Lovett or Leave It - America's Next Top Vegan

Episode Date: February 2, 2019

Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, discusses Mueller, Trump's feud with intelligence officials, impeachment, congressional oversight, and vegan hamburgers. Plus Tawny Newsome and Naomi Ekperigin are back to break down the week's news on Howard Schultz, health care, and Netflix shows about serial killers. Then the panel quizzes the audience on Trump's approach to Venezuela. Sports podcaster Brandon Newman stops by to quiz Lovett on the game of football. And I still don't care that Starbucks burns the beans.

What is up, Los Angeles? Great to be here with all of you. It's stupid to ask a group of people, what's up? The answer is, woo. Still haven't found my perfect starting sentence. But who gives a shit? Before we get to the show, reminder. Love It or Leave It and Pod Save America are going out on the road.

Next week, PSA will be in Charleston, New Orleans, and Durham. Love It or Leave It and Pod Save America are going out on the road. Next week, PSA will be in Charleston, New Orleans, and Durham. Love It or Leave It will then be in Chicago. I will finally rank Chicago pizza and Connecticut pizza and New York pizza. It's finally time I talked about it. And then after that,

we'll be in Madison in Milwaukee on March 2nd and 3rd. I don't know what the, listen, all right, here's the deal. These tickets, they go like gangbusters, all right? They move, all right? But not in Milwaukee. What's going on, Milwaukee? What is the message you're trying to send? All right? I know you're all trapped in one big block of ice right now and the beer's freezing.

Get it together, all right? Let's talk about Howard Schultz. We're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about it. I like Starbucks. I genuinely like it. I know it's not cool it I know it's not cool I know it's not local

I know they burn the beans but they burn the beans I'll ride Mario Batali cool it unbelievable you know gardens out there but they burn the beans like you give a shit

like you're swilling it and spitting it into a bucket fuck you they burn the beans. Like you give a shit. Like you're swilling it and spitting it into a bucket. Fuck you. They burned the beans. I like it, all right? No matter where I go in the country, I can get exactly the same thing, the amount of caffeine it takes

to bring a horse back from the dead. And I like Howard Schultz. I mean, not as much as I used to. And I like Howard Schultz. I mean, not as much as I used to. Not as much as I did literally a week ago. But as an executive, Starbucks has done some pretty interesting things over many, many years.

He gave healthcare to full-time and part-time employees when a lot of other companies said, the middle class, why don't we rip it to fucking pieces? While Walmart was hollowing out the Midwest, Starbucks was hiring refugees, making it their mission to hire veterans. They were doing college programs across the country. Starbucks has shown more civic-mindedness

than most companies. That's Howard Schultz's achievement. That's part of his case, a legitimate case, for him to be president, for him to mount a campaign. The thing is, the only place for him to mount that campaign is in the Democratic primaries,

and for him to decide to take his ball and go home is fucking disgusting. So far, to me, Howard Schultz is acting like a restaurant patron marching into the kitchen to tell the chef that his gazpacho is cold.

He launched his campaign by saying that we need a positive kind of politics, the end of revenge politics, to bring us together. And what is his positive form of politics to bring people together? It is calling Democratic health care proposals un-American. It's attacking Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. And it's having, as far as I can tell, not a single positive policy proposal or even anything of kind of an argument for why he ought to be president. He has been doing press for a week now, and I have not heard a substantive argument. Have anyone in this room heard a substantive argument from Howard Schultz as to why he ought to be president? To cut entitlements.

That's right. that's right. His one clear value is that we need fiscal responsibility, which means cutting the social safety net and not raising taxes on the wealthy. It stands in such contrast to what the other Democrats have been doing, and I mean across the political spectrum. Howard Schultz is out there saying there's no room for him in the Democratic primary, yet his argument

and Michael Bloomberg's argument are virtually indistinguishable, but Michael Bloomberg, by the way, Howard Schultz is out there saying there's no room for him in the Democratic primary, yet his argument and Michael Bloomberg's argument are virtually indistinguishable. But Michael Bloomberg, by the way, Howard Schultz is making Michael Bloomberg look like a fucking saint. It takes a lot to say, why won't Howard Schultz show the humility and lack of ego of Mike Bloomberg? Because Mike Bloomberg has more money than Howard Schultz does, all right? But he's been responsible. He clearly wants to be president and thinks he should be president. But he's looked at the data, thought about it responsibly, not put himself first and said, you know what? I have two choices

here. I can run as a Democrat or I can stay on the outside and try to help the Democrat win because I am not going to risk the country to satisfy my desire to run for president no matter what happens. I'm not going to use my money to avoid the persuasion and ordinary course of campaigning that every other person has put themselves through. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He has shown more sense of purpose and mission and clear hard work and deep thought into his campaign that Howard Schultz has in the past week. He went out there and said, yeah, I'm a mayor, but here's the reason why a mayor should be president. Maybe it makes more sense than a senator.

Here's why it's important that a young person run. Here's what we did in South Bend, Indiana. Here's what I care about. Here's what I'm fighting for. Here's why it matters that a veteran and an openly gay person mount a campaign for president. And the reason he has to do that is because he doesn't have billions of dollars to skip all the hard fucking work. Neither does Kamala Harris. Neither does Elizabeth Warren.

Neither does Kirsten Gillibrand. Neither does Julian Castro. None of them do. Except for Mike Bloomberg, who again is a saint. Put your ego aside like Mike Bloomberg. Don't make it all about you like Mike Bloomberg.

Unfucking-believable. There's been this, I think, very small debate about what does a billionaire represent? Should there even be billionaires? And I'm not really interested in that debate. But the one thing that is true is that one consequence of the fact that we've allowed so much wealth to accrue to the hands of so few is that they have a lot of power. They do. They have a lot of power. And Howard Schultz doesn't have to listen to any of us. He really doesn't. He can do whatever the fuck he wants. He can run.

He can get his name on every ballot. He has the money to do it. He can skip this whole debate. He doesn't need to read my open letter. Hope he does. And I bet he has. And he can pay a Democrat and a Republican to push around a bullshit poll and come up with a soundbite every day to push back.

He can have a spokesperson go out there and say, all this consternation must mean he's really resonating. They can use PR tactics to get themselves over the hump of this terrible, catastrophic PR week that he's had. But show us some respect. Show some respect for your fellow Americans who don't have the power that you have, who can't use their money to avoid a conversation. Show us some respect. Show some respect for your fellow Americans who don't have the power that you have, who can't use their money to avoid a conversation. Show us some respect, the respect of listening.

