Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - What the Clintons’ Depositions Mean for the Epstein Investigation

Episode Date: February 27, 2026

Jessica Tarlov and Aaron Parnas break down what the Clintons’ closed-door depositions could actually mean for the Epstein investigation — and what Republicans realistically expect to uncover. JD Vance kicks off his new “war on fraud” by freezing Medicaid funds — is it real reform or 2028 positioning? Plus: FBI shakeups tied to the Trump investigations, escalating tensions with Iran as military strike options are quietly drafted, and Kamala Harris once again teasing a possible presidential run. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlev. And I'm Aaron Pornis. In today's episode, we're going to be talking about the Clinton's depositions and the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. What to expect from J.D. Vance's new, quote, war on fraud. If the U.S. is gearing up to strike Iran. Plus, whether Kamala Harris really might run again. Aaron was chatting with her. Lucky devil. If you're not already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to get up-to-date coverage on everything that's happening. And let's jump right in. I want to start with the Clintons. They're back. in the proverbial hat seat as House Republicans ramp up their Epstein investigation. The Clints are testifying under subpoena behind closed doors about their past associations with Jeffrey Epstein and Galeen Maxwell. I want to ask you first, I thought this was supposed to be in public or I know they were asking for it. Yeah. I really wanted it. Like I had my popcorn ready. That's what they asked for, but they, I mean, you don't get what you ask for when you're a witness. You can't really control these things. So Comer and the oversight committee said behind closed doors. And the reason why, is because Comer's not actually going to talk to Clinton today.

Like, that's not what's going to happen. It's going to be an attorney for oversight. That's going to be questioning her. So it's not going to be that kind of spectacle that people want. Because he's afraid or because it's just procedure. Procedure. I mean, that's what they did with Les Wexner, too. I mean, the actual members of Congress, few of them asked questions.

If you watched the deposition, it was mostly a lawyer. But we saw it. We did see it. And we're going to see the Clintons. And they're going to release it. It's going to be videotaped and transcribed. We'll see it. It's just, and we'll probably see it after the weekend, if I had to guess.

I have to wait for my Hillary movie premiere. I'm excited for the Hillary one. I know. The Bill Clinton one, which I realize is going to have a much more substance, far less interesting to me than Hillary Clinton dog walking, every single attorney that tries to. It's okay to say dog walking, right? I think so.

Okay. I mean, that's what she's going to do. What do you expect that they are both going to say? As far as Hillary, I don't expect much because based on my, review of the files. I mean, she was only mentioned substantively a few times, and it was in connection with Bill, right? I mean, she acknowledged that she's met Galane Maxwell on a few occasions in the past. She said she's never met Jeffrey Epstein before. I don't know whether to believe that or not. I mean, we'll see if she says that under oath. But she says she only met Glain a few times.

And, I mean, a lot of people met Galane Maxwell. A lot of people met Jeffrey Epstein, right? Like, meeting them doesn't mean that you're implicated in anything. So I don't know, which I don't really expect much from Hillary at all. I did read an article, an interesting one this week that kind of said that, like, this is once again Hillary Clinton being put in a position to have to, like, defend her husband. Yeah. Or like prop of her husband. Like throughout her entire life, it's always been like her having to be put in this position. And it's a very uncomfortable and unfair position to be put in. Now, as far as Bill Clinton goes, I think there's a lot more there that the public that we aren't talking about. I think that there needs to be a lot more answers based on his association with Jeffrey

Epstein. He obviously knew Jeffrey Epstein. He's appeared in multiple photographs with Epstein. And it's important that he testify under oath and provide accurate information. Now, I don't think Bill Clinton did anything criminal based on what I've seen. And even Susie Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, admitted that to Vanity Fair. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't so provide information if he knows other people who did things that are criminal. And also, I mean, remember, back when Bill Clinton was associated with Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump was too. And they were all Democrats running in the same circles, right? So Bill Clinton probably has information on the president, has information on other wealthy and powerful people. And you and I have said this from the beginning.

