Tangle - The Trump indictment.

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+. Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. 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 with a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and well, it has finally happened, I guess. Donald Trump has been indicted by the Department of Justice for his mishandling of classified documents. Perhaps the biggest story of the year, maybe also going to be one of the most contentious and politically divisive.

Starting point is 00:01:14 There's so much on bag here, I'm not even sure really where to begin. But we are going to jump in and try and do our best to untangle a little bit of it. Obviously, as always, you'll get some views from across the political spectrum and I'll share my thoughts. I'm still processing this, to be honest. I mean, this is, it's huge. It's a massive story and there are so many layers to it and it's so unclear what's going to happen in the future now, but we'll see. So as always, we're going to kick it off with some quick hits and maybe ease into this one a little bit. First up, Ukraine says it is making small gains in its long-awaited counteroffensive,

Starting point is 00:02:02 saying it took two villages in the Russia-occupied Donetsk region on Sunday. Number two, televangelist and former GOP presidential candidate Pat Robertson died at the age of 93 in his home in Virginia Beach. Number three, North Carolina's GOP voted to censure Senator Tom Tillis, the Republican, for departing from the party's platform after he voted for bipartisan legislation on issues including gun control and LGBTQ rights. Number four, Fox News sent a cease and desist letter to Tucker Carlson over his new show, Tucker on Twitter, which drew a combined 169 million views in its first two episodes. Number five, Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, died in a North Carolina prison on Saturday at the age of 81. ABC News has confirmed at this hour that Donald Trump and

Starting point is 00:03:02 his lawyers have just been informed about 20 minutes ago that the former president needs to be at a federal court in Miami on Tuesday at 3 p.m. to be processed on federal charges. This, of course, would be the first president ever to be indicted on federal charges. After a parade of witnesses and two grand juries, the government tonight is showing its hand in its classified document case against former President Donald Trump, unsealing a 37 count indictment alleging that after leaving the White House, Mr. Trump illegally possessed classified government materials at his Mar-a-Lago home. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws,

Starting point is 00:03:50 as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. On Friday afternoon, former President Donald Trump's indictment was unsealed. The Department of Justice has charged Trump with 37 counts of seven different charges, including willfully retaining national defense information, withholding classified records, false statements to investigators, and conspiracy to obstruct. Walt Nauda, a military veteran and aide to Trump, was also charged on five counts and a separate false statements charge. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the investigation, has been interviewing aides to the former president and workers at Mar-a-Lago for months. I invite everyone to read the indictment in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged, Smith said on Friday. We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone. The indictment alleges that Trump was holding on to classified documents

Starting point is 00:04:39 related to defense and weapons capabilities of the U.S. and foreign countries, United States nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the U.S. and its allies to military attack, and even plans for potential retaliation to a foreign attack. You can read the indictment with a link in today's episode description and newsletter, and you can also find our initial coverage of Trump being indicted and my initial reactions with a link in today's episode description and newsletter. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case, calling it a witch hunt and assuring supporters he will be vindicated in court. The investigation started with the dispute between Trump and the National Archives, which retrieved 15 boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago that should have been

Starting point is 00:05:20 transferred to the archives when Trump left the White House. More than 100 classified documents were in those boxes. When the Justice Department subpoenaed Trump for more documents, his representative told the department that he had turned them all over. However, the FBI obtained evidence that more documents were at the property, executed a search warrant, and recovered over 100 more. In the indictment, Trump is accused of sharing classified information with non-cleared individuals, including a writer, publisher, and two staff members who sat with him for an interview for a forthcoming book. In the recorded interview, Trump described a secret plan to attack Iran, purportedly compiled by a high-ranking military official. Isn't that amazing, Trump asked the group, adding, except it is like, highly confidential. Trump told the group, adding, except it is like highly confidential. Trump told the group he could

