Tangle - Suspension of the rules. - Isaac and Ari are joined by Audrey Moorehead to discuss the Michigan Senate primary results, a Trump scandal turned into a fun game and the Rep. Max Miller allegations.

Episode Date: August 6, 2026

Coming up on today's episode of Suspension of the Rules, Isaac and Ari are joined by Tangle editor Audrey Moorehead to discuss the Michigan Senate primary results, a Trump scandal that has been driving Isaac nuts which Ari then turns it into a fun game, and then we talk about the allegations against Representative Max Miller. Last, but not least, our grievances. It's a good one!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! Click HERE to get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle’s podcast membership.Coming soon: our West Virginia event.In June, Tangle hosted a live discussion about the future of artificial intelligence, featuring Executive Editor Isaac Saul, Editor-at-Large Kmele Foster, Longview’s Andy Mills, and The Free Press’s Kat Rosenfield. We’re excited to share the full recording of the event next week; in the meantime, here’s a teaser trailer. You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was hosted by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Jon Lall.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Coming up, we talk about the Michigan Senate primary results. We dive in to a Trump scandal that is driving me crazy and play a little bit of a game. And then we talk about the allegations against Representative Max Miller. We're joined by Audrey Moorhead, our special guest for the week. It's a very good episode. You guys are going to enjoy this one. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. And welcome to the Suspension of the Rules podcast, a place where we try and have some

reasonable political discourse about our differences on the big debates of the day. I'm going to keep iterating on that intro until something really feels right. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, Tangle's executive editor. I'm joined to today by Ari Weissman, our managing editor, and Audrey Moorhead, an editor on our editorial team who's sitting in, thank God for Camille Foster. It's running from the scrutiny as usual. Could not tolerate speaking another word to today.

Camille and I have been texting arguing all morning. So I've had my Camille fixed. He's in the midst of a house renovation and is currently taking some time off work, to handle personal things. And I said, all right, perfect. I can't do this anymore with you, Camille. So we're welcoming Audrey back to the show

who are always glad to have sitting in. How are you guys doing today? How's everybody feeling? I'm pausing for you. I don't want to be rude. I'll jump in. I'll jump in. I'm feeling good. Are you feeling good? I feel like, I feel depressed today. I feel like the news that we have to cover, not the Michigan news,

but we've got to get into this Max Miller stuff a little later. There's nobody with like any character left in the world, it feels like. I'm devastated by that realization, processing it in real time, I would say. Audrey, do you have anything uplifting to offer? You're like the ultimate skeptic, so you probably don't. I hate that I am the ultimate skeptic because a year ago, I don't think I was. I think this is something that I've become over time. What's that thing of like you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain?

I feel like that's happening to me. But that's how you feel about Congress. No, that's how I feel about me becoming cynical about Congress, because I think like a year ago I would have been like, No, yeah. Those are all well-meaning public servants. Isn't there... I don't know. Not necessarily a year ago, but maybe two or three years ago or something.

I felt this way at one point, and I'm finally, like, I would say within the past six months, I have totally jumped off that ship. Like, for a long time, I hung on, but... I apologize for hiring you to this job and make you not your reality. We've done it. We've broken Audrey's optimism. Well, speaking of cynicism about Congress, we've been... probably had our biggest, I would say biggest primary election result of the year so far yesterday

with Abdul al-Aid's victory in Michigan, meaning that he is going to end up as the Democratic candidate for the Michigan Senate seat running against Mike Rogers. Tons of stuff to unpack here. I mean, we covered a bit of it in today's daily newsletter and podcast. and, you know, I think there's a lot of themes that we could go after. The obvious one and the one that everybody's talking about is the fact that Elsaid is kind of akin to the sort of rising DSA progressive movement that is, I mean, really truly genuinely, in my view, leveling a successful insurgency against the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment.

We'll talk a little bit about, you know, Russell's dissent on. that point. That's just convincing dissent, but yes, go on. A convincing dissent. I think there's maybe a lot of media attention about a small number of figures winning these races, but this does feel really meaningful. And I think given the importance of the Michigan Senate seat, it feels different than, on the national level, it feels different than, say, the Zohamandani winning in New York City.

And, you know, I guess maybe. to start. I'd be curious just after working on today's podcast and newsletter this morning, having some time to kind of process this news. What you guys are feeling about

the implications of this victory, how you're feeling about Alsat's I mean, prospects heading into the general election, what he represents in terms of the movement for the progressive left to gain more power in the high seats of

Congress, like the Senate. I mean, to me, it feels still like a very big deal, but I'm curious where you guys are kind of holding right now. Maybe Ari, we could start with you. It's interesting. I think we're sitting potentially on the border of a tectonic plate, potentially, which if you asked me yesterday how I thought about this race, primary race in Michigan for the Senate seat, I would have said something a little different. I think I was not super convinced that there's a lot here. Russell, another editor and our team wrote a dissent saying that there's only five candidates who have been officially endorsed by the national chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America who have won their primaries, and we're really focusing a lot on

them, but they're a small proportion of the total field. And I'd also say that I think that this segment of the electorate in Michigan has proven that they're more willing than most segments of the electorate to try to leverage their positions in ways that may not necessarily be towards their benefit, as we saw two years ago with the uncommitted movement during the primary that was pushing back against Joe Biden that kind of contributed to momentum against the Democratic candidate for president saying, or actually the incumbent for president, sort of the incumbent's vice president for president saying that they didn't think that that administration had done enough for Israel. So that paved the way for an administration that it's very hard to argue was a step up for Palestine.

Excuse me, not Israel, but for Palestine. And I was sort of seeing that. I was seeing things in that light of how things are. I think as political analysts, it's kind of our job to sit on these boundaries of what is and what is going to happen. And I think, Isaac, what you're doing is you're kind of looking out and saying, this could be something big coming. Like, we're on the border of this plate, and I think there's about to be an earthquake. and even taking in Russell's dissent, even thinking about how solid the ground feels,

it is kind of given 2016 vibes a little bit. It's making me reflect on the electability issue, the idea that Democrats want to elect the candidate they think has the better chance to win. They're thinking back to 2016. They're thinking back to win. They could have sent Bernie Sanders through a primary and probably beaten Donald Trump in 2016.

Instead sent Hillary Clinton to a historic loss. Meanwhile, Republicans sent the candidate that they were enthusiastic about. An enthusiasm drives the electorate and it drives candidates to victory, not playing it safe and trying to aim for the middle of the road. In that regard, I think that El-Said, I believe, is going to win in November. And I believe it's going to energize the Democratic primary voters to a point where they're going to be considering candidates who probably we would have not been considering later.

I think we could be sitting here in a year drawing a direct line from this to a successful ground 12 support for a candidate AOC. And that's not something that I was thinking two days ago. But reading more about this race, listening to your arguments, Isaac, I think that might be where we're headed. Audrey? I don't know. I found myself sort of wavering, I think, between your perspective and Russell's perspective from his. dissent. Because I think, like, I definitely see the rise of, if not DSA directly, because El Sallad is not

a DSA candidate. But similar kind of progressive populist, just like very left-wing Democrats, I definitely see that as this is a trend. This is something that is happening. It's going to cause pretty seismic shifts. I've gone, like, I sometimes wonder, you know, is this? sort of the lead-up to a 2016 moment. Is the Democrats' 2028 candidate going to be their Trump equivalent?

