Speaker 1Observe the North American dad. 50s, great polo collection. He enters his vehicle information on Carvana. An offer appears in minutes. Remarkable. He squints, reads it again, smiles and says, Dang, that's a good offer. The highest form of approval. No haggling, no hassle. No one called him boss. He's still on the couch. Astonishing. Sell your car today on Carvana.com. Pickup fees may apply.
Speaker 2Starting a business can seem like a daunting task. Unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website, to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into. Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer.
Speaker 3Traditional home security, We only alert you after a break-in. And that's too late. SimpliSafe is changing that. Stop. This is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way. We don't just alert. We help stop crime before it starts. Plans starting around a dollar a day. Right now, get 60% off your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com slash Spotify. SimpliSafe. Ahead of crime in real time. Outdoor deterrence plans start at $49.99 a month. Visit SimpliSafe.com slash licenses for alarm license information. It should be. It should be a criminal offense to lie or mislead the electorate. Yes. Yes. Let's work for that.
Speaker 4Yes. Yes, it should be a criminal offense to mislead the electorate. So why did the person who was just talking, you know, the Democratic candidate in Alaska, apparently her campaign attempted to cheat the electorate of Alaska with one of the most absurd tricks in the history of American politics. So this is an insane story out of Alaska. If you've been watching that Alaska Senate race, which again is extremely, extremely tight within the margin of error, and it pits a sitting Senator, Republican Dan Sullivan against Mary Peltola, an Alaska Democrat. But it also includes another person named, wait for it, Dan Sullivan. And that seems like a gigantic coincidence, right? I mean, two guys named Dan Sullivan, both running for Senate in Alaska of all places. I mean, that's kind of strange. How could such a thing have occurred? Well, now the New York Times has a report that says, the New York Times is reporting on the sordid details of how this came about. According to the New York Times, in the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for the Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides. Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can. A weird request, right? Well, the staffer did it and went through all the voting records and produced a gigantic list of all the Dan Sullivans. That was not a random request, says the New York Times. Dan Sullivan is the name of the state's Republican senator. And if the Peltola campaign or its allies could track down and persuade another Dan Sullivan to run for Senate, the confusion could cost the senator crucial votes on the state's unusual four-person ballot. And the plan worked because they found a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by errancy, and announced his candidacy for the Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan. Now, the Peltola campaign, they're saying they had nothing to do with this. But a lot of people are saying, according to the New York Times, doing some actual reporting, so, you know, like slow clap for the New York Times, doing some actual journalisming. The New York Times looked into it, and they found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola's team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race to dilute the incumbent's support and help catapult the Democrats' victory. One of the people speaking up is one Elisa Rios, Peltola's former campaign manager and a longtime aide, who was fired back in August. She said, While she says that Peltola was not directly involved, she was definitely aware. So the New York Times did interviews with some 12 people who participated in or were told of the plan, and they obtained dozens of text messages providing updates on the plan. on the progress of the effort. Well, last week, as the Times prepared to publish the article, Rios, who had been planning to file a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Peltola campaign, contacted the Times and said she wanted to retract her statement, which is weird. And the Times doesn't have to abide by that, because if they think that you're lying in the retraction, they can print the original. Also, Ms. Rios' interviews were consistent with the Times' other reporting. According to the New York Times, the operation began in the summer of 2025 to lure potentials and potential spoiler candidates onto the state's unusual four-person ballot. In one early meeting, according to Rios, aides with the DSCC, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, introduced a veteran Democratic operative named Jared Kurtz to Rios and Anton McParlin, who at the time was Peltola's chief of staff. And Kurtz was introduced as a specialist in secret ballot maneuvers. Well, months later, in early 2026, Kurtz participated in a video call with members of the ballot composition team, and he told the team, he had made contact with one of the myriad Dan Sullivans. And apparently, Kurtz said that he was amenable to running if it would help Peltola. Kurtz told us when we found him, he said that the new Sullivan, the fake Dan Sullivan, said he hated Trump, and if it was going to help Mary, he liked Mary. He had no interest in being a politician, but if this could help, he would do it. According to the FEC, a pro-Peltola super PAC called 49th State PAC paid Wingspan Strategies, a firm, a co-owned by Kurtz, about 87 grand back in the fall. Text messages show communications between the DSCC and the Peltola campaigns. This isn't just, by the way, the Peltola campaign. It's the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which means like the National Democratic Party. And the DSCC celebrated alongside the campaign when an Alaska court cleared the way for the fake Dan Sullivan to stay on the ballot. Other Dan one will be on the ballot. Shelby Danchik, a DSCC employee, wrote an internal group chat. Three people, including two Peltola aides, and a member of the DSCC staff, reacted with heart emojis. Now, again, the timeline here is pretty astonishing and clear. The Peltola campaign, with her probable general awareness, but certainly with the knowledge of pretty much all of her campaign aides, literally went and found a list of Dan Sullivan's. This is very reminiscent back in the 1990s when Michael Jordan was the biggest name in sport. There was a company that famously couldn't get Michael Jordan to endorse him. I mean, obviously, Michael Jordan was very expensive. So they found like a random Michael Jordan to go endorse their product, and then they put on their product, this thing is great, Michael Jordan. And then, of course, that ended with lawsuits, and they had to pull it down and all the rest. But apparently, if you do this in an electoral campaign, it's totally fine, even praiseworthy, apparently. Well, it turns out there are a lot of people who are trying to lie to you, people who are trying to obfuscate the truth. And that's also true when you go in and you get a cell phone plan, right? You go in, you want a cell coverage plan, they give you a schmooze, mortgage board of options, you have no idea what the hell they're talking about. You just say, give me the max, and then you are paying the max. Don't do that. Instead, why not try out my friends over at Pure Talk? They're offering their best unlimited plan for $29.95 a month for life. Unlimited talk, text, and data, plus a 30 gig hotspot. This plan was $65 a month. That's more than 50% in monthly savings. Unlike a promotional price that disappears after three months, this rate is locked in for