You claim you care. You claim you're doing this for some silent majority, and the only policy you've come out against is one supported by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, which is higher taxes on the wealthy. You claim you're doing this because you love this country, but you're not doing anything to show us that you care what anyone in this country thinks. And so I don't know how you convince someone who doesn't need to listen to listen. I don't know. But I like Starbucks. I have it most mornings. I will, in all likelihood, continue to do so. He's the ex-CEO. It won't make a big difference. But I will tell you, until he actually decides to

listen and stop trying to spin his way out of this, the only hot cup of blonde I'm interested in is Ronan Farrow. Okay. Let's start the show. We have a fantastic panel. We also have a great guest to kick off tonight's show. He's the representative of California's 28th congressional district, where we are currently sitting. He is my congressman, which is way better than being represented by some backbench doof. Please welcome the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff. Congressman, thank you so much for being here. How are you? Congressman, thank you so much for being here. How are you?

I'm good, I'm good. I'm glad not to be a backbench doof. I'm more of a frontbench doof. You can call me chairman doof now. Chairman doof. I don't know, there's something about you. I don't know, something's changed in the last few weeks. Are you taller? You seem 60% bigger.

How's the majority going so far? I think it's going very well. And apropos of that, one of the first bills that we introduced, apart from those to keep the government open or get it open, was a bill to try to expand the franchise, try to make sure that people can vote, and that we make Election Day a national holiday. And I'm...

Which you probably saw Mitch McConnell said was a terrible power grab. And, you know, it reveals how the GOP political strategy for the last several years has been getting fewer Americans to vote. Yes, it's quite a thing to refer to people voting as a power grab. I mean, in an important sense, it's true. It is how you grab power in a democracy. All right. So I'm very happy that you're here.

A lot of shit in your purview. I don't think that's how they'd say it on CNN, but that's what's been going on. We call that jurisdiction. Jurisdiction. Smart. But shit is much shorter and apropos. Yes. Okay.

So this week is actually a big week in the public's understanding of what our intelligence community thinks. The administration's intelligence leaders went to Congress for the annual threat assessment. The director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, CIA director Gina Haspel, several others, they went in front of Congress and they contradicted Trump. They contradicted Trump's assertions that the U.S. has defeated ISIS, that Russia isn't meddling in U.S. elections, that there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea, which sucks because I saw Trump say that and I was like, what a load off. Glad that's over. One less thing to worry about. You know, we've got enough on our plates. The Midwest is frozen. They also disputed the idea that Iran is violating the terms of the nuclear

deal. They assess that they're still upholding it, even though the U.S. has backed out. Trump then called his intelligence people extremely passive, saying perhaps intelligence should go back to school. You see what he was doing. The master. Intelligence school. You see it. Then by the end of this week, he called a bunch of them into his office for what looked like a hostage photo. Then then he summarized the meeting. He said they said that they were totally misquoted and they were taken out of context. They said it was fake news. Do you believe that Gina Haspel told Trump that the national intelligence assessment was fake news? No, I don't. But I think the president's tweet cleared it all up. Because what he said was, my intelligence chiefs didn't say what they said. In fact, they said something completely different

than what they said. So that's perfectly clear. Here's a nice photo of me sitting with them. The terrible reality of all this is we have the best intelligence agencies in the world. They're designed to give policymakers the best information to make decisions. And when you have a president that will

completely disregard what they have to say, it means he's going to make decisions based on a fantasy of what he would like the world to look like. That's dangerous, but it also means that people who risk their lives to provide information to our intelligence agencies are going to dry up. Those sources are going to dry up because why risk your life if at the end of the day the decision makers are going to ignore what you're providing? And so it makes us less safe. It also, of course, means that our adversaries can mock and ridicule what our intelligence agencies have to say because, you know, Putin can say, okay, the

intelligence agencies say I meddled in the election. I didn't do it. You can't believe them. Look, the President of the United States doesn't even believe his own intelligence agencies. To that end, you have these, you know, Gina Haspel, she's overseeing the Central Intelligence Agency. These are people who do risk their lives under the assumption that their work will be valued. Can someone like that serve with integrity or do you see the wisdom in what a lot of people have said, which is someone being treated this way has a moral obligation to resign? You know, I think the conundrum of the Trump presidency is how do you ethically serve a deeply unethical man? And there is never going to be a good or complete answer to that question. Now, some, I think, have managed to walk that line far better than others. I think Secretary Mattis is a true patriot, and I think he served

as well as he could serve this deeply unethical man, but it got to a point where he could no longer in conscience serve, and that he thought he could play a more important role by resigning and explaining why he was resigning. I wish Moore, frankly, had followed his example. I do think that with respect to the heads of the intelligence agencies, that the men and women working in those agencies have probably told their chiefs, don't leave us. You're the only thing protecting us. We need you to stay where you are. And I think they're torn between wanting to, for the mission, wanting to protect their workforce and the integrity of the work they do, but also not betraying what they stand for. And, you know, I'm proud of what the agency heads did at that hearing because they spoke truth to power. That is what they're supposed to do.

And on our committee, we're going to make sure that's what they continue to do. So let's talk about Robert Mueller, that square-jawed person. Most of the indictments we've seen coming out of the Mueller investigation so far are around perjury, obstruction of justice. Do you think this is part of a greater strategy, or do you think that collusion and the crimes associated with it are just harder to prove? Well, I think when you look at the whole university of the indictments so far, you have indictments that go to the heart of Russian intervention in which Mueller indicted a couple dozen of the Russian actors in the hacking

operation, in the social media operation. There have been a number of other Trump associates like Mike Flynn who've been indicted for lying about their connections with the Russians, and, of course, the more recent charges against Michael Cohen and Roger Stone. The question is, will there be an indictment on the conspiracy charge, on the conspiracy allegations or the collusion allegations? Now, here, the Justice Department has taken a position you can't indict a sitting president. So even if there was sufficient evidence that the president was involved in a conspiracy, presumably that would not be indicted by the special counsel.

