The third season of “Downton Abbey” premiered in the U.S. on January 6. We’re now three episodes deep, including a two-hour opener. Speaking as a fan of the series, I am somewhat disappointed by the recycling of old storylines. The marriages and almost-marriages, impending collapse of the class system, breast-cancer scares and inclusion of a driver into the aristocracy’s social gatherings are all new storylines, but they feel like they’ve been done before.

This is partially because we spent all of last season waiting for most of these plotlines to be carried out, and because the show insists on doing the “will they or won’t they” bit with absolutely everything that happens, making it all feel pretty similar.

Mary and Matthew are getting married, no “Downton” fan can speak these words without smiling, but the last minute call-off, and then morning-of call back on? How many times are we going to see Matthew and Mary together, then torn apart because of pride or honor or some other ridiculous quality? Matthew and Mary’s relationship is supposed to be an emotional roller coaster, but my neck hurts from plot-whiplash effect. And were any of us terribly surprised when Edith got left at the altar? In true “and none for Gretchen Weiners”-esqe fashion, Edith is the sobbing single sister once again.

After the first two episodes of the season, I feared the show had jumped the shark. Downton Abbey’s impending sale seemed like a promising plot twist, but we all knew some ridiculous deus ex machina was going to appear and save the family estate. Predictably, Matthew randomly inherited a bunch of money. Does anyone else wonder how it could possibly been enough money to keep Downton going, and when Lavinia made the jump from being upper-middle class to richer-than-Lord-Grantham wealthy? I wouldn’t have minded Matthew saving the day with his dead-girlfriend money, but the whole saga was a bit rich for my blood.

Perhaps the most bothersome aspect of the new season so far was Mary and Sybil’s icky new hairstyles. I’m really just confused. Are these supposed to reflect changing fashion trends, or is the show making some kind of statement about the effect marriage has on a woman’s hair (it just goes to crap overnight)? Mary’s sticks down around her face like a helmet, and Sybil’s is just the most awkward, bushy bob. I don’t understand why Maggie Smith hasn’t called them out for this yet.

Despite my annoyance and fear that the show is on its way down, episode three left me with a bit of hope. The advent of Edith’s feminist newspaper writing, the possibility for Matthew to teach Lord Grantham a lesson about handling money and the historical context of the Irish Revolution are all really exciting plotlines. Even the impending battle between Thomas and O’Brien seems promising. Servants acting incredibly petty and sabotaging each other is nothing new for the show, but we’ve never seen Thomas and O’Brien face off before. In one of the best scenes of the show so far, Anna and Bates read each other’s letters in their respective prisons as they were meant to be sleeping. Every “Downton” fan could feel a tear grace their cheek and the eternal call of “Free Bates” cross their lips during this touching moment in episode three.

We go into this Sunday’s episode with a little apprehension that they’ll pull more of the same old trite, a little hope that they hired a new hairstylist for the show and the knowing feeling that none of it really matters anyway as long as Maggie Smith is still there making snide comments in her nasally old woman voice. Long live Downton and FREE BATES.

Let me first begin by stating what a tragedy and devastation the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was. The fact that innocent and young lives were taken from this country will always be horrific and weigh heavily on Americans’ hearts.

As weeks pass, the country’s mood has turned from mourning to alert. Advocates of gun control view the shooting as another reason why legalization of guns is dangerous and why the Second Amendment needs to be eradicated and, honestly, I can understand that. We have massacres that involve deadly weapons; naturally, the solution would be to ban such weapons.

But there’s more to the story than that. Perhaps the solution is not to ban guns, but to give more leniency to carrying the weapons. The fact of the matter is that guns, being able to deal death, work as protection as well because everyone fears of being on that receiving end.

The worst shootings in our nation’s history have been in gun-free zones. These are designated areas in which registered concealed weapons are not allowed. Shooters, however (as nice and honorable as they might seem), are not likely to obey laws and regulations as they prepare to take lives. While gun-free zones seem like they would provide safety, they only disarm American citizens — the ones not planning on murder.

