Jonathan V. Last: We Got a Billionaire Problem

Hello and welcome to the Buller podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We got another doubleheader for you today in segment two, Catherine Palmpilio, has a bombshell lawfare story out today that reveals many, many, many, many more January 6th part of recipients have committed subsequent crimes and previously known. No kidding. Criminals. Yeah, that's interesting.

Story 11. There he is. Now you know who's first. He's author of the Triad Newsletter, which you better have signed up for. He's a pinball wizard. He's a 26 people's champion for his work on that very newsletter.

It's JVL. What's up, man? Hey, babe. It is good to be here with you, my friend. Thank you for doing this, you know, doing a little extra podcast work this week. You've got the secret podcast tomorrow. every Friday, people haven't signed up for Bullwark

I'm not on a secret tomorrow. They're going to do without me because tomorrow's Flash's graduation. There's a secret, but you're not in it? There is a secret, but it's a no JVL secret. That's a secret guest. Every Friday, at least one of JVL and Sarah, have a bonus behind the paywall podcast for you. And congratulations on Flash's graduation.

He's, thank you. Man, what a young man you've raised. All right, let's do some politics. I know you love foreign policy and, and believe that people care deeply about it. So I wanted to start with that. I feel like it should have been kind of bigger new. I don't know.

The House passed a war powers resolution yesterday. And it directed Trump to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran, unless Congress votes to declare war authorizes using military force, which is kind of an interesting concept. This is one of those stories for me that's like, well, on the one hand, it is better than what could have been, right? which is everybody just allowing Trump to do whatever he wants. Like, on the other hand, it's far short of what we would wish for our Democratic Republic.

Only four Republicans voted with all the Democrats on this, Fitzpatrick, Thomas Massie, Davidson, Tom Baird of Michigan. Notable that all the Democrats have now come along. And there were a handful of stinkers at the beginning of this war, even though us neocons. Former neocons were like, this is the stupidest shit we've ever seen. A couple of Democrats got fooled by it. So all the Democrats have gotten in line, four Republicans voting for this. What did you make of it? It's pretty bad for Trump, I think.

Oh, bad for Trump. I thought bad for America. No, no. It's like reasonably good for America. Yeah. I mean, I sort of lost my mind. Nobody cares about these things.

Like, I get hung up on words because of what I do for a living. But when Marco Rubio was testifying on the hill this week, he said that the war is over. He was like, oh, the war. Oh, there was a war. Because you motherfuckers have been telling us for 90 days now that, uh, this isn't a war. It's not a war. a war, not a war. You know, because the word war has a legal meaning.

Like, it's, it's not a euphemism. It's a, it's a thing that requires actual, like, you know, there are a chain of legal things which has to happen when you are in a war. And the administration just lied about not being in a war. And now that they are trying to get out of it. We'll have more on Marco in a second. But similarly, he said that we could have a deal today, tomorrow. Sure. Any day.

Any day now. And, you know, what, he's right. we could have a deal any day now. And eventually we will have a deal. And when we do, all the people who said we could have a deal anytime soon will be proven right. And they can go out and say, look at me. Look at me. I was there.

Now, it's good. I would say it probably doesn't help the negotiating position of President Trump. But on the other hand, I would say that that's actually probably good because the president does not seem to understand how weak his position is, which is why he didn't cut a deal soon. I mean, he should have just run away from this thing weeks and weeks and weeks ago and taken the loss. He didn't. Which was a very rare case of the bulwark. I forget where you were on this, but many of us at the bullock overestimating Trump.

You never hear that. We never get critiqued for us overestimating Trump too much. But that was what I thought he was going to do from the beginning. Totally. I assume that the whole thing will be over in four days. because I just thought he can't be this stupid. Right. He does have, he does have like political self-preservation instincts.

So in a weird way, if this helps Trump have someone else to blame for America's loss, then maybe that encourages him to finally pay the Iranians, whatever needs to be, whatever they need to be paid and get out. like that actually winds up being better for America than continuing to drag this out because I mean you had Luke Russard on the other yesterday. Yeah. And he said you know, we're not going to have the straight open

until the end of the summer at least. If true, let me put it this way. If you could go back to the markets in the, you know, early April and say, by the way, the Strait of Hormuz is going to be closed through Labor Day. People have lost their damn minds. But they haven't.

Yeah. It's been a JVL beat. I think we hit another S&P high the other day. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah. Because why not? I mean, I wrote a long piece about this a couple months ago with a madman theory of the stock market. Yeah.

Which is that madman theory doesn't do much for you in foreign policy. But in the stock market, it does fundamentally change things. When everybody knows that the market is constantly being manipulated and that everything is chaos, it does mean that chaos. us is the baseline assumption. And so why trade on that, right? Or why trade down on that? Instead, you just take whatever, whenever there is a momentary gain, go out and take the momentary gain because you know that it's all irrational fundamentally anyway.

I think that's where we are. Does that, I mean, how do you think of it? I loved that triad. We'll put a link to it in the show notes because that theory works for me as good as any. I think I raised it on the Joe Wisenpaw podcast because he's, you know, files the stuff as close as anybody, closer than anybody. I mean, I don't know when he sleeps. And he seems flummoxed by why things aren't worse.

And I do think that that kind of unites this notion, like, okay, well, if there's some fundamental growth happening in the economy, which right now is happening by AI, maybe that bubble pops eventually. So you know that there's like this fallback stability and you have all this craziness and manipulation happening, then like in the moments when craziness is not happening. there's a run-up, right? Yeah. Why not?

Why not? I noticed we've got no engagement on the Reddit because people on the Bullwark Reddit love to, you know, when I make a single off-color joke, you know, love to have 200 comment threads about the pros and cons of that. And we appreciate their engagement and your fandom. I thought this was an interesting post. Somebody had it, I think, had one like. But I'm going to raise it here.

So congratulations to you, Redditor. I'm uplifting your content. It was, what if madman theory is true in the Iran negotiations? It's just that we don't have the madman. And I kind of liked that idea. Well, it's B.B. and it's whoever's in charge of Iran right now, right?

Like, that we have that Trump, as fucking crazy and deranged as he is, because of his desire to not be in war, like, he's acting a little bit more rationally now. And you've got the Iranians that are doing like the Persian bizarre style negotiation. And then you have Beebe who's like desperate to bomb as many Iranians as possible. And so like Trump's madman theory doesn't work because he's been outplained by two other players in negotiations. I kind of liked that about the weakness of Trump's position right now. Yeah, I do too. And in a weird way, I mean, nobody knows the extent to which the Iranian leadership is fractured or not.

