Tangle - The Comey indictment.

Episode Date: September 29, 2025

On Thursday, The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia announced the indictment of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey for allegedly false statements he gave during congressional testimony related to the Trump–Russia probe. The indictment includes two counts, which together carry a potential five-year prison sentence. Prosecutors initially considered bringing a third count related to a separate alleged false statement, but that count was rejected by the grand jury. The indictment was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, just before the five-year statute of limitations for Comey’s September 2020 testimony was set to expire. Comey is due to be arraigned on October 9.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, our “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: How significant do you think Comey’s indictment is? Let us know. Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Will Kaback and edited and engineered 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, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools, and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and silencing local voices. It shouldn't be this way. Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms because smaller classes would make a big difference for our kids. Go to Building Better Schools.ca.

A message from the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of our take. I'm your host today, senior editor Will Kayback, and I'm filling in for Isaac while he is out of town this week. He is at a friend's wedding in Italy. Very exciting. He's having a great time. But this week, our editorial team of Ari, Lindsay, Audrey, and myself are going to be mainly taking the reins. Isaac will probably chime in here or there. But for the most part, you'll be hearing from our editorial staff. So you'll hear Ari and I

reading the take this week, as well as a few other editorial contributions, perhaps some staff dissents. Today we are diving into the indictment of former FBI director James Comey. This was a story that broke last week after a lot of reporting leading up to it that indicated that this was going to happen. It's obviously created a lot of debate and controversy on both the left and the right, both the merits of the prosecution and what it means for the integrity of the Justice Department writ large. So we'll be getting into all of that. For now, though, I'm going to hand it over to John for today's quick hits, our introduction, what the left and right are saying, and then I'll be back to read my take.

All right, John, over to you. Thanks, Will, and welcome, everybody. Hope you all had a wonderful weekend. I have some great answers from last week's question on random acts of kindness that you have either received or given. And I'm going to share those answers and ask today's question after our my take section. In the meantime, here are your quick hits for today. First up, a gunman killed five people and injured eight others

after driving his truck into a church in Gran Blanc, Michigan, and opening fire on people attending services inside. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Chapel was also set on fire before law enforcement shot and killed the suspect. Number two, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that he was ending his re-election bid roughly five weeks before the city's mayoral election. Adams did not immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates. Number three, defense secretary Pete Higseth ordered 200 Oregon National Guard troops

to be deployed to Portland, Oregon after President Donald Trump said he would send the military to protect federal immigration facilities in the city. The state has filed a lawsuit challenging the deployment. Number four, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship for all people born in the United States. And number five, on Monday, President Trump will meet with congressional leaders from both parties to discuss the imminent government shutdown. Without an extension, federal funding will lapse on October 1st at midnight.

My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So let's have a trial and keep the faith. Former FBI director James Comey is remaining defiant and denying any wrongdoing after a federal grand jury indicted him on two charges related to his 2020 testimony to the Senate. The Justice Department accuses Comey of making false statements and obstruction. He could face up to five years in prison if convicted. The statute of limitations for the charges was set to expire next week, and the development marks a major escalation in President Trump's efforts to target his political opponents.

On Thursday, the Justice Department indicted former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey for allegedly false statements he gave during congressional testimony related to the Trump-Russia probe. The indictment includes two counts, which together carry a potential five-year prison sentence. Prosecutors initially considered bringing a third count related to separate alleged false statements, but the count was rejected by the grand jury. The indictment was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, just before the five-year statute of limitations for Comey's September 2020 testimony was set to expire. Comey is due to be arraigned on October 9th.

