Speaker 1: As the United States Senate comes back from its summer recess,
Speaker 1: it's going to take up a piece of federal legislation
Speaker 1: called the Clarity Act. And according to Senator Elizabeth Warren, quote,
Speaker 1: that legislation does nothing to prevent Trump from vacuuming up
Speaker 1: his next $ 1. 4 billion in crypto profits.
Speaker 2: Why?
Speaker 1: Because the ethics language in that proposed legislation is weak
Speaker 1: sauce and dead on arrival.
Speaker 2: So it is a.
Speaker 1: I guess, latest round of a spate of federal legislation
Speaker 1: that attempts to regulate cryptocurrency. And I'll bet you, not
Speaker 1: any crypto, that if you were to go and you
Speaker 1: were to test the basic knowledge of members of Congress
Speaker 1: as to what cryptocurrency is and why it should be regulated,
Speaker 1: a lot of them would have.
Speaker 2: No idea what the hell you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Which is why the latest film and the directorial debut
Speaker 1: of my friend Ben McKenzie's movie, Everyone is Lying to
Speaker 1: You for Money, is so important and why it is
Speaker 1: must see viewing for you. Ben has taken up the
Speaker 1: laboring oar of educating the public about the dangers of cryptocurrency.
Speaker 1: He's gone so far as to be invited to testify
Speaker 1: in front of the Senate to be able to explain
Speaker 1: why we are rolling the dice in an incredibly dangerous
Speaker 1: way in an industry that is currently bereft of regulation,
Speaker 1: let alone a basic understanding of what it is. And
Speaker 1: if we haven't learned our lessons, then shame on us.
Speaker 1: But for people like Ben and others, the opportunity to
Speaker 1: be able to introduce you to the world of crypto
Speaker 1: in terms of understanding what the hell is going on
Speaker 1: is a win. And so I invited Ben to be
Speaker 1: able to spend time with me to talk about his film,
Speaker 1: how you'll be able to watch it, and how being
Speaker 1: a subscriber of Katie Fang News will actually help that happen.
Speaker 2: Take a listen.
Speaker 1: Joining me now is Ben McKenzie, who I will not
Speaker 1: say is the star of the OC because I know Ben.
Speaker 2: You've kind of done other stuff since that.
Speaker 1: Although I will say, my friend, that every time I
Speaker 1: stop and I see some type of meme reel or
Speaker 1: something from the OC, it does.
Speaker 2: Kind of make me laugh.
Speaker 1: But Ben McKenzie, thank you so much for joining me. Look,
Speaker 1: I feel like I've been growing up with you in
Speaker 1: your kind of journey of with cryptocurrency. I had you
Speaker 1: on my old show on MSNBC when we talked about
Speaker 1: your New York Times bestselling book, Easy Money, Cryptocurrency, Casino Capitalism,
Speaker 1: and the Golden Age of Fraud that you wrote with
Speaker 1: Jacob Silverman.
Speaker 2: Fantastic book.
Speaker 1: And then I was also privy to sit at the
Speaker 1: Miami Film Festival and be able to watch your directorial debut,
Speaker 1: Everyone is Lying to You for Money. And so I'm
Speaker 1: proud of you, my friend, because this is an incredible,
Speaker 1: incredible film It's entertaining, educational, substantive, real meat on the bone.
Speaker 1: But I want people who have foolishly not seen it
Speaker 1: to be able to see it.
Speaker 2: So let people know what this film's all about.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. So this is a 90-minute comedy about how
Speaker 3: stupid and dangerous cryptocurrency is. I made it as accessible
Speaker 3: as possible. It is. You saw it for yourself, so
Speaker 3: you can attest to it. But, you know, audiences are
Speaker 3: loving it. We have a perfect score from the critics.
Speaker 3: But for some reason, we can't get a streamer to
Speaker 3: buy it. Hmm. Wonder.
Speaker 2: Wonder why.
Speaker 3: It might be because I end the film, spoiler alert,
Speaker 3: on Trump saying, buy Bitcoin, crypto, whatever it is you're
Speaker 3: playing with. And the song that's playing over the Trump clip,
Speaker 3: there's only a little Trump at the very end. Don't worry.
Speaker 3: He won't be in the party with a lot of Trump.
Speaker 2: Sparing people to Trump.
Speaker 3: Gotta spare people to Trump whenever possible. But the song
Speaker 3: playing over it is joining a cult. And it's about
Speaker 3: how nice it is to join a cult because you
Speaker 3: don't have to think for yourself. So The film is fun.
Speaker 3: Streamer won't buy it, so we're releasing it independently. So
Speaker 3: it's via a platform called Eventive, but you can just
Speaker 3: go to our website, everyoneislying.com, and click on Watch, and
Speaker 3: it'll direct you to where you need to go. And
Speaker 3: anyone anywhere in the world can watch it. We have
Speaker 3: subtitles for multiple languages. And not only do you get
Speaker 3: to watch the movie, but you also can, if you want,
Speaker 3: watch a Q & A with me and Marina, Marina Bachman,
Speaker 3: my wife, who's in the movie and very, very funny. Um,
Speaker 3: and we took questions from the audience. We did this
Speaker 3: live event on Saturday and it was amazing. I mean,
Speaker 3: we had people from 40 different countries, um, show up. Um,
Speaker 3: so it was really incredible. And for your viewers, because
Speaker 3: I love you and because you're great 50% off, uh,
Speaker 3: for your viewers, if you enter a code, I think it's.
Speaker 2: We'll put it up.
Speaker 3: We'll put it up.
Speaker 2: That's not a problem.
Speaker 3: 100%.
Speaker 2: No, it's exciting.
Speaker 1: And we're going to get into the details of how
Speaker 1: people can watch this because, you know, look, the title
Speaker 1: of the film, Everyone is Lying to You for Money,
Speaker 1: could apply to everything.
Speaker 2: So let's be clear here, though. You know, the focus
Speaker 2: is cryptocurrency.
Speaker 1: And you've been an incredibly vocal, very forward-facing critic of cryptocurrency.
Speaker 1: If you had to get into an elevator, what would
Speaker 1: your pitch be? What would your elevator speech be on
Speaker 1: why everybody is lying to us about cryptocurrency?
