The MeidasTouch Podcast - PP and Bagina and the Debate with 11Alive’s Page Pate

Episode Date: April 16, 2021

Today’s MeidasTouch Podcast has it all! We’re bringing you updates on foreign policy, the latest bills in Congress and the retaliation of the GQP against private corporations… So is the GQP, uh, communist now? But that’s not all! We have an incredible debate with 11Alive’s legal analyst Page Pate, who called MeidasTouch’s tweet about the Georgia election bill false on Atlanta TV! This is an episode you don’t want to miss. Thank you for making the MeidasTouch Podcast a top podcast in the world! Please keep sharing the show with a friend and rate us 5 stars on the Apple Podcast app to help us continue to climb the charts! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/support Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi there, I'm Ryan Reynolds, and I have a list of things I like to have on set. It's just little things like two freshly cracked eggs scrambled with crispy hash brown, sausage crumble, and creamy chipotle sauce from Tim Hortons. From my rider to Tim's menu, try my new scrambled eggs loaded breakfast box. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. The Grady Mustard Exclusions and terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game

and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more, make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today.

You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome to the Midas Touch Podcast.

Ben Micellis joined by my younger brothers, Brett and Jordy Micellis. What a show we have for you today. Because Paige Pate, for all the Midas Mighty out there, know about my beef with Paige Pate, the senior trial attorney from Pate Johnson and Church, who also happens to be the legal analyst for 11 Alive News in Georgia. Paige and I got beef, fellas. And Paige and I are going to settle that beef once and for all. Settle the score. And let me tell you why page and i have beef because i woke up in the morning thinking about what a great day it was gonna be sun was shining

and i get a text message from brett saying look at what this Georgia 11 Alive News did. And what they did is there was a whole entire segment devoted to a single tweet that Midas Touch had sent. And it says false next to the Midas Touch logo. And that made me upset, brothers. You want to talk about what the tweet said? Let's dive on in. What a controversy. So 11 Alive News put up this tweet of ours, and it was a tweet in which Midas Touch wrote,

we wrote, that the Georgia election bill provides an outlet for the Georgia state legislature to overturn the result of the elections. And they were quick to say, eh, wrong, false Midas touch. You're wrong and you should feel bad about it. And we did a whole segment on it. This is what they devoted an entire segment of news on. And I saw it. And then they said, we relied on an Atlanta, Georgia lawyer by the name of Paige Pate. And then they had Paige Pate speak and say why we were misinformed by the law. But the thing that I found interesting about Paige's appearance on that show is he said, well, while the text of the law doesn't say that, it certainly does provide a lane for the law to be abused. And that's where I said, so aren't you saying that this is kind of true then? If you're saying that this law can in fact be abused, that's what we're concerned about here, because

we're not dealing with a Republican Party that's going to play by the text of the law. They're not going to play by the letter of the law. This is the Republican Party that tried to orchestrate. They did orchestrate an insurrection against the United States. They tried to overthrow the government. They tried to hang Mike Pence. You think they're going to go, well, Section 5 says that we need to find just cause for this law in order to overturn the results of the election. So because we didn't find just cause and not make up a cause or find a cause or plant the seeds right now in order to overturn this law. So, Ben, I'm excited for you to go toe to toe with Page. I think in these scenarios, I think it's best that Jordi and I sort of sit back, let you do your lawyerly thing and go toe to toe. Also, just from a respect point of view,

we're honestly in all seriousness, we're honored to have Paige Pate and to be able to have a platform here to have these discussions about these laws and about these issues and have contrasting views from people who are coming at us in good faith. And by the way, I don't know Paige's political leanings. I don't even think he's a fan of the law to begin with. I don't even know. I don't think he's a Republican per se. I don't know his political leanings. I just know he came on and said that we were wrong. So I'm excited to give him our platform. Let us hash it out. Let us discuss it and bring you, the listeners, the truth about this law, because there is a lot of disinformation out there. And you can hear it straight from the source the same way you were able to hear it a couple of weeks ago from Gabriel

Sterling and Mark Elias. If the opportunity presents itself though, I will ask him about his initials being PP. You know what, Jordy? I, you know, listen, I I'll let you do what you want to do. If the opportunity presents itself. Okay. If the opportunity presents itself, you could ask him how it was growing up with the initials PP, but you know, my, I'm not a lawyer, but my advice is going to be maybe let Ben handle this one and let's go toe to toe on the facts. But here I was about to say how one of the things I'm so honored to have at Midas Touch is a platform to do what old news doesn't do, which is these hard hitting interviews that are true debates, a true back and forth, spontaneous, but well-researched, and not just dealing with two-minute segments where you go false or true, where you give all

of the facts and you let the listeners or viewers decide. And then Jordy talks about asking him about pee-pee. And so that will... Seriously, though, the 11- 11 Alive, it's scary what they did. You know, I forget the study, but there was a study done relatively recently in the last two years that say how, you know, most citizens actually trust their local news more than they trust, you know, the CNNs, the Fox News, the whatevers of the world.

And I understand that. But so what 11 Alive News did was they clipped our one tweet without any context whatsoever, put a big false label over it, and then wrote this whole narrative why we were wrong without putting any of the other additional context around that one tweet. It was truly bizarre and just frightening to see that play out. I don't think they did it in bad faith per se. I think they were trying to take an example. Brett's an 11 Alive sympathizer. Damn. 11 Alive sympathizer. I'm just saying, stop it.

I think they were just really going into the letter of the law. Does the law say that, yes, I'm going to raise my hand. I don't like the results, so we're overturning it. No, of course it doesn't say that. But is there a mechanism? Is there a way to abuse what is in the law in order to have that same end result? In my opinion, yes. And it seems like Paige Pate, even on that segment, refuting our tweet, acknowledged that there was many ways to abuse the law. So excited to dig in. 11 Alive News. 11 Alive News. If you're hiring, Brett's apparently auditioning to be

your new digital head. Brett loves 11 Alive News, if you're hiring, Brett's apparently auditioning to be your new digital head. Brett loves 11 Alive News. Brett's a big fan of 11 Alive. And to the letter of the law, I guess Daniel Dow would love that too, Brett. I'm not defending. I'm just saying that I think it's a silly way to approach a fact check. I think it's a stupid way. But that's what they were doing.