Now I think the reasoning behind that is flawed, but it's likely that that's the precedent they would follow. But what we have seen in other circumstances, for example in the Southern District of New York, is that they have made mention of the president as Individual 1, and they have alleged that the Individual 1 coordinated and directed a campaign fraud scheme involving the payments of these hush money sums to porn stars and the efforts to kill those stories. Now, those are not mere paperwork violations. It's not as if someone contributed sequentially on Act Blue and got over the limit somehow. These are expenditures, hundreds of thousands of dollars in excessive limits by prohibited corporations who are not allowed to contribute, and they involved allegations that could have

been election altering had they been reported. That's about as serious a campaign violation as you can get. And the Justice Department has taken the position that Michael Cohen should go to jail in part for his participation in that scheme. What is the argument to be made that the guy that they've identified as the one who directed the scheme and coordinated the scheme should somehow be treated differently so that may mean that there are potential charges awaiting the president when he leaves office even if they don't feel they can bring them while he's in office all right well listen now it's time because it's time to talk about the I word. That word is impeachment.

I was wondering if there was another I word. Honestly, I was searching for a fun one and I had nothing. Honestly, I think Trump took up the part of my brain where I used to come up with jokes. So you wrote an op-ed in May of last year and you discussed impeachment and the difference between a legal standard and a political standard. And you said this. impeachment and the difference between a legal standard and a political standard. And you said this, the standard is, was the president's conduct so incompatible with the office he holds that Democratic and Republican members of Congress can make the case to their constituents that they were obligated to remove him? You know, to me, that seems like an entirely reasonable standard, but it also presumes the reasonableness of both parties. You know, if Nixon had a Fox News,

he might have been considered a very successful two-term president. Are you worried at all that by that standard, that if Fox News can immunize Republicans to scandal, that that standard would only apply to Democrats? You know, I think that that is one of the most significant differences between the Watergate situation and the present. one of the most significant differences between the Watergate situation and the present. One was you had Republican members with more courage and more backbone than we see today. But the other was that you had an entire media apparatus that, come hell or high water, would put a glossy false spin on whatever the president did or said. And this is one of, I think, the most cross-cutting problems of all that faces our country, which is people now just get their information from such

very different places. And what that does mean is, as you say, getting the Republicans to even speak out against what the president is doing every day is difficult, sometimes impossible, let alone getting them to entertain the idea of voting to remove him from office. Now, there are some that believe, and I understand why they do, that we should impeach him regardless of whether we can convict him. We've been down that road before. And I don't think that is something that we ought to pursue as a desirable, acceptable outcome to put the country through a failed impeachment. I do think we ought to pursue as a desirable, acceptable outcome to put the country through a failed impeachment. I do think we ought to expose all of the malevolence. We ought to await the Mueller

report and see what evidence it produces. It may be that the standard is met for us and for enough of the Republicans. But I think we need to wait until the evidence is clear. We need to do our own investigation. We need to let Mueller do his before we decide to put the country through that. And that's why I say it's going to have to be bipartisan at least to some degree or it will fail. Now, it is, I think, undoubtedly true that Democrats have a far less tolerance for this kind of malfeasance than my GOP colleagues. And I'm sure you find yourself doing this just as I do every day. Can you imagine if Barack Obama fill in the blank? And let me just give you my favorite,

okay? Just give you my favorite. Never mind the conspiracy stuff and all the rest of that. Let's just focus on what we do know that is not contested. While Donald Trump was running for President of the United States up until the point he became the presumptive nominee of the GOP, he was saying, I have no business dealings with Russia. Zero nada zilch. And at the time he was saying that, he was having private discussions with the Russians, seeking the help of the Kremlin, seeking Putin's own help, to put together what would have been the most lucrative deal

of his life, something the special counsel says would have made him hundreds of millions of dollars. This Trump Tower, this massive tower in Moscow. At the same time he is trying secretly to put this deal together to make himself an even richer man, he is offering the Russians relief from sanctions. He is advocating a relief from sanctions, something that is offering the Russians relief from sanctions. He is advocating a relief from sanctions, something that would make the Russians and Putin billions of dollars. So he stands to make hundreds of millions. They stand to make billions. And he is misleading the whole

country about it. That's incontested. Now, whether that's a crime or not, that's incontested. But can you imagine Barack Obama being revealed to have done that? Can you imagine Barack Obama nominating for Attorney General, someone who wrote a 19-page memorandum diatribe against a special prosecutor investigating potential crimes implicating Barack Obama? It would be unthinkable. Just remember, Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on a tarmac for five fucking minutes. All right. Well, one last question on this. To that point, you know, what began as the most far-fetched and outlandish of notions,

that the idea that the president is compromised in some way, has become, if not an accepted reality, certainly a strong possibility. has become, if not an accepted reality, certainly a strong possibility. And in fact, what a lot of people note now, to your point, that given that Russia had all this information about what Donald Trump was pursuing and he was lying about it the whole time, that the way Donald Trump was compromised is the collusion itself, that the relationship itself that took place during the campaign is what Putin has on him, that the P-tape is the friends you make along the way. Did he react? It doesn't matter.

I feel like there's this tension. We are openly discussing that the president might be in some very significant way compromised, and yet, to your point, we are patiently waiting for the very deliberate Mueller process to wrap up. You have been deferential to that process for very good reasons. And yet, on the one hand, we may be describing the president as a genuine safety and national security threat, someone who is compromised by a foreign government willing to undermine NATO, willing to undermine our intelligence community, as you say, on a daily basis, right? That's an emergency. And yet, we are waiting for this very deliberate process to unfold. Is there a tension there in your mind between the kind of ordinary course of this investigation unfolding and the potential that Trump poses a daily active threat to the country?

I don't think there's a tension because it's not as if during the Mueller investigation, we are going to be merely sitting on our hands. We're not. We are going to be embarking on and already are a host of oversight and investigation. And that can be done contemporaneously with what Mueller is doing. Some of it involves very much what Mueller is looking at. Some of it involves things that Mueller is not looking at or may not be looking at. And all of that needs to go on. That can go on outside of an impeachment proceeding. The list is long.

The challenge for us, frankly, is after two years of what has to be the most corrupt administration in anyone's memory, there is a long list of things to look into and we will have to ruthlessly prioritize. You know, one of the things that to me is just quintessential oversight, but you have to ask, okay, where is that on the list of things?

