Jack - Russian Klyushin (feat. Pete Strzok)

Episode Date: January 9, 2022

This week: We have an interview with Pete Strzok about the extradition of 2016 Russian hacker Vladislav Klyushin; plus the Fantasy Indictment League.Follow our Guest:Pete Strzokhttps://twitter.com/petestrzokFollow AG on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gillhttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.tech/Orhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansPromo CodesSubscribe to Prevail with Greg Olear https://link.chtbl.com/prevail

Hey, it's Kimberly Host of The Start Me Up Podcast. If you like your politics with some loose talk and salty language, you're going to love my show. I interview the coolest people like Mary Trump, Kathy Griffin, and DNC Chair Jamie Harrison. The Start Me Up Podcast has an easygoing, casual style and a strong emphasis on left-leaning politics. We also have Frank discussions about sex and more than a few spirited rants. Just visit patreon.com slash start me up or wherever you get your podcast and start listening today.

Hey all, this is Glenn Kirschner and you're listening to Muller Shee wrote. So to be clear Mr. Trump has no financial relationships with any Russian oligarchs. That's what he said. That's what I think that's obviously what our position is. I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time of truth in that campaign and I didn't have, not have communications with the Russians.

What do I have to get involved with Putin for having nothing to do with Putin? I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about a mother than he will respect me. Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. So it is political.

You're a communist. No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red hailing. Like all members of the oldest profession, I'm a capitalist. Hello, and welcome to Muller She Wrote. I'm your host, A.G. Alison Gill. And today, we have an interview with Pete Strock about the extra edition of 2016 Russian Hacker CLEUSION. Stick around after that for the fantasy indictment leak picks. Hope you enjoy it.

I'm Greg Olyar and this is Proveil. There's a goal here which is to make sure that Vladimir Putin not only stays in power, but that's there allowed to continue stealing. When you look at Brexit and you say, what might have also happened when Leo was being a turn-getting? Sort of like Brexit. A bunch of confused people following orders. Really having no idea what they were doing.

Tax avoidance on that level is only serving the interests frankly of a lot of mobsters and corrupt governance. The inherent question is, is Maria Bettina a spy? And Maria Bettina was a charge of espionage, so that's a difficult place to start to begin with. Those intangibles that those people want to have, we can't take advantage of that in dealing with Russia and China and Iran. If we can't do that, then you know what? Maybe we don't deserve to continue. Prevail with Greg Olyar, every Friday. Everybody, welcome back. Happy to be joined today by the author of Compromised,

Pete Struck. Pete, how are you? I'm good, Allison. Happy New Year. Yeah, happy New Year to you. This is turning into the Pete and Allison show. I feel like I should be paying you for all these appearances.

I appreciate your time on this, but these things keep dropping, and now we're learning, well, I mean, we had learned last week about the extradition of a man named Clusion, but there's a little bit more going on with this and what he might be able to reveal to American prosecutors about what happened with the hack in 2016, the Russian hack in 2016, can you talk a little bit about what this could mean for prosecutors? It potentially could mean a lot, and I would say not just for prosecutors, but for the US government intelligence community in particular. I think there's some things like people over index, and I'm in a tiny way to blame because of the character limit on

Twitter about pointing a well-known what happened with regard to the campaign pulling data that Manafort provided to Kalimnik are possibly potentially could. But I think there's people, folks need to remember, it's pretty clearly established, certainly publicly and much more within the US government intelligence community that the Russians were behind the hacks of the DNC, we're behind the hacks of the deep triple C, we're behind a release of information via intermediaries primarily, Wikileaks and Julian Assange to get that data out. So that we don't need somebody to come in and say, oh, you know, I've got information about this now, it could be helpful to analysts within the community. If he comes in, he says, oh, you know, these people in St. Petersburg, they were using Dell laptops and

not Lenovo laptops. And, you know, there may be grace notes around the outside that are very valuable for an intelligence perspective. But I think the much bigger potential areas of interest that he has are information surrounding what was going on on the Russian side of things with all the interaction between these various elements of the Trump campaign in Russia and a couple of things really stand out Potentially that he might have information about the first is you know to the extent that the polling information that was released by Manafort be a regates to The polling information that was released by Manafort via Rick Gates to guide me as a senior listener. So hopefully no constant and clinic. What he did, who he was working for,

where that information went, how, and if the Russian government used that, that would be very interesting, because a lot of what we know, and we as big US government, we know what happened with the information activities up until the time it leaves the possession of these various individuals who are in and around the Trump campaign administration.

