Pivot - Tech Money in Politics, SBF, and Billion-Dollar Barbie with Co-Host Teddy Schleifer

Episode Date: August 8, 2023

Puck's Teddy Schleifer is Kara's co-host, chatting about Sam Bankman-Fried’s legal woes, Barbie hitting $1 billion, and the Musk v. Zuckerberg cage fight. Then, Donald Trump’s response to his latest indictment, and the money behind the presidential candidates. Then we’re joined by Friend of Pivot and political pollster, Frank Luntz to make sense of the latest poll numbers on the 2024 election. You can follow Teddy at @teddyschleifer, and read his work at Puck.News. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Cara Swisher.

pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Cara Swisher. Sitting in today for Scott Galloway is Puck News founding partner, Teddy Schliefer, who reports on Silicon Valley billionaires and their impact on the world. Welcome, Teddy. By the way, Teddy used to work for me, so he's going to be extra nice. Thanks for having me. No problem. I think this is finally going to be the week where Scott Galloway learns who I am. Oh, really? He doesn't know. He confuses with Dylan Byers. That's why. It's true. At one point, I was at Code, and I tried to speak to

Scott in his love language, words of affirmation. Teen essence. Okay. Yeah. I went up to him and I said, you know, Scott, huge fan of you, blah, blah, blah, licked him up and down. And then he only wants to talk about Bill Coh, who is several minutes of, you know, Scott, you know, I'm buttering him up, doing my best, doing my best Kara Swisher. He only wants to talk about other people at Puck. So Scott, it's great to meet you. We have a ton of stuff to talk about. We'll talk today about the latest on President Trump's mounting legal troubles, as well as who's signing the biggest campaign donation checks for 2024. There's a lot going on.

Our friend of Pivot today is communications consultant Frank Luntz, who's perfect to talk to you, who'll help us make sense of all the poll numbers coming out about the election, which are very confusing for a lot of people and very unclear, I think, in many ways. But first, grab your popcorn. This is perfect for you. The Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg fight is allegedly coming to X. I'm not so sure it is. I'm not sure if it's made up or whatever. Musk tweeted this week and the fight would be streamed on his platform that all proceeds would go to charity

for veterans. Zuckerberg replied, shouldn't we use a more reliable platform that can actually raise money for charity and suggested he is ready today. But Musk hasn't confirmed. And then he said he was he had a neck problem. He's getting an MRI around his neck, which is, it's so Trumpian in this way. So, talk about- Convenient timing, you know. Convenient timing that he needs an MRI, right? You know, I think this is ridiculous and it's bad for Mark. What has happened to these people? Because it really is sad, actually. It's sad and pathetic and they think it's hysterical. I know Mark works out,

and I think that's great. He was kind of skinny and felt nerdy, and I think it makes him feel good. And I think that's great. I think this fighting is kind of cool. I did judo. I had a grappling belt in judo. Sure do. I like that stuff. It's interesting, but it's mostly for sport and fun. And I don't think there's anything sporty or fun about this. And by the way, I hope his shareholders sue him for doing this. Look, this is more about Mark than it is about Elon, right? I mean, the fact that Elon Musk is, you know, shitposting his way through another crisis at one of his companies. That's like, that's been true since, you know, Twitter didn't exist and shitposting didn't exist in the PayPal era.

But like, I don't really think we're learning that much new about Elon. The fact that like Mark, who for the last five years has so resisted being a main character is now like so suddenly so willing to be a main character. Is that just like a reaction to Elon or is that maybe? Or Jeff Bezos over making out on a yacht? I mean, it's not just, I'm happy he's making out, but honestly posting about making out it's at some point like one, I get it. 17. I'm sort of like, Ooh, it's kind of sad. The, the Lauren Sanchez Instagram account is a gift, a gift to page six. It is. I enjoy it. I enjoy it. Sure. it i enjoy it sure um we all have our guilty pleasures but look i mean i mean mark's uh to some extent i feel like the the removal of trump from office um has made a lot of tech leaders like felt like we're entering this new era where they can like

just erase everything between 2016 and 2020 right where? Where if this was three years ago or four years ago, there's no way that like Mark would be this carefree, you know, this guy who's into MMA and, you know, just loves making jokes. Right, exactly. You know, I think there's like a little bit of like a, I'm not saying this is fair or not, but I think he feels that there's a redemption tour

that can happen now, right? Yeah. That the media overstated things, like they overstated Cambridge Analytica, for instance, or they overstated the role that Facebook played in helping Trump. Yeah, but does this land him in a better place? He's being brought down. Elon has tarnished his reputation rather significantly. This pulls him to that level. I do have, you know, Mark is a nice guy,

right? Like ultimately, personally, I find him to be relatively, he's not a like, look at me, and I get that he wants to show off his physique, which is fine, which I guess is fine. But I just feel like who in his family or Sheryl Sandberg or somebody is like, what is wrong with you that you want to be, you know, ball grabbing and groping with Elon Musk? Ew, yuck, sweaty. You think this actually happens? I don't know. I don't know. I think Ari Emanuel is working at it, apparently, and Dina, whatever the hell that guy's name is.

I think they would love it because it's a big payday for them in some way. Even though they'll say it's all going to charity, you know it's going to be a disaster. Sure. I mean, here's a radical idea, Cara. These people could actually donate the money to charity without the fight. It is technically possible according to the law. And we'll see if they take up that option. How much philanthropy do they do? Because you write about this. Yeah, sure. I mean, Elon has basically said that he thinks philanthropy is child's play compared to the world-saving mission that is acquiring Twitter or leaving space for Tesla. I don't know how we survive without him on the planet.

Right, sure. I mean, it's definitely a great man theory of history that he subscribes to. I mean, he thinks philanthropy is bullshit, and he thinks that it's generally just a PR expedition, which, I mean, there's no element of truth to that, for sure. I mean, Mark obviously has set up the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, I think it's now in its eighth year. They have several hundred employees. He spends a day a week on it. Priscilla Chan runs it day to day. Mark sees Gates as his role model, right? Elon does not see Gates as his role model. And I think he's very dismissive of the philanthropic industrial complex. And the fact that he's going to be donating to charity for this is, maybe this is the gateway

drug. It's such nonsense. He's not paying any, he's not going to give any of the money. He's just not. He's going to be all saying he is. Part of me is like, I hope Mark beats the shit out of him. At the same time, I'm like, why do I hope Mark beats the shit? I feel bad about myself thinking that. Anyway, speaking of people I don't feel bad about, Sam tampering. Sounds like Trump a little bit. As evidence, prosecutors pointed to SBF already contacting potential witnesses and sharing personal documents belonging to his former girlfriend, Carolyn Ellison. With the New York Times reminder, Bankman-Fried pleaded not guilty to 13 charges and Ellison pleaded guilty to seven. Where are we with him now? He's sort of sitting at home with his parents in Palo Alto, right? Is that correct? He is for now. I mean, prosecutors want to put him in jail until this October trial. You know, one good rule of thumb for any leakers out there, when you leak, you generally don't want to tell people that you leaked. Just like a general rule of thumb. You kind of want to keep that. So,

but, you know, Sam basically under some scrutiny from prosecutors admitted that he leaked this Google doc from Karen Allison to the New York Times. And now there's some similarities to Trump, right? Which he's not supposed to, right? Explain. They're not supposed, like with Trump, he's supposed to not say, you come at me, I'm going to come at you or Jack Smith is deranged, whatever. Right.