Starting point is 00:06:05 have declassified the documents as president, but now he couldn't. This is still a secret, he allegedly says in the recording. The indictment also alleges that Trump instructed staff and lawyers to move boxes of classified documents to obscure them from investigators and instructed one lawyer to remove any classified documents he might have found. In one case, Trump and Notta are alleged to have deceived one of Trump's own lawyers by removing document boxes from a storage area at Mar-a-Lago before the lawyer searched the area for subpoenaed records. Trump's case has initially been assigned to the Southern District of Florida in front of Judge Eileen Cannon, who was appointed by Trump in 2020. Cannon approved the request last year from the Trump legal team to appoint a special master to review documents the FBI seized at

Starting point is 00:06:50 Mar-a-Lago, a ruling that was later overturned by an appeals court. On Friday, Trump made changes to his legal team after Jim Trustee and John Rowley stepped down. Former prosecutor Todd Blanche will now be leading his defense. Today, we're going to take a look at some reactions to the indictment from the right and the left, and then my take. First up, we'll start with what the right is saying. Many on the right are skeptical about the indictment, arguing that it represents a double standard and that it wasn't necessary. Some say the indictment is going to do serious damage to the country

Starting point is 00:07:35 and unleash lasting political repercussions. Others argue Trump left the Justice Department no choice and the indictment was necessary. In The Federalist, Tristan Justice said the indictment is proof of a two-tiered justice system. Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose 2016 Supreme Court nomination was thwarted by Trump's triumphant victory, personally signed off on the anti-Trump persecution, Justice said. Meanwhile, at least five tranches of documents Mark classified from Biden's time as vice president were found in

Starting point is 00:08:05 his possession across multiple locations around the country. The media was hysterical over the Biden administration's dramatic raid of Mar-a-Lago, but news of classified information improperly in Biden's hands was slowly reported in the press weeks after the record's discovery. And while Trump's records were discovered in the former president's heavily guarded Florida residence, Biden's documents were found all over the place. The corporate media have sought to protect Biden by highlighting every possible difference except the key one. President Trump had the unilateral power to declassify anything he wanted. Neither Vice President Biden nor Senator Biden did. All the while, Clinton is still lying about her email scandal in which she used a

Starting point is 00:08:45 private server to communicate classified information as Secretary of State and got away with it. Biden can simply do the same. The Wall Street Journal editorial board said that for the first time in U.S. history, the prosecutorial power of the federal government has been used against a former president who is also running against the sitting president. This is far graver than the previous indictment by a rogue New York prosecutor, and it will roil the 2024 election and U.S. politics for years to come, the board said. It is striking and legally notable that the indictment never mentions the Presidential Records Act, the PRA, which allows a president access to documents both classified and unclassified once he leaves office.

Starting point is 00:09:26 The indictment assumes that Mr. Trump had no right to take any classified documents, the board said, which doesn't fit the spirit or the letter of the PRA. If the Espionage Act means presidents can't retain any classified documents, then the PRA is all but meaningless. This will be part of Mr. Trump's defense. As usual, Trump is his own worst enemy, and the indictment details obstruction charges. But if prosecutors think that this will absolve them in the court of public opinion, they fail to understand what they've unleashed. How about the basement email server that Hillary Clinton used? FBI Director James Comey said in

Starting point is 00:10:00 2016 that she and her colleagues were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information, noting that 113 emails included information that was classified when it was sent or received. Eight were top secret. Comey declared no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. This is the inescapable political context of this week's indictment. In the New York Times, David French said that Trump's conduct was too brazen not to charge. The indictment is devastating and the details are shocking, French said. The indictment contains extraordinary details that make it clear Trump possessed truly consequential national secrets, including those around our nuclear weapons and military capabilities. Second, Trump's storage methods were remarkably sloppy and

Starting point is 00:10:45 insecure. The indictment includes a vivid photograph of a pile of boxes on a Mar-a-Lago stage, a ballroom where events and gatherings took place. Another picture shows boxes fallen and their contents spilled onto the floor. One of the spilled documents was plainly and clearly classified. The indictment also alleges Trump proudly and knowingly shared classified information with guests who did not possess security clearances, including sharing a military plan for a possible attack against a foreign country, French wrote. This level of misconduct should shock every American conscience. It is simply impossible to conceive of any other American engaging in similar misconduct without facing charges. Indeed, given what we now know, not charging Trump under these facts would be an