For context, in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Comey oversaw the FBI's investigation, code name Crossfire Hurricane, into possible collusion between President Trump's campaign and Russia. President Trump fired Comey months into his first administration, citing Comey's handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Trump would later state that firing Comey relieved him of pressure from the Russian collusion probe. The probe ultimately concluded in 2019 with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, which uncovered links between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives, but did not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

A special counsel investigation into the FBI's management of the case, led by John Durham, concluded that the FBI's decision to launch its collusion investment, displayed a serious lack of analytic rigor. Durham proposed an internal oversight position for politically fraught investigations, but he did not recommend any prosecutions. As part of the response to Crossfire Hurricane, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. One of Comey's answers from that testimony is the subject of the latest indictment. In response to a question from Senator Ted Cruz, Comey testified that he never authorized Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe to leak information about the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department alleges that his answer was

false, that he did authorize the leak, and that his answer amounted to obstruction. The indictment was signed by Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, a White House lawyer who previously worked as a defense attorney for President Trump. Halligan replaced former U.S. attorney, Eric Siebert, who declined to bring charges in cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Earlier this month, Trump told a report. reporters that he wanted Siebert out, prompting Seabert to resign hours later. No one is above the law, Attorney General Pam Bondi said when announcing the charges against Comey. Today's indictment reflects this Department of Justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people.

We will follow the facts in this case. On Thursday, Comey released a video on Instagram affirming his innocence, saying, My family and I have known for years that there are caused to standing up to Donald Trump and that he is not affirmed. today we'll break down what the right and the left are saying about the indictment and then senior editor will kayback will give his tape too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools and it's hurting their ability to learn but instead of helping our kids

the Ford government is playing politics taking over school boards and silencing local voices it shouldn't be this way tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms because smaller classes would make a big difference for our kids

go to building better schools.ca a message from the elementary teachers Federation of Ontario All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the indictment, but many say Comey's actions laid the groundwork for his prosecution. Some say the case is fatally flawed and should be dismissed. Others argue Trump is writing past wrongs by holding Comey and others to account. In the New York Post, Jonathan Turley wrote,

James Comey is no pristine model of ethics, and now he's staring down Carmen. There are legitimate concerns about the targeting of a political critic of the president who publicly complained just days ago that Attorney General Pam Bondi was not indicting Comey and others. However, Comey is hardly the pristine model of ethical leadership that he described in his book. Putting aside his critical role in the Russia Collusion investigation, Comey tossed aside even the pretense of ethics after Trump fired him, Turley said. Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a scathing report that found Comey was a leaker and had violated FBI policy in his handling of FBI memos.

Perjury or false statements can be challenging to prove, particularly when vague or nuanced language is used. This is neither vague nor nuanced. Comey repeatedly swore that he never asked anyone at the FBI to leak information. That is either true or does not. Comey will continue to be vilified and lionized by different parts of the population. Yet this is an ignoble moment that he helped bring about, Turley wrote. Now, the man who bragged about nailing Michael Flynn will face

the same false statement charge. The man who celebrated the charging of Donald Trump, including obstruction-related charges, will face his own obstruction charge. In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy argued the indictment against Comey should be dismissed. The vindictive indictment that the Trump Justice Department barely managed to get a grand jury to approve on Thursday is so ill-conceived and incompetently drafted, he should be able to get it thrown out on pretrial motion to dismiss. Legally, he'll be entitled to that, and it would short circuit the very expensive and punitive litigation process, McCarthy said. Put aside the McCabe, whom the perjury case against Comey appears to hinge on, is not a credible

witness, particularly on this subject. The indictment fails on its own terms because McCabe never even claimed that Comey authorized the leak, as the term is commonly understood. A rational jury could not convict Comey of perjury on that record. Senator Cruz garbled what is meant by the word authorized. McCabe didn't claim Comey authorized to, the leak, ergo there is no evidence, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey was lying when he told Cruz he hadn't authorized McCabe's leak, McCarthy wrote. The indictment should be dismissed because there is no factual basis for a perjury charge and because the second count, obstruction, hinges on the perjury charge.