But to the extent that it can be portrayed as fractured, that helps their negotiation. position. Because then they can always say, well, we would really love to take this. But the problem is that, you know, those five guys over there, they're really, you know, surging in power right now. And they say no. So we need to have another sweetener.

It's almost as if we don't have any cards, Tim. It's almost as if we don't have the cards. And it seems like we have one card, which he keeps pretending to play. Which is what? Genocide. Right. Which is more full scale more. Genocide.

Yeah. Except that we don't actually have that. I don't think. Like, I don't believe that we have that guard. I don't think he could. Why not? Because he's not going to do it. Right.

To do something like that, the Iranians have showed their capacity to destroy energy infrastructure throughout the Middle East. I mean, right now, they've closed the trade of Hormuz and caused the biggest oil shock in world history. We could go from biggest oil shock on world history to total meltdown of the global financial system if they decided they wanted. to just like start taking out liquid natural gas production fields. Right. And stuff like that. That is going to hurt advanced economies a whole lot more than it's going to hurt the Iranian economy. So we're not going to, we're not going to do it.

Every day that this goes on more, the eventual cost to us goes up. And so you might as well just bite the bullet. Pay them whatever they need to be paid and get out. I've been paying more attention to what's happening inside my body lately. That happens when you're at age 40 or dad. and particularly when I'm going or not going or going again to my lady's weights class. You want to make sure that what you're doing is actually helping and giving me the energy and stamina to come do this podcast with you guys.

And what most people overlook is working out gives your body the stimulus, but your internal environment determines what's actually happening next. Things like your glucose, whether your body is burning clean or running on fumes, your omega-6 to omega-3 ratio. When these markers are off, you can do everything right and still feel like you're fighting against yourself. And they're dialed in. The work you put in actually pays off. That's why I'm turning to function.

There's 160 lab tests a year. So you can see exactly what's going on under the hood and not guess at it. As something is working against my performance, I want to know. And, you know, I'm not always putting the best things into my body. So it's important to make sure that we're not overdoing it. The things are good. And Function is helping me ensure I have a healthy balance between workout and rest and fun. Check out your health the way I do.

Function provides 160 plus lab tests for $1 a day and member pricing on MRI and CT scans. Join at Functionhealth.com slash the bulwark or use gift code of the Bullwork 25 for a $25 credit towards your membership. You mentioned Marco. So he had this testimony this week. Marco is deft at the kind of like gotcha short form video stuff

that I think could serve him well in the future your try out today is it kind of I cheated I looked in the back end is this coming today or sometimes you start writing okay sometimes you start writing something and then it goes out in a few days okay great I cheated so I read half of it was about the one weird trick that Marco Rubio had

versus JD talk about that and like what you think the impact of you know, all of this jockeying around the war has had on the 2028 discourse. Today's Friday, it's actually spurred on by listening to you and Luke yesterday. And it does occur to me that J.D.'s real problem here is that he was right about Iran, and Trump will never forgive him for that because Iran turned out to be a shit show. Had Iran worked, had it been just like Venezuela Part 2 and JD was wrong. It's kind of like the micro version of our relationship with our former Republican friends,

who will never forgive us for being right about Trump. Yeah, no, no, it's exactly right. It's exactly right. Then Trump would have just, like, made fun of him from time to time. Oh, remember, what a worry weren't you were, JD? But it would have been fine. But because J.D. was right. And even though he's been totally on board publicly, he's never questioned, right?

Trump knows that J.D. was the one who didn't want to do this thing, which has fucked his presidency, you know, six ways till Sunday. And Marco was not. You know, by the reporting we have, Marco was, oh, yeah, no, no, you know, we can do a lot there. It's really important. You know, Marco was a good neocon on this stuff. Yeah, pretty good. The only thing we've heard at all about Marco that is not all gas, no breaks was in that one New York Times story about the BB presentation in the situation room.

I guess Marco supposedly said something to the effect of, like, they're overstating how easy it's going to be or something. But, like, that's it. Like, besides that, this is, and this is not only Marco's war, but it says it's, it's, it's, the flourishing of his worldview. It is. Well, except that I'll hear this is an interesting question. Is this a flourishing of Marco's neocon worldview? Or is this a flourishing of Marco's political instincts, which are that he realized that being

right or wrong about Iran was less important for his political future than making sure that he figured out where Trump wanted to be and got there so that he could be on Trump's side so that win or lose with Iran, whether the war went well or badly, he was always with Trump, right? And so the king would look well, my loyal courtier Marco was with me. I mean, I got to say, based on Marco's career of figuring out where he needs to be to get ahead politically, the only misstep he's ever made was being anti-Trump in 2016. It was running the autopsy campaign in 2016. And honestly, like Marco was like a pretty mainstream state legislature, normal Republican. This was like the origin story of all the Jeb stuff,

which I never cared about, but like the old school Jeb people did, right? Then he kind of shiv's Jeb and like goes Tea Party. Right. Right. Right. Right. When the Tea Party stuff comes, that obviously was right. He challenges an establishment Republican in that Senate race, which, you know, looks obvious now in retrospect, but at the time was risky, you know, it was correct. And then in 2016, he runs the autopsy campaign, basically. Like, he runs, the campaign that, you know, all of the smarty smarts and the Republican Party thought was the way to, you know, win a majority. Like, that was a rational thing to think at the time.

And by the way, maybe, right? We still never know. Like, maybe it was a Hillary weakness. And maybe Marco actually, if he won the nomination, maybe he does actually become president still. Who knows? If Chris Christie doesn't go kamikaze in New Hampshire. Right. Who knows?

Who knows? But then now he comes around and gets back on board. So you're right. Like, he has been very calculating throughout all of this. Yeah, really calculating. And so that's why I don't know that he got here because this is adherence to neocon principles or, because I don't know that Marco honestly has any principles other than in the very long game, he wants the Castro regime gone in Cuba.

Yeah, right. Right. I mean, that that is his. It's kind of like Trump's tariffs. You know, the one thing that he actually is one religion. Yeah, the one thing he really cares about is Cuba. That's interesting.

