Tangle - The George Santos ethics report.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight.

Starting point is 00:00:19 Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. Breaking news happens anywhere, anytime. Police have warned the protesters repeatedly, get back. CBC News brings the story to you as it happens. Hundreds of wildfires are burning. Be the first to know what's going on and what that means for you and for Canadians. This situation has changed very quickly.

Starting point is 00:00:44 Helping make sense of the world when it matters most. Stay in the know. CBC News. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to

Starting point is 00:01:05 your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and today is November 27th. It is a Monday. I hope you all had an excellent Thanksgiving break and Thanksgiving weekend. I'm

Starting point is 00:02:08 feeling rested and recharged after a few days away. Before we jump in, I want to give a quick heads up that right before Thanksgiving, we announced right here on this podcast a Black Friday deal on Tangle subscriptions before our prices go up later this year. We are extending the deal through the end of this week because, well, to be frank, it drove the most subscriptions in a single day that we have ever seen in Tangle's history. So we figured why not leave the door open for some more people who want to jump in. So just to quickly recap, we are going to raise our prices to the Tangle subscription for our Friday edition and Sunday

Starting point is 00:02:46 edition forthcoming of the newsletter. And their price is going to go from $50 to $60 a year, but we're going to bake in legacy subscribers to their price forever. So if you want to get that legacy subscription at $50 a year, you can subscribe now. And as part of that deal, we're offering the first year at 20% off for just $40. That's our Black Friday deal. And if you want that deal, you can go to readtangle.com forward slash black-friday-offer. There'll be a link in today's episode description. All right, with that out of the way, we'll jump in with some quick hits. First up, 43 hostages have now been released by Hamas, while Israel has released 100

Starting point is 00:03:38 prisoners. The majority of the hostages and prisoners exchanged have been women and children, including a four-year-old American girl who was released by Hamas yesterday. Separately, a Vermont man was arrested in the shooting of three students of Palestinian descent in what police are investigating as a hate crime. Number two, a husband and wife were killed when they crashed into a border checkpoint in Niagara Falls. The crash caused an explosion, which initially set off reports of terrorism, but investigators are now looking into whether medical or mechanical issues caused the accident. Number three, Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who was convicted

Starting point is 00:04:15 of murdering George Floyd, was stabbed and seriously injured in a federal prison in Arizona. He is expected to survive. Number four, Americans spent $9.8 billion on Friday, a new Black Friday record, and up 7.5% from last year. And number five, the Screen Actors Guild released a tentative contract that ended the actors' strike. The contract, which has been controversial, must be ratified by a majority of the union's 160,000 members. It appears embattled Congressman George Santos' days in Washington could be numbered. The New York Republican says he expects to be expelled from Congress as soon as this week after a House Ethics Committee report accused him of embezzling from his campaign for personal use. The freshman congressman has so far survived two attempts to expel him, but his days may be numbered after that scathing report released by the House Ethics Committee detailed his alleged use of campaign cash for his own lavish spending at luxury retailers and for other, quote, personal use. If you want to expel me, I'll wear it like a badge of honor.

Starting point is 00:05:30 I'll be the sixth expelled member of Congress in the history of Congress. And guess what? I'll be the only one expelled without a conviction. without a conviction. I'll be expelled because people simply did not like me, because they thought that they didn't want me. I'm too much of an outsider. On November 17th, House investigators released an ethics report that determined Representative George Santos, the Republican from New York, knowingly violated ethics guidelines, House rules, and criminal laws. The scathing report detailed alleged misconduct that included stealing money from his own campaign, creating fake loans, engaging in fraud, and deceiving donors about how their money

Starting point is 00:06:15 would be used. Santos allegedly used some of his campaign funds for things like spa charges, paying down his own credit card debt, and an account on the adult website OnlyFans. The committee voted unanimously to refer the report to the Justice Department for investigation. In a joint statement, Representatives Michael Guest, the Republican from Mississippi, and Susan Wild, the Democrat from Pennsylvania, said Santos' conduct warrants public condemnation, is beneath the dignity of the office, and has brought severe discredit upon the House. In the wake of the report, Santos said he discredit upon the House. In the wake of the report, Santos said he would not seek re-election in 2024, reversing course from a