But there's the exact same tension between like free speech rights and interfering with a trial, witness intimidation, right? I mean, we're going to talk about Trump later. I mean, the idea that he feels he is speaking his truth and Sam Bankman Freed feels like I have a right to defend myself. Right. But there's a difference between like, remember the Substack posts he was doing earlier this year where he's now going into the Alameda balance sheet, blah, blah, blah. Like, sure, that's free speech rights.

But Carolyn Ellison is like the star witness in the trial, right? She is. She's like Pence. She kept extemporaneous notes, apparently, right? Right. I mean, this is also, I mean, this is obviously a self-serving explanation. So, like, take this with a pound of salt. But in the media, like, we're trying to get any intel we can.

Why not? Yeah. Sure. So like, I don't blame the New York Times for publishing it. And I do believe that like, you know, defendants have a right to protect themselves, especially when you're kind of being prosecuted in this high profile trial. And I think lots of people have probably convicted Sam Beckman-Fried already in their minds the same way that like, I feel like when Elizabeth Holmes was sentenced to jail, lots of people thought she was probably been in jail for five years, right? Because you sort of read about the indictment, you forget about the details and you assume that the bad

man did bad things. So I think Sam has a right to protect himself. But where's the line between protecting himself and witness intimidation? Have you talked to him recently? Yeah. I've talked to him a couple of times over the last couple of months. And how does he feel? Is a little unmade bed up okay? Is he doing okay? You know, I think he'll be fine. How old is he? He's 30. He's my age. Yeah. Because he looks like he's like a seven-year-old. He's by the Stanford campus. You know, he has this 75-pound German shepherd that's his friend. His parents are trying to live their lives as best they can, even though they're kind of implicated in some ways. Well, they are. They were very involved with him. My God. It's huge news for like everybody in the political concentric circles around Sam Bankman Freed because like, you know, I mean, we've talked about this before, Cara.

I mean, he was spending so much money on politics. There were so many people who were like implicated, probably none more than his brother, who obviously has the exact same last name. And maybe he should change it. Yeah. Because the campaign finance charges dropped. But like everyone's already thought, you know, he's guilty. But that's what people think. Yeah.

I don't really feel sorry for him either. But what I do feel good about is Barbie is worth a billion. Scott's not here, but I think I'll take a moment. Barbie is worth a billion. Oppenheimer's made about half that. Greta Gerwig has raked in more than a billion dollars

to the global box office, making the first US film directed by one woman to reach a billion dollar mark. You called it. I called it. I did. To what do you owe your just clairvoyance and general market savvy?

You know, watching the Taylor Swift thing happening, there is a real power to women spending, like in young girls spending. And the love of someone like Taylor Swift, and this had a similar vibe to it, like girl, I hate to say girl power, but you know, it is. And it was also smart. I thought it was much more canny than people. It wasn't a silly, frothy thing. If you go back the second time, you see a lot of things in it. And people were dying for something like this, something that you could just enjoy, or you could also go, huh, that's an interesting point they're making. So I don't

know. I just feel like it's also just a great movie. And Greta Gerwig's a fantastic director and writer. There's some similarities, I feel like,'s a it's also just a great movie. And Greta Gerwig's a fantastic director and writer. There's some similarities, I feel like, in tech where lots of VCs for a long time just sort of cast dispersions around like women focused industries. I'm thinking about like makeup and glossy. Yeah. It's like, you know, we're like, you know, people just assume that this is like the small. Right. Right.

Exactly. And the fact that like, you know, I mean, this is an obvious point, but obviously men are seeing this movie as well, right? And to some extent, I think this is, should be something

of a wake-up call to like Hollywood. It always does. What sells? It's a fantastic movie. They just think it's some sort of outlier, which it's not.

But we'll see. I hope there's not a part two. I hope she doesn't do two. But anyway, let's get to our first big story. Donald Trump keeps breaking his own records for the number of times a former president has been indicted. He's now at three. Last week, a federal grand jury in Washington indicted Trump on four counts of conspiracy and obstruction related to his attempts to overturn the 2020

presidential election, which culminated in the January 6th insurrection. The indictment references his knowing lies about election fraud, recruitment of fake electors in the swing states, and obstruction of the Electoral College vote certifications, and other possible indictment coming out of Georgia before the end of the month. Where are we with this? Because he seems to be trying to make hay out of this situation. He's the leading presidential candidate. DeSantis is a distant sex and fading, I would say. You can talk a little bit about, there's a lot of tech supporters of DeSantis, for example. I don't think there's any tech supporters of Trump anymore, but maybe I'm wrong. You know, some of these charges carry quite a lot of things. I'm going to be a little bit, this 641 years, because he's using it for

fundraising. These white collar crimes never get that. They get like a fraction. So I'm going to let him do that. Like it's not, he's not going to be in jail for 641 years. He may not even go to jail. I know, but he may even not go to jail because the secret, so he might have to like live around if he gets convicted. He's fundraising off these indictments at a Friday rally in Alabama. He says, anytime they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. We need one more indictment to close out this election. What do we think? I mean, that was some conventional wisdom that Trump was saying. I mean, like the fact that like he's kind of right. Right. I mean, just one more indictment, two more indictments. And every time, you know, every time he gets

indicted, he will talk to Frank about this, who's coming up, but who's going to come up and talk to us. But because it's there's little signs that maybe not so much. Yeah. I mean, when you read the indictment, unlike the Stormy Daniels hush money case or frankly, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, I feel like I feel like the gravity of the charges really hits you in a way that like we all experienced January 6th. I'm sure you probably have cinematic memory of like every phone call you took that day, every text, which is obviously not true of like, you know, our mutual experience reading the Mar-a-Lago documents or mutual experience with Stormy Daniels. me, Daniels. So I feel like our lived experience makes, you know, as the kids say, like makes the January 6th indictment just feel so much more significant than anything else that's happened in politics. Also, it's like, I feel like reading it, it's also, it's a little bit

of a testament to journalism, right? I mean, so much of this has been reported, right? And it's and like, I mean, you would think that there would be these huge scoops embedded in the document. But I feel like I read a lot of this in Nike. It's a lot of details. Yeah, it's absolutely. What's going on with the Sanders? Now, very few people in Silicon Valley supported Trump before. They were sort of near him.

