9/2/25: Modi Xi Putin Screw You To Trump, Demfluencers Rage After Dark Money Scandal

24:17And Ukraine is complex, right? So it's less clear cut. Russia did invade. So there is a liberal international value that is being upheld there truly. Israel is not complex. We are supporting a genocide. We are supporting colonization. We are supporting outright occupation. We're going to talk later about this just like PowerPoint ethnic cleansing plan that's being floated where, by the way, the U.S. is going to be the protectorate. So I'm sure you guys are all going to be really excited about that. It is so glaringly obvious. In fact, you know, truly, I know they put on a sort of like joint statement about Israel in the context of this summit.

24:56They should do more. I mean, the opening is there's truly it's truly wide open. You know, the vast majority of the world's population is in horror and shock at what is being done in Gaza right now and disgusted with Israel. I mean, Israel truly is a pariah nation everywhere except in like this particular area where we sit right now in D.C. among elites right here. And so, you know, there really is a wide open lane to show global leadership and to show, no, we really are the true arbiters. We really are the true representatives of this international world order. Yeah. And look, I think it's important in that context just to show you how a lot of the rhetoric is just crumbling.

25:37Let's put A8 up on the screen, please. And you can see very clearly like what they say from the SCO is that member states strongly condemn the military strikes by Israel and the United States of America against Iran in June of 2025. quote, such aggressive actions against civilian targets, including nuclear energy, which result in the de-veth of civilians, are a gross violation of the principles and the norms of international law and the UN Charter, an infringement on the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They undermine regional and international security and have serious implications for global peace and stability.

26:09Now, no one should delude themselves into thinking that China and Russia in particular care all that much about civilian casualties. But that's where the rhetoric and all that stuff matters because the United States basically accused Russia of committing a, quote, genocide over Bukha. All right? I mean if you look today in the US intelligentsia, they're like Putin is a child murderer, right, for the strikes. And that's true. It's true, right? Yes, strikes have killed children, civilians all across of Ukraine. But how can you sit there and say that you need to use the full weight of the empire when you're also backing up what's going on in Israel?

26:46You can't. The thing doesn't square. So then it's actually not about any of that. What it's really about is power. And that's what those countries understand more than anything. The Chinese for long have held on this thing called mutual respect where they're like, look, well, you guys do what you want to do and we're going to do what we want to do. We don't want to be hearing about any Uyghurs. We don't want you guys to be talking about Taiwan or any of this other stuff because that's our business and we don't tell you how to run Alaska or Hawaii or any of that type of stuff. Well, I think that that hits even harder, again, in the year 2025 in the context of everything that is all happening.

27:21And again, just to highlight all this BRIC stuff, let's put this video here between Lula and between Modi. I mean this is not really something that you would see. It's not that long ago. You can see the two leaders grasping hands, hugging, coming together, basically trying to broadcast to the world that this alternative system is one which they are fully embracing. These are both two leaders who have been hit with some 50 percent tariffs, both capriciously under the Trump administration with no strategy or any of that behind it. And meanwhile, Trump is just spouting off. Here's his latest. We can put it up there on the screen.

28:01quote,

28:31nothing, but it's getting too late. They should have done so years ago, just some simple facts for people to ponder. But what Trump doesn't really get is that this is a vindication of the Indian strategy. Their high tariffs, high capital controls, and more on the country are exactly what insulate them from tariff threats. Because they know, they planned for this for years. They saw what happened with their nuclear program. By the way, they banned Bitcoin a long time ago. Anything that challenges the primacy of the state, of the rupee, and of the ability for India to remain sovereign, they nuke it.

29:02And they see it very early. TikTok over there, not even a question. They're like, it's done. They banned it years ago. Because again, for them, they care about sovereignty. It would be nice to live in a country that actually cared about things like that. Same with the Chinese. And so they know, and they've studied this Russian sanctions now for years. And they see, they're like, oh, it doesn't matter so much. Got oil, got guns. We got a lot of production capacity. Some of the world's, I think the world's largest population in India, we'll be all right. And that's basically the path that they are choosing.

29:34We can do enough business to sustain themselves. I'm not going to say it's going to hurt. It certainly will. But broadly, they're making enough of a bet that especially, everyone again talks about democracy. Over there, it would not be popular to capitulate to Donald Trump. I can guarantee you that if people in China or Russia could vote too, like for real vote, all of them would probably back up standing up against the US. So that's part of the democratic principle that a lot of people in the West are not ready for. Democracy doesn't ultimately mean we're all good friends here. It means will of the people.

30:03And I'm pretty sure that what's happening there over there is actually the will of the people, 100%. Well, I mean, it's ironic too, because Trump and Modi in a lot of ways were natural allies because they actually share similar nationalist ideologies. And in the first administration, there was much more, you could see much more of that overlap and that sort of simpatico view of the world. Can we put A6 back up on the screen there, Sagar? Just take a look at this image and tell me, do you think that this is the cure for the toxic masculinity of the manosphere? Do you think this is it right here?

30:34What do you mean? This very tender, loving, affectionate between these two powerful alpha males. Sure, yeah. I think this is a model for the world. Yeah, I guess I could go with that. I can see it. I mean, you know, Modi is an interesting character. I wouldn't call him like an alpha male. He is a lot of respect for things like yoga and fasting. I mean, it's like Indian male in their context. It doesn't really translate to the West. But I don't know. I don't really know enough about Lula to be able to say the same. But I do know, watching all of this, is it's one of the most broadcasted screw yous against the United States.

31:13Genuinely. I mean, I can't think of another time that the leaders of the most powerful states outside of the Western Hemisphere would gather together and in an explicit go fuck yourself to the United States. Well, I keep thinking about what Professor Jeffrey Sachs told us, which is that our decision to levy these sanctions on these tariffs on India as a result of their decision to continue buying Russian oil, he called it one of the most foolish policy mistakes, foreign policy mistakes that the U.S. has made in years. And that's saying a lot because we've made a lot of really horrific mistakes in recent years and decades.