We don't know what happens on the other side. So he could provide information about that. He certainly, I think one of the most likely places he They sort of put out or pushed up the public visibility of the fact that he was wanted, published it or republished a wanted poster and a reward for information leading to his arrest. I think it is a reasonable possibility that there's a seal in indictment for a calemnic. I think that to the extent that people can talk about what he did and who he is,

there may be information there. And then certainly, stepping outside of just the straight Russian interference in 2016, there's some indication he might have information about what the GRU is doing in Western Europe. I mean, there were engage in lethal activities. I think there's been a lot of public reporting through Belinkett and others about the activities in Switzerland, their activities in Germany. Certainly, there's been a lot of public reporting through Belingett and others about the activities and Switzerland, their activities and Germany. Certainly, there's public information about the attempted assassinations in the UK. So to the extent that he's got some visibility into broader GRU activities beyond just hacking, that might be interesting.

I don't know whether that's an accurate assumption that some people are making, but it's say there isn't for, you know, things there. And outside of that, just the whole criminal scheme is really fascinating the way they went about sort of targeting the weak underbelly of the US financial system and took advantage of that in a way that is, is both clever and concerning. And so I'm glad that a little bit curious, and we can talk about like how it was that he managed to get find himself extra-dited but there's I think a lot potentially to come. Now with the potential pressure that we could put on him to get information, would that be for law enforcement purposes or more about just getting to the bottom of things to prevent it from happening again

purposes or more about just getting to the bottom of things to prevent it from happening again because of the statute of limitations or can you like you said place an indictment under seal like for Maniford for example with the Kalimnik stuff before you get the final pieces of the puzzle just to stop that Statute of limitations clock or is there some sort of Policy that says you know you can't just file an indictment under seal to stop a statute of limitations clock? You got to have the evidence to file the indictment. Well, no, you need evidence before you're going to file a charge. So like any time you're going to have a seal indictment or a complaint,

you've got to have the evidence in hand to do it. You're not going to ever get a charging document with stuff from evidence. You think prospectively you're going to be able to get. You don't bring those charges unless you have the evidence in hand that you need. So I don't think that there is anything that this is going to firm up, you know, a place where the government went out on a limb to charge somebody that doesn't happen. So if there are charges that exist out there, they exist because the government is ready to charge it. Now what will happen is the government will increase charges. In a great example, that is Trilina Sange. The initial charges for Assange were comparatively limited.

And as the government did investigation, as they obtained additional information, that's we saw much more robust set of charges that were brought in against Assange in the form of superseding indictments that really dive into sort of the nasty non-journalistic behavior that he was engaged in in terms of allegedly encouraging hacking in terms of allegedly encouraging hacking

in terms of allegedly assisting and snowing and getting out of the US via assistance from WikiLeaks. So it is certainly possible that there may not be existing charges. If there are a certain set of charges, information he may have or be able to point the government to may allow a much more robust set of criminal charges. And that's just criminal cooperation, right? I mean, that is something where I'm certain that folks within the Department of Justice, folks within the Securitization Exchange Commission are going to be looking to say, okay, what was your scheme, who else was involved? Not only, you know, what can we do to build charges or short bar charges, what can we do to protect ourselves here? But there's going to also be,

I mean, cooperation doesn't just have to be from a criminal perspective. You can get cooperation from providing intelligence information. So, you know, I think when he gets here, and if, and when he, you know, and he does have an incentive to cooperate because the charges are significant, and I don't think, you know, if he can work down a potential jail sentence, it's in his interest to do so. So I would think there will be a, you know, a very interesting set of discussions within the US government. If he comes to the table with a proffer, you're not just going to have the criminal authorities and civil authorities

wanting to talk to him, you're going to have elements of the US intelligence committee wanting to talk to him as well. the US intelligence community wanting to talk to him as well. And what about some kind of protection? I mean, if he does, obviously, assist the United States, he's going to, if he hadn't already fallen out of favor with Putin, he definitely will by then and will probably become a very wanted and marked person. Yeah, and that's a really, that's certainly possible, and that gets into a very complex environment very, very quickly, because we've seen people like that. What he has, and I've seen some speculation online that talks about the way in the manner