Speaker 3: It's a story that sounds great, but isn't true. It's
Speaker 3: also the privatization of money. It's taking money from this
Speaker 3: publicly issued good to this privatized thing. So it's literal
Speaker 3: corporate money. It's corporations issuing their own money, whether it's
Speaker 3: World Liberty Financial in the case of Donald Trump. or
Speaker 3: even Bitcoin, we can go into why. But when you
Speaker 3: transfer the money's made up, it's trust essentially. And if
Speaker 3: you transfer that trust from the public sphere to the
Speaker 3: private sphere, a lot of bad things happen. There's a
Speaker 3: lot of fraud and manipulation of the markets. And we
Speaker 3: know this because we've tried it before. We tried it
Speaker 3: during the 19th century, during what was called the free
Speaker 3: banking era, the wildcat banking era, banks were allowed to
Speaker 3: issue their own notes. There was a lot of fraud.
Speaker 3: So this is a long elevator pitch. Maybe the elevator
Speaker 3: was going 20 floors, but that's my pitch.
Speaker 2: Well, listen, you mentioned Trump a few minutes ago.
Speaker 1: I want to clock some numbers for people that are
Speaker 1: tuning in, especially those that are following me at Katie
Speaker 1: Fang News.
Speaker 2: They know how I feel about convicted felon Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: But when it comes to.
Speaker 1: Trump and crypto, these are really important numbers, all kidding aside, right?
Speaker 1: Trump's own official 2025 financial disclosure that came out was
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of pages. But there was some really
Speaker 1: important data on his crypto income that I want to highlight.
Speaker 1: For 2025 alone, Trump's own financial disclosure revealed $ 1. 4 billion
Speaker 1: with a B in 2025 alone in crypto income. More
Speaker 1: than $ 500 million from World Liberty Financial, the one you
Speaker 1: just talked about, the crypto venture he founded with the Suns.
Speaker 1: more than $ 550 million from World Liberty financial token sales,
Speaker 1: plus another $ 260 million from the sale of interest in
Speaker 1: World Liberty financial businesses, and then another $ 635 million from
Speaker 1: the sale of his Trump meme coins, which means that
Speaker 1: it's a part of his net worth tripling in his
Speaker 1: first year back in the Oval Office.
Speaker 2: If it's Trump... And it's something Trump adjacent. It's got
Speaker 2: to be corrupt. So there we go.
Speaker 1: I've now summarized your film for you.
Speaker 2: But Ben, why is this important?
Speaker 1: Because there's a lot of maneuvering that's going on in D.C.
Speaker 1: right now by Republicans who I suspect have no freaking
Speaker 1: clue what they're doing with crypto because they don't understand
Speaker 1: it themselves.
Speaker 2: They just kind of have a.
Speaker 1: Directive from Trump and this administration to push crypto as
Speaker 1: hard and as fast as they can.
Speaker 3: They have a directive from Trump, but they also have
Speaker 3: a directive from the crypto lobby itself.
Speaker 2: And it's a powerful lobby, by the way.
Speaker 3: Extremely powerful. In 2024, crypto and people associated with it
Speaker 3: spent $ 240 million in our elections. More than any other industry,
Speaker 3: 40-something percent of all corporate donations in the cycle came
Speaker 3: from crypto and people. It's just staggering. It's really staggering. Um,
Speaker 3: right now it's crypto and AI maybe as a toss
Speaker 3: up in terms of how much money is being spent
Speaker 3: to manipulate our, our political system. But, um, they've already spent,
Speaker 3: I think it's $ 180 million in this cycle and we're
Speaker 3: not even to the general election yet. So there's a
Speaker 3: lot of money being thrown around, which is influencing, uh,
Speaker 3: unfortunately legislators from both parties, but particularly the Republicans. And
Speaker 3: then you're absolutely right because Trump is in on the con. Um,
Speaker 3: he is doing whatever he can to rip up regulations.
Speaker 3: that were meant to protect investors. He is cozying up
Speaker 3: with some, quite frankly, very shady people inside of the
Speaker 3: crypto industry. We can talk about their ties to crypto
Speaker 3: companies and also Epstein, which of course is your world.
Speaker 3: But there's just a lot of really awful things happening.
Speaker 3: And to come back to the point I was making earlier,
Speaker 3: this is what happens when you privatize money. When you
Speaker 3: privatize money, bad people fill the space. And they do
Speaker 3: all sorts of stuff that sure looks like criminal activity,
Speaker 3: even from the White House.
Speaker 1: I mean, but Ben, look, you don't even have to
Speaker 1: be super well-versed in crypto to be able to understand.
Speaker 1: We've seen people like Sam Bankman Freed in FTX, right?
Speaker 1: We've seen that in your film, you actually interview him,
Speaker 1: which is a wild thing. So no spoilers here. Y'all's got,
Speaker 1: you got to see how artfully Ben navigates this conversation
Speaker 1: with him. But you know, You don't have to be
Speaker 1: somebody well-versed in the law, let alone crypto, to see
Speaker 1: that it's all bullshit. So I'm not quite sure why
Speaker 1: our federal government thinks that it's a good idea to
Speaker 1: even be contemplating legislative action when it comes to this.
Speaker 2: I don't even think that they've.
Speaker 1: Settled on whether or not it's actual currency or not,
Speaker 1: whether or not they're going to treat it as a
Speaker 1: security or not.
Speaker 2: It's still an open question.
Speaker 3: Yes, it absolutely is. And crypto has thrived in that
Speaker 3: gray area. where is it a currency? Is it an
Speaker 3: investment like a security? The industry is terrified of being
Speaker 3: regulated like an investment because investments, securities have investor protections.
Speaker 3: You need to know who you're giving your money to
Speaker 3: and what the F they're doing with the money. And
Speaker 3: crypto is The industry doesn't want that. Gee, I wonder why.
Speaker 3: So there's been this whole battle on Capitol Hill over
Speaker 3: a piece of legislation called the Clarity Act. And I
Speaker 3: was down in D.C. testifying and we won. The Clarity
Speaker 3: Act didn't pass. But since then, Trump had the press
Speaker 3: conference in the White House with the crypto execs. Yeah.
Speaker 3: and the regulators that are supposed to be regulating them,
Speaker 3: like the head of the SEC and the head of
Speaker 3: the CFTC.