31:50And this is why. I mean, this playing out in front of you is exactly why. He has united these countries, and it really is on him. Now, there are other things that lead to this point. I'm not saying it's the only factor. But his tariff policy has to already be deemed, like in terms of American interests, one of the most disastrous economic policies ever pursued, ever pursued, certainly in modern American history. It has made our economy here, we can already see the effects. In certain goods, prices going up. You can see the rate of growth in the economy slowing. You can see more and more consumer debt being taken on, like all sorts of red flags flashing here in our economy because of his economic policy.

32:35So we aren't benefiting. Quite the contrary. And meanwhile, he has clarified for the rest of the world, OK, it's time that we get together and we move on from this mess because this is a disaster and we can't count on these people. This guy's a psycho. This country is hypocritical. They're insane. We've got to figure out how to do our own thing over here and make sure that we are protecting our own nations. And it really does lay at the feet of Trump. Absolutely. It is. It's about Trump's ego. It's about a misreading, I think, entirely of the way that geopolitics and all of this works. It also is completely counter to many of the things that were talked about by Donald Trump and all of the people who work for them.

33:15It's not an exaggeration to say this is the exact opposite. This is the Lindsey Graham course. You know, oh, we got a leverage on 500 % tariff on India because of the war in Ukraine. While we continue to back up, you know, it's like it's as if the Israel and Ukraine conflict are the sun, the moon and the stars and everything just revolves around them. And that this entire, you know, part of the world is just the secondary or tertiary characters. In reality, Japan, number three trading partner in the world. You think that the Japanese people are happy about that trade deal and all the bullshit that they went through?

33:51They're not, okay? You can go and read their press. Same with the South Koreans. I mean the South Koreans similarly are in this weird limbo state where they're like – they used to be understood as a massively important US ally. They're basically just on the back burner. They pay them no attention. When they do pay them attention, it's to hit them with some tariffs or to get mad at them over Samsung or any of the other companies that they make. We're just playing – we are playing like little league baseball and that is what – again, I have nothing but admiration. Maybe that's bad and it speaks to me but like this – that is – those are countries run by actual statesmen.

34:27And yes, Putin, all of them, they do terrible things. I'm not absolving them of all of the bad – I wouldn't want to live in Russia. I wouldn't want to live in India and I definitely wouldn't want to live in China. But I have nothing but admiration for the seriousness which they run their countries and we don't have any of that. We do not have any of that. And that's the starkest and the most depressing part because you and I know for the next three and a half years, probably the next eight years, let's be honest, it's just we're locked in. And the Chinese century, it just seems more likely than ever before.

34:56Yeah, we're run by a bunch of clownish evil buffoons who make some of the worst decisions of all time. What's up, fam? I'm sports journalist Ari Chambers. Hey, what's up, y 'all? It's your girl, Sam Jay. And we're the hosts of Everyone Watches Women's Sports, a new podcast from Together and I Heart Women's Sports. Because let's be real, women's sports is giving us way too much to talk about these days. So Kelsey Finler, she became the first female solo rower to go from California to Hawaii. My first thought is like, what's up with the snacks? Like, what are we eating? The highlights, the rivalries, the breakout stars, the moments that take over your entire timeline.

35:32And the conversations that start during the game and somehow keep going all week. Every week, we're breaking down the biggest stories across women's sports. Naomi Osaka showing out. She beat Sabalenka. Shout out to you, Naomi. You get the palm, Naomi. You get the palm for that. Because we're not just interested in what happened. We're interested in why everyone's talking about it. Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to Everyone Watches Women's Sports on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Bob Pittman, chairman and CEO of iHeartMedia. I also led the team that created MTV.

36:07and my co-founders and I are celebrating MTV's 45th anniversary this month. On my podcast, Math & Magic, Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing, you'll hear the untold origin story from the people who built MTV from the ground up. I want my MTV! Those are powerful words. My. Something for me that felt like mine and want. What a powerful word. Listen to Math & Magic, Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here. You know us, or rather, you know them. Tony and Candace, Nina and Lance, Spike, and yes, the chicken.

36:49We've played a lot of iconic characters over the years, but today we're showing up as ourselves to tell you about Podlandia, AO Rewatch, our brand new podcast. Each week, we'll revisit an episode of Portlandia from the very beginning, Breaking down the sketches, exploring the backstories of our most iconic characters, revisiting the Portland locations you know and love, and opening up about our creative process. How did any of this get made? Why do we think that was a good idea? We're ready to talk about it. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guest stars, collaborators, and friends, including director Jonathan Kreisel, the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more.

37:27Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song, a melody. Well, I thought he was going to write, I thought you were all going to write a song. I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia A-O Rewatch on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

37:48Very interesting story here. I am a little bit obsessed with it. So Taylor Lorenz over at Wired Magazine really breaking some significant news here about an incubator program funded by a Dem-aligned dark money super PAC called the 1630 Fund. So let's put her reporting up on the screen, and I want to break down very specifically what she reports out in this piece. So her headline here is a dark money group is secretly funding high profile Democratic influencers. An initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to$8 ,000 a month to push the party line. All they have to do is keep it secret and agree to restrictions on their content.

38:29So the TLDR here is that this incubator named Chorus was set up by Brian Tyler Cohen, who you guys probably know is a big like resistance creator on YouTube. giant channel, 4 million subscribers, et cetera. And a guy who used to be an aide for John Yarmuth, who was a congressman from Kentucky. So they set up this thing. And the way they fund it is by taking money from this billionaire-backed dark money super PAC called the 1630 Fund. That fund has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to back Democratic candidates and causes. It's very influential. It's very well-known. You can read a bunch of reporting about it.

39:08But because it is a dark money group, their donors are kept a secret. OK, so 90 plus Democratic Party aligned influencers were selected for this program. They're paid anywhere from two hundred fifty dollars a month, which like we all are really selling out for the cheap if you're on that plan. But we'll get back to that all the way up to eight thousand dollars a month. It has everybody from small creators. I certainly had never heard of. Granted, I'm not on TikTok that much, so I'm not trying to like smirch the level of their influence. But all the way up to people like David Pakman, who has a multi-million sub channel, who is already been quite successful and has been around for longer actually than we have.