And the White House put out like a Marco hype video. the other day. I don't know if you saw that on social media. Oh yeah, I saw that. Yeah. So he definitely is there the potential weakness of the bet is, is on Iran getting really hinky, you know, like if it ends up being kind of normal bad, right? And by 2027, like gas prices are still four bucks a gallon or whatever. It's a little annoying things are, you know, there's some geopolitical issues, right? But like, in a broad sweep of things, it was it wasn't just a total. total catastrophe to regular people, right? Like maybe there's a geopolitical catastrophe that people like Bob Elena Kagan care about, but

right, the like normal people don't. That's survivable if he's on Trump's good side. And then if Trump supports him. What would you think would be really hinky? What would that look like? Something that becomes a real debacle. Yeah, like total economic. It's like a recession, just like a normal recession.

Does that count as a debacle? I think a normal recession would count. I think terrorist attack on us, like related to this would. count. With sending troops in and getting involved in a ground war count? I think so. I think so. Yeah.

I think so. Yeah. I think Trump understands that. Yeah, I do too. I don't think that's likely, but I don't think any of those things are zero percent chance. No. You know? No, not at all.

Yeah. I wanted to get to you on, we talked about this also with Luke yesterday, but you've written, I think, 17 newsletters on the 60 minutes situation and Bari Weiss. 17 or 18, yeah. Yeah. And so I think that you kind of. It matters to me because basically I, I, I've, been in Scott Pelley's chair. And so for me, I am reliving a dark period in my time, in my history.

You were the anchor of CBS News? I was not the anchor of CBS News, but I was there when a bunch of pro-Trump assholes came in and tried to fuck with my magazine and then murdered the magazine. So, you know, I lost my job because of not being insufficiently Trump. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. you've turned out okay on the other side. I guess there are two things to this that I think are interesting.

One is like my ongoing conversation and I get lots of feedback from people about this. Is that like I'm just kind of less worried about CBS News collapsing and like what that means about our democracy than I think some other folks are. And so I'm curious your take on that. So I think that's like the most important issue. And then I'm not usually a media gossip person since I didn't come from the media. I don't like really care that much. They're like 19 media gossip newsletters that get shared in our slack all the time. And I just generally don't care about what's happening.

I am kind of fascinated though by like, who's actually going to be on 60 minutes in the fall? I think that that is like an interesting kind of parlor game. And so anyway, why don't you take number one first and then we'll play the parlor game. Yeah. Well, it'll be, it'll be. I mean, there was someone, who is it? The New York Times pitch bot was like, next on 60 minutes. Joe Rogan and.

That was like that's like her bread and butter. Most of those people are anti-Israel. I was thinking in my head, like, who would you go to, right, for something like this? Like, I first call when we were kind of going back and forth throwing names that you would think about, it's like somebody like Megyn Kelly. Like, she is a big name. She's been on TV. You could bring her in.

She would, I think, find it delicious to, like, be back on network TV after getting kicked out of NBC. But she's gone hard against Israel. I don't think the Ellicence can bring somebody like her in. No. You know, and so then, right. So then you start to think about names. She has dangerous ideas. Yes. She's forbidden ideas. I know. Yeah. So then who fits? I'm really, I really struggled to come up with people.

Non-famous people. Non-famous people is the answer. Non-famous people. I mean, look, I'm picking Nick Bilton to run 60 Minutes is itself aside. Can you imagine how many people they must have offered that job to first in order for them to get down to Nick Bilton to do it? I mean, it's the major Garrett does the BB interview, right? Like Major Garrett, who's, you know, I don't have anything against him personally, but he's had a long career. And Washington and not stardom style. And so you find somebody like that that wants to be on TV. It's like happy to do a softball interview with BB. You find other people within CBS who have signaled that they would like to move up the ladder. Right. And there will be some people like that. I don't know if it's Gail King or Nora O'Donnell.

But there will be people. You make Tony D. I don't know. Contributor, right? Tony D. is doing 60 minutes. Let Tony D. You know, just read stuff.

My guess, and this is just informed speculation, not I don't have any inside, inside information here, is that Leslie Stahl is going to leave and Bill Whitaker. I suspect both of them are going to be out the door before the summer is over. And when that happening, and that's it. That leaves literally nobody. All of the, all of the main correspondence are gone then. But not only that. If that happens, I suspect those guys are going to set up their own shop somewhere. and when they do, they'll take their producing team with them.

Right. So those are the correspondence. Those are the famous people. But all the reporters... You think they create a 60 Minutes competitor? I don't know if it's competitor. Like, you know, if it'll be online or something like that. But they'll find a gig which allows them to hire their teams and bring them with them.

I suspect. And like at that point, I mean, who's left in the building, you know? They have the CBS Sunday morning people. so, you know, you can find something. Yeah, yeah. But you know what, honestly, the other thing to think about, how much, do you need a big staff to report on what's happening on the Oberlin campus? Right.

And this is. Because you don't, right? I mean, because what they'll replace it with is not in-depth, you know, takes a month and 50 people to report what's happening at Seacot. It'll be, hey, we found a seventh grade trans girl who got a, uh, uh, uh, A silver ribbon at her county 800-meter race. And let's all look at that and how terrible it is. Right.

And here's our interview with this unknown superstar in the Trump administration. You didn't know how great that they were doing on, you know, promoting free speech in Europe. Tonight we sit down with Erika Kirk. Yeah, right. Okay. I'm sorry. Last thing is because of Barry's access to the administration, a lot of high-level administration interviews. So, you know, tonight on 60 minutes, Major Garrett, six down with Pete Hegseth, part 75.

For sure. So where are you on that question that I started with of like how bad this is for, you know, our liberal democracy? Now, and I mean, just narrowly, we share the view that like the oligarch takeover and the vast right-wing conspiracy and taking over the media companies and the platforms is bad. I'm talking narrowly about CBS news. Yeah, I mean, narrowly, I think it's pretty bad. There are only three major networks and they are declining. But they're still pretty important. They're big.

And here's the thing that I think people don't quite appreciate. Yes, in total viewership, networks are declining. But also in a world of super fracturization and super balkanization of information resources, even having a large audience, a smaller but still an absolutely large audience, I think 60 Minutes was getting 9 million viewers or something like that. That becomes increasingly valuable because in a world with 100 different choices, it's very hard to get, nobody can get to 30 million viewers. But even getting to 9 is really hard and really valuable.

And if you can have that, you have a lot of power to set agendas, you have a lot of power to spread ideas and information. And so I think it's not great. It would be not great if it was all based on incompetence. It's really not great because it's based on corruption. And what you have is essentially not just a network being dismantled by boobs who don't know what they're doing. That would be bad, but it's fixable. This is something different.

This is something close to like a state-approved news network where you know you're not really going to get anything that the regime doesn't want. unless the regime is run by Democrats. And then who knows? Right. Which is the weird, right? There'll be this, you know, mask on, mask off. Like, I am sure that they will be able to do great investigative reporting when Democrats are in office because Larry Ellison won't worry about a president, Jon Ossoff, revoking his FCC license because that's illiberal and isn't what they do.