Speaker 2: How that seems, there's independence and regulation. I don't see that,
Speaker 2: but keep on going, yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, absurd. And what was the announcement about? The
Speaker 3: announcement was effectively, yeah, we didn't pass the legislation. And
Speaker 3: by the way, why did they not pass the legislation?
Speaker 3: Because the Democrats were insisting on an ethics provision that
Speaker 3: would keep Trump from making another billion dollars off crypto.
Speaker 3: And Trump couldn't do that, right? So Trump holds this
Speaker 3: press conference in the White House after this bill has
Speaker 3: been defeated and says effectively, doesn't matter. We're going to
Speaker 3: do it anyway. And sure enough, the SEC has just
Speaker 3: issued rules that will make it easier to issue crypto assets.
Speaker 3: The Trump family has got a provisional banking license, a
Speaker 3: banking license for his World Liberty Financial. Outrageous. This is
Speaker 3: really bad. What happens is these guys get into the system.
Speaker 3: They profit massively off of it. And we are creating
Speaker 3: systemic risk. We are creating the risk of a contagion
Speaker 3: effect where when crypto crashes again, which it will because
Speaker 3: it has repeatedly over its brief but tortured history, when
Speaker 3: it crashes again, it could contribute to the next financial crisis.
Speaker 3: And we could end up bailing these MFers out again.
Speaker 3: It is outrageous.
Speaker 1: And we've seen historically efforts to bail out these industries
Speaker 1: has not helped us. In fact, it's turned out to
Speaker 1: just fund them to continue to go screw us again
Speaker 1: as consumers.
Speaker 3: Yes. And we saw in the film, the last crypto
Speaker 3: crash was 2022. And that's when most of the events
Speaker 3: in the film take place. I interview Sam and then
Speaker 3: he ends up, you know, being arrested and going to jail.
Speaker 3: And I'm called to testify to the Senate Banking Committee
Speaker 3: in December, just days after his arrest. And I'm asked
Speaker 3: by one of the senators at the end of our session,
Speaker 3: What should we think about crypto getting into our banking system?
Speaker 3: And Kevin O'Leary is testifying opposite me. And of course,
Speaker 3: he loves it.
Speaker 1: This is Kevin O'Leary, folks, that we talk about to
Speaker 1: vis-a-vis data centers.
Speaker 2: So he's also been in the crypto world.
Speaker 3: It's going to shock your audience, but he's also on
Speaker 3: the wrong side of the issue when it comes to
Speaker 3: crypto as well and profiting off of it, of course, naturally.
Speaker 3: So Kevin's like, we have to integrate crypto into our
Speaker 3: banking system. We'll lose the war of innovation. Um, okay.
Speaker 3: And I say it's, it'll, it's playing with fire. It'll
Speaker 3: be a disaster if we do it. Three months later,
Speaker 3: three months after I testified in December and March, three
Speaker 3: banks failed in the United States, all three tied to crypto.
Speaker 3: They failed. We had to bail them out. It was
Speaker 3: a lot of venture capitalists. It was a lot of
Speaker 3: money coming out of Silicon Valley. And I think it
Speaker 3: was probably the right short term decision to keep the
Speaker 3: contagion from spreading, but it's outrageous. that not only have
Speaker 3: we not remedied the situation since then, it's gotten worse.
Speaker 3: Now crypto is further into our regulated system already. Trump's
Speaker 3: trying to do whatever he can to get it even further.
Speaker 3: What happens when it crashes again? Does it take down
Speaker 3: the whole system? We don't know.
Speaker 2: Which is a terrifying prospect.
Speaker 1: And look, there's also this other bill that we're keeping
Speaker 1: our eye on called the Parity Act. It's interesting because
Speaker 1: it's a bipartisan bill. introduced piece of legislation that would
Speaker 1: exempt the smaller stablecoin transactions that were under $ 200 from
Speaker 1: being reported for purposes of capital gains tax. And it
Speaker 1: would defer taxation on staking rewards for five years.
Speaker 2: Totally separate. I mean, you have these legislators that.
Speaker 1: Are introducing this legislation. And again, Ben, they're not understanding
Speaker 1: what's at stake. They're just getting lobbied so damn hard.
Speaker 2: That it makes sense.
Speaker 1: But then you do have, and I want to make
Speaker 1: sure we shout them out, you know, people like Senator
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, right? Who's like, look, no, this is corruption
Speaker 1: on steroids.
Speaker 2: By the way, she's very clear.
Speaker 1: She's not anti-crypto. She just wants to make sure that
Speaker 1: there's guardrails in place that would allow that, you know.
Speaker 2: Real ethics teeth exist.
Speaker 1: Because right now what's been proposed in various things, including
Speaker 1: the Clarity Act, doesn't really have any teeth. There's really
Speaker 1: just no way to prevent further corruption, especially by Trump
Speaker 1: and the Trump crime family.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and to be clear, that's what I'm advocating for
Speaker 3: as well. I'm not advocating for crypto to be outlawed
Speaker 3: because it wouldn't work. Crypto has existed, you know, in
Speaker 3: these gray and black markets.
Speaker 2: In some weird space, yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, on the internet, you know, and you're never going
Speaker 3: to be able to get rid of it. You shouldn't
Speaker 3: even try. All it needs to be is properly regulated
Speaker 3: as securities, as investments. And let's see what happens. Let's
Speaker 3: see if these investments, which by the way, what are
Speaker 3: you investing in, right? It's just lines of computer code
Speaker 3: stored on ledgers called blockchains. There's no real, real world
Speaker 3: use case for crypto other than crime. That's the use case.
Speaker 3: The use case is sending something of value instantaneously somewhere
Speaker 3: in the world, avoiding the banking system. That's why criminals
Speaker 3: love crypto. That's why the Iranians are using crypto to
Speaker 3: be paid for their ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. That's,
Speaker 3: Trump is in bed with a guy whose exchange was
Speaker 3: laundering their money, the Iranians' money, this guy named Shengpeng Zhao.
Speaker 2: Oh, the guy who got pardoned? That guy?
Speaker 3: And then Trump pardoned him. And then this guy also
Speaker 3: invested through an investment firm in the UAE $ 2 billion
Speaker 3: in Trump's stablecoin business. So this stinks to high heaven.
