UNBIASED - Week in Review: October 24-30, 2022

Episode Date: October 31, 2022

1. Elon Musk Takes Control of Twitter and Takes the Company Private (1:59)2. Facebook's Parent Company, Meta, Fined $24.7M for Violating Advertising Transparency Law; Stock Price Plummets Following Earnings Report (12:20)3. Paul Pelosi Attacked at Home; Attacker to be Charged with Attempted Murder (18:44)4. Barilla Pasta Company Sued by Two Californians for False Advertising (21:44)5. Jordan's Reminder Ahead of Mid-Term Elections (26:23)All links to sources can be found here: www.jordanismylawyer.comFollow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok: @jordanismylawyer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Monday. Happy Halloween. I'm sure you guys already celebrated this past weekend if you celebrated at all. But obviously tonight is the night that we got the little kids showing up at our door. I went out and bought Reese's and Butterfinger. So hopefully that's good enough for the kids that come to my house. But I have some pretty good stories today. We're talking about Elon Musk and Twitter.

We're talking about some meta drama, you know, Facebook meta. We're talking about Nancy Pelosi's home invasion. And we are talking also about a very interesting lawsuit that is taking place in California. So that'll be the last story of the day. Kind of a lighthearted, but also WTF kind of lawsuit. So let's get right into it. Our first story today is in regards to Elon Musk taking ownership of Twitter and making it a private company. And actually, before we get into it, I haven't reminded you guys in a little bit. So if you could, just please, if you really enjoy my show, leave me a review on whichever platform you listen. If you just, you know,

rate it the stars, it takes two seconds, but if you actually want to write some or write a good review and your thoughts on the show that obviously takes a little longer than two seconds, but it is very, very, very appreciated no matter what. So on Spotify, you can leave a review or Apple podcasts wherever you listen. So with that, let's get into Elon Musk and Twitter. Elon Musk has completed his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. There was actually a Friday deadline set by the judge that was presiding over the matter. So if you remember, there was a lot of times that Elon Musk kind of tried to get out of this deal

once he agreed to do it. The first time concerned the number of bots on the platform. So he said that he wasn't aware of how many bots were on Twitter and he tried to get out of it for that reason. And then the most recent reason had to do with a whistleblower coming forward about everything happening with Twitter's security and all the privacy concerns and everything like that. So this was actually before a judge.

The judge said that they had to make a decision. Elon Musk basically had to make a decision by Friday whether or not he was going to go forward with the sale. If he didn't, then this would go to a trial. So prior to that Friday deadline, Elon Musk did in fact take control. And we didn't really get any explicit like, I am in control or breaking news, Elon Musk has now taken control. It was kind of a subtle hint, if you will. So on Twitter, he tweeted and said, the bird is freed, and then tweeted, let the good times roll. Now, the bird being freed is obviously directed at the Twitter bird being freed in regards to his goal of promoting free speech and that sort of thing. So that's what that was about. And then he also updated his Twitter bio to Chief Twit. So that's kind of how we found out that this deal went forward. And by the way, if you guys want to hear more about that whistleblower,

I mentioned it briefly a few seconds ago. If you want to hear more about that whistleblower's testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I did do a whole episode or a whole, you know, little section in an episode on that. And you can find that in the Week in Review, September 12th to the 18th episode. Otherwise, it's episode 18. So I know Apple Podcasts lists the episode number, but I don't think Spotify does. So it's in the Week in Review, September 12th to September 18th, if you're interested. But anyway, immediately upon taking control of Twitter, Elon fired the CEO, the CFO, the top policy official, and the general counsel. Now, it doesn't really come as a surprise to me considering some of the things that

came to light recently with the whistleblower, plus Elon's own disagreement with the way Twitter was managed previously. So that was his whole purpose in buying it out. He kind of wanted to change the way Twitter was managed previously. So that was his whole purpose in buying it out. He kind of wanted to change the way Twitter was doing things. And so it really doesn't surprise me at all that, you know, when he went in, he went in and he took out the top executives and he said, we're going to kind of restructure how Twitter works here. So what does he plan to do now that he's actually in control? Well, in an open letter that he wrote to Twitter advertisers, he said, I wanted to reach out personally to share

