Tangle - Trump gets indicted (again).

Episode Date: August 7, 2023

The latest Trump indictment. On Tuesday, Donald Trump was indicted in a criminal case accusing him of illegal acts during an attempt to change the outcome of the 2020 election. The indictment was filed by special counsel Jack Smith, the same prosecutor who is heading the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.You can read today's podcast here, today’s Under the Radar story here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest YouTube video here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (2:10), Today’s story (4:20), Right’s take (8:02), Left’s take (12:15), Isaac’s take (16:59), Listener question (22:30), Under the Radar (24:59), Numbers (25:43), Have a nice day (26:28)You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. 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. 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+. 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 on today's episode, we're going to be talking about the latest Donald Trump indictment, this one related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election on January 6th. Before we jump in, though, I absolutely have to start off today with a huge thank you to Philadelphia, to everyone who came out to our event. Obviously, if you've been listening to this podcast or reading the newsletter,

you've heard us promoting it for a while. What can I say? It was an incredible, surreal, moving, beautiful night in Philadelphia. Thank you so much to everyone who came out and sent support from afar. And a big shout out to all the people who traveled from across the country to be there. I met readers and listeners from Houston, Texas, California, Tennessee, Virginia. It was so cool to see everybody gathered together in Philadelphia. We are definitely going to do this again. It was way too much fun not to. And we'll also be sharing audio and video and images from the night across social media

and our various platforms soon. So if you missed it, please stay tuned for that. Obviously, in case you can't tell, my voice is on a knife's edge of being lost. I went straight from the event out to Denver, Colorado to do some coaching for my competitive Ultimate Frisbee team. So I hope you can stick with me through the raspiness of three or four days of talking on stage and shouting on the sidelines. Today, I'm going to hopefully make it through this podcast without totally losing it. So without further ado, let's jump in, as always, with our quick hits. First up, a Russian court sentenced Alexei Navalny,

a critic of the Putin regime, to 19 more years in prison on extremism charges. He was already serving a nine-year sentence. Separately, 11 Chinese and Russian warships conducted naval operations in international waters off the coast of Alaska. Number two, the U.S. economy added 187,000 jobs in July, slightly below economists' estimates. The unemployment rate fell to 3.5% from 3.6%, while hourly earnings grew 0.4% month over month and 4.4% year over year. Number three, the Food and Drug Administration approved the world's first pill that was designed to treat postpartum depression, which impacts an estimated one in seven new mothers. Number four, Oregon ended a ban on drivers pumping their own gas, leaving New Jersey as the only state to prohibit self-serve.

Number five, a Pakistani court sentenced former Prime Minister Imran Khan to three years in jail over allegations he illegally sold gifts that he received while in office. Former President Trump has been indicted, connected to efforts to interfere with the democratic process and overturn the results of the 2020 election. This is historic. This is the third time the former president has faced criminal charges this year alone. Former President Donald Trump returned to Washington, this time under federal indictment for allegedly trying to steal an election. His motorcade going through the city that symbolizes American democracy, arriving for his third arraignment in less than five months. Now, the four felony charges are conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. On Tuesday, Donald Trump was

indicted in a criminal case in which he is accused of illegal acts during an attempt to change the outcome of the 2020 election. The indictment charges Trump with four crimes, conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official government proceeding tallying the electoral vote, obstructing and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiring against the rights of voters, that is, their rights to have their votes properly counted. The indictment was filed by special counsel Jack Smith, the same prosecutor who is heading the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Each of these conspiracies, which built on the widespread mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabilizing lies about election fraud, targeted a bedrock function of the United States federal government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results

of the presidential election, the indictment says. While many of the details of Trump's efforts have been previously reported, the 45-page indictment lays out a series of Trump's alleged actions to push claims that the election had been marred by fraud, despite repeatedly being told by national security officials, advisors, and judges that the claims held no merit. In the indictment, prosecutors concede Trump had a right to challenge election results and even falsely claim fraud. However, the indictment alleges that Trump pushed his own Justice Department to pursue false fraud claims while also pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results even after the allegations of fraud had been thrown out in various federal and state courts. Prosecutors also looked into efforts that included assembling