On Dec. 17, a theater shooting occurred in San Antonio. But it was not widely circulated by the mainstream media, and it’s rather clear why. In this instance the shooter was stopped before many could be injured. The theatre (in a non-gun-free zone) happened to be in the company of an off-duty cop (carrying a concealed weapon) who shot the shooter before more harm could befall movie goers.

Another recent news story not widely circulated involved a mother of two shooting a home invader in order to protect her family. When the man attempted to break into their home, the woman hid in a crawl space with her children and shot the intruder once he found their hiding place.

Had these citizens not been in the possession of guns, their lives may have turned out very differently. More would have been injured or killed in the San Antonio shooting, and a family could have been destroyed.

So while guns can kill, the proof is right there in front of us that their ability to kill is also what keeps many Americans safe and allows them to feel secure. Taking guns away from all American citizens will not keep guns out of everyone’s hands. Criminals and murderers who plan shootings and the like will not read the paper “Guns now banned” and think, “Oh my! Well I guess I’m out of luck then.” They will always find a way to obtain such weapons — but with guns banned, they now are released against an unarmed and defenseless populace.

I know, I know, we’re not defenseless! We have police! The San Luis Obispo Police Department has a goal of a four-minute response time — and they meet that 95 percent of the time, according to their own measures. That’s a speedy arrival, I will surely give them that, but four minutes when faced with imminent danger is awfully long.

The guns don’t even have to be fired; announcing that you carry one to an intruder or mugger is enough to soon see them dashing out your window or fleeing to the nearest crowded area. Their own tactics are turned against them — and man, how they hate it when the tables are turned and they’re the ones watching their lives flash before their eyes.

Gun-free zones and even complete eradication of the Second Amendment will not result in a safer America but a vulnerable and less free one. There’s a reason the Aurora Batman shooter drove past countless theaters to get to the one in a gun-free zone: so he alone carried a gun and had the potential to kill.

That’s the future of America if we give up our right to bear arms — a fundamental right. With our ability to freely pursuit happiness and justice, we surely too have the freedom to feel safe in our own homes.

And so here’s to hoping there won’t soon be a South Park episode featuring our favorite rednecks shouting “They took our guns!”

Eventually, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did much to increase the national debt. Diminished tax revenues caused by an economy in recession also did their part, as did bailouts for the banking and auto industries to prevent them from collapsing at the beginning of that same recession. So did an emergency stimulus package to inject new (but temporary) life into the downturned economy. Entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security — do nothing to help matters, either.

Since Barack Obama took office as president, the national debt has increased by almost $6 trillion. During President George W. Bush’s time in office the national debt increased by more than $5 trillion. In amassing for us and our posterity such large financial obligations, the programs mentioned above give higher priority to the personal benefit of individuals than they do to the health of the United States of America.

I used to think this crisis of debt, along with all the other misguided policy initiatives, stemmed from a failure of Americans to follow President John F. Kennedy’s exhortation, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” Put in the language of one Anti-Federalist contributor — probably Robert Yates of New York, writing as “Brutus” — to the constitutional ratification debates in 1787, “The object of every free government is the public good, and all lesser interests yield to it. That of every tyrannical government, is the happiness and aggrandisement of one, or a few, and to this the public felicity, and every other interest must submit.”

The problem, however, is misunderstanding of what “country” actually is.

Citizens of republics direct their patriotism toward the republic that existed before them and, if they are good stewards of it, will exist after them. Citizens of democracies direct their patriotism toward their country’s citizens. The United States is a republic, and the country of the United States is composed of the institutions of its constitution and the understandings in which those institutions and that constitution were formed. The United States does not consist of the people who live in it or pay taxes to its government; they are mere biological organisms that live and die. And although the United States is nothing without its citizens, the people who live within its boundaries are not Americans without the United States’ institutions.

Politics and government should deal with the ties that hold people together, not the people themselves. Indeed, politicians should act in the same way that chemists concern themselves not with alchemy, trying to convert one element into another, but with discovery of new elements and ways in which elements bind to one another in their various permutations.

An analogy aptly articulates my argument.

Consider an apartment building. This apartment building represents all of society. Each member of society owns a unit in the building. For the same purposes as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 gathered — “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” — the inhabitants of the apartment create a government for it.