I don't care if it's Bill Clinton or Trump. If they have something information to give, they should give it. Yeah, the right is really struggling with how little Democrats care about who it is at this point. It does not compute for them. I know that Galeen Maxwell played a central role in building the Clinton Foundation, of donor base. And when he was getting that off the ground, I think, in 2005. So I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions about, you know, the strength of the relationship and, you know, what he was doing. And his team has acknowledged, I think, four international flights that he took with Jeffrey Epstein, et cetera. But I want to go back to what you were saying about Hillary always having to kind of step in and also take a lot of criticism and, frankly, hatred for stuff that she did not do herself, you know, going back to the 90s.

And I'm not saying in any way that the Monica Lewinsky situation was handled properly or up to standard of feminist credo. But it is crazy how she has to answer for these things when it should be as simple as, okay, these were the two or three times that I was in a room with Gleine Maxwell. A lawyer could send that in. There is no reason to be hauling her in in front of a committee if not for the fact that Hillary Clinton is consistently vilified. And Nancy Pelosi, who was on last week, mentioned that. Like, it was an aside. But we were talking about the Epstein scandal overall. And she said, I didn't know a reason why Hillary Clinton is going in.

And it's definitely a point of frustration, I think especially for women of a certain era who have trailblazed on their own and then are, you know, stuck talking about their husband's business. Yeah, for sure. And I mean, I think that, I mean, if anyone reviewed the files, like, they would agree with it. you. They would agree with Nancy Pelosi. And also Hillary Clinton's lawyers offered that. They offered her to answer really any question under oath. Like in writing, they offered to provide any information like a declaration of sorts under the penalty of perjury. I mean, like, it just shows to me that the investigation conducted by this House oversight committee isn't a serious one. I mean, because... No, Aaron. I mean, if you're going to haul in Hillary and you're not going to haul in Trump, that's a

a problem. If you're going to haul in Hillary and you're not going to haul in... Or Melania. Or Melania. Take all the wives. All the wives. I mean, Melania literally emailed Galane Maxwell. We have an email from 2002 where they're talking about how they're buddies. So, like, yes, it's just, it's all frustrating across the board, and I am personally frustrated for Hillary. Bill's a different story. He should be under oath.

Hillary, I don't think so. What do you see as the status of the Epstein investigation? As of now, we are seeing some very high-profile resignations, all of the time. over the globe happening. The CEO of the World Economic Forum, I saw this morning, is the latest one. None of the central figures, though, a lot having to do with an association with Jeffrey Epstein that was not about trafficking girls or accusations of pedophilia, but even kind of having been friendly with him. Peter Attia is now not going to be a CBS contributor. Where do you think things stand right now? I mean, I think that it's growing with each passing day, right? Like, I never thought that

this would be a situation where overnight you'd have mass accountability, mass arrests, mass resignations. I mean, it takes time. And we're seeing every single day drip, drip, drip, more accountability. Now, would I like to see this move faster in the United States? I would. Do I think we're going to see any arrests in the United States under this presidency? No, which is why I think it's going to take a lot longer than people expect. But I think the fact that it's still happening now almost a month later, a month past the Epstein, release, and you're still seeing people talking about it, you're still seeing it in the news, you're still seeing these resignations happen, and some arrests happen, shows that it's not a story

that's just going to go away. And so, as far as the status goes, my only concern is we have Hillary's deposition, Bill's deposition today, and then what? Right? Like, what's the next date? I always look for, like, kind of, like, the next kind of benchmark in terms of these investigations to keep them in the news. And I worry that today's going to happen, tomorrow's going to happen, you're going to have some press on it over the weekend. Come Monday, people are going to move on because there's no next benchmark that people are looking forward to. And so I think it's incumbent on Garcia, the Oversight Committee, to press forward and maybe

try to subpoena some of the FBI investigators, some of the other potential co-conspirators, and really kind of push the narrative forward and not just let the story die. Yeah, because, I mean, without releases of new files also. It's not just the interviews that are going away. The DOJ is not going to be. putting on any more files. I want to talk about the new war on fraud. That was one of Trump's main announcements. It was very light on announcements at the state of the union. But we got J.D. Vance's now the fraud czar, I guess. And he made his first major move suspending $259 million in federal