my motivation in acquiring Twitter. There has been much speculation about why I bought Twitter and what I think about advertising. Most of it has been wrong. The reason I acquired Twitter is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner without resorting to violence. There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right-wing and far left-wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society. In the relentless pursuit of clicks, much of traditional media has fueled and catered to these polarized extremes, as they believe that is what brings in the money. But in doing so, the opportunity for dialogue is lost. That is why I bought Twitter. I didn't do it because

it would be easy. I didn't do it to make more money. I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love. I do so with humility, recognizing that failure in pursuing this goal, despite our best efforts, is a real possibility. That said, Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences. In addition to adhering to the laws of the land, our platform must be warm and welcoming to all, where you can choose your desired experience according to your preferences, just as you can choose, for example, to see movies or play video games ranging from all ages to mature. I also very much believe that advertising, when done right, can delight, entertain, and inform you. It can show you a service or product or medical treatment that

you never knew existed, but is right for you. For this to be true, it is essential to show Twitter users advertising that is as relevant as possible to their needs. Low relevancy ads are spam, but highly relevant ads are actually content. Fundamentally, Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising platform in the world that strengthens your brand and grows your enterprise. To everyone who has partnered with us, I thank you. Let us build something extraordinary together. Now, I don't know about you, but that message aligns so much. And I actually have the chills right now because that message aligns so much with what I actually have the chills right now because that message aligns so much with what I am here to do. You know, I started this podcast to show you guys that,

you know, our society is becoming more and more polarized and that is not what's going, we're not going to get anything done that way. We have to be able to talk. We have to be able to have substantive conversation. And I always tell you guys that I always say, you know, comment on my website, let's engage in substantive conversation. But if you're here to just tear each other down, that's not going to work. We need to be able to talk. And I think a lot of people are losing sight of that. You know, a lot of people are unable to talk. And we live in a society where we want to have our own beliefs affirmed, right? We want that reassurance that we're right. And it's very, it's detrimental to our society, truly. So I think what Elon Musk is doing is phenomenal. I think it is so great that he is taking a social media platform and allowing

everyone to just speak. Obviously, you know, hate speech isn't allowed, but allowing everyone to just speak. Obviously, you know, hate speech isn't allowed, but allowing everyone to kind of share their thoughts and not have to worry about being censored. And I know I don't typically share my opinions on this podcast, but this is something that lines up so much with my message that even if I didn't share what I think, I know you guys would already know where I stand on this

because this is what I preach. Whether or not you like Elon Musk, whether or not you agree with some of the things he's done in the past, this is a really great move. And as he said, you know, we'll see if we fail. It's possible we fail, but at least we'll try to have a digital town center where everyone can have an open dialogue. So I'm really excited to see, you know, how this goes, what happens. Obviously there's a lot unknown because it's, it's something really that is so foreign to us right now. Right. And so it'll be, it'll be really interesting, but that was his open letter to

advertisers. Now, why did he direct it at advertisers? Well, obviously Twitter's main source of revenue is advertisements, right? So he doesn't want to make advertisers think that he's coming in and totally changing the platform and now they shouldn't advertise with him. He obviously has to keep them. He has to keep that revenue. So he's just trying to tell the advertisers, look, this is what I'm here to do.

I'm not here to harm anyone. I'm just here to do good. And arguably it's more of a reason for you guys to advertise with me. And I'm gonna help you in promoting more relevant ads to who you're trying to target so that you're not wasting your money on irrelevant spam, essentially. So he also said that Twitter will form a content moderation council with widely diverse viewpoints. And he said that the company will not make major decisions on content or reinstating