Like, I know Mark Zuckerberg met with him. Elon's met with him. They were on those councils. A lot of tech people were on those councils. them. Elon's met with them. They were on those councils. A lot of tech people were on those councils. They went to that famous 2016 meeting, which I actually scooped that. They were all there back in 2000. Yes, yeah. Where is the support on the Republican side in the people you cover? Look, I mean, I think I'd be hard-pressed right now to come up with a single personality in Silicon Valley who's

excited about Donald Trump. I mean, like, it goes back to what I was saying, kind of in this in this post Trump era, quote, unquote, whatever you want to call it, where where people can go back to being Republicans, like Mark Zuckerberg can go back to being Mark Zuckerberg. He's not constantly thinking about Trump and you know, how he's positioned vis-a-vis Trump. There is zilch. There is no one in Silicon Valley who I think is excited about Donald Trump. I mean, for a long time, and I'm eager to talk to Frank a little bit later on the show about this, is like, I think lots of people in the industry who are conservative were flocking to DeSantis because he was the only game in town. And there was a feeling like, you know, well, regardless of whether or not you thought abortion ends should happen at six weeks or 10 weeks or 20 weeks. It's like,

if you don't like Donald Trump, this is the only person who seems to have a chance of winning. So who cares what you think about Tim Scott? David Sachs is giving him money through that, whatever the hell pack he's got. And then others who is still with DeSantis? Who's with Tim Scott? Obviously, Larry Ellison was a big backer, early backer of Tim Scott. Where is the money? Where is the money going now since it looks like Trump probably has it wrapped up? I think Larry Ellison is going to be a huge story of the next year for me. This is the head of Oracle. Tell me more. Yeah, sure. I mean, you know, I think there is a concern that Larry Ellison could be this cycle's

Shel Nattleson. I don't mean that in a good way. Oh, interesting. I don't mean that in a good way. Well, I never thought Shel Nattleson was a good way. This is the Las Vegas, whatever the hell he was. Casino magnate who died, what was it, two or three years ago now? Yeah.

So Larry Ellison loves Tim Scott. Larry Ellison is an emotional guy who falls hard for people like Marco Rubio, Bibi Netanyahu. He loves him some Tim Scott right now. And the reason he could be the Shell Nattleson of this time around is there are lots of Republicans who want to consolidate against Trump. We're going to talk about Frank a little later on. who want to consolidate against Trump. We're going to talk about Frank a little later on. The idea is there's going to be this great consolidation and that everyone's going to drop out

and we're all going to find the white knight, whether it's Glenn Youngkin or Ron DeSantis, and we're going to beat Trump because all the rich people in the world are going to pool together all of their money on their little text chain and save democracy from Donald Trump. And then you've got Larry Ellison over here

who says, I am super committed to Tim Scott. No matter what happens, I'm going to spend a gajillion dollars to help this guy, which is just what Sheldon Adelson did. Through the PACs. Yeah, yeah. Which is just what Sheldon Adelson did for Newt Gingrich in 2012. You know, there was like Newt Gingrich had like negative point seven five support. But, you know, he had one rich guy in his corner who prevented the consolidation. And then, you know, Mitt Romney won and that was the Republican primary. So there's lots of concern right now when I talk with major donors that like, money on? Paper bags? He's a hotel guy, but he also is a prominent investor in UFO research.

Whatever. So where are these billionaire clubs? So they want to stop Ellison from doing it and backing DeSantis. I don't see it. I think they're abandoning DeSantis, the billionaires, correct? And is Sachs and Elon doing that or not? I feel like David Sachs is much more powerful because of his bark than his bite. And I mean that lovingly to David Sachs. I mean, this is a guy who is, like the amount of money he's spending on politics

is like not that much, let's be real. He is not Larry Ellison wealth. But I'm saying there's like a group of people that are DeSantis fans, correct? Yeah. There's all this hoopla around Elon and like, is he going to fund this or that? Like, these people are actually pretty parsimonious with political spending. I mean, Elon is not, like, they're not spending billions of dollars. No, he's just yapping his mouth. He's just yapping his mouth, I'm aware.

But I would argue that that is more important than Elon giving 10 or 20 million bucks. The fact that like Elon is, you know, is a is goes beyond just being a billionaire. I don't think the money matters and ads and ads, you know, people are not hearing as much. He says things so much. I don't think he's a political player in this regard. And I don't I don't think everyone goes, ah, Elon likes this. I think it's maybe negative. Oh, that asshole likes it. I'm going to go this way. So who are they coalescing behind? Is there, who do you, if you had to guess, who would it be? Well, so right now we're recording this, it's in August, we're in August, 2023. And we're like in this, I think what you're getting at is we're in this like, it's early, but it's also this like transitional period where you know who donors do not support, but you don't know who the white knight is. I mean, I do think there's going to be lots of donor agita around Glenn Youngkin after November when, you know, he hopefully, in his opinion, you know, helps flip the Virginia legislature that there's going to be like, oh, we just need we need someone else. Like that's the classic fantasy that, you know know who you do not support, which is, you know, that these donors do not feel that Ron DeSantis or, you know, Vivek Ramaswamy or Nikki Haley, like, you know, there's going to be this dissatisfaction with the field.

And I think like, you know, Glenn Youngkin's phone is going to be blowing up in November 15th to do this last minute save democracy push. But the reason it all sounds like a fantasy, Cara, is this all feels so futile. I'm just feeling like there is a sense when I talk with major Republican donors right now that we're just wasting our time, right? That Trump will be the Republican nominee and some billionaire will spend a couple million

on Person X and some other billionaire- Which billionaire? Will they all run to Trump then if he's the nominee or not? Some billionaire will spend a couple million on Person X. Who? Some other billionaire will spend a couple million on it. Will they all run to Trump then if he's the nominee or not? I mean, like, not to be too nihilistic. It just feels like all these people are wasting their time. That there is, you know, the Republican primary base seems unshakable. And whether or not, you know, Larry Ellison spends 50 million or 500 million or 500 billion, like Trump has shown from 2016 that he did not need these people.

In 2020, like, I mean, you remember this. I mean, people were sucking up to him just because he was the only game in town. He was also president. Right, right. Sure. But like there was no credible Republican primary to Donald Trump in 2020. Yeah. But they don't want to give the money. They don't want to get the money, correct? You mean big Republican donors?

Yes, big Republican donors. Sure. I mean, I mean, I mean, like, to do that, I think there'll be a little bit of egg on the face just to admit that, you know, these donors are much more impotent than they make themselves feel. These people don't, I mean, like, you know, I think there's, you deal with all these guys He's all huge. He goes, they see themselves as political savants. The reality is 2016 demonstrated that they don't know what they're doing. Last question on this. So there's there's Trump. Wait, are they is the money going elsewhere to governors? Is there other people it's going to so they can at least have or senators?

Or is there any backers that's excited them in some way? Because that's another way to control thing. You don't have to have the president necessarily. Sure. I mean, look, I mean, there's how many conversations that I had with major Republican donors during the Trump era who were just like, well, I'm really focusing down ballot, blah, blah, blah. It's like a way to pretend that you live in this fantasy world where, you know, where Republican parties for low taxes and that's it. I mean, I think there's going to be clearly some Republican excitement around Virginia after after Youngkin. Youngkin, you say?

Yeah, I mean, I mean, I mean, there's Virginia elections this year. If he wins, if he doesn't, then he looks like. Right. Then he then certainly he's, you know, certainly he's not running for president if he gets creamed. But I mean, I think there's, you know, this feels though, if you're a Republican donor, 2024 feels like maybe the last gasp of donors thinking that they can control the process. Like the big opinion or the conventional wisdom in politics, right, that's popularized by Bernie Sanders, is that politicians are beholden to their donors. You know, the billionaires, the millionaires. No, Trump's not beholden to any of them. He could use the money.

He could use the money. Sure. But I just feel like the way the politics really works and the way the donor politics really works is that it's really donors, it's really politicians fooling donors into thinking that they have influence and less like donors capturing politicians. So the dog is wagging the tail this time.

A little bit. So who's lining up for Biden? Who's lining up in that space? Reid Hoffman? Yeah, I was going to say, you're a huge Reid Hoffman fan, right? Yes, I am. Yeah, I like him. Not huge, I would say.

