Tangle - Election fraud claims in California.

Episode Date: June 11, 2026

On Tuesday, June 2, California held its primary elections, including closely watched races for governor and Los Angeles mayor. In the mayoral primary, Mayor Karen Bass (D) and City Councilmember Nithya Raman (D) advancedto the general election, while first-time candidate Spencer Pratt (I) finished third. Pratt had been in second place the day after the primary, but Raman overtook him as mail-in ballots came in after Election Day, leading some Republicans to claim the results were fraudulent. The latest Suspension of the Rules.This week’s episode is a “review of all the things we said last week” special, with updates on the mayoral race in Los Angeles, the screwworm cases in Texas, and the NBA Finals in New York. Plus, Isaac and Kmele debate whether AI slop should be banned for political ads. Check it out here!Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today’s “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Do you think California’s system allows for fraud or should be reformed? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. It's Thursday. This is your resident, sleep-deprived NBA fans, still buzzing from the New York Knicks historic, miraculous, unfathomable comeback in the NBA final. last night. I tried hard to tune into my suspension of the rules co-host, Camille Foster's CNN appearance on Abby Phillips show last night. But the game, it just kept dragging me back in until the Knicks completed the greatest comeback in finals history overcoming a 29 point deficit. I was still buzzing this morning when I went to go get my hair cut. And then the barber asked me if I wanted to do anything about my eyebrows, clean them up a little bit. It's the second time

that's happened to me now. Buzz killed immediately. They very much know how to poke at a guy's insecurities. And speaking of insecurity, questioning the results of an election has apparently become an American pastime. Today, we're covering the Republican claims of fraud in California and a new State Department program for visa interviews. And we're also sharing the story we chose not to cover this week. It is a rambunctious fact-filled 25-30-minute listen. I hope you guys guys enjoyed. I'm going to send it over to John for today's main pod, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President Donald Trump said the U.S. military will continue attacking Iran after an initial round of strikes on Wednesday.

The president also shared that the military has been covertly assisting ships transiting the Strait of Hermuz, claiming it had facilitated 100 million barrels of oil through the strait. Separately, U.S. Central Command said the military struck a Palau-flagged oil tanker in the Gulf of on that it said fail to comply with orders. Three Indian sailors from the ship were killed. Number two, in a 198 to 218 vote, the House voted down a short-term extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is set to expire on Friday. Democrats opposed the extension in protest of President Trump, naming federal housing finance agency director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Number three, the Florida Supreme

Court voted six to one to decline to grant a temporary injunction that would have prevented the state from using a new congressional map designed to net Republicans four additional seats in the U.S. House. Number four, President Trump said he is not planning to reauthorize the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement negotiated to replace NAFTA ahead of a July 1st deadline to extend the deal. Number five, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, telling lawmakers that he made a grave error in judgment meeting Epstein but was not involved in any criminal activity.

And a bit of breaking news, multiple floors and corridors at the Pentagon have been locked down and some staff have been evacuated after officials detected an air quality issue that is under investigation. New results just dropped in two of California's biggest primary election races. This as a federal prosecutor announces multiple election fraud investigations in California. As results for the primary election come into focus, the president taking aim at California's election process, claiming that Democrats are trying to steal the gubernatorial and L.A. mayoral elections. In a post-to-truth social, President Trump comparing the election process to a third world country, saying the biggest difference is they count their votes much faster.

They don't wait seven days to tell you who won, rigging the election during each and every one of them. But the president provided no evidence to back these unfounded claims. On Tuesday, June 2nd, California held its primary elections, including closely watched races for governor and Los Angeles mayor. In the mayoral primary, Mayor Karen Bass and city council member Nithia Rahman advanced to the general election, while first-time candidate Spencer Pratt finished third. Pratt had been in second place the day after the primary, but Rahman overtook him as mail-in ballots came in after election day, leading some Republicans to claim the results were fraudulent. For context, Los Angeles has a non-partisan primary in which all must be. mayoral candidates are listed on a single primary ballot, and if no candidate receives 50% of the primary vote, then the two candidates receiving the most votes advanced to the general election.

California allows all voters to participate in its elections by mail, and all mail and ballots are valid if postmarked by election day and delivered to county election offices within seven days of the election. Due to this system, some races can take weeks to determine a winner. Roughly 48 hours after polls closed, Pratt still led Rahman, but the city council member began gradually gaining as mail and ballots were counted. On Sunday, Roman surpassed Pratt and major news outlets called the race for her the next day. Her lead over the former reality television star has since grown to approximately 3.5% with over 95% of the votes counted.