life. Pure Talk is my wireless company. I use it, I recommend it. This offer is available for a limited time. May never come back. Head on over to puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Get Pure Talk's best unlimited plan for just $29.95 a month for the rest of your life. puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Again, their coverage is excellent. Their price is even better. Tax and fees not included. Some restrictions apply. See puretalk.com for details. The offer ends 11-15-26. That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro to make the switch. So again, according to the timeline, in 2025, the Peltola campaign aides told the staffer to find all the Nantullovans. In January, 2026, one of the chief of staff for Peltola, this Anton McParland, texted the DSCC's director of campaigns, quote, I'm hearing that our friend in the state is being noticed. And DSCC replies, we will check in. In early 2026, that contractor Kurtz said he found a Dan Sullivan who is willing to do it. And McParland asked for regular updates from our friend Jared. And again, Jared would be Jared Kurtz, the contractor. In May of 2026, the actual real Senator Dan Sullivan, filed for reelection. In late May, Kurtz traveled to Petersburg, where the decoy Dan lived. And decoy Dan then switched his personal party registration from unaffiliated to Republican just before the deadline, and then filed to run for office. And then he hired Amber Lee, a Democratic strategist who has publicly supported Peltola. In early June, Alaska Republicans moved to remove Dan J. Sullivan, the fake one, by referring the case to the FEC. The Election Commission Director of Alaska Division, Carol Beecher, issued a decision that decoy Dan could not appear on the ballot. Finding the decoy Dan's filing was not a good faith candidacy and was made to confuse the voters. So decoy Dan challenged that in court and the Alaska Superior Court said, no, no, no, you have to let him on the ballot. And everybody inside the Democratic headquarters was celebrating. In late July, decoy Dan told the New York Times he voted for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala and voted for Peltola for Congress. In August, you again, it's always somebody being personally betrayed by being fired that leads to the sort of stories coming out. It's never anybody doing this on principle. The Peltola campaign demoted McParland and fired Rios. Dan J. Sullivan insisted he ran on his own. And the NBC reported that the DOJ had issued a grand jury subpoena to compel information from witnesses linked to the decoy Dan campaign. And again, there's money changing hands. This week, Peltola and her campaign denied. The DSCC claimed no involvement. The Peltola PAC denied paying Kurtz. Kurtz hid his LinkedIn, made his ex-private, and nobody responded to requests for comment. By the way, here's what the actual ballot in Alaska will look like. This is the sample ballot in Alaska. And as you can see, this is very confusing because Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is listed just above Dan S. Sullivan. So it says, Gerald Hikas, registered Republican. Mary Peltola, registered Democrat. Sullivan Daniel J. Jr. And then Sullivan Dan S., registered Republican, incumbent. Hey, that's confusing. And it's deliberately confusing. And the fact that his middle initial J means that he comes alphabetically before Dan S. means that his name is listed first. So if you're just in a rush and you want to vote for Dan S. Sullivan, the actual senator, you just mark the ballot for the first guy named Dan Sullivan. That's what you do. You're mildly confused. And it's deliberately designed to be confusing. Now, CNN was out there saying this isn't illegal. And technically, it might not be illegal. It might not be. We'll get to the legality in just one second.
Speaker 5So this is not illegal. It is not new. But given the fact that there is so much focus on this particular issue right now, the two Dan Sullivans, and that the DOJ filed a lawsuit to try to pause any kind of, you know, formalizing the vote until things are worked out, if the incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan doesn't win, this is something that is sending Democrats scrambling, no doubt.
Speaker 4I mean, it should send Democrats scrambling, at least on a political level. The attorney general, Todd Blanch, says, well, whether or not it is illegal, it certainly should be illegal. Obviously, that's true.
Speaker 6If it's cheating, if it's fraud, is it illegal? And the answer is it certainly should be. And so, look, that's why there's an investigation. And that's why we have law enforcement. And then, you know, we're not talking about. ongoing criminal investigations. What we do have now is a civil investigation, a civil suit that is hoping and asking the federal court to step in to stop this. It cannot be in this country that you can have an election that is cheating and fraud, but that there's nothing wrong and we're all OK with that. And the Alaskan citizens, they're not OK with that. The people in this country are not OK with that. And neither is President Trump and neither am I.
Speaker 4Right. It is truly insane, truly insane that this. This is not illegal. Obviously, it should be. The DOJ has brought a complaint. It's under the National Voter Registration Act, specifically 52 U.S. Code 20501B3 in the Act's Finding and Purposes section. It says one of the law's purposes is to protect the integrity of the electoral process. And so the DOJ is saying, well, you know, this isn't protecting the electoral process and therefore it's violative of the law. It's a little bit vague for a statutory violation, frankly. Jonathan Turley is saying maybe there is a risk of obstruction. Like if you lie to law enforcement about the thing you were doing, you can be prosecuted. You can be prosecuted. You can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, even if the underlying activity is not criminal in nature. Fox is now reporting that there is an ongoing criminal investigation into the fake Dan Sullivan, quote, multiple grand jury subpoenas will be issued in the coming hours and days. There are preservation orders to cell phone companies that are being prepared regarding text messages and emails that may build a timeline for how Daniel J. Sullivan was placed on the ballot. Now, the original statute cited by the Alaskan Electoral Commission that removed Decoy Dan from the ballot was 52 U.S. Code 30124. No person who's a candidate for federal office or an employee or agent of such a candidate shall fraudulently misrepresent himself or any committee or organization under his control as speaking or writing or otherwise acting for on behalf of any other candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof on a matter damaging to the other candidate. So again, kind of on point, kind of not. So as a legal matter, this is in a murky gray area. As a moral matter, it is perfectly obvious what is happening here. The Democrats try to steal this election by activating a fake Dan Sullivan to be on the ballot next to the real Dan Sullivan. And Mary Peltola is desperately attempting to misdirect away from this story. Here she was.
Speaker 7This is just another distraction. It's another diversion. Every day, it's some new, you know, look over here moment. Not Dan Sullivan, registered Republican incumbent voted for this war in Iran 14 times. Lisa Murkowski quit voting for that war in Iran six months ago, and he's doubling and tripling down. And this is not somebody who's working in our best interest. And anybody who's working in our best interest isn't going to talk about the nonsense. This is all stuff to sell newspapers. This is all stuff to get subscriptions. Nobody at the New York Times cares about affordability in Alaska.