suspended accounts until the council convenes. Now, obviously, two of the most notable suspended accounts are Kanye West, who was just suspended recently for his anti-Semitic remarks, and Donald Trump, who was suspended following the January 6th instance at the Capitol. So those are the two really, I would say those are the biggest public figures that are suspended from Twitter. And so he said, we're not making any decisions on reinstating those accounts until we have this content moderation, you know, actually decide what we should do moving forward. So I'm sure a lot will come to light in the coming days. A lot of changes are going to be made, but that is what we know as of now. And part two of the story, it's not really a part two, it's just a short snippet. If you guys weren't aware, he has completed the

documentation to make Twitter a private company that was completed late Thursday. And by Friday morning, Twitter stock had already stopped trading on the New York Stock Exchange. So what happens now? Twitter will basically get record of everyone who owned shares as of Thursday night, and each shareholder will get paid the agreed price per share, which was $54.20. That's the price that he agreed to pay for the company. Obviously, that had to be approved by the shareholders, and I believe the percentage of shareholders that approved that amount was 98%. So big majority and essentially

all of the Twitter shareholders will just wait and get paid. Now I do want to ask before we move on to the next story, what are your thoughts? What are your thoughts on making Twitter a freer space? And I put that kind of in air quotes, right? What are your thoughts on getting rid of permanent bans? Because remember, the first amendment doesn't necessarily apply to social media companies. They can censor speech, they can make their own rules, and sometimes that's how we see on TikTok. Our videos are censored or they're taken down or on Instagram, you know, same thing. We may be shadow banned or something like that. So what are your thoughts on getting rid of this and just letting people talk and letting people have conversation whether or not you agree with it? To have a truly free platform, you have

to have someone who believes in that, and that person just so happens to need to own that platform, right? So you have to have a CEO that believes in that free speech concept. And also remember too, while we're at it, hate speech isn't protected by the First Amendment. So even if Elon's goal is to have a platform that allows for free speech, I mean, I highly doubt the platform is going to tolerate things like hate speech and violence. And he even mentioned violence in his open letter. So let me know your thoughts. Do you agree that this is headed in a, in a good direction? You know, do you think this will impact other social media companies? Do you think other social media companies will see this and follow suit? Definitely good things to think about and as always, I implore you guys to comment on my website jordanismylawyer.com on this episode

and kind of create that dialogue with one another. Talk about it. What do you think? Do you think this is a good thing? Do you think it's a bad thing? Do you think social media should be able to regulate? All of those things. Second story today is we're moving on to another social media giant and that is Meta. Meta is obviously Facebook's parent company. Meta also owns Instagram All of those things. Second story today is we're moving on to another social media giant, and that is Meta. Meta is obviously Facebook's parent company. Meta also owns Instagram. And this is kind of two stories in one. So on Wednesday, a Washington state judge fined Meta almost $25 million for repeatedly and intentionally violating campaign finance disclosure law. And this is believed to be the largest campaign finance penalty in US history. So what happened? Washington, Washington state, not Washington DC, this is Washington state, has transparency laws for advertisers, which basically requires

ad sellers like Meta to do certain things that makes the public aware of its advertising practices. So some of the things that they have to do include, you makes the public aware of its advertising practices. So some of the things that they have to do include, you know, keeping and making public the names and addresses of the people who buy political ads. They need to disclose the target of those ads. They need to disclose how the ads were paid for, the number of views of each ad. There's just certain things that have to be disclosed if asked, right? So this information is available to anyone who asks for it. If you ask for it, the ad seller has to provide it to you. This includes TV stations, newspapers, magazines, anyone that's in the

business of selling ads. Needless to say, Meta was not complying with this, but this isn't the first time that Meta slash Facebook hasn't complied. So in 2018, the Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson brought charges against Facebook because they were violating this law. They weren't making this information available. And Facebook attempted to argue that the law is unconstitutional because it, quote, unduly burdens political speech and is virtually impossible to comply with, end quote. The judge wasn't buying this argument. They said this, this is definitely not unconstitutional. You guys have to comply. And Facebook agreed to pay $238,000, which is just a penny basically to them, maybe even less. And they made a commitment to transparency.