39:48David Pakman's been in this game for a long time. So it's like everybody from the small and the brand new all the way up to the David Pakmans of the world. So specifically, Taylor was able to talk to people who were approached about participating in this program, some of whom were put off by the terms of the contract and said, this is not something that I can be a part of. She was given access to some of the group chats that were flying around between some of the people who did end up in the cohort, who were also expressing concerns about some of the terms of the contract. And she also apparently was able to get her hands on the contract themselves.

40:25And so here's specifically what the contracts that it says were viewed by Wired, what they indicated in terms of restrictions on the way these individuals can operate. So according to copies of the contract viewed by Wired, creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus. Creators also have to loop Chorus in on any independently organized engagement with government officials or political leaders. So one of the creators who was approached about participating in Chorus said to Taylor, she said, quote, If I want to work with another politician, I have to fully collaborate with Chorus.

41:04If I get Zoran and he wants to do an interview with me, I don't want to give that to them. So that was one of the concerns. Also, it says, creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or opposes any political candidate or campaign without express authorization from Chorus in advance and in writing per the contract. So if they want to support a candidate, Graham Plattner, let's say, in Maine, they have to get approval from Chorus before they can say anything supportive of any sort of candidate or campaign.

41:39In addition, the contracts reviewed by Wired prohibit standard partnership disclosures, declaring that creators will not publicize their relationship with Chorus or tell others that they're members of the program, quote, without Chorus's prior express consent. A screenshot from a slideshow was shared with Wired Volumes Articles publication by Graham Wilson, a lawyer working with Chorus, that offers several talking points if a member of the cohort wanted to discuss Chorus publicly. So they're expressly saying you can't talk about being in this program and certainly can't disclose the dark money funding of this program.

42:11They also forbid creators from disclosing the identity of any funder and give chorus the ability to force creators to remove or correct content based solely on the organization's discretion if that content was made at a chorus-organized event. One other piece that I thought was really noteworthy, Sagar, is it also says you are not allowed to criticize any of the other influencers who are part of the chorus program. So, for example, if you have a beef over David Pakman either not saying anything about Gaza or in the early days of the genocide he was actively defending Israel, if you have a problem with that and you're an influencer in this cohort and you want to talk about it, you are banned from doing that.

42:53So you have a combination of a lot of restrictions on the way that you operate, having to run things through this chorus program. You have the forced secrecy around it that you're not allowed to disclose Corus, and you're certainly not allowed to disclose the funding source of Corus. And then you also, on top of that, have these requirements that they check in, that they go to these daily messaging meetings to get the view of Corus. And we're going to show you some of the responses from the creators themselves about the revelation that they're part of this program. and they actually affirm that, yes, much of this is in fact true.

43:33They show relevant parts of the contract and then give reasons why it's not such a big deal and it's not really a problem. But they actually confirm Taylor's reporting here. So this seems pretty rock solid at this point. OK, so let's put that aside. I think the question is about why is this important. I think it's important not only for the context of what you laid out about specific issues, But it is an incentive and media ecosystem, which is so much worse than allegedly what the Dem and Republican alternative medias were trying to go after. Like, look, we can say a lot of bad things about Jake Tapper, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News.

44:07They do not get direct checks cut to them that specifically say you can't criticize X, Y, and Z. They are actually less controlled in this particular way. And so that's what I think I wanted to cover the story early. And I want people to grapple with that is that in this new ecosystem, just like in the original days of the printing press, it's gone wild. The norms don't exist. Everybody is a creator and a business person. They have not had well-established norms to try and create a firewall, a separation. Probably the most important is nobody is thinking about the downstream consequences of that.

44:44Because originally you're like, oh, you know, a couple thousand a month. Great. I can pay my bills. I can do this. I don't have to have a second job and all that. But you don't ask what comes next. And two people who have been in this industry now for a long time and experienced much of the downside of what that type of stuff looked like. Now, to be clear, I've never taken a single dollar from a Republican group or any of that type of stuff in the same way, which, again, I don't really know how you ever thought it was cool. Because even when I was absolutely broke, I never would have signed some sort of contract like that.

45:15But the point remains that I think most of them didn't think about it. And now they're retreating to their corners because for them, they have to defend it at this point. But really, you are either controlled, quasi-controlled, or at the very least, you are not truly free to say what you want. Now, the mainstream is controlled in a separate way, right? As in Fox News guys can't criticize each other. They also know that if they cover X, Y, or Z, that's not going to look so nice to Rupert Murdoch or to Lachlan, who are rabidly pro-Israel and pro-Ukraine. So there's all these separate issues and incentive structures that come with them.

45:50So don't get me wrong. That obviously exists with the mainstream media, and I still hate them for a variety of reasons. But this is really, really bad. And it is bad because I think that the Democrats in particular – I know that there are a lot of Dems. They're energized. They're ready. We're going to talk about Trump health. Everybody wants to be online, having fun, and resisting. But you're being part of a machine, and that machine is being controlled for very specific purposes and ends, which Unite may not be aware of. That's what I think is very important. Right, and it would be one thing if this was disclosed.

46:23Yeah, that's right. And what they say is, oh, well, here are some videos where people did talk about being in Chorus, and here's a Chorus website, and it lists some of the creators who were participating in the program. So there was some disclosure. Was there disclosure around a dark money super PAC funding this? No, there was not. And there's, you know, so there's a reason why Taylor had to do an investigative journalism piece in order to reveal the details of this program. It expressly prohibits them in the contract from disclosing their funders, specifically from disclosing their participation in the program.

46:55And, you know, in terms of like the ethics of all of this, that is almost the biggest red line here. Because, listen, it's very complicated, all of the different business structures within, quote-unquote, independent media, right? Most places are different from us. Most of them will do ad reads, which means they're directly talking to advertisers. It's actually a much more direct relationship than, like, for example, when I was at MSNBC. Way more. There was a firewall between the hosts and the, you know, people who were selling ads. You had no idea what was on during the commercial break. That wasn't your—you know, you were not paying attention to that.