fake electors to send to Congress and fundraising off false claims of election fraud. These actions, the indictment argues, went well beyond the right to challenge an election and involved throwing out legitimately cast votes. During the investigation, federal grand jurors heard from witnesses, including election officials, close aides, White House lawyers, Vice President Pence, and former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Six other co-conspirators were referenced in the indictment, though they weren't named or charged. However, the descriptions in the document suggest they included Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesbrough, as well as former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. Little is known about the sixth conspirator. This is the second federal criminal case against Trump that has been opened by the Justice Department since its administration has been taken over by President Biden, who beat Trump in the 2020

presidential race and is widely expected to face him again in 2024. Trump is also expected to be indicted soon by a grand jury in Georgia, which is investigating him for federal election interference. He is also awaiting trial in New York on charges related to alleged hush money payments he made to a porn star during the 2016 election campaign. President Trump called the latest charges a pathetic attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. Many legal experts believe he will mount a defense to these charges on free speech grounds, arguing that the First Amendment protects his political speech and his insistence to government officials that the election was stolen. On Thursday, he appeared in a federal courtroom and pleaded not guilty. The Washington, D.C. judge randomly assigned to the

case is Tanya S. Chutkin, an Obama appointee who has garnered a reputation for handing down harsh sentences in cases against the January 6th rioters. Today, we're going to explore some arguments about the indictment from the right and the left, and then my take. we're going to explore some arguments about the indictment from the right and the through evidence-based policy solutions. As part of their efforts, they also support journalism throughout the United States, including outlets like the Texas Tribune, ProPublica, and the Institute for Nonprofit News, among others. To learn more about their work, go to ArnoldVentures.org. That's ArnoldVentures.org. First up, we're going to start with what the right is saying. Many on the right are skeptical that Jack Smith is on solid legal ground with these charges,

arguing that Trump will be protected by the First Amendment. Some suggest Smith can't prove Trump knew he was lying when he said the election was stolen, so his actions fall into protected speech. Others contest this notion, arguing there is a clear legal argument that Smith has constructed, even if it is complicated. In the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly A. Strassel wrote about the unprecedented Jack Smith. Be prepared for this new and startlingly elastic precedent to ensnare plenty of others, Strassel said. That's the big problem with Mr. Smith's latest broadside against Donald Trump, on top of its untested legal theories and evidence of a

Justice Department double standard. As William Barr explained, the slippery slope of criminalizing legitimate political activity was one reason not to bring the case. Take Mr. Trump out of the equation and consider more broadly what even the New York Times calls Mr. Smith's novel approach. A politician can lie to the public, Mr. Smith concedes. Yet, if that politician is advised by others that his comments are untruthful and nonetheless uses them to justify acts that undermine government function, he is guilty of a conspiracy to defraud the country. Dishonest politicians who act on dubious legal claims? There aren't enough prisons to hold them all, she wrote. Al Gore and George W. Bush both filed lawsuits in 2020 with untested legal claims. Surely both candidates had advisors who

told them privately that they may have legitimately lost, and neither publicly conceded an inch until the Supreme Court resolved the matter. Could a sore winner have used this approach to indict the loser for attempting to thwart the democratic process? In American greatness, Matthew Booth said, of course, this indictment is political. Many people are likely under the impression that Trump is accused of inciting the January 6th riot, but that is not the case. The word insurrection appears nowhere in the indictment, a striking omission after three years of breathless hysteria about an attempted coup. Instead, Trump is being prosecuted for highly abstract political offenses, Boo said. Trump is being punished for refusing to recant his belief, a reasonable one, that the political

process was fatally corrupted in 2020 and that Biden, consequently, is illegitimate. In 2020, Democrats censored a major scandal about Biden and imposed sweeping administrative changes that resulted in an abnormally messy, delayed, and opaque vote count, Boos wrote. But it's Trump who caused mistrust. Now, Democrats say it's crazy to speculate that there is anything political about the prosecution of a presidential candidate in an upcoming national election. The Trump indictment is politics at its purest. In his newsletter, The Pope Hat Report, Ken White said this case is complicated, but it is not the same as unprecedented. The special counsel's theory of the case is broad.