Medicaid reimbursements to Minnesota. Shocked that it was Minnesota. Joined by Dr. Oz, Vance said that the pause is tied to an ongoing fraud probe in the state and warned that more funds might be withheld of Minnesota doesn't present a corrective plan within 60 days. Medicaid reimbursements are approved by Congress. I know that they don't care about that kind of stuff. But what do you think about, I guess, the fact that we have this new department, what the implications of it? I don't know. I mean, whatever you want to call it. A loose term. I mean, I thought he was appointing an assistant attorney general to oversee fraud. I guess that wasn't happening anymore because I remember he made that announcement. You can't trust anyone. But this was a state of the union of recycling. It was. I mean, there were, it was basically nothing new. And the retirement accounts thing was just a

Biden policy from 2022. Like, there was nothing new except the screaming. And the housing policy was just the Kamala recycle from the campaign trail. I mean, I will say this. I think part of me thinks that this is Trump doing to Vance what Biden did to Kamala and setting him up for failure in a way. I think this Minnesota fraud situation is going to blow up in their faces at some point. Like, I think they're going to push too hard, and it's just going to blow up in their faces. Kind of like Biden labeling Kamla, his borders are in a way or whatever, like in charge of the border, kind of blew up and hurt her 2024 chances. This will hurt Vance of 2028 chances, in my opinion, because he already got up there, like you said, and said, we're going to suspend Medicaid payments, even though courts have consistently ruled. You can't really do that.

And then Dr. Oz also at the same time said something like, we're going to suspend new approvals for prosthetics for people who need them for like a period of six months. For six months? For six months. And I'm like, why? For durable medical goods. It's literally everything in a hospital. Yeah, literally.

And it just like makes zero sense. I really think this is going to blow up in their face. I mean, it's a shitty political policy and it's going to hurt a lot of people in Minnesota. But it's also going to hurt them, hurt fans politically, in my opinion, because now he's the face of whatever happens. Interesting. Okay, because on the one hand, and I probably shouldn't have scoff so hard when I said, oh, Minnesota, because Minnesota did have $9 billion in fraud, and they have a very real problem there. That is not invented.

It's not $19 billion, and Nick Shirley isn't going to be, you know, the next Walter Cronkite. But there's a legitimate problem in Minnesota. But is an interesting point that you raise about giving him this thankless job, because obviously a lot of palace intrigue over whether Trump prefers Rubio or Vance to continue his legacy. and I was reading some reporting that he's apparently been asking people, like, well, who do you like? Probably his, like, 23-year-old assistants that are running around who are about to become attorney general or whatever. But, you know, Minnesota had such incredible pushback on ice and what was going on with immigration enforcement there. To some degree, I would kind of not want to fuck with Minnesota anymore. Yeah.

I would have moved on to another state. But, you know, the heart wants what the heart wants. The Harfhants, but that is an iconic phrase at this point. I mean, yeah, I don't know why. Like, I thought, like, them drawing down their ice presence would have been enough and move on, but I guess not. No. He really doesn't like Tim Walz. I think that's what it is.

I really think he just, like... I mean, yeah, I get it. But since you brought up elections, I want to ask you about this pretty viral moment, at least, on the right from the State of the Union. People thinking that it's definitely going to shape the midterms when Trump asked lawmakers to stand. if they agreed with the government's first duty being to protect American citizens and not illegal aliens. All the Republicans got up, Democrat state seated. Now the GOP has an ad that's similar to the famous Kamala Harris is for they, them add. Do you think that this is going to be an effective election tool for them?

No, I don't. I think this is overplayed. Because it's too far out or it's just like whatever. Both. Number one, I mean, it's completely misrepresentative of all. what happened during the state of the union. I mean, like, they're taking clips of, like, later in the speech and pretending like it happened at the same time. I mean, they're misrepresenting what happened. Number two, it was a gotcha moment, right? Like, every president does these

gotcha moments during their state of the union address to try to get an ad like this cut. Biden did it. Obama did it. Trump does it. I mean, the same thing. And number three, I really think Americans are kind of tired of the immigration, like, beat down that we've been taking over the past 12 months, 13 months. Like, I don't think they believe the GOP anymore when they say the Democrats are for illegal immigration. Because what's the Republican alternative? What we've saw in Minnesota, right? Like what we're seeing across the militarization of our streets, there's a reason why immigration

approval rating for the White House and for Republicans in Congress is tanking still, to this day. There's a reason why they're trying to back away from it, cross the airways. I don't think this is going to help them. I don't think immigration is a top issue for Americans. I think the top issue for Americans is affordability. And if they can't afford to live in November of 2026, then they're just going to say, screw you, Trump, you lied to us on the campaign trail. Yeah, I would agree with you.