Starting point is 00:11:30 immense scandal, an abject failure of the rule of law. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. Money on the left support the indictment, arguing that Trump clearly broke the law and needs to be held accountable. Some say the indictment is worse than even they imagined. Others argue Trump simply cannot be trusted with the nation's secrets. The New York Times editorial board said that Trump should not be trusted with the nation's secrets. It is hard to overstate the gravity of Trump's indictment, the board said. For the first time, a former president has been charged with violating federal laws, obstructing the very agencies he led, and endangering national security by violating

Starting point is 00:12:18 the Espionage Act. Though Republicans are already trying to politicize the indictment, the evidence is so substantial that it is clear the Justice Department had no choice but to indict. What makes the spectacle all the more stunning is that it was entirely unnecessary. Had Mr. Trump responded to the many formal requests to return the wrongfully taken documents by apologizing and handing them over immediately, he would have avoided any confrontation with federal law enforcement, the board said. immediately, he would have avoided any confrontation with federal law enforcement, the board said. And though Mr. Trump's behavior has often been described as unprecedented, the reaction to that behavior is not. The United States has prosecuted dozens of former governors, cabinet members, and lawmakers. These prosecutions are essential in reaffirming the principle that no one, and especially no political leader, is above the law.

Starting point is 00:13:03 In The Atlantic, David A. Graham said the indictment detailed the stupidest crimes imaginable. We knew it would be bad. Even so, it's bracing just how bad the evidence laid out by the Justice Department against Donald Trump is, Graham said. An indictment is not a conviction. It's a set of allegations by prosecutors without rebuttal from the defendant. Trump is innocent in court until proven guilty and has loudly and insistently proclaimed that he is an innocent man. But the evidence shows why the case against Trump is so disturbing and why it will be tough for him to defend. And the crimes and details are among the stupidest imaginable. In particular, special counsel Jack Smith hits a

Starting point is 00:13:41 few key points. First, that Trump handled the classified material exceptionally sloppily and haphazardly, including stashing documents in a shower, a bedroom, and, as depicted in a striking photo, on stage in a ballroom that frequently held events, Graham said. Second, that Trump was personally involved in discussions about the documents and in directing their repeated relocation. Third, that Trump was well aware of both the laws around classified documents and the fact that these particular documents were not declassified. Fourth, that Trump was personally involved in schemes to hide the documents not only from the federal government, but even from his own attorneys. The indictment carefully lays out its case with pictures, text, and surveillance footage. In the New Republic, Matt Ford said the indictment

Starting point is 00:14:26 is even more damning than expected. It depicts a former president who illicitly kept troves of the nation's most guarded secrets, took almost no steps to safeguard them, occasionally showed them to random people, and lied to the government about returning them, Ford wrote. In one incident, the indictment details a spilled box leaving documents on the floor, including one with a visible classification marker. In at least two instances, prosecutors said, Trump showed materials in his possession to people not cleared to view them. Prosecutors also relied heavily on notes by one of Trump's lawyers to show that he intentionally sought to conceal the boxes of documents from a grand jury after it subpoenaed him in May 2022. The lawyer's notes paraphrase Trump suggesting they tell the FBI they just

Starting point is 00:15:10 don't have anything here. Trump developed a reputation for evading accountability for his actions over the years. Friday's indictment will test that ability to its limits. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So here is where we currently sit. By 2025, Trump could be president or he could be in jail. Can trees help us grow more resilient to climate change? At the University of British Columbia, we believe that they can. Dr. Suzanne Simard and her team are connecting our future to nature. Their Mother Tree project could transform how we manage forests, capturing more carbon and safeguarding biodiversity for generations to come.

Starting point is 00:16:05 At UBC, our researchers are answering today's most pressing questions. To learn how we're moving the world forward, visit ubc.ca forward happens here. 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. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. And right now, it's honestly hard to tell which is more likely.