Starting point is 00:06:50 previous pledge to run again. Santos, who refused to give investigators a signed written statement responding to the allegations, testify voluntarily, or respond to the committee's request for documents, called the report a politicized smear, railing against it in a lengthy post on Twitter. On Friday, Santos said he expects to be expelled from Congress before his term is up. Investigators collected 170,000 pages of documents and testimony from dozens of witnesses. Here's an excerpt from one of the reports. Representative Santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit. He blatantly stole from his campaign. He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign, but were in fact payments for his personal benefit. He reported fictitious loans to his political committees to include donors and party committees

Starting point is 00:07:39 to make further contributions to his campaign, and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported repayments of those fictitious loans. He used his connections to high-value donors and other political campaigns to obtain additional funds for himself through fraudulent or otherwise questionable business dealings. And he sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience. In one notable example, the committee found that during his first run for Congress, Santos purportedly loaned his campaign $81,250. However, the real sum was only $3,500. When the campaign ended, he repaid himself

Starting point is 00:08:17 a large portion of the original loan with campaign funds, making $27,700 in profit. The report also raised questions about a Florida company called Redstone Strategies, which Santos used to raise money outside of campaign contribution limits. Santos transferred at least $200,000 to himself through Redstone and used that money to pay off credit card debt to make private purchases, the report said. The committee also found errors and omissions in his financial reports, including $240,000 of missing cash moved between a New York PAC, a Florida LLC, and his personal bank account that has gone unaccounted for. Shortly after being elected,

Starting point is 00:08:56 Santos came under fire after a reporting broke that he had lied about or significantly embellished significant parts of his resume. He was charged in May with 13 counts, including defrauding his donors and using their money for personal benefit. In a superseding indictment in October, he was hit with 10 additional charges, including identity theft. Santos' former treasurer has already pleaded guilty to filing false reports with the FEC, and an aide to Santos has pleaded guilty to federal charges of fraud. Earlier this month, the House voted on a bill to expel Santos, but the Ethics Committee released a letter before the vote saying the report would come out on November 17th. The letter prompted some members of Congress to

Starting point is 00:09:35 abstain or vote against the measure to expel Santos, but in light of the report, many of those members now say they would vote in favor of expulsion. Today, we're going to take a look at some arguments from the right and the left about Santos' conduct, and then my take. We'll be right back after this quick commercial break. back after this quick commercial break. First up, a quick note of agreement. The right and the left are sharply critical of Santos' conduct, and neither side attempts to claim he is innocent. However, some folks on the right have made the case it isn't necessary to expel him from Congress despite his alleged conduct. All right, first up, we'll start with what the left is saying. The left says that the Ethics Committee's report confirms what we already knew. Some argue that Santos is a product of Trumpian-style politics that have taken hold of the GOP. Others say Santos is

Starting point is 00:10:34 little more than a farcical figure who will soon be expelled from the House. In the New York Times, Mark Chisano said Santos is more dangerous than you know. There is nothing new about aggressive bluster or even conspiratorial thinking in U.S. society. Mr. Santos is in one sense representative of the kinds of questionable takes that have flourished during the social media era as influencers from Alex Jones to Mr. Trump spread misinformation and the COVID-19 pandemic loosened America's grip on reality, Chisano wrote. But Mr. Santos brought his conspiracy theories and blatant lies into the halls of Congress, where they rubbed up against bills and the national agenda, as opposed to podcast scatting.