He asserts that Donald Trump and co-conspirators engaged in wide-ranging conspiracies to present unknowingly false claims and fabricated elector interfere with the vote count. Jack Smith's theory is that this course of conduct amounted to defrauding the United States, obstructing and conspiring to obstruct the official Senate proceeding, and using fraud to interfere with the votes of others by attempting to have them fraudulently discarded. Nobody's ever been charged with this set of facts because nobody's ever attempted to overthrow the government by fraud like this before. In that sense, this is unprecedented. But another sense is that term is misleading. Each of these federal criminal laws, which are broad and flexible by design, has been used to charge a wide variety of fraud and misconduct, White wrote. That doesn't mean it will be easy for the special counsel to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Donald Trump had the requisite mental state to violate the law. It means that his actions plausibly violate the law. All right, that is it for the rightist thing, which brings us to what the left is saying. Many on the left suggest Trump is guilty and praise the brilliance of the indictment. Some say it is a thoroughly made case and the law Smith is using to charge Trump can be broadly applied. Others argue that Trump and his accomplices were unsuccessful largely because of luck. In Bloomberg, Noah Feldman said the Trump indictment defends America's battered democracy. In Bloomberg, Noah Feldman said the Trump indictment defends America's battered democracy. This is the big one.

The first time the Department of Justice has ever indicted a former president for subverting democracy by trying to steal an election he knew he had lost, Feldman said. Had Trump succeeded, we would no longer be living in a free country, but in a presidential dictatorship. All the charges are supported by ample evidence that Trump knew he had lost the 2020 vote. He was told so repeatedly by his supporters and subordinates from the vice president to the Department of Justice to the director of national intelligence to the Department of Homeland Security cybersecurity experts to Trump's own White House lawyers. Republican state legislators as well as state and federal judges, also told Trump he had

lost. Lying about the election is likely protected by the First Amendment under current Supreme Court doctrine, but Trump went further. He went from state to state, trying to browbeat, intimidate, and otherwise cajole officials to reverse the results of the election. Unfortunately, there is no criminal prohibition specifically targeting an elected official's effort to use deceit and pressure to overturn an election result. Trump did not quite seek the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, at least according to prosecutors. So, prosecutors charged him instead under three statutes that were written broadly enough to bar Trump's conduct, even if they weren't drafted specifically with the subversion of elections in mind. 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+. 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. 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. In the New York Times, Randall D. Eliason said the prosecution's case looks thorough and relentless. The charging decisions in the indictment reflect smart lawyering by the special counsel Jack Smith and his team. The beauty of this indictment is that it provides three legal frameworks that prosecutors can use to tell the same fulsome story, he wrote. The lead charge, conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, is a go-to charge for federal prosecutors. Count One charges a conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing and defeating the lawful counting of votes and certification of the election. Conspiracy is the perfect vehicle for describing a complex criminal scheme

and identifying all the actors and everything they did. The conspiracy charge, which makes up most of the indictment, encompasses the tentacles of the scheme to overturn the election results. Pressuring state officials to overturn their elections, recruiting slates of fake electors from seven states, trying to corrupt the Justice Department to further the scheme, pressuring Mike Pence to throw out lawful votes, and directing the mob to the Capitol on January 6th, all are included as part of a single overarching conspiracy to defraud the United States. Counts two and three are conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and obstruction of a proceeding under 18 U.S.C. Section 1512. Prosecutors have successfully used this statute to charge hundreds of the January 6th Capitol rioters,

including members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, with disrupting the joint congressional proceeding to certify the election results. In The Guardian, Moira Donegan said the indictment proves Trump might not be bright, but he is dangerous. The document unsealed on Tuesday charges only Trump, but it also implicates six co-conspirators, Donegan said. It was with these accomplices that the special counsel alleges that Donald Trump embarked on a series of frauds, fabrications, and cockamamie schemes to reverse the election outcome between November 2020 and early January 2021. That project had multiple successive fronts, with the conspirators moving on to new strategies as the previous ones failed.