We learned a few months ago that the president was secretly meeting with the Postmaster General in an effort to browbeat the Postmaster into raising postal rates on Amazon. Now, you cannot persuade me that Donald Trump gives a rat's ass about postal rates. But he does care a lot about negative coverage in the Washington Post. cannot persuade me that Donald Trump gives a rat's ass about postal rates. But he does care a lot about negative coverage in the Washington Post. And this is a way potentially to punish the Post. And if that's true, then it means the President is not only calling the press the enemy of the people, something by the way that dictators around the world are now emulating and calling the press fake, which they're also emulating, but he's also using the levers of state power to punish the press.

Similarly, the Justice Department has been holding up or opposing the merger of the parent of CNN. Now, is this owing to some newfound concern over antitrust in the Trump administration? That seems implausible. Or is this an effort to punish CNN? I don't know, but Congress should find out. But where do you put that on the list of things? This is the challenge. No, look, it's like how on The Simpsons, Montgomery Burns, see Montgomery Burns? He goes to the doctor, the doctor says, you have all the diseases, but they're in perfect harmony. All right. Thank you, Congressman Schiff. He's agreed to stick around and play some games, but give it up for Congressman Schiff for coming here tonight. We have so much more to discuss.

A lot of stuff happened this week. There's chaos in Venezuela, Arctic cold in the Midwest, a debate over health care in the 2020 primaries. To help us break it all down, please welcome the rest of our panel. She's an actor and comedian from Bajillion Dollar Properties, co-host of Yo! Is This Racist? and she has a new podcast and recording project, The Supergroup. Please welcome back to the show, Tawny Newsome! Hi!

How are ya? Hello! I'm great! Oh man, I'm so glad you talked about that Howard Schultz, he's the Peanuts guy, right? Yep. Yep. Yep. Yeah, what a jerk.

Yeah. Why can't Snoopy live inside? All right. She's the co-host of the comedy podcast, Couples Therapy. Please welcome back Naomi Ekper again. Hi. Yes.

Oh, I got sad. Just before, we were going through the information, and that took me on an emotional journey. Yep. But now I'm ready. We're all on an emotional journey together. This is true. All right, let's get into it.

What a week. Thank you. Tawny, so Howard Schultz has kicked off this debate about Medicare for All. Do you believe that universal access to a public health program would be un-American? Yeah, because this country is hard all the time, so to make anything easy like getting medically sound

seems incongruous, frankly. No, I mean, obviously not. Obviously, we should all just be able to be sick and go to the doctor. This is a true story. I fell off a scooter on my honeymoon in France. I was rushed to a French hospital in Corsica, which is, I mean, it's not even really France. It's like the Jurassic Park of France. I mean, it's not even really France.

It's like the Jurassic Park of France. And they rushed me in an ambulance, which would be so much money here. I got stitches. So many doctors fussed over me. We got a bill for 50 euro. Five zero. And we didn't pay it.

Still have it. And most of that bill was wine and cheese. Yeah, that's true. Naomi, we're at the very start of this Democratic primary. One of the first policy debates we're now having is about health care, how to pay for it, what should happen to private insurance. What are you thinking as you're watching the beginnings of this debate unfold? How are you feeling so far? We're in the very start of this Democratic primary. How do you feel? I told you I'm on a roller coaster i mean it's insane how things that feel like as you said like it should be okay for us to get sick or have an accident and not end up bankrupt because of it

and to feel like this is such a sticking point with so many people and then the degrees of which it's like well you might have to pay a little bit. Well, I think you should pay nothing. Well, I think you should pay more than a little bit. It's just like, give us something. You know what I mean? Maybe me yelling isn't helping. But that's where I'm at. Disagree. Congressman, what do you think about this debate over a transition? If we were to do something like single-payer, and there would be a a transition window and parts of the private insurance system would be unwound, are you worried at all about Republicans and the insurance companies' ability to demagogue around that issue? Well, we've seen them demagogue around it ever since the Clintons tried to expand health care.

One of the terrible missed opportunities when we passed the ACA is that we had a public option that was part of the ACA. And in an effort to get it through and compromise, it was dropped. They're laughing because they know that you just say public option. And I just want to yell about Joe Lieberman for 30 minutes. I didn't know that was a trigger. Or I would have used it earlier. But, you know, had we done that, we would have been able to, you know, test the concept. And actually, of all the things in the Affordable Care Act,

that was the piece that had the most powerful impact on driving down cost. Because all the plans would then have to compete with a far more efficient model. So that was a terrible missed opportunity. But there are a number of proposals out there that would smooth the transition, including one where you can buy into Medicare. And I think that there are a lot of great options like that to explore. And part of the weeding out of the presidential campaign will be to see who can make the best case

for the best approach. But I share my colleagues' astonishment that anyone would label universal health care as somehow un-American when the idea that you can't provide health care for yourself or your kid gets sick and you can't get them health care, I can't imagine anything less American than wanting to fix that. Yeah, it's genuine nonsense because it's like Medicare for 65 and older, all American, beloved by all. You give Medicare to a 55-year-old, what are you, Hitler? Take that shit to Venezuela. One last question. Naomi, do you like Starbucks?

No. Now, look, I'm not a coffee person, but they do burn the beans. And that is something I detect. You know just from smell. I can smell it's a burnt bean. I can smell it. I'll tell you what else I can't stand.

This is why I can't stand no show. You ever been in a Starbucks bathroom? Shit is going down in that bathroom. It is never clean. And yet, they make you fight for the bathroom key. They want you to beg for the key into the dirtiest place in the world. And that's a mind game I'm not going to play. All right.

When we come back, OK Stop. Hey, don't go anywhere. There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up. And we're back! Now it's time for a game called OK Stop. We'll roll a clip and the panel can say OK Stop at any point to comment. Earlier this week, Eric Trump appeared on Hannity for the latest rendition of... For the...

The latest rendition of... Which Trump son can get the most attention from father by appearing on Fox News. Eric shared his thoughts on the radical left's agenda. Let's take a look. Democratic primary quickly turning into a contest. Who can be the most radical? Here was the reaction from the Trump organization.

Okay, stop! I just... That face chilled me to the core. Those eyes are dead. And I just think that when that's what you're starting with, nothing after can be good. Go ahead. So we played. You can't have the choice of health care. We're going to stop drilling

natural gas, all our resources, all the jobs with it, the lifeblood of our economy. And I'm listening and I'm saying, this is great for your father. It doesn't make any sense. I mean, the Democrats are not the party of JFK. They've become so radicalized. They want to bankrupt the system. Stop.