Speaker 4Again, this is the Democratic all purpose redirect. So if you are a Michigan Senate candidate who loves terrorism, you say that you're just not concerned. Those people who are asking me about terrorism, it's just they're not concerned about affordability. Now, the people who are asking you whether your campaign attempted to steal an election by getting a person with the same name as your your opposing candidate to run. Those people just aren't concerned about affordability, right? You just go right to the emotivism. My opponent's motivations are bad. That's the real issue here. The president put out a statement on this. He says, quote, It has just been determined that the Democrats in Alaska illegally searched for and recruited a man named Dan Sullivan to run against our distinguished Republican Senator Dan Sullivan in order to defraud, confuse and obfuscate the election, thereby taking votes away from the real Senator Dan Sullivan. The New York Times reports that Democrats have insisted they have nothing to do with the other Dan Sullivan on Alaska's Senate ballot. But aides with the Mary Peltola campaign and DSCC were part of a month's long secret plan to recruit him to run as well as other candidates. The Democrats false statements were made under oath in federal court. Therefore, they perjured themselves and should be liable for very consequences. Mary Peltola should suffer the legal and political consequences for what she has done. He's not wrong about any of this, by the way. If perjury is committed, people should go to jail for all of this. Senator Murkowski, who can hardly be called a staunch, ardent Republican, right? She's about as rhino as it's possible to be. She says, quote, While some may try to write this off as just how politics works now, ballot stacking should have no place in our electoral process. Run and win on your merits, your views, your policy ideas, your accomplishments. By contrast, recruiting candidates to manipulate the field and influence voting outcomes is simply wrong. Alaskans deserve the honest truth from Mary and her campaign. What has been revealed is a pattern of lies and cover ups and a culture of deception that belongs nowhere in our elections or among our elected officials. Turns out that there are a lot of people in governmental positions who fib to you, who screw with public policy in ways that do not benefit you. That is true of monetary policy. Go back 10, 15, 20 years. Your money today, just your dollar is worth less than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Well, this is one reason why you should diversify into something that is not the dollar into, say, precious metals. Golden Crest Metals makes it easy to explore. They specialize in widely recognized precious metal coins, transparent pricing and straightforward service. When you call, you talk to a real person, not a giant call center. Golden Crest Metals walks you through the process. Transparent pricing, widely recognized coins, zero buyback fees, no high pressure sales pitch. They will send you their free 2026 precious metals info kit explaining how it works. No obligation, no sales call required. Plus, qualifying purchases can receive up to twenty five thousand dollars in free silver. So there's a reason central banks all over the world right now are starting to diversify into precious metals because, again, governments have an interest in inflating away their debts. Call 888-429-3999. Text Ben to Metals at 638-257 or visit GoldenCrestMetals.com slash Ben. Also, there are certain inevitabilities in life. The biggest one is death. Well, you can game for your family situation in case, God forbid, something happens to you. Piano drops in your head as you walk down the street or something. Make sure you have life insurance. It's just the insurance is not word of mouth. It is policy genius. It's a free online marketplace where you can compare quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side and find affordable policy that meets your family's needs. Their licensed team will help you understand the coverage amounts, the prices, the terms. They'll answer your questions, handle the paperwork, advocate for you throughout the entire process. There's no need to sort through a pile of confusing options by yourself. Policy genius also has thousands of five star reviews on Google and Trustpilot from customers who found the right policy fit. The policy genius can find 20 year life insurance policies. Start now at GoldenCrestMetals.com. Starting at just 276 bucks a year for a million dollars in coverage. Head over to PolicyGenius.com slash Shapiro to compare life insurance quotes from top companies. See how much you could save. It's PolicyGenius.com slash Shapiro. PolicyGenius.com slash Shapiro. Now, again, Democrats are trying to redirect away from what is an extraordinary scandal. I mean, it really is kind of incredible. Imagine, again, if the shoes were on the other feet. If on a presidential level, Donald Trump had recruited another man named Joe Biden to run against him to misdirect votes from, you know, the Joe Biden. But Democrat, all they have in the Democratic bag right here is basically misdirect. Here's Senator Chris Murphy.
Speaker 8The New York Times article was based on interviews with 12 people, they said, who participated in or were told of this plan or the would-be candidates that the team tried to recruit. It's not like they just had one person saying this. It was a pretty deeply sourced report about the lengths they went to to try to get other Dan Sullivans on the ballot. I chris murphy right on the
Speaker 9ballot but but but but I wouldn't have any worry if the ballot in Connecticut said incumbent Senator Chris Murphy. I would trust that everybody who wants to vote for me is going to vote for me. But you're missing the underlying story here. The underlying story is that Donald Trump has basically declared that he believes any election that results in a Democrat winning is an illegitimate election.
Speaker 4Well, no, that's actually not the underlying story. The underlying story is that you guys literally tried to steal an election by going and recruiting a dude with the same name as the Republican candidate. Mary Peltola, I mean, she's been relegated to some pretty weak defenses here. Here she was saying this election isn't about her on her worst day. No, it's about you and your campaign literally trying to steal. Like, I've never seen a clearer attempt to steal an election than this one.
Speaker 10Pretty astonishing. Ms. Peltola, former staff members have alleged that you've subjected them to angry outbursts and used derogatory language. How do you respond to these allegations? You have a minute. Thank you. You know, I do not
Speaker 7think that this is a good thing. I think it's a good thing. I think it's about me on my worst day. And I found so many of these allegations concerning an outright fabrications or mass exaggerations of the truth.