that in particular, the DOJ, charging document was worded, that it almost seems to be in some places in the tip to show how he was scamming not only people within, you know, taking advantage of the U.S. filing system, you know, the edger filing system of the SEC, but also how he might have been scamming his own clients in Russia more than they knew. And so to create almost a little bit of tension or a little bit of friction between him and his notional, you know, not cook and spiriters, but protectors are people who would ordinarily be interested in taking care of him in Russia and that that might explain kind of this half-ass job as attorney kind of, you know, in lodging the appeal in Europe, fighting

one of the appeals. Fighting is extravitioned apparently, sent it in by mail, so it arrived late, and there's some question, okay, that whether or not that was malpractice, if he had really wanted to stay and fight it, he could have, did this provide him a fig leaf to say, oh, I tried, I tried to prevent extradition, but, you know, I sort of did it in a half-hearted way so that I was able to get extradited. And I don't know, because there are people, you know, when you look at folks in Russia, even people who anger those in power, what was I forget her name, her first thing was like Nastya. She was somebody I want to say. Nastya Rybka. Right. And she got like wrapped up and she had all kinds of enemies and she

was threatening the dish and she did dish a little bit. And then they get the grabs on her and they bring her back to Moscow and you expect, oh God, she's going to be dead in the ditch. But she's not. So the question is, you know, you can have the totality information that you have can be so large that even if you dish in cooperate and a limited respect, there's still enough you've got tucked away and placed somewhere for safe keeping that you can go back and say, hey, look, it was bad. But if you really want to like, you know, if I show up dead in the ditch, this is automatically going to get released since a hundred times

worse. So understanding how to navigate within Russia, the environment of, you know, whether or not you're a snitch and what that really looks like and what that means is a really, really complex environment. And I would hesitate to have any absolute statement about, oh, if he comes here and he cooperates, he's a dead man if he ever leaves the United States. I don't know if that's necessarily true. Hi, I'm Harry Littman, host of the Talking Feds podcast. A weekly round table that brings together prominent figures

from government law and journalism for a dynamic discussion of the most important topics of the day. Most news commentary is delivered in 90-second sound bites that just scratched the surface of a new development. Not talking feds. Each Monday I'm joined by a slate of feds favorites and new voices to break down the headlines and give the insiders view of what's going on in Washington and beyond.

We dig deep, but keep it fun. Plus side bars detailing important legal concepts read by your favorite celebrities, such as Robert De Niro explaining whether the president can pardon himself, and Carol King explaining whether members of Congress can be disqualified from higher office, and music by Philip Glass.

Find Talking Feds wherever you get your podcasts and don't worry. As long as you need answers, the feds will keep talking. Yeah, I appreciate that insight. I would definitely take your expertise. You knew you knew Ripka like that. That's impressive. That was the sex coach, you know, she was in the time. Right. Running courses and time land. Was it? Yeah. You got it. We remember things look sexy. Yeah. Who are you? Sure. And the yacht was at Derapasca's yacht. Was either it was. It was Derapasca's boat. And she was out there filming that cut that apparently the handoff of Kalimnik's stuff that he got from Manifort following flight paths. And then

Navalny got a hold of the tape and we know where he is now And not I'm not saying just because of that, but you know We followed we followed that a little close. Yeah Well, I appreciate all your insight on that. We're gonna keep following this story I think it's interesting that his name sounds like collusion Something a word that we we had, many discussions about during the Mueller investigation. I wanted to move on before I let you go, though, we just finished watching to shift gears. We just finished watching some remarks given to Department of Justice