Well, you know, the bar is so low so sure i was gonna say i was gonna say relative to the other hey pal mafia folks yeah oh well well yeah yeah so who is reed and who else they seem enthusiastic for biden i mean reed reed um i think is the most creative political actor in sul Valley. And I say that for good and for ill. I mean, Reid obviously stepped in it a lot over the last eight years, but he, you know, is the most passionate. Yeah, he keeps recovering. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. Yeah. Is there anybody else coming to the fore now that Sam Bankman Freed's on house arrest? I was going to say, like, have you heard of this guy named Sam Bankman Freed? It could be the new big thing in democratic politics. You know, I think a big

story over the last couple of years has been Dustin Moskowitz, right, who is one of the other founders of Facebook. Someone else I like quite a bit. Yeah, I like Dustin too. And, you know, he has popularized, like, a different approach to political philanthropy where he sort in africa you know that's probably a better use of money than trying to elect barack obama but what if the threat to the world isn't barack obama or mit romney but the threat to the world is like trump nuking the entire world or or um hypothetically like a pathogen that kills you know millions of people hypothetically that then maybe the dollar is better, you know, millions of people, hypothetically, then maybe the dollar is better spent on politics. So Dustin's a huge player in this role, too.

I like him a lot, actually. I think he's really interesting and smart. And his wife also is involved. Former journalist. Former journalist, Carrie Tuna. All right, Teddy, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about opposition research in politics, and we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Frank Lutz. opposition research and politics, and we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Frank Luntz. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates

than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other.

We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Indecision. Overthinking. Second-guessing every choice you make.

In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Beige on beige on beige. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.

Teddy, I want to talk about your story from July, which I thought was really terrific, about opposition research campaign against Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, who's been a big Republican donor, who is sitting it out, right? Seems to be not, yes? Yeah, yeah.

I think it's broadly fair to say, yeah. Yeah, and reason, because he's like, doesn't like, just is sick of it, right? It's, right? He didn't spend that much money, by the way. He got a lot of throughput for his $30 million, essentially. Opposition researchers dig up dirt on political candidates. This is very common these days. That's extending to their top donors as well. Again, I'm not surprised. Why wouldn't you? Your story's centered on one man in particular, a model named Jeff Thomas. Thiel was in a relationship with him. The opposition researchers wanted to interview Thomas to see if he had any information he could use against Thiel. The opposition researchers led by a Democratic political author named Jack Thierry hounded the guy, as you wrote. Talk about this. I was I have an issue with this because like these are all adults. OK, And I get that he had he was mentally fragile, I think, because he ended up killing himself. His death was rendered a suicide. Suicide. Right. So and then, of course, there are all the conspiracy theories, which are outlandish, I thought.

But talk a little bit about this. The story here is Peter Thiel, who obviously has become a major player in Republican politics. You're totally correct, though, that like David Sachs, bark bigger than the bite. But he spent 30, 40 million, right? Yeah, but he got one guy elected. Yeah, got one guy. Sure. J.D. Vance, Blake Masters is not in the Senate. And he was integral to Trump, too.

He introduced Silicon Valley people to Trump. I don't know how effective that was, but he was his guy for a while. Right. And he's become disillusioned with Trump, I'm pretty sure. Correct? Correct. So Peter has become a target of the left. And this is not to like, you know, break out or violin for, you know, one of the richest people in the world, you know, having to deal with some, some meanie liberals who are, you know, looking into his personal life. But there were meanie liberals looking into his personal life. Let me also be clear, he was mean to liberals. Like, come on.

He like attacked, he saw a suit against the media just because he was in a peak. This is a big boy, a big rich boy, right? So, you know, and so that let's just make that clear, but go ahead. Well, I mean, the question is, where is the line in opposition research, right? Or frankly, where's the line in journalism about what sort of things in someone's personal life are merit for publication or merit for attack versus just letting people's private lives

be their private lives. And Cara, I remember you and I have talked about this privately, just the sense about what in the Me Too era is worth publication, right? We left a lot out at Recode. We were very, we did because if it didn't have, if it had a direct issue with the business, like we did write about Sergey Brin's affair

because it had a direct impact. Otherwise, the stuff I know, I was like, I don't care if they're taking drugs. I don't care if they're having an affair. I don't care. I don't, we never did. And we knew about it, but we didn't write about it. Right, but you have the bar of a journalist, right? Now, if you were an opposition researcher

who is, you know, working to elect Democrats, your bar might be very different, right? Like, there's no international association of oppo researchers that are going to like censure you, like, or remove your credentials, like anything kind of goes. And I feel like what's happening now with Peter Thiel is like, people are looking into how he kind of conducts himself. And there was this group of oppo researchers who were in West Hollywood trying to interview men who, like, go to Peter Thiel's parties. He has a lot of parties. I don't think that's any big secret. I don't care.

Good for him. But you can see why if you are a liberal who believes that Peter Thiel is a, you know capital t threat to democracy it's like sure let's go get this guy right and so why is this a surprise i think this is this happened to clintons this has happened to george bush there was a look into his affairs there's like this is not a new fresh thing for opposition research so tell me why this is different and let me just for just for people that don't know, this guy, Jeff Thomas, I actually did follow him because I was aware of this relationship. He told Peter about this, Peter Thiel, which you wrote. Peter asked him to move out of the home he was paying for. Sometime later, he dies by suicide. Yeah, that's right. This is tragic. But what is the blame here? And I think opposition research is just going to get worse than it has. It's already been pretty bad from what I get. I mean, watching the Clintons, watching the and some of it might be true about them, by the way, a lot of this stuff. So, you know, I wouldn't ever do it and I wouldn't do stories on it. But certainly a lot of people would these days.

I think what's new, Cara, is that this is now, people are now going after donors in a way that, like, look, obviously people have enemies, right? Everyone's got going after George Soros. You know, they're going after tons of well-meaning liberals and looking into their personal lives. Like, anything goes. I do feel like the bar has gotten so, so low, especially in Oppo, where, you know, the way that Oppo used to work for people who read the news is like, you know, if you see some story that says Joe Manchin didn't pay his taxes, to record or his daughter is this and that. Yeah, right. Like like like let's let's let's cut the bullshit here. Like reporters are not coming up with that idea. Like most of the time that was fed to them by an oppo person. And then you write the story and like the story is true. And, you know, it's a win win. The

journalist gets a scoop. The oppo person gets their hit as they're known in the oppo world. The way the oppo is working now and i think the story illustrates it is like oppo researchers going on instagram and messaging other gay men in west hollywood and trying to get them to leak screenshots of their you know conversations with peter teal that's like human intelligence as you know people in spycraft would call that like that's different than like high school yearbooks spies were also looking at because of his closeness to all these powerful people like i i imagine people are doing it on all these people and i i'm not i guess i'm just not surprised and he's this is a