Prominent Republicans in California and nationally have cast doubt on the result, alleging election fraud or dysfunction within the state's vote counting system. President Donald Trump has been among the most vocal critics, posting on truth social, not possible for Spencer Pratt to have lost the L.A. runoffs after the big lead he had. Third World Nation, rigged elections. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that the result stinks to high heaven, though he clarified he was not claiming the election was rigged. Bill Assaley, the first assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, appealed to Californians to share evidence of potential election fraud with his office,

later suggesting that people will be charged. Pratt, meanwhile, has not explicitly rejected the result, but he implied in a post on X that there may have been foul play linked to the city's homeless population, California Attorney General Rob Banta and other officials have pushed back on the fraud claims, saying the state's tabulation process is transparent and the state's primaries were conducted legally. Trump's claims are embarrassing, unhinged, wild-eyed, dangerous, reckless, and desperate, Banta said. Other state lawmakers acknowledged frustration with the election system, but said the counting delays were not evidence of fraud. Today, we'll explore views from the left, right, and California writers on these fraud claims, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break.

All right. First up, let's start with what the left is saying. Many on the left say Pratt supporters were duped and are now seeking out conspiracies for answers. Others suggest California's delayed results, damage trust in elections. In Slate, Alex Kirchner said Pratt is careening headlong into conspiracy land. If you spend time on Elon Musk's algorithmic 4U feed on X in recent weeks, you may have gotten the impression that Pratt was writing a tidal wave of support to the mayor ship. Though things looked good for him as the count got going on Tuesday night and on Wednesday, Pratt always had a long way to go, Kirshner wrote.

It wasn't even a bad showing for a maga-coded conservative in a deep blue city in what looks like a blue wave year nationally. Pratt could have hung his hat on that. Pratt and his supporters have chosen a different path. Instead of resolving to build on a decent performance, they've ridden a collective delusion to declare the election was stolen. Because it's hard to come to grips with getting duped by one's own ideological bubble, these election deniers have shifted to criticizing California's lengthy vote-counting process.

The common claim is that voting by mail allows Democrats to find the votes until they've achieved their desired result, Kushner said. The vote-counting process that governs California elections is transparent to anyone who wants to understand it. It's also borne from a desire on the state's part to collect as many people's lawful votes as possible. I don't enjoy waiting for important information, but I like that California wants people to vote. The New York Times editorial board argued

California's excuses are damaging faith in government. There is no good reason that California takes so long to count votes. Most democracies around the world count votes quickly. So do most other large U.S. states, including Texas, Florida, Michigan, and Virginia. Until the past decade, California itself counted votes quickly, the board said. It makes the state government look incompetent. It fails to increase voter turnout. It creates needless uncertainty about results, as has been the case,

several races this year. It confuses ordinary voters and serves the interest of conspiracies, including President Trump, who spread lies about election fraud that is in fact virtually non-existent. In November, Americans may spend days waiting to know who is one control of Congress while California and possibly Arizona, Nevada, and Washington State take their time, the board said. The solution can start with Congress establishing a national deadline of election day for the arrival of mail-in ballots, as 35 states already require. If that sounds strict, remember that a deadline is unavoidable. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying.

Most on the right acknowledge the lack of evidence of fraud, but argue California's voting system is ripe for abuse. Other safe laws in the system seem designed to fuel conspiracies. The Washington Examiner editorial board said, California elections have no integrity. What was a 40,000-vote-Prat lead on Wednesday morning, turned into a 3,000 ramen advantage by Sunday night? and by Monday night, Rahman's lead expanded to over 20,000 votes, ending Pratt's campaign, the board wrote, it is not normal. California is a unique global outlier in its inability to deliver fast and fair election results, and it is not a matter of incompetence. The state has specifically designed its voting system to both take nearly forever to count votes and make it

easier at every step of the way for bad actors to influence vote totals. California Democrats argue with a straight face that their permissive voting system of no photo identification, mass ballot mailings, partisan ballot collection, weak signature verification, and endless ballot reception are needed to maximize voter access to the ballot box. But all their system really does is enable bad actors to sow chaos and commit fraud, the board said. Elections must not merely produce winners. They must also engender public confidence that the result reflects lawful votes cast by eligible voters on time. In National Review, Jeffrey Blahar suggested the real scandal is what's legal. The fact that mail-in ballots have shifted the outcome, Pratt was in second

place early on Election Day, has led inevitably to charges of voter fraud. How could this even happen absent cheating? Very easily, Blahar said. Pratt didn't lose because of fraud, and he didn't lose because there was a conspiracy to exclude him from the November ballot in favor of left and lefter. The vast majority of primary voters in L.A. were never even considering Pratt as an option. They were vacillating between different shades of deep blue. In California, the real scandal is what's legal. With a universal mail-in-ballot option, a seemingly endless window for ballot counting,

and legal mechanisms for unions and organizers to harvest and later cure ballads, California's system is a black box to everyone except well-informed organizers and jaded electoral analysts, almost as if it were intentionally designed to fuel paranoia, Blehart said. People are right to be angry about California's election system.