Starting point is 00:16:45 I shared my first reactions to the news of the indictment on Friday morning before the actual indictment was released on Friday afternoon and just minutes before I appeared on the Last Debate podcast. As I told host Ravi Gupta when he read me the indictment in real time, before I had a chance to read it myself, this is the worst case scenario for Trump. The indictment represents, in effect, everything Trump's allies said it would not. Remember, Trump initially claimed he was cooperating. Then he said evidence of classified documents was planted, then conceded maybe there were classified documents, but he had declassified everything. The talking point a few months ago was that the documents were going to be benign, things like letters from foreign leaders, effectively mementos Trump wanted to keep. Then we were told, well, if classified documents did exist in Mar-a-Lago, at least the documents were securely locked away, protected by Secret Service agents.

Starting point is 00:17:39 Now that we have the indictment, we can cross those arguments off. Nuclear and military secrets among the documents? Check. Knew the documents were classified and confessed he hadn't declassified them and could not? Check. Instructed lawyers to lie and conceal the documents' existence? Check. Showed off the classified documents to people without clearance? Check. Kept them in insecure locations? Check. Of course, the indictment appears credible, and the Justice Department's minute detail assures they have a strong case with mountains of evidence, including texts, photographs, surveillance, and testimony, and recordings. But we should be careful not to presume guilt. Trump is innocent until he is proven guilty,

Starting point is 00:18:21 and we still only have partial information from one side. Trump hasn't outlined his legal defense, which will matter a great deal when that comes into focus. What we can do is look at the indictment and determine whether it was necessary, then look at the arguments against the indictment and determine whether they hold water. To me, the answer to the first question is yes, the indictment was necessary. The best argument against indicting Trump came, in my opinion, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board. They essentially made the case, under what the right is saying, that it would have been better to present the evidence of Trump's guilt and let the public be the judge, rather than thumb the scale heading into the election.

Starting point is 00:18:59 Their argument was that there was a way to make this damning for Trump without pitting Biden's Justice Department versus his top political foe, a dangerous and unprecedented political tinderbox. That's fair. What's not said is the implication of that. It would mean essentially that there is pretty much no classified documents crime egregious enough to warrant prosecuting a former president or high-ranking official. However cavalier he was with classified documents, Mr. Trump did not accept a bribe or betray secrets to Russia, the board said. Is that the standard? That a president can only be charged if he's found selling state secrets to Russia post-presidency? No thank you. Not in a country where people spend years and years in prison for markedly less than

Starting point is 00:19:42 what Trump did. Remember, the allegation of a double standard here mostly concerns Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. When then-FBI Director James Comey opted not to prosecute her, this is what he said, quote, All the cases prosecuted involve some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice. As lawyer and conservative columnist David French noted under what the right is saying, this is the quote-unquote Comey test. This was the standard

Starting point is 00:20:23 he set. Based on the indictment, the allegations against Trump very obviously meet that standard. The Justice Department is alleging his conduct was willful and he obstructed justice. This was also the standard Trump set. Nobody is really talking about this for some reason, but please remember that Trump spent his entire 2016 campaign suggesting that Hillary Clinton should go to jail for her email server. Lock her up became a rallying cry at his campaign, and the indictment helpfully collected some of Trump's quotes about the need to protect classified information and what should happen if you don't. Again, this was a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign. On August 18th, 2016, for

Starting point is 00:21:03 instance, Trump said, in my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. On September 6th, 2016, Trump said, we also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. We can't have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified. On September 7, 2016, Trump said, one of the first things we must do is enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information. It goes on and on and on. So, do the arguments against the indictment hold water? Many Trump allies say that prosecuting Trump will make us a banana republic, but the rest of the democratic world is actually much