And so how do you fix those two separate rules? rules sets. And I don't have an answer to that. I don't know if you do or not, because it's something that I think about a lot and I worry about. I think that the FEC should be both back up, the FCC, and there should be, you know, in a more legitimate manner in which Bill Pulte looked into people's mortgages. I think that it would be appropriate to look into the way that, you know, political money is being spent and going into coordination rules. And, you know, I do think that there are ways to kind of do a more within the rule of law, liberal democracy version of, you know, like the Trump's one weird trick that we've talked about a lot is that you've talked

about in a bunch of particular. And your newsletters is this, I'm going to find ways to break the rules that aren't like technically illegal. Yeah. You can turn that on its head and say, hey, I'm going to find the ways that they broke the rules or that they did things that are illegal based on narrow rules that weren't really being enforced for a long time. I'm sure this exists in other places. The Federal Election Commission is one that I'm the most familiar with, since that's not my background. But the FEC

has basically not existed for like 20 years now. Trump broke a lot of loss in 2024, and Trump and Elon Musk did. I don't know. Maybe it's worth looking into those. To that point on Elon Musk, I just was kind of dying to get your take on this because I've been trying to follow it, but we talked about it earlier this week, but this like SpaceX IPO, it feels like there are a lot of rules being broken there as well. They're changing the rules for getting into the NASDAQ, which

means that SpaceX when at IPOs is going to be part of people's portfolios that are investing in index funds, which obviously helps them raise money. The rules are pretty dramatically changed in order to get SpaceX in there. The valuation

is insane, you know, based on what it's actually. Actually, Kara and I were talking about this. And Kara is just like, and there's one good business. And the satellites attached to two shitty businesses that are like losing money. And I just kind of want to put a quarter in and get JVL's take on what's happening with Elon Musk and SpaceX. Okay. So not to brag on myself, but do you know when I wrote about this for the first time, Tim?

March 12. Everybody has been freaking out about the rules change to now. or the last two weeks. And I started writing about this in mid-March. This is, you know, my newsletter is how people see around corners. So here's what happened. SpaceX was shopping which exchange they were going to IPO on, like a sports team trying to get cities to compete against one another to build them stadiums that were

boom-doggles. They were looking to get the exchanges to bid against one another to make it worth SpaceX's while to be on them. This is one of the problems with being too big, right? Companies should not be so big that they can exert leverage over the exchange itself. How did NASDAQ win the SpaceX IPO war? They did it by saying, we will change a bunch of rules, which will allow you to be included into index funds early.

and the result of that will be that it will force index funds to buy your stock. Now, this is going to get a little complicated, and so I'm just going to sort of hand wave away some stuff and hope you can follow with me, right? Yeah, okay. When we talk about inclusion into an index fund, part of that is based on what's called float. So if only 5% of your stock as a company is for sale, then when index funds are calculating how much of your stock they have to buy is based on that. The more stock you float, the more stock the index fund is forced to buy based on their own rules.

Okay. Part of what NASDAQ did was say, oh, under these new rules for certain companies whose names begin with S and end in X, when they are initially included. if their float is below 20%, then index funds must use a 5x multiplier on their float number in order to calculate how much stock they have to buy. No. Yes.

And so the idea here is not only are they rushing the SpaceX into the index funds, but they are jiggering with the float percentages and making people buy more relative, making index funds buy more relative SpaceX shares relative to the amount of SpaceX shares that are actually for sale, which is going to drive the price up.

Okay. The final thing they did here was say that the rebalance, because these float calculations are then rebalanced because they change, right? They said the rebalance will only occur at the scheduled quarterly rebalancings, which for SpaceX,

based on when they're going to debut, will be December 18, I believe. Now, if you recall, when Milan first brought up the idea of doing this IPO, he was like, yeah, mid-June, because then the Venus is in the house of Mars and he gave like some stupid cockamamie astrological. No.

That's not why he's doing the IPO in June. The reason he's doing the IPO in June is because so when this IPO happens, they will have a certain percentage of stock, which is for sale. And then the people who are holding stock preexisting on the private market are in what's called a lockup period where they can't sell. That lockup period is going to end a few days before the quarterly rebalancing on December 18th, which means that for five months, we will have. an artificially very high valuation for SpaceX shares. Yeah. Before the rebalancing brings those shares back to Earth, Elon Musk and all his friends will get to sell.

Right. The lockup period for them will end. I mean, it's just a fucking bank heist. It's an insane thing. And this is, I would say, I've always thought that Elon Musk has one true genius, which is that he understands how to use his chip stack. He understands that he has so much money

that the money actually begins to act like its own asset in ways which are different as a class, different as a category, and it allows him to do shit like this. And when this is all done, he's going to be worth at least a trillion and a half dollars.

he'll be on he'll be halfway to his second trillion when this is over tim yeah i mean sarah close your ears but this is really enough to make you just ready to go full ds a burning isn't it i mean it's just like how is this real capitalism like it's not this is not this is not this is not capitalism in any textbooks these are casino games yeah yeah right these are casino games, right? These are people sitting around figuring out how can we alter rules? How can we use our size to force existing institutions to alter rules that benefit us, the shareholders in the most narrow short-term way possible? I think it's very bad. And also not contribute back to society. I mean, the opposite, right? Then, you know, it uses all that money to manipulate politics so that he

doesn't have to contribute back to the public good at all. The sell, after, you know, before the rebalancing will be taxable at the capital gains rate, which is lower than the income rate. But the rest of the- Not legal advice. Yeah, but the rest won't be taxable. I killed to sit on all of that. This guy goes to the wealth tax debate in California.

It's like, what, as an academic matter, I'm not that moved by, you know, like creative tax games where we send somebody from Washington to your house to like look at your art and decide how much, you know, your assets are and tax you base on that. But like, eventually there has to be some type of counterbalance to this type of hoarding of wealth and theft. Can I throw something at you, Tim? So Sarah and I talked a little bit about this on The Secret last week as I was trying to get her to our Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez adjacent. I am not billionaires, shouldn't exist. But there is a level, a number of billions that I think shouldn't exist. You know, like a billion dollars, fine. Ten billion dollars, fine. I don't know where the line is.