Is this going to clear out the Democratic establishment, you know, and usher in a new populist Democratic Party that can more effectively combat the populist Republican Party that we currently have, but whose policies maybe are not going to alleviate the issues that the populist Republican Party has not alleviated regarding cost of living crises and so on. So there's part of me that I definitely see El Sallad's victory as another step toward that

future, that this is just where we're going. We are just kind of becoming a more populist nation, at least in the moment, which is also happening worldwide, right? Like populist movements are ascendant everywhere. We're just in a moment globally, which is interesting to me to think about. But on the other hand, I think Russell had a very good point that we see all these races and they're getting all sorts of media attention. But in the end, like, it's only five DSA candidates who won their house primaries. It's only 12 Sanders-backed candidates who won their house primaries, or 13, if you count the California jungle primary advancement.

So I think, like, I am definitely a person who likes to read big trends out of little things. So I feel like, you know, part of me thinks, is that what I'm doing here? And do I actually need to take a step back and be more reasonable and say, actually, this change is going to happen slowly? Elsaid's interesting to me because he isn't a member of the DSA. He isn't endorsed by them formally, as Russell pointed out in his dissent. and yet he's being very much lumped in with them as part of their group because the socialist tag, I think, is... Medicare for all, I think, just the shoe doesn't fit quite right,

but it can fit. I'm not saying that his policies aren't aligned with a lot of people in the DSA. I'm just saying it's notable to me that he is not a member of DSA. He's not a DSA endorsed candidate, yet he's being lumped into this group. and when I watched the debate between El Ced and Stevens a week ago, eight days ago, I have to say I was pretty struck by what a tactful, talented politician he was. I did not find his views or his policy positions offensive or worrisome.

He did not present them to me in a way that I found alarm. Even though I disagree with some of them, and like I wrote about this morning on the podcast, there are things about them that are slippery, you know? Like he frames support for Israel as this thing that is an impediment to us funding education and health care when we give Israel $5 billion a year and we have a $2 trillion health care budget.

It's dishonest. There are things about it that are disarmes. in a way that is obvious to me. But there are other candidates that I can think of that come to mind who have been on the progressive left, who are sort of in the kind of DSA endorsement sphere, who are intentionally flamethrowery, provocative, who present their views in the most kind of TikTok clippable, blumbastic ways. And this guy is not that.

I thought he was really compelling. I thought he had fresh answers to some of the questions and pushback that he got. And, you know, I don't say all this to endorse him or his positions. We don't endorse any politicians on the show. But just to say, he struck me as a very talented politician. And as far as politicians on the left go, I got way more kind of Zohramamam vibes from him, then I did maybe like a Jasmine Crockett or something, or somebody who has unsuccessfully run in a Senate Democratic primary and unsuccessfully running a primary like that while being

more of a sort of flamethrower and I think more combative. He feels almost warm and welcoming in the way Mamdani does, which I know, Audrey, you've talked about how like, the politicians you say these things with a smile on their face always put up red flags for you. Like you, it feels like this mask that you're worried about and you want to pull back. But, you know, I just have to say, and I know some of our conservative audience members will probably be annoyed with me for this. I think the guy's a really good politician. I think he's going to be really dangerous in November. and he has a great classic political story, you know,

son of immigrants, doctor, highly educated, but attached to the working class, you know, through his upbringing. Yeah, I mean, he's got a good thing going, and it's not surprising to me that he won, and I know the polling for him doesn't look great against Mike Rogers in Michigan, but I think Democrats have a genuine rising political star on their hands. I mean, I think he is actually that good at playing the game and being a politician.

The thing that stuck out to me was when he called out the APAC ad that was going to come during the commercial break of their debate, which it was just like one of those kind of third wall breaking things similar to what we've seen people like Trump do, Mom Dani does, where he's just pulling the curtain back a bit in a way that 10 or 15 years ago was unimaginable for politicians to do, but makes you feel this kind of connection to him that I think is really effective. So yeah, I guess, like, my next question is,

on that note, how do we, I mean, Ari, you just said you think he's going to win in November, which you kind of slid in there, and I think is a pretty big, big thing to say. I'm, I will say, I'm also feeling bullish. Like, I'm buying stock right now. But, yeah, I'm, yeah, I'm, curious how you guys think about the prospect of him articulating these more progressive lefty views that I think are, you know, not far off from the Vance or Trump or Maga world,

the anti-corporate isolationist, anti-Israel, kind of conglomeration of views, anti-establishment. I mean, I think there's a lot of tie in there to Trumpism. I guess I'm wondering how you guys think that's going to play. in a state like Michigan and a general election when there's many, many more moderate and Republican voters are casting ballots. I mean, I think I can say my position very simply, which is forget if they're coming from the right or left,

forget about the political compass stuff for a second, and just boil it down to which candidate can more convincingly say that they're the person on the side of the people against them. And if you're able to do that, you are probably in the poll position to win an election in November. I think you could say that applies to Mdani. You could say it applies to Trump. You could say it applies to Obama,

not only when he was running for president, but running for senator in Illinois. But if you were able to do that and say, I'm on your side against them, then you're in a good spot. And the way you do that right now is by positioning yourself against two things, A-PAC and data centers.

If you're able to say data centers are trying to come to your yard and they're trying to take away your air and your water and they're going to poison the skies and drive climate change and force you to take AI bots and export your critical thinking to them, there's a little bit of exaggeration going on there, but it's tapping into a real animus, and you have one person in this primary who is opposing them very strongly and another who was more open to them like Stevens was.

And then APAC, again, I agree with what you're saying very much that this is something that is taking a lot of oxygen from our discussions about what we spend money on in politics. It's not even something generally, APAC, is not something that we spend tax dollars on. Israel and the weapons we send to Israel are things that cost taxpayer money, but it's not like those are the things that are keeping our budget from being balanced. It's such a small proportion of the pie, yet it's driving so much attention to the point that I don't think it's leaving voters to a point that they're going to make rational decisions, but it is indicative of where you are in this general grand theatrical position.

For better or worse, whether or not you like it, whether or not you agree with it, I think if you boil it down to that, that kind of calculus should be simple enough to actually work, and that's kind of why I think is going to win. That's a theory. Could be wrong, but it's going to be tested very soon. Audrey, how do you view the prospects for El-Said in Michigan and November? I take a different, I am like honestly very 50-50 on it. Because on the one hand, like to me, the strongest argument is just going to be the headwinds against the Trump administration. The midterm backlash that typically comes that I think will come this time.

But I think there are actually, like, there are pretty severe roadblocks to me to an El-Sayed victory. which is, and I'm just thinking about it in terms of, I think Ari's sort of right that he has so far been tapping into the sentiment of like, it's you and me against them and them are like the big guns, the big guys, the establishment, whatever. But that only works if you hear about him and if you, like, are tuned in. And what I'm curious about is what low information voters are going to do or rural voters are going to do or working class voters are going to do.

who often don't have the time or the inclination to spend a ton of time like consuming campaign content before the election day comes. Right? Like looking at the polling data that we have for the primary race, Stevens overperformed with rural voters

and with working class voters, with the voters who are more likely to be the swing votes in an election like this. And if that's the case, I'm just thinking El Sallad is going to have to win those people over, and I'm not 100% confident that he can when he's going up against Mike Rogers, especially with what early polling looks like.

There's also an argument that I think... You're going to touch the third rail? I was about to. I'm going to touch the third rail, and I feel like it feels almost stereotypical for me to touch the third rail, but I'll touch it. I do kind of think that there is a worry just about the naming.