Speaker 4Just unbelievable. By the way, Peltola's campaign, she is far, far, far too radical for the state of Alaska. The New York Times has more on Mary Peltola. Quote, four former staff members said they directly heard her use the word fat over the years, in some cases about her own staff. She also used the word retarded, according to former aides and text messages viewed by the New York Times. Peltola also disparaged Planned Parenthood, particularly one of its regional board members. So even the left seems to be turning on her a little bit. She also required her aides to feed live crickets to her family's pet chameleon. She's kind of a mess. She's also been tied via donors to Black Lives Matter activist Sean King. According to the Alaska story, Federal Election Commission records show Michael Kishnick, of Palo Alto, California, contributed $2,000 to Alaskans for Mary, Peltola's campaign committee. Kishnick, the co-founder of Credo Mobile, was also among the founders of Real Justice PAC, a national political organization created with Sean King and other progressive activists to elect prosecutors committed to changing policing, bail and prosecution policies, and to recall those who did not support catch and release policies. So again, she is a mess of a candidate. And then stack on top of that, the fact that her campaign pretty obviously, allegedly, is a mess of a candidate. to commit election fraud. And Alaskans should think about this before they decide on whether or not to vote for her. So terrible things happening over in Alaska. We'll see how it affects Mary Peltola. Meanwhile, over in Utah, the authorities have decided that it's time to prosecute Kalshi. Before all of this came down from Utah earlier in the week, we recorded an episode of Titans on Tomorrow with the founder of Kalshi, Tarek Mansour. Folks, full disclosure, as always, Kalshi is one of our sponsors. You've seen them on the show a bunch. Well, that's relevant because now Utah is attempting to bring charges against Kalshi. Again, based on what I think is a deep misinterpretation of the law. Utah has now charged Kalshi and its founders. Basically, they are attempting to put people in jail because they are saying that a prediction market is a betting market. That is what Utah is currently saying. According to NBC News, Utah on Wednesday filed criminal charges against prediction market operator Kalshi and two of its executives, months after a federal judge rejected Kalshi's effort to prevent Utah from enforcing its strict anti-gambling laws against the activity. The felony charges are a new tactic. By the way, kind of crazy because the charges include 13 counts of violating the state's prohibition on gambling and another charge involving profiting off illegal activity. They're basically attempting to charge them with felonies that could amount to 75 years in jail for running a prediction market, which is, um, there are rapists in Utah who are not getting, 75 years. Now, this whole thing comes down to whether prediction markets and betting markets are exactly the same thing, right? Because Utah bans, say, sports betting markets, like DraftKings. And so they're also trying to ban Kalshi, saying they're the same thing. So in the interview that I did with Tarek Mansour, I asked him the specific question, like, what is the difference between a prediction market and, say, a gambling market? And here is the answer. And people have tried to compare it on the one hand. And on the other hand, they're trying to compare it on the other hand. To the stock market, people have tried to compare it on the other hand to, say, sports betting, like DraftKings, and polling. So if you were to sort of break down those various silos, one being polls, one being sports betting, and one being a stock market, which one is the prediction market most similar to, and how?
Speaker 11The difference is the structure. Like, one of them is happening on an open marketplace, where the incentive of the market is to match Ben with Kelly and whoever is smarter or whoever has better opinion will win on an open and free competition. And the market is like, you know, stock chains like Kaoshi, we take a small percentage fee out of the transaction. Or are you betting against a house whose sole purpose is to make you lose, right? And that's the whole distinction. And why do we treat it differently? Why does the law treat it differently? It's because on a market that has positive externalities, because we get a forecast out of it, right? We bring in and we incentivize people to do smart things and to do research. And the more they do that, the more the markets are efficient, the more accurate the prices are. And so we can predict different things, whether it's weather or sports or other things, which makes us make more money. We can predict different things, whether it's weather or sports or other things, which makes us make better decisions and get smarter about the future. But then the second thing is some people are not doing it to speculate to make money. They're doing it to hedge and insure themselves against a bad risk. And that's why these markets are regulated as a federally regulated marketplace. The other one actually roots out the smart people. If you're a sharp or a smart bettor on DraftKings, what happens? You get limited. Like, the card counters get kicked out of the casino, and then they figure out who the losers are, and they keep, you know, giving them, they figure out how to make them addicted so they can keep losing. That model is regulated differently because their DraftKings sets the order. And you need to make sure that the state by state, like, hey, don't screw your customers too much. Don't give them too many tools for addiction and whatever, like to promote addiction. Whereas an open market, it has to be the rule. It's more about, do you have fair rules? And are they uniform across all 50 states?
Speaker 4On economic, legal, and intellectual grounds. So prediction markets as an intellectual framework are distinct from pure betting markets like against the house. I'm not the only one who says this, right? Economists, Eric Snowberg, Justin Wolfers, Eric Zitzewitz, they argue in the handbook of economic forecasting, they said, quote, prediction markets quickly incorporate new information, are largely efficient and impervious to manipulation. Which is right. In 2007, a bunch of famous economists, Nobel Prize winning economists, people like Kenneth Arrow and Daniel Kahneman and Robert Shiller, they said, quote, using these markets as forecasting tools could substantially improve decision making in the private and public sectors, because basically, you're putting your money where your mouth is, you think that it's going to rain tomorrow. And so you put your money on that. And now, you're not just having an opinion, you're actually having to put your money behind the opinion. Well, again, none of this is an argument of how people use or abuse prediction markets, you can absolutely abuse CalSheet, right? You can be somebody who is obsessed with putting money and quote, unquote, betting on CalSheet. But you can also do the same thing with stock markets, or with futures options, you can treat them like gambling apps, probably a bunch of friends have done this and lost a bunch of money day trading. But prediction markets conceptually are about using belief about future events to define financial decisions and hedge risks. They act more like a futures market, like a grain future, which allows you to defray the risk of a bad harvest by putting money on a futures option that shorts the market, meaning it gives you the option of buying grain at a lower price in a few months, and then selling it at a higher price. And that's been a hallmark of global markets for a century. Another point that Tarek Mansour makes in our interviews, did you watch the whole interview? I know that a lot of people have very strong feelings about prediction markets. I think that the interview is fascinating. I certainly think that that Utah's attempt to extend the law without actually defining the difference between a prediction market and just sports, sports betting, you know, draft games. I think that that is, that's assuming the conclusion that is not yet in evidence. So you should go watch the entire interview. It really is fascinating. Even if you disagree or with me or disagree with Tarek. Okay. So back to our elections. So Mary Paltola likely will not be arrested in Alaska. And it's unclear whether any of the people who tried to help her cheat the voters of Alaska out of a true election, if they are going to actually be prosecuted either. But in Minnesota, they know who to arrest. They know they're going to arrest the people trying to uncover actual voter fraud. So yesterday, a couple of conservative sort of undercover journalists, James O'Keefe and Cam Higbee, they went to a Minnesota polling place in disguise. So Cam Higbee went in the full burqa, like the full beekeeper outfit. Can't see anything except his eyes. James showed up in the, in the full robe and with the, with the headgear and everything of, of sort of traditional Islam. And they went to the Minneapolis polling station because they have a system in Minneapolis called vouching, where you don't have to bring an ID. If someone vouches, for you, that's good enough for you to receive a ballot. Here's what it looked like. -
Speaker 10Are you wanting to vote first? - You're gonna have to make a poll call. -
Speaker 12Yes. okay can she vote if i vouch no
Speaker 10good luck um is she does she live within this precinct yes so are you wanting to vote first though yes but
Speaker 12vouch for her okay so she thought so if i vouch she votes okay is that right can i vote with that id yes if you're
Speaker 1already in the system
Speaker 12okay okay