I'm sure Comey would rather have a jury clear him, but this baseless case should never see a trial court. In American greatness, Roger Kimball explored whether the indictment is retribution or justice. Is what Trump is doing a matter of retribution or of justice? There's no doubt that Trump is going after his political opponents, or to put it more accurately, he is going after those of his opponents who went after him and his associates, Kimball said. But the point to appreciate is that Trump's goal is not vengeance, though that might be collateral benefit to him personally, but rather the writing of a wrong.

For years, the deep state waged war against all things Trump. Trump not only survived, but also triumphed. But in the course of the scorched earth campaign against Trump, his opponents acted like Pandora when she unsealed her fateful jar, the usual rules and conventions, the mannerly behavior, and the gentleman's largesse were suddenly set loose. Perhaps someday they can be rounded up, placed back where they belong, and reinstated as the norms of political conduct. Perhaps, Kimball wrote. For us now, the important point is that Trump's retribution is not an alternative to justice. On the contrary, it is the very name of and the prerequisite for justice.

All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left strongly criticizes the indictment, arguing Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department. Some say the indictment is flawed and may be thrown out. others worried that the Justice Department is being taken over by Trump loyalists. The New York Times editorial board said the Comey indictment plunges the country into a grave new period. Long before this week, Mr. Trump crossed some of the clearest and most important lines in how justice is administered. He ran for office promising to prosecute his enemies and appointed loyalists who have ordered investigations of people the president does not like. On their own, those moves deserve to be the biggest law enforcement scandal of the past 50 years.

Yet they turned out to be just a start. He has now gone beyond ordering investigations to dictating their outcome, the board wrote. He has removed any pretense that the law is blind. As despots have done for centuries, he is persecuting people he considers his enemies with little justification other than raw political power. We know the response that Trump allies will offer, and it is wholly unpersuasive. They claim that the actions of Mr. Trump and his Attorney General Pam Bondi

are no worse than the Biden Justice Department's decision to indict Mr. Mr. Trump, the board said. But that notion buys into a false equivalence. In the earlier cases, there is no doubt that laws were broken, and there is significant evidence that Mr. Trump was part of it. No such evidence exists as yet about his current targets. In The Daily Beast, Shan Wu explored the fatal flaws in Trump's revenge case. Comey is charged with one count of lying to Congress and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding. These two counts make up an indictment so thin on evidence that any reasonable prosecutor, myself included, would not have brought it, Wu wrote. In fact, that seems to be

exactly what has already happened. Eric Siebert, the U.S. attorney who led the investigation into Comey, reportedly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge him. Career prosecutors also put together a memo outlining the lack of evidence. Comey, armed with the financial resources and a strong team to fight against weak evidence and a weak prosecutor, may manage to avoid a criminal conviction. Our broader system of justice will not be so fortunate. Trump has now fully brought the Justice Department under his personal control and brags about it in ways that no other president would have dared, Wu said. There are, of course, plenty of good line prosecutors with integrity that remain,

but it seems clear that the press for showing that integrity is demotion and or dismissal. In MSNBC, Barbara McQuaid wrote, there is a reason Trump tapped Lindsay Halligan to take on James Comey. Halligan stands in stark contrast to Siebert. As described in a Justice Department press release from January, Seabert is an award-winning 15-year veteran of the office with supervisory experience. Halligan has a very different record. The former Florida insurance lawyer has no prosecutorial experience, McQuaid wrote.

Her resume does not necessarily suggest someone capable of leading an office that handles some of the nation's most sensitive national security matters, including cases arising out of the Pentagon or transatlantic. through Dulles International Airport. The DOJ's principles of federal prosecution prohibit prosecutors from seeking charges unless the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. With his training and experience,

Siebert seems to have made the appropriate decision to decline to seek an indictment, McWaiderot. Halligan chose a different path, and her journey is just beginning. Securing an indictment is only the first step. Now she has to mount a case and convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. All right, let's head over to Will for his take.