And I think, like, everyone knows that. Because, I mean, the NRSC today, before today, they had been calling him Abdul El-Sayyed in all of their releases. Today they used his full name, which I'm not going to try to pronounce on the fly, where it's like Abdul Rahman Muhammad El-Sayyad. They used his full name. His full name is what is going to appear on the ballot. I think there is a sense that many voters are going to be distrustful of his full name,

like just looking at it on a ballot next to Mike Rogers, Michael Rogers. Undeniable. And we've got data for that too. Like the Trump endorsed candidate in the Republican primary was named Mir Hassan and he lost to somebody who dropped out who was named Thomas Smith. This is a really, I mean, that is an insane. It's insane. I can't believe it's not getting more coverage this story than this Republican primary

where there was, yeah, literally a Trump endorsed candidate with a Muslim-sounding name who lost to a candidate who had just straight up dropped out of the race. dropped out. Just no other Republican who had dropped out. Yeah, and it wasn't close. It was not close. Right. Yeah, no, Audrey, I mean, I think you're right.

And I think that is, you know, it doesn't reflect well on the country that that's a factor in my view. Just some like latent Islamophobia. But it's a reality of American politics today. It's definitely a reality for, you know, more of a reality, I think, for any independent or like, you know, center-right Republicans who might be low-information voters who just see Democrat, D, Muslim name, Republican, Mike Rogers, you go to the ballot with, like, limited information about those two people. I'm sure that we're going to see a break against him

among those sort of less engaged, low-information voters. I don't know how many of those people are turning up for a Senate race in a midterm election, to be honest. But I know it's going to be an uphill battle. You mentioned that the NRC changing the way they're, you know, saying his name before and after he won. Barack has talked about it. Yeah. Yeah. LSA has talked about it on the campaign trail saying, you know, my full name is, and he says it again,

it is a very long Arabic name that I have not put to memory. But he's saying like, if you're going to say it, if you're going to use it, you know, learn to pronounce it, say it, et cetera. There's some like funny videos of him sort of playing on the trope. So, I mean, the campaign's aware of it for sure. Yeah.

I mean, I guess I don't know for sure how big of a chunk of voters that is, but I suppose it's not meaningless. I think it's not meaningless, and I think given that, like, it's the exact demographic that we saw kind of reject Al-Sayed in the primary, or reject them more than they were expected to, which is just sort of why my alarms are raised. And then I think it's like, it's also, if you look at, I've got the New York Times voting data up. And if you look at it, like Stevens had 47.5% of the vote, and Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out, had 4%. if they had not split that vote in that way, like that's more, that's 51%, right? El Cayed only got 48.49.

So I am kind of thinking, too, which I don't know how McMorrow's voters broke, like if the voters who didn't choose her, who didn't dead end with her, voted for Abdul over Stevens, or what those demographics looked like. But it still just paints a picture to me of like, this is going to be a much more difficult race than I think the hype would lead one to believe.

The one thing I'll throw out there that I think is good for him that he has going for him is we had an incredibly conciliatory call. I mean, this race was about a percentage point separating the two of them. Stevens conceded very warmly, very graciously, immediately through her support behind him. He posted a very nice, friendly tweet back at her thanking her. The campaigns are kind of patting each. other on the back. I saw a couple of the campaign managers tweeting at each other, like, you know, I kind of being very collegial about how it was a tough primary, but they're in it to win it now. I mean, you know, on the day of the race being called by a single percentage

point, there was no hesitation. I feel like they have their eyes focused on the prize, which is the Michigan Senate seat. I did want to just make a quick note, because I was a we talked about this a little bit in pre-production, that it felt like there was very little talk leading up to this race about the differences on the actual policies between Stevens and El-Said, which were, you know, not marginal. Most of it just focused on the talk around Israel, but some of the stuff that we came up with just from analyzing their policy platforms,

Elsaid was supportive of abolishing ice. She called for reforming ice. Elsaid was supportive of Medicare for All. She called for expanding ACA. Stevens talked about a growing economy, lowering the middle class tax rate, securing social security. Elsaid wanted to address monopolies and oligopolis, as he put it.

He wanted to go after corporations. He wanted to protect unions, tax billionaires. Elsaid wants Congress to regulate. AI like a public utility. Stevens wanted worker training to adapt to the new AI world. Stevens notably, Ari, supported data centers in Michigan when Elsaid did not. These were like really meaningful policy differences in these kind of like, you know, narrow issues that I think, you know, he clearly took a more populist, more left bent.

And that worked. And I think it's just meaningful to say, that worked. That is what the Michigan populace wanted in this race. The Michigan Democratic voters wanted it in this race. And it's a good temp check

on the mood of the country. One last thing, before we move on from this topic, I just want to get both your opinions. So I alluded to the top of the show jokingly to Camille and I arguing all morning via text and, you know, me saying I was,

I was bummed that he wasn't going to come on the show so we could have it out with each other today on air because it would have been good. But we were sending like 2,000-word text messages to each other. And the heart of the argument was that Camille was basically articulating the view that El Cahed has basically powed around with Hassan Piker. He's on the campaign trail with him.

He viewed that as sort of disqualifying given the views that Hassan Piker as a spouse. Most recently, you know, basically saying, he'd never say a bad thing about Mao who's responsible for killing 70 million Chinese. I mean, Hassan Piker, to me, is a very, very toxic figure on the left. And I think we might be due for a piece on exploring that position

because I don't think some of our, you know, lefty liberal viewers or listeners share that view. I've sort of offhandedly made comments about it and I've seen some stuff like in the comments section and I've gotten a couple emails from people saying, I won't think Hassan Biker is actually that bad of a guy. I'd love to hear you sort of flesh that perspective out.

And when I was saying to Camille was like, I agree. I don't love Hassan Biker. I don't like what he's doing in this course. He said a lot of really gross stuff. He's done some really gross things. But if we're going to say that it is disqualifying a campaign with this person, it is disqualifying a campaign with a person who's done and said ugly things, we're wiping out like 70% of Congress.

go back to what Audrey said at the start of the show. There's no character left. Who are we going to campaign with anymore? You're, yeah, it is, I think it is sort of an unreasonable expectation in this era. And he said, I mean, El Cyan has said, I disagree with Hassan Piker on a lot of things, but he has a massive audience that I want to speak to. I mean, he, in a New Yorker interview, he just, he wasn't, like, shy about what he's doing. He said, yeah, we disagree on a ton of stuff.

stuff. I went on Fox News after I sat down for his podcast. I see them say and do reprehensible things on that network every night, but I want to go talk to them. Yeah, I thought it was a good answer. Camille, not convinced about it. So we had a big back and forth. And then we basically got bogged down in this big comparison of left-wing figures versus right-wing figures in like the podcast ecosphere. Meanwhile, we're just waiting for the take to be edited. Yeah, yeah, Laura Lumer, Hassan Piker, and comparing all these people. and Nick Flentes and Asan Piker, who's more important, who has more purchase

and who's making a more meaningful difference in the discourse. So I guess all of this is a big, long-winded lead up to a question that I have for you guys, which is how you think about that proposition that the guilty by association argument could be disqualifying for these new candidates on the scene And how do you think about that when you're analyzing someone like El Ced who is really new to the political world and kind of just getting his wings as a mainstream figure? Do we say, nope, you're going to be buds with Hassan Piker, go on his show, bring him to campaign events.

We're excommunicating you. Or do we say we understand that this is part of politics now? There are bad people that have big platforms and politicians are going to curry their favor. I mean, I have a lot of thoughts on Hassan Piker personally. But I think to answer the question more directly, instead of just talking about Hassan, I think there's a line to walk for sure in the sense that Hassan has a massive audience. I would say, like, in my head at least, he's comparable to somebody like Tucker Carlson in terms of the influence that he has. Maybe Nick Fuentes is a better comparison, because I think Hassans are.

audience is largely really young. Like, I think polling has shown that you ask older voters who he is. They just don't know. But, like, Gen Z millennials are pretty tapped in. They know who Hassan is. Many of them will follow him, watch his Twitch streams, whatever. And I think there's a line you have to walk when you have these figures that are so prominent and have such a massive audience, right?