Okay, stop. What was that word? Radicalized? We've become so radicalso racalicalized. I am done with marble-mouthed white men on TV. Seriously, black people in this country have to speak two different languages, basically, and these motherfuckers can get on TV mangling the one they learned. Free health care for all?

How do you pay for this stuff? I mean, we would become Venezuela. We'd become so many of these other countries. It doesn't work. That's not what America's about. Okay, stop. Look, giving people health care is not what America's all about, all right?

America's about this guy running a fake business for his father who got the money from his father who got the money from stealing it from black people. That's the story of America. The story of America is a guy named Fred Trump bilking poor black people,

taking that money, giving it to his son, interest-free. That son using tax breaks from the city that his father got from corruption, using that money, connections to the mob, to build an empire of shitty buildings. from the city that his father got from corruption, using that money, connections to the mob, to build an empire of shitty buildings. And then, when you fuck up that business, use reality TV to create a fake image of yourself as a business hero.

Then use that to use the name to put it on buildings you don't own. And then from that, convince the Republican Party to make you the nominee. And from that, become president while secretly pursuing deals from Russia. And from that, your son gets on Hannity. That's the American dream.

I mean, America's about hardworking people. America's about capitalism. America's the greatest country in the world because, you know, people work for that American dream. And it seems like... Elizabeth Warren wants another bite at the apple after you paid all your taxes. I mean, it's insane. And they've become the party of obstruction and nonsense and investigations because...

Okay, stop. Stop. Please stop. Please. We're like a Greek chorus. We're like, stop. I think it's only fair that we let Congressman Schiff respond because I feel this is quite personal. Well, first of all, I was just going to say stop because it's too painful to watch that guy. No matter what he says, and you add Hannity and Mixon, it's just like slow torture.

I mean, this is sort of the television equivalent of waterboarding. But for that guy to be talking about obstruction and stonewalling you know we live through two years of the Republican Congress stonewalling any kind of oversight Trey Gowdy you might recall as Benghazi Trey

the guy that brought us the endless Benghazi oh by the way he's going to be a new Fox contributor there's a surprise but in his entire tenure as the chairman of the oversight committee, he issued only a single subpoena. And that was when he had one foot out the door about two weeks before the end of the session. So they obstructed everything in terms of meaningful oversight. And watching this guy lecture about that is more than anyone should have through a door. I think you're right, but in fairness to him,

he's not doing this to make an argument. He's doing this because his father could not express or really experience genuine love. And so this is a means of trying to get that love, either from his father or from other strangers. I'm feeling really guilty now about what I just said. Yeah, I think we should all

think about how we've been treating Eric Trump. Else? I really, really guilty now about what I just said. Yeah, I think we should all think about how we've been treating Eric Trump. Else? I mean, I have nothing else. I've known your dad for over a couple of decades. He's the greatest guy in the world. I just want to close by saying that to me, Hannity

looks like, you know the movie Inside Out? Is that what it was? With the little inside head? To me, he's what happens if anger one day went in and just killed the other emotions and then just was at the board.

When we come back, a game on Venezuela. Don't go anywhere. This is Love It or Leave It and there's more on the way. And we're back! Venezuela is in the middle of a real crisis. After years of intense hyperinflation, blackouts, and shortages of food and medicine, more than 3 million people have fled the country.

Millions more are suffering in poverty. How did we get here? After Hugo Chavez died in 2013, Venezuelans elected Nicolas Maduro, his mentee, by a tiny margin. Then, economic freefall. Last May, Maduro was re-elected to a second six-year term in deeply compromised elections. Opposition candidates were

barred from running. Some were jailed. Others fled for fear of imprisonment. The National Assembly refused to recognize Maduro's election, and the Assembly leader, Juan Guaido, is citing constitutional authority to assume the role of acting president while this is sorted out. It's an extremely complicated and fraught subject. Maduro is illegitimate. The people of that country are suffering, and yet the U.S. does not have a sterling

record of intervention in Latin America. But don't worry. Here to navigate what is a crisis with no easy answers and simple options, one that requires coordination with allies and adversaries, nuanced diplomacy, strategic thinking, and the delicate balance of risk and rewards, driven not only by American interest, but by compassion and humanity, is President Donald fucking Trump

and his team of former and future convicts and rehabilitated right-wing goons. So each panelist is going to present a different foreign policy expert's experience and perspective. It's up to you to decide which candidate Trump has chosen to lead the U.S. effort to address the humanitarian and political crisis confronting 32 million Venezuelans. Would someone out there like to play the game? Let's go here. She shot her hand right up. She's in a beautifully coordinated red sweatshirt and blue front of the pod tee.

It's a BuzzFeed shirt. So you work at BuzzFeed? Yes. You don't feel like saying your name. Let's call you. Hold on. This is fun. I'm sorry.

Just buckle up. It's the first thing that came to my mind. Angela. Let's call you Tiffany. Tiffany. Lisa. Megan. Angela, Tiffany, Lisa, Megan. Yes, that's Megan. Angela, Tiffany, Lisa, Megan.

Yes, that's exactly it. All right, Tiffany, Megan. Jokes aside, how are things at BuzzFeed? Very sad. Okay. Yes. Yeah, well, you know what? The world's a real fucking place, and it's not all at the improv.

All right? Things are real. So, Tiffany, Megan, I'm going to read you a question, and you're going to decide who the Trump administration hired to work on this very delicate problem, okay? Question one. What approach do you believe is most effective in conducting smart foreign policy toward a country in political crisis? Is it A? I believe in taking a multilateral approach that would ensure we work with all our allies to take collective and unified actions in order to achieve a peaceful resolution through diplomatic means. Is it B?

I believe in leveraging the talent and deep-seated knowledge of our Foreign Service Corps to understand the politics of the situation on the ground, and thus have a clearer understanding of the consequences that may result from any policy decision we make. Or is it C? Look, you want to intervene? Just fucking

intervene, okay? Don't have the fun, sell some shit. Like high-grade semi-automatic weapons to an enemy state and use the proceeds to fund right-wing terror groups in, let's say, I don't know, Nicaragua. What do you think, Megan Tiffany? C. You're right, that's C.