Speaker 1if you're already in the system hold on i just need to point this out i walked into this polling station with a random name of a random person
Speaker 4okay so again this is just exposing how crappy the minneapolis voting procedures are you can walk in you can vouch for somebody completely different while in a complete facial disguise and they will try to hand you a ballot so here was cam higby again in the full regalia there's a man wearing you know traditional female garb in afghanistan approaching a poll worker about vouching for seven other people without id and the poll worker says
Speaker 12sure no problem my address i just moved it is 3530 cleveland northeast got you here so if you can take a look and make sure that can can i vouch yes then we can vouch what is it required okay yeah just to you're already pre-registered so nothing else just you you'll sign something and we'll get your phone number and then she vote yeah okay um do we need id nope no id needed her id she does not need id i i have also seven other people who i live with can they not register you if you live with them you can vouch for them you can vote you can vouch for up to eight people and and
Speaker 4no id for any nope so those people don't have d have id cam higby obviously is not showing an id his name is not apparently even in the system and he can act as the person who vouches which is a crazy crazy system now and james o'keefe has done similar things going back like more than a decade back in 2012 he actually basically was able to obtain dead people's ballots in new hampshire in an o'keefe video according to abc news at the time poll workers offered up ballots without requesting id from off-camera operatives members of o'keefe's project veritas give names the video alleges belong to deceased new hampshire voters and receive ballots even when they report they forgot their ids in their car so again all these things that o'keefe has been doing for legitimately over a decade are designed to show the absurdity of lack of voter security so what was the outcome here o'keefe and higby are now being criminally charged in minnesota so just to get this straight here's how our voting systems work if you're in alaska and you decide that you are going to essentially get somebody to fake an election effort to misdirect voters away from the person they actually want to vote for like dan sullivan's the the fake dan sullivan scheme up in alaska that's totally fine according to the law and democrats think that that is fine and dandy and no problem if you're james o'keefe and cam higby and you show up in an attempt to expose the idiocy of minnesota's voting laws they will prosecute you that's how this works according to the new york times the state prosecutors charged the pair with unlawful voting which can include an attempt to obtain a ballot by impersonating a registered voter and identity theft to both felonies the maximum penalty for each of those crimes is five years in prison prosecutors say o'keefe impersonated registered ministerial voters during his conversations with poll workers though no votes were cast fraudulently during the prank now by the way you can't vote in minnesota you're supposed to be in the state by the way you used to just call this undercover journalism right it's a prank if you want to prosecute them it's undercover journalism if it's a left-winger doing it he and mr higby used false arab accents and references to muslim culture which minnesota's secretary of state steve simon condemned as offensive well um i'm just uh i'm i'm confused if it was like when they did all of that in order to obtain the ballot didn't anybody find that offensive enough to not give them the ballot or apparently no i guess the answer is no the misconduct by this group is outrageous and totally unacceptable we have zero tolerance for lying law-breaking and disruptions at our poll places again for democrats lying by getting somebody with the same name as your opponent to run totally fine the real problem is when you try to uncover loose and ridiculous voting procedures cam higby said i never voted i never signed an affidavit i never violated a law for showing how minnesota abuses votes they seek to take mine away from me permanently minnesota's vouching law has been on the books for more than 50 years voters who are new to a precinct and have a registered voter who verifies they live in the area must provide a document such as the minnesota's driver's license and the last four digits of their social security number to establish their identity and eligibility the vouching system is commonly used by residents of senior living facilities who haven't updated their new address on identity forms now here is the henneman county attorney announcing the charges but admitting that neither of the men actually signed an oath
Speaker 13mr o'keefe and mr higby entered polling places in multiple instances identified themselves using names of registered voters in those precincts without those voters knowledge or permission both men stopped short of signing the oath we all signed before receiving our ballot but minnesota law states clearly that no individual shall intentionally misrepresent their identity in applying for a ballot having entered polling places without legitimate purposes and intentionally misrepresenting their identity to election judges in applying for a ballot the charges filed today are appropriate to address the conduct of mr o'keefe and mr higby i think i have a
Speaker 4question is it applying for a ballot if you never actually take the ballot and you don't actually sign the oath or is he just exposing it normally if i apply for a thing it's because i actually fill out a full-scale format just to ask for a thing i fill out a form i take i i try to actually obtain the thing that's the purpose of an application so i think this is going to be a very difficult charge to prove criminally but again it just shows you where democrats are very upset democrats not so upset about actual voter fraud very upset about people trying to expose actual voter fraud don't worry democrats are fully in tune with the idea that they should lock up their political opponents hillary clinton is now on the lock him up bandwagon for donald trump
Speaker 14and he's soon going to have a democratic congress trying to reign him in hold him accountable and investigate him his administration his family his you know supporters and allies he literally has held republicans hostage for a decade uh and that only works for so long uh one day the hostages look around say there are more of us than there is of him we need to take him on and i think uh we can see that happen so buckle up the election is just the beginning
Speaker 4so democrats very on board with the lock him up donald trump for unspecified crimes very on board with the lock james o'keefe and cam higme up for trying to expose ridiculous voting procedures at the same time they're very upset if you are upset legally with an alaska senate candidate who tried to rig the election in her own favor and they don't care at all by the way if it turns out that a minnesota congresswoman ilhan omar married her brother or committed immigration fraud for herself and also for her brother like that's totally out of bounds in fact if you note that if you even mention that it's because you must be some sort of deep and terrifying islamophobe also if you notice that everyone surrounding abdul el-sayyed is a radical muslim brotherhood member who funnels cash to terrorists allegedly if you notice that it's islamophobia washington free beacon which has been doing extraordinary reporting on el sayed and all of his family members they point out that abdul el-sayyed's father sits on the board of a notorious islamic charity that was once busted by islamophobes but he's not a terrorist he's not a terrorist he's not a terrorist he's not a terrorist he's not a terrorist he's not a terrorist that was once busted for funneling cash to saddam hussein and has been raided by the fbi and u.s military the board also features two current members who belonged to the muslim brotherhood according to documents from federal prosecutors el sayed's father michigan academic and imam dr muhammad el sayed serves as a board member for the group life for relief and development the story began in 2006 when the fbi raided the charity's office a year later its ceo was charged by a grand jury with violating sanctions and money laundering laws and the charity's accounts at bank of america were closed federal agents also raided the home of the charity's then ceo khalil jasem according to the detroit free press apparently they knowingly and willfully formed a conspiracy for the purpose of transferring funds from the u.s to iraq between 2002 and 2003 by and through jordan according to the government those cash transfers took place at the height of u.s tensions with saddam hussein also that group gave millions to a group the fbi identified as hamas's jordanian operation according to the new york post so yeah but if you ask questions about el sayed and his family at all it's just because you're challenging his loyalty his dual loyalty just insane well even democrats at this point like like senator corey booker they don't even want to say el sayed's name because they understand that that dude is toxic
Speaker 15the senator i didn't hear you mention abdul el sayed's name i i wonder if you have concerns about his candidacy and his viability among black voters this is my focus right now uh is is winning back the senate and um it's why i'm traveling all over the country i'm going to do everything i can to make sure that democrats have control in the gavel and can hold donald trump accountable can actually check and balance his policies that are hurting people uh and i certainly hope we have a 55-vote seat majority in the Senate. I'm not hearing a ringing endorsement.