Because you don't want to, if these people get totally iced out, by the candidates that are up for election, they're going to seek other means of exercising political power, right? Or they might. And I think you also, you do just want to speak to them because they're clearly tap, even if they're bad actors, they're clearly tapping into real sentiment that people have,

and we should want to figure out, like, what of that sentiment is worthwhile, and can we funnel towards positive change? So to that end, like, to me, him sitting down on Hassan's podcast is fine and even good, the same way a right-wing candidate sitting down on Tucker Carlson's podcast or Nick Fuentes.

I think Fuentes is technically still a little more persona non-Grada on the right than Carlson is. But somebody sitting down on Carlson's podcast would also be probably good. But I think when it gets to the point where it's like you're palling around or it's clearly like a softball situation, you seem really buddy-buddy.

Like it's not just, I'm sitting down for this interesting, with a hostile interviewer, it's like we're acting like friends. That's where I kind of draw the line. And I feel like at least some of El Sayed's behavior crossed that line with Asan. Like, I think there was, like, there's much more of like them campaigning together versus just I'm appearing on your show to talk to your, to talk to your audience, right? That's what, that's what I don't like. And I think it should be disqualifying.

And I'm aware, I mean, I think a lot of behaviors should be disqualifying with. when it comes from public office, I think probably zero people currently in Congress would meet my standards. But I just still think that it's really bad to pal around with these people. You know, I have a very similar answer, which is like I have a, I'm really having a hard time imagining a podcast hosted by a person with a huge following that I would say it is disqualifying that you appear on that podcast. But I could very easily say, I do not like the things that you said on that podcast. I don't like the answers that you gave

or the way you comport it yourself. So in that regard, I think that's kind of what you're saying too, Audrey. It's like it's not the fact that he appeared on Hassan's podcast. It's the fact that he sort of didn't oppose him dispositionally. That feels like... Well, hold on, because I hear something different. I hear going on a podcast is one thing.

Trotting Assan play grad at a campaign event is a different thing. And that is what LSEA did. he can't he hit the campaign trail at least briefly with Asaam Piker. So I think that's, there's something there's a different thing. Yeah. I mean, do you, maybe just to clarify, Audrey, is that like, is there a difference between, in your mind, like, campaigning with somebody versus how you can port yourself on an interview with them? Or is that, like, side to the same coin? I definitely, to be fair, I think I said both. So to clarify my position, I would say, like, appearing on the campaign trail is probably where I say that crosses the line kind of permanently.

The way you comport yourself in an interview with someone is, like, I'm definitely going to be more suspicious of you, but I'm also aware of, like, an interview is kind of a much higher pressure situation or generally, like, you're focused, like, the interviewer is interviewing you, right? if you're a political candidate appearing on somebody's podcast. So it's much more about you. And if he's asking you softball questions, that's not necessarily something you can control. So it would raise my red flags, but I'd be more willing to forgive if El Sayed then said, you know, I disagree with a lot of his things,

but I still appeared on his podcast. But it's not just like he didn't stop at that. He went on, he had him on the campaign trail as well. Yeah, I think that's all fair. And actually pretty aligned with, Camille's position to, interestingly. So maybe if you listen to the show, he'll be happy to hear that. This is good.

We don't want to be too buddy-buddy-buddy here. So it's good that we are in the spirit of Camille celebrating something that he would say. As much as it pains me to say it. Speaking of Camille not being here and some terrible Camille takes, because it's so fun to talk about him while you can't respond. Just quickly before you wrap this segment, I should clarify last week when we were on the show, Camille and I were talking about the Zoroamam Dani grocery store plan

and the layout for the plan. And I think at some point in the show, Camille said something to the effect of this was the first time, you know, we had ever had government run grocery stores or something like that in the United States. A Redditor actually called us out on this, and I didn't catch it in real time. I sort of just glossed over it in my brain,

but that there have actually been quite a few grocery stores, at least, you know, subsidies that have funded grocery stores in the United States before. The model isn't entirely novel. It isn't entirely new. I think the promotion around it and the context of it are all fairly new things and happening New York City, obviously, where all eyes are going to be on it in the 21st century

is a little bit of a different thing. But, you know, this is an interesting counter argument to just the kind of novelty attack that we've seen on Mamdani's plan, the fact that this is sort of an expanded version of LaGuardia's markets, which I thought was a really interesting point. You know, like if you're going to make claims about the government's history running grocery stores, even though this thing is different, it bears some sort of contrast or comparison.

Camille, unfortunately, not here today to defend himself or speak to that point, but while we are trashing him publicly behind his back, I figured we would just bring it up that he got that wrong. And I should have said, I should have caught it in real time too. And same with you, Ari. So, Audrey, you're innocent. You're the innocent bystander. I would have gotten it right.

Would you have caught it, Audrey? What? For sure. All right. That is it for the Senate, Michigan update. When we come back, a Trump corruption story that I just honestly can't get over. We have to discuss a bit. but we're going to take a quick break.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, welcome back to this Spension of the Rules podcast. I've been losing my mind about the Trump Truth Social Wall Street feed story. Because you're just a guy with an axe to grind, of course. I think it is literally, it might, I mean, I tweeted this, and then you guys pushed back on me, and it's created this whole segment they're going to have.

but I think it literally might be one of the most, it might be the most corrupt thing I've ever seen a president do openly. I can't hedge it now. I just have to say it because I think I can defend it. The president is selling access to a social media platform that he created where he shares market-moving posts on a regular basis,

and he's selling access to a machine-readable feed of his social media platform, So traders on Wall Street who are using algorithms to process breaking news can make trades in nanoseconds faster than human traders you, the general public, could react to breaking news. So, for example, if Trump were to announce, you know, the Iran war, we have a new ceasefire and everybody realizes, oh, the price of oil is about to come down, we can trade against that. there will be traders who have access, they're paying $60, $70,000, $90, $100,000 for to a machine-readable feed that will be giving their trading algorithms

instant nanosecond faster access to this news and then trading on it and making a bunch of money. I think this is, I think our brains are broken because this is so crazily corrupt. If the president

were to text a friend before he announced some market-moving news related to the Iran war and give this information away for free and then post the Truth Social post, he could go to jail for insider trading. I mean, it would be textbook trademarked insider trading. But instead, he's allowing people to pay him to get access to that privilege information not minutes before, admittedly, nanoseconds before, but access nonetheless, fast enough nonetheless, that they will have an advantage trading in the market.

This sort of thing exists in the stock market. I'm not going to pretend this is like a brand new thing. There are, you know, we have like the Bloomberg terminal and there are ways for traders to get access to these sorts of feeds that give them advantages over your typical kind of record. by being literally closer to the New York Stock Exchange. Why that real estate's valuable. Totally.