If we're just leaning back, it's dumb. It's dumb. And I think it's misinforming their viewers. And after this, after this segment, I think we may have to demand a retraction. Well, let's see how the interview. Let's see how it goes. Let's see how the interview goes.

Anyway, another legal news, not to steal your thunder of bragging about the fact that you're an attorney. I know you like to do that, Ben, and we get to play our sound effect here. I heard you just had a big win or a case that you were a part of, just had a major settlement, the Fyre Festival case. What happened there?

Well, I was known for being in the documentary of the two Fyre Festival films. I think that I did some incredible acting in those films. I think that I may have really been the driving force behind those films. And there were two of them. There was a Hulu film, which Ben, that was the one you were in frequently, right? I mean, you were literally like probably in 50% of that movie. And I think they even gave you the closing line to the movie.

You got memed. I remember you were memed after that one too. Ben was a meme. It was a big thing. And Ben was also in the Netflix, though. You know, Ben was like really in the Hulu one. If you want to see Ben at work talking about this case, you could go watch the Hulu Fyre Fest. Yeah. So we reached the resolution with the bankruptcy trustee where a group of ticket holders who submitted to the bankruptcy process will be entitled to a refund to be determined how much money there is. But we are certainly happy with that result. And I got a ton of DMs today. People didn't realize that I'm actually a lawyer and they think I'm just joking when we do those

sound effects. And so I said, I actually am a lawyer, a practicing trial lawyer. I do catastrophic personal injury type cases, and that's what I do when I'm not doing Midas Touch. But let's get into the Midas Touch podcast news. And I want to talk about foreign policy. I want to talk about what's going on in Afghanistan, and I want to talk about what's going on in Russia. We have a competent and coherent foreign policy right now. Yesterday, U.S. President Biden announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Let's play the clip of his press conference. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result. I'm now the fourth United

States president to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan. Two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the vice president, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world, I've concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home. So President Biden spoke with notably two of his predecessors regarding the U.S. troop withdrawals. He spoke to President Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Of course, he didn't speak to Trump at this point like trump basically isn't even a former president he's

just like he's just a walking talking psychotic asterisk a walking asterisk he's an outcast no he's a walking asterisk and uh no one likes the guy nobody did asterisk or asterisk asterisk jordy asterisk asterisk it's isk this is not a debate this isn't even a charade charade debate this is a just purely facts only it's a lot of people came to my defense with charade so screw you guys charade anyway let's get charade i remember all the people who did the british british pronunciation i was the only one here charade three this is going to surprise our listeners i was the only one here out of the three that took AP English. I think I took AP English. I think I took AP English. I don't know where you're getting that from. I was just kind of hoping you guys wouldn't say anything. In fact, we all did. But

good try, Jordan. But no, I mean, this is big news. No one's consulting Trump because Trump is a loser at this point. He's like a ghost. He's like a loser. He's a failed despot hiding out in his resort in Florida. No one really cares about the guy. When you want expertise, you go to former presidents who are actually real presidents who actually worked with our allies. And I think that's an important thing of what President Biden said, too. He didn't say, I'm just pulling out our troops willy nilly like Trump had suggested. Like, let's just get everybody out. Who cares what damage we do? Who cares what destruction we bring? He said, I consulted with our allies. I consulted with other military leaders. I consulted with our predecessors. This is going to be a thought out process. And I think this is important. I mean, this war is almost as old as

you, Jordy. And it's absolutely insane. And this is one of those things, you know, that I can't help but being a little just skeptical of any president saying that they're going to do just because this has been in our lives for so long. But I'm hoping that President Biden will fulfill his promise here. And I'm hoping that we will see the removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan because there really is no point for us to be fighting these wars. And I look forward to that day. And I'm hoping that President Biden keeps his promise here. What do you guys think? I think he will keep his promise. I mean, if you look at how he's handled the vaccine, how he's handled infrastructure, Biden doesn't fuck around.

Biden doesn't just Biden doesn't just say things for the sake of saying shit like he says things. He means it when he does say it. It's deliberate. It's well planned out. And he executes on what he does. One of the things that he said he was going to do and that he did execute on is sanctioning Russia. sweeping sanctions and diplomatic expulsions, punishing Moscow for its interference in the 2020 U.S. elections and its SolarWinds cyber attack and its ongoing occupation and severe human rights abuses in Crimea. The announcement is one of a series of dramatic foreign policy steps that Biden has taken in all foreign issues, including in sending an unofficial delegation to Taiwan to express support of democratic institutions in Taiwan. As part of Thursday's overall announcement, though, as it relates to Russia, U.S. formally named the Russian intelligence service as the group that was behind the solar winds hack that affected the federal government. One of the most vicious attacks in the history,

maybe one of the most vicious cyber attack, you know, and like literally our nuclear secrets were stolen and President Trump wouldn't even say a thing about who did it, wouldn't say anything negative about Russia. No, he said a thing. He said, I trust what Putin said. Putin said he didn't do it. So Putin said he didn't do it. I got to trust him. Oh, the intelligence, our intelligence agencies said he did. No, not a Putin said he didn't do it. I trust Putin on this over the United States intelligence. That's what Trump said. I don't know if you saw this, too, but the Treasury Department also. This release today in connection with these sanctions, which basically listed somebody named Konstantin Kilminik, who's a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant.

And they basically linked Kilminik with Manafort for receiving information about the 2016 election and basically for the first time explicitly and expressly validating, you know, as a government pronouncement, the collusion that took place in the 2016 election. This is a bombshell release. Honestly, this is like massive, massive, massive stuff. This goes far beyond even what we learned with Robert Mueller, which is crazy, which I chair, provided an internal strategy memo and private polling to a Russian agent. They then passed that on to Russian intelligence and the Kremlin then used that information to help Trump win the 2016 election. That is the very definition of collusion or the legal term for that, which would be conspiracy right out there in your face. That's the Russian collusion. No doubt about it. And

it is great for once to have a administration that actually stands up for America and doesn't treat our country like we're some satellite country of the Soviet Union. So very big foreign policy moves from Taiwan to Russia to Afghanistan. We thought it was important that we give you updates on foreign policy. We often focus our podcast on domestic policies, but we wanted to definitely touch upon those major foreign policy advancements as well. Let's pivot a little bit to domestic issues. And one of the things that isn't surprising, but just goes to show you how just dumb and evil and just beyond stupid the GQPR is the action that they took after the MLB moved the All-Star game out

of Georgia because of Georgia's voter suppression laws. You have the GQP trying to introduce legislation to retaliate against the MLB and to remove their antitrust status of the Major League Baseball League. What do you guys think about that? I think it's just so absurd. I mean, this is the party that likes to consider themselves the party of the free market. Let corporations do what they want. Let corporations act like people. In fact, corporations are people. They should be able to say what they want. They should be able to do what they want. They should be treated exactly like people. And the second a corporation decides in its own private interest that it's best to go against something like a voter suppression bill or go against racism, then that's when the GOP decides, you know what we're going to do? This free market thing, it's no longer working out for us.