Okay. The company then later said that, you know what. And they made a commitment to transparency. Okay. The company then later said that, you know what, we're actually not committing to transparency. We're just going to stop selling political ads in the state completely rather than comply with the requirements. But then instead of stopping their advertising in the state, they kept selling ads. And then they just decided they weren't, they just weren't going to comply. They just decided, no, we said we were going to comply. And then we said, we're going to stop selling ads, but actually we're going to keep selling ads and we're just not going to comply. So then another lawsuit was brought by the attorney general in 2020. And this time the attorney general said, look, at this point, these violations are

intentional. Okay. They know what they're doing is wrong, and they're not stopping. They're just, they keep going. In total, there were 100, or sorry, not 100, there were 822 violations, and typically each violation is punishable by up to $10,000, but if a judge finds that the violations are intentional, that $10,000 can be tripled. So in this case, Meta was fined $30,000 for each of the 822 violations, which totaled about $24.7 million. That same day though, so they got fined the $24.7 million. And then that same day they reported its quarterly earnings. Okay. Which brings us to part two of the story. After they reported their quarterly earnings, Meta's stock went down almost 25%, settling under $98 a share, which is the lowest it's been since 2016.

So it fell short of Wall Street's expectations for the earnings this quarter. It issued a weak forecast for the fourth quarter quarter and the stock price just plummeted. So, so far this year, Meta's stock has dropped over 71%, which is almost double the decline of the NASDAQ, which sits at 32%. In September 2021, Meta was valued at over $1 trillion. And now it claims its net worth is around $263 billion. So a large drop, although $263 billion is still a ton of money compared to what it was just a year ago, that's a big, big decline. Now, according to Forbes, this drop boils down to one lower spend from advertisers due to inflation. So they're worried about declining consumer spend. So they're pulling back on their advertising a bit. And number two, an increasingly expensive commitment to the metaverse. Now, what is the metaverse?

This is the ultimate question, right? The metaverse doesn't exist yet. So no one really knows what it is because it's kind of going to be whatever it becomes, if that makes sense. But basically, it's the future. Whenever someone says, oh, in the future, like, just think of it like that. It's going to be a shift in how we interact with technology. And obviously, over the years, we've seen such a shift already. Like, since 1980s, I mean, technology has just

skyrocketed, but the metaverse is now going to be the next level of that. So some have described it as an internet-based space where artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and virtual reality will offer humans new experiences and like heightened interconnectedness, while others have simplified the description and just said it's basically going to be a virtual reality. So again, it's not defined because no one really knows for sure what it's going to look like, but it's the future. And Facebook is really focusing on the future. Now, how does Meta plan to reverse this downfall? Well, for one, it says it plans to make significant changes across the board. I would hope so. So it's considering layoffs in underperforming departments and teams,

while at the same time increasing its workforce in its highest priority departments, which you guessed it is the metaverse. That's basically what's going on with meta. I did link a really good article from Forbes for you that covers a lot of important information about meta's recent earnings. So you can definitely check that out. It's on my website in the sources section. And that is all for your social media news for the episode. Let's move on to the other news. early friday morning an intruder broke in and violently assaulted paul pelosi the husband of nancy pelosi with a hammer nancy was not home at the time paul pelosi was taken to the hospital he's expected to make a full recovery the attacker is in custody he's been identified as david de pap his motive is unknown as of Friday, although it's thought that

the attacker was aiming for Nancy because when he confronted her husband, he was yelling, where's Nancy? Where's Nancy? The San Francisco police chief, William Scott, told reporters that both Paul and the suspect were holding hammers when the police arrived and that the suspect attacked Paul in front of the officers. According to NBC News, the suspect is going to be charged with attempted murder. Now, here's the thing. In California, to be convicted, there would need to be two elements of the charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And I wanted to kind of turn this story into a legal lesson, I guess, just be able to talk about it in a more legally focused way rather than just

reporting on the story. So the two elements that would need to be really proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that the suspect took a direct step towards killing Paul and that the suspect intended to kill Paul. Now the direct step would have been him entering the home, right? Because a direct step is more than just planning to kill. It's putting that plan into action in some way. But here's the thing. The direct step has to actually have been an attempt to kill the person, to kill the person, not just injure them, but actually an attempt to kill them. Now, that seems to be obvious because obviously this is an attempted murder charge, so that's kind of self-explanatory, but the elements of the crime are, they vary by state. So in California, that is what they would need to prove for this man to be convicted.