I totally understand that reality. But this is like, I mean, this is crazy. I wrote this piece about all the Trump self-dealing and grifting and corruption two or three months ago. And there's like three more pages of notes of things that have happened since that piece was published. And I just, I'm like, are, we awake? Does anybody care? How is this not? I don't know. This is the sort of thing that compels

moderate calm me to the streets. This guy is just selling access to his true social feed, which by the way, like he can also and is openly trading on. I mean, he is making moves, investing in stocks, selling stocks more than any president we've ever had. And then just so happened, to say all these things in press conferences or make all these comments that are very, very good for the value of the trades that he's made. And now he's just selling access

to that self-dealing for other people who have six-figure budget to spend on this. And the rest of us, people like me, who are invested in the stock market, just get fleeced by the, you know,

algorithmic Wall Street traders. It's really genuinely wild to me. And I know we're all desensitized the craziness of the news and how much is happening. But it's kind of crazy to me that this isn't even like a week-long controversy story. I mean, this should be the only thing on the networks, the front page of every newspaper, but instead it was like a blip on Twitter for six hours. I got to jump in because you're about to pull your hair out.

I can tell like another hour to say about this. I know. The person that I think you really have to feel bad for in this situation is, like, the person who's losing the most is unnamed Trump administration official, who previously was the only one who got the privileged information. And now they're not special anymore because it's being... I was trading it on the only market. Exactly. But now it's just a commodity. It's being commodified. I think you, the first thing you said is, are our brains broken? Yes. Yeah, they are. Yep, they're broken. I think we've gotten so desensitized to the point where the thing that I want to argue with you about is like,

you know, I don't think it's the most corrupt thing a president's done. I don't know if I would go that far. Is it corrupt? Sure. But is it really bad, of course. Is it something I tolerate? Not at all. The most, I don't know. Let's think about it. And that's where I want to maybe a thing that could help here is argument at its ad absurdum. And we can just play a game where I can tell you sort of quasi-anomized scandals as much as I can, taking away, identifying information from across presidential administrations and history. And you tell me if you think it is better or worse than this truth social thing, or if you think like it's 0.5 truth socials or it's like three truth socials or whatever. Like maybe we can top it is the thing that I'm wondering. All right, let's do it. I'm going to give you a free square here. Just to get us started, this one should be kind of, I expect you to get this.

An administration was accused of orchestrating a break-in. and wiretapping its political opposition's headquarters and using the power of the executive to cover up its involvement, forcing the resignation of the sitting head of state. Have you heard of that scandal? Yeah, we've heard of it. You may have heard of it. Of Watergate.

I honestly think I am more offended by the truth social trading access to... I think they're both really, really bad. None of these things are good. No. But I would say like 0.9 or I don't know, like, is one a full truth social? I'd say like a 0.9 truth social, maybe a 0.95 truth social scandal to me. Honestly. I know that probably sounds hyperbolic, but I think this offends me more than Watergate, actually.

Wow. I'm actually not sure how I feel. Because I think to me, the thing that makes Watergate so bad is that it was like so unheard of. I don't think that's true anymore. The novelty's worn off. The novelty's worn off. So to me, like, I want to say Watergate was worse just because of that. Like, no president had ever done that.

That, like, destroyed Nixon's reputation forever until literally this moment when the novelty has now worn off and people don't care anymore. Yeah, but that's also like another way for me to think about it, which is like if I found out that Trump was wiretapping some political opponent and sent like a Secret Service age, I'm trying to think of like what the modern Trump version of this would be. But like, we would all be like, oh, yeah, they play tough politics. I don't know. I still think I would say wiretapping is worse, I think. Like, I don't know why it just feels worse. Vibes-wise, it just feels worse to me. I think because it feels like unfair competition in a way that, like,

I feel pretty removed from the markets. Like, it's not an environment I understand that well. And so, but I do understand wiretapping to listen in on your political opponents. To me, that feels worse. Yeah. Okay. Well, let me go to something a little bit different then. And maybe a little more similar to the truth social scandal, if we can call it that.

A close political ally, an unofficial fixer for a legislative leader, was investigated for using his position to secure loans and favors for friends, embarrassing an administration that had campaigned on personal integrity. I don't know whether the game is supposed to be us. first guessing the scandal of the administration, but I feel like that's happened more than once, so I'm not sure what the scandal or which administration it is. Yeah. But I would say that is definitely in my mind less bad than what the president is doing with

truth social. Like getting favorable loans for a friend versus saying, give me $100,000 and I'll give you access to market moving information before everybody else public. And I promise to like make this valuable for you. And also when you give me the money, I'm going to make money on the private business I own that you're dumping money into. Well, when you say it like that. Yeah. I mean, Audrey, what do you think?

And any guesses on the administration for this? Because I've kind of pulled an obscure one here. Yeah. I'm with Isaac. I feel like this is happening. The fact that it was a legislative official kind of third. me off because I'm like, well, okay, wait, wait, wait. You said a legislative official, but then you said it embarrassed the presidential administration.

So to me, that doesn't make a ton of sense. It was an ally of the president who was caught. Oh, oh, okay, yes. In any case, I kind of agree. Like, I'm trying to think of whether that's teapot dome, but I think Teapot Dome was like members of a cabinet. Yeah. Tebow Dome is, yeah, is leasing oil lands, which I'm sure Ari is going to get to, and I can't wait to talk about. Yeah.

That was going to be next up. It's a spoiler. But this was the LBJ administration. It's something that I think was driving a lot of headlines at the time, but now sort of, yeah, no one's heard of it, which I think is somewhat interesting. Like this is a scandal at the time that was big enough that I don't even think this would register today.

LBJ, low-key, maybe not even low-key. I mean, if you have like any American History 101, definitely did some really wild stuff, like stuff that holds up as being crazy in 2026, even in our desensitized environment today. But that's a good one. I didn't recollect it immediately. It was definitely really involved with the legislature. But we can move on. You already kind of are ahead of me on this one, but I'm just going to push through anyway and keep this. the anonymized description, an administration official

responsible for a federal petroleum reserve secretly leased them to private oil businessmen in exchange for personal loans and gifts becoming the first cabinet member of the nation's history and prison for crimes committed in office. Yeah, I mean,

this is sort of the Trump card, I guess, no pun intended, because it's so one-to-one and it's kind of tangible and viscerally corrupt. And I guess what bothers me is, like, the T-Py Dome scandal is like household infamy, you know? It stuck and people were tried and went to prison, I think, and there were repercussions politically.

And it was like the scandal of the decade of the century, maybe. So, yeah, I mean, this is. sort of the real estate oil version. I mean, if you, the reason I want to talk about it was because if you consider the subscription purchases to this private business that Trump owns as the loan and the information that Trump is giving away in exchange for that as the oil, it's kind of one-to-one. So, and I don't think that analogy is that. far off.

Like, the truth social, just like, truth social social is not a successful social media company. It's not like they're investing in,

you know, Apple. This isn't, this doesn't have legs. This isn't like people giving Trump money because they believe in the business model

of truth social. To put another way, the whole value prop of truth social is the things the president says on it. Yeah. It is him posting

market moving information. Right. And he created that value prop and now he's profiting from it. that's it. That's the whole story. So, yeah, a one, a full truth social,

I would call the T-5 Thome scandal. But here we are. Anything, Audrey, I want to make sure that we get, do you, I want to hear your, put this on the truth social scale before I give you the last one here. I know, and I'm just, the more I'm sitting with the truth social scandal,

it's just, it feels so much less tangible to me then giving away land. Like, to me, land is a physical commodity. This is why I didn't study economics and don't work in economics, right? But I'm convinced by Isaac's argument that this is pretty one-to-one. So I'll go with a full. I'll say teapot dome is a full truth social. All right.

That's validating for me. I want to end on something that is a very different kind of scandal. It's not as monetary. And it's a little bit of a curveball here. So a president, accused, sorry, a president's administration was accused even by its own allies in the press and in the business world of manufacturing a pretext for war, even though the true cause for that war was never conclusively established. I mean, Bush and Dukes and Rao. Zachary Taylor,

Zachary Taylor and the Mexican-American War? The McKinley administration. And the Spanish-American. American War. Wow, it's kind of crazy how many times that's happened, huh? It is kind of crazy. It's not great. Yeah. That's good. That's good.