We got to step in and we got to start controlling these corporations. In fact, we got to punish these corporations for their actions. This is not okay. Yeah. We as the government need to punish and take control over private corporations because in their exercise of their discretion as a private business, we don't like how they are spending their dollars. And so we as the government want to harm them. We as the government want to cancel them. I don't know about you, sounding a little bit for the party that constantly screams communism and Hugo Chavez and Democrats, fascism, this, that. Sounds a little communist-y to want the government to be controlling the means of production. I can't think of anything more Hugo Chavez-ist.

That's what I call it. It's the Chavez-ist move. It's typical Hugo Chavez, though. Like, this is what the Bobberts of the world see. All they want to do is, though, like this is what the bobberts of the world, all they want to do is like compare free market Democrats to Hugo Chavez for no reason and just make defamatory statements about, you know, voting's being rigged by Hugo Chavez. Everything's Hugo Chavez. Everything's Hugo. And this is when the free market, this is when the people are deciding, you know what, I don't want to support that company because I don't agree with their values. That's when they get enraged. That's

when they go, this is cancel culture and we cannot stand for it. But the second a corporation goes against one of their values, they don't encourage a boycott from the people. They encourage a boycott from the government. They encourage retaliation from the government. And that's a much different thing. And that's a distinction that has to be made. It's scary. They're acting like mob bosses. They're acting like we have the power. We can control the money that you get and your tax laws. And we're going to fuck with it because we don't like your values anymore because you're against us now. Se. It's ridiculous. I mean, when you think about Hugo Chavez, when you think about dictators who seize private companies and bring them into government control, this is precisely what the GQP wants to do. It's precisely what Trump wanted

to do. He wanted to penalize and punish private corporations for supporting democracy. And that's what this current GQP wants to do. They want to penalize, use government power to penalize private citizens. And by the way, even if they are private citizens who were once members of their own party or still members of the party who criticize them or who criticize their anti-democratic tendencies. And former Speaker Boehner, who released his autobiography, I don't know if you saw this, but Ted Cruz did a tweet where he burned former Speaker of the House, the Republican Speaker of the House, burning his book and tweeting a photo of burning books. So here's what we have.

Hold on. Okay. I think you were just about to go into it. So we have a political party who wants to control the means of production, who wants to retaliate the GQP. They want to control the means of production. They want to retaliate against private businesses, the government. They want to retaliate against private businesses. And not only that, but they want to engage in book burning over materials that they don't like. Do I have that correct? These people, as I said it over and over again on the podcast, these GQP are the biggest fucking clowns ever. They are clownish, wannabe despots. They embarrass themselves every day. You can't hang out with this crew.

This GQP crew, they're toxic. They're toxic to themselves. Imagine, they probably smell. They're probably really stinky also they just smell like shit too don't you think that i just like could you imagine just being in a car with three of them and it just the smell and it's like let's be real soap and shampoo were made by scientists and that's all a liberal scheme. And you don't want to do that. I mean, let's face it. If you take the side of book burning as your choice of retaliation,

you got to reevaluate yourself and your values, man. You're a fucking sicko. They're burning masks. They're burning books. They're retaliating against businesses. They are attacking public health officials. They are preventing bills that protect the Asian community from hate crimes from being passed. They are against bills that are trying to want to say it again, that are designed to protect the Asian communityian hate crime. And Congressman Swalwell, he goes, yep, the usual suspects, Cotton, Cruz, Howley, Marshall, Tuberville, Paul, they all opposed the bill, the anti-Asian hate bill. They all opposed it. It's beyond parody at this point. And like Swalwell said, every time something like this happens, you see at least those six names, usually more. And like Swalwell said, every time something like this happens, you see at least those six names, usually more. And it's just abhorrent. It's just absolutely disgusting. I mean, this should just be bipartisan. I mean, no, we don't want hate crimes against Asian Americans.

That should be a yes, of course. I am enjoying, though, the GQP kind of eating itself up, though, like former Speaker of the House Boehner, like he kind of eating itself up though. Like former speaker of the house, Boehner, like he kind of deserves this speak in a way because he created this. And I know he wants to basically say they're crazy, but he created it. I don't know if you saw, you know, so them going at each other's throats makes me,

puts a little smile on my face. To that point, just one build. We grew up watching Colbert and Jon Stewart attacking Boehner because Boehner was the first one of these assholes. We grew up watching him and all his bullshit. And to your point, he led to the Ted Cruz's. He led to the Howley's. It's Boehner's doing. He certainly wasn't the first, but he certainly was a big player in exactly what he's now railing against. But what's crazy is, is that in retrospect, like he seems incredibly reasonable this new is new, just total crazy. Ben, we're agreeing with Liz Cheney now. I mean, come on, this is the this is the universe that we're in, that Liz Cheney is the beacon of truth and hope

of the Republican Party, that she is willing to just admit that Trump has no place in her party. I mean, it's it should be simple. Speaking of the Republicans going at each other's throats. Did you see the clip of Geraldo and Dan vagina like going at each other's faces on on Hannity, the vagina? Is that how you say his name? It's how you say it now. Definitely how you say it now. Is it vagina? Definitely vagina. I think it's vagina. 100% vagina. Dan vagina.

I think it's... Bungino, but vagina rolls off the tongue a little better. So do you have the clip of vagina v. Geraldo? Play the vagina clip. Here's the vagina bashing. You tell that to the black families that see their sons being killed twice the rate of white. You got nothing else, buddy. That's a fact.