And I just also, to connect it to that big GOP strategy meeting from about a week and a half ago with Chris LaSavita and James Blair. And apparently they told the Republicans are about 75 to 100 Republicans in the room, including a lot of the cabinet members, that immigration, was not going to change anyone's minds at this point, that it was not the electoral issue. I mean, certainly not saying the borders closed. Like, everyone's over it. It also started under Biden.

He's not going to get credit for that. But it is interesting to see it really kind of get narrowed down to just this one category. And I thought Trump was such an utter failure at the State of the Union in dealing with the economy and the way actual Americans feel. Can I tell you what would have been a better cut at if they did this for that, like, if they take a positive moment from Trump's speech, right?

If they cut together, like, the cheering for affordability, whatever, like, all these things that Trump said that he claims are happening, even though they're not happening. And they cut together, like, a more positive moment of, like, America's greatest days are to come. That, to me, would have resonated more than, like, attacking Democrats on illegal immigration. Like, okay, move on. Like, been there, done that. All right. Aaron Parnas, GOP strategist. Okay. Let's take a quick break. Stay with us.

Hey, Kara Swisher here. I want to let you know that Vox Media is returning to South by Southwest in Austin for live tapings of your favorite podcasts. Join us from March 13th through the 15th for live tapings of Today Explained, Teffey Talks, Prof G Markets, and of course your two favorite podcasts, pivot and on with Kara Swisher. The stage will also feature sessions from Renee Brown and Adam Grant, Marquez Brownley, King. Lee, Vivian 2, and Robin Arzon. It's all part of the Vox Media podcast stage at South by Southwest, presented by Odu. Visit Voxmedia.com slash SXSW to pre-register and get your special discount on your innovation badge. That's Voxmedia.com slash SXSW to register. Really, you should register. We sell out and we hope to see you there. Welcome back. Aaron, I want to talk about Team USA say is hockey's biggest fan. I also really would keep talking about the hockey players themselves.

I was obsessed with what Hillary Knight had to say about the situation. But we got to talk about Cash Patel. He fired at least 10 FBI employees who worked on special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents. Is this a continuation of Trump's retribution campaign? Are we in some sort of new phase? Are we supposed to get distracted about cash Patel being on the DOJ plane all the time and just going to Florida? and Nashville, what's your take on the firings? Yes. I mean, that is my take, all of the above.

I mean, I'm not surprised that there are firings. I don't think anyone's surprised that there are firings. I'm surprised that it took this long to get to these firings. Like, Cash Patel wants his own people in there, Cash Patel and wants to please the president and wants to get anyone out who remotely the president might think is against them. Yes, Cash Patel doesn't want people talking about the fact that he spent $70,000 of their taxpayer dollars.

drinking beer with the Team USA men's hockey team in the locker room. Like, it's all of the above. I mean, to me, this is a story that under Biden would have been playing for two weeks on Fox News. You'd be talking about on the five every other day. I mean, I am, but not in the good way. I'm just getting screamed at that I'm so boring that I think that the FBI director, you know, crushing beers with the team is somehow offensive. I mean, he could crush beers with the team, but then don't tell the public that, like, you're not going there to crush beers with the team. I mean, like, I pay your own way.

I actually think that you should not crush beers with the team. I'm going to go full Debbie Downer. Yeah, I just, I think going in and shaking hands is one thing. Yes. But, I mean, if you want to pick on them for being the least professional cabinet in American history, which I love to do, like, obviously we could put it in that category. But it just added such fuel to the fire. And I don't think also that it's something that Trump himself liked. I mean, Trump is sober, first of all.

Yeah. And anything that brings this kind of microscope onto the administration. I mean, you remember how much I understand that he got through. But remember during Pete Higgs' confirmation hearings, whenever was talking about him drinking, like on the set of Fox and Friends and having this, like, erratic, alcoholic behavior, should say, alleged. Yeah. I did not like that. Right.

That is not the kind of show. that Donald Trump, a person who, like, sleeps in a suit, is trying to create. Well, I will say it's funny. You have FBI direct, I mean, not funny, but FBI director Cash Patel crushing beers in the locker room. You have RFK Jr. Cosplaying as Jillian Michaels in his workout video with Kid Rock. Right? Like, you have Pete Hegseth pretending to lift 315 pounds.