Employees by Attorney General Merrick Garland about, well, you know, I was looking, I was listening to it for his update on the January 6th insurrection investigation, but he tied it in with quite a few different things, including the Big Lie, violent extremism, now that voting rights are under attack now because of the Big Lie. I mean, he tied it all together very well. I was wondering what your initial thoughts were. I was very impressed by the remarks. I think he covered what we need to cover, but you and I had had a discussion

before that he should be talking about the resources that he's putting on this. And that seemed to be missing. He addressed everything else. I wanted him to address. And he talked about the size and scope, 15 terabytes, you know, 22,000 hours of video, et cetera. He talked about the size and scope, but didn't really say what he was throwing at it. Yeah, I agree. I mean, my initial thought is it's exactly what I expected. Um, it is what you want, you know, and again, this is the speech to the Department of Justice and the FBI, although he obviously understood full well

that it was being carried live to the American people. So I think his message was given in the context of his audience and was given in the context of what, and was given in the context of what he thinks an attorney general should be saying and kind of laying out to reinforce to both the department as well as the American public. This is what we do. This is how we do it and this is what you can expect from us. So it was measured. It was what I would expect a former distinguished judge now attorney general to say, and I'm glad he did it. And I hope he continues to do it

There's clearly a lot of clamoring for some sort of statement out of the department I think this is appropriate. I don't know that he needs to be out there every month talking about it But I hope this isn't the last I Share your concern that I am And we've talked about this before in your podcast You know, I have no doubt that the people at the ground need investigators, agents, analysts, prosecutors are working their tails off. I have some concern about whether or not that is when you step up to a higher level, you know, the questions if I were a senator or somebody asking that of him,

you know, did you go out? Have you asked your investigators and prosecutors, is there any more work you could be doing right now if you had more attorneys, more agents, more analysts? Have you gone to Congress and asked for additional resources? Have you gone to the judiciary and said we are facing another wave of COVID, we need extraordinary measures to stand up temporary, you know, additional court houses and bring in judges because, you know, we all understand there is a flow, an ebb and flow to the course of a criminal case that can't be accelerated. However, if we're faced with potentially having to shut things down due to COVID or the things we can do to maintain the pace.

And again, that sense of, you know, we're all busy. You know, he said, this is one of the busiest or one of the most, you know, largest cases in the history. Well, no, it's the largest. That's, that's called. I mean, there is nothing close in American history to an investigation in this science period full stop You know, I am concerned. He you know, I was looking at some of the numbers. I think you threw out you know, they've done 5,000 subpoenas so far and you know numbers lie so I hesitate to do this but you compare and contrast that to

Muller who I think did 2,800 subscribers now Muller that was 675 days and not quite two years Now, Mueller, that was 675 days, and not quite two years. So if you've got Mueller, who's got a team by the number of attorneys that Garland talked about, that was anywhere 6th, 7th, and 8th of the size of what DOJ is doing right now, that number of subpoenas actually strikes me for the January 6th. It's very, very small. And so the question is, okay, so, you know, that's a data point, and it's dangerous to do any sort of extrapolation, but what it doesn't comfort me that that small number has the possibility of playing into the sense that the investigative

teams are overwhelmed by the volume of information and investigative stuff they have to do. And if you are facing all these terabytes and terabytes of video coverage and tips coming in, if you are so overwhelmed that you're barely keeping your head above water or not keeping your head above water in terms of analyzing and going through what you've got, your appetite to go out and say more. I mean, it's one thing if I'm saying, okay, I know you're in there, so let's just get your geolocation fencing data from your Google account and you stop there. But if I had more resources, I might say, well, let's Allison, let's get her geolocation data, but let's also get her financial data. And let's get her credit card statements. And let's see where you moved. And if you have more people, you can get

a more robust picture. Now, you know, the danger is if you're just some moat, profound yourself on the floor, you know, in the rotunda somewhere, maybe we don't need it, but I do worry, I continue to be worried that the approach and the view of this isn't necessarily carrying the same sense of urgency that I might hope. And so that, you know, his description started on January 6th, these people advanced and they did this and they did this. Now, he got to the point we're saying we're going to hold people accountable whether or not they were there on the 6th. But what he didn't do is he didn't say, well, there was planning for this that started in December. There were communications and advocating for people to come to the nation's capital that occurred, you know, if it,

it, in other words, the narrative starts January 6th. Well, the fact of the matter is when you look at the broad theory of the case, this was an attempted, an attempt to maintain power illegally by disrupting the certification of the vote that began well in advance of January 6th. So I mean, he points to that or he pointed to that in his comments, but I would have liked to have seen even a little bit more of an emphasis of saying like, look, this isn't, you know, people did bad things on the 6th. This is a broad conspiracy that we're going to get to that led up to January six. Exploded on January six and you know we're trying to figure out what happened. So again it's what I expected.