You got nothing else. That's a fact. You've got nothing else. All you want to do is see the country burn. You just want to see the country burn. That's it. I want to see the country burn. You son of a bitch.

I want to see the country burn. You punk. You're nothing but a punk. You're a punk sponge you know you're a punk you wouldn't tell me that to my face we'll leave it there you're a punk vagina who knew fox knew that was hannity who knew who knew i guess it was i don't know what what's worse jerry springer or fox news i mean it's the same shit now. Jerry Springer is more credible. I think so. I think so, too. I think we settled it, though. It is vagina. But what we have not settled is my score with page. Hold on. Before we get into page paid, I just had a an episode title idea. And we could either run with this or we could not run

with this, but here's my pitch for all to hear. Episode title, Pee-Pees and Vaginas. Pee-Pees, it should definitely be Pee-Pees and Vaginas. It's going to be very hard for me to take this interview with Paige Pate seriously, knowing that's going to be our title.

But I totally think that should be our title. When we come back after these brief messages, I will go one on one with my main adversary in the world right now. Paige Pate. We'll be right back with the Midas Touch podcast. That's a good title. That's a good title. Peepees and vaginas. Welcome back to the Midas Touch Podcast. We are joined by no other than Paige Pate,

who has taken the Midas Touch Challenge to talk about SB202. Paige Pate is the managing partner at Pate Johnson & Church, which has offices in Atlanta and Los Angeles, I found out recently, in Washington, D.C., close by to me. He is a legal analyst for 11 Alive in Atlanta and most significantly did a hit where he talked about SB202, where Midas Touch was mentioned. We've gotten questions about the new election law every day, and there are all kinds of claims swirling around the internet. This time, we're going to focus on this one, a tweet from an account called Midas Touch,

claiming the new law gives officials the power to overturn elections if they do not like the result. So there's certainly the potential for some concern and abuse of this law. But as far as allowing the state board to change the results, that's not what it does. So we can verify the claim that this new election law gives officials the power to overturn election results is false. I think that's the most important thing, Paige, to mention here. Of your incredible career and all the awards that you won was the hit that you did the other day. But thank you so much for joining the Midas Touch podcast. Absolutely. Happy to be with you guys. And so we were going at you a little bit on Twitter. And look, I think possibly it wasn't your fault so much as 11 Alive's fault and how they framed the tweet as being a false tweet that we sent versus, I think, with the intent that you wanted to say.

But I wanted to set the record straight because I think there is truth to our tweet and I think there may be truth to what you were saying. And I think that sometimes one of the problems that we have is sometimes in these two minute hits, the way that the media has to frame the issue, they really can't go into the nuance and have the in-depth discussion of the problems. And so I wanted to spend a little time today, not take up too much of your time, as I know you're a practicing attorney. The tweet in question was a Midas touch tweet that said, quote, the new Georgia voter suppression law gives officials the power to overturn elections if they do not like the results. This is dangerous and we cannot let this stand. That was a Midas touch tweet, which resulted in the 11 Alive piece, which then did an interview with you, which we'll play before this interview.

And what we're referring to was Section 5 of the SB 202 bill, which basically removed the power of the secretary of state from the as being the chair of the state election board and appointing somebody from the General Assembly. It also gave the board the power to remove the superintendent or the election supervisors from certain counties if this new board found that the supervisor or superintendent was acting negligent or irresponsible over the course of two election cycles there. Without going much further than that, do I have the facts right there so far? Are we in agreement in those facts? That's what it does. Yeah, I think mostly. I mean, like you said at the beginning, this is a very complicated law, and I think intentionally so. I think the Republican General Assembly buried a lot of material in this 98-page

bill, so it's really hard to try to just gloss over it. But I think you've got the basics right. I mean, there are very specific findings that the election board has to make before they remove a superintendent from a municipality or a county. But yes, they can do that. That's correct. And a superintendent or an election supervisor, it's called different things in different states, but at a very local level, elections are very local, right? And these superintendents do have a lot of power, right? And they have power, for example, to look at absentee votes. They have the power to look at signatures. If we think back to the 2000 Florida elections, sometimes making the decisions, right, we all have that PTSD of the hanging Chad or not the hanging Chad. And do I count this one?

I was 10 years old and I have the PTSD of the hanging Chad. But they are empowered though, empowered though right page to make certain decisions granted those decisions could be subject to later reviews and challenges and court cases but they are kind of that first line that are making a lot of these important decisions if if if there are valid or non-valid votes is that accurate You're right about that. Georgia law sets forth very specific powers and duties of those superintendents. They get to instruct and hire poll workers. They get to pick the machines, decide where the poll locations are going to be. And I guess most important for our discussion, at the end of the process, they are that first line of certification.

They have to certify the results from their particular jurisdiction and then send it into the Secretary of State's office. And of course, we all know from the past election, I guess there was different views that the Trump supporters won. Some of them were keep counting and some were stop the vote and some were keep counting. But one of the key issues here was going to be that first line of defense as to certification would be the superintendent. And here the question then becomes, well, who is the General Assembly looking at here? What are the counties that they truly view as problematic? And, you know, we had the ability to ask the question to Gabriel Sterling.

We said, so the bill mentions that, you know, certain counties are problematic. Do any counties specifically meet this definition right now? And without missing a beat, though, to his credit, whether it was a moment of honesty or a moment of letting his guard down, he goes, Fulton County, you know, right away. And so do you believe that? Do you believe that this is aimed, though, pretty much specifically at the Republican legislature to try to take control over the superintendent of Fulton County? I do think Fulton County has gotten a lot of attention, and I think probably deservedly so, for problems in running elections. I mean, that's where we saw the really long lines, both in the primaries and in the general election. But I think the problem with Fulton County was not so much in the certification process, but how they conducted the election itself.