47:29That had no bearing on your, like, day-to-day. So, you know, there's that. But at least that's up front. Everybody knows I'm paid to read this ad for Casper mattresses or whatever the heck it is, you know, Zins or whatever thing that they're selling. So that's up front. And, you know, frankly, those corporate interests are going to only collide with your coverage in sort of certain specific instances. Whereas if you are backed by this kind of group where you're going to daily messaging check-ins, you're having to run by them. You're supposed to run by them, every government official that you interview and you have other restrictions on your content.

48:08And they have a specific they mention in one of these contracts that actually in the response video, one of the one of the members of the cohort put up a part of the contract and referred to Corus's policy platform. So, like, what is that? You know, and are you having to buy into a certain set of policies? I'm going to guarantee you that based on the lack of coverage of Gaza by Brian Tyler Cohen, and sometimes at times the incredibly terrible coverage of David Pakman, two of the biggest creators that are associated with this, I'm going to bet that, you know, the fact that, for example, Gaza has been officially deemed a genocide by all of the world's genocide scholars, I'm going to bet that's not part of the policy platform.

48:47I'm going to bet that's not part of the daily messaging guidance. And I want to be clear because some of the way this has been portrayed, especially in the rebuttals, has been very caricature-ish. We're not saying that they're being told, you're going to do a video on this, and if you don't, you're kicked out of the program. And here's your talking points. You're going to say these freaking talking points or you're out. It doesn't work like that. It works through several mechanisms. First of all, the choice of who participates. I guarantee you, many of these people, their authentic view is that the Democratic Party is like, you know, vote blue no matter who.

49:27They are vastly superior. The focus should all be on Trump. Like for many, if not all of them, that is their genuine view. So number one is the choice of who you even include in the cohort. But then there's all these sort of like human pressures and incentives. You see who's in the in-group with you. You see the sort of topics that are being pushed. You know where the sensitivities are. And so if you're weighing, covering, let's say, you know, the Gaza genocide versus another topic that is also very important that isn't going to create some sort of discomfort with the, you know, with the program that you're in that you're receiving monthly cash from.

50:05Maybe you're going to choose the one that's not going to sort of not going to be uncomfortable for the group, not going to be uncomfortable for your future potential prospects of staying in this program. And as you get down the line, if these influencers become financially dependent on getting this monthly stipend, then you have a lot of control over them. So that's the way these things work. It's far more subtle than just like you're getting your talking points and you're going to stick to them and you're not going to do videos on this and you are going to do videos on that. It happens in a much more subtle way.

50:38And I saw, you know, I've told this story before, you know, just to give an example from my own personal life and why like the lessons we've had to learn through our careers and how we came to the business model that we have. When I was at MSNBC, this was back in 2015 before Hillary, actually, I think it was 2014, before Hillary officially got in the race for president. I did a monologue that was like, don't run. Please don't run because you are not the person for the moment. I talked about her, you know, her speeches to banks. I, you know, said this is not the populist champion we need. It was very critical at a time when nobody on the Democratic side, nobody on MSNBC was being critical of Hillary.

51:12They let me do it. But after the fact, I was informed that any future commentary I did on Hillary Clinton had to be run by the president of the network, okay? That is not a normal thing. Message was sent to me that this was not appreciated, and in the future, I needed to make sure I run it up the flagpole. So can I say for certain that that didn't impact my coverage going forward, that that didn't make it so that if I was weighing two different monologue topics, I was like, well, I could do this one on Hillary again, or I could do this other topic, that I didn't take the easy way out and say, well, they're both important, so let me do this one so I don't have to actually get all of my words approved by the president of the network and piss off everybody involved this day.

51:51That's the way these things work through these subtle influences and pressures that every human is subject to. And so I think a lot of these individuals, they feel like, well, we're not corrupt. We genuinely believe in the Democratic Party. And we got to fight fire with fire. We got to get in there and we got to fight against Trump. We got to build up this creator ecosystem. I think that's the way they're thinking about it without realizing the subtle way that your coverage can be shaped and influenced the minute that you start taking cash. And especially when you have these sorts of very specific restrictions on the way you're supposed to go about your content creation and you're required to go to a daily messaging check-in every single day, of course that's going to impact the way that you approach things, not because you're inherently corrupt, because you're a human being and we are all subject to those sorts of incentives and pressures, whether we even realize it or not.

52:43I will just quote the great Noam Chomsky, quote, the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum, even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are reinforced by the limits put upon the range of the debate. And then similarly, when he was asked in that famous BBC interview about whether people self-censor, He says, I don't say you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything that you're saying.

53:14But what I'm saying is if you believe something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting. That's the question around the court. So like you said, it's not that these people are – and let's even think about the whole Gaza thing. Do you think they're doing it because they believe it? I don't. I don't know Dave. I mean I talked to David one time. I have no hate for the guy. Brian, we interviewed him here. He seems nice. I don't think that they are actively covering anything up. You know what it is. It's division for Democrats, right? That's it. They're like, well, we can't divide the Democratic Party.

53:43Well, Patman, at the beginning of the genocide, actively backed up Israel. Fine, but BTC, all right? I think for him, he's like, I don't want to cause problems for Alyssa Slotkin. I don't want to cause problems for Gavin Newsom. We need to train 100 % of our fire on the right. By the way, the right does this all the time, too, right? Although it's more complicated. More recently, they are willing to go after people on the issues that they care about, immigration in particular. Thomas Massey, right? They'll go single him out, or at least some people have. I'm trying to think more establishment, but Mitch McConnell and others, they'll get their fire whenever they, quote, go against the base.

54:15And Republican creators generally are more likely to be able to do that. The Democrats, though, they all seem to have internalized this thing about Kamala where protesters and people who spoke out against Kamala and Biden were nothing but trouble and that that's the reason that she lost. Folks, it's just not true. Yeah. It's like that is – what they don't get is that iron sharpens iron. Going through a deeply competitive, brutal primary does not weaken the candidate. It actually makes them stronger. It means that you definitively won the debate. Kamala never won shit, literally, from the primary to her coronation at the Democratic Party.

54:54Those Gaza people, by the way, get mad at them all you want. They voted in good faith for Donald Trump or Jill Stein in the state of Michigan, and they were the exact margin of victory. Now, maybe it wouldn't have mattered in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin. I know for a fact, 100%, it mattered in the state of Michigan. So that's on you. That's not on anybody else. That's not on some protester or anybody else. And that's where their theory of politics is just dead wrong. I mean, think about 2016 for Trump. It was savage. And he won. And not only that, he won the election. Obama, Hillary, that was true.