They tried to use the Justice Department to pursue frivolous and fraudulent allegations of election malfeasance. Then they tried to conscript state officials into advancing false claims of election fraud. Then they tried to send fake electors to Congress. Finally, they tried to stop Congress from certifying the election results on January 6. None of these schemes were especially well thought out, and none would have been plausible without both a willingness by many Republican officials to lie on Trump's behalf and a willingness by many Trump supporters to commit violence. That Trump and his co-conspirators failed in their effort to subvert the election was largely a matter of luck. That they are now being charged in this most significant of Trump's crimes

was not at all guaranteed. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So Donald Trump is in a lot of trouble. Even before we get into the strength of this indictment, and I do think Jack Smith is on pretty solid legal ground here, there's something happening that can't be ignored anymore. The odds of Trump being forced into a plea deal continued to rise. I thought the writer Scott Galloway, also known as Prof G, made this case well in a recent newsletter. Trump has now been indicted three times, and a fourth one from Fulton County, Georgia is assuredly on the way. In 2021, 94% of defendants charged with federal felonies

were convicted, and state and local prosecutors hit high rates as well. In the Atlanta office expected to indict Trump later this month, they have a 90% conviction rate. As Galloway puts it, if those rates were hypothetically reduced, even when given remarkably favorable, exceptional odds, Trump still has only a 41% chance of escaping prison time. So, what's the likely outcome here? I don't think it is unreasonable to think the endgame here is some kind of plea deal with the Justice Department in which Trump agrees to drop out of the race, never run for office again, and serve out probation in exchange for being spared going to prison. Now, there are some major caveats. The most obvious one is that

Trump could reasonably win the 2024 election, overhaul the Justice Department, and make his charges disappear. As I said last week, I think he has the nomination essentially locked up, legal issues notwithstanding. No candidate leading by 20 points at this point in the race has ever lost the nomination, and Trump is up by over 40 points in most polls. But it is still possible he beats all the charges in court. The judge in Florida overseeing the Mar-a-Lago case is largely viewed as a wild card. Legal experts seem to disagree about the strength of this latest indictment, the hush money payment case isn't going to end with jail time, and the details of the Georgia indictment are as yet unknown. I've long dismissed the idea of Trump in an orange jumpsuit as a left-wing fantasy,

and I still think the idea of him ever spending a day in prison is low. But I do think the walls are closing in, and the simple math on the number of charges he could reasonably be found guilty of makes me think a plea deal is becoming increasingly likely. So how threatening is this particular case? The indictment is an easy read and you can spend 20 minutes perusing it yourself when you're done listening to Tangle, of course. I thought Ken White's analysis of the charges under what the right is saying and how they relate to Trump's conduct was the most informative thing I've read about all of this. As White put it, Trump's conduct can plausibly fit into the broad ways the government has used these legal codes for obstructing

government activity or fraud in the past. But they are broad, and they are contested, and the way courts have ruled on them has varied. Legal gray areas will be prodded, and perhaps that alone is enough for one to believe these charges should have never been brought against a former president. I disagree. Here's the point, White said in his piece. There are legal and factual defenses to this indictment, but anyone telling you that it obviously, inarguably violates the law is lying to you. In other words, these charges are not some violation of Trump's rights, and they alone don't amount to a political witch hunt. Trump's own conduct is central to the indictment, and he gave special counsel Jack Smith a lot to work with. Smith has fit Trump's conduct into U.S. legal code. Some of

the contests that Trump will get out on First Amendment grounds, but I don't think it's that simple. Smith isn't charging Trump for comments like mail-in ballots are unreliable, which would be First Amendment-protected political speech. He's charging him for specific statements that were falsified by courts, like claiming 10,000 dead people voted, and the way he used those statements to try to pressure government officials into upending the election. Noah Rothman, the National Review columnist, wrote a fascinating dissent from the magazine's editorial board in which he makes the case that January 6th was a crime. In it, Rothman says rightly that the courts may find Trump's alleged false statements to government officials

and agencies were not sufficient to prove fraud, but the courts will have to navigate Supreme Court precedent that reinforces the idea that efforts to defraud the United States includes obstructing government conduct. Another thing I've said in the past worth repeating here is that the worst of Trump's conduct related to the 2020 election was, in my opinion, his team's efforts to transmit fraudulent electors from seven different states. Those actions will prove difficult to charge in court, assuming Trump argues that nobody could or should have taken them seriously. But to me, they were the closest his team came to actually throwing us into a full-blown constitutional crisis. Smith's case, as laid out in the indictment, is very reasonable. Trump earned the charges and they deserve a hearing. But, like all other indictments,

they are only allegations, which Trump has a right to defend himself against. And even if they are all true in this case, that doesn't mean there is unimpeachable legal ground to charge him on. It does mean, though, that there's another legal ball in the air for Trump's team to juggle, and another reasonable criminal case being brought against him that very well may end up with a guilty verdict. If this were his only legal trouble, one might find reason to believe he'd wiggle out of it. But it's not, and I'm less sure than ever that he will. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Kathleen in Scottsdale, Arizona. Kathleen said, I do not believe there is any credence to the polls showing