That government ought to confine itself to maintaining the building’s exterior walls, the walls between the units that separate the private lives of the people who live in it, and the spaces in which the inhabitants have an opportunity to interact with one another — hallways, elevators, stairwells, laundry rooms, etc.

Whatever goes on within individual units and does not threaten to affect the spaces between the units, should be of no concern to the building’s government. Whatever threatens to affect those spaces — say, a fire — deserves the government’s attention, but unless it actually does damage to those meeting points, the government should not act.

It may be nice or moral or ethical for the individual inhabitants to come to the aid of their neighbor, but personal, private assistance is something a government — which uses force to carry out its judgments — should never pursue.

An adage often repeated to children is some variation on the maxim, “Just because everybody does it, doesn’t mean it’s right, and just because nobody does it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.” Politics and government should operate on the same basic principle. The fact that a problem is common — that many people have the same problem — does not mean the problem is held in common. The grass between the houses of Boston and the streets of Boston might be equal in size to that of the Boston Common, but that does not mean the city’s residents have just as much right to spend their leisure hours in your front yard as they do in the country’s oldest public space.

WASHINGTON — Although young voters’ support for President Barack Obama’s re-election was predicted to waver in November’s election, thousands of college-aged students descended on the Capitol Monday to celebrate the inauguration ceremony.

Hundreds of thousands of people — predominantly minority groups and females — braved the cold on the National Mall and along the parade route to see and celebrate the president taking the oath of office. Considerably fewer people attended Monday’s events than Obama’s first inauguration, but those in attendance were noticeably excited about his re-election.

Eager spectators donned Obama apparel, danced to Stevie Wonder and chanted across Pennsylvania Avenue in anticipation of seeing the first couple make their way from the Capitol Building toward the White House following the inaugural address. Volunteers worked to keep the crowd enthused.

U. Michigan senior Michael Nevitt, who attended the inauguration with a group of University students, said he’s been a supporter of Obama since 2008 when he worked on the then-senator’s presidential campaign. He said resisting cuts in Pell Grant funding so more students could attain a higher education was one of the biggest factors in his decision to support the president.

Nevitt added that he believes Obama could improve on issues affecting college students such as tuition affordability and the environmental protection.

“He said some progressive things about climate change today,” Nevitt said, of the address. “But I’d like to see a stronger commitment and stronger goals because I didn’t think that was addressed enough in his first term.”

UM senior Lauren Coffman, the communications director of the University’s chapter of the College Democrats, said the president’s focus on LGBT issues during his speech was a welcome addition. ABC News reported that Obama made history as the first president to use the word “gay” in an inaugural address.

“The president laid out his vision for his second term and highlights our nation’s continuing struggle for equality for all citizens,” Coffman, who traveled to Washington D.C., said. “His support for LGBT rights and undocumented students set a historic precedent for equality and inclusion.”

Stephan Coleman, a 2010 graduate of U. Maryland and current Maryland resident, said he hopes Obama continues to push for lower student loan debt rates in his second term.

“Four years ago, tuition was seriously high … now it’s so much better since (Obama)’s been in there,” Coleman said. “I think there’s so much more work to do though.”

George Washington U. sophomore Adey Debebe also said the student loan issue played a crucial role in her support for Obama and believes the president is a major advocate for college students.

“He said it in his inaugural speech: It’s all about helping us so we can help this country further in the future,” Debebe said. “He doesn’t want us to be unemployed when we come out of school … I think it’s really important that people pay attention to that kind of thing.”

Jessi Wolz, Washington, D.C. resident and recent graduate of George Washington U., said she’s optimistic about the president’s next four years in office.

“I’m really looking forward to Obama being able to undertake some more difficult policies,” Wolz said. “It’s his last four years, and I think he can be a little more bold.”

Speaking from Ann Arbor, Michigan senior Dana Rollison said she was excited to hear Obama speak at length about sustainability issues. Obama’s largest environmental push — a carbon cap and trade measure that aimed to limit the output of greenhouse gasses — was stymied by a divided Senate in 2010.