55:29I mean, the juggernauts went at each other. Obama got a blowout victory. And he was definitely straight. If you watch in the beginning of those debates to the end, he will strengthen so much Biden. But even put aside like the Gaza piece and all of that, probably the worst mistake that Democrats made, political tactical mistake, was circling the wagons around Biden. 100%. And keeping out any sort of actual primary process and dissent where his weakness could have been exposed earlier. you could have ended up with a much stronger candidate who actually had won a democratic process and had some sort of democratic mandate behind them.

56:05By circling the wagons and keeping all the dissent out, they led themselves down this disastrous path where then you have the debate and we all know the rest of how that history unfolds. So, you know, I think the lesson that Democrats should just shut their mouths and not ever criticize anything that any Democrat has ever done. And I think that that lesson has I think that has been one of the single most devastating ideas for the Democratic Party. If you just care about Democrats winning, I think that has been an utter and complete disaster on the piece around the future of the Democratic Party, too.

56:41For me, there's there's a battle right now. And this is why I think that even though, you know, it's whatever, it's it's one dark money group. Let's all be really clear. There's tons of dark money flowing through independent media. There's tons on the right. OK, this is not something that's unique. By the way, a lot of these creators spoke out against the tenant media scandal when that happened, which we did, too, by the way, because it was growth and it was corrupt. But, you know, they can't see the problem when it is on their side. But to me, you know, there's a battle for the future of the Democratic Party right now.

57:11And I don't want to be overly simplistic about it, but it really is a battle between is this going to be a party that's run by billionaires or run by the grassroots? Is that, you know, is it going to be Zoran or is it going to be Kamala Harris? Is it going to be Gavin Newsom or is it going to be someone like a grand planner who has a true like grassroots behind him? That's the battle of the Democratic Party right now. And we saw through the Kamala Harris campaign when she started relying on, you know, the Mark Cubans of the world and this billionaire backed and approved strategy. That's when she truly sort of nixed it.

57:44That's when she truly destroyed her campaign and made it impossible to win. So I also see this as a real struggle because if you're taking this dark money from a billionaire-backed group, you are laying your chips down on the side of basically we're going to keep doing the same thing we did in the past. And let me tell you something. If you consider yourself left of center in any way, you are not going to win a contest of who has more billionaires and for whom, which party is more comfortable for those billionaires. You have to play a different game. And that's why I think that this is really important and very symbolic of the fights that are going on, the struggles that are going on within the Democratic Party.

58:26And of course, Gaza ties in as well, because that's an area where you have a lot of organized money on the side if we're going to be with Israel no matter what. And so it's not the case that none of these influencers in this cohort have said anything about Gaza. It's not been a complete prohibition. But if you look at their body of work, there has been notably less, less focus on Gaza than among people who are, you know, much more independent, who really are out there, you know, saying what they think about what's going on in the world right now.

59:11giving us way too much to talk about these days. So Kelsey Finler, she became the first female solo rower to go from California to Hawaii. My first thought is, like, what's up with the snacks? Like, what are we eating? The highlights, the rivalries, the breakout stars, the moments that take over your entire timeline. And the conversations that start during the game and somehow keep going all week. Every week, we're breaking down the biggest stories across women's sports. Naomi Osaka showing out. She beat Sabalenka. Shout-outs to you, Naomi. You get the palm, Naomi. You get the palm for that. Because we're not just interested in what happened.

59:46We're interested in why everyone's talking about it. Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to Everyone Watches Women's Sports on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, I'm Bob Pittman, chairman and CEO of iHeartMedia. I also led the team that created MTV. And my co-founders and I are celebrating MTV's 45th anniversary this month. On my podcast, Math & Magic, Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing, you'll hear the untold origin story from the people who built MTV from the ground up. I want my MTV! Those are powerful words, my. Something for me that felt like mine and want.

1:00:27What a powerful word. Listen to Math & Magic, Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here. You know us, or rather, you know them. Tony and Candace, Nina and Lance, Spike, and yes, the chicken. We've played a lot of iconic characters over the years, but today we're showing up as ourselves to tell you about Podlandia, AO Rewatch, our brand new podcast. Each week, we'll revisit an episode of Portlandia from the very beginning, breaking down the sketches, exploring the backstories of our most iconic characters, revisiting the Portland locations you know and love, and opening up about our creative process.

1:01:07How did any of this get made? Why do we think that was a good idea? We're ready to talk about it. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guest stars, collaborators, and friends, including director Jonathan Kreisel, the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more. Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song, a melody. Well, I thought he was going to write, I thought you were all going to write a song. I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia A-O Rewatch on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

1:01:45Let me go ahead and play for you guys a couple of the responses here. Let me go ahead and start with a portion of Brian Tyler Cohen's response, which I also have to say, I found these responses to honestly be kind of shocking in how dishonest they were, how frankly like Trumpian they were in their character. So let's go ahead and take a listen to Brian Tyler Cohen, who again is one of the co-founders, of course. So he is actually like at the head of this thing. So here's what Chorus is. It is a scholarship program to teach creators how to grow their accounts, foster engagement, launch their own shows and become profitable on their own.

1:02:23It's an incubator program to build the pro-democracy ecosystem. Influencers and creators have never been more important when it comes to how Americans are consuming their news. The right has been doing this for years and the left needs to catch up. That's why we're doing this with Chorus. So let's talk about what Chorus is and what it's not. Chorus does not pay creators for content, does not tell them what to say, does not control who they talk to or work with. And there is absolutely nothing in the contract that could even be reasonably interpreted to say that we do. Period. Full stop. I don't know a single creator who would willfully sign up for a program that would tell them what they can or can't say.

1:02:58That's not what this program is. We pay people to show up to workshops and technical trainings to optimize their content online. For example, we've got trainings on how to package content for YouTube, trainings on how to optimize audience retention for Instagram and TikTok, trainings on how to form an LLC. There is the implication in the article that this is some arm of the DNC or the Democratic Party. We have literally nothing to do with the DNC. I spend zero minutes of my day thinking about the DNC. The creators do not tow any party line. How could we? There isn't a party line. Creators are absolutely allowed to speak out against the Democrats.