Trump as the foregone Republican primary nominee. The reason for this is that millions of people, myself included, never responded to surveys because of the inherent bias in the questions. In fact, I know many voters who intend on voting for either DeSantis or Scott in the primary, but these results do not show up in the surveys. So the press concludes that Trump will be the Republican candidate for president. Like millions of others, I do not believe this to be so. All right, Kathleen, so this wasn't really a question, but it did feel like a good comment to address today, so we'll flip it. I'll give my take, and then I'll ask you a question. We all tend to be biased toward the views of people we socialize with,

and that might be happening for you. For every person that you know that doesn't answer polls, who is voting for DeSantis or Scott or Ramaswamy or whoever, I think there are going to be at least one other person who is also not answering and is going to vote for Trump. Ironically, it was this very effect, along with polls undercounting support for Trump, which contributed to the widespread surprise after his 2016 win. Many polls have corrected for that problem since then, and in 2022, the polls were again generally reliable. To support the view that Trump will win the primary, there's convincing data.

54% of Republicans prefer Trump over a crowded field, where DeSantis is in second place with 17%. 71% of Republicans said they want Trump to be president again, and 63% said this would be even true if he is found guilty of a crime. As I wrote in today's My Take, no candidate in Trump's position in a modern presidential primary has ever lost. I can't prove that the polling data isn't missing something, or that it doesn't skew the way you think. But I can't prove that the polling data isn't missing something or that it doesn't skew the way you think, but I can't prove a negative, which we highlighted in our piece on weak arguments. So my question is, what hard evidence exists to show

that the polling is skewed far enough towards Trump to make a meaningful difference? Maybe you or one of our listeners has an answer to this question. Polls can be wrong. They've been wrong before, and they could be wrong again. And I'm always skeptical when I see consensus. So if you think there's something missing from the data, I want to know about it. If Trump won't win the primary, what do you think I'm missing? All right, that is it for your questions answered, which brings us to our under the radar section. The FBI is investigating a cyber attack on a California-based health care system that forced some locations to close and impacted 16 hospitals and more than 166 outpatient clinics in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Southern California. Details of the security

breach have not yet been released, but several facilities in the network announced they were reverting to paper records, rescheduling appointments, or had to close until further notice. Cyber attacks are becoming more common and an increasing threat to healthcare systems. The New York Times has the story. There's a link in today's episode description. has the story, there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The percentage of Americans who believe Biden's victory came thanks to voter fraud is 30%, according to a June Monmouth poll. The percentage of Americans who believe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square is 59%. The percentage of Democrats who believe Biden won the election fair and square is 93%. The percentage of Republicans who believe Biden won fair and

square is 21%, while the percentage of Americans who think Trump should have been charged with a crime for his actions related to January 6th and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election was 52%, according to an ABC News poll. The percentage of Americans who think Trump should not have been charged is 32%. All right, and last but not least, our have a nice day story. By taking a personal approach to homelessness, Detroit has been able to house more of its homeless veteran population. According to the Built for Zero model, Detroit restructured its system by merging its point of entry for homeless veterans with its point of entry for homeless individuals and families in the community.

That switch enabled veterans to access all of the resources available to them, not just veterans' resources that they don't always know about or utilize. Since joining the program in 2015, Detroit has reduced veteran homelessness by approximately 60%. When I started with the VA in January 2017, the highest number that we had was 348 homeless veterans. And as of April 2023, we are now down to 104, said Jennifer Tuzinski, a social worker at the VA Medical Center in Detroit. Reasons to be Cheerful has the story, and there's a link 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 reentangled.com forward slash membership. And don't forget, we have a new YouTube video up on our channel, and we're coming out soon with some content from our event. Thank you all again so much for the support and coming out. It was very much appreciated. 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 Law. Our script is edited by Ari Weitzman, Bailey Saul, and Sean Brady. The logo for our 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 readtangle.com and check out our website. 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+. 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.