Starting point is 00:11:14 Members of Congress have taken note. Some still focus on constituent work and try to rise in the ranks, but others in gerrymandered districts see social media clout as a simpler route to donations and re-election. Conspiracy theories and misinformation become ways to get notoriety and signal your fighting spirit, Shisano said. Mr. Santos was not the cause of the House's shamelessness, but a symptom and a warning. In CNN, Julian Zelzer argued that expelling Santos wouldn't solve the problem. While this seemingly interminable drama has at last come to a head, the hard truth is that at this point, Santos' exit hardly matters, at least when weighed against the reality of the party he's leaving behind, Zellerser said.

Starting point is 00:11:55 Now that Santos is on his way out, the most pressing concern is what, if anything, the nation can learn about improving the state of American politics. While it would be tempting to cheer the outcome as evidence that the system is working and that the truth still has a place in national politics, that would be an overly optimistic interpretation of events. Santos choosing not to run again does nothing to curtail or ameliorate a massive and toxic conservative media ecosystem, from cable television to social media, that is virtually filterless and allows all kinds of lies, such as election denialism, to circulate at the speed of sound. Santos' downfall should be

Starting point is 00:12:31 a moment for Republicans to engage in some introspection rather than celebration, to think about how they reached this point. In The Daily Beast, Jay Michelson called Santos the most comically dumb conman of all time. Santos is a conman whose lies were so transparently ridiculous, whose grift was so glaringly obvious, that he will go down in history, and perhaps a Netflix limited series, as a clownish figure at once Rube and Knave, who sowed the seeds of his exile through a series of ludicrous self-owns, Michelson said. After every conclusive refutation of his lies, Santos responded with imitation MAGA rage, lashing out at the media for covering irrelevant stories,

Starting point is 00:13:11 such as his own corruption, rather than what real Americans care about, such as the Biden crime family. In a way, Santos was just one of many MAGA grifters, but he was just so bad at it. The Baroque lies, the self-contradictory justifications, even the rage was studied, learned, as fake as that Baroque college diploma. It was as if Santos had learned how to perform MAGA rage by binge-watching Tucker Carlson, but had never actually felt it, Michelson wrote. That's the thing with confidence, men. You have to make the mark believe that you believe it. But Santos just couldn't quite sell it. All right, that is it for the left saying, which brings us to what the right is saying.

Starting point is 00:13:59 The right thinks Santos is likely corrupt, but is wary of the precedent that expelling him would set. Some say the ethics committee's report gives Republicans the necessary political cover to oust him. Others say Santos is just one of the many politicians who are guilty of corruption. He just happened to get caught. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said it would break precedent to expel Santos without a conviction. The House has expelled only two of its members since the Civil War, and both were first convicted on criminal charges. The violations the Ethics Committee has attached to Mr. Santos are on the same order as the bribery and fraud that ended the careers of Michael Myers in 1980 and Jim Traficant in 2002. Yet each was granted the privilege of a trial to

Starting point is 00:14:41 vet the charges against them, the board said. Many of Mr. Santos' critics suggest that he waived his presumption of innocence by refusing to defend himself before the ethics committee. But a political inquiry doesn't have the same force as a trial, even when the panel includes members of both parties. Mr. Santos is headed for political defeat, whether he's convicted or not, and he's clearly an embarrassment to the House. But members might think twice about breaking with the precedent that members be convicted before expulsion. In this hyper-partisan era, the temptation to do so will come up again, and perhaps when the evidence isn't so voluminous. Even the notorious Mr. Santos deserves the judgment of a jury of his non-political peers.

Starting point is 00:15:21 In hot air, Jazz Shaw wrote that it's looking more and more like Santos will be expelled. Of course, Santos is technically innocent of the federal charges he's facing until he's found guilty, but the House isn't hindered by that fact. The Constitution gives the House the final say about any of its members, so they can legally remove anyone they want for any reason at all. It's not a power that is often invoked, however, Shaw said. Only five members have been removed in that fashion in the history of the country. They tend to be nervous about employing such an extreme measure, particularly if it's the majority removing someone from the minority. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu,

Starting point is 00:16:01 a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.