Starting point is 00:21:49 better at holding its leaders accountable than we are. If anything, there is a better argument that both Clinton and Trump should have been prosecuted than that because Clinton wasn't prosecuted, Trump shouldn't be. France, South Korea, Israel, and Italy have all prosecuted former leaders for alleged crimes in recent memory. Just this weekend, Scotland arrested its former leader, Nicola Sturgeon, for financial crimes. Why shouldn't we hold our leaders accountable? Ultimately, that's the question I keep coming back to. As I wrote on Friday, I'm having a hard time shaking the argument that we'd be a better country, not a worse one, if we actually held all our leaders accountable for purported crimes. Imagine you have an option to choose between two worlds. In world one, investigating and charging current or former presidents with criminal activity is too

Starting point is 00:22:35 politically fraught and is therefore avoided at all costs. In world two, the Trumps, Clintons, Bushes, and yes, the Bidens, are all actually investigated in earnest for credible allegations of criminal activity. I would pick World 2 every single time. It's also worth saying what distinguishes this and past investigations of Trump. Former Attorney General Bill Barr put it best in an appearance on Fox News. Like me, Barr was skeptical of Alvin Bragg's indictment of Trump. Like me, Barr has been critical of the investigation into Russian collusion. And like me, Barr does not see similarities between those investigations and this indictment. The idea of presenting Trump

Starting point is 00:23:16 as a victim of a witch hunt is ridiculous, Barr said. Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him in the past with phony claims, but this is much different, end quote. As Barr noted, the document's degree of sensitivity was shocking, and Trump could have ended all of this by simply returning them. Instead, he appears to have obstructed, lied to, and misled investigators. Yes, we have to wait to see what the defense says, but as Barr also noted, if even half of it is true, then he's toast. What will happen now? It's anyone's guess. A lot of people on the left are expressing consternation

Starting point is 00:23:53 that the case is going before a Trump-appointed Florida judge. Some are even upset about the fact it will be taken up in Florida at all, where a jury is more likely to include Trump diehards. I actually had the opposite reaction. I think this is the best venue for the case. It would be better for the country if there is no doubt about the verdict, and the best way to do that would be for a judge and jury to come to a ruling without the public at large thinking they are biased against Trump. I have no desire to see

Starting point is 00:24:20 Trump, a 78-year-old former president, go to jail, but there will be room for prosecutorial discretion here. If a guilty verdict is reached, it could come without jail time. I think it'd be unnecessary and dangerous for the country to put Trump behind bars, but it is totally reasonable to hold his feet to the fire for what appears to be egregious and unbelievably negligent behavior. Trump has nobody to blame for his decisions here but himself, and we should set the standard for future leaders like him that this conduct is unacceptable. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Shannon in Newport, Washington. Shannon said, why do you state the label of each side when you sum up what they're saying? Why don't you just say one side and the

Starting point is 00:25:10 other side? I think that would be a lot more helpful in uncovering our own biases and more fun too. So you're actually not the first person to suggest that, Shannon, and I've actually had a few other readers write in to say the same recently. I think I've even answered this question maybe once in the newsletter before. My basic stance is this, though. Most readers are going to know the ideological tilt of the argument anyway, so I just don't think it would really matter. Let's say there's a subject ambiguous enough where it would, though. In that case, I think hiding where arguments are coming from will make readers try to decipher the sources, which would be distracting. I also want to respect make readers try to decipher the sources, which would be distracting. I also want to respect our readers enough to allow them to de-bias themselves as they

Starting point is 00:25:49 read through different sources and to have the chance to couple good arguments to good thinkers that we cite a lot. I just like being upfront about it all. My take is just mine and I sign it with my name, so I treat the takes from others with the same kind of attribution. They put their names to what they said, so I'll put their names to it too. Which leads to the biggest reason, just attributing our sources. If I list a bunch of arguments together without saying if they're from the left or the right, then I have to hide the source, and I'm not about to heavily cite other journalists without crediting their work. Yes, I can cite them at the bottom of the newsletter, but making the citation

Starting point is 00:26:25 directly next to the quotations is standard and, I think, ethical journalistic practice. And if I'm citing the author in the publication, I wouldn't exactly be hiding much to then withhold if the argument is from the left or the right. Finally, I will also note I've heard from a lot of readers who want to know which side is arguing what because it helps inform their vote. Sometimes we do play with the format when there are no clear dividing lines, as we did in a piece on Section 230 a couple months ago. I'll keep doing that whenever it seems appropriate, but for now, you can expect the format to largely stay the same. All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under the radar story.

