He tried really, really hard in 2020. With his souring presidency on the line, he’s intensifying his efforts again. You know what we’re talking about: Trump’s election meddling.
“After 2020, I think one of the lessons that some of us learned—but unfortunately not everybody—is that our democracy is fragile,” says Washington, DC, bureau chief David Corn in the very first episode of our new podcast, Stress Test, a white-knuckle guide to the midterm elections. “Trump came pretty close, even with all the guardrails.”
And Trump isn’t the only one meddling—to which David can personally attest. Shortly after the release of his new book, How Russia Won, the very Russian disinformation operators he wrote about started circling deepfake videos of him, claiming he’d written a very different book: one detailing 300 crimes committed by Democratic candidates.
In this episode, David and co-host Garrison Hayes are joined by voting rights correspondent Ari Berman to pull apart the biggest stress test facing the midterms: whether the vote will proceed smoothly, or whether Trump will meddle even more. After all, Trump and his gang are already claiming the election will be “rigged,” pushing false voter-fraud claims, trying to disrupt mail voting, and demanding voter-roll data that could be used to challenge or purge voters. Then there are the redistricting wars that have shaped so much of 2026, and the Supreme Court’s role in diluting Black political power. At last month’s Republican midterm convention, Trump even went so far as to lead the crowd in a performatively jokey pledge to “cheat like hell.” (“It’s kind of hard to believe when someone says it so explicitly,” says a dumbfounded Garrison.)
The episode presents a blend of hope and fear. Many of Trump’s efforts have flopped so far: The Justice Department, Ari notes, is 0-25 in federal court in its bid to force states to hand over their voter rolls. His advice: “Don’t give Trump any more power than he actually has.”
But the Supreme Court has left plenty of room for a more orderly kind of rigging, like gerrymandering. “So you can’t steal,” as David puts it, “but you can tilt.” And Ari argues that what happens before the vote may not be what matters most. “What we saw in 2020 is all hell broke loose after voting ended. And so that’s why I don’t want to sit here and say, like, ‘Everyone’s fine, no need to stress, we’re all good.’ Because we don’t know what’s going to happen in those next phases where people vote, where votes are counted, and where elections are certified.”
New episodes of Stress Test drop every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe at youtube.com/motherjones. And read the transcript below.
This transcript was generated with automated tools and may contain errors.
David Corn: This is Stress Test from Mother Jones. I’m David Corn.
Garrison Hayes: And I’m Garrison Hayes. Welcome to the very first episode of our brand new show. David, I am so excited to be here, to be talking to you. And I feel like we should tell the people what this show is all about right here at the very beginning.
DC: Well, let’s do that. We’re facing perhaps one of the biggest stress tests that American democracy has ever been through with these midterm elections. And we’re gonna be here over the next few weeks, dropping episodes every Wednesday and Friday. But you know the fur’s gonna be flying, so we’ll probably be coming in once in a while with emergency episodes. And sometimes, Garrison, it’s gonna be you and me together. Sometimes you’ll take the helm. And no one’s gonna want to miss a single episode of this show. So they gotta subscribe by going to youtube.com/motherjones. Did I get that right?
GH: You got it right. You should definitely go to youtube.com/motherjones. Listen, if the fur is going to be flying, there’s no one I’d rather be talking to than David Corn. And of course, the incredible journalists and reporters in our newsroom. And so we should talk a little bit about some of the things that we’ll be discussing on Stress Test over the next few weeks and maybe beyond that. David, what are you most excited to talk about over the next few weeks?
DC: Well, we’ll be talking about the role of big money. We’ll be talking about whether this election can be held fairly and effectively, and whether the results end up being respected. And in a very parochial way—sense—I have my own distinct interest. And that is, let me see, I’m pulling this up here. I have a book that came out two weeks ago. It’s called How Russia Won. I was an idiot, forgot to bring a copy to the studio, but here’s the title page, the cover.
GH: Congratulations.
DC: And it’s about Russian influence operations that have been targeted against American elections since 2016, including 2020, 2024, and the midterms of 2018. And in the last week or two, The New York Times, MS NOW, and us at Mother Jones have reported that they’re at it again. They have started putting in—putting up disinformation on social media platforms in America with the most scurrilous accusations against Democratic candidates—not Republican, Democratic candidates—for congressional and gubernatorial races.
And as you can see on the screen right there, they’ve even have pulled me into this disinformation campaign by using, you know, video of me and claiming that I have a new book out, not How Russia Won, but a new book that details 300 crimes committed by Democratic candidates. So we’ll be tracking that as the weeks go by. And what about you? What are you focused on?