And you can't spend 200 billion in a life. Right. Like, you know, unless you're buying elections and buying off people. Yeah. There is some number that's probably pretty close to 15 billion where I say, I'm sorry. No, no more than that. And I think it is wrong to think about this in terms of fairness and it is more proper and more convincing to me at least to think about it in terms of hedging risks about abuse of power because I think of this in the same way I do antitrust. Like the reason we do antitrust is because when companies become too big, they're able to distort markets and hurt the markets. I think the exact same view should be used with individual wealth because when people get

too rich, it gives them the ability to distort society. Yes. And to hurt society. That's happened already with Elon Musk. He already distorted society. Yeah. And so that is the argument I would make about why a certain level of billion, and let's just call it 15 billion. Let's say, you know, every cent after 15 billion, I'm sorry. No. Or 90%. You just go back to the old, you know, pre-regon tax rate. Like, you know, you can keep of that next billion. You can, you know, keep $100 billion. That's not too bad. It's not too bad.

This is my big objection. Every time I have the tech people on, I'm asking them about this. I always say it's about the money. It's about the money. It's about dick measuring in the end. Like, at the end, it's about dick measuring. Like, there's, after a certain point,

like, it's not even like that noticeable. It's about where you are in the lists. You know, it's about power. It's about things that you like. It is about power. Yeah. That's what it is, right? It's not about the access.

You can already have the best yacht that you can possibly buy. Yeah. You know, it is. about having the power to then manipulate the next interaction you have with the market or the government. To the point that it's about ego and power, there is one thing that Elon Musk will never have, which is love. And so if you get sad like I do thinking about Elon Musk making a trillion dollars, I just want to share this tweet from Doja Cat yesterday. Hey, Elon Musk, if you see this,

please put the audio post feature back on here, X. Thanks, by the way, you frog build looking bitch, barrel chested ewalk, you look like you eat sand. And I like that. He has to live with that. That's how Doja Cat thinks about him. Do you have a favorite Doja Cat song? I don't even know what Doja Cat is. Is that a band?

It's an artist. She's a pop girlie. She's a pop artist. Really great. I can't wait to explore her catalog later today. I highly recommend. Yeah. Toulouse listens to it and there are some curse words in it.

I'd warn you about that for your children. We have by kid four, nobody cares about cursing. Nobody cares about the gross words. I mean, there's some bad ones in this one. She was singing it with, I think, was it my dad with all my parents around? And they were like, what? So anyway, FYI, but don't you kids great? On California, I just want to do some brief politic in with you.

Before we talk about Spencer Pratt, I want to take the lines back a little bit and set something up. Because I feel like this is podcaster accountability. I want to look inside a little bit. and our colleague Lauren Egan, and I think Sam shares this view. You see you talked about it a little bit on the next level. Road a newsletter this week talking about how successful Democratic vanilla candidates are. I've been so far the cycle. We don't know anything yet.

We haven't had any elections, which is based on the polls. You have the Roy Cooper's of the world, you know, the Mary Peltola, the people that are, there's a poll out in Ohio, Sherrod Brown, 53, John Houston, 45. So there's like all this talk about Graham Platner, Tel Rico, et cetera, and like these more boring vanilla candidates are the ones that are doing better for now, at least, in the polling. And I felt a little bit chastened by that because that's my natural state of liking those type of candidates. But I also exist in this podcast internet sphere. And like there are some bad incentives that sometimes I get sucked into, I think.

And part of it is I'm very like 2028 focused. And I do think that like vanilla is probably bad for not necessarily. but I'm open to the idea that vanilla does not work in a 2028 presidential setting and the way that it does in a midterm congressional setting. So I think my interest in candidates to break the mold from what the Democrats have had the last three cycles is not wrong at a presidential level. But sometimes that analysis then seeps down to these other races where it becomes wrong. You know, obviously there's not a lot to talk about.

I'd love to talk about the North Carolina Senate race every day. What do you even say? Like, it's been the same. Roy Cooper's bill has already been the governor. He just kind of puts one foot in front of the other every day. Like, what would you even talk about? But I don't know. I'm wondering when you saw Lauren's newsletter,

whether that made you think about things any differently. It's a great newsletter. Everybody should read it. It was very good. Lauren Egan, the opposition. I have a couple thoughts. The first is that you do kind of have to hand it to Chuck Schumer. And look, Chuck Schumer is not inspiring. He may not be the person. He probably,

he almost certainly is not the person to lead the future in the opposition. Can we just say on messaging, he sucks. And his initial response to the Iran war and even up till today was like pretty bad. So putting those two things over here, you have to hand it to him in this. Yeah, you have to hand it to one of these. He's been pretty good on candidate recruitment with a couple exceptions, one of which is Mills. and he did win the shutdown fights. Yep, correct. Right? I mean, he won the shot.

He did. He won. Now, you could maybe say. Well, we're talking about how Chase and I am on the politics analysis. That was something that I was totally correct about. Nobody agreed with that. Everybody bitched at him. In retrospect, absolutely won those fights.

I think people get a little blinded by their dislike of Chuck Schumer and their sense that, like, oh, he's bad on X, X, or he. he's terrible in messaging or he's not the fighter we need and all those things may be true, right? And it may be true that he has to go anyway. But also, like, I'm sorry, just look at the scoreboard, right? Yeah. The second thing is, I think we also haven't fully readjusted our understanding of the world from what it was six months ago. Because, you know, November 2025, I think these candidate numbers look very, different six months ago when Trump is at like 44% approval.

And that has changed. And a lot of things become possible when you have a shift as profound as we've had. And in a shift like that, maybe vanilla candidates perform better, right? Because, again, I'm just thinking this. I'm not saying that this is, I'm just trying to think it through, right? Yeah, sure. When the incumbent is that bad and people hate the incumbent that much, then the vanilla candidate

sort of has a whole bunch of advantages baked in because the vanilla candidate doesn't have to motivate your base, right? I mean, the base is motivated by how much they hate the guy who's screwing everything up. The vanilla candidate can lure in converts without turning people away. Your advantages shift

as the environment shifts. And so I am open to the idea that in a world where Trump is at like 44% approval and he's only net like minus four or minus six. You really need a tell or Rico. You need somebody with a lot of juice to try to overcome that. Especially if you're in a red tinted state.

Or even nationally, right? You know, like, you need somebody who is going to like really break the mold and try to reshare. But when Trump, what is he, minus 16? At minus 16, it's different. Yeah. And the dynamics auger for different candidates. I will say, in 2020, Joe Biden won more vote. than any person who has ever run for president

in the history of our fucking country and he won the second highest percentage of the vote since Reagan's reelect. So it's not as if plain vanilla candidates haven't demonstrated an ability to win gigantic victories at the top of a ticket in cases where everything was a shit show. Right, and the candidate is very unpopular.