So you think they were fake weights? I think, I mean, I think so based on what everyone is. I'm saying? It's a lot, right? Like, it's like they're trying to be these, like, macho men. Who, like, stop trying to be someone you're not. I know. It's a wonder that anyone has sex with Democratic men. That's, like, literally things that my colleagues say to me. They're like, oh, you don't want a real man. And I'm like, my husband could literally beat all of you up. Not he's a gentle giant, that Brian. Let's pivot to Iran. How'd you like that? Okay. As Trump escalates his threats, joint chiefs chairman, general Dan Cain,

been quietly preparing potential military strike options. But instead of hashing them out on the Pentagon's secure, quote, tank, he's reportedly holding smaller, more discreet meetings to avoid leaks and internal blowback. I also saw that Politico was reporting this morning that the White House thinks the optics are better if Israel strikes Iran first. So it's then that we're helping them out versus we are the primary aggressor. Do you think that we are going to strike Iran? I do.

I do. I mean, I was reading on Twitter, one of the chief experts of, like, American air power or whatever, and he was saying that, like, we haven't had this type of power in the Middle East since 9-11, and we've never not struck with this much power in the region. I just, if we don't strike, just to put in perspective, you have Navy service members on the Gerald R. Ford, the aircraft carrier there now for an extra three to four months, dealing with sewage issues, missing funerals, missing kids' birthdays. You sent them there for no reason.

The amount of money it's cost to send all of this manpower to the region billions of dollars, right? I mean, this is not millions, billions of dollars of movement. I mean, it would be just a complete waste at this point, right? Like, you have so much posturing the region.

What does that look like? And I'm looking at, like, what they're talking about, this deal that they want to execute. This deal is the JCPOA. I mean, that is the deal. Like, don't pull out of the Iran deal if you're now just going to try to renegotiate the Iran deal. Or like, your housing policy is Kamala's, your retirement policy is Biden's, and now you're stealing Obama's nuclear deal.

Like, they had a nuclear deal on the table. And it, I mean... Well, they ripped it up. Yeah, for sure. I'm saying, like, it wasn't a perfect deal by any means, but this is, they're about to get the exact same one. Like, that's what's on the table. I'm curious as to what you think. Okay, so I agree with you that something is going to happen. I just don't know the size of it and exactly when, you know, Trump said within 24 hours of action when they ended up striking for Doe in the next couple of weeks I'll make my decision. And he should not have to telegraph all those foreign policy moves. Obviously, we want some element of surprise. Yeah.

But what's been sticking out to me is that doing something in Iran that is limited, which is what they want to do, right? There is no appetite for boots on the ground or a full-scale war of any kind. How does that actually help the protesters? Because that was... It doesn't. That was the initial impetus for doing this, right? Trump got up and said, help is on the way. And millions of people thought help is on the way.

It has now been a month plus since that happened. But how much change can actually be effectuated by a limited military strike? It can't. And I think that's part of the hesitation. Because, like, you're never... I don't think you'll ever see American boots on the ground. Right? Like, I don't think American troops will be in downtown Tehran, ever.

I hope not. I mean, I hope not too, but I mean, unless you have like a CIA team like we saw in Caracas, that's the only way you'll see American boots on the ground. An airstrike campaign, a mass bombing campaign, okay, like you take down a bunch of people, you say you kill the Ayatollah, you kill all those people around him. There are more people in the ranks that will rise up in the IRGC who have a iron grip on that country, right? Right. You're not just going to have installing you, Reza or whatever his name is,

the Shah. You're not just going to reinstall that overnight. That's not how it works. It has to be a people-driven movement. And you had an opportunity, actually, when you had those mass protests, the people-driven movement. And Trump, in a lot of ways, balked. He did. And I don't agree with striking Iran right now in any event, but I think if he were to strike Iran, it should have happened a month ago. It should have happened during the height of the protests. And maybe with strikes and with that mass people-driven movement, you could have seen some type of on-the-ground change. Right. But now, people are afraid to go on the streets because he's saying 32,000 people were killed.