And I do think Gabe Sterling is correct about that. Still, though, if they're going to remove somebody from Fulton County, the superintendent, they've got to go through the process that they put forth in this bill, which is now law in Georgia. Right. And that process, though, and what those standards are would eventually, though, at some point that goes in front of what a Georgia state court judge? If it's challenged, yes. I mean, in the law itself, the board basically determines whether or not there's been a violation and whether or not they have authority to replace the superintendent. And I think I said in my interview, and I'm not entirely sure if it made

the cut for the short hit, but there is obviously the potential for abuse of this law because now the state elections board is basically going to be controlled by Republicans. If you take the secretary of state off the and he's still on the board, but he's a non-voting member, so he doesn't count anymore for purposes of the board. You've got the state Senate appointing one member of the state House appointing one member, and then each party appoints a member. So right now, our Senate and House are controlled by Republicans. So Republicans would appoint three members of this five-person board, so they could control the vote. And that's the potential for concern. But again, the process is baked into the law itself, such that there's a lot of opportunities to challenge that decision. Findings of fact have to be made. And yes, you're right. Ultimately, if a superintendent wants to challenge the board decision,

they can take it to court. And then when Gabriel Sterling was on, we gave the example of there are four of us that are on here right now. If we were to have a vote, who's right? The brothers would vote for me and I would win. We can say we're going through a process and we can make fact findings and we can do all of those things. of the day, if the underlying intent behind this law is that the Republicans were wronged in this past election and you have the Republicans then controlling this board, it would be hard for me to believe that the fact-finding process would not reach the conclusion that the Republicans, the Republican view of things is right. Granted, you can challenge it. Granted, it sets these standards. But to me, at the end of the day,

the very system of the board is going to be rigged in favor of the Republican view here. I think that's certainly possible. Although, again, even assuming you put aside that I've got to find three violations of the law and go to that second element, all I have to do is show gross negligence. But I've still got to show that in the last two elections. So as the board, I can't just step in and say, hey, superintendent, we don't like what you did in this election, so you're gone. I have to show evidence that this is a pattern of misconduct before I can try to remove the superintendent. And I think that if you asked Gabriel Sterling, he would say that pattern is already there in certain counties, which tend to be Democratic counties. But, Paige, isn't the mere possibility of abuse that's built into a law and that possibility of abuse resulting in manipulations

of elections in favor of Republicans isn't just that very nature problematic? It's problematic, and I've not been a fan of this law for a variety of reasons, and I think most of the legal challenges have focused on other parts of the law that I don't know if we're going to discuss today, but Section 5 itself, to me, and also to the lawyers that have filed these federal lawsuits, is not the focus or is not the worst part of this law. Because let's assume that, yeah, the board acts irrationally, they're politically motivated in and all that person can do is go through the process of, you know, checking the poll workers, issuing guidance and certifying or not certifying the results from that particular jurisdiction. And so I guess when 11 Alive, you know, read me the tweet and again, I did not see it before, had not heard of you guys, you know, did not know anything about how that question was generated. My problem with it was that the state elections board could remove a superintendent simply because they didn't like the results in that particular jurisdiction. And I don't think the law allows them to do that. And I think you only have a certain amount of characters in the tweet. But I think what the tweet is saying is a worst case scenario about how this law can be

abused. And I think that we wouldn't want that to take place. And we hope that the legislatures operate in good faith. But there is a scenario where this is abused. The superintendent does not certify the results. And you have when you have somebody like Donald Trump reaching out and having phone calls the way he was trying to have phone calls with Gabriel Sterling. I mean, Gabriel Sterling didn't take that phone call and certified the results. Right. The secretary of state, Roffensperger, took the phone call. But Trump was trying to get at the General Assembly. That was his whole plan, to do end run around it. So aren't we a little afraid that Trump's going to call his General Assembly buddy?

I mean, you know, hopefully Trump never runs again. But like that's the fear that we have is he was trying to make those phone calls to the General Assembly. And now they've appointed somebody who may pick up the phone call. And when Trump goes, don't certify the results, they go, yeah, I'm not going to certify it. And then we have a true constitutional crisis. Well, I mean, you're certainly right. That could present a constitutional crisis. But in a situation where you're certifying elections from the state for purposes of the Electoral College, that's more of a discretionary act than what these local superintendents are doing in the run of a mill, you know, midterm general. There's an election

going on in Georgia right now for certain local judges. And to certify those results, it really is more of a ministerial act. It's not, I'm going to decide which slate of electors we're going to send to D.C. It's, you know, what are the numbers here? Either they're showing up the way I think they should or they're not. I can refuse to certify them, but I can't change the results. I can't certify some other slate of votes because I like that result better. I'll give you an example. So the vice president Pence's role in certifying the elections was an administerial role. I mean, and everyone was

like, it's just counting. But Donald Trump and a group of Republicans, including probably a ton of people in the General Assembly who passed this bill, thought that there was some way for the vice president to not do that administerial act and to basically change it. So if you pass the law that changed it and said, you know what, the vice president doesn't do it. It's somebody who Donald Trump and a board of people who he appoints gets to basically do that in ministerial act. And then we're supposed to all believe, you know what, they're just going to follow the typical ministerial advice like they're supposed to. That's, I think, the alarm that we have in this bill, that the intent behind it is to change the process because Raffensperger and Sterling held the line.

Vice President Pence held the line. We thought all of these things were ministerial. And now they're trying to create ways to, sure, it may still be ministerial, but there are other ways maybe to get around that now through a very opaque omnibus bill. Well, yes, but that problem was present before this law was passed, as you just pointed out. I mean, somebody who's bent on violating the law like Trump was can still call the governor and say, I don't want you to send in this slate of electors. He can try to manipulate the General Assembly. And that was true before this law was passed. I don't know. Totally. But we shouldn't make it easier, though. Well, that's true. Absolutely. And again, of this law, not not at all. Am I a fan of this law? But