1:03:34And in fact, plenty do. And frankly, chorus creators should and do criticize Democrats when they suck. And quite often they do suck. 1630 Fund is our fiscal sponsor. One of the largest documented donors to 1630 Fund is the same person funding a mid-year as reporters in residence program, which Taylor Lorenz herself is a part of. And guess what her monthly stipend is? $8 ,000 per month. So she's criticizing an entity that is funded by someone that she is currently taking money from. I guess it's okay when Taylor Lorenz gets paid, but no one else. There are people like Taylor Lorenz who are desperate to tear the left apart.

1:04:10And in fact, it becomes clear who her efforts help when you hear stuff like this. Genuinely, I kind of like Taylor Lorenz because I know that she actually believes what she says. Do you get what I'm saying? So yeah, I generally don't align myself with friends of Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. calling taylor lorenz a friend of tucker carlson and candace owens is wild wild and he opens up this thing we it's it was kind of long so we like you know clipped it up and didn't play the the whole thing i wanted to give you the pieces where he's doing his best defense whatever um to be to be fair to him but he opens up the whole thing by being like at the risk of giving more attention to an internet troll you can say a lot of things about taylor lorenz but this is a fully reported piece in Wired magazine.

1:04:53He also spends a lot of time doing like, well, this person online said this thing about it, which is totally untrue. And it's like, OK, but you don't actually deal with the very specific claims that she makes in her report about the requirement of nondisclosure, about the fact that they're required, contractually required to run all of the guests that they book, all of the government official guests that they booked through you guys in this like approved channel that you have to go to daily messaging meetings. You don't deal with any of that. Instead, you shift the focus to these Internet claims that were untrue rather than the actual reported out pieces.

1:05:30I want to deal with the piece that he says here about Pierre Omidyar, which I think is important. And listen, I think it would be fair to question whether Taylor should be taking money from Pierre Omidyar. He has this reporter in residence training. But here's what's different. She was public about that. And we know who's funding her. And it's, you know, it's on the website and she announced it. That is very different than a program that you're not allowed to say you're part of and you're not allowed to disclose the funders and you're supposed to keep it secret. And by the way, we still don't know who all is funding the 1630 fund.

1:06:07So I think it's fair. There could be criticism of Taylor there, too. But to posture like these are the exact same things, that is just fundamentally dishonest. And he's smart enough to know that. Well, look, people have there's a four year track record here of criticizing Taylor. I read the story. I don't take her word for it. You know, I read the story. I make sure that it's sourced, and then I see the response. It seems to hold up. I think that's really what it's all about. So this isn't about Taylor Lorenz. I'm a great big fan or any of that over here. I do think it was really dishonest to be like, well, Candace says, you know, that Candace and Tucker say that Taylor believes what – I actually agree with that.

1:06:43It's one thing – I mean I don't like most of what Taylor believes, but I do think she actually believes that. She genuinely believes it, yeah. You know, we can talk about that. It's kind of a different story. But the question here, and I think people are like, oh, is this ponderous? Why are we spending so much time? A lot of you guys are watching this stuff on the internet. And not enough people talk about the behind the scenes. So what you just talked about with MSNBC. Talked a lot about here our experience at the Hill. Multiple phone calls, problems with coverage because it could affect advertising.

1:07:10And it's not, again, it's not in the stuff that people would think. Like people would think it's Gazers sometimes, you know, if it's controversy. It's really about business. And like that's the stuff that people don't get, you know, criticizing or creating problems for potential events with Bank of America or pharma or TikTok, Chinese advertising, where the actual dollars hit the bank. We were speculating with our staff like what's the stuff that we cover that would be a problem? I'll give you a perfect example. Gambling. The gambling stuff would be a real issue if you and I were advertising 100 % focus.

1:07:43A serious problem because back in 2021, wouldn't have thought much about it. Maybe, oh, DraftKings, FanDuel, they're offering goobles of money, right? Or Polymarket, like some people out there. By the way, Polymarket is now getting into sports betting, as you covered, I think, previously. Robinhood, any of the, so financial services, credit cards. How much do I talk about user-ish credit card rates and stuff like that on the show? That's not happening if you're taking American Express. American Express is a blue chip, you know, brand, great brand. Who has anything bad to say about it? I do. Well, that would be an issue.

1:08:13I could go on forever, man. Like in terms of DTC that we talked about, all of these DTC companies, BetterHelp, I gave that one. How could you be against therapy? James Lee, who does segments for us, did a segment about BetterHelp. That's not happening if you have a$1.5 million a year contract with BetterHelp. You probably sign up for it and you think, it's therapy. What's so bad about it? Well, maybe something. There's so many of the examples. Like, yes, Casper mattresses and all that stuff probably wouldn't be an issue. But you never know. And that's why we don't do it. and have left, and I'm not exaggerating, millions of dollars on the table and have created instead an alternative funding structure which enables us to just do what we want to do.

1:08:53But not enough people have thought about that. And I do, broadly, I do think that the reason why these people can't escape criticism is not disclosing who you're getting paid for, is the scum of the earth behavior when you are doing public media consumption for other people because they have to know. One of the things, again, in the mainstream media in them is in ways they're more transparent who they take their money from. They're public companies. They publish their financials. I know exactly who CNN gets this money from. And also they'll tell you during the ad breaks. It's presented to you by Pfizer.

1:09:27Presented to you by American Express or any of these other people. And that has all kinds of pernicious downstream effects in a Noam Chomsky sense. But it's very different than actually getting a direct check wired to you by your bank account. Mainstream media people are just W-2 employees. they get cut a check which you know they don't really know how all the all the sauce gets made yeah so that's why this is honestly kind of worse it absolutely is it absolutely is and it is also so like you can think about first of all we need to come up with an agreed upon definition of who gets to call themselves independent media because if you're taking dark money from a party aligned super pack sorry you're not independent media i mean you're just like you can call yourself something else but it ain't that the next level so that's like kind of like the worst level is you're taking secret party aligned money from billionaires that, and, you know, and you're contractually obligated to not disclose that.