GH: David, okay. I want to get into what I’m focused on, but I feel like we should punctuate that you’ve reached a level of journalistic fame where Russia is using you in disinformation campaigns. And I need you to tell us, like—can you just say a little bit more about what they’re trying to accomplish by stealing and cloning and AI-ing your face, voice, and mouth to say what they want you to say?
DC: Well, they haven’t done my voice yet. They’ve done that with others, Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Julia Roberts and other famous celebrities. They’re used—they’re mimicking them. With me, they use video, and they, you know, they have two goals in these types of information operations. One is to target individual races and contests, and the other is just to create a sense of chaos and conflict and discord.
And they’re just getting started now. So I think what they’re doing now is testing the waters. My book came out. They are obviously paying attention to it and trying to jujitsu it by saying my book is not about their operations, but about criminal Democratic activity, which they’ve make up. But the other thing that I worry about, and it goes into the big picture, which we’ll be coming to again and again and talking about later on this episode, is the idea of the elections going off the rails, right? They’ve—you know, Trump and others claim there’s cheating, they’re not legitimate.
And the Russians are really good at amplifying things like that and promoting conspiracy theories that are being created by others or that they themselves create. And in the past they’ve put up fake videos of what they call—of what they claim to be voter fraud. So they will be doing things like that again, and hopefully not using me, but who knows what they’ll be doing. Maybe using this podcast.
GH: Well, that is very, very stressful. I hope they don’t use this podcast for those purposes. You’re forbidden from using this podcast for those purposes, Russia. That’ll stop them.
Well, let me tell you a little bit about what I’m stressed out about these days. I’m thinking a lot about Black political power, Black representation in Congress. We know that there was a huge Supreme Court decision over the summer that has been described as diluting, if not completely destroying, Black political power across the South, specifically around redistricting. And so that’s stressing me out. I’m kind of interested to see how the candidates who are choosing to continue to run in these ultra-gerrymandered districts, how they will fare. I’m thinking about Justin J. Pearson and Tennessee and others across the South.
And so that’s what’s on my mind, which is a really great transition to today’s guest. We’re talking to our national voting rights correspondent here at Mother Jones, none other than Ari Berman. I’m so excited to talk to you today. Thanks for being on the show, Ari.
Ari Berman: Hey guys, great to see you too. Congrats on the new show.
DC: Thanks, thanks for being here. Let’s set the table before we get to your expertise, Ari Berman. You know, Trump’s already claiming this election’s gonna be rigged. There’s talk some of his far-right advisers, I don’t know if they are advisers, are talking about encouraging him to impose martial law during the elections. He’s screwed up or tried to screw up mail-in ballots, created a lot of confusion. And they’re sending thousands of election monitors, the Justice Department, to polling places. And what are they gonna be doing there? Are they there to help or to intimidate? And well, let’s hear what Trump has to say about this.
[Clip plays.]
GH: My god. My god.
DC: Cheat like hell. Now, people say, well, he’s just joking. He doesn’t really mean that. Tell us what are the likely possibilities here of cheating, rigging, delegitimizing, discrediting. What do we really have to be stressed out about?
AB: Well, mean, first off, it’s just amazing that Trump is just going out there and saying that people should cheat. I mean, he’s accusing—he’s doing the very thing that he’s accusing Democrats of doing. He’s the one saying that all these unregistered people are voting illegally and the other party’s cheating like hell, and then he just goes out and says, whether you’re registered or not, you should vote and you should cheat. So it’s like, projection is reality.
DC: It’s all projection, right? It’s all projection.
AB: Projection is reality. It’s like example 12,173 of things that should be a bigger scandal if anyone other than Trump said them. But I mean, I think you’re right. We are seeing an unprecedented attempt to try to interfere in the midterms in terms of how people vote and then ultimately how votes are counted and how elections are certified.
I’m not sure, though—just to actually ramp down people’s stress level. Usually I’m the one who ramps it up. I come on the screen and people’s blood spikes up.
DC: Yeah, please.
AB: To ramp it down a little bit, I actually think that Trump has been largely unsuccessful in his effort to try to rig the midterms. And I think he’s been largely unsuccessful in terms of his plans to try to control who can and can’t vote. And so I would imagine the administration will get more desperate and more extreme, but right now they’re operating from a position of weakness rather than strength.