Starting point is 00:16:37 It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. One might argue the proper way to handle Santos would be to just make sure the voters in his district were fully informed of the results of the investigation and just let them remove him when the next election comes around. But that could be a tough sell for the Speaker to pull off. Given the nature of at least some of the alleged crimes Santos engaged in, it's highly unlikely that the court would

Starting point is 00:17:14 have brought those charges unless they had the paper trail to back them up. In PJ Media, Ben Barty said if Santos is removed from office, Congress should also expel about 400 or more members. Don't let the media lie to you. I know I'm preaching to the converted here. George Santos is by no means an outlier in Washington in terms of his congenital lying or psychopathy. They're almost all congenital liars and psychopaths, he said. It's basically an essential job qualification for anyone who climbs the ladder that high in national politics. They almost all do insider trading, Barty said. They almost all influence Petal both in office and once they're done with their public service. The real reason Santos is

Starting point is 00:17:56 being removed from the club are several fold. He is not a well-groomed product of the oligarchy. His corruption was largely of a small scale in service to himself and in petty nature rather than primarily in service to the donor class in grand and scale. He is embarrassing the ruling class with his low-stakes schemes and gimmicks and lifting the veil on the facade of respectability and legitimacy that it so desperately wants to retain. all right that is it for the left and the right are saying which brings us to my take so from my personal perspective there are only two real arguments not to expel santos one of them is a strong argument that i think has a few big flaws, and the other is an emotional argument that I think is effectively baseless. First is the strong one. Santos has yet to face a trial or jury. Until that happens, his guilt is technically an open question, and

Starting point is 00:18:55 therefore any House push to expel him would be based solely on the Ethics Committee's report, which is not a criminal inquiry. One could make the argument, as some writers above did, that until such a criminal inquiry is conducted, make the argument, as some writers above did, that until such a criminal inquiry is conducted, the decision should be left to voters in 2024. Only five members have ever been expelled, and just two since the Civil War. Both of them were granted a trial. I agree with the underlying premise that the extraordinary step of expulsion should be reserved for extraordinarily bad actions. But in this case, I think Santos' conduct meets the bar. The Ethics Committee report a bipartisan inquiry is not ambiguous about what it has found, and even if half of the conclusions it came to were wildly off-base, Santos' purported conduct would still meet the bar of corruption and deception that I

Starting point is 00:19:40 think is worthy of being thrown out of Congress. Not only that, but Santos opted not to cooperate with the investigation, effectively forfeiting his due process he had an opportunity to act on. Here's another way to think about it. What is the point of an ethics committee at all if a report like this doesn't induce an expulsion? Santos' trial is set for next September. He could pretty easily delay any judgment from a courtroom for months or years well past the 2024 election. He's already suggesting he won't run again. He has admitted to some of the conduct he was accused of. He is facing dozens of counts of federal charges, and right now, all of our tax dollars are paying his salary. Why should that stand? Why should Congress accept this behavior? If there were any ambiguity here,

Starting point is 00:20:25 competing conclusions from the ethics report, or accusations of a partisan hit job, or glaring open questions, I would be all in favor of waiting for a trial. But the combination of the public reporting we have, the unambiguous ethics report, and the indictments already filed paint a pretty clear picture of Santos funneling money from his campaign to his personal expenses while simultaneously lying about his background. That, combined with the urgency of uprooting this kind of behavior in Congress, makes me think an expulsion is totally warranted. A jury can decide whether Santos goes to jail or what his ultimate punishment is, but Congress doesn't have to wait for a jury to expel him. The second argument is that Santos is just one member of a Congress full of corrupt politicians, and his behavior didn't do that much damage to the public as a whole.