Speaker 3: But to your point, I am not saying it should
Speaker 3: be outlawed. And I am the one trying to protect investors.
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Warren is the one trying to protect investors. What
Speaker 3: the industry is doing is preying on its own customers,
Speaker 3: indoctrinating them into this cult-like situation where they believe that
Speaker 3: if you criticize crypto, somehow I'm the bad guy, and
Speaker 3: trying to simultaneously not have regular investor protections for their
Speaker 3: own customers. If they gave a shit about their customers,
Speaker 3: they would try to protect them, but they don't.
Speaker 2: Well, because that actually would be an occupational hazard for them,
Speaker 2: would it not? I mean, it's the whole premise of
Speaker 2: their commerce, right?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's the whole theory of how they make
Speaker 1: it work is a presumption that people either are not
Speaker 1: paying attention or they don't really understand, which is why
Speaker 1: I bet you a million bucks if you tried to
Speaker 1: test basic crypto literacy for 99% of Congress, they would
Speaker 1: have no effing clue what the hell you're talking.
Speaker 3: They wouldn't, and not to be ageist, but there is
Speaker 3: an age issue there with a certain generation not really
Speaker 3: understanding things that are native to the internet, not understanding
Speaker 3: just how much misinformation is out there. So there's that issue.
Speaker 3: But there's also the issue, of course, again, as we've
Speaker 3: seen so often in our sort of, I don't want
Speaker 3: to say broken political system, but certainly deeply flawed, is
Speaker 3: Citizens United has just opened up the floodgates and the
Speaker 3: unlimited spending means that the representatives don't really have an
Speaker 3: incentive to understand it. Like, it's almost better for them,
Speaker 3: probably psychologically as well. They don't understand. All they understand
Speaker 3: is the dollars, the real money that's coming in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's coming in to help them.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So, you know, it's a very bad situation. But
Speaker 3: I will say this. When you say 99% of people
Speaker 3: on Capitol Hill, like the senators, donors, and I think
Speaker 3: that's probably true, or certainly it's in the 90s, And
Speaker 3: there are good senators like Chris Van Hollen, like Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 3: who are fantastic. But Bernie Sanders. But it's also true
Speaker 3: that the majority of the public doesn't know much about crypto.
Speaker 1: Which is why your film is amazing. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not bullshitting people because you and I are friends. I mean,
Speaker 1: your film, you said accessible. And that's such a fantastic
Speaker 1: adjective because, Ben, it literally explains it. And then it
Speaker 1: develops your theory on it and improves it empirically through
Speaker 1: the course of the film. I mean, that is why
Speaker 1: I think it's important for people to see it. It
Speaker 1: knocks down the barriers to entry to an understanding of
Speaker 1: what it is because a lot of people are so
Speaker 1: intimidated by it that they pretend like they understand it
Speaker 1: so that they're not judged because everybody talks about it.
Speaker 1: But in reality, again, people don't understand what it is.
Speaker 3: When I tell people what I'm doing, And I asked
Speaker 3: them what they think about cryptocurrency, the people that aren't
Speaker 3: in crypto, which is the majority of the overwhelming majority
Speaker 3: of the country, 84% of the country has never, ever
Speaker 3: messed around with this crypto stuff, 84%. And yet we've
Speaker 3: all heard the word. And so when I ask people
Speaker 3: what they think of it, they almost always say some
Speaker 3: version of, I don't know, it seems complicated. Maybe I'm
Speaker 3: not that smart, but it seems pretty scant.
Speaker 2: Look at that self-deprecation like straight out of the gate, right?
Speaker 3: Well, it's because the end of what I want people
Speaker 3: to understand is it's not you. You are smart enough
Speaker 3: to understand it. Does it seem like a scam? Trust
Speaker 3: your instincts. You're right. Let me explain to you why
Speaker 3: you're right, how you're right. But the industry relies on convincing.
Speaker 3: It's the metaphor I use in the book is the
Speaker 3: emperor's new clothes. is this, it's an incredible story, because
Speaker 3: it's so true, right, about human behavior. What an incredibly
Speaker 3: astute observation that the tailors trick people, adults, into believing
Speaker 3: that these imaginary clothes that they weave are real out
Speaker 3: of appealing to their ego, out of saying only the
Speaker 3: smartest people can understand this. If you can't understand this,
Speaker 3: you're just not smart enough. And so most people go, okay,
Speaker 3: I guess I'm not smart enough. Leave me alone, weirdos.
Speaker 3: But for a certain percentage of the public, they get
Speaker 3: pulled into that. You get sucked into that. And then
Speaker 3: they believe. And the net result is you have a
Speaker 3: small portion of the public, very small, like less than
Speaker 3: 5% that really, really, really believe in that stuff. I
Speaker 3: think they're in a cult. I really do. Like there's
Speaker 3: a lot of cult dynamics that happen. And I say
Speaker 3: that with love, I say that with sympathy, but like,
Speaker 3: I do think that's kind of what we're looking at.
Speaker 3: It's like a microcosm of MAGA, but like tucked into
Speaker 3: this very small niche of like dudes, young guys in particular. Um,
Speaker 3: and those people, I, I look, I show them in
Speaker 3: the film. I have a lot of sympathy for them.
Speaker 3: I talked to a lot of victims who have been scammed.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: All guys.
Speaker 2: They're very emotional.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But, but I didn't make the movie for them because
Speaker 3: it's really hard to break through to those guys. I
Speaker 3: made the movie for the, if you're out there and
Speaker 3: you haven't bought it, I made the movie for you. Exactly.
Speaker 3: And if you are like another, say 10% that has
Speaker 3: kind of like messed around with it, right? Like you
Speaker 3: saw some celebrities selling and you, put a little money
Speaker 3: and you, that's fine. Like that's no judgment.
Speaker 2: Wait, let me be clear.
Speaker 1: Several of whom that have been sued because they've been
Speaker 1: messing around with it and they've been advertising and using,
Speaker 1: you know, they're backing this stuff and then they got
Speaker 1: in trouble for it. I mean, let's be very clear
Speaker 1: about that too. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean, Kim Kardashian had to pay an over a million,
Speaker 3: $ 1 million fine. A bunch of the celebrities who shilled
Speaker 3: for FTX, Sam's failed crypto exchange, Sam Beckman Freed's failed
Speaker 3: crypto exchange. They're being sued civilly right now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 3: there are consequences. And thank God there are consequences. But
Speaker 3: the system shouldn't have to devolve into civil litigation. It should.