GH: I want to hold on this idea of unsuccessful. It kind of feels like if you are the casual political observer, it feels like everything he imagines just happens, but you’re telling us that he’s been unsuccessful. Can you give us some specifics on that? I’m thinking about the voter rolls in Georgia and really across the country, but can you give us some of the other examples of how Trump has been unsuccessful over the last year or two?
AB: Yeah, so the Justice Department is 0–25 in federal court trying to get states to hand over their voter rolls. The Supreme Court just shot down his plan to basically sabotage mail voting by making the Postal Service the custodian of who can and can’t get mail ballots. They said that was unconstitutional. They just said that Missouri has to use a map that is not gerrymandered as opposed to the gerrymandered map that Republicans wanted to use.
That’s just a few recent examples, but I think it’s been pretty clear. Trump issued two executive orders on elections. Both have been blocked in court, one by the Supreme Court, one by lower courts. Most of what the Justice Department has tried to do to compel states to hand over voter rolls, do things like that, has been unsuccessful. And the voting laws, by and large, in most states are going to be very similar to how they were in past elections. And that’s why with a notable caveat of redistricting, where Trump was able to persuade a number of states to redraw their districts, a lot of his plans haven’t really gone as the administration wanted.
DC: We know that Trump doesn’t believe that rules apply to him, correct? Doesn’t abide by guardrails, he doesn’t recognize them. So they’ve tried all these maneuvers, the machinations trying to stop mail-in ballots and things that you mentioned. They’re 0-for-25 in the courts. Might that make him more dangerous as we get closer to the election? If there’s no legitimate avenue for him through the courts, through executive orders, these all things all get shut down, and he’s still hellbent on trying to delegitimize, discredit, or overturn the election, as he tried to do in 2020 when he lost those court cases, what might he turn to in that extreme situation?
You know, he can declare a national security. I don’t know what that means in terms of elections. He can certainly get out there and use the bully pulpit to promote more protests, if not riots. I mean, if the courts don’t work for him, I don’t know if that means he’s gonna just sit back on his hands and say, I gave the best shot, and now let’s just see what happens. There are a lot of scenarios out there too, about what might happen at the state level in states that are controlled by secretaries of states that are loyal to him. So, you know, I’m glad you’ve ramped us down a little bit, but we’re not out of the woods, correct?
AB: No, I mean, you’re certainly right, David, that as he grows more unpopular and as the likelihood of losing both houses of Congress increase, he’s going to become more desperate. And he’s being pitched on this insane plan that he should declare a national emergency, that he should declare martial law, therefore he can somehow unilaterally stop mail voting or seize ballots or take voting machines. I think that’s gonna be a huge stretch. I don’t know how they plan to convince the Supreme Court that just stopped their executive order for mail voting that he somehow has the power to unilaterally stop American elections.
I mean, this is what he’s being pitched on, but I think there’s a difference between him trying something and him succeeding in doing so. And what we’ve seen so far is Trump wants to do these kind of crazy things, but he’s been dialed back. Remember the primetime speech he gave, where we expected him to declare that national emergency. Not only did he not declare that national emergency, but he presented basically zero evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. Of course, there is no evidence the 2020 election is stolen, but I at least expected him to tell some kind of story about how it was stolen. He didn’t even attempt to tell that story. It was all the same recycled lies.
DC: And in fact, they put out documents in which they claimed China had interfered in the 2020 election. And if you read them closely, it did not say that. In fact, it said, back to me in my book, that Russia had interfered in the 2020 election to benefit Donald Trump. So yeah, I mean, they try all sorts of crazy things that don’t pan out. But we did see him during, you know, some of the ICE protests be able to send National Guard troops into Los Angeles.
And I, you know, a lot of this doesn’t—wouldn’t make sense, and we try to figure out how that would work with elections and ballots, but he still might mobilize some force to intimidate voters, or that—I think in the end of the day, what he’s best at causing chaos and confusion. And you try to do that with mail-in ballots. He might do that with trying to mobilize, you know, National Guards of the thousands of election monitors. So that might be as far as he can go, but in certain areas that could make a difference, right?
AB: Yeah, I think a lot of what the White House is trying to do right now is self-suppression. They want people to stay home by threatening things. They want to threaten people with prosecutions. They want to threaten that ICE is going to go to the polls. They want to threaten that Trump’s going to declare martial law so that people think voting is scary and dangerous, then they don’t show up. And then if they don’t show up, they don’t have to then steal the election afterwards.
So that’s why I would just urge people to separate the powers that Trump actually has over elections, which are extremely minimal, with the power that Trump would like to exert over elections, which is extremely maximal. And what I always say is don’t give Trump any more power than he actually has. When it comes to elections, he has very little power.