guy who stuck his head far above the parapet it's not someone who's just like hanging around giving money he's been very loud he's been very present He's sitting next to Trump at a giant tech meeting. Is there something wrong with that? Because when I think of corporate people, I don't know, that story when Don Lemon, that one before he was fired, I was like, oh, look, he's going to get fired. I'm seeing this dribbity-drab. You see it with media executives all the time. I actually even called him. I said, you're going to get fired. Like I'm seeing this dribbity drab. You see it with media executives all the time. I actually even called them. I said, you're going to get fired. There's opportunity. I was like, yeah, because I was like, come on. It's so obvious. Because in that particular story, it was 20 years ago. I was like, so they've been digging, someone's been digging up some stuff. Is that wrong, do you think? Or I don't know. You seem to think it was wrong in the piece or that it had a responsibility to the suicide. I think that there's it really it's hard to talk about this without really going into every allegation, which we can't really do, which is definitely a challenge of the piece for sure. But like the reality is like there is some line between personal life that is relevant to the public interest and personal life that is not right. I mean, you're saying, for instance, like there are things thatode where person x is having a fair and it could be salacious and

tawdry and would get clicks and like maybe you could squint and argue it's relevant to the business whatever that never did right but then there's like you know the sirdan you know um uh news which i definitely do think was the right call to publish about that and like and i i really feel like we're in this anything goes era now in oppo, where there's no real repercussions for anything. Because like, also in the journalism side, there's always someone who's going to publish it, right? I mean, a lot of the story that I wrote about centers on Ryan Grimm at The Intercept. And that's obviously an ideological outlet, right? And, you know, you don't have to get your oppo published in the New York Times. Like, you know, there was this huge story a couple weeks ago where, you know, these random anonymous accounts on Twitter were like tweeting these DeSantis videos with Nazi imagery. Remember this stuff? And like, there's no there's no punishment for some random anonymous cat turd to tweeting a video like you don't even know these people are. Yeah, but this is what Trump does publicly. They're all doing it.

I just I feel like I feel like they do it and it's going to get worse just the way, you know, and some of it's for the good. Me Too stuff was oppo research, if you really think about it, right? Some of it finally out, out there. And it did have pertinence, right? It did have pertinence. And it seems to me if you stick your head that far, you're going to have people looking into you. I just don't even know why they think they're not going to either. In the old days, it was you got blackmailed, right? Or you had to leave your job or something like that. In this case, you know, especially with the attacks on Soros and many others, I'm sort of like, well, guess what? Guess what you did? And I think you had a quote from Peter saying that, I guess. Now I feel bad for Hillary Clinton, right?

No, for Anita Hill. Anita Hill. I know. I was like, oh, my God. Sure, sure. Yeah, yeah. You know, Peter, again, billionaires love to see themselves as the victims of the meany liberals. The comparison to Anita Hill, though, was precious. I know, but I was like, you were a pretty tough, sharp-elbowed dude.

Like, you're not, and you should use those. Anyway, very interesting story. I thought it was fascinating. Brings up a lot of things. And, again, it's a tragic death of Jeff Thomas in any case. And you should read it. It's on Park. It made me think a lot. And I was trying to think if it was fair or not to do opera. I came to the conclusion, yes, it is. Yes, it is. These people are trying to wield power. And if they're trying to wield power, good luck to them. You know what I mean? Fire with fire. Fire with fire.

And again, the George, I could name 20 different big Democratic donors that get targeted. But anyway, let's, speaking of which thing of power, let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Frank Luntz is a communications consultant and pollster. He has conducted over 2,500 surveys and focus groups in more than two dozen countries. I've just found out my son loves Frank Luntz. I had no idea, and so does my mother, as usual. You've had some really interesting polls out lately. But first of all, you just got back from Ukraine.

You were there, what, 24 hours? Is that correct? Unless I was, I spent 10 hours on the ground in Kiev. It took almost 48 hours to get there, almost 48 hours to get back. I had the chance to meet with the president Zelensky. And it was a eye-opening experience, I think to myself, because I'm Ukrainian. Both of my grandparents on my mother's side, both my grandparents on my father's side are Ukrainian. So there but for the grace of God go I. And I've been to Ukraine five or six times already.

And every time I left, I wanted to call my grandparents and say to them, thank God, thank you so much for deciding to come to America, for deciding to risk it all and make a difference in the people who came after you. I am so blessed that they made that tough decision. And I think of how hostile we are to immigration in this country. I don't understand the darkness and the meanness and the divisiveness. And I don't understand the seeming love of Putin or love of Russia when they're doing so much destruction and damage and really destroying a people. I don't get it. Yeah. So you went there to visit and to understand what was happening on the ground, right? Had you been there before the beginning of these hostilities? Yes. I think this is either my fifth or sixth time. It's a beautiful country with beautiful

people, and it's being destroyed. I went to meet with this child organization, this defensive children organization, because they're stealing kids and taking them into Russia. I paid homage to the people in the various communities who had given their lives to support their country. And there are these Republicans who seem to be pro-Putin. I don't get it. I don't understand. This is not the country that I grew up in. This is not the party that I joined 40 years ago. It's hard to believe it's been that long. So talk about that. Why are they doing that? Is it politics? Let's switch to politics. Why do they think, and it's not just them, it's Teddy and I have written about Elon Musk and a whole bunch of people are seemingly

pro-Putin, anti, well, not anti, I don't know, because he's also doing Starlink there. So there's a real movement politically among Republicans to do so. Not everybody, by a stretch. Lindsey Graham's very supportive of Ukraine. Lots of Republicans are. Why has that happened from your perspective, politically? In two words, Donald Trump. Early in this conflict, he talked about Putin being brilliant. And I urge listeners who don't want to hear this,

go back to the original speeches of Donald Trump in the opening of the war and how he praised Russia. He praised Putin. He said, this makes total sense. He's a brilliant strategist. Of course he would do this. And even now, even now, he's trying to force Ukraine, or he would force Ukraine, to make peace when their country's been invaded, their people have been killed, their infrastructure's been destroyed, children have been suffering. And in essence, there are people within the Republican Party who want Ukraine to give, to capitulate. It's not their fault. And this is part of what's wrong in politics right now, is that I don't believe the public knows

the truth. I don't believe that they actually understand what's going on there, because if they did, they would have a different point of view. I'm sure I sound to a listener like I've lost control, but I have to tell you, every time you and I talk, it's worse than the time before. The combination of social media, of AI, of politics, of division, of hate towards each other, it's getting worse. And I think that we're going to lose control between now and election day. And I don't know if we can withstand it. I don't know. All right. Talk about that. How do you get those? So Trump's shifted people's opinions here. Ordinarily, most people, Americans would be like the Russians. No, thank you.

What does it take to get them off that bandwagon and following that? I think it's a skill that people don't focus on and it's not words. So what brought me to prominence is not what helps bring about the change. I think you have to see it. I think you have to feel it. I think you have to experience it, which means the pictures become more important than the language. What you show and what people see is more powerful than what they hear. So that's change number one. Number two is they have to understand, in a word, consequences. What are the consequences? Should Russia win? What are the consequences? Should Ukraine win? Because it's not

just about those countries. And frankly, it's not even just about China. It's about us as human beings. Do we fully understand the consequences of chat GBT, of AI, of technology? Do we understand the content? And I don't believe we do. And I think that that's got to be a change, that we have to start looking at the impact of our decisions. So you do polls one after another, and it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction. As you said, they don't seem to care about the legal woes in Trump's case. They listen to him on Ukraine. It doesn't seem like any Republican candidates have a chance of beating him at this point. He can beat himself, I guess.

That's the way it goes. Where are we right now? You've done a lot of poll groups. I've been following them. They shift back and forth in an interesting way. But give us a sort of roundabout of where we are right now. Let's focus on the Republican side. On the Republican side.