Now, the other thing that this story kind of makes you think about is why such high profile people and politicians don't have tighter security at their homes. Because if you think about it, the threats are nothing new. I mean, think about when Roe versus Wade was overturned and what those Supreme Court justices dealt with. They had people picketing outside their homes. They had people protesting outside their homes. They had people throwing things at their homes. And the death threats that they got via the internet, email, whatever it might be. And obviously when you have someone high up, like speaker of the house, you know, you kind of got to protect yourself.

I mean, even me, who's a nobody, sometimes I think being out there having 170,000 followers, you know, what would someone, what are the lengths someone would go to, to find me if they didn't agree with something I said? So it just makes you wonder, why don't these high profile people, the people who really actually receive these death threats all the time, why aren't they protecting themselves, you know? So that is that story. Again, I'm sure more will come to light. That is a very new story, just happened on Friday.

So I'm sure we'll find out more as time goes on, but that's what we know as of now. And that brings us to our fourth story. And this is the one that I said was kind of like a lighthearted lawsuit. It's a WTF lawsuit for sure. Like what is going on here? Are you kidding me? But I wanted to share it with you guys anyway. So two people in California have filed a class action lawsuit against the company Berea, you know, the pasta maker, because they say that the company is deliberately deceiving shoppers by using the slogan Italy's number one brand of pasta on its packaging. Because in reality, the pasta is not made in Italy. You know what I'm talking about in Publix or not, I guess Publix is a Florida thing, but in your grocery store, Berea, it's like a blue and white box, a blue and yellow box, sorry. And they make all different kinds of pasta. It's cheap boxed

pasta. Okay. And I don't know, I've never looked at that box and said, Ooh, this is fresh Italian pasta. So these people are mad because it says on the box, Italy's number one brand of pasta, but the products are made in the U.S. Like they have a plant in Iowa and a plant in New York, and they're not made with ingredients sourced from Italy. So these two are arguing that they were tricked by the company's alleged false advertising and deceptive marketing practices because they wouldn't have spent a combined total of six dollars on Berea products had they known the pasta was made in the U.S. They say instead they would have opted for a cheaper product. Now the complaint says that consumers willingly pay more for Italian sounding and or looking products and Barea leveraged the

implied connection to Italy in an effort to increase profits and to obtain an unfair competitive advantage, which, sure, I'm sure, you know, consumers do pay more for Italian products if they think they're coming straight from Italy. But I don't I don't know. I'm curious, like when you guys see boxed pasta on the shelves like that, Do you guys assume that's going to be your most Italian option of pasta? I don't know. I definitely don't. But anyway, that's what's going on with that. Now, the part that's shocking about this is that the company, Sobria, filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing mainly that the two couldn't prove that they suffered any financial harm, since one of the two bought a box of angel hair pasta for $2

and the other bought a box, sorry, two boxes of spaghetti for $2 each. So the other one spent a total of $4. And Berea was saying without financial harm, they lacked the requisite standing to sue. We've talked about standing before. It's basically you have to prove that you have the ability to sue. Like you were harmed in some way. And the controversy affects you in some way, personally.

Now, the thing that's interesting is that the judge denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part. And the judge basically said that an injury can occur when a plaintiff alleges that they spend money that absent defendant's actions they would not have spent. Which is exactly what the plaintiffs are saying happened in this case. And that's why the judge denied the motion to dismiss. Now, the part that the judge granted was when it came to the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. And I've talked about injunctive relief before, but it's basically where you ask the court to force the other person to stop doing something. And in order to get injunctive relief granted, you have to prove real and immediate threat of repeated injury,

which in this case, the judge was like, no, there's no real and immediate threat of repeated injury here because you now know that these products are not made in Italy. You're well aware of that. So if you go out and buy that again, that's on you, right? There's no threat here. So in total, the judge's order is 28 pages. It's very detailed, which I find to be kind of humorous because of the nature of this