It is rotten to its core and has reduced California politics to a mere test of activist strength between warring factions of the Democratic Party. All right, that is it for what the left and the writer saying, which brings us to what California writers are saying. Some California writers argue Pratt lost because he was a bad candidate, not due to fraud. Others say reports of illegal election practices must be investigated. The Los Angeles Daily News editorial board wrote, Rahman v. Bass sends MAGA into conspiracy land. How can American democracy remain healthy if conservatives,

and Republicans won't accept their results when their candidates lose, even candidates who never had a realistic chance of winning, the board asked. We can walk through the rebuttal, not that it'll matter to these folks. His popularity on X aside, Pratt was never a serious candidate in the real world. He touted Trumpian rhetoric in a city that voted overwhelmingly against Trump. Yes, California officials helped create this mess by creating a vote-by-mail system with lax deadlines that allow ballots that were mailed on election day to be counted a full week later.

We like mail-in-voting, but there's no reason state election officials can't rejigger the deadlines, so votes are counted in a timely manner, the board wrote. The Los Angeles election and reaction to it actually spotlights the failure of Republicans. Instead of grooming a knowledgeable, reform-minded candidate who had a real chance, they opted for a TV villain who imitated an unpopular president. In the California Post, Joel Pollock said, the DOJ must protect the right to vote in L.A. against alleged Skid Row tricks. videos of homeless people on L.A. Skid Row who appear to say they were paid to vote

are the latest reason for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to intervene immediately to protect the right to vote in L.A., Pollack wrote. The right to vote belongs to everyone, homeless people too. But if homeless people are exploited by party operatives who, in theory, register them to vote just to get a hold of and harvest their mail-in ballots, or if the homeless are exploited by organizers who pay them to register and possibly to vote, then everyone's vote is being diluted by unfair and possibly illegal tricks. It is illegal to pay people to vote and illegal to pay them to register. One paid signature collector was convicted earlier this year of paying homeless people to register to vote using her home address, Pollock said. The videos, many of which

were shared widely on social media, need to be investigated by federal authorities, and the voting section of the Civil Rights Division needs to intervene, to protect the homeless from being abused and to protect the rights of other voters. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for what the left and the right and some writers from California are saying, which brings us to my take. In my now vast experience reporting on and investigating all manner of election fraud claims, I've learned that the allegations often take a few shapes. One, there's the statistical analysis that alleges some observed vote tally should be impossible without fraud, though they're actually explainable or totally concocted. Two, there's misleading claims drawn from misinterpretations. And three, and assume sophistication of the people committing the alleged fraud,

even though they don't do very obvious things to advance their own interests that sophisticated people would do. In 2020, the explanation of how the election was stolen shifted constantly. First, it was machine slipping votes. Then it was Georgia election workers changing them. Then it was illegal immigrants voting. Then it was a network of ballot harvesting. then it was social media collusion, that it was foreign actors, and on and on and on. That was annoying because the goalposts moved constantly,

but at least the claims were tangible and I could look into them. The California allegations are frustrating because there is no central story. Nothing specific is being alleged. I've mostly read a lot of angst from people upset that their guy was winning and then lost. Nobody has really said exactly what fraud had occurred just that it had. And yet, paradoxically, the claims have hit on all. all three of the classic election fraud types. First, I've seen a number of statistical claims of impossibility about what happened in California.

One of the worst offenders was a Washington Times opinion piece by columnist Kelly Sadler, which opens by claiming, quote, chat GPT could not find one example in American history of a third-place candidates surging days after an election to overtake second place. Despite Chatchipt's authoritative response, candidates running in second and third place have, in fact, swap positions after mail-in counting began, just in California. In one recent example, during the 2018 midterms, Republican incumbent David Valabout, looked like he would win before Democratic challenger T.J. Cox prevailed as mail-in ballots came in. Predominantly Republican votes coming in first and being overtaken by predominantly Democratic mail-in votes happen so frequently it even has a name, the Red Mirage.