All right, here's my take. Trump has wanted to prosecute Comey since his first term. His reasons are well documented. Trump believes that Comey mismanaged the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email controversy, that he illegally leaked information, and that he mishandled classified documents. Above all, though, Trump sees Comey as his enemy,

and his desire for retribution has not subsided even after his return to the White House. In my view, President Trump's statements and actions make it pretty plain that this is a political prosecution. On September 19th, he suggested that Eric Siebert, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, should be forced out for failing to bring charges against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

which prompted Siebert's resignation. The next day, Trump publicly criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi, questioning her perceived inaction against Comey, James, and Senator Adam Schiff. Then, on September 22nd, White House advisor and former Trump defense attorney, Lindsay Halligan, replaced Siebert and brought charges against Comey three days later, despite the protestations of federal prosecutors who had been working on the case. No career prosecutors signed on to the indictment, which is a rarity, and the grand jury declined to indict Comey on one of the three potential charges,

which is also a rarity. With that said, Halligan still presented the grand jury with enough evidence of potential wrongdoing to get them to sign off on two of the three counts. Now, that isn't particularly hard to do, as jurors do not hear from the defense and are only tasked with determining whether there is enough probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. A grand jury rejecting an indictment is exceedingly rare, but it's worth noting that Halligan followed proper procedure here. It's also possible that the Justice Department has more information about the case that's not yet public, so we'll just have to see. But for now, we can only judge this based on the publicly available information, and that information is simply not persuasive. The main count alleges

that Comey, quote, willfully and knowingly made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement, end quote, by stating that he had not, quote, authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports, end quote, about an unspecified FBI investigation, which refers to the investigation into Hillary Clinton. This allegation hinges on Comey's answer to Senator Ted Cruz in a 2020 congressional hearing that he had not, quote, authorized then deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe to leak information to the Wall Street Journal about the case. The Justice Department has not yet explained why that was a lie, but it probably contrasts it against McCabe's prior statements

that he had directed his assistant to leak the information and then told Comey about it after the fact. Do you see the problem here? Set aside the debate over whether or not McCabe was telling the truth. Though I would note that Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that McCabe repeatedly lied to investigators about the leak. But again, set that aside, assume McCabe was telling the truth. He only claimed to have told Comey about,

the leak after it happened. He's never said that he approached Comey for permission to leak the information. Recognizing the fundamental flaws of this case doesn't require defending Comey's tenure as FBI director or his actions since then. Personally, I think he bungled the Clinton email investigation. He demonstrated a clear bias against President Trump while serving as FBI director, and he mismanaged the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Comey is also partially responsible for his own predicament. here. As a prosecutor, he employed the same questionable tactics now being used in his indictment to prosecute Republican figures like Michael Flynn and celebrities like Martha Stewart. And that was

bringing lesser charges like obstruction of justice when there was insufficient evidence of more significant wrongdoing. In this case, prosecutors had months to review all of the available evidence and determined that it did not justify charging Comey. Instead, this flawed indictment was brought forward after the previous U.S. attorney was forced out by a Trump loyalist with no prosecutorial experience just before the statute of limitations expired. This case clearly isn't about the pursuit of justice. It's about seeking retribution. Now, some conservatives have argued that President Trump is only adhering to the precedent set by the Biden administration when they prosecuted him. And yes, some cases against Trump seem clearly motivated by personal animus as well,

like Letitia James' civil fraud case in New York. But not every case was frivolous. The January 6th case, the Georgia election interference case, and especially the classified documents case, all produced valid indictments based on strong evidence. Still, even if they were all witch hunts, does that mean the best response is more witch hunts? How is any of this worth the government's time and its resources?