I'm glad he did it. I hope he continues to speak but things I would like to hear that didn't and I continue to be concerned about the kind of overall very high level sense of urgency about how we're approaching this. Yeah, I mean, if you have to go through 22,000 hours of video, for example, just another single number that he had mentioned, which he did, tell me who's doing that and is it taking away from the fact that is that why you only have 5,000 subpoenas and you're expecting more. I mean, he did say we're going as fast as we can, but like, yeah, it's a little more information, I think, would have gone a long way. Yeah, agreed. And you know, as fast as we can, that is one of those things that's so hard as a leader to get a sense of. When you walk into a team or when you're leading a team and they're saying we're going as fast

as we can, that's an actual response. So the question is, are they like Scotty in the engine room of the Star Trek where it's our going as fast as we can? And they love bullshit. You got another 20% so go faster. Or is it truly, we're going as fast as we can. And if you double the number of people we have, we still couldn't go any faster. Or is it truly, we're going as fast as we can. And if you double the number of people we have, we still couldn't go any faster.

And that's the, that is the question that worries me the most because, you know, unless you're in there, asking those questions, you know, I get, you know, you have to produce discovery. You have to give people a time to do it. The court will only, you know, you have to produce discovery. You have to give people a time to do it. The court will only, you know, schedule various hearings and milestones based on the pace that we have to do and you have to solve these cases

before you move up to the next level. You're not gonna accelerate that pace, but there are all these other things on the investigate side that you can scope up. Potentially, now maybe that's been done, but I still have a after this speech I still have an uncomfortable if it's been done you know yeah and and by the time this show airs and this interview airs we will have also heard Biden's remarks which happened tomorrow on the actual

anniversary of one six he's going to be addressing the urgency of the one six investigation. Maybe perhaps he will discuss resources as he may be the one to allocate those. And I know that Merrick Garland mentioned Congress, like, hey, get off your ass and give us the voting rights stuff that we need. But he didn't say, give us, get off your ass and give us the money we need to get the investigation done. So we'll see. Maybe there'll be more remarks to come. And I also am hoping and encouraging and writing and tweeting and sending letters to the US

attorney's office in DC saying, hey, maybe you can keep us updated via press conference on what's going on with the one six investigation, at least just what's been done, not necessarily what you're going to do because obviously, and Merrick Garland explained today, we can't do that. It can jeopardize future investigations and it can also shit on people's civil rights. And so we have to be very careful about that. Yeah, absolutely.

And I think Biden needs to be careful. Our hope is careful, but what we don't want is a president out there saying, I'm demanding DOJ. I don't want any president talking about what he does or doesn't want DOJ to do. So, and hopefully, you know, and then, you know, the couple of on a couple of times Biden's sort of weighed in a little bit. He quickly backtracked, and, you know, again, I think understanding that trying to return

the sense of normalcy of the independence of DOJ from the Shitja that was the Trump administration in that regard, I think is a positive thing. So, I hope, and I expect Biden will talk about the severity of January 6th and the stress that's placed on a society and continues to place and that the threat hasn't gone away. And you know, we need to try and cool things down. But yeah, I'm curious.

And is Trump still speaking? No, he canceled his event. He is doing a rally in Arizona though, on the sixth. So, and then he put out a statement about why he canceled or why he didn't cancel the event. He said it had nothing to do with everybody finding out about Sean Hannity's texts. So I just, and then he just didn't really say much with a bunch of words as he usually does. Yeah, yeah, exactly. He won't avoid the crowd and the adoring cheers. So we'll see what happens.

I have no expectation that he's going to stay within any sort of scripted comments. So that'll be interesting as well to find out. You think, can he's going to take the January 6th committee up on their offer to come in and talk? I don't know. I'm probably not. I think he's going to wave his first amendment rights around even though they don't really have anything to do with it. I mean, he's, I said earlier, he's as much of a journalist as Julian Assange is, but,

um, but, you know, hey, there are first amendment concerns, which is why the committee said, we don't want any of your quote unquote news gathering, um, information. We, we want to talk to you as a actual political advisor to the White House, which is what you were that day. Right. Not a proper media propaganda arm of state media. That was the fact back then. But no, that's, I'm curious. I don't know that he will, but it also could be an initial first stage of saying, look, we offered, we tried and could face to talk to you. And you said that. So if only papering the record, maybe that's what they're doing. Yeah.