That number is probably even higher. And so it's a bit of a quagmire. I like that word. A bit of, yeah. I also feel like these generals that are in the room must be just pulling their hair out. Oh, for sure. And so exhausted and frustrated by the whole process. the lack of kind of understanding what you portrayed publicly versus what can actually be done

and what the real implications of those kinds of statements are. I will also note that this is very different from Venezuela. And I think that's what a lot of people are missing in this entire conversation. You can't just kidnap the Ayatollah. And put them in Brooklyn. And put them in Brooklyn and the country changes. That's not how, like, Iran is a much different. Well, the country didn't even change.

But, yes. Right. Iran is a much different beast. Iran, like, you kidnap the Ayatollah and you put them in Brooklyn. the next guy up still hates you. Right? This is not Delsey Rodriguez. It's a very different situation. Yeah.

To say the least, it's actually a funny article. Like, Iran is not Venezuela for all the dummies who might think that this could be done similarly. You just had, well, you always have big guests, but you had a very big guest. Kamala Harris was on the partner's perspective yesterday. Yes, she was. What did she say about potentially running in 28 and what stuck up to you about? you know, her priorities and how she's thinking about our political moment. Well, as any good politician, she did not announce her candidacy for 2028 on my show.

I know it sucks. Do you, did you get some sort of guarantee that if she is going to run, then she's going to announce on the partner's perspective? No. No. You should try to work that in. I'll try. I do think she's going to run, though. Really?

Yeah, I think she'll run. And personally, I think she'll announce by the end of the year. I think she's going to try to do, like, a Trump 2.0 of, like, announced right after the midterms. And campaign for 48 million. million months. She's campaigning now. I mean, do you not, like, her book tour is a pseudo campaign. Okay. And I don't know her. She has not. Common Ranging Moderates, we have asked. I think that she is to some degree just buying herself time. Yeah. And buying herself time as the front runner when she might not be running. Like, I don't, I don't know. I feel like she's not going to run.

Listen, if she doesn't run, it kind of seems like Newsom's an inevitability at this point. unless something radically changes. If she does run, then I think it's a two-headed kind of race. California monster. Yeah, and we'll see who beats them out if anyone can. But, I mean, no, I didn't get anything from her on terms of running. In terms of where her head's at, it's interesting. She's actually really focused on southern states right now.

That's been her whole shtick for the past, like, four or five months, as she's been in the South, going to places where Democrats have not won historically. places where the party has recently, especially recently, kind of abandoned, and she's trying to reinvigorate those areas. She seemed kind of well-rested, excited to be back on tour in a way. We'll see what happens. I don't know. I mean, it was a good conversation. I encourage people to go watch. I do too. I encourage you. Thank you. And I went to see Newsom speak this week, and he looked rested and ready to go, too. Yeah. I like this idea of the two-headed California Monster.

Newsom Harris, 2028. Oh, my God. Harris Newsom. Can you, who stabs who first? Oh, I would not support that ticket. No. I'm kidding, like, but I'm just saying, like, that would never happen. Correct.

To have to talk about California politics incessantly for two years would be hideous. Yes. Okay. We vote no on that. What's one thing that's making you rage? One thing we should calm down about. One thing that's making me rage is, food poisoning this week because it's been bad. It's been rough out in these streets. I fainted at like

4 a.m. in my house. Well, why were you awake? I have a very small bladder, like clinically small. So I have to like wake up multiple times tonight. Okay. And I used the restroom and I fainted in my bathroom. And like I cut up my entire back. It was it was a rough scene like horror film. But we we we we prevailed. We persisted. We survived. Okay. And oh and I'm raging about the snow more snow. I'm over in. Yeah. Though we got our New York City streets round two, Mom Donnie with this shovel program.

Excellent. Are you shoveling? Or is your husband shoveling? No, we're not. Well, Brian, it's the man's work. Yeah, he's at a little, but it wasn't as necessary as last time. It was also a lot warmer. So snow has naturally been melting,

but we still need more dumpsters to come around and take it, to dump it in the Hudson. Calm down. What should we calm down about this week? Oh, calm down about the fact that the state, of the union actually moved any needles. Oh, yeah. Didn't do anything.

No, basically forgotten. I mean, I brought it up a couple of times, but just because it was in the script. Gone. All right, Aaron, I'll talk to you later. Thanks for coming on. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, did I say that?

Yeah, it's cute, though. All right.