And that describes Elliot Abrams, who under Reagan helped mastermind the scheme to sell arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Central America. This was known as the Iran-Contra scandal, a scandal that I, as a child, believed involved the video game Contra. Just a fact. But as Ronald Reagan famously said when he denied knowledge of the scandal,

up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, select, start. Question. That's good. select, start. Question. That's good. Yeah, that was good. Question two. That's called the Konami code. It's a famous code, basically in Contra, which is a very difficult game.

You started with three lives. But if you type those sacred buttons, up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, select, start. I played with friends. I had friends as a kid. You didn't need the select. The select was if you had a buddy. You got 30 lives. 20? 30. It was 30, right? I said 30, then you shouted 30. Don't correct someone when they're right and you say the same fucking thing. It's your first time shouting. Question number two, Megan Tiffany. Can you

provide an example of an experience in your career that illustrates you are qualified to handle the situation in Venezuela today? Is it A? I coordinated several years of the imposition of sanctions and the intricate diplomatic strategy to coax the Iranian government to make unprecedented concessions in rolling back its nuclear program. Or is it B? I spent years negotiating with the Cuban government, enlisting the support of the Vatican

as a secret third party, and arranging complicated prisoner exchanges in order to normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Or is it C? I'm the man who helped

lead a failed military coup in Venezuela back in 2002. Relevant? You bet your ass. That was the beta test of coup d'etat, bitches! What do you think, Megan Tiffany?

Definitely C. That's right, it's C. And again, that's Elliot Abrams, who the Guardian reported to be the crucial figure in pushing the Bush administration to back a coup attempt against Hugo Chavez that failed. Question three. If you need to play hardball to find a resolution, what are you willing

to do? Is it A? I am willing to walk away from a hard-won deal and allow debilitating sanctions to snap back into place should a country violate any aspect of a deal with the United States. Is it B? I am willing to support, back, and protect dissidents within a country to undercut a bad actor's leadership should they violate any deal or understanding between our nations. Or is it C? U.S. trained death squad, son! El Salvador gets a squad! Guatemala gets a squad!

Who needs a squad? Denmark needs a squad! Squad it up! Megan Tiffany, what do you think? Oh, C again. That's right, it's C, and you'll never guess who it was. It was Elliott Abrams. Not only was he convicted of lying to Congress

about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, not only was he a crucial figure in the previous failed coup, he was also an architect of the policy that led the U.S. to support death squads in Guatemala, El Salvador, and elsewhere, leading to countless civilian deaths, a shameful chapter in American history. God, when you just end on the word

shameful chapter in American history, it's hard to have the next phrase be, when you just end on the word shameful chapter in American history, it's hard to have the next phrase be, and you've won the game. But Meg and Tiffany, you've won the game. Thank you for playing. Best to everybody at BuzzFeed. Thank you. When we come back, I'm going to show you what I know

about a little sport called football. Hey, don't go anywhere. There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up. And we're back! People often assume I don't know anything about football, but I know more than you think because you're homophobes. That's why we decided to play a game called The Big Game Game. I just wanna be clear about something.

Mukta, who's in charge of this PowerPoint, DJs as a hombie. And I'm gonna say this now with all the love in my heart. Stick to the day job. At least is she smiling? What's happening? All right. All right.

John, I just want to know if that's the first time you've called like 200 people homophobes all at once. Because it really made me happy. Yes, but we're going to do some bigger shows and I can beat that record.

Yeah. Here to test my knowledge is former Notre Dame football player and co-host of the Fox Sports podcast, Maybe I'm Crazy. Please welcome Brandon Newman. All right, so here's how this is going to work. All right. It's a one-on-one context. He's going to ask me questions. I'm going to ask him questions. All right. And we'll just keep score. You keep score for us. Brandon, you want to kick us off? Yes. Love it. Which of these are not a real position? Tied in,

safety, puller, or corner? I know the answer. I know safety is not a position, but a bizarre way to get two points. There's some double entendres in football. There's, it's confusing.

Is it also a position? Yes. What? Two, two. There's a free safety and a strong safety, so it's, yeah. What? Yeah. So hold on. Can I just also ask a question? All right. Two. There's a free safety and a strong safety. So it's, yeah. What? So hold on. Can I just also ask a question?

All right. And listen, I know I'm not alone. So I get the logic. It's kind of a war on grass. That's fine. If you have the ball in the wrong end zone and you sit down on the ground, you get two points. No, the other team gets two points.

What? Yeah. Okay, so... We do that every time. All right, I guess that counts as my question. You go. What does encroachment mean? What does encroachment mean?

Obviously, I mean, context clues. I assume one person is getting too close to somebody else. Yes, yes, a neutral zone infraction. That's correct, it's correct. What's the neutral zone? Like between the Romulans and the Federation? Am I right? Yes, it's an invisible line.

My question for you. Why does Peyton Manning do so many commercials? Do people want to buy things he suggests? That's a mystery for me as well. So he doesn't know it. He doesn't know some of these brandon you're up okay uh what is the red zone the red zone come on no okay the red zone saying it helps here's here's thing. There was that brief magical moment

where all the sports broadcasters had the technology where they could overlay colors on the field and they overused it. And in those four months, I learned more about football than I had before or after. I don't know what the red zone is. What is it?

It's 20 yards, 25 yards, 20 yards. I'm a defensive player. 20 yards before you hit the end zone. Like 20 yards before the football. Before the football touchdown. I see. I see. Before the score touchdown.

The close, the close. Closer to the score. Closer to the, yes, I get it. I wish we could be your phone afriend, but I don't even know. You should have a lifeline. Next question for you. Could I pull off saying, move those chains in my day-to-day life?

Careful, because this one has a right answer. Yes. Yes, he got it. Of course. Use it in a sentence. Use it in a course. Use it in a sentence. Use it in a sentence. Use it in a sentence. This podcast,

all right, we can make it a lot better. We got to move those chains. Who's the bad boy of the NFL, but for a reason that doesn't involve committing genuine horrible crimes? Like, you know,

in a fun way. Like when Dennis Rodman had an earring and people flipped out but that was a different sport I know that remember when being the bad boy

when I'm like oh my god it's a man in pink pants what about the children or no pants for Dennis' case

I say Patrick Mahomes is a young quarterback that's gonna win a lot and I think people will hate him but I say he's a bad boy cause he puts ketchup

on his mac and cheese and that just horrible that's the reaction you should have that's going to win a lot, and I think people will hate him, but I say he's a bad boy because he puts ketchup on his mac and cheese. Horrible. That's the reaction you should have. That's correct. Hit me with a question. I don't know how many you have. You're in charge. Where did the Rams play football before Los Angeles? Okay, so I know that's a trick question. They've always been from Los Angeles because I've been going to

Rams games since I was two years old. Okay, okay. I know the answer. I don't. Hold on. I knew it was St. Louis since I was two years old. Okay, okay, so. I know the answer. I don't, hold on, just. I knew it was St. Louis. I was gonna say St. Louis. You get a ding. Mukta has lost all control of the dings. Yeah, thanks.