On the Republican side, Ron DeSantis, the governor, and he said to me in Iowa that I'm too critical of him. So let me say something in support of his candidacy. He has the best advertising of any candidate, a one-minute ad that talked about how our culture is changing, how the things that we came to take for granted aren't what they used to be, and it's really, really impactful. That said, Republicans don't want government choosing winners and losers. They don't want weaponization. If they don't like it from Joe Biden, they're not going to like it from a Republican either. So DeSantis' numbers all across the country have been deteriorating.

In his place, in Iowa, Tim Scott is rising. And in New Hampshire, Chris Christie is rising. Different states, different electorates, different priorities, different candidates. At this point, we have never had on either the Republican or the Democratic side, someone with this much of a lead that doesn't get the nomination. So you're correct there. But I got to tell you, as I look at this, as I listen to the words, the phrases, the emotions, the passion of that Trump vote, I don't know if anything can change it. I don't know if even great debate performances in August, September, October, November will

change this outcome. And here's why. Trump is perceived as a victim. He's perceived as being persecuted. His enemies are the same enemies as the average Republican. And so every time he gets indicted, his numbers go up. And people are just not willing to hear an alternative narrative right now. They get their information from sources that affirm them

rather than inform them. The people they talk to are all in a silo. And this is a much bigger issue that I know you deal with. I know this podcast deals with, we're screwed as a society because we can't even listen to people that aren't affirming what we already believe. Okay. Teddy? Frank, a very memorable campaign for me to cover was I covered the Wendy Davis campaign in 2014, which she lost by, I think it was 21 points. And that race has kind of put a stamp in my mind about how races are covered and whether or not, what it means for a race to be quote unquote competitive. We all cover that race in Texas, one of the Houston Chronicle, like it was a five point race. And that means covering this ad or that ad, or why is Wendy Davis visiting Houston or Dallas,

blah, blah, blah. And she lost by 21 points. And I felt like we all wasted our time covering this race because she was never going to win. I'm thinking about the Republican primary right now and whether or not reporters and frankly, like people like us are wasting our time. We're arguing about Tim Scott rising in Iowa or Chris Christie rising in New Hampshire and going from 5% to 10% or DeSantis firing a third of his staff, like whatever the news of the day is. Do you think there actually is a Republican primary at this point? Like, let me put it this way. Would you call the Republican primary competitive? At this moment, you're correct. At this moment, it isn't. But we've never had a president who in the middle of this campaign, based on when the

trials were scheduled, he could be found guilty. He could be heading to prison, technically, in the middle of the campaign. So how can you not cover it this way? How can you not hear from every voice? And my issue, I'm glad you raised it, is that the people who are supposed to keep us sane, the people who are supposed to tell us sane, the people who are supposed to tell us the truth and interpret what's happening, has lost all credibility, all trust. And it shouldn't be that way. And I'm going to say something that's heretical. I need the New York Times. I need the

Washington Post. I need the Wall Street Journal, because they're the ones who will say, wait a minute, Mr. Former President, what you say is not true. But if the public won't believe your reporting, if they won't believe either what you say, how you say it, or what you choose to say, then we really are screwed. And that's the source of this. And you can hear it in my voice. That's the source of this angst. That's the source of this frustration is that there's no way to bring accountability into this election because the people who are supposed to do it, the FBI, the intelligence, the Justice Department, everything has been politicized and polarized. And I'm using screwed because I don't want to use the F word on the radio.

You can use the F word. It's not the radio. You can use the F word. So according to Quinnipiac University poll, nearly half of all Americans would consider voting for a third party. You brought that in. You did focus groups with some of them. Why don't we see those numbers supported in actual elections?

I was thinking this yesterday. I was like, there just kind of has to be a third party now, you know, especially among disaffected Republicans, at least, and maybe some Democrats. Can you talk a little bit about that happening, whether it's no labels or whoever? What kind of impact does that have? I think no labels could have a significant impact. But the key is that it's not another party. It another party. It cannot be political. It cannot be bipartisan. It has to be nonpartisan. It cannot be the best of the Democrats, the best of the Republicans. It has to get around all that. Because if it's political, that is part of the same thing that the public is saying, enough. And in fact, if you ask me, what is the one word

that describes how the most Americans feel right now about our politics, about the election, about a system of government, it's enough with an exclamation point. And No Labels has the opportunity to whichever can it ends up running at Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin's perfect, but he's not the only one. Maybe John Sununu from New Hampshire, maybe Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii, even a Mark Cuban, even a business person, but it's not bipartisanship. It's nonpartisan, nonpolitical, non-traditional. It's someone who truly comes from outside the system, has the experience that would enable them to do the job because the thing

after not being political, they want results. By the way, it's not getting things done. Getting things done is the process. They want actual results. And the third value that we're looking for is the truth. This person better not be political, better not have been shown to say one thing and do another. If you can show accountability, results, and the truth, you're credible. Frank, I had one question on polling regarding no labels and just third-party candidates in general. I feel like there is a very intense attachment to the center right, you know, low taxes, but keep, you know, keep abortion rights, this hypothetical candidate when we talk about it, right? And I think the show has been polling like at a time like now, right? It's August 2023. We're talking

about polling an election that's, you know, 16 or 14 months away. Do you feel like there's any sign in kind of polling that people might like that sort of candidate theoretically, but then like when they actually go to vote, you know, they're just like driven by partisanship and it's like, sure, they could be, you know, a Wall Street Republican, but they vote for Trump anyway. Or this is our choice. We got, I'd like something other than Coke and Pepsi, but I guess that's what I have to pick, right? I'm wondering what that polling is overstating these people's appeal. Absolutely not.

This is different. You have a president who is 80 years old, who's asking for support for when he's 86 years old. You have another candidate who's asking for support when the guy's being indicted, seems like every week for another crime. And the public is looking at both these candidates and saying, no, both of you go away, give us something different. I work for Ross Perot, so I've been through this on a personal level back in 1992. And Ross Perot ended up with 19% of the vote, and he was certifiably crazy. Think of what has happened since 1992, how much more negative we are, how much less

optimistic we are, how much that we believe that the two-party system is broken. It's not working for people because nothing that they're looking for is getting done. And both sides demonize each other. If Ross Perot can get 19% of the vote, and as I say this, I'm so emotional that I'm actually spitting all over my computer. If Ross Perot can get 19%, an independent candidate can get at least 25, even 30%. Can they win? I don't think so. But you cannot count them out. Can't them out. Okay. When you talk about that, it's one of the things that tends to happen is that, and our history, we've had this happen, parties change, that there have been several different shifts. Do you imagine this is one of those times? And how does it actually come about?

Because in the case of, you are sort of comparing Donald Trump with Biden. He has passed some significant legislation compared to most presidents, by the way. It doesn't seem to sink in with people or he doesn't get credit for it. Inflation is now at 3%. You know what I mean? It's things have calmed down considerably. He's not going to get it because of the age thing, pretty much. That's the big rap on him, correct, is his age. Not that they don't like him or that they don't think he's effective, correct? Or am I wrong about that? But Donald Trump also has a significant set. He brought our attention to China, which no previous president, Republican or Democrat had done. He addressed the issue of economic development. We were having quarter after quarter after quarter

of serious, significant economic growth. The unemployment rate under Trump, they said it could never get that low, and it did. So Trump himself can point to this. The reason why they don't- But he doesn't. He spends a lot of time talking about election fraud, but go ahead. Exactly. So instead of focusing on, okay, I did this. This is step one. Let's now focus on the future. He's so trapped in 2020 that not only do I think that he would lose if he's the Republican nominee, I think he would bring the entire Republican Party down with him.