Good did it happen? Again, none of these are good. Did Trump literally just do that in Iran? I don't think so, because no, no, because he never gave us a pretext. He did. Iran was going to get to. nuclear weapon. McKinley got congressional approval on his pretext.

That's true. Trump didn't do that. And Trump also set, now he's saying he did the thing that the pretext of the war justified, but now there's more to do. I don't know. I think like the pretext for war was never explicitly communicated enough for it to feel like a false pretext. Okay.

Is that better or worse? I'm having trouble following. I don't think it's, I think we're on a different scale now. It's just something else. out there. Now we're just on Twitter. You just listed another, your example is just one other thing Trump did this year, basically. I don't think there's a way.

I'm not coming out and saying, Isaac, I think this administration that we're currently living through is not free of scandal. That's not what I'm not trying to make that argument. I know you're not. I'm just trying to put some context around it. And for sure, it's not great that we also

have this thing that could apply to the current president. But even in that, I mean, in that sense, like how do you, we'll put it to you like that. How would you compare the Iran war and the pretext for Iran war, the Iran war, the Iran war versus the truth social scandal? In terms of things that, in terms of like, corruptibility.

My sensibilities, I guess, which is a weird subjective scale, admittedly, the Iran war is worse. I mean, people are dying. We destabilize an entire region. American soldiers are dying, Iranians are dying, and there doesn't seem to be a plan, and I think it's made Americans, Jews, Israelis, all less safe, and self-evidently life for Arabs in the Middle East

is less safe now because of the war, and I think all those things are bad. I suppose I'm more desensitized to that because we've just in this century kind of weighted into other, non-fruitful wars in the Middle East that had shoddy pretext. So, yeah, maybe it's the novelty of the truth social stuff that makes me want to rip my hair out.

But definitely different orders of what I would call, you know, I wouldn't call the Iran War a political scandal. Maybe I should. Maybe it's a bad frame that I don't, but I wouldn't. Well, it's interesting because there's no self-enrichment angle there. Well, there might be, but not for the thing. that we're talking about right now. Yeah, it's not a grift so much.

We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, Ari, thanks for putting this together. You've, I think, made me feel more strongly about my position, which I appreciate it at the end of an exercise. Never my goal, but always happy to hear it. Yeah, all right. Well, we've got one last story that we have to get to, that our audience has been pining for,

and, you know, not because a story like this is something anybody wants to spend time talking or thinking about, but because I think it is a really important story in this political climate, which is the allegations against Max Miller. So by the time you guys hear this, we'll have a full edition out in tomorrow's podcast and newsletter, which will come out before the suspension of the rules episode. So there's going to be a lot of really meaty coverage of this from us. but I figured we'd spend a few minutes here on suspension of the rules before we get out of here talking about it. I think I'm just going to do two things quickly. One is just list the allegations that exist against Representative Max Miller

and then talk a little bit about what he said and how he's contextualized them or responded to those allegations. And then maybe give us each a few minutes to just share some thoughts about, how we're thinking about this scandal and this current political climate. Because we just came off this grand platinum stuff, which I don't want to frame any of these as sort of like equal to, better, worse, whatever, but certainly feels like a similar drama. I mean, domestic violence allegations related to relationships between a male aspiring or existing member of Congress

and the women that he's been in relationships with. And in the case of Max Miller, other things as well. So here are the allegations as we have them publicly. I'm going to read down from this list quickly as I can. Max Miller threw hot water at his ex-wife, the daughter of Senator Bernie Moreno, shoved her, held a gun to her head, allegations she raised to detectives investigating an injury

to their two-year-old daughter. That two-year-old daughter had a broken collar, bone with bruising a child protection specialist likened to a handprint. The injury was investigated as possible child abuse, but the county's finding was ultimately unsubstantiated. Miller was physically and emotionally abusive to Moreno throughout the marriage, an allegation Miller objected to and denied in a court filing. Miller allegedly left her within 72 hours of their daughter's birth.

Miller made a demeaning remark, equating their daughter's birth, to, to, quote, setting your playground on fire, referring to his wife's body. That was his characterization of childbirth. Miller told her he would not be present for the delivery of their child. Photos submitted in litigation showed a bruise on Moreno's arm, his wife's arm,

and marks on her chest, which she attributed to two of the separate incidents, one Miller shoving her into a wall and the other Miller throwing the hot, hot water at her. In a recorded conversation, Moreno can be heard telling Miller that he poured steaming hot water on her and had been insanely emotionally abusive.

Miller's lawyer later argued that his response on the recording amounted to an admission. There's a handwritten letter, allegedly from Miller after the hot water incident, which reads in parts, quote, I'm just the fuck up and worthless. Miller allegedly pushed a female peer

down a flight of stairs in high school after she resisted his advances. Miller was also allegedly expelled from college following a violent incident involving a female student. He denied that he was, was ever expelled from any college. Former Trump press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, who briefly dated Miller,

said that he, quote, got physical with her while they were dating in 2020, including pushing her against the wall and slapping her across the face. A long trail of allegations, I would say. And again, I think, like, political saliency here, which is a crude thing to talk about in this really dark story about domestic family violence,

is we just had a very popular. Senate candidate drop out over allegations that he pinned a woman against the wall, that he held another woman in her room against her will, and then eventually the sexual assault allegation that he drunkenly raped a woman after she tried to refuse his advances. Categorically different things, but again, sort of a similar genre of a history of domestic violence that these, you know, in the case of Plattner, a Senate candidate, in the case of Miller, an incumbent congressman in the House running for re-election. In response to this, Miller has invited a House Ethics Committee against himself, an investigation

against himself. He's released a long video where he purports to show video evidence of these filings and talks about the court cases that have happened to discredit his exonerated. his ex-wife, who is the daughter of Senator Bernie Moreno, including that she's self-diagnosed bipolar disorder, that she has signed affidavits in the past saying that he never abused her, that he did not physically harm her. There's also some doubt around the child abuse allegations specifically. A court-appointed clinical psychologist mediating the dispute stated that she did not believe Miller

abused either Moreno or the daughter that Miller has been viewed. vindicated in every investigation, and that recent allegations from Moreno are greatly exaggerated, quote-unquote, and tied to Miller running for re-election, which is interesting color here that's sort of come out in the aftermath of all these allegations. I'll start with just my general perspective on this incredibly depressing story, and then maybe you guys can offer your quick thoughts before you get out of here. But mine is... I don't know, in my social life, my personal life, my professional life, I don't know a single person who's been accused by more than one woman.

I know a few have been accused by a woman of wrongdoing or an ex of wrongdoing. Nothing quite as bad as this, but things that I'm like, oh, what? That, like, make me question their person. multiple women like this making allegations about a person that are so similar or multiple, you know, stories, like the high school story that's documented that he doesn't deny in a court filing. It just, it paints the picture of an abusive guy. And I'm, it's not like a me to believe all women standard, like that an allegation is truth

to just say a lot of evidence and many testimonies of several different women and also family members of the women and people in his social life. There's a bunch of other stories about crazy drunken stuff he's done. Point to this guy being an abuser and it's kind of hard to sweep all that under the rug. Maybe the child abuse stuff isn't real. Maybe the wife exaggerated some of the violence. But like, is Max Miller an abusive guy who has hit women in the past or laid hands on women, laid hands on partners, been emotionally, physically abusive partners?