Speaker 3: There should be investor protections from jump. Right. That's the
Speaker 3: way this should work. We just live in the era
Speaker 3: of Trump where, you know.
Speaker 2: It's because he's gaming. He's gaming the system because he's
Speaker 2: making so much money off of it. I mean, sure.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: If you're the one who gets to build the rules
Speaker 2: and the way that the game is being played.
Speaker 3: Yes. And he called Trump called Bitcoin a scam as
Speaker 3: recently as twenty twenty one. So, you know, just a
Speaker 3: few years ago, he was saying it's a scam and
Speaker 3: now he's figured out how to make money on it.
Speaker 3: So he loves it.
Speaker 1: Trump also used to be a Democrat and been paid
Speaker 1: in Democratic candidates.
Speaker 3: Not a lot of deeply held beliefs, you know?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think there's anything deeply other than the
Speaker 2: bullshit with him. So Ben, again, other than being the
Speaker 2: brooding bad boy outsider, which you kind of are now
Speaker 2: doing in crypto, by the way, I'm going to say,
Speaker 2: you've kind of taken that and translated it over.
Speaker 1: Tell people where they should go to learn about the
Speaker 1: streaming event. It began August 22nd. What's cool is when
Speaker 1: you actually buy the access and the link is live.
Speaker 1: You can watch it over the span of what, two weeks, right?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Until September 6th, go to everyoneislying.com, click on watch
Speaker 3: and it'll set, you'll get set up. Yeah. It's a
Speaker 3: fun movie. And again, anyone, anywhere in the world, and
Speaker 3: we have subtitles for other languages and all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 3: It's been an incredible, we've had people from 40 different
Speaker 3: countries join us on Saturday. It was really amazing. Um,
Speaker 3: so I, I think there's a way forward here, you know,
Speaker 3: not just for my movie, but for a lot of
Speaker 3: other movies that are unfortunately suffering, you know, we haven't
Speaker 3: had time to talk about it. Maybe I'll come back
Speaker 3: on to talk about it at some point, but like
Speaker 3: the suppression of free speech that's, that's occurring in this country, um,
Speaker 3: sort of, uh, by these major corporations just being afraid
Speaker 3: of him. It's sort of a self-censorship where you just
Speaker 3: don't buy independent movies. Cause what's the, you know, what,
Speaker 3: the downside's too big, right? Trump could come after you.
Speaker 3: But the net result is this really chilling effect on
Speaker 3: our democracy, on the functioning of our democracy. If people
Speaker 3: don't have access to legitimate information, to the truth, then
Speaker 3: it's much easier to indoctrinate them. So I do feel
Speaker 3: like in my own small, fairly stupid way, I've contributed
Speaker 3: to truth getting out there in the form of everyone's
Speaker 3: lying to you for money, but go check it out.
Speaker 2: Not small, not stupid.
Speaker 1: And I will say that is why I testified in
Speaker 1: front of a Senate hearing myself. about this mega merger
Speaker 1: between Paramount, Skydance, and Warner Brothers Discovery because it's already happening,
Speaker 1: the silencing and the chilling effect, it's already happening and
Speaker 1: it'll continue on steroids if we don't help films like yours, frankly,
Speaker 1: to show how valuable they are with the information that
Speaker 1: it provides. So Ben, what we're gonna do is we're
Speaker 1: gonna obviously include the hyperlink to the website. 50% off
Speaker 1: for my viewers, my subscribers, to be able to watch
Speaker 1: this amazing film. My best to Marina, who is a
Speaker 1: long-suffering wife, but incredibly.
Speaker 2: Talented actress in and of her own right.
Speaker 1: Folks, when you tune in, you watch the movie, you'll
Speaker 1: see exactly what I am talking about. But my best
Speaker 1: to you, Ben, and to the family. It's good to
Speaker 1: see you. And I'm so excited and thrilled. And again,
Speaker 1: very proud of your hard work in this. It's a mission,
Speaker 1: but you're really shouldering it. And I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Well, I appreciate you for what everything you're doing with Epstein.
Speaker 3: We didn't even have time to talk about Epstein and Krypton. Oh,
Speaker 3: it's okay. But what you're doing is truly a public
Speaker 3: service of incredible import. And I am just very impressed.
Speaker 3: And it makes me wish I had gone to law
Speaker 3: school because if I'd gone to law school, I could
Speaker 3: be helping somehow.
Speaker 2: You certainly are. Ben McKenzie, thanks for being here. I
Speaker 2: appreciate you.
Speaker 3: All right. Appreciate you.
Speaker 2: Katie Fang here.
Speaker 1: We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the
Speaker 1: latest in legal and political news.
Speaker 2: Straight, no chaser.
Speaker 1: So if you're a fellow truth teller, hit that subscribe
Speaker 1: button and share the word about this channel so we
Speaker 1: can build a high information America together. So there's a
Speaker 1: potential big battle that is about to be waged by
Speaker 1: GOP Chair of House Oversight, James Comer, of all people,
Speaker 1: and with Leon Black. billionaire investor, founder of Apollo Global Management.
Speaker 1: He was the chair of Apollo until he was forced
Speaker 1: out in 2021 after more and more disclosures were revealed
Speaker 1: about Leon Black's relationship with the pedophile and horrific person
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. Now, if you'll recall back in June of
Speaker 1: There was a transcribed interview. And you know how I
Speaker 1: feel about these transcribed interviews that take place with House Oversight.
Speaker 1: I am one of the biggest critics alongside people like Democrat.
Speaker 2: Robert Garcia.
Speaker 1: I mean, a transcribed interview, folks. Yes, there may be
Speaker 1: a transcription at the end, but it's not under oath.
Speaker 1: You don't get sworn in. And yes, I will concede
Speaker 1: making false statements to Congress is a crime. But listen,
Speaker 1: you know, a penalty of perjury... Because you are under
Speaker 1: oath is more powerful. It's not videotaped and it's not public.
Speaker 2: I mean, and it's not made pursuant to a subpoena.