The American people don't want to look backward. It's part of what makes us uniquely American. We're focused on the future. And he's creating this sense of resentment and revenge that also wasn't really a part of our culture. And it's now become that way. And that's my criticism. That's my focus. So you just said you don't think he could win. I have to tell you, several of my Trumpy relatives are tired of him. They really are. And they weren't before.

They absolutely weren't. They're like, I think he might be guilty. Like they are. It's getting through. I know you don't think it is, but I think it is with not the crate, not the ones that go and buy all the hats. That's a different group that's never going to change. But the ones that were like, I like this tax thing.

I like I like the China thing. I like this. They're all like, what a fucking loud mouth pain in the ass. And And I think he's probably a criminal. And that's what they think. Now, I don't know who they're going to vote for. I don't think they'll vote for him. I don't think they'll vote for anybody, actually, is what I think. And that's why Joe Manchin suddenly becomes a viable option. Yeah, they would vote for him. So I'm glad that you raised this because I've been unable to present this on cable news. Those who want to sink Donald Trump aren't doing it the right way.

If you insult his supporters, they will never leave him. If you demonize the good stuff, they won't hear the bad stuff. I keep saying to anyone who will listen, if you want to indict him for criminal behavior, don't give him five days to define what that indictment is about. He doesn't play by the same rules. He doesn't act the way any other candidate acts. So you have to understand that. And it's not about killing him with kindness, but demonizing is not going to get you where you want to go. Which, although Biden's been quiet, hasn't he? He has been quiet. He hasn't gone on the offensive against him on that at all.

I haven't heard a word. I haven't heard a word from him about this indictment at all. He's on the beach. He's riding his bike around. That's my impression. He's nervous because of what is happening with Hunter Biden. With Hunter, right. And I just think that we've weaponized politics to a degree that, and I recognize we did the

same thing 150 years ago. The campaign against Grover Cleveland in 1892 was vicious. The campaign against Thomas Jefferson in 1800 was vicious. But- Remember it well. We didn't have social media. Well, Joe Biden remembers it all. We did not have social-

Trump is three years younger, but go ahead, keep going. But he acts so much younger. He's still old. We didn't have social media. We didn't have AI. We didn't have the ability to only collect news from one perspective. And I think that it's just making everything so much worse. recall or frankly just string together a couple sentences about kind of the legal fracas that Trump finds himself in right now. And I ask that because I think as a news consumer, I'm like somewhat concerned that just the cacophony of different Trump-related legal

scandals right now, there's now three indictments. There could be a fourth indictment coming out of Georgia right now. You know, legal stories in general are, like, difficult to follow, right? Filing, motion dismiss, you know, maybe it's going to go to a different judge, a different courtroom, you know. There's going to be, like, four overlapping stories at the exact same time.

And I know that, like, to the average, you know, news consumer, they might just be generally aware that, like, oh, Trump is in legal trouble, period, and, And like the details don't really matter. But I also wonder if that could be bad for democracy, that if there could be a sense that like all of this just sort of merges into one like general details don't matter, deep state out to get Trump, like that's not actually persuading people because there's too almost too many indictments and too much chaos. And maybe that works to Trump's advantage. And it's hard as journalists to write about these things in a digestible way

because there's almost too much happening. And I wonder if Trump can take advantage of that. Well, first, I always target my language to everyday, ordinary Americans. I don't call them normal Americans. I don't call them regular Americans because that's pejorative and that's harmful. If they're everyday, ordinary Americans, that's you and me. By the way, this stuff does matter. So the listener will not be able to see that, how I'm looking or how you look and what you say, but it does matter.

Second is that the key has to be to clarify so that you're trying to simplify something that's very complicated. And third, you can't be shown to having a point of view. You can present the evidence. You can present the facts, which is actually more important than the evidence, and do so and lay it out. First, second, third, fourth, fifth, frankly, the newspapers have an advantage the first time in the last 10 years because they can actually print it and people can see 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, all 10 points. But I've been looking and they're not doing it. Everything- You mean print the indictment, you mean actually themselves? Actually-

Or explain it, clarify it. Explain it point by point by point. Enumerate. One, two, three, four, five. Well, they have. That's not true. The Times did it, and so did the Post just soon. But they have to keep on doing it. By the way, one time, and then you have all the criticism of it day after day after day.

One time doesn't do it. It has to be some sort of repetition. It is not being communicated in a way that people hear it, and therefore it will fail. You don't have a choice here. If you want the public to be fully informed and understand what's at stake, you have to communicate in their language, using their words, using the method that they receive it, not yours, not mine, just theirs. Okay.

I have one more question. You were talking about social media and AI and chat, DBT. What impact do you think it's going to have? What is the most important element from the tech point of view? Is it the tech billionaires giving money? Is it the social media? Is it Twitter? I think Twitter's sort of fallen on a harder times and I don't think it's as relevant as it was. Who do

you think is the big decider here, the most influential part of the system right now? And I actually don't look at it that way. I'm in a relentless pursuit of the truth, wherever it may take me, which means that I criticize people who I used to support. It means I support those who I once criticized. People will not know the truth with the combination of social media and AI and the way that everything is changing. You were at an event I was at. You heard my voice on the screen and they played something I did not believe. And it sounded like my voice. I had people standing around me saying, did you say that? Obviously I hadn't. The truth is in jeopardy. The truth, the facts. that I give everyone listening, that you're not going to be able to know what is fact and what is fiction unless we figure out some way. And I'll acknowledge something to you. I have talked

to representatives, senators and congressmen, that they have to get this under control, that they cannot just say it's freedom of speech, cannot be regulated, because if we let this- You're talking my language, Frank. You know, I've been doing it for a decade. Yes. And actually, your ideas and your philosophy behind it, with my language and messaging, we might actually save democracy because- And I'm serious. I'm serious about this. I think that this could be the last election that we have as a country if we don't get our act together. Whoa. All right. So your prediction, I was going to say what happens in 2020. Last election is your prediction if we don't get it together. There's a 15% chance that AI could destroy the world. Well, there's a 15% chance that it could destroy American democracy.

And it's not just happening here. It's happening in other countries across the globe. Democracy is under attack, and we need to find some ways to ensure that it survives and thrives. All right. I'm going to make you end on a high note. What is that thing we need to do? Legislation? Is it what?

Because it's quite powerful. You know, I have great concerns about it. There has to be legislation that you cannot tell people that the vaccines are unsafe when it's a lie. This is affecting how we think about health. It's affecting our behavior. And this is just the beginning. What happens in the next pandemic? And because of AI, these narratives that are simply false are spread throughout the population. What are we going to do? What are we going to do when we have an economic meltdown and AI starts to blame certain people or starts to make accusations that are simply factually untrue. I'm on the side, at least, let's make sure that our children are

not poisoned. Let's make sure that young people, that we have some sort of controls in social media so that a 10-year-old or 12-year-old is not being fed information that causes her to believe that she's fat, that causes her to want to take drugs, that causes her to behave in a way that's damaging to her. The young women and young men in this country, they can't defend themselves. They're 10, 12 years old. They don't know the difference. Let's at least start with legislation to affect young people, and then we'll deal with the adults later. Well, Frank, optimistic as always. I don't know what to say.