The counterpoint to that is like, I think everybody is like given how a bunch of a shit show, it was in 2020. That level of victory was kind of a failure, actually. Like, even though, you could simultaneously get more in history, but yeah, but also feel like it needed to be bigger. Maybe running a candidate like Bernie in 2020 would have not, you know what I'm saying? Like, again, my I'm saying is if you look at the environment, it is possible that these things

are dynamic and that in one environment, you need one kind of candidate to increase your chances of success. and in another kind of environment, you need a different kind. So now this takes us to the Spencer Pratt race, and there are kind of two elements to what's happening in this L.A. mayor's race that I want to get your take on that are, like, more relevant to the broader dynamics than like who actually is the mayor of Los Angeles. And that is, we talked to the next level about this kind of moment

that Spencer Pratt-type candidates were having. And I threw out the, you know, RuPaul's drag race tool for, I will for judging whether or not a candidate, has charisma, uniqueness, nerve, and talent. You can check out the acronym if you'd like. Whatever you think about Pratt or Graham Platner or Tel Rica or whatever, like they have those things, right? And that helps you overperform in the internet world.

Does that help you overperform on the ballot box? That kind of remains to be seen a little bit. And what we have now is it looked like on election night, there was a lot of crowing from the Spencer Pratt crowd that he had overperformed. He was going to be in the top two. He might not even make it to the runoff now. Now he's actually the underdog to make it to the runoff, even though he's winning in the raw vote count. Nithya as a progressive challenger to Karen Bass.

It seems likely that she is going to pass Pratt. And so just looking at that race, I have two things. I'm wondering if that informs your view at all about the charisma uniqueness, nerve, and talent. And also, this California counting system, I mean, how bad is this for democracy? Adam Tucker Carlson is a guy I followed on social media really good. he said it will probably take a week or more to know where Pratt and Rahman truly stand, Nithya Raman. Ron DeSantis posted California keeps dumping votes.

Odds are shifting for Pratt because the vote dumps always seem to go one way, count until you get the result you want. So Ron DeSangamonius is doing Trump-style, Stop the Steel stuff. Yeah. Is this just bad because we are election nerds, or is this bad for democracy that California can't count their fucking votes? So I think it's very bad. And look, I am not a California expert.

We could talk to our friends, the Pod Save guys. I'm sure they, maybe they could explain to me that there's a rational reason why California uniquely takes. I can explain you the rational reason. They want to get as made. They want to have as broad as access as possible. And so you can turn in mail-in ballots up to Election Day. And so you can mail your ballot up to Election Day. And so some of the ballots don't even come in until today.

But then other stuff is just general bureaucratic nonsense. Like, for example, Sacramento didn't count. Wednesday or Thursday. They counted Tuesday and Friday. It's like what? I mean, I suppose I like ballot access. You have to have rules. The problem is that in a post-liberal age where one of the two major political parties is attempting to destroy the legitimacy of elections and move to a post-liberal democratic order, having a major vote center not be able to deliver votes in a time way helps the other side destroy public legitimacy in elections. California should be balancing voter access for California citizens and sort of what the

marginal change, you know, of policy does to how many marginal extra votes it's able to bring into the process versus the harm it is causing to the citizens of California by giving ammunition to the post-liberal factions elsewhere in America. man, love if Gavin Newsom could do something on this before he gets out of there. I suppose that's probably not possible. I'm not going to. I don't know. Am I wrong about this?

No, I mean, I have to worry that I'm wrong about it because I could get pushed back from my friends and California and others on this. But like my hair is on fire about it. I just think it's insane. I have plenty of early vote. Do more. Like back up the early vote. Give five more days of early voting. Right.

Right. You know, like you can take the absolute number. Just move the window over. Sometimes this is where like good. too, she's progressive stuff sometimes just becomes self-harm. It's like, we have an election day. I'm sorry. You got to vote by election day. Okay. So, like, if you're going to mail in your ballot, you've got to mail it in a couple days earlier. Or they have drop boxes everywhere. Or if you missed your chance to mail it in, you got to drop it into the drop box. But, like, I'm sorry. Like,

we can't do this. You can't shut down voting, vote counting for two days in the middle of the week on election day. I think it's crazy. No, I'm with you. If the answer is that right now, California has a 30-day window. I don't know if they do. I'm just picking a number, right? And we believe that that 30-day window is adequate to get everybody who wants to vote to vote. Great, just take the fucking 30 days

and slide the window back by five days so that the mail end has a deadline, and then everybody's still getting the same number of days to vote. And count, right? May people work. You can pay the union rate or whatever. You have to do. I don't know.

Pay over time. Yeah, you got to count the ballots. All right, we're over. So maybe more Spencer Prout thoughts later this week. If J.V.L. had any Spencer Pratt thoughts? Maybe you'll just sign up for his newsletter. Maybe you'll do some later. Who knows? It is kind of delicious that he might not make the runoff, though.

We can get some joy in that. It's kind of delicious. After all the hype. After all the hype. If it's what you say it is, I love it. Politico was floating 2028. Anyway, Dark JBL.

I want to end with this. I was like thinking about what I wanted to talk to you about. And I was like, you know what would be a fun little game is I want, to ask dark JVL for something that haunts him, something that he's alarmed about, something that he's worried about, that you don't think is like the most likely thing is going to happen. Not a 51% likelihood,

but not zero either, like a 20%, like a one in five, one in ten chance to happen to our democracy that people might not be thinking about. Do you have a dark JVL idea for me? So I have a dark JVL. It's not about the democracy, though. And I'm sorry, so I'm swerving with you. I wrote last week about drones and the sort of the impact on drone warfare,

a drone on modern warfare and how Trump fucked everything up. And while I was researching the piece, a lot of talk about aerial drones, not as much talk about naval drones. And naval drones are also the future. Like your belly button? No, not those ones. Sea drones. so putting drones in the water.

And what worries me about that is that sea drones, sea-based drones, will wind up being categorically different from aerial drones because of the way data transfer works through water. Because what it means is where you can transmit data and so you can have human control over aerial drones and land-based drones either through, you know, broadcast means or through wire, you know, fly by wire, which is what a lot of the Ukrainian drones are. Once you get into sea-based drones, by definition, they're almost going to all have to be autonomous.