Accusing Democrats of mail-in ballot fraud because they have electoral advantages as counting goes on is akin to accusing Republicans of election day fraud because they have electoral advantages early on. The pattern's existence is proof of exactly nothing. Sadler's piece goes on, quote, the left is telling us that Democrats vote late by mail, which is certainly true. but it does not explain why Ms. Rahman, who is relatively unknown, received a disproportionate share of the late mail-in votes while Ms. Bass's numbers remain relatively unchanged. By itself, the Red Mirage doesn't explain

why one Democrat's share of mail-in votes would be larger than another's, but that doesn't mean it's inexplicable or even novel. Since Rahman is more popular among progressive voters than Bass, the incumbent mayor herself was also a victim of the blue shift toward a candidate to her left. This, too, has happened before. In 2024, for example, California Democrats, Evan Lowe, and Joe Sommission, were effectively tied for second place before Lowe advanced as late ballots came in. Lowe and Summishian are both Democrats, but the late-arriving ballots favored the more progressive low. The truly anomalous aspect of the Los Angeles primary is that a Republican-aligned candidate was as relevant as Pratt became, which made the disparity between how and when voters cast their ballots far more noticeable.

Nothing about this is a statistical impossibility. All these ingredients are common in California's elections, even if seeing them at the same time is rare. Republicans didn't seem to think the 2022 House races they won in California were fraudulent, even though those ballots also took forever to count. I've also seen a slew of misleading claims of the second type, misinterpreted or misreported events. The claim that Pratt received zero of 24,000 votes in a batch of ballots went viral online,

and I heard it repeated by many bad faith or ill-informed actors. Sadler repeated it too. In one of the ballot drops late on election night, Mr. Pratt received zero of 24,000 votes, she wrote. Super Grock estimates place those odds at less than one in trillions. Sadler's absorption of an untrue viral claim is shaking hands with her AI-assisted claims of statistical impossibility. There's one big problem, though.

The claim is a willfully ignorant interpretation of an online update from the Associated Press' election tracker. The vote tracker initially showed zero votes for Pratt in an update, but roughly 24,000 votes going to Bass, Raman, and other candidates. Then, one minute later, it updated Pratt's votes from the same batch, and in that update, Bass and Raman received zero votes. The AP later explained that when the entire batch was taken together, it showed 21,870 votes for Pratt, 12,850 for Bass, and 9,521 for Raman.

and so a particularly good update for Pratt, actually. This incongruent data update also wasn't unique. Sometimes the IP election tracker lags as it pulls up numbers for the public. It is not simultaneously revealing every vote in a batch but updating results it gets from actual polling places. Similar discrepancies in reporting, not issues with vote counting, were central to fraud claims in 2020. They were bunk then and they're bunk now.

In this case, Trump's hand-picked U.S. attorney Bill Essily, whom Sadler quotes in her piece as saying California's election system sucks, said himself that claims of Pratt receiving zero votes were bunk. We reviewed every official county records. The claim is false. Each candidate received votes in every update, he said. My office will continue monitoring the election counting process and will follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Sadler somehow managed to quote Essela Lee criticizing California's elections, but neglected to mention him debunking her own claims of fraud. Third, and finally, I've seen an assumed sophistication of the people committing fraud, even though they aren't pursuing the most advantageous outcomes they'd pursue if they were sophisticated. At root, California's establishment Democrats are being accused of defrauding a right-leaning threat to protect their incumbent mayor, yet they are now under a much greater threat from a progressive member of the Democratic Socialists of America. As CNN's, Harry Enten explained, the Democratic establishment wanted Pratt to win. Bass leads him by 18 points in polling, while in some polls she currently trails Raman by as many as four points.

Bassbackers even ran ads boosting Pratt, the kind of election chicanery I hate, but that totally undermines claims she rigged the election to hurt him. Also, is the theory that California Democrats managed to rig the Los Angeles primary but allowed Steve Hilton to advance in the gubernatorial race? Is it that Karen Bass, the same mayor, supposedly too incompetent to manage America's second largest city, is also, competent enough to rig an election involving millions of voters without getting caught, even while the entire process is being live streamed? And of all the races, the National Democratic Machine would theoretically spend its time and money trying to rig, do you really think it'd be the mayoral race in Los Angeles? Trump has a net negative 55 point reining among Angelinas.