“I know he can’t get very specific in an inauguration speech … but a lot of times he has fantastic speeches and the follow-through might get lost a little bit,” Rollison said. “If he follows through with what he said in his speech, I will be the happiest person in the world.”

At the pre-inaugural Michigan Congressional Open House on Sunday, Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said student excitement for the president, contrary to popular belief, is still high. He also emphasized the importance of University students’ support of Obama’s re-election.

Levin said Obama’s role in keeping the student loan interest rate from doubling did not go unnoticed by the president’s college-aged supporters.

Duke took a week off from its perch atop the rankings, but are back on top in the latest AP Poll.

A week after dropping to No. 3 following their loss to N.C. State, the Blue Devils are again ranked No. 1. Last week’s No. 1 Louisville lost to Syracuse and Indiana, the No. 2 team, lost to Wisconsin.

Duke received 39 of the 65 first-place votes while No. 2 Michigan received 11. Kansas and Syracuse, tied for third, received seven and eight first-place votes, respectively.

The current top 10, in order, is as follows: Duke, Michigan, Kansas, Syracuse, Louisville, Arizona, Indiana, Florida, Butler and Gonzaga.

N.C. State fell to Maryland last week and dropped from No. 14 to No. 18. Miami benefited from a number of losses in the bottom of the rankings and is now No. 25, placing three ACC teams in the top 25.

The Blue Devils travel to Coral Gables, Fla. for game Wednesday night against the newly-ranked Hurricanes.

Brewed as a pop-based mixture of house and electronic hip-hop, Toro Y Moi’s latest album, “Anything In Return,” takes a bold stride toward breaking into the mainstream and straying from the gauzy synths and muted vocals of its predecessors: “Causers of This” and “Underneath the Pine.”

The hazy nostalgia of ’80s pop music sent through a psychedelic filter — synonymous with the subgenre chillwave and Toro Y Moi’s previous albums — is anything but recognizable in Chaz Bundick’s, the man behind the stage name, latest full-length. Instead, the LP is composed of remarkably rich and catchy numbers that tickle meriting a spot on the Top 40.

The album is a mixture of busier, more charismatic and lyrically unmemorable songs that combat Toro Y Moi’s association with chillwave and bond more closely to pop music.

“Anything In Return” signifies more than just a third full-length release; it marks a change in Bundick’s aesthetic. Recognized for his creation of music that sounds like a daydream, this album strays from that classification and introduces something new. It’s a sincere attempt at exposing his versatility as an artist.

The album’s first single, “So Many Details,” sets the mood to any make-out sesh, working in the art of seduction through direct come-ons delivered through silky vocals amidst a rich sonic landscape. “I just want to tease your eyes, maybe we can check these locks, I just want to go inside.”

Tracks like “Touch” and “Rose Quartz“ are perhaps the finest two resembling the artist’s new pop-sounding intentions, though the two do so in still-alternative ways.

“Touch” communicates the widely identifiable feelings of being hurt romantically, a trait common in many radio-friendly songs, but does so by transporting listeners into a sonic lounge of emotions instead of a brief encounter.

Between layers of percussive bases, manipulated vocals and synth waves, “Rose Quartz” similarly exemplifies the pop brand through relatable lyrics of unconditional love. However, it communicates this idea by way of its blending structure of vocals and instrumentals in lieu of a catchy chorus.

The album lacks in overtly sugary tracks such as “Cake” and “Day One” which veer too far from Bundick’s vibe insomuch as they’re unbelievable. The line “I look at her and she’s all I want” doesn’t feel remotely legitimate to a Toro Y Moi album. The two tracks feel forced in the pop stream and make evident the newness of Bundick in the genre.

If you jump on the Toro Y Moi wave with “Anything In Return” as your first album, you’ll be pleased by the pop influence with a mild bubblegum taste. If you’re part of Bundick’s existing fan base, however, it may be best if listened to on a candy high with the intent to engage in tomfoolery with the comrades. Not suitable for solo trips on the crest.

Rating: 7.0/10

Barack Obama took the oath of office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building Monday, beginning his second term as president of the United States before a sea of hundreds of thousands gathered at the National Mall.