1:10:18That is the worst level of, you know, potential compromise and puts you the furthest from truly being able to call yourself independent media. You know, the next year is like, okay, it's funding from these various corporate entities, but it's disclosed. You're doing the ad read, right? It's, it's upfront. You know, that's another level. You're, you know, you're getting sponsorships from this company or that company, and you're disclosing it. You know, I don't take any of these decisions lightly because we're really fortunate. We were able to build a business. You know, you guys signed up right away.

1:10:49We're able to fund it really quickly. You know, we stepped into the breach and you guys were there for us. And I know that that's not gonna be the case for everyone because Soghar and I were already established at the Hill and we had the benefit of establishing ourselves at the Hill when somebody else was paying the overhead before we went out on our own. So I don't really, like, I don't judge people who are making somewhat different choices than what we are making. But I think transparency has to be at the core of what you're doing, at the very least. If you're not in a position to say, listen, we're not gonna talk to any advertisers at all, which is the position that we have taken to keep from having to ask ourselves questions about what about this sponsor versus that sponsor?

1:11:27Is this ethical? Whatever, is somebody gonna think that we're not covering the story because we're taking money from this place? We've just decided we're putting all of that off the table. If you aren't in the position to make that choice, I have some sympathy for that. It's just you have to be transparent. And if you're not, you cannot call yourself independent media. I hope that we can all agree that that's the case. And that's if you're on the left, if you're on the right. And maybe it's unfair, but I do think that the left should hold themselves to a higher standard because we are supposed to be the people who oppose billionaire influence, who want campaign finance reform, who want to represent public interest and not have all of this nefarious dark money that is controlling so much of our politics.

1:12:11So yes, that is your obligation. If you're going to call yourself someone who is on the left is to be more pure than the, you know, the Tim Pools or whoever taking the tenant media, whatever cash they can grab. Because frankly, that's more consistent with their idea. If you're Ben Shapiro, you know, and you're a standard issue conservative, you don't think there's anything wrong with billionaires and billionaire influence and politics and whatever. That is actually more consistent with your ideology. So I have scorn for those funding models as well. But I do think if you're going to hold yourself out as being on the left, you do have to meet a higher bar and a higher standard.

1:12:44And as I said before, you're not going to win playing the game of who can get more billionaire dollars. You're not going to win that. And you are certainly not going to win a movement that delivers for working class people if you are relying on billionaire funding to get there. Not going to happen. So that's why I think this is so important. I want to play a little bit of there is at least one person in here who is she's a TikToker. She has been, you know, critical on Gaza. She's been critical of Andrew Cuomo, of Cory Booker. So she's gone after Democrats and she put together her response. She's a member of chorus.

1:13:20She's in the chorus cohort or incubator as well. She put together part of her response. And it was amusing to me because she put up parts of the contract that she claimed were debunking what Taylor was saying in the article, but actually just fully confirmed what Taylor had reported out. And then she does this thing that I found so incredibly gross. And there have been other instances of this in the defense of Chorus where they're once again using identity politics to protect, effect, you know, to sort of rebut these claims of, you know, potential like corruption and being compromised by this dark money.

1:13:59So let me go ahead and play this B5. Let me go ahead and play a little bit of this. In the contract I signed, there is some language that says, hey, please, like before you make a public statement about what course is, just check with us. The reason for that is that as the article states, there's over 90 influencers in the program, many of whom have very small accounts and joined the program to get like mentorship and happen to be immigrants or trans in a red state, right? And like already happened to be kind of in extra danger right now. And so the goal with the like, please check with us clause is to make sure that small creators who already had targets on their back weren't accidentally like featured on a huge page and then suddenly have an onslaught of threats from the right.

1:14:32Or this has never been kept some nefarious secret, right? People have been talking about it. It was more just, hey, this is already an unsafe job for some people. Check with us in advance so you don't accidentally like add to someone's unsafety. That doesn't make any sense, okay? She's literally saying that they are keeping their dark money funding secret in order to protect trans creators in red states. That is her argument. That makes zero sense. Okay. Now, maybe it would make sense to say, hey, don't talk about the other people who are in the cohort. But for you yourself, how is it protecting a trans creator or an immigrant in a red state for you to not talk about your dark money funding?

1:15:10I'm having serious Hillary 2016 identity politics weaponized against the left flashbacks with all of this. There were other allegations that Taylor was like anti-black woman for publishing this when they're all, I mean, I'm sure there are black women in the color. There's this lady appears to be white. Like there's all kinds of people. It's just, it reminded me of why I became such a vociferous critic of this type of identity politics, because you see the way it is being weaponized here when you genuinely have these communities that are under threat and they're cynically using this to protect their dark money funding source.

1:15:45That is disgusting. And one more thing I'll say about these responses is, again, if you are on the left, look, I get that there are, I think the best case you can make for them is basically like, look, the right is doing this and we just got to, we got to throw on through, we're dealing with fascism. We've got to throw on the playbook and I get it's not ideal, but we got to fight against fascism in whatever way we can. And so that's why we're taking the money. None of them even really acknowledge that there's an ethical question here. And that to me is a real red. How can you call yourself on the left?

1:16:16And you're not even contemplating the ethical dilemmas that are involved here and explaining, well, I get why it's a problem and maybe in another time, but here's why I came down on the side. No, it just was like all out, attacking Taylor Lorenz's credibility, throwing up, you know, she's friends with Candace Owens, this very aggressive response of there was nothing wrong. We celebrate what we're doing. We did nothing wrong. There was no moral or ethical dilemma here. We do it again 10 times over. And I find that to be a real red flag that there wasn't even a willingness to grapple with the clear ethical issues that are involved in taking this type of secret dark money.

1:16:56Totally. And I know you're looking at it for a left thing, but I actually think this is much bigger than you may even realize because this is all industry for all, quote unquote, independent. If you look in the world of sports, gambling runs sports now. I listened to a really interesting critique of sports journalism, which is actually very similar to where we are right now. It's not only that gambling sponsors all of the podcasts. It's also that the people who succeed and the most famous sports journalists are basically people who tweet whether someone has signed a contract or not, and they just get the first scoop.

