promotions. It's a matter of politics over country, with sexist and racist overtones thrown into the mix. —the general practice has been for a secretary to interfere only if there are some pressing issues about a candidate, such as moral turpitude. No such evidence, concerning these individuals, has been presented. (2) —there has been some pushback by Congress, including a letter of inquiry by Democratic Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Kristen Gillibrand of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. A section of the letter states While there are valid reasons to remove Officers from consideration for promotion for reasons that often involve sensitive or adverse information; public reports indicate your actions may be politically motivated, disregards the many achievements of these Officers, and shirks the idea of an apolitical military,” the letter said. “Additionally, there are reports that your decisions are affecting morale among all ranks of Officers. (3) And while some members of Congress have responded, why aren't there more names on the letter? It well merits it. And so, the stupidity continues. Notes: (1) “Opportunities Narrow for Women as Hegseth Blocks More Promotions,” by Greg Jaffe, The New York Times. July 14, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/14/us/hegseth-blocks-navy-promotions.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260714&instance_id=178742&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=57657450&segment_id=223103&user_id=423e5e0514430d734c860e2b14f2b4d7 (2) 10 USC 629: Removal from a list of officers recommended for promotion. Text contains those laws in effect on July 13, 2026. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section629&num=0&edition=prelim (3) “Slotkin, Democrats question Hegseth over blocked military promotions,” by Ben Solis, Michigan Advance. July 8, 2026. https://michiganadvance.com/2026/07/08/slotkin-democrats-question-hegseth-over-blocked-military-promotions/
36 total episodes available
Deep-dive analytics for One For the Road 1776
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is One For the Road 1776?
<p>One for the Road 1776 focuses on contemporary political issues. We also explore historical ties, when applicable, to current issues.</p> - How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Information about guest appearances is not available.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.