I mean, you mentioned Gabe Sterling. Did you see his piece in The Washington Post? No, I go directly to the source. I speak to them directly. Good, absolutely. But recently, and I think it was just published yesterday, he was critical of the law, but also critical, I think, the way that the Biden administration has kind of spun the law a little bit more than perhaps what the actual text says. So it's a bad law, but I don't know it's as bad as some people are saying. And here's the thing, though, when I talked to Gabe Sterling, you know, and to that point that it's not as bad as people said, the very essence of the law is built on a fraudulent finding. You agree with that? A hundred percent, yes. And so as just a lawyer and a lawmaker,

from all perspectives, when you see that the law is based on fraud, how does anything that flows from it have literally any credibility? Like how does Gabe even get the right to say, yeah, you know, Biden's being an alarmist on a bill that was established based on fraud? Right. No, you're right. The bill, the very first part, makes all of these findings that are completely false about problems with the election, about fraudulent

misconduct, about lack of confidence in the results. So, yes, I think we start out with a bad premise, but the law does a few good things. It does allow Sunday voting in some counties in Georgia that never had it. It mandates that now it now puts into law the fact that drop boxes can be used. That was a temporary rule by the secretary of state. Now it's law. It's more difficult than it was before, but at least it's part of the law. So, yeah, but shouldn't shouldn't legislatures, though, want to like that? Shouldn't be a controversial concept, though, that they are a drop box like we shouldn't applaud them for doing the thing that they should have done. And then all they did was they did the thing they should have done anyway, but then limited it significantly and took it from outside to inside, limited the hours that you can use it. And then they want to basically a

pat on the back to say, look, we now made it a law, but we actually severely limited it. For example, I think the drop boxes in Fulton County would like 70 to 80 percent less drop boxes in Fulton County as a result of this law, which is which is very problematic considering that. I mean, that's clearly who they're targeting, right? Why would you want to have a 70 to 80 percent reduction in drop boxes in the Black County and then not and say this isn't a racist bill? Right. And they also took away mobile voting, which was only being used by Fulton County, at least recently. The absentee ballot requirements are now a lot more difficult. And I think that's going to be the focus of the litigation going forward. And to the extent, the best legal argument, I think, is that they went way too far in restricting the ability to

get an absentee ballot and to send in that absentee ballot. So you may see a successful legal challenge to that part of the law. And then on the Sunday voting issue, which which Gabe Sterling points to in the black areas, the souls to the polls, you know, weekend voting initiatives that was really going on on Saturday and Sunday, you know, anyway, as far as I know, and that the the the areas that were open to Sunday or that that mandated Sunday voting aren't really areas where there was a lot of Sunday voting to begin with. And what this bill really does is truncate the times in which you can actually vote on the Sunday so that it actually makes it a little bit harder for people who are working or who have that time off to actually go and vote

on the weekend. Yeah, and I think you're going to see a lot more people have to go vote in person because of these ID requirements now and absentee ballots. You can't send out an unsolicited application for an absentee ballot. So it's going to lead to more in-person voting. And that, of course, is going to be restricted by some other parts of the law. That's right. But overall, Paige, you think it's a problematic bill. You're not, just for all the listeners out there, you're not for this bill. You think you're very against this bill. And you see all of the issues that are there, right? Yeah, absolutely. And the one thing we didn't talk about, which has gotten a lot of lawyers here in Georgia upset about, is the idea that people can

be criminally prosecuted for giving folks some water while they stand in line outside in the heat waiting to get in and vote. And that's just absurd. I think anyone would see that. And that's, you know, when you ask Gabriel Sterling, he goes, well, people were trying to electioneer or convince people to vote. But but, Paige, you're a criminal lawyer. There was already a law that prohibits that. So if that was the case, you would have seen people arrested for that. So there's already a law on the books that does that. And this is purely intended to harass and intimidate people and make it more difficult to wait on long lines, particularly in black areas. You're absolutely right. And there was a law and still is a law that punishes criminally anyone who tries to campaign when there's a line going into the poll.

Right. That's Georgia code. I memorized this 21-2414. Am I right? I believe so. I haven't memorized the code section. I have it in front of me. Paige, any final closing words about the bill, about your practice, any comments you want to make to future young lawyers out there about your experience at Midas Touch, how much fun you've had over the past 22 minutes. I'll leave you with the last few minutes. Now, look, I appreciate what you guys are doing. I did obviously look into the group after I received the various tweets from, you know, the fan club that you have across the Twitter universe. And you're obviously well respected. There would have been no reason for 11 Alive to respond to you guys if you didn't have a wide audience, which you clearly do.

Keep the attention on Georgia. I mean, we've been in the spotlight for quite some time with our Senate election, the close presidential election. The state is changing. And I think it's changing in a way that is going to benefit most people of the state in a way that we have not seen in many, many years. So, you know, don't lose sight of what's happening here. There's some major changes going on and we look forward maybe to talking to you again in the future. H.P., thank you for joining the Midas Touch podcast. Have a great rest of the week. Same to you guys. Welcome back to the Midas Touch podcast. Turns out Paige Pate is actually a normal nice guy, huh?

Paige Pate's like the best. My new best friend, Paige Pate. I mean, this is a great interview. That's what I think, though, you know, we were getting to earlier when we were saying that our show is this great platform now where we could have different voices and we could really actually dive into the issues in a nuanced way so that hopefully when you're leaving this podcast, you're leaving more informed than when you started. And I thought that was a great discussion with Paige. What a great sport. Thank you so much to him for coming on. I do kind of think that 11 Alive News owes us a bit of a retraction, but we could talk about that with them later. is because they're the ones disseminating all of the fake and fraudulent information.

They are the purveyors of disinfo. I think we saw the huge percentages of all of the disinfo across all of the Internet by significant majorities originated from Donald Trump and his inner circle across the world. Yeah. And think about that. But that's why it bugs me when you have people like 11, a live 11 or whatever the fuck they call themselves. I don't think we've said their news station right once. Okay. But I like that better. When you have 11 live news, put a false on it.

Brett, you're like, well, maybe they're trying to say and try to both sides the issue. You can't both sides the issue when one side leads insurrections and tries to destroy democracy. OK, that is the chant. It's not a sexy chant. I have to work on that chant a little bit. You have to figure out a way to make it rhyme or something. But I get what you're saying. But you can't. You know, there are nuanced views behind who we are. There are certain characters that you can fit into tweets.