Obama placed his hand at 11:50 a.m. on a battered Bible used by Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War president who delivered perhaps the most famous second inaugural address. Speaking for 19 minutes, Obama made reference to Martin Luther King Jr., whose national holiday was being celebrated on the same day as the first black president returned for four more years in the Oval Office.

The Mall was packed from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, with large screens available for the many attendees of the proceedings. A considerable number of Georgetown U. students were among the crowd, many of whom arrived early the night before to stake out a prime perspective in the audience. Some received tickets from members of Congress, which allowed them to stand closer to the inaugural stage.

About 15 members of the Georgetown College Democrats made the early trek to the Capitol, leaving campus at 3:30 a.m. “It was an incredible opportunity,” said Trevor Tezel, president of the group. “One that we only get once in our time at Georgetown. That being said, it’s definitely not for the faint of heart. It’s a big commitment, but it was a great experience.”

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were each sworn in privately Sunday in accordance with the Constitution’s Jan. 20 inauguration date, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor were again on hand Monday to administer the public oaths to Obama and Biden, respectively. Whereas Obama and Roberts famously stumbled through the oath in 2009, the event this year was blip-free from start to finish.

The one-hour event also included opening remarks from Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), performances from singers James Taylor, Kelly Clarkson and Beyonce Knowles, and a poem from Richard Blanco. Absent were former Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, the latter of whom was in the hospital earlier this month. Also missing Monday was 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Thousands of audience members on the southwest side of the Capitol were captive to anti-abortion protests from one man who climbed to the top of a nearly 50-foot tree and shouted continuously for five hours before and during the event. The man, later identified as having participated in similar large-scale demonstrations, shouted things such as Obama is an anti-Christ and abortion is responsible for the December shootings in Newtown, Conn. Police attempted to talk the protester down from his perch but were unable to make an arrest before the inauguration had ended.

In his speech, Obama balanced unifying rhetoric with a broad outline of policy ambitions for his second term. One of the most applause filled passages from the speech detailed the quest for equal rights for women, homosexuals, voters and immigrants.

Obama also alluded to the imminent fight over gun legislation in Congress, saying, “Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

Obama closed his speech with a flourish, seizing the optimistic moment as he enters what is expected to be another four years of challenging partisan debate.

“The oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction … they are the words of citizens, and represent our greatest hope.”

WASHINGTON D.C. – We the people.

We the people, said President Barack Obama, more than ever, must work together as one nation, as one people.

Evoking the Declaration of Independence, Obama called for the pursuit of the document’s ideals through collective action and cooperation.

In his second inaugural address, Obama addressed the crowd of more than 800,000. He faced the challenge of addressing his people, four years after his first inaugural speech revealed many aspirations that remain unfulfilled.

“Faith in America’s future” was the theme of today’s inauguration.
The theme of faith ran through the ceremony – faith in the country and its future prosperity, faith in each other to work together, and faith, ultimately, in Obama.

He addressed the deficit, saying difficult choices must be made to reduce it, as well as healthcare spending, but caution will remain.

“…we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future,” he said.

He emphasized equality throughout the speech. Equal pay for women, full legal rights and benefits for homosexuals and non discrimination against the downtrodden and poor.

“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone.”

He stressed the need to preserve the earth and combat Climate change.

He asserted the United States’ role as leader of the world, maintained not through war but, “through strength of arms and rule of law.”

Obama also addressed immigration, a topic largely tabled in his first administration, saying it’s time to reform the process.

He closed with a charge to the public and to himself.

“With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.”

A tumultuous 48 hours of questions, rumors and speculation temporarily halted early Saturday morning when former Irish linebacker Manti Te’o ended his silence and denied any involvement in concocting the fake life of Lennay Kekua in an interview with ESPN’s Jeremy Schaap.

“No, never,” Te’o told Schaap when asked if he was involved in the hoax. “Never, not ever.”

In fact, Te’o told Schaap he was not fully convinced he had been hoaxed until Roniah Tuiasosopo, the man accused of perpetrating the scheme, contacted him to admit his involvement in the scheme Wednesday, the same day a report from Deadspin.com broke the story.