Starting point is 00:21:09 So, we should focus on frying the bigger fish. Ben Barty articulated this argument under what the right is saying above. He said, quote, don't let the media lie to you. I know I'm preaching to the converted here. George Santos is by no means an outlier in Washington in terms of his congenital lying or psychopathy. They're almost all congenital liars and psychopaths. His corruption was largely of a small scale in service to himself and petty in nature rather than primarily in service to the donor class and grand in scale, end quote. On first read, this point is emotionally resonant. It feels good to be cynical about our dysfunctional and unpopular elected officials, and it's nice to flatten them all as corrupt and irredeemable. But it's also totally false. Yes, there is corruption in Congress, and yes, politicians regularly lie or

Starting point is 00:21:55 bend the truth when campaigning. Yes, there is a donor class that buys access and sells legislation. But as someone who has interviewed and followed members of Congress and reported on this institution for the last decade, let me offer a thought that we largely ignore these days. There are 535 members of Congress. Most people can name about a dozen. The vast majority of members are genuinely decent people who have the job because they want to change the country in a way they think is good and because their communities put them there. It's actually not that easy to be a bad person, a corrupt politician, or a criminal and end up being elected to Congress. You often get caught or arrested or make enough enemies that you don't win elections. That's why the corrupt, power-hungry, mean-spirited politicians get so much airtime.

Starting point is 00:22:39 They're all still unusual. Santos' actions are by no means the norm. It is not by chance that a first-term congressman who was unknown to the public three years ago is now on the homepage of every newspaper. It is precisely because his conduct is such an outlier that we have so much evidence of his corruption. And because he is an outlier, it would be a great disservice to voters and to Congress if he didn't face harsh consequences for his actions. Allowing this to go unpunished would send a signal that it's possible to get away with everything up to and including this level of ethical lapse, and it would tell voters that the smaller daily injustices have precisely zero chance of ever being punished. That, to me, would be the most unacceptable outcome,

Starting point is 00:23:21 and that is precisely why members should take the extraordinary step of voting Santos out. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one's from Erez in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey. Erez asks, Did you see this report that Gazan photographers were with Hamas on breaching the border on October 7th? What is the ethical duty for these photographers? What about for the media orgs that employ them or pay them for their photos? So let me back up here and start by answering the general question. What ethical duty do reporters have to share privileged information from a confidential source that could end up saving lives? The answer is actually pretty simple. Preventing death trumps source

Starting point is 00:24:14 confidentiality. Every time. Full stop. Journalists are trusted to provide accurate and impartial representations of current events, of world affairs, large and small, and they need to have both the trust of their readers and their sources in order to do that. If I were working on a story that I knew my readers would want to know about and could only source information from my story based on confidentiality, then I'd take that deal. Any reporter would. But when the information I get from my source is about the pending deaths of innocents, then my story doesn't matter anymore. The protection of those lives matters more. I honestly hope I never have to find out what it's like to be in that situation, but the right thing to do would be to report those actions to proper authorities,

Starting point is 00:24:54 and any news organization should both expect their reporters to practice those ethics or sever ties with the reporters or photographers who did not. In this case specifically, honest reporting is suggesting that four photojournalists who are payrolled by the AP and Reuters or have had their work bought by the New York Times and CNN had advanced knowledge of Hamas's October 7th attack against Israel. Their proof is compelling. How is it that these photographers got pictures of surprise attacks that Israeli intelligence didn't even know about? Foreknowledge is easy to suggest, but it is a very, very tricky thing to prove. And I just don't think this article convinces me of any malfeasance. First, Honest Reporting is a non-profit group whose entire mission is

Starting point is 00:25:35 to monitor quote-unquote anti-Israel bias in the media. It has a track record as a strong media watchdog and has successfully prompted corrections from several major newspapers. strong media watchdog and has successfully prompted corrections from several major newspapers, but it is also ideologically driven. After the outlet alleged these photojournalists were part of the plan and coordinated with terrorists, Honest Reporting's executive director, Gil Hoffman, came out and conceded they had no evidence for that allegation. Instead, he claimed the group was simply raising questions about the role reporters played. We don't claim to be a news organization, Hoffman, a former journalist at the Jerusalem Post, said. At the same time, Reuters, CNN, the Associated Press, and the New York Times have all strongly condemned any notion that their journalists, two of whom were filing their first photos ever with the news organizations, were aware of the attacks or coordinated with Hamas.