That's usually what my feeling is is that they, hey, with so that they go to court and get a conviction, there's no, hey, they didn't try to come at me. They there was no due process. They just subpoenaed me immediately and, but, you know, that whole thing when you, I, I remember we sat through so many of these within the Mueller investigation of people trying to just serve people. So penis and summons and they had to find them. If they couldn't find them, they had to try 100 times and then they could ask the judge if they could do it by email and then hey, can we maybe call them and they're like, no, you got to find them. And that was all to establish the paper, you know.

Right. Right. And I think that maybe what they're doing here. So we shall see. Yeah, we'll see. Well, I appreciate your time today. It's always great to talk to you. Yep. You too. And uh, as soon as I get my sorrows money, I'll send you some of it. And I'll continue to be on my show. I appreciate that. We'll have our deep state meeting next Tuesday and uh, yeah. Nice. Everybody seriously needs to get the book compromised. It's really, really incredible book. I'm so glad you wrote it and I appreciate your time today. Thanks. Great.

Thank you. All right, everybody. It's time for the fantasy indictment lead. I'm going to be a indictment. No, it is going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment.

I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment.

I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm going to be a indictment. I'm gonna be dead! And my first pick this week is superseding indictments for the Trump Organization for Oka, or Little Rico from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Next up, I think we might hear about Rudy Tonzing, along with Derek Harvey and DeGeneva from that entire investigation in the Southern District of New York, then down to the middle district of Florida,

where we have Gates, L.A. Key, and Engles. And then I think we might hear something about Eric Prince. I don't really want to give too much away. And then finally Tom Barich, either superseding or maybe a plea agreement in the Eastern District of New York. Where's Weisman? I wonder. All right, thank you so much for listening today. I appreciate you. If you want to become a patron of this show, the MSW Book Club, which we're beginning the book Corruptible by Brian Klaus this week and also the Daily Beans. You can get all the premium at-free feeds for one low-monthly payment of just three bucks

36 bucks a year and that money really keeps us afloat helps us pay our people awesome wages give some health care All that good stuff. So you can do that by going to patreon.com slash mullershiroat. And everybody will be back tomorrow with the daily beans and Dana and you know we'll have an interview with Hugo Loh about his scoop in the Guardian regarding the one six committee. So until then please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet and take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, and take care of your mental health. My Bennagee, and this, is Mollarshi Road art and web designer by Joelle Reader at Moxie Design Studios. Muller Sheerot is a proud member of MSW Media, a group of creator-owned podcasts focused on news, justice, and politics.

For more information, visit MSW Media dot com. Hi, I'm Dan Dunn, host of What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn, the most wildly entertaining adult beverage-themed podcast in the history of the medium. That's right, the boozy best of the best, baby! And we have the cool celebrity promos to prove it. Check this out! Hi, I'm Allison Janney, and you're here with me on What We're Drinking With Dan Dunn. And that's my sexy voice.

Boom. Boom is right Academy Award winner Allison Janney. As you can see celebrity's just love this show. How cool is that? Hey, this is Scottie Pippin and you're listening to the Dan Dunn show and wait, hold on. The name of the show is what? Alright, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show is what? All right, sure. Scottie Pippin momentarily forgot the show's name,

but there's a first time for everything. Hey everyone, this is Scoot McNary. I'm here with Dan Dunn on What Are You Drinking? What's calling it? Fine, twice. But famous people really do love this show. Hi, this is Will Forte and you're, for some reason, listening to What We're Drinking with Dan Dunn. Now, what do you mean for some reason, Will Forte? What's going on?

Hi, this is Kurt Russell. Listen, I escaped from New York, but I couldn't get the hell out of Dan Dunn's happy hour. Please send help. Send help! Oh, come on Kurt Russell. Can somebody out there please help me? I'm Dita Von Tees, and you're listening to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn. Let me try one more time, come on. Is it right? What we're drinking?

It's amazing, isn't it? Is it right? Ah, that's better. So be like Dita Von Tees friends and listen to what we're drinking with Dan Dunn, available wherever you get your podcasts. M-S-O-W-Media you get your podcasts.