Speaker 4Nevertheless, I have to move on. I mean, even CNN going, dude, I'm not hearing you really say anything here, like at all. And there's a reason Democrats are having some trouble. At least the sane Democrats, the ones who are crazy, the DSA members, Daria-Lisa Avila-Chevalier, right, who's a full-scale DSA member in New York. She says that, obviously, the biggest issue for Democrats has to be yelling about Israel.
Speaker 16If we want to win the White House, if we want Democrats to take power back, right, then Democrats have to be serious about this issue. It is a moral issue. It has been a moral injury to so many to watch the horrors that are coming out of Gaza, right, and watch our elected officials justify it or underplay it or act as though there's any, any reason why we should be continuing to use our tax dollars to engage in it.
Speaker 4Again, scratch a Democrat and get Daria-Lisa Chevalier. Scratch a Democrat and get Abdul Al-Sayed. But they're all hiding it. They're all hiding it. Abdul Al-Sayed is trying to hide this. He's, he's got to be lagging with Black voters in Michigan because he's spending an awful lot of time with them trying to get them out to vote for him. He went to a barbershop in Grand Rapids in the most stereotypical act he could imagine to chat health care with Black voters. Who do you think is the
Speaker 17biggest lobbyist industry in the whole country? Who do you think it was? Farmers. Farmers? Yeah. And you know how much it was? And then who do you think is number two? Insurance. 20 years, $4 billion. Most folks don't know that there's this, this, this middle entity that manages the relationship between you, your farmers, the farmers, the manufacturer, and your insurance. And they skim off every interaction. And you just sit standing around like, all these people are standing around. And you just sit standing around like, all these people are so bored. All these people are like, I can't
Speaker 4believe he's bothering us right now. I'm just trying to get my hair done, man. Like, what are you doing? And here's leaning back in the seat like he's about to get his hair colored. All right, man. Again, I do not, I do not believe that Al-Sayed is leading the way that so many people seem to believe that he is leading. By the way, he's campaigning on Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants in Michigan. Like, he is so radical on every possible front. Here he was. Should undocumented folks be eligible for federal
Speaker 17health care plans? So we want to make sure that, you know, to me, if you pay in, then the program's there for you, if you pay in, right?
Speaker 13So undocumented or documented?
Speaker 17It's about if you pay in. But here's the thing. I want to get to a world where there's not a conversation about undocumented. Everybody has a pathway forward.
Speaker 8But there is.
Speaker 17I get it. I get it. And my point is just this. If you are paying into the system, right? The idea is that the system is there. If you pay in, right? You're paid in.
Speaker 4Okay. Everybody should have a pathway. Everyone should be a documented member of the community, no matter how you got in here, no matter what you've done. That guy from Michigan? According to our sponsors over at CalSheet and the CalSheet markets, Al-Sayed is still heavily favored over Mike Rogers. 71% of the money says Al-Sayed is going to win that race. In Minnesota, apparently, Peggy Flanagan in the CalSheet markets is up at 90%. And again, I think that, Flanagan is likely to win in Minnesota. It's a very, very heavily blue state. Michigan, I'm not so sure. And here's why I say that I think that much of the data that we're seeing right now is skewed. So if you go to the Daily Wire election hub right now, and you take a look at Florida, Florida is my home state. Angie Nixon's a nut job, and she's running against Ashley Moody, a Republican incumbent. According to the polling average right now, Ashley Moody is only leading by six and a half points. Ashley Moody is going to walk all over Angie Nixon. Angie Nixon's been having herself a sort of fascinating week. Here she was dancing at a Florida A&M University homecoming. This happened like a few hours before some shootings in the area. She was rapping about murder.
Speaker 18Awkward. So that was Angie Nixon rapping about murder.
Speaker 4And things went poor. That aged poorly, like really poorly. By the way, Angie Nixon is as radical as radical can be. Here she was saying that we were founded on stolen land. I mean, again, this is, you think this lady is going to win 43, 44% in Florida? If she does, then Angie, then her opponent, Moody, is going to win the other 58% of the vote. This could be a 58-42. Oh, boy. By the way, same thing happening in the Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidates race. So his name is David Jolly. David Jolly is another one of these Florida Democrats. He's been a Republican and an independent before. Well, now he is running against Byron Donald. He's going to get smoked. The polls suggest it's closer than it is. And here he was saying that boys have a right to play in girls' sports.
Speaker 19They're wrestling, trying to resolve it on behalf of all Americans, their fundamental and constitutional rights. It's their respect and their dignity, or you're working to humiliate them. And I think it's been pretty disgusting what we've seen from Republicans in the past several years on this. Look, I don't think we need to knock down that youth soccer player who is working with their family and their doctor on whatever their current crisis is personally. I think it can be supportive of them to allow them to play in youth sports.