Again, even if you believe Trump was unfairly prosecuted, it simply doesn't follow that the proper response is more political prosecutions. We all lose in that scenario. A Justice Department and a presidency that prioritizes retribution against political opponents is a Justice Department that will hemorrhage quality attorneys and make it more difficult to prosecute significant wrongdoing. Its legitimacy in the eyes of the public will further erode, and future cases will justifiably be clouded by perceptions

that the Department is motivated by political animus. In the simplest terms, two wrongs don't make a right, and any temporary satisfaction that Comey's indictment brings will be outweighed by the long-term damage to the DOJ's credibility. Now, I hope this case is dismissed before it reaches trial, and if it goes to trial, I hope Comey is acquitted. I expect one or the other will happen for the reasons I mentioned above, but I worry that regardless of the outcome, the real damage has been done. Isaac has previously listed prosecuting political opponents on dubious charges as one of the genuine danger signs of an authoritarian-style presidency, and I think Comey's indictment checks that box.

Even more worrisome is Trump's comment that, quote, there will be others prosecuted after Comey. So I don't think it's alarmist to say, we're staring down a crisis of legitimacy for the Justice Department. And that's something that all of us, regardless of party or ideology, should be concerned by. All right, that is it for my take. I'm going to pass it over to managing editor Ari Weitzman, who answered today's reader question, and then he'll send it back to John for the rest of the pod. Thanks for listening, as always.

Be back later in the week. Have a great day, y'all. We'll be right back after this quick break. Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools, and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and silencing local voices.

It shouldn't be this way. Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms because smaller classes would make a big difference for our kids. Go to Building Better Schools.ca. A message from the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario. Hey everyone, it's Ari Weitzman here, answering this reader question from David, from Poinette, Wisconsin, who directs this question to me specifically. He says, I have a question more for Ari than anyone else as he is a Vermonter.

I was curious as to his perspective on his home state's governor, Phil Scott. Scott seems to be one of the last true Rockefeller Republicans left in the country. I recently read about an innovative partnership with the Hartford group, provide a voluntary program to expand social insurance in the state in the form of paid family leave. I'm curious as to a Vermonter's opinion of him, as he seems very popular, even with the state's largely liberal voting population. Thanks for that question, David. So first, to be honest, I'm still relatively new to the state. I've been a Vermonter for just two years, but I think people can be somewhat surprised by the Green Mountain state's politics. Vermont's obviously quite liberal,

but it's also rural and much more pro-gun than other solidly blue states, though the state has passed what I think are good restrictions regarding bump stocks and background checks and more. This is also anecdotal, but personally I've noticed less of an insistence on some of the more left-leaning language choices that have become popular in the last couple years about race and gender than what I detected when I was living in California and even when I was living in Pittsburgh. Also, since the state is small, only a few thousand people can sway an election.

That's about two or three good town halls. So one of the largest differentiators between a strong candidate and a weak one is how genuine voters feel that they are. And in my opinion, Governor Scott feels genuine. Now, any successful Vermont politician almost has to hold some left-leaning positions. Scott is pro-choice, pro-environment, and doesn't discuss religion as a lens for his decision-making. And that all matches the state's emphasis on liberal politics and its de-emphasis on religion. Vermont is the least religious state in the country. Scott also aligns with Democrats on many important issues. However, he is also unapologetically fiscally conservative, and he has pledged

to veto any new law that will increase taxes, and by and large he has done that. Scott's supporters want him in office to balance the leftward lean of the legislature, but I don't really think his stance on guns and religion and abortion, and even his more libertarian tilt towards gender and marijuana to use would fit with Republican platforms of purple states. To your last question about the state's paid family leave program, which went into effect in 2023, it does sound something moderate Republicans could back in some municipalities, though maybe not at the state level in some states. And it's possible Vermont's program will serve as a model for other jurisdictions like we're seeing in Michigan right now. That's it for the reader question today, so I'm going to throw it back

to John for the rest of the podcast. Thanks, Ari. Before we get into our Under the Radar story, I wanted to share some of the responses that I got to my question from last week about some of the acts of kindness that you have either been a recipient of or have shared. Derek helped to diffuse a potentially troubling situation between officers and an unhoused woman by simply buying her meal and providing her with some food and everybody with a moment of peace. Emily stepped in to help save a dog that was dying, taking the owner and the dog to the vet, despite the owner's initial resistance. The owner didn't have funds for the surgery, but Emily helped him research grants that would assist him, and ultimately the dog did pull through. Way to go, Emily. Karen wrote in to share about a particular student whom she wouldn't let give up on himself, finding ways to connect with him that helped him find his own path. That student and his parents wrote to her after he left to express their gratitude. I've been a middle school teacher before, so I know that feeling very well, and it's untouchable. Thank you, Karen.