case. But it goes into all of the different claims that the company tried to have dismissed, why they're not dismissed, or they are dismissed. And it's very informative. She cites to a ton of case law. I mean, it's linked on my website if you want to read it. So it'll be interesting to see where this case goes and how much is ultimately awarded and damages. But this is what I would call a frivolous lawsuit. Not that there are no grounds, but just it's a waste of everyone's time. And it just seems like

this is one of those cases that it's just meant to stick it to the giant, you know, like we're going to tell you sort of thing when in reality, I mean, you're out $4, $2, you know, like how much you're spending all this money on legal fees, legal expenses and for what, you know? So that's, that's that lawsuit. I don't know. Well, I'll keep you posted as it goes, if anything, actually, if substance happens, but that is what it is. Now, before I leave this episode, I do just want to remind you guys about voting. Now this isn't sponsored or anything. I just really want to get you ready for midterms. If you haven't voted already, midterm elections are super, super important. I highly encourage everyone to use your voice at the same time. I do want to normalize feeling conflicted about the political landscape. It's totally normal to feel like you don't know who to vote for because you don't align with all

of the views of one particular candidate or another. And it can be really difficult because when you're in the political landscape that we are in, where it just seems like the parties are getting more and more divided, more and more extreme. And in reality, the majority of people sit in the middle, but the politicians seem to cater to the extreme views. It's, it can be really overwhelming and it can, it can feel like you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. And I just want to say that you're not alone. If you feel that way, there are a ton of people out there that, that feel that way. Obviously that doesn't apply to everyone. Some people, you know, vote Democrat all the way down. Some people vote Republican all the way down. Some people vote independent all the way down. And like, that's, that's what they feel

comfortable doing. And that's okay. I do always express to you guys the importance of researching as much as, as much as you can. It's no matter where you stand, right? If you were a through and through Republican, still research. If you were a through and through Democrat, still research. Research is really important. Don't just listen to these ads that are on TV. You know, it's really interesting. I was, we live in Florida. And so an ad came on the other day about, I believe it was, I want to say it was DeSantis' opponent. Either way, maybe it was the other way around, but there was something that the politician promoting that advertisement took totally out of context and it actually was factually inaccurate and my fiance made mention of it was like oh my gosh are you kidding me something like that because he believed the commercial and I said well actually this is what's going on this is the reality and he's like

are you kidding me how is this politician allowed to put this advertisement on here? Like that's false advertising. That's lying. And I, it just reminded me that you can't just take these ads that you see on TV at face value. A lot of things are taken out of context, no matter who the politician is. And it's, it's a dirty way to play the game, but it's how they do it. So just always do your own research, you know, do whatever feels best for you vote for whoever you want. I'm not here to tell you who to vote for. I don't care who you vote for. I just want you to have a voice. So if you're wanting to vote or you're thinking about voting, I found this website that is so, so, so helpful. It is how to dot vote. And I also have that on my

website, but it's basically you go on and you put the state you're wanting to vote in and it tells you everything you need to know. And it gives you links to other external sources. So it'll give you a link you can click on to request an absentee ballot or a link you can click on to find out where your polling place is. There's just so many great resources on that website. So I highly recommend you look into it. How to dot vote.

And then if you're wondering who you're even voting for this election, because some people don't even know what the midterm elections are all about. I highly encourage you to look at that, but just know that the governor and the representatives in your state are some of the most important people that you are voting for this election. And we are just over a week out. So election day is November 8th, but most states have already opened up early voting. So you can go vote now if you want to. And, you know, just do what you need to do to get yourself ready,

whether that's researching, registering, casting your vote, whatever it is, do what you need to do ahead of the election. That ends the episode. I hope you really enjoyed it. I will be back with you next Monday with fresh new topics. And until then, I hope you really enjoyed it. I will be back with you next Monday with fresh new topics. And until then, I hope you have a great week. I hope you had a great week if you're listening

to this later in the week, and I will talk to you soon. you