But 11 Alive News needs to educate people about how horrible the bill is. And when we spoke to Paige Pate, he conceded basically, Paige agreed with us on essentially everything. Paige loves me. Let's be honest. Paige Pate loves my page or starting a practice, I think, out in L.A. at this point. I mean, something. And look, the FBI, too, this week talked about the role social media has played in disseminating horrible information, horrible disinfo, extremism. The biggest threat right now facing our homeland is domestic extremists, homegrown, homebred, radicalized on social media. And people like Fox News, people like Tucker Carlson are the ones out there now amplifying it. They were amplifying it with Trump, which was extra worse. But in Trump's place, you have these people amplifying it. Mr. Ray, FBI, Christopher Ray, FBI director said

this week, social media has become in many ways the key amplifier to domestic violent extremism, just as it has for malign foreign influence. The same things that attract people to it for good reasons are also capable of causing all kinds of harm that we are entrusted with trying to protect the American people against. He didn't say Fox News, but he's referring to Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Vagina. He's talking about all of those people who use the platform to radicalize Americans against democracy. It's dangerous, folks. I think Tucker Carlson's post, which was an anti-vaxxer video that he had from Fox News, that clip was one of the most viewed clips on all of social media and was being tossed

around Facebook like wildfire. And that's what we're talking about, because Fox News, even though they don't like to consider themselves mainstream media, is frequently the most watched cable news station, which, yes, makes them the mainstream media. They have one of the biggest, if not the biggest megaphones out there. And when you have their primetime show, their most watched show, Tucker Carlson espousing anti-vaxxer beliefs, it's a threat to our entire country. It's a threat to the health of all Americans. Quick tangent. There are so many

Tucker stands out there. Did you guys see I sent out like an anti Tucker tweet last night and I woke up this morning with like some rando just like super upset. He DM me like you fucking loser. I just basically put him to bed. I put the DMs out there for the world to see. Your tweet wasn't even like anything crazy. It wasn't a bad one. Your tweet was not like one of your Geordie ones where you're like, no, Nazi fucker. It wasn't a bad one. It was something along the lines of

the greatest con the devil ever pulled was tricking middle America into believing that a guy named Tucker Swanson, McNair Carlson is a voice of the people. And this guy got really upset by that. But that's, you know, I hope he got upset because it probably hit him where it hurt. He's oh shit okay i didn't know and look the real world consequences of what's going on on social media and the hate that's perpetrated by fox news

oan vagina newsmax is the extremism and you also have like damages to our health, damaging our ability to like get out of the COVID pandemic. The bottom five states in terms of the percentage of a state that's been vaccinated, they're all heavily red leaning states. The studies that are out there show a direct correlation. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there show a direct correlation. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, there's a direct correlation. The red states, their vaccine percentage of population, very low. The Democratic states, significantly high. And that's because of the disinfo. And,

I don't want to even mention her because her name just is like a chalkboard. But Ivanka Trump, she posted a photo of herself getting the vaccine to all of the crazies who she riled up for the past four years because she wants to rehab her image, which we're never going to let happen. But all of the comments were attacking, you know, the vaccines aren't real. Why would you do that? This is disgusting. This is pathetic. That is a direct result of them pushing conspiracy theories, extremism, anti-vaccine, you know, conspiracy theories. This is really, really dangerous. And I'm glad, though, now we have an FBI director who can go in front of Congress and under Trump, who wouldn't make the people available to speak as freely to truly speak freely. And we want to speak freely at Midas

Touch, as we always do to conclude the show. So this is a segment that all the Midas Mighty out there have demanded that we bring back. And when the Midas Mighty demand things, as Paige Pate discovered, the Mighty Mighty can be ruthless until you get it done. Can be ruthless. So we are bringing back answer questions from the Midas Mighty. That's not the official title of this segment. We need a better title. Answer questions from the Midas. Yeah, we'll, we'll work. No, it's not quite peepees and vaginas, but let's go. Wait, wait, wait, wait. While we're on good names for things. I was thinking when you guys were rambling about a good name for our law practice going forward with page pay, it's going to be P, Bs, and J. Are you the lawyer

in this scenario? Yeah, yeah. I'm going to go to law school and you're a lawyer too. So that's why it's Bs, P, Bs, and Js. That's an exclusive announcement. Jordy, are you going to law school? Not officially. Did anyone do that poll? The Popock poll yet? There was a great Popock poll that he had put out. Should Jordy go to law school and so depending on how that poll breaks out that's that's what i'll do that's always smart to decide my life now always smart to decide your fate of the future on a twitter poll okay let's get into questions now it's time for mighty questions all right yeah it's still not not much better but let's go into the first one. Hi, Ben. It's Jeremy from Long Island. I just heard you dismiss the concept of Jewish space lasers.

And as a Jew, I am offended. I have a space laser. It is strong. Fear me. Jeremy has the space lasers and he directed it at you for some reason. Jeremy directed it at me. Jeremy, we're're brothers so we're all jewish brett jordy and myself um regarding the you having a space laser if there are no photos it didn't happen oh oh okay show the proof jeremy on to the next hey i love your podcast but i was cringing when you talked about laminating the vaccine cards.

There's more lines on that card because we're going to be needing booster shots in the next six months or so, and they won't be able to add that to a laminated card. So maybe you can correct that on a future podcast for people that haven't already laminated their cards. Thank you. Brett, this one is an attack on me. Our listener cringe, apologize, correct yourself. I'm sorry for making you cringe. Here's what I'll say about that. I think, you know, at the end of the day,

you want to at least, if you're going to laminate your card, you know, at least research it yourself, look up what you want to do. You want to obviously make sure you got all your shots before you do the lamination. And I'll tell you why you're doubling down. You're doubling down. This isn't an apology or a retraction. You're doubling down. I'll tell you why. You two are the worst, man. Ben gets offended at every question. Brett, you can never

apologize. You guys are hilarious. No, well, I'll tell you why I wanted to laminate mine. It's because if I didn't, mine would disintegrate and I would find a way to destroy it. I would spill something on it. I would find a way to destroy it. And in my opinion, there are going to be so many people doing laminations and things like that, that in a year, if we need a booster, they will have an alternate way. I think these vaccine cards were a quick way for them to figure out how to identify who has vaccines and what shots you got. But I'm assuming within the year, they're going to have a more refined system and that these original cards probably won't even be relevant by then. And that if they will have a way to attach a booster to a

laminated card in the future. Like there will be a way, there will be a solutions. But I'll say this, if you wanna play it safe, and I understand that there's so much changing right now that you just don't know, maybe go out, get one of those plastic sheets that you could put the card in. It protects it, it will allow you to take it out.