It seems like probably yes. And I think the allegations alone are formidable enough that it should be disqualifying. And I just like, why? Why do we need this guy anywhere near power in Congress? I just, I don't get it. So that's kind of my baseline. But I'm curious to hear from you guys about. how you're processing this story, especially in the context of the grand platinum stuff,

what you make of Miller's response, and where you might draw your own lines. And Audrey, maybe we can start with you. Yeah, I mean, I think I first started hearing about this stuff, sort of right on the heels of Plattenor's scandal. So it's always been contextualized by that to me. Not in so far, like, it's always been contextualized by Plattener. I think just because we are in this era of like these allegations are coming out against these figures, getting them back to back feel significant.

And it's just really hard, I think. I think in this case, like, it's so much harder because this is, there is a child at the center of this case, right? Like, the thing that has gotten more contentious as time has gone on has been the child custody. That is what has unearthed a lot of these allegations, and that is what has unearthed a lot of these statements from him and from her about the dissolution of their marriage and what happened during their marriage. And it's also, I think, at the center of the media coverage that is happening right now. I'll say that to me, like, I spent a lot of time looking through

Miller's statements, looking through Moreno's statements. I basically agree with your assessment, Isaac. It seems really clear to me that Miller is a transparently bad actor. And even just like watching his interviews where, like, since he dropped the documents, he's been on hits on CNN and on Newsmax, which I've been watching, and there, or News Nation. And like, I just think, you know, under questioning, he's shifting his answers constantly. you know, he's saying his daughter can't say thing. Like Moreno Acute said that their daughter said, like, Daddy Kill You or something like that. And he said, no, she's two and a half.

She can't say that. But then he turns around in claims that the daughter had instead said she didn't love mommy. So it's like those are equivalent statements. You can't say she said this, but she was not smart enough to say this other. Jake Tapper, to give him credit, pegged him on that on live TV immediately. Yes. And Miller immediately turns to due process, which agreed he has due process, like in terms of criminal charges, in terms of this child custody thing. I mean, nobody is denying him that.

But the media is not the court. The media is having, is like, does get to make these sorts of judgments and say these things based on the evidence that they have. And they have to walk the line and not liable, but I don't think they're libeling him. And I think it's just a really, really heartbreaking that this is. happening so publicly. My understanding of the Moreno family's actions, I think, has been that they have been trying to keep this under wraps to protect essentially the child at the center of this case, and now it's not under wraps anymore. And so things are getting really ugly. And I just have a lot of sympathy for them right now. I really like that you raise the framing of the Court of Public

opinion having a different standard than any legal court presided over by a judge. Because right now we don't really, there's no legal opinion that we can come to right now. We don't have an evidentiary standard that's met that allows us to say this is a person who committed domestic abuse here and therefore is disqualified

from candidacy. But we also don't need to have that standard in order to make some judgments. And in my assessment, personally it does seem, it's really colored, I'll say first, by the fact that Max Miller's personal

personality is kind of unappealing to me. Just the way that he structures his responses, he feels like... Say what you really think are. I think he's an idiot. Max Miller just strikes me as a dumbass. And just the way that he speaks is the way... It's like watching a person,

like a three-year-old try to build blocks on each other, but he mislines the blocks they fall down. Like, that's what it feels like listening to him try to construct an argument. This is not a very high IQ person in my mind. And it's hard for me not. to let that judgment bleed over to the way that I interpret the facts at the center of this case. He does have a track record of being abusive. He does seem to be a person that, like,

I mean, not seem to. He has a very demonstrated record of being violent. So you know that he's prone to that. At the same time, if you want to be true to the principle of rehabilitation and people being able to change and mature and grow, there's no reason a person who's been convicted of crimes in the past shouldn't be able to rehabilitate. And and become successful in a career. But we are allowed to say, is that the kind of person that we want representing us? And is that person right now showing growth and contrition

in a way that we think is believable or that we think is necessary to overcome not just these current allegations, but the demonstrated history he has? And in that context, I don't think so. Again, I'm biased here by the fact that I kind of just don't like listening to the guy, But if I try to put that aside, I don't think that his answers are convincing enough to overcome the levels of allegation and the history that he has.

So I think that's a good standard. And I'm agreeing with Audrey here. To just close the loop on this, you know, Max Miller was interviewed by Jake Tapper asked if he was going to drop out press about suspending his campaign. His response was they did this to Donald Trump in 2016 when he was, you know, accused of some of the most of born actions that a man can be accused of. He persisted, did not drop out, and ended up winning that race. And I think I'm going to take the stance that we should give the people the opportunity to tap me as their next member of Congress or to continue to be their member of Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson came out and said that he is going to stand by Max Miller. So it appears the Republican Party for its part has taken a line that they're going to let him stay in the race.

Trump did apparently call him and try and convince him that he was toast and he should drop out. But he sort of resisted that overture, which I found a pretty interesting dynamic on the whole. I feel like I could spend another hour on packing that entire thing. But yeah, I mean, it seems like he's staying in the race for now. and Ohio voters are going to have to make a decision about whether this guy and his track record is something they find acceptable. So TBD on that, much more in what will be this morning's podcast and newsletter by the time you guys hear this episode. So I encourage you guys to check that out if you want some more in-depth coverage. And with that, I think maybe we're due for a little like a shower, a little...

A little levity. Yeah, a little levity, a little comedic relief, which brings us to one of my favorite parts of this show every week, which is our grievances section. So John Moll, you can play the music, and we'll get into it. The airing of grievances. Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal.

All right, I think I led last week. So, Ari, maybe you can kick us off. I got something to complain about. All right, great. I can also continue the theme of us. kind of complaining a little bit about some local politics. And I've got hyper-local politics to complain about here. For the last couple years,

if you've driven through the middle of the town where I live, a bustling metropolis of thousands, three, fours, thousands of people. There's a little community green where people are allowed to post signs if they want to and take them down if they want to, but it's too polite, so no one does that. And there have been signs on front.

lawns around the green and on the green itself saying stop the walks. And what they're referring to is not like, you know, stop walking your dog, but there's a project in the lower village of town. You said stop the walks. I think you said stop the walks, like the plan that you cook in. I was like, what is going on in Vermont? Okay, stop the walks. That's just a pissing accent, you know. Yeah, that's. So right now there is a fund that is going towards changing this sort of lower village intersection and adding sidewalks to it as part of that development project. And that development project is worth, let me see, if I can have the exact number here,

$1.52 million, which is a lot for a little town. And a lot of people are like, why do we need this? We don't really need to have a $1.52 million project to put in sidewalks. This isn't something that we ever really voted on the council. just Trojan horse this into a meaning and we're against it, especially the people whose lawns are going to be affected. The thing is, this was not some new thing that the council just put in. It's something that they've been talking about for a long time.

It's been something that's been on the agenda multiple times, I think years even. And $1.2 million of this project is coming from a grant. And that grant says, we are going to give you the state money if you're putting in sidewalk. So this isn't really even about the town wanting to have sidewalks. It's about them wanting to change this intersection, which if you ever drive on it, now it's the theme of the show to talk about turns we don't like.

There's this big turn if you go up to my road where you're going straight and it bends to the right and up the hill, and there's a giant blind spot you can't see around, and you're going like 25 or 30, and you have like 15 feet of visibility and there's no stop sign. So if I want to turn left onto my street, I have to slow down and kind of crane my neck and then gun it to try to get in and out of the intersection fast. And they want to change it and they're taking grant money to do that.