Starting point is 00:26:24 were aware of the attacks or coordinated with Hamas. One of the photojournalists, named by Honest Reporting, whose pictures were in the Times and the Associated Press, had photos filed 90 minutes after the attack began. The Reuters journalist had photos that were filed 45 minutes after. There's still no evidence any were there before the attack began or knew of the attack beforehand. However, one thing Honest Reporting did conclusively show is that at least one of the reporters was not impartial in his coverage. He seemed sympathetic toward Hamas and was also photographed being kissed by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. CNN and the Associated Press announced that they were cutting ties with that freelance reporter after the photo surfaced, which obviously, I think, is the right decision. So, some serious questions raised, yes. One damning

Starting point is 00:27:06 photo published, yes. But evidence that they were there before the attack started or knew it was coming, definitely not. And worth noting that honest reporting has actually backed off of that allegation. All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under the radar section. 20 months after the Federal Reserve began its fight against inflation, Wall Street is preparing for interest rate cuts. Investors now believe there is a greater chance of the central bank cutting rates in the next four months than raising them, according to interest rate futures. Any such cuts would indicate the Fed's belief that it is executing a so-called soft landing, where it would have successfully raised interest rates to reduce inflation without causing a recession. Interestingly, investors appear to be betting on the rate cuts

Starting point is 00:27:54 whether there is a recession or not, meaning many investors see the cuts coming under a broad array of economic outcomes. The Wall Street Journal has the story, and there is a link in today's episode description. A heads up that story is behind a paywall. All right, next up is our numbers section. The year the U.S. House Committee on Ethics, originally called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, was created was 1967. The approximate number of people who served in the U.S. House of Representatives is 11,000. The number of representatives that have been expelled from the U.S. House in its history is five. Of those five, the number of representatives who were expelled for disloyalty to the Union for engaging with the Confederacy during the Civil War is three.

Starting point is 00:28:40 The year of the last expulsion from the U.S. House was 2002. That was James Traficant, the Democrat from Ohio, who's expelled after being convicted in federal court on charges including bribery, conspiracy, and income tax evasion. The number of Democrats who voted against expelling Santos earlier this month is 31. The number of Democrats who voted present on the expulsion measure earlier this month is 15. The percentage of Americans who said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of George Santos in a May 2023 survey was 23%. The percentage of Americans who said they had a very or somewhat unfavorable view of Santos was 53%. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day story.

Starting point is 00:29:22 On January 3rd this year, Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field from a cardiac arrest during a game against the Bengals in Cincinnati. Because of the prompt and expert response of the 10 men and women who helped Hamlin on the field, in the operating room, and in his recovery at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Hamlin survived the ordeal and has been able to return to the NFL. Hamlin has not forgotten. During his team's recent road trip to Cincinnati, Hamlin treated the 10 medical staffers who worked to save his life last January to dinner to thank them, but he also had more in store. I surprised him with a scholarship named after each of them that will support youth in Cincinnati

Starting point is 00:29:59 to chase their dreams, Hamlin said on Sunday. In their honor, Hamlin and his Chasing M's Foundation will award $1,000 scholarships to 10 underserved young people in the Cincinnati area, aiming to help youths who aspire to attend private high schools or local trade schools and universities. DeMar continues to surprise and inspire us, UC Health said in response to the scholarship announcement. We were honored to spend last night with him. NPR has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work, please go to readtangle.com. And don't forget to check out our Black Friday offer to get 20% off your first year before our prices go up at the end of 2023. We'll be right back here,

Starting point is 00:30:47 same time tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will Kabak, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bokova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. We'll see you next time. a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease.

Starting point is 00:31:59 Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.

Starting point is 00:32:27 Learn more at fluselvax.ca.

Tangle - The George Santos ethics report.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.