AI autonomous, sea-based naval drones. Right. And so, you know, like, people are concerned about autonomous drones on the battlefield and in the air, and I am also concerned about that because I think in a weird, way, that's like the perfect use case for AI. You know, AI has all sorts of, like it fucks up a certain percentage of the time. In one place where humans are historically very comfortable with fuck-ups is warfighting. Humans have often said, I do not care if this technology kills the wrong people and some

civilians, so long as it kills a lot of the people I also want to kill. So I think we're going to have a very high tolerance for that sort of thing with aerial drones and land-based drones. We're going to get there with drones, sea-based drones, and they're all going to have to be autonomous. Not a 20% scenario. This isn't like a thing that tomorrow worries me, but when I project forward what the future of war fighting looks like. So you see like the end of international shipping. You see the sea-based drones going crazy and just totally like killing all the marine life in the Persian Gulf.

Like what's the- Not about sea light. I mean, it just- Worst case scenario for you here. It strikes me as being, like, one of these things where it has the potential to be really disruptive in ways that we can't quite imagine. You know what I'm saying? Like, you're like, hold on. All of a sudden, navies are going to be able to fight wars by launching these 15-foot-long, essentially guided to autonomous torpedoes that just go around and do whatever the fuck they want or whatever the AI is inside is telling them to do.

I don't know. Seems like there are a lot of things that could go wrong in that. and we can't fully predict what those things will be. Don't love it. I don't like being on the ocean that much anyway. And so I love this dark JVL because I feel like I'm going to be safe. I don't see myself on a cruise. Occasionally I'll swim just very near to the shore of the beach at a tourist destination.

I think it'll be pretty safe there. I think I'll probably be pretty safe there. But I love that. You know what I love about this gambit is that I just have no idea where you're going to go. You know, you could have gone anywhere. Never would have saw this one coming. And maybe we'll reprise it the next time you're on. Thank you for doing this, JVL.

Thanks for having me, buddy. I appreciate you very much. Congratulations to Flash on his graduation. Enjoy. Don't cry too much tomorrow. Or actually, I take that back. Cry a lot. I'm a crier.

I'm a crier. Do you know that I'm a crier? I don't think I've ever seen you cry. Oh, I cry all the time, dude. I'm going to ask Shannon to send us a video for tomorrow so I can have that image in my head. Thanks to JVL. Next, Catherine Pompeleo, stick around.

All right. She's an associate editor at Lawfare, an author of a new piece out today on Lawfare. New York Times has also covered it. It is about how many January 6ers have committed other crimes. and I know that our listeners are going to be shocked to hear many, many more than we had previously known. It's Catherine Pompellio. How you doing, girl? I'm good. How are you, Tim? Good to be here.

I am well. Why don't you just give us the top line of where we were before you started the reporting, what we thought we knew about the January 6ers and what the reality is? Yeah. So there have been almost 1,600 people that have been prosecuted by the Justice Department that have been pardoned since then because of the executive order from President Trump. And then there have been a whole bunch of estimates about the number of people that have gone on to commit other crimes since their participation in the attack. Crew put out a report a few months ago that had about 33 people. The New York Times did an editorial. Their number was 39.

So I felt that that number was way too small. So I did a series of searches and the number is actually 97 people who have been arrested, charged, or convicted of other crimes since. their participation in the attack. Talking about that process, like, why is this so hard? This feels like a knowable thing to figure out. What are the barriers to knowing how many criminals Donald Trump pardoned? Yeah, so there's a few reasons for that. The first, pardon individuals have no monitoring requirements at all.

They're not like parolees. So they honestly just kind of disappear from government record. A lot of them have common names, and they also end up, you know, they all aren't committing federal crimes. So they end up on county-level court systems. systems with no reference to January 6th at all. And then to make matters more difficult, the DOJ has been deleting recently Jan 6th defendant records, which law fair has been archiving.

But also, you know, there's the sheer volume of pardon, 1,600 people kind of creates this diffusion of attention. So the story is told in little drips that are never aggregated. So did you use Claude to figure this out, or were you like flying to Little Rock to go through the county records? Or what does that look like? a lot of quirky phone calls with a lot of quirky county clerks who were like so excited to talk about this. The first thing I did was we did hyper-local news searches.

So when you Google these people, you know, a lot of the news reporting on them is not the Times. It's not the Post. It's, you know, the Winchester Star. And so you have to go through a bunch of searches to find them. So we use Claude to automate those searches on Google. And from there, I found those 97 people. Also worth noting that this data is just out there in news stories, but also in sentencing memoranda in the federal cases. Anybody that has been sentenced in their Jan 6 case has a little paragraph written about them by prosecutors titled characteristics of the defendant.

And in there for at least, I think at least 10 of the people that I have listed here, it outlined crimes committed since the Jan 6 attack that were unrelated to the attack. It's probably bleak going through all of these records. I am wondering, did you just, did your love of America get reinvigorated a little bit speaking to the county clerks? Yeah, 100%. They were, they were still good people out there. There's still good people, and they were so excited to talk about this. There was one guy who I have in the piece who calls them periodically to give them updates on his life that they don't ask for. So he's allegedly in Vietnam, but we don't know.

The January 6er calls the clerk to give the clerk update on their life. That's kind of dark, kind of lonely. Well, there are a couple other examples of that, but first to get to the serious parts first. I mean, just doing the math, one in 15 of the insurrectionists were arrested for, charged with other crimes. Some of them are minor, but a lot of very serious crimes. 15 have been charged with sex crimes or crimes related to child sexual abuse material. Six have faced domestic violence charges. So, yeah, I just talk about kind of the nature of the crimes.

And the 97 does not include people that, like, were driving 21 miles per hour over the speed limit. No, the crimes range, honestly, from everything from murder, rape, C-San possession, child sexual exploitation, to we had one jaywalking charge, right? Which was kind of, you know, disguised. He was outside of an FBI headquarters. These are people that have not previously been widely reported on that have done some really serious. scary things. So the Times and Crew got most of the more serious offenders, but, you know, there was Mark Maza who picked a boy up by the neck on the street. He was 12 and slammed him to the ground because he criticized President Trump. There was Howard C. Richardson, who in an attempt

to block a motorcyclist, knocked him off the bike. And the person needed surgery to their leg. and they said in the court documents that they took a chunk out of his leg. And then there's Eric Boshin, who's the one who calls the clerk's office, who, you know, hit his daughter on the head and pushed her into a side table, allegedly. These are just three stories of the 97. There are a bunch of DUIs that have resulted in injuries to people. There was a dog attack. The list goes on.