That way you have the best of both worlds. And that's my recommendation. Wow. I have to hope that Brett never takes the witness stand. That's going to be a, that's a, you just confessed to a murder. The question wasn't even that, but you just, you just confessed to killing three people. How are you talking about? You managed to answer that question as wrong as possible. It wasn't like a wrong question, but somehow you got it wrong i that was wow yeah next question hi this is patrick lane from st louis missouri i loved the debate

over charade versus charade i was wondering if you guys could comment on whether the gop the GOP is in fact one big facade or a facade. Jordy, a facade or a facade? Jordy? It's neither. The GQP is real. We have to be, you know, keep your eyes open. Don't for a second think they're a mirage or a mirage. They're real.

They're here to stay. And we're going to make sure that they don't take power again. Jordi answered that question wrong too. I mean, Jordi, it's clearly a facade. Number one, first off, there was not a mirage or mirage. That wasn't even one of the choices. I was adding to it, Ben. I gave it another creative spin, but the answer was this question answer segment has just spiraled off. Hey, for you listening now now you know why we shelved this segment a few weeks ago this is g the gqp is a fuck cade they are the biggest fuckade ever okay that's the right answer thank you interesting all right let's let's take a couple last question let's do this is the last one all right hi this is john from the john and tom show. I have a quick question for you regarding voter ID in Georgia.

What makes the voter ID law in Georgia inherently racist, or as Biden says, a Jim Crow? That's the part I'm not sure about. I'm an independent voter. I have a podcast called the John and Tom show. And I am curious as to your thoughts or in general the left's opinion on how this is inherently a racist issue or an issue involving race. just, it's just voter ID. Most states already have voter ID laws. So, and how it's impacted all these corporations like Coke and Major League Baseball, things like that. So I'd love to talk about it. Thanks. John, very sly there using your question to promote your podcast. Very, very sly work sliding in a sponsorship moment right there. But Ben, do you want to explain the question is about voter ID and why could voter ID requirements be considered racist? I think that we should, as a society, want to encourage more people to vote. I think that we realize that the more inconvenient you make voting, that inconvenience is a form of suppression. And when voting rights has a disparate impact on certain

communities and laws are passed that adversely affect certain communities, rather than doubling down and trying to make it more difficult for those communities to vote, we should want to find ways to make it easier. And Ben, on that note, and I don't mean to interrupt, but I think it helps if we have the numbers and we could say the numbers about this because they're pretty staggering when you see them laid out. And it makes more sense when you see it. And first, let's go back to Jim Carrey laws like the poll tax. There was nothing written in the poll tax that said this poll tax is to prevent black voters from going to the polls. But it was inherently made so that it would disproportionately affect certain communities more than others. The same thing's happening here with voter ID,

because, and this may surprise you, but nationally, up to 25% of African American citizens of voting age do not have government-issued photo ID. That compares to 8% of white Americans. So you have 25% in the black community, black voters who do not have voter ID. You have 8% of whites who do not have voter ID. So you could see immediately how with pinpoint precision, a voter ID law that are purposely made to affect certain communities more than others. And I don't know the specifics of the Georgia law here, but oftentimes states get to decide what IDs they accept and what IDs they don't accept. Oftentimes they decide, you know what, a college ID, we're not going to take the college ID, but oh, you're an NRA member, we'll take the NRA ID. That could be your ID. And so just the way in which they accept certain forms of ID over others also

disproportionately affects certain voters and makes it easier for some voters to vote and harder for other voters to vote. It's not just voter ID, though, Brad. I mean, he mentioned voter ID like that's the only thing that this bill does. I mean, it shortens absentee voting significantly. It bans mobile voting. It limits the accessibility of ballot drop boxes. And like specifically in Fulton County, it would go from, which is predominantly one of the highest black population county, right? Goes from 38 drop boxes in November to eight in the future. So they will lose 30 drop boxes, particularly in Black areas, making it more difficult to vote. I think that's one of the most important things too, just to step back from that for a second.

It's not about any single policy. It's about the accumulation of all these policies that have this impact. Yeah. The bill has a prohibition on reaching out to voters in an unsolicited matter. So you can't reach out to voters and say, hey, you should vote. Did you get your absentee ballot? It prohibits that. There's, of course, the very controversial one where there tend to be longer lines in areas like Fulton County to, in my view, no fault of their own in the Fulton County, but to make it more difficult to wait on lines by not allowing people to get water. Then there is the ID issue that you just mentioned. And then there was the issue of the idea of which counties are, quote unquote, problematic counties or problematic areas. When we interviewed Gabriel Sterling, he said it was Fulton County, you know, right away. And to me, it's not a problematic county. It's a county, though, that when it is able to have the resources that it deserves, it would not be problematic. And it's not getting the resources.

So all of these different areas are specifically targeting to lower the African-American vote. That's specifically what it is. And look, sometimes the GQP says the quiet part out loud. I asked Gabriel Sterling this, but I'll conclude your question with this quote from Alice Olenek, the chairwoman of the Gwinnett County Board of Registrars and Elections. She's a Republican. She explained we had a, quote, terrible election cycle in 2020. And she said, I'm like a dog with a bone. I will not let them end this session without changing some of these laws. They don't have to change all of them, but they've got to change the major parts so that we at least have a shot

at winning. And what she is saying is we need to figure out a way to reduce the voting of the communities that came out at a significantly higher rate in 2020 and 2021, the black and brown communities. We need to figure out a way to lower those votes. And so all of these issues is a way to try to deter that from going on. And what I think what Gabe Sterling doesn't fully realize when he talks about, well, that's inconvenient or that. I don't think Gabe can fully understand. I don't think he can understand at all, rather, the experience of individuals living in black and brown communities,

what their obligations are to their families, what their work schedules look like, having to work multiple shifts of jobs, you know, not making a living wage in many cases and struggling to support your family and all of these other factors that make it very difficult to vote and to make these things more inconvenient in the words of Gabriel Sterling. all these different layers of inconvenience is in itself voter suppression of black and brown communities and to do it all based on a total and complete lie. So we'll leave you with that, folks. This has been an incredible episode of the Midas Touch podcast. Maybe the best. I don't know. I'll let you decide. Maybe the best. I mean, the episode is going to be called Peepees and Vaginas. So, I mean, that is something that is the most mature title yet.

On that note, thank you for listening to the Midas Touch podcast. I look forward to the hate mail and DMs I receive from the answers to your questions. And thank you. I'm sorry, mom and dad. Shout out to the Midas Midas.