Speaker 4Okay. All right. Well, we'll see how that works out for them in Florida. This is why when I look at the polls and it says they're close to close in Florida, I'm thinking to myself, yeah, that is not a real thing like at all. Okay. Now I do have to comment on the cultural controversy of the moment. So there's a movie that is out. It's just doing extraordinary business at the box office. It's a documentary called You Can See Everything. This is the new Nathan Fielder documentary about Elizabeth Holmes. And for those who haven't seen the film trailer, it's disquieting and confusing. Here is a little bit of the film trailer. I don't have
Speaker 20anything to deceive you on. Of course, I'm not deceiving you. I'm engaging with you as a human being. Why would I deceive you? There's no reason for me to do that.
Speaker 21Okay. All right. Okay, good shot. Okay. Now, this thing is being billed as a sort of documentary.
Speaker 4It's not a documentary. In fact, it's not even really up for best documentary at the Oscars. They're going to try and get this thing nominated for best picture. I had an opportunity to watch it yesterday, 824, is launching an Oscar campaign for consideration across all the major categories, including best director for Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim. So it's sort of, I'll say this about the film. I think the conversation around the film is more interesting than the film itself. Because the question people are asking is, what is the thing even about? What's it really about? So the question purportedly asked when you watch the trailer for that is, is Elizabeth Holmes a sociopath or a victim? So to understand that question, you have to understand exactly who Elizabeth Holmes is. So she founded a company called Theranos. They claimed a proprietary device that could basically do any test you wanted by pricking your finger and getting a drop of blood. The technology never worked, but she kept telling the investors and the public that everything was working. And she raised hundreds of millions of bucks. Peak valuation for Theranos was $9 billion. And then she was charged in 2018 with wire fraud and conspiracy counts covering investors and patients. In 2022, a jury found her guilty of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy wire fraud. There were some patients who had sued her claiming that basically she had said that she was processing their blood and she never really did it and all of the rest. She was sentenced to 11 years, three months in federal prison and three years of supervised release. She tried to delay her incarceration in 2023. And she was eventually reported to federal prison in May 2023. She's eligible for parole theoretically in December of 2031. So the setup of the film is that Nathan Fielder, who's most famous for his series, Nathan for you and the rehearsal, both of which are basically about Nathan Fielder pranking people. He's kind of a, a, a very, very high rent, Sasha Baron Cohen in this way, I would say. So Nathan Fielder was given access to her for the 35 days prior to her incarceration. And that is the basic setup. So you think that the question being asked is, is Elizabeth Holmes a sociopath or is she actually a victim? Did everybody get it wrong? Is she somebody who's basically manipulated by the men in her life, and she didn't even know what she was doing. That question is never really answered in the film. So then there is a second question that is asked instead of that question, because the first question is never answered in the film as to whether Elizabeth Holmes is a sociopath or whether she is just basically half autistic. The question is, how were so many people taken in by her? Here, there's an answer. And Nathan Fielder's answer is, everyone is taken in by anyone at all times, including the audience for the film. So here's my take on the film. The film is basically an elaborate scam. It's kind of a gigantic meta prank. The big beneficiary of all of this is Nathan Fielder. So there are several characters in the film, and everybody ends up looking bad. If the basic thing you're supposed to take away is that everyone lies, and that everyone takes advantage of everybody else, and everyone can also be taken in. And so in that way, it's kind of a puzzle box as to who's lying the most and who's bad and who's good. Fair enough. Fair enough. But in the end, it's a pretty nihilistic message that doesn't answer the central question. So everybody in the film looks bad, including Nathan Fielder and A24. So Elizabeth Holmes is sort of the black box of the film. You only see her for the first half of the film. You never see her after that because she's in jail. Okay, so the first half of the film, he's living in her house, and you really don't get much from her other than she is deeply upset by the portrayal of her in a series on Hulu called The Dropout with Amanda Seyfried, and that she is very upset at the prospect of her being, of her going to prison, which you can imagine why, and that the question is whether she really understands what she did in the first place. And the film seems to suggest maybe not. Okay, fine. It's the other characters who look significantly worse than Elizabeth Holmes in all of this. So her husband, Billy Evans, is made to look like a complete scam artist, sociopathic narcissist. And maybe that's true. Maybe that's what he is. Or maybe that's a prank being played a little bit by the filmmakers, is all. Explain in a minute. A24, which is the producer on the film, they don't look good either. Neither does Nathan Fielder, and neither does Amanda Seyfried, who becomes a character, right? She's an actress. She becomes a character in the second half of the film. So again, the first half of the film is Nathan Fielder in the home with Billy Evans and Elizabeth Holmes and their two kids. And then she goes to jail. And then the second half of the film is an investigation into the So it turns out Billy Evans went to A24 Nathan Fielder and said, I want to be cut in on the film. I want money. And the question is whether Elizabeth Holmes knew about that or not. That's the question that Nathan Fielder wants answered, because if she knew about it, then that means she's a sociopath, a manipulative sociopath. And if she didn't know about it, it means she's kind of a victim of the men in her life, including her husband, Billy. Now, I find all of this less than the sum of its parts, like just watching it as an audience member, because none of the characters are likable. And because frankly, they all seem like narcissists. I didn't find anybody to really sympathize with. And I don't find any deeper questions being asked or answered. So I want to start with what I think happened when they were producing this film. So here is Nathan Fielder talking about what it was like to produce the film, being confused and not really knowing what was going on while they were filming with Elizabeth Holmes and her husband, Billy.
Speaker 21She seems so like genuine at times, but then I'm like, no, I'm clueless. clocking, like, tracking my thoughts and being like, okay, I know she's a liar. So I couldn't really, it was a weird, like, mental thing. And anyways, I think from there, we were like, can we roll the dice on something if they're open to having cameras in? She was really taken by that David Blaine story. But I think, I don't know why it really, like, fascinated her. And they were like, okay, you could come in and document. And then we said to A24, like, we cannot promise we'll deliver anything on this. We don't know what the story is, but we want to just see what will happen if we go with cameras. And they were like, okay, that's fine. And if you want to pull the plug anytime, you can do it. So that was, like, amazing. And yeah, it wasn't until we started shooting that moments would happen, some of them that are in the film. And then after Lance and I would talk about it. And then I would talk about it. And then I would talk about what we thought happened there. And we'd be completely disagree on what something meant to us or what we thought was happening. And then we were like, oh, this is a really interesting, if we can't agree on what's happening, there's something here.