There was a lot happening here. One of the recent cases in Colorado was this guy Tim Arvinson. He was January 6th bragged about on social media, ran for Colorado Senate. I'm surprised he didn't win the nomination, giving what's happening with the Colorado nominations.

I mean, the leader in the governor's race right now is like a person who's also interested in exorcisms and has lied about murders in the past. So, you know, he didn't quite make it. But according to the story, he alerted his friends on Facebook that the FBI and came knocked on his door

after his younger fat, childless, woke sister had alerted them that he was there. The day after he was pardoned, he wrote that he felt as if a dark cloud had been lifted. I guess the dark cloud came back because now he's been charged with allegedly shooting and killing a man on the side of the road in Colorado Springs. Yeah. He is one of those people that was, he was never formally prosecuted for January 6th, though. Like you said, we knew he was there. But you have to think that there are literally thousands of,

more people that were at this riot that have probably likely gone on to commit other crimes that we have no idea about because we just haven't been able to keep track of them. So there are definitely more people out there like him for sure. Yeah, and there are a couple in particular you write about that, I mean, we know that their new crimes were the cause of the clemency, right? Like in this case, that guy hadn't been convicted, but there are other cases where people were in prison, then were let out of prison. and subsequently committed crimes.

We have Andrew Paul Johnson. This is one that has been publicly talked about him before, but he was the one that was convicted of five charges, including child molestation in February. I believe he was also the one that was telling the kids that he was molesting that he was about to get a pay out from the government, so they should shut up because he was going to pay him out. Zachary Allen did Grand Larcery and Burgany,

Ryan Nichols. He was charged with deadly conduct and harassment. after threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot. And so some of these people were like literally let out of prison because of this part and then did these horrible crimes. Yeah. So we know of five, there were probably more that we don't know about. What just struck you about the nature of all these people?

I mean, what was, and did it seem like these are like criminals who were attracted to a crazy spot? Like, is it people that just got really wrapped up? you know, maybe had mental health issues and really got wrapped up in Trump's lies, folks that, like, life unraveled, like, were the wrong place. How would you kind of describe as you're kind of learning about all the lives of these people that subsequently offended? There's a range. They range from extremely, extremely remorseful to completely unremorseful and thinking that they're completely justified in their crimes, in their participation in Jan 6. and then also asserting that their crimes since the riot should also be covered by Trump's pardon. I spoke on the phone yesterday with Emily Hernandez's lawyer.

She was in a drunk driving accident and she ended up killing a woman. And she apparently, according to her lawyer, is extremely remorseful wishes. You know, she was completely caught up in kind of the Trump world for her participation in the riot and feels really bad about, you know, hurting somebody. else and she said that if she could switch places with that person, she absolutely would. There are other people who, you know, have just, their lawyers got back to me and they said that it was the tentacles of lawfare, not my lawfare, the Trumpian lawfare, the tentacles of lawfare that are the reason for this prosecution and that, you know, they are being unjustly

targeted by the media, they were unjustly targeted by the Biden Justice Department, and And they received a pardon and then the pardon should apply to these crimes. So there's a range. I think this one was interesting. You read about Brian Burton, who was charged with assaulting police officers on January 6th. This was not somebody that was just there. He was convicted a bunch of other crimes. His attorney replied to you.

You just talked about one other person's attorney. Not very many attorneys replied to you. But this person, Burton's attorney, said this. Brian does much better when he receives mental health treatment. I believe Brian came to believe the false narrative that has been prompted by Fox News. Most of his recent criminal issues in Michigan surround the interactions with his immediate family. I believe a pardon should be reserved for situations that are thoroughly vetted. Whether Brian was treated fairly by the Justice Department is a question.

I think the circumstances justified a pardon. But absent a very thorough investigation for each and every participant, that no one should have been parted, and I'm confident that but for Brian's mental health issues and the propaganda, Brian came to believe he would never have participated. in January 6th. I do think that that's pretty important in telling to just talk about the relationship between all of the media figures, commentators, politicians that echoed Donald Trump's lies about the election and the subsequent criminal behavior from some of these people that had mental health issues. Yeah, 100%. The lawyers that did get back to me were quick to specify that

their clients during Jan 6th just showed up. They thought they were. being patriots and they didn't hurt people. Burton did. But, you know, I think that it was a display of the real harm that these lies and these election propaganda, this election propaganda did to this country, to these people's lives. And I think that I know these people are, a lot of them are feeling remorseful, but I honestly think that because the messaging is continued and they feel justified and they've received this pardon, which has been just, you know, kind of excused a lot of this horrible behavior, it's emboldened them to act more. It's one of the things that makes you get really mad, especially in like J.D. Vanskits

is on his high horse about this stuff, is they actually ruined the lives of a lot of people who they claim to fight for, who are like this supposedly forgotten men and women, and people like Burton, right? Whether that's people that didn't take the vaccine and died or people like this that got caught up in January 6th, it never would have been there that day, that were drugged down this rabbit hole and ended up having their whole lives unraveling. And then there's like the butterfly effect of them the people that they went on to hurt, like the other victims of these other crimes. And it really is tragic. Yeah. I mean, there's people with mental health issues.

There are two cases that I know in this report, people died by suicide because they didn't, one of them stated, Matthew Huddle, who has been widely reported on, he stated, I can't go back to jail. I'm a JAN-Sixer and I can't go back to jail. There was another one who he had just been sentenced to a few more years of probation, I believe, and he also committed suicide shortly after. So, yeah, it's more than also just jail time. It's people's lives that have been taken from them. Well, thank you for doing this dark work. It's probably not that uplifting, but it is important for people to see the scale of destruction. Those wrought by Trump's lies and then his subsequent actions. Anything else that I missed? You wanted to share with folks?

I just want to emphasize that there are probably more. And so if people want to look into this themselves using this data and add to this list of people, it would be much appreciated. I know that the, you know, the Justice Department's Anti-Weaponization Fund, I think, is now dead according to Todd Blanche. But, you know, the Trump administration is no stranger to providing payouts, as in they did with Michael Flynn, or just, you know, favoring people that they believe have been allies to them or they who believe have. been politically persecuted. And so as long as we know who these people are, we can hopefully make the right decisions about how to treat them going forward. Appreciate that. Everybody goes to support the work of lawfare. You guys are doing the Lord's work over there. And we'll be talking to you soon, all right?

Thank you, Tim. All right. Thanks so much to JVL and to Catherine. We'll be back here tomorrow for a Friday edition of the podcast. We'll see you all then. Peace.

The Borgue podcast is brought to the boarder The Borg podcast is brought to you Thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Anzley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.