Speaker 1: And that's where this conversation really has meat on the
Speaker 1: bone for today's episode. Because a transcribed interview is done
Speaker 1: voluntarily through coordination between the witness and house oversight.
Speaker 2: And it's not done pursuant to a subpoena.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of trappings and enforcement and teeth that
Speaker 1: you would get normally under a subpoena setting. that you
Speaker 1: don't get in a transcribed interview. And we are seeing
Speaker 1: it happening now. So back in June, when Leon Black
Speaker 1: showed up for his voluntary transcribed interview, he walked out
Speaker 1: after give or take about an hour because he didn't
Speaker 1: like the questions that were being asked.
Speaker 2: And again, kudos to both.
Speaker 1: Republicans and Democrats on House oversight for pressing Leon Black
Speaker 1: about Certain things, including the existence of non-disclosure agreements, NDAs,
Speaker 1: that might have been used to silence victims, witnesses, people
Speaker 1: with a lot of knowledge about Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn Maxwell,
Speaker 1: and others. Black said, peace out. His lawyer said, we're leaving.
Speaker 1: But James Comer, surprisingly, surprising me every once in a while,
Speaker 1: whipped out some subpoenas and served two subpoenas.
Speaker 2: On Leon Black before he left.
Speaker 1: And those two subpoenas that were served on Leon Black
Speaker 1: said the following. You're going to roll up for a
Speaker 1: subpoenaed deposition, not a voluntary transcribed interview. And right now,
Speaker 1: the negotiated date on that is September 3rd. OK, so
Speaker 1: that's next week. One subpoena says you're going to show up.
Speaker 1: The other subpoena says you are to produce with you
Speaker 1: the following documents. All non-disclosure agreements to which Leon David
Speaker 1: Black is a party. Number two, all non-disclosure agreements to
Speaker 1: which Jeffrey Epstein or Glenn Maxwell is or was a party.
Speaker 1: Number three, all non-disclosure agreements to which Jeffrey Epstein or
Speaker 1: Glenn Maxwell are referenced or were involved in the preparation, execution,
Speaker 1: or enforcement thereof. That was served on Leon Black on
Speaker 1: June 26, 2026. And that is what's going to be
Speaker 1: dealt with on his upcoming depot, subpoena depot on September 3rd. Now,
Speaker 1: there is an open-ended question. Will he actually show up?
Speaker 1: Because of a letter that Comer just sent to Leon
Speaker 1: Black's lawyers. And this letter is a doozy. Again, I
Speaker 1: am pleasantly surprised at the chutzpah. that James Comer is
Speaker 1: showing here. You know, maybe if he had shown that
Speaker 1: same level of chutzpah from the beginning, maybe we wouldn't
Speaker 1: be so far down the road with some bullshit from
Speaker 1: Pammy Jo with the bad hair and the fact that
Speaker 1: we still haven't heard from people like Todd Blanche and
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon and others. that would have a lot of
Speaker 1: information about Epstein.
Speaker 2: But I digress. So here we go. So just a reminder,
Speaker 2: just a reminder, Leon Black, billionaire investor, knew Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: from mid-90s. Long ass time, right?
Speaker 1: Because remember, Epstein died mysteriously, 2019 August.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 2: Since about 1995, Leon Black knew Jeffrey Epstein. And when
Speaker 2: I say knew, I mean knew.
Speaker 1: Super, super personal friends, super professional friends. Black's position is,
Speaker 1: I paid Jeffrey Epstein $ 158 million over a five-year period
Speaker 1: from 2012 to 2017.
Speaker 2: Look, folks, if you and I could get $ 158.
Speaker 1: Million over five years, shit. And we know that Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein wasn't a lawyer, it wasn't an accountant. But Leon
Speaker 1: Black paid $ 158 million, according to Leon Black, for Epstein's advice.
Speaker 3: Advice.
Speaker 2: On tax, trust, insurance, estate planning, and family office matters.
Speaker 2: Come and say what?
Speaker 1: The man doesn't have a law license, he's not an accountant,
Speaker 1: doesn't have formal training, but you're going to pay him
Speaker 1: $ 158 million for that.
Speaker 2: Type of advice? Hmm.
Speaker 1: Now, Black says Jeffrey Epstein was such a genius that
Speaker 1: this advice helped him produce between $ 1 to $ 2 billion
Speaker 1: in financial benefits. So it sounds like everybody in this
Speaker 1: Epstein elite is making shitpots of money and Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: is running his child rape sex trafficking ring internationally this
Speaker 1: whole time. Now, Black swears, not yet, but kind of,
Speaker 1: that all of this was just above board business dealings.
Speaker 1: That it had nothing nefarious and there was nothing going
Speaker 1: on with this money.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Now, Apollo Global did its own internal investigation and said, yep,
Speaker 1: it's $ 158 million and there was nothing going on here
Speaker 1: and it was just for these tax and accounting advice
Speaker 1: and services.
Speaker 2: Ah, but then, Here.
Speaker 1: Comes Senator Ron Wyden, who was like, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I've conducted a multi-year investigation. And we see it here
Speaker 1: in this. We see it in the report that was generated.
Speaker 1: But look, this letter dated March 20th, 2026 from Senator
Speaker 1: Ron Wyden to Leon Black says, I actually want additional
Speaker 1: information from you. For nearly four years, my staff at
Speaker 1: the Senate Committee on Finance said, has investigated the financing
Speaker 1: of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Specifically, this investigation reviewed an
Speaker 1: unusual arrangement under which you, Leon Black, paid Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: $ 170 million between 2012 and 2017 for purported tax and
Speaker 1: estate planning services. According to a settlement that you, Leon Black,
Speaker 1: signed with the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Epstein
Speaker 1: used the money you paid him to fund his sex
Speaker 1: trafficking operations.
Speaker 2: Always read before you sign, people. So that's interesting.
Speaker 1: There's $ 12 million that are unaccounted for. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: if Ron Wyden got his hands on even more of
Speaker 1: the information that he's being blocked from getting from the
Speaker 1: DOJ and others, I bet you we'd find more, right?
Speaker 2: So what's happening here?