Speaker 4Okay, so here's what I actually think happened in the production of this film. Okay, I think they went in and very, about halfway through the film, the big twist happens. The big twist of the film is that Nathan Fielder asked for a percentage of the film profits. And here is the real thing. Fielder and A24 said yes. Now, it's no longer a documentary at that point. It isn't. You're just not in the category of documentary. If you are paying the subject of the documentary, it is not a documentary. You have violated the basic sense of audience truth. You now have an unreliable narrator, right? You're relying in the first half of the film on the idea that Nathan Fielder is a documentary to be part of the documentary. So you think that he's telling you the truth, but he's clearly not. He's lying. He's faking because again, they agreed. Now again, they try to make Billy into the villain for asking for the money and he shouldn't ask for the money, obviously. And there are other reasons in the film why he's a villain, but they are the biggest villains, right? You are the ones who are saying we're going to film a documentary and you agree to violate the first rule of documentary filmmaking, which is that your subject is not a participant in the making of the film. So the rest of the film is basically an attempt to avoid the consequences of A24 and Fielder's decision to pay the participants in the film, which is really kind of shocking and strange. And not just that. I think what actually happened is they went in, they made the first call, which is we will fine, we'll pay you. And then they came up with nothing. I think in the first 35 days, they came up with nothing. I think they have hundreds of hours of time. And so they decided to retcon the entire story into a story about whether Billy Evans wanted to be paid or not. And therefore they decided to basically rewrite the whole story into a story about lying and a meditation on lying and all the rest of all of this. So Nathan Fielder is playing a giant prank on everybody. Okay. Now again, I want to go back to the characters for a second and who looks bad. One of the people who looks the worst in this is who played Elizabeth Holmes in the Hulu special, The Dropout. And I believe she won an Emmy award for it. She's a really good actress. So one of the key things to know about Elizabeth Holmes in this film is that Elizabeth Holmes is very upset about her portrayal by Amanda Seyfried in that series. She thinks it's inaccurate. She thinks it's a perversion of who she is and all the rest. And Amanda Seyfried early on finds that out and is clearly upset about that. And then she proceeds for the rest of the film to do reenactments of Elizabeth Holmes, like as Elizabeth Holmes. So that's pretty nihilistic. That's pretty immoral. Like she believes that Elizabeth Holmes is half a victim of her husband, Billy, and of manipulative men. But she's perfectly willing to go back in and play the same part. So it's kind of a prank on Amanda Seyfried to that extent. It is a prank certainly on Elizabeth Holmes. It's a prank on Billy Evans, who again, seems kind of scuzzy. I mean, there's a scene where he's fully naked for no reason other than he just wants to demonstrate that he's fully transparent. But most of all, most of all, this film is a prank on the audience. It's a prank on the audience because, I mean, again, Nathan Fielder tries to do this weird sort of Alfred Hitchcock vertigo thing in the last half of the film, where the idea is that he's maybe being drawn in by Elizabeth Holmes because he's sort of in love with her. If you believe that Nathan Fielder has some sort of crush on Elizabeth Holmes, you're silly. So what this really is in the end is a meditation on lying and being deceived. And basically his thesis, in the end, is everyone lies and everyone is deceived. And that includes you. That includes you, right? Do you believe that Elizabeth Holmes is lying to you or that she's telling you the truth while you're being deceived? Do you believe that Elizabeth Holmes quasi-seduced Nathan Fielder? Well, that says something about you. Do you believe she's a victim and Billy's the victimizer and Fielder is a good-hearted documentarian and Amanda Seyfried is some sort of psychologist? That says something about you. So basically, the film is a mirror held up by Fielder to the audience. Because again, if the question is, how could someone like Elizabeth Holmes scam the smartest people in the world out of billions? The answer that he provides is anyone can be scammed by anyone. And the person, the only person who comes out clean with that answer is Nathan Fielder. He's the only one who comes out clean. So ironically, Nathan Fielder, who violates every rule in this film, right? He starts off as a documentarian and then we find out actually he's not a documentarian at all. He's willing to pay the subject of the documentary. He starts out as the weather eye, voice of the audience. And then he supposedly is drawn into her seductive charms. He starts off as the guy who's defending Elizabeth Holmes from her boyfriend for her boyfriend misappropriating her image. And he ends up by having Amanda Seyfried recreate every scene he has with Elizabeth Holmes in prison. So he violates every single moral rule to do this. And then at the end, he gets to basically claim, hey, I'm clean. It was all a big prank, which, you know, good for him. Good for him. But I got to say, I find the, uh, entire enterprise from that angle distasteful because, and I think that the creators of film owe some form of actual authenticity. to their audience. And if the whole thing is just a meta commentary on how anyone can be deceived for any reason, including you right now sitting in the theater, it's a little bit too meta for me. It is one layer of meta too much. In just one moment, we are going to get into a major online scandal involving a streamer who you may have heard of. But first, you have to become a member over at Daily Wire. Now, there are lots of reasons to become a member. One of those reasons is because of our coming film, Confession. It's awesome. It's great. When you're an all-access member, you get a free ticket to our special one-night screening of Confession at 100 theaters across the country. In fact, here is the brand new trailer for Confession.
Speaker 1Father, I used to feel Christ. I cannot feel anything here. They take me out of my bed, and they brought me
Speaker 22here, and they tell me nothing. What have I done? Article 58, counter-revolutionary activity. That is all I know. They have to deal with so many enemies of the state, all of whom claim their innocence, who protest, who cry.
Speaker 20There are no answers here. Other than the ones they put in your mouth.
Speaker 22You'll break. Today is your opportunity to demonstrate your loyalty to the people. You'd like to know why I'm here? Of course. But you already know, don't you? You must believe in something greater than the party. You will remember your duty. I've told you I know nothing.
Speaker 1The ground. Like a feral animal. You stink of failure. You want me to lie. Still a drunk.
Speaker 3Damn you! They all break.
Speaker 4Maybe. Maybe. But you'll see it. Which is why you should become a member. Because the movie's awesome. It's meaningful. It's great. Again, don't want to brag on a film that I wrote. But you know, judge it for yourself. Become a member. Use code Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.
Speaker 2From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allbirds can help you. Allbirds continue to trust and use them. Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com/specialoffer.
PodcastTranscript AI