What are you, what are you, reading a book? You know what, Mukose? Yeah, great. Okay, thanks a lot. Thanks a lot. So Patriot Man's pretend of deflate football thing wasn't real, but it was real, right? Very real. Yeah, it was real. Yeah, very real.

And just a follow-up question. They also cheated while stealing the other team's ideas, right? Spygate, yes. Yeah, Spygate, right? And no consequences, really. There's a slap on the wrist, if you will. Do you disagree with this statement? Because this comes from Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Ronan Farrow.

He said, wow, they're very good and they cheat? That's a great combination. Yeah. OK. OK. Yes. Yes. Why is it called football?

I mean, from the kicking? Common misconception. That's wrong. You're wrong. When sports started, everything was on horseback, so anything that was played with your foot became football. Rugby, soccer, American football. Fascinating.

We all learned something, didn't we? All right, guys, everybody, give it up for Brandon Newman, who won the game. Thank you so much. Check out his podcast. When we come back, the rant wheel. Hey, don't go anywhere. There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up.

And we're back. Now it's time for the rant wheel. Here's how it works. We spin a wheel wherever it lands. We rant about the topic at hand. This week on the wheel we have Rent Live, Mueller dropping news on Fridays,

God wanting Trump to be president, Schultz talking about Reagan never taking his jacket off in the Oval Office, Facebook spying on teens, serial killers on Netflix, and Jeff Bridges, the dude, appearing in a Super Bowl ad. Let's spin The Wheel. It has landed on Matthew Whitaker and non-vegan buns. I will tell you that Congressman Schiff said

these were the two topics he wanted to rant about. I genuinely couldn't decide, and so twist and challenge put them together. I've got to rant about both of them. I've got to rant about Matt Whitaker and his non-vegan buns, do I? Okay, well, first of all, I'm vegan. Any other vegans here?

Okay, there's one. They're just so tired and hungry. I'm vegan. I'm vegan because Cory Booker is vegan, and I want to be Cory Booker. I hate it when you go to a restaurant, and they have a vegan burger on the menu, and you ask the waiter, is the bun vegan? And they say, no. What's the point?

I mean, it's false advertising. You can't have a vegan burger with a non-vegan bun. I mean, you go for the plant-based, you know, good conscience middle, and you get the, you know, the bad guilty bun. So anyway, that pisses me off. What gentle anger? This is me filled with rage. And this is me very happy.

I'm the Al Gore of the Congress. Don't put that in the world. Matt Whitaker. I don't know in the world. Matt Whitaker. I don't know where to start with Matt Whitaker. But here's the thing. The acting AG and the nominated AG both refused to commit to following the advice of ethics lawyers. Is it too much to ask that the top law enforcement officer in the country follow the advice of ethics lawyers? I mean, is it too much to ask of all the conservative lawyers in the whole country that what we can't find a single one that hasn't previously expressed their hostility to the

Mueller investigation? Is that really where we've come? We have so dumbed down the moral and other standards of this country during two years of Trump that apparently it is now okay to be attorney general with a bias against an ongoing case, having gone on TV or gratuitously sent memos to the White House about what a terrible job Bob Mueller is doing, and take the job and say, the hell with the ethics lawyers. Should I talk more about the buns? Honestly, I am mostly, I'll tell you, I have this tiny worry in the core of myself,

which is, can we effectively oversee Trump without the flesh of animals? And I know what you'll say. Donald Trump eats enough chicken to make up for all the veg of animals. And, you know, I know what you'll say. Donald Trump eats enough chicken to make up for all the vegans in the country, so I think we're good there. All right, let's spin it again. It has landed on Rent Live, which I believe Tawny is going to take. It is mine, and I know what you're all thinking,

but what this is really about are the Rent Live haters. I am so sick of people who can't contain their snark and can't see that show for what it really was, which was imperfect, but still a pretty incredible piece of TV. Okay, so it wasn't great, right? The guy broke his foot. They don't have understudies because it's television. It's Hollywood. Hollywood doesn't it wasn't great, right? The guy broke his foot. They don't have understudies because it's television. It's Hollywood. Hollywood doesn't have understudies, okay? It's not real

Broadway. We all knew that going in. Vanessa Hudgens is in it. No one is mistaken about what this is, okay? And yes, the original musical is kind of like, you watch it now in your 30s and it's a little like awkward because like La Vie Boheme, like being a bohemian. In 1996, that sounded great. Now when I hear the word bohemian, i just think of white ladies in dreads and i don't want it so and like really when you think about benny he's like the villain when really he's just a black business owner who wants his white friends to pay rent like it's not great okay it's a little hard to watch in your 30s but what i'm saying is that at the core of this musical are issues of homelessness that affect people of color, the LGBTQ community.

There's three damn interracial relationships. And all of that was broadcast into people's living rooms across America on a Sunday night on motherfucking Fox. And you guys are mad about Tinashe's vibrato or whatever. Like, stay focused. Some old racist homophobes got their wigs blown back that night. That's what I am here for. So I just want people, I think we do reserve the right to have snark

about these live musicals because they are often a train wreck, but I want you to save them for the Sound of Music lives, which I think had Carrie Underwood just playing a beautiful blonde wooden spoon. Or Grease. Grease live. The central message of Grease is beautiful blonde wooden spoon. Or grease.

Grease live, the central message of grease is just women, change yourselves. So I don't want to hear it about rent. And frankly, I couldn't hear it because the sound design was atrocious. Let's spin it again. It has landed. Serial killers on Netflix.

Naomi. Okay, look. I love a murder, okay? I love a murder show. Not an actual murder taking place, but one of my stories. But my problem with all these serial killers on Netflix, people keep talking about how hot they are. People keep talking about how Ted Bundy could get it.