Schaap said Te’o showed him Twitter messages from Tuiasosopo from two days ago in which he apologized.

While he maintained his full innocence in the interview, Te’o did admit he made mistakes along the way, including lying to his parents about meeting Kekua.

When the story of Kekua’s death unfolded in the midst of an undefeated Notre Dame season and Heisman Trophy campaign for Te’o, the linebacker said he “kind of tailored my stories to have people think that, yeah, he met her before she passed away.”

“That goes back to what I did with my dad,” Te’o said. “I knew that — I even knew that it was crazy that I was with somebody I didn’t meet.”

“When [Te’o] described her as the love of his life, he meant it 100 percent, although they had never met,” Schaap said. “He did mislead people by saying he met her. He did so because he knew how crazy it would sound that he felt this deeply about someone he had never met.”

Te’o told Schaap the relationship allegedly started on Facebook during Te’o’s sophomore year at Notre Dame, but that it was not until around the Oct. 1, 2011 Purdue game that it grew. He said the relationship started to become more intense in late April 2012, when Te’o was told Kekua was in a car accident.

Te’o told Schaap that he began to sleep with the phone on the line with who he believed to be Kekua once she was in the hospital recovering from the fake car accident and leukemia.

ESPN also reported Te’o supposedly had attempted to video-chat with Kekua multiple times before she purportedly passed, but each time had been unable to see her face in the chat.

Additionally, Te’o told Schaap about a four-way text message conversation before Kekua’s death involving Scripture messages between himself, his parents and the person he believed to have been Kekua. Schaap reported Te’o even showed him the messages during their interview.

Te’o said he never doubted Kekua’s existence or death until early December, nearly three months after he believed she had died.

Corroborating the statements made by Notre Dame Director of Athletics Jack Swarbrick on Wednesday, Te’o said he received communication from the woman whom he believed to be Kekua on Dec. 6, but was not initially convinced it was a hoax.

“After he gets this phone call on Dec. 6 … he’s utterly confused,” Schaap said. “He doesn’t know whether to believe this person or not. She tells some story about how she’s been hiding from drug dealers.”

Te’o told Schaap he asked the person purporting to be Te’o to provide a photo with a date stamp, but even after receiving that, continued to be suspicious of the conversation. In addition, Te’o said people associated with Tuiasosopo showed up at Notre Dame’s team hotel during preparations for the Jan. 7 BCS National Championship Game. Notre Dame did not arrive in South Florida until Jan. 2.

Schaap said Te’o “wanted to get his story out there because he did know what people say to some extent” after a 48-hour period during which he was criticized for his silence.

“He disputed the theory out there that he was completely naive about romantic relationships,” Schaap said. “He said he got sucked into this because he thought he was talking to someone who he shared a lot with. Background, Samoan background, she understood the culture, she understood the language, spoke it better than he did. … It was an intense relationship over a couple months.”

ESPN publicist Mike Humes said on his Twitter account that ESPN “had no parameters on questions. While no TV cameras were permitted and use of audio was limited, we can use anything from the interview across our outlets.”

Schaap said he thought the no-camera setting made Te’o more comfortable, and the arrangement was at the linebacker’s request.

On Friday, ESPN’s Shelley Smith published a report in which an unidentified woman close to Ronaiah Tuiasosopo, the alleged mastermind of the operation, claimed Tuiasosopo told her that Te’o is a victim of the hoax.

In the report, Smith talked to two California residents who claim Tuiasosopo duped their cousin in 2008. The two claim Tuiasosopo supposedly used the same name and photos in that hoax.

Late Friday, USA Today reported that three elements of Kekua’s story parallel that of the Tuiasosopo family: a case of leukemia, a car accident and a quote from Tuiasosopo’s father’s Facebook page that Te’o told the team Kekua said prior to the faked death.

The two-and-a-half-hour off-camera interview with Schaap took place in Bradenton, Fla., where Te’o is currently training in anticipation for the NFL Draft.

This week, Katie Couric will conduct the first on-camera interview of Te’o, who will be accompanied by his parents. Segments will be shown during Couric’s syndicated television show Thursday.