The real threat to the Democratic establishment there is from the left, not the right, despite my very badly aged take that Pratt had tapped into something with this election. electorate. The most frustrating thing about all of this is that voter fraud is real and California's elections do need reforms. Just last month, a 64-year-old woman pleaded guilty to paying people, including the homeless and Skid Row, to register to vote. For nearly 20 years, she was paid by coordinators to collect voter signatures on official petitions that qualify initiatives, which she did by paying homeless people into providing those signatures. While this isn't proof that any fraudulent votes were cast in this election, it is an example of what election fraud looks like.

when it actually happens. Additionally, California's elections take so long they seem practically designed to breed mistrust. California is massive, the most populous state by far, which means it has the most votes to count. Los Angeles County alone has more residents than 40 different states. That size is then paired with the expansive ballot access laws. Roughly 23 million ballots were sent out to all registered voters via mail this primary, and most voters use those ballots instead of voting in person. The state also counts ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive up to a week later, and then it ensures voters have the opportunity to cure their ballots. All of this slows the process to a glacial pace. California Democrats now seem to be awakening to the reality that this

isn't sustainable, and they should follow through on increasing election resources to speed things up. That's not about rewarding bad actors baselessly alleging rigged elections. It's about addressing a genuine mistrust that has bubbled over across the state. Of course, while President Trump has the biggest megaphone here spreading claims of fraud, he's now being joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, who called the election Shady and Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said the efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it is impossible to prove, which is convenient. These leaders are casting doubt on California's results without providing an iota of proof or even a central theory as to what's happened. This is new and dangerous territory.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the people claiming Pratt got robbed haven't put forward so much as a hog-washed, theoretical, thinly supported case. They've just said fraud or shady or stinks to high heaven, and then carried on with no regard for the mistrust in our system they're breeding. Everyone who knows better should call these lies out, but debunking these claims is no longer enough. California needs to take more tangible steps to speed up its process. doubt and mistrust. However poisonous or ill-founded aren't going anywhere. And unfortunately,

reality is no longer enough to quell those concerns. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod. I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under-the-radar story for today, folks. On July 1st, the State Department will reportedly begin offering an expedited service for visa interviews at designated U.S. embassies and consulates. Under the pilot program, which will run through the end of 2026, applicants will pay $750 in addition to an initial $185 fee

to schedule an interview appointment for a business or tourist visa within 10 days of payment. The department has not shared the list of embassies and consulates where this service will be available, but says it will do so before the program launches. The initiative is designed to ease delays in visa processing across the world, linked to heightened reviews and stricter scrutiny of applicants, particularly in African countries. The Associated Press has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. And now for the road not taken. Our number two topic choice each day this week was providing an update on the war in Iran.

Each day, some notable event took place that could have been our lead. On Monday, it would have been Israel exchanging strikes with Lebanon. On Tuesday, it would have been Trump pushing for fighting to stop and negotiators to come to the table. On Wednesday, it would have been the downing of a U.S. helicopter near the Strait of Hermuz, and today it would have been the exchange of fire between the U.S. and Iran. Sometimes we are less likely to cover a continually evolving situation as a main topic precisely because it is evolving. We're generally slower to provide major updates on stories, to allow for developments,

and to give our analysis the benefit of some distance from the immediate news hook. Also, the topics we decided to cover this week allowed us to get into the subject matter we hadn't looked at in depth for a while, immigration, artificial intelligence, and the media itself. As we start thinking about next week, Iran is one of the topics at the top of our board. And last but not least, R have a nice day story. Darax and Rassib may be a killer word to pronounce, but as a drug, it has shown striking promise to extend the lives of pancreatic cancer patients in a new late-stage clinical trial. The therapy targets KRAS proteins present in these cancer patients, an objective that has eluded scientists for decades. Following the clinical trial,

led by drugmaker Revolution Medicines, the FDA fast-tracked Diraxin Rassib for review. I'm pretty sure I would not be alive still but for this drug, 67-year-old Rehakaris said. I'm living a pretty good life, and I did not expect that. The New York Times has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, we'd like to support our work. Please go to reetangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both.

Folks, we are just days away now from our live event, which we are hosting in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, on June 13th and 14th, a special VIP dinner on the 13th, and a live taping of our weekly podcast, Suspension of the Rules, on the 14th. There are still some tickets available. You got to head to our website quickly

and pick up those tickets while you can. We would love to see you there. Speaking of which, our latest episode of Suspension of the Rules is now available. You can listen to it on Apple Music, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform, or you can head to our YouTube channel to check out the full episode. This week, the guys reviewed all the things they talked about last week

with updates on the mayoral race in Los Angeles, the screw worm cases in Texas, and the NBA Finals in New York. I don't know if you all checked out last night's game, but it was truly the most incredible NBA Finals game I've ever seen. Probably anybody's ever seen. Plus, Isaac and Camille debated whether AI slop should be banned from political act. You got to check out this week's episode, and you should probably check out last week's episode if you didn't yet,

so you have some context. Head over to our YouTube channel or your favorite podcast platform to listen. We'll be back in your ears next week, folks. Until then, for Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have an absolutely fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace.

Our executive editor and founder is me. Isaac Saul and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari White with Senior Editor Will Kback and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.