shares fresh-cut flowers that she grows in her own garden with people, providing a simple but special moment of joy and recognition. Katie and her husband are part of a community of long-distance bike packers, and those people in that community generously open up their homes and make meals for other cyclists at no cost, just simply the love of community. And Tori wrote in about her friend Matt, who, after losing his dad, created the Best Day Ever Foundation, with the goal of spreading kindness

throughout communities, honoring people who do good in the world and bringing some light in moments of darkness. Thank you, folks, for sharing these stories with me and the rest of our Tangle community. It's very admirable and very inspiring. And for others of you who have done some random acts of kindness but didn't write in, just thank you.

And we see you out there, so keep doing what you're doing. And for my question for this week, I want to ask you all, how do you handle anger or emotionally turbulent, moments. We're clearly in a contentious emotional and political state right now, and I want to know how people are showing up for themselves when anger appears. What are some ways that you deal with your anger or being upset? I'm sure many people could resonate with some different ideas, so please reach out to me, John J-O-N at readtangle.com. And I'm looking forward to hearing your

responses. All right, here's your under the radar. for today, folks. On Thursday, a report commissioned by Los Angeles County supervisors to assess the response to the Eaton and Palisades fires in January found that limited resources and outdated policies for sending emergency alerts delayed evacuation warnings and contributed to the devastation of the fires. The report highlighted staffing shortages in the Sheriff's Office and Office of Emergency Management, a lack of sufficient emergency vehicles, and an inadequate public alert system as key issues that hindered the response. In all, the fires killed over 30 people and destroyed

thousands of homes in the Los Angeles area. The Associated Press has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The number of days into President Donald Trump's first term that he fired FBI director James Comey was 109. The number of days until Comey will appear in court for an arraignment on the charges against him is 10. The number of suspects investigated for potential criminal wrongdoing by U.S. attorneys in 2016 was 155,615. Out of those, U.S. attorneys declined to prosecute six suspects because they could not secure a grand jury indictment.

According to an April 2018 Quinnipiac University poll, the percentage of U.S. voters who had a favorable view of Comey was 30%, while 41% had an unfavorable. had an unfavorable view. 35% of U.S. voters said they trusted President Trump to tell the truth about important issues more than Comey, and 54% of U.S. voters said they trusted Comey to tell the truth about important issues more than Trump. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day Story. Christy Maderas, known professionally as DJ C. Ray, recently started running karaoke night

at the String Bean in Richardson, Texas. Since she started, one performance has blown her away more than any other. A duet between 77-year-old's Jerry Guy and Ben Coker to flow rat his 2007 rap hit, low. Madeira's knew immediately that she needed to record the performance, which became a viral sensation on social media. After we got through singing, this young man came up to me and goes, you need to go work the crowd. The girls love you guys, Guy said. And I said, son, at my age, you bring your own girl.

You don't go chasing him around. WFAA has the story and video of the performance, and you can check that out with the link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership

that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wohl.

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 editors Hunter Casperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. 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 reetangle.com. Too many students are packed into overcrowded classrooms in Ontario schools

and it's hurting their ability to learn. But instead of helping our kids, the Ford government is playing politics, taking over school boards and silencing local voices. It shouldn't be this way. Tell the Ford government to get serious about tackling overcrowded classrooms because smaller classes would make a big, difference for our kids. Go to building better schools.ca.a. A message from the elementary teachers federation of Ontario.