1:17:30In terms of people who actually uncover information that makes people in power, like, very uncomfortable, they are very few and far between. What is basically being consolidated is that industry and like money and influence is running the general ecosystem to make sure that things are positive in almost all cultural areas from sports to – I mean here's politics. That's number one. Finance is another one by the way. Like some of the biggest finance podcast – All In is literally one of the biggest finance podcasts. I mean think about that. Chamath has like conflicts of interest coming out of his eyeballs.

1:18:06True. It's like every single one of these places is ridiculous. Or Bloomberg or any of these places. I mean, it was like, it says it in the name, Bloomberg. You think you're getting like completely unfettered? CNBC. I think this is actually a funding model question for quote unquote independent media where when they're rolled up basically into the ecosystem, I think they broadly become more corrupt than a lot of the mainstream media. And trying to make yourself like a separate part out of that is just very, very few and far between. I mean, the money is hard to say no to, all right? I mean, I'll lay it out for you.

1:18:39And that's just our show. Think about, you know, even the biggest shows. That's probably tens of millions of dollars. And so for people to say no to that, you got to have some real stomach to actually be able to do it or bet on yourself in a different way and be true to some different values. So I think that's why it's important because that's a view into how it works for everything. I really do think it's everything. Yeah, and I just got to say, for the people who sold out for this shit for$250 a month, like, Like, what are you doing with your life? That's actually - If you're not in the$8 ,000 a month cohort, I really don't.

1:19:10The$250 a month people, like, what is that? Well, it wasn't Pac - Correct me if I'm wrong. Pac-Man was taking$8 ,000 a month? Is that true? That's the assumption because that's the highest ban that you can be. He's got like$2 million. He makes millions. I mean, that's the thing is - Do some back of the math on the YouTube revenue. Right, and that's what I want people to understand too is like, we have left, there's no doubt we've left millions on the tape. By not doing AdWords, there's no doubt about it. But guess what, guys? We're doing fine. We are doing fine. We are able to have a good life.

1:19:39We pay our people well. When they ask for a raise, we're giving them more. We're doing just fine over here. We're able to build this new set, all of that. So it doesn't require selling out to some dark money super pack to be able to make it. And again, look, I get it. Sagar and I were both established before. We had the Hill, all of that. So we did have some advantages. I don't want to deny that. But Kyle didn't, and he's doing good too, right? You don't have to take this money. And if there is money, you have to disclose it. That's really, to me, the most key piece is Sagar and I, as much as we've set our business up to insulate ourselves from any sort of corporate or political pressures, we still are human beings that are going to run into biases.

1:20:23Sagar is friends with J.D. Vance, right? I'm friends with Kyle, so I'm not going to be criticizing him. He's my husband. I'm not going to be criticizing him as another creator if he does something he'd disagree with. But when there are those instances, we're upfront about it. And that's the thing is, look, we're all human beings. None of us are going to be able to exist in the world fully and completely free of bias. But when you run into something that is a clear conflict of interest and clear bias, or there is money that is being paid to you that could potentially impact your views and your coverage, you have to disclose it.

1:21:01That to me is like the most central piece. And then, you know, other decisions that are made around that, I think there are better and worse decisions that can be made there. But if you aren't being upfront about where your funding is coming from, I think that is a real mistake. And I think it's a real ethical red line. 100%. You know, by the way, it's not just him. You know, anytime we cover somebody where I'll be like, look, full disclosure, met them for dinner, friends. You know what I'm saying? You think I enjoy doing that? It's embarrassing sometimes. sometimes, but you got to do it. I mean, because otherwise, how much worse would it look to do the coverage, to say something favorable, and then some photo or whatever comes out of the two?

1:21:37Right. It looks horrible. So like, that's what these people are in that position. So anyway, you got to try and hold yourself up to an ethical standard. That's why we spend a lot of time on it, because again, I know a lot of people watch the show, consume a lot of stuff, you know, on the internet. And I do think people should ask bigger questions. And this isn't just politics. It genuinely is all industries and I'm seeing it get a lot worse. So true. I really think it has never been worse than – I don't think it's ever actually been worse as bad as the mainstream media was because they still have a lot of power.

1:22:06And a lot of the grifters are the ones who are succeeding the most, which means that both sides of the spectrum of like what you're consuming is more than likely like bought, paid for, shaped or whatever in some way. And that's the real thing. We need you guys to be discerning consumers. Yeah. All people should be. who you're, you know, if you want to support independent media, truly support places that are actually independent media. Because, yeah, we're headed towards a worse cesspool than with mainstream media. And that was already a pretty low bar.

1:22:52in podcast form. We're launching Podlandia, AO Rewatch, our brand new podcast where we revisit every episode of Portlandia together, breaking down sketches, going deep on our iconic characters, and pulling back the curtain on how it all got made. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guest stars, collaborators, and friends, including director Jonathan Kreisel, the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more. Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song about it. Well, I thought you were all going to write a song.

1:23:24I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia, A-O, Rewatch on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, fam? I'm sports journalist Ari Chambers. Hey, what's up, y 'all? It's your girl, Sam J. And we're the hosts of Everyone Watches Women's Sports, a new podcast from Together and iHeart Women's Sports. We're breaking down the biggest headlines. Naomi Osaka, showing out. Shout-outs to you, Naomi. The viral moments. I've been obsessed with Kershawn Rocks. Boxing journey. She looks good. Her combos are swift. And the stories everyone's talking about across women's sports.

1:23:57Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to Everyone Watches Women's Sports on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Nick Turturro. You probably know me from NYPD Blue, The Longest Yard, or Spike Lee's Black Klansman. And on my new podcast, Delivering Happiness with Nick Turturro, I deliver pizza to a new guest. I've shared a slice with everyone, from Seth Rollins. What are you doing with my belt? To Bill Burr. I don't think I've ever met somebody so exactly out of their mind as I am. And now we even have more great guests coming up, including the great John Turturro.

1:24:30It's called happiness. Delivering happiness. And many, many more. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Delivering Happiness with Nick Turturro, and listen now. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.