Speaker 1: Oh, and by the way, Leon Black also made a
Speaker 1: $ 30 million loan to Jeffrey Epstein in addition to the
Speaker 1: $ 170 million that Epstein got for his services, and he
Speaker 1: never paid the loan back. I mean, this is like
Speaker 1: Leonard Leo and Clarence Thomas. I'm going to give you
Speaker 1: the money for this camper thing, and you only have
Speaker 1: to make the interest payments, and you never have to
Speaker 1: make the balloon payment, and it's forgiven.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is just some weird stuff, right? Who
Speaker 2: lends $ 30 million to.
Speaker 1: It sinks to high heaven, but let's get back into
Speaker 1: what's happening in the immediate sense, because this is really important. Okay.
Speaker 1: So as we know, Leon Black pieces out, walks out
Speaker 1: from his transcribed interview and Comer's like, here's your subpoenas.
Speaker 2: Have a nice day.
Speaker 1: Now, a letter that Comer sent that was a doozy
Speaker 1: on August 19th, 2026, excuse me, August 18th, 2026 says, look,
Speaker 1: you're trying to You're trying to outline all these arguments
Speaker 1: why Leon Black, this is between the lawyers, why Leon
Speaker 1: Black shouldn't be required to fully comply with the subpoena
Speaker 1: that was issued to him on June 26 for these
Speaker 1: non-disclosure agreements that are in Leon's possession, custody, or control.
Speaker 1: In response, Leon has actually turned over only one NDA
Speaker 1: so far, and he claims it's the only one within
Speaker 1: the scope of the House Oversight Committee's goals. House Oversight
Speaker 1: rejects your assertion And reiterates that full compliance with the
Speaker 1: subpoena issued to your client requires the production of all
Speaker 1: nondisclosure agreements to which Black is a party.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: Comer goes on to say, House Oversight never agreed to
Speaker 1: limitations on the scope of Mr. Black's interview that were
Speaker 1: not already articulated in the letter dated March 3rd that said,
Speaker 1: this is what we are looking to investigate.
Speaker 2: And it was pretty expansive. to house oversight's credit.
Speaker 1: Leon Black demanded to see the exhibits that were going
Speaker 1: to be used by house oversight in advance of his interview.
Speaker 1: House oversight said, uh, no, we don't share exhibits in
Speaker 1: advance with witnesses. That is not our practice whatsoever as
Speaker 1: we conduct an investigation. In addition, We, of course, were
Speaker 1: going to get into the topic of Leon Black's payments
Speaker 1: with Jeffrey Epstein, but because your client walked out, we
Speaker 1: didn't get a chance to do that. So what does
Speaker 1: that mean? Well, Leon Black's lawyers are like, well, you
Speaker 1: never asked our client about the payments and the nature
Speaker 1: of them. Well, yeah, we already know what he's going
Speaker 1: to say. I just told you what he's going to say.
Speaker 1: $ 158 million allegedly vetted by a Decart investigation, that internal
Speaker 1: investigation by Apollo Global.
Speaker 2: And it's going to say it was for, quote, tax
Speaker 2: and estate planning purposes. Okay, so fine.
Speaker 1: You know me and my work has me on the go, go,
Speaker 1: go all the time. So I need trustworthy, durable, but
Speaker 1: attractive luggage. That's where my Noble Travel All-in-One Carry-On comes in.
Speaker 1: Noble has a completely removed zipper. It's literally zipper-less. It's
Speaker 1: a latch lock suitcase. So when it's closed, it's shut
Speaker 1: tight like a safe. And so I'm not juggling a
Speaker 1: million things in my hands. It also has a built-in
Speaker 1: charging port. It's got a front laptop pocket and a
Speaker 1: flip-out cup holder built right in. And with over 500,000
Speaker 1: suitcases sold, it's the highest rated luggage brand in the
Speaker 1: category on Trustpilot. Did you know over 12,000 flight attendants
Speaker 1: and pilots already swear by Noble? Even TSA agents say
Speaker 1: that it helps prevent theft and tampering. Every suitcase comes
Speaker 1: with a 100-day money-back guarantee and free three-day express shipping.
Speaker 1: Did you hear me say it's got a lifetime warranty?
Speaker 1: It's the last suitcase you're ever going to need to buy. So,
Speaker 1: Noble gives you real travel peace of mind, security, design,
Speaker 1: and convenience all in one. Head to nobletravel.com for up
Speaker 1: to 46% off your entire order. That's nobletravel.com for up
Speaker 1: to 46% off. After you make your purchase, they're going
Speaker 1: to ask where you heard about them. Please support our
Speaker 1: show and tell them that we sent you.
Speaker 2: Here's the thing. Leon Black.
Speaker 1: Declined to answer questions relating to his personal life. So Black,
Speaker 1: in advance of the transcribed interview, tried to say, I
Speaker 1: am limiting the scope of the interview questions that I'm
Speaker 1: going to be sitting in. And House Oversight's like, nope,
Speaker 1: we never agreed to this because here's a clear example
Speaker 1: why we can't agree to limit scope.
Speaker 2: Ready?
Speaker 1: During this limited one hour, excuse me, during this truncated
Speaker 1: or shortened one hour interview that happened back in June,
Speaker 1: House Committee members asked the following questions about Black sexual
Speaker 1: relationship with a woman associated with Jeffrey Epstein. And this
Speaker 1: woman's name is Giselle.
Speaker 2: Ganieva. Question. Have you ever engaged in sexual conduct of
Speaker 2: any kind with Ms. Ganieva?
Speaker 1: Black says, I had an affair with her on and
Speaker 1: off for six years, an extramarital consensual adult affair with her.
Speaker 2: Then subsequently, here was the question to Black. Was Mr.
Speaker 2: Epstein involved in the negotiations on these terms? Answer.
Speaker 1: He was not involved in the negotiation. He was somebody
Speaker 1: that I told... I was being blackmailed and extorted to,
Speaker 1: as well as to my lawyers at Paul Weiss. When
Speaker 1: the House committee made additional inquiries about this woman and
Speaker 1: the existence of a nondisclosure agreement between her and your client,
Speaker 1: your client refused to answer the committee's questions.
Speaker 2: I mean, when there's smoke, there's usually fire, right?