Starting point is 00:27:08 China has reportedly been operating an espionage base in Cuba since 2019, Biden officials said. On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that China had struck a secret agreement with Cuba just 100 miles off the coast of Florida to build an electronic eavesdropping facility on the island. The Biden administration initially said the report was inaccurate, but later clarified that it had inherited the problem and was contesting the idea that the surveillance operation was built on its watch. The base will allow Chinese intelligence services to pick up electronic communications throughout the southeastern United States, where many military bases are located. The Wall Street Journal has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description.

Starting point is 00:27:52 All right, before we move on to our numbers section, two quick announcements. First of all, tickets are still on sale for our event in Philadelphia on August 3rd. Please go buy tickets. We got to sell this place out, fill it out, bring the Tangle tour on the road. But in order to do that, first, we got to make it happen in Philadelphia. There is a link to tickets in our episode description. If you are in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Washington, D.C., that's a drive. It's a quick, easy drive. Just come out, spend a night or two in Philadelphia, come hang out, come meet the team, come meet me, have a drink, sit around for an awesome moderated discussion on a big political debate. It's going to be a really great night. We're very much looking forward

Starting point is 00:28:35 to it. And of course, we want you to be there sitting in a seat with us. Also, a heads up, we have a new YouTube video that came out last week. It is an interview I did with an economist and a legal scholar about the debt ceiling. It was a really fascinating conversation. We got to talk about the legality of the debt ceiling, whether it works or not, why fiscal conservatives should be opposed to the debt ceiling, which I thought was super interesting. I encourage you to go check it out on our YouTube channel. You can find us on YouTube at Tangle News, and you can also find a link to that video in today's episode description.

Starting point is 00:29:13 All right, next up is our numbers section. The percentage of Americans who think former President Trump should have been indicted for mishandling classified documents was 48%, according to an ABC News poll. The percentage we think he should not have been indicted was 35%. The percentage we said they did not know was 17%. The percentage of likely GOP voters who say Trump should still be able to be president if he is convicted on the classified documents charge, according to CBS News, is 80%. The percentage of likely GOP primary voters who said it is a national security risk

Starting point is 00:29:47 if Trump kept classified nuclear and military documents, according to CBS News, is 38%. The percentage of the rest of the country who said it is a national security risk if Trump kept those documents was 80%. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day story. A new alliance between a southern African ethnic group and an international conservation organization is helping to save wildcat populations in Zambia. In 2019, the Baroti Royal Establishment of the Lozi people and the

Starting point is 00:30:20 wildcat conservation group Panthera founded an initiative called Saving Spots, which aims to preserve both the traditions of the Losey people and the Zambian wildcat populations by substituting ceremonial furs with synthetics. The faux furs were developed by the Panthera with the endorsement of the Losey King, who knew leopard and serval populations were dwindling. Gareth Winnington-Jones, the Counter Wildlife Crime Southern Africa Regional Coordinator for Panthera, said the conservation effort certainly wouldn't have been possible without the visionary approach of the Losey leaders. Leopard populations are now on the rise in Zambia. The Week has the story, and there's a link to it in today's episode description.

Starting point is 00:31:04 All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. Like I said, just a moment ago, if you want to support our work, please consider going to YouTube and watching our latest video. Please get a ticket to our event in Philadelphia on August 3rd. We want to sell this baby out.

Starting point is 00:31:17 And as always, if you want to become a Tangle member, you can go to readtangle.com slash membership. We'll be right back here same time tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited by John Long. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman,

Starting point is 00:31:37 Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bakova, who's also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was designed by Magdalena Bukova, who's also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. For more on Tangle, please go to retangle.com and check out our website. We'll be right back. 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+.

Tangle - The Trump indictment.

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