And that's pretty good. But the way it's being positioned is as a sidewalk boondoggle, which feels like pretty unfair, unrealistic. And I'm coming out to say, I'm in support of the walks. If you are in nearby Huntington, Vermont, I say do not stop the walks in fact. and maybe we can discuss it if you are one of the several hundred people in the world who's affected by this and you're also listening to the show.

But that intersection sucks and it's got to change. I'm also pro-sidewalk for the record, so I support you on this. Even where there's like eight houses. Like, I get it. Not a lot there, so I understand. It's better than walking in the street,

just always. I go back and forth. And what's the real downside? You lose like a, a few square feet of lawn. I don't know. Sidewalks are ugly. They're just slabs of concrete.

That's, I mean, there's something to that. It's also the fact that, like, the front, what, like three feet of your property, you don't actually own. It's the states, but you're responsible for managing it. Like, that always feels icky and being reminded of it by the town saying, like, this is what we're going to do to your lawn.

Like, that sucks. I understand that. Yeah. All right. Audrey, what do you have for us this week? Um, my grievance is with, so I'm, I'm not getting married, but many of my friends and family are getting married right now. Good grievance, Isaac. Sorry? I said, good grievance. I love it.

Oh, yeah. Um, my, my grievance is not with marriage. I'm a big believer in the institution of marriage. It's a great thing. And I even love weddings. Weddings are wonderful. I have never not had fun at a wedding. Um, like, I have always just got. did catch up with old friends,

listen to some like throwback party music. It'll come. Give it another 10 years. You'll start having some unfun weddings, I promise. Just wait. But carry on. I hope I remain hopeful about the weddings I attend. I love love.

You know, I actually enjoy sitting through the ceremony, too. But I hate with a passion, the wedding industry, and all of the costs of weddings. I am probably, in the next few years, going to spend, like, several thousand dollars minimum on the various weddings that I am attending or am participating in. And it's like, I'm paying a bunch of money for things that are just not high quality.

Like, I'm a bridesmaid in two upcoming weddings, and the bridesmaid dresses are like hundreds of dollars and are just not that good looking, and I can't wear them ever again. Bridesmaid dresses. Women have been complaining about bridesmaid dresses for as long as they've been a thing. But I'm here to say the problem has not been solved by 2026. It is still a problem. They are still ugly.

They're in either ugly colors or ugly shapes. I get that we want to make the bride look good and great. But do we have to do it that much? Or do we have to do it for this much cost? Is it like a hazing ritual? Like what's the theory there? I think hazing is, something like that maybe?

I don't know. I think the idea is just that you don't want anybody to be outshining the bride, especially not the people who are going to be in her pictures, right? Yeah, they have to make them like subtle enough that everybody wears them, but they're not so good-looking enough that it overshines the bride.

I think that's the... It's a weird line after the long time. So really satiny dark turquoise bag, as you do that. Yeah, dark turquoise bag. Or sometimes they'll do you dirty, and it'll be like a weird off-nude, color that's like also silk. So every, like, every single

thing is showing. Luckily, I'm not having to buy one of those. My brides are sensible people. But, yeah, I'm just, I'm having to pay $200 for these sensible sex. So that's where I am. I mean, did you solve that problem, Isaac? Like you and Phoebe for your wedding?

Sort of. Phoebe gave, Phoebe did a color palette and she just gave people the palette and let them go get the dresses that they want, which I think is a good solve. And we did rental suits for the fellas, I believe. I could do a whole other grievance on that. It's ridiculous, but the men rent and the women buy.

And I got to say the rental industry is not that great either. It's just like, it's just annoying. I've been in enough wedding suits. It's like you get the suit, you got to return it, you mess it up, you have to report it. It's like, you know, you're wearing a seat you don't own all night. It never fits quite right. I don't know. It's like, it's a whole thing also.

So I support the grievance on the wedding industry. That's a very good one. Great. Well, my grievance this week is fairly straightforward. Family matter, 18-month-old son, who, by the way, is just, I mean, he's a real chunk right now. He's, he just had his year and a half doctor's appointment. He was in like the 50 percentile height. and the 88th percentile Wade.

Let's go, buddy. Whatever you're imagining is basically what he looks like. It's quite fun. But he is in an incredible phase of life right now, and this is my first kid, so I'm witnessing all this stuff for the first time where he is just ambulatory and dexterous enough to get into basically anything he wants at this point,

but not ambulatory or dexterous enough to manage the situation once he's gotten into it. So it's like he climbs up onto things or into positions that he can't get down from and then just start shrieking or crying or freaking out. Or just like yeats himself over the edge and then hurts himself. Parallows to George Santos abound. Yeah, yeah. Or he goes into a cabinet that he previously couldn't get into

because the handles were a little too complicated or whatever, but now he can slide and open and unlatch and gets the glass wear out and then is walking around the house with it and trips and stumbles and falls and shatters it on the floor. And he is just doing something like this basically every day.

And I'm very much, I'm not into, I don't like sharing too much parenting because everybody's very judgy. But I wouldn't put myself in like the gentle parenting category. I've read a lot of books about parenting. I've kind of nuanced views

about ways to approach things. But like, I think it's appropriate to be stern, probably starting around at this age. Like, he's really just starting to understand stuff. But I'm like, you know, I'm not just like trying to let him do whatever he wants to do,

but I'm also not trying to tell him no or tell him that everything's like scary or that he has to be careful. It's all dangerous. So I'm giving him a very wide berth, I would say, to just like be himself. And I'm paying the price for it on a regular basis.

So, yeah, I don't know how long this is going to last. I imagine, like, another two years or something. Like, I don't know many, like, three-year-olds who are that good with their hands. So I think this is just the new reality for toddlerhood. And, yeah, it's expensive. It's heartbreaking. You've seen some good dishes I care about, go, some good mugs I really liked. He just, you know, you leave him in a room for five minutes.

just the other day I like tried to do a nice thing that Phoebe typically does which is like fold and organize this little drawer we have with all our napkins and like tablecloths and everything and I just like tried to make it nice and then I left him in a room for three minutes and came back and he had just pulled every single thing out onto the floor sees an empty cabinet and it's just satisfied with himself

and walks away and leaves the room and I'm just like did it reach the end god ah so I love my son very much She's beautiful, cute, smart boy, gets away with a lot. But I'm aggrieved by this current phase. I wonder if it's... Physical abilities. If it's just like this current phase,

but it's also going to be a thing that is a theme, is having enough ability to get oneself into a bad situation, but not the ability to get oneself out. Just might scale up with time rather than resolve itself. If karma... Yeah, if karma exists, then that is definitely my future. Isaac, you were an angel. I don't think you did anything.

For what I did to my mother. That's what I just keep telling myself is my mom raised three boys, four, if you count my dad, which you probably should. Yeah, I deserve everything I'm getting, and she got through it, so I'll find a way. She's my inspiration. I love you, mother. All right, I think that's it. Great grievances, everybody. Good job.

Round of applause for the team. Andrew. And for Peru. Yeah, and for Burrou. Yeah. Audrey, as always, great to have you here. Thanks for having me. Insights today.

Ari, fine to see you again, I guess. Sure. See you next week. Go with or with that. It's cool. We'll see you guys soon. Oh, wait. Oh, wait.

If you made it this far, we're actually off next week. We have our summer recess. So suspension of the rules. We'll be back in the middle of August. If you don't hear from us next week, that's why we love you very much. But I like to give my team a break so they don't burn out. And we'll see you soon.

So you have to survive without us for one week, right? That's the real goodbye. Okay. Peace. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wolfe. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas.

Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editor's 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 readtangle.com.