And I was just like, you need help, okay? We cannot start this narrative that serial killers are hot. People are really into Penn Badgley's character on You, which is just a lifetime. It's like if a serial killer loved you. That's the whole show. What if a serial killer loved you? And everyone just keeps talking about how you're so attractive and it's like, y'all cannot get this twisted, okay?

You are not supposed to be watching these tapes trying to make love work, okay? You are watching this so you know what to look out for when you're walking your foster dog at 11 p.m., okay? Stop watching this talking about how they so fine. It is making me livid. And that's all I have to say. Ted Bundy look like a crow. He can't get it. He's a bird, an evil bird man. I'm done. Counterpoint.

Here we go. Here we go. I have been watching American Crime Story colon Versace. And I understand why that one guy went on a road trip with Darren Criss. I'm not saying he should be proud of it. I'm not saying it's the right decision. But I understand it.

I think the real issue is the casting. They need to not cast beautiful people to play these parts. Exactly. If you're going to come on Love It or Leave It and talk about not casting Darren Criss and things, you get the fuck off this stage. I will say,

when he thanked his female fiancée at the Golden Globes, I did shoot my television. Let's spit it again. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, I guess, said that God wanted Trump. Honestly, I didn't click on the link. And normally I wouldn't indulge in this kind of nonsense. I don't think you should, you know, converse at this level, but God did not want Trump. Spin it again.

He didn't. I checked and he just didn't. She didn't. I checked and he just didn't. She didn't. All right, it has landed on Reagan never taking his jacket off in the Oval Office because he had respect for the office. First, he did. He took his jacket off all the time.

He's in polos. He's in gingham. He's in those kind of 70s, 80s shirts with like seams mid-chest that they don't really make anymore, where it's just a big collar and a big mid-seam chest. And he looks great, but I don't care. Wearing a jacket is not how you show respect or a lack of respect for the Oval Office. Taking your job seriously, maybe noting the AIDS crisis. There are many ways a president not wearing a jacket can show respect for the Oval Office.

And, oh yeah, let's spin it one more time. It has landed on Jeff Bridges playing the dude in a Super Bowl ad. And I want to tell you something. I found out that the dude was coming back in a quote tweet by Chris Evans saying that there was a picture

of the dude and it just had a date on it. And I was like, oh my God, there's going to be a trailer for a new, is there going to be a follow-up to The Big Lebowski? I was so excited.

I was like, it was like, I was like a kid on Christmas, Christian. I'm a Christian. And then, then my heart sank because someone said, the date's the Super Bowl. It's a Super Bowl ad. And I was like, oh, come on. Don't take some of the most precious characters and then use them to sell God knows what on Super Bowl Sunday. You know, have your race car drivers and your Chester Cheetos and your Bud Light enthusiasts

and your Clydesdale fucking horses that even though we know it's stupid do make us tear up. It's fine. I don't care about any of that but you don't take the dude and put him on the super bowl i don't care what the ad says the dude would hate that and then and i stopped breaking the nice things we used to have all right can i just can i just join that rant yeah because i'm a huge big lebowski fan and i i had the same

problem when i saw that i sent it actually to my brother and my friends i'm like because I'm a huge Big Lebowski fan and I had the same problem when I saw that I sent it actually to my brother and my friends. I'm like, the dude's coming back. There's going to be a sequel. And then it's a beer ad. What a total letdown. He didn't even drink beer.

He drank White Russians. I know, I know. And I was an impressionable young person and so I ordered two drinks. There were two drinks, three so I ordered two drinks. There were three drinks I ordered. Drink number one, White Russian, because it's basically a milkshake for adults. It's an adult milkshake.

Drink number two, gin martinis, because George Burns, the comedian, ordered martinis after his shows, and I thought he was funny because of the movie 18 again, and I have a certain space in my heart for the Kutcher's Upstate New York Catskill guys because I'm a Jew from New York. Drink number three, vodka soda. Because my friend Ryan, who's skinny and gay, said, what are you drinking?

What are you doing? Get that shit out of your hand. Gin and tonic? No. That's just Coca-Cola. Get that out of here. Vodka soda for you. So I have to tell you the line from The Big Lebowski that I used to use religiously

and came in very handy in politics until Trump was elected. I used to say, no, you're not wrong, you're just an asshole. But now I have to say, yes, you are wrong, and you're an asshole. What a fantastic place to leave it. Let's end on a high note.

This week, Baltimore decided it will no longer prosecute cases of marijuana possession. The city's top prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, announced that it will no longer prosecute cases of marijuana possession. The city's top prosecutor, Marilyn Mosby, announced that she will try to vacate nearly 5,000 possession convictions. Between 2015 and 2017, more than 90% of minor possession citations in Baltimore went to African Americans. Though the Baltimore Police Department says officers will continue to make arrests for illegal marijuana possession until the state legislature changes the law. continue to make arrests for illegal marijuana possession until the state legislature changes the law. Those people will not be prosecuted and first-time offenders charged with felony distribution will be sent to diversion programs. I think this is really important. I think there's still a legitimate debate to be had about what happens when a society legalizes a drug like

marijuana. I think we are very cavalier because I think it is a drug that does carry some risks, and I think it's silly for liberals to pretend it doesn't. It's not as dangerous as alcohol. It's not as dangerous as cigarettes. But I think we would be wrong to pretend that marijuana doesn't hurt a lot of people and disconnect a lot of people from their own lives and a lot of people use it. We should be serious about it and take it seriously because it is still a drug. and take it seriously because it is still a drug. However, none of that is a reason or a defense of a system that puts people in jail for having this substance that is less harmful than the two drugs that have been legal the whole entire time. So as we slowly legalize marijuana, it's important that we also go back and undo the incredible injustices that have been done to mostly black and brown

people who've been caught with this drug that white people and rich people have been using without fear for decades this entire time. It's really only a legalization for the people who have been punished by the set of laws that we already had on the books. So I think it's really exciting that places are doing it

and more places need to do it, even as we figure out how we handle the fact that we're introducing a pretty great new drug into the system, you know? And that's our show. I want to thank Representative Adam Schiff,

Tawny Newsome, Naomi Akurigan, and Brandon Newman. Thank you guys all for coming out. Come see us on tour and have a great night. Love it or leave it, it's love it or leave it. Respect it or don't say it. Love it or leave it, it's love it or leave it. Thank you.