Speaker 1: So Leon Black continues to object to the production of
Speaker 1: nondisclosure agreements, including questioning about these NDAs, NDAs that were
Speaker 1: signed by Leon Black with women that House Oversight has
Speaker 1: reason to believe are connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell,
Speaker 1: and others. And the reasoning that Comer puts forth in
Speaker 1: this letter makes sense. He explains that Epstein, his associates,
Speaker 1: used a variety of tools to silence and control victims
Speaker 1: and other individuals in his orbit, including NDAs, non-disclosure agreements.
Speaker 1: And some of these associates and people have come forward
Speaker 1: later saying, and said that they were victims and survivors
Speaker 1: of the abuse, but the NDAs obviously kept them.
Speaker 2: Silent for a while. To conduct a complete and thorough investigation,
Speaker 2: the committee will pursue all relevant avenues of inquiry. The
Speaker 2: committee is also aware of the.
Speaker 1: Existence of at least one NDA between Leon Black and
Speaker 1: a woman who was connected.
Speaker 2: To jeffrey epstein.
Speaker 1: Ultimately it is house oversight not you or your client
Speaker 1: that will determine the value and relevance of information your
Speaker 1: client has regarding the committee's investigation into the actions of
Speaker 1: epstein-maxwell and their associates okay fine so here's where we
Speaker 1: find ourselves right Apparently, on August 11th, Leon Black's lawyers
Speaker 1: confirmed with House Oversight that he will appear on September
Speaker 1: 3rd for his subpoenaed deposition. It will be under oath,
Speaker 1: it will be videotaped, and it will be transcribed. But now,
Speaker 1: now it looks like Leon Black's trying to push that
Speaker 1: into October. So let's see what happens. I mean, you
Speaker 1: can do reasonable accommodations, but this doesn't quite make sense,
Speaker 1: seeing how the original interaction between Black and House Oversight
Speaker 1: was in June. So here's the thing, and you got
Speaker 1: to love lawyers. During an August 18th meeting, the lawyers
Speaker 1: for Leon Black said that he would not agree to
Speaker 1: provide a privilege log.
Speaker 2: And the privilege log would have been a.
Speaker 1: Listing and identification of all NDAs to which Leon Black
Speaker 1: is a party. And then the committee would review it
Speaker 1: and then explore whether or not they wanted to continue
Speaker 1: production of a specific NDA or more. Given Black this opportunity,
Speaker 1: he said, no, I'm not going to do it. Additionally,
Speaker 1: Black's lawyers on August 18th said, I'm willing to provide
Speaker 1: an additional NDA, the existent of which is already publicly
Speaker 1: known because of pending litigation, in exchange for House oversight
Speaker 1: agreeing to the following. One, you will not hold Leon
Speaker 1: Black in contempt relating to either of the two subpoenas.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you could agree to shit like
Speaker 1: that in advance. Two, You would change the deposition subpoena
Speaker 1: to a voluntary transcribed interview. We're back to that shit again. Three,
Speaker 1: limit the scope of the transcribed interview regarding confidentiality to
Speaker 1: only the two NDAs that Black provides. Four, you will
Speaker 1: delay the transcribed interview until late September or early October,
Speaker 1: as I just mentioned. And five, you will not videotape
Speaker 1: the transcribed interview.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hell no. And what do you think Comer said?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Comer. He said, no, this offer is unreasonable.
Speaker 2: And then the piece de resistance on page nine of nine.
Speaker 3: Mr.
Speaker 2: Black's continued refusal to comply with the committee's legitimate subpoenas
Speaker 2: is unacceptable. If Mr.
Speaker 1: Black refuses to provide the committee with responsive documents or
Speaker 1: refuses to appear for his scheduled deposition on September 3rd, 2026,
Speaker 1: the committee will use all tools at its disposal, including contempt.
Speaker 1: So as I said at the beginning of this episode,
Speaker 1: we're about to see a battle royale. Leon Black is
Speaker 1: a billionaire. He has fancy lawyers at Hogan levels that
Speaker 1: are actually doing this on his behalf.
Speaker 2: But don't you think sometimes the we think.
Speaker 1: Thou doth protest too much applies and pretty greatly so
Speaker 1: when we're dealing with Epstein investigations? Look, I think one
Speaker 1: thing I want to underscore here is the importance of
Speaker 1: the Democrats retaking the majority in November. Because, again, this
Speaker 1: is credible efforts by Comer. And Leon Black is such
Speaker 1: a huge part of.
Speaker 2: The Epstein elite.
Speaker 1: And has so many connections over the span of decades
Speaker 1: with Jeffrey Epstein, it only makes sense. I think Comer
Speaker 1: would lose even more credibility if he didn't go after
Speaker 1: and pursue everything he could with Leon Black. But the
Speaker 1: fact that these haven't been subpoenaed straight out of the gate,
Speaker 1: what a waste of damn time. We're already at the
Speaker 1: end of August, folks. This transcribed interview, the negotiations of which,
Speaker 1: this shit's been going on for months to get Leon
Speaker 1: Black in the door in June, and now we may
Speaker 1: see him at the end of September if he doesn't
Speaker 1: roll up at the beginning of September?
Speaker 2: I mean, come on. Let's do it by way of
Speaker 2: a subpoena.
Speaker 1: If you have Democrats in the majority, people like Robert Garcia,
Speaker 1: it's all videotaped, all public, all transcribed, as in like
Speaker 1: it's there as a subpoena depot.
Speaker 2: You got to put teeth into things.
Speaker 1: And if you don't, why would you ever expect somebody
Speaker 1: from the Epstein elite to ever comply?
Speaker 2: So we're going to follow this. September 3rd is just
Speaker 2: next week. Let's see what happens. Let's see if actually
Speaker 2: contempt happens, right? They make contempt.
Speaker 1: Deferrals all the time for stupid shit out of Congress,
Speaker 1: but something like this, this type of obstruction, it's a problem.
Speaker 2: It's a problem. Be mad, be outraged, fan accountability. I'm
Speaker 2: off to rattle some more cages. Katie Fang here.
Speaker 1: We launched the Katie Fang News Channel in partnership with
Speaker 1: the Midas Touch Network so we could bring you the
Speaker 1: latest in legal and political news.
Speaker 2: Straight, no chaser. So if you're a fellow truth teller,
Speaker 2: hit that subscribe button and share the word about this
Speaker 2: channel so we can build a high information America together.