Give me one optimistic thing. You have to. I'm sorry. I'm going to make you. Okay. The Baltimore Orioles were my baseball team when I was a kid. I have left them over the last 20, 25 years to support other teams. My sense of optimism is if the Baltimore Orioles can actually have a winning

season, then America can survive. Okay. I'm going to leave it at that. Frank, as usual, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. It's my honor. Well, Teddy, that was a, that was a dose of sunshine and daffodils. Swisher lunch, 2028.

Yeah. Yeah. I know he's, he's changed quite a bit. Swisher lunched 2028. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know he's he's changed quite a bit. Let's just say. Yeah. I mean, you know, he said combine your technical know-how with messaging ability. Yeah. Mr. Contract of America feels a little liberal, more liberal than me. Sure, sure, sure. Interesting. Anyway, I think he's 100 percent right about Ukraine. It's it's an existential issue. The Russians are really thugs. Anyway, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data,

big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply.

Details at fizz.ca. Okay, Teddy, let's hear some wins and fails. Why don't you go first? Sure. Let's do, can we start with a win? Yes, please. You can start with whatever you want. You're such a positive fella.

Let's do Sean Hannity. Oh, a win. Sean, no, rare positive mention for our friend Sean. I think that this debate— I love that you call him your friend. None of these people are my friends. Sure, friend of pivot, Sean Hannity. He's welcome to come on. Yeah, I feel like this debate with Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis is going to make Sean Hannity relevant in the world of Washington.

I think he likes Gavin Newsom. Sure. I mean, who doesn't? It was a little flirty, that interview. Because Gavin is a handsome man, let's just say. And I was like, does Sean Hannity have a little man crush on this guy? I think he does. So Hannity, obviously, is like, when's the last time we thought about Sean Hannity?

In the Tucker Carlson era of Fox, where this was the dominant personality, like Hannity just like was not relevant at all. Right. And for the first time, people are talking about Sean Hannity, which if you're Sean Hannity or you're Sean Hannity's friends or agents, like you're just happy to be talked about. It really does seem like that debate is happening, right? I mean, both of them are now arguing. You know, when Hannity's not such a giant asshole,

he's not a bad interviewer, honestly, when he's not just sucking up. Yeah, I hate to say it, but when he does a good job, he does a good job. Like he's not bad and he has good, but he just, what he lets is when Trump does an interview, lets everything slide. That's all.

And then you're like, come on. And you can see it in his head. Like, I really need to say something, but I'm not going to because I really enjoy, you know, the suck uppery. But I thought the Gavin Newsom interview was actually quite good. I think they both, I thought it was well done, actually, in that case. And I thought Gavin gave as good as he got in that situation. So what do you think is going to happen? I mean, they should do a cage match.

That would be sure. Sure. I was like, yeah, I was going to say, what do you think is likely to happen? Oh, my God. Gavin would kick his ass. No, what's likely to happen? The Newsom to Santus debate or the Elon Musk fight? All right.

So when I see some sort of parlay bet here. OK, I accept your win. Go ahead. Sure. My fail. Yeah. So I just got back from Switzerland, here. Okay. I accept your win. Go ahead. Okay, sure. My fail? Yeah. So I just got back from Switzerland, Cara. Okay.

And I'm going to say my fail is the American train system. I was just in Europe, and I know this is not- They're so good. They're so good. It is amazing. I have so many stories of our train is running two minutes late, and there's a bus and a boat, and everyone is coordinated, and it it's beautiful, beautiful symphony where, you know, the boat will take you right on time to the gondola, to the funicular train. And, you know, I know, I know

that I'm getting, I'm getting emotional here, but it made me realize why can't we have nice things in the United States where in the U S it's like, your train is running late, you know, see, see in three days when you're stranded in, you know, at Penn Station. Like the Swiss, it's just it was really beautiful just to see the entire way that like the transit system of the United States could work. But meanwhile, like, you know, I mean, the infrastructure bill that was passed by, you know, Democrats, like it's pretty much centered on roads. Right. It's centered on highways. It's centered on cars. I don't think we can like blow up the U.S. train system and start over from scratch. But

being in this in the, you know, land of the of the mountain train made me realize like, which made me wonder, why can't we have nice things? My win is an astonishing piece by Jen Senior, who's one of my favorite writers at The Atlantic. It's a story about her aunt. It says, the ones we sent away. It's a remarkable story about an aunt of hers, her mother's sister, who, you know, you read this about someone like Rose Kennedy or something like that. But about Americans at some point during the past century, sequestered from reading from the name, sequestered from public views. Warehouse disappeared, roughly shorn from the family tree. And her aunt, Adele, was institutionalized

when she was a young child in the 1950s. And the advice they would give to parents, and now today, they are not. They are mainstreamed into education. And they improve quite a bit. And so then she went and visited someone who was like her aunt. And this kid is thriving at home and with a very dedicated parent, mother especially. And I just found this piece to be really pertinent about the way and where to put people, how we deal with care. It was, speaking of truly American tragedy and a lot of fails in a lot of ways too, was really, it's worth your reading. It had so much pertinent today. And on my fail, I mean, it was very briefly, the Times is reporting on Clarence Thomas, speaking of billionaires, undisclosed lists in this latest, one of his friends, this looks like a friend of his, Anthony Welters, former executive at UnitedHealthcare, who sold his company, which was called something else. He bought him his RV, essentially, and it looks like he probably didn't pay off the loan.

I don't know, allegedly, because he wouldn't say whether he paid it or forgave it. He said it was satisfied, which means it wasn't paid off, probably. So, you know, it's just more stuff, tuition, help for family members, travel on private jets and yachts. And I know, like, all these justices, but no one does the grifting like Clarence Thomas. I think it's a systemic problem. It should be much more transparent. Republicans obviously won't budge, but it's an ongoing embarrassment. And this guy was pretending he's in his, it's like a luxury RV. It's not like a regular guy or I've been in a regular, I had an irregular guy RV, but it's like a hotel on wheels. It's a Four Seasons on wheels.

Reading about that story made me very fascinated. It's entire kind of like RV cottage industry where there's, you know, all these like conventions and clubs and high-end. There's regular ones, but these are high-end. Right, sure, sure, sure. I mean, I'm obviously familiar with an RV park, right, which is a RV club for normal people, but that there's this entire RV has to cost seven figures or more, and there's this entire little high-end stratification even within the RV industry. I had no idea that existed. Yeah. Clarence Thomas really needs to stop. Anyway, we want to hear from you, the listeners.

Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Again, Teddy, that's the show. Explain where people can find you. Sure. We are at Puck News. And I write a weekly email for people who are interested in the world of tech, wealth, and philanthropy and politics. It's called The Stratosphere. And anybody who's listening should subscribe to Puck. Yes, they should.

And actually, there's a lot of money in tech, I understand. We'll see. Allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. Anyway, we'll be back on Friday for more Scott Free August. We've see. Allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. Anyway, we'll be back on Friday for more Scott Free August. We've got more fantastic guests. I will read us out. Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Travis Larchuk, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Endretat engineered this episode. Make sure

you're subscribed to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week with another breakdown of all things tech and business.