So yes, they could try to send ICE to the polls. They may very well send ICE to the polls. There are very clear rules in which—in terms of what ICE or any other actor can do around a polling place and particularly inside a polling place. And I think if ICE did go to a polling place, you would see a very big countermobilization from civil society like you saw in Minneapolis. So I mean, would it be chaotic? Absolutely. Could it lead to blowups that then have other impacts on elections? Absolutely. Would it be successful? That’s what I’m less clear about.
At the end of the day, do I think Trump is going to be successful in taking over the voting system, stopping elections from being certified, stopping people from being seated? I think ultimately the answer is no, but he could try it every step of this process. And that’s where you start to get into the constitutional crisis territory, is as this escalates like it did in 2020. I think at the end of the day, Trump’s gonna see his party losing, blame someone else, and decide to fight the next fight and go golfing. That is my prediction of how this all plays out. But David, you may very well be right that we could still be talking about this on January 3 or November 3, 2027, as the new Congress is being seated and there’s challenges to the eligibility of Democrats to be seated.
GH: Yeah. I mean, we know that some of those efforts to distort and to trick people are working. The University of San Diego—University of California, San Diego, put out this recent poll data that says that fewer than half of Americans expect for there to be free and fair elections this midterm. So the narrative war that they’re fighting is kind of working, even if they are 0 and 20, whatever, on their actual kind of efforts to take ballots.
I do want to reset us and kind of bring us back here because we are talking about—in our very first episode right here, and now, we’re talking about interference here with Ari Berman here on Stress Test. But I want to talk a little bit about what came before so many of these interference efforts that we’ve been talking about in the last just few months. This summer, we saw the Supreme Court lay out a few decisions that have been, for many voting rights advocates, devastating. And so, Ari, I want you to first of all kind of give us the bird’s-eye view of how the Supreme Court has been engaging with democracy over the last year. Talk to us about Callais and any of the other decisions, like the voter database decision that came out recently.
AB: Well, the signature project of the Roberts court has been to roll back American democracy and to take American democracy back to a pre–Voting Rights Act era and allow Southern states to do the kind of things that they were prohibited from doing after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed. And they functionally destroyed the Voting Rights Act with the Louisiana v. Callais decision. What that has meant is that Republicans rushed to dismantle majority-Black districts in Tennessee, in Alabama, in Louisiana.
This is just the start of this. This is going to be a decision that has impacts way beyond the midterms because all of these Southern state legislatures are going to come back in session after the midterms and they’re going to redraw their districts again to eliminate as many majority-Black districts as they can, eliminate as many Democratic seats as they can. And we could be in a situation where there are all-white congressional districts throughout the South. And that quite literally is what Jim Crow was, where African Americans had the right to vote, but they weren’t able to exercise that right. Now they’ll be able to exercise that right, but they won’t have anyone to vote for.
And so that was a devastating decision. It has had huge ramifications in terms of voting. I think you have to go beyond just partisan politics to understand it because people will say, oh, Democrats are going to take back the House, therefore, what Trump did with redistricting didn’t matter. I think that’s a very shortsighted view of it because this is a decision that’s going to have ramifications for decades. Not to mention the other things. Go ahead.
DC: And actually, let me say, actually, if the House Democrats do win control of the House, it will give them more motivation, the Republicans: They will see that they can’t win the elections and they will have to continue to rig the playing field in order to stay even with Democrats. Already the gerrymandering is such that for the Democrats to win a majority of the House, they need to win, what, 53, 54, 55 percent of the congressional vote if you put it across the country nationwide. So already there’s a advantage to the Republicans, and they will try to leverage that even more so with this racist redistricting, if, you know, that’s the only way they can win after the coming elections.
AB: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, basically what’s happened is the race for the House has turned into the Electoral College, whereas there’s this fundamental bias against Democrats that they can only overcome if there’s some kind of wave election. And so what’s gonna happen is the wave election is gonna be so big, most likely, in 2026, that some of the seats they gerrymandered they won’t actually pick up. They’re not gonna pick up all the seats they wanted in Texas, in Florida. There may even be some competitive places in North Carolina, even Alabama might be competitive because it’s such a bad year for Trump.
But what’s gonna happen, you’re right, David, is they’re gonna see who wins and they’re gonna say, those are the districts we have to dismantle. We need to make them even redder to be able to win in 2028 and in 2030. And so I would just urge people that even if Democrats do well in terms of the midterms, that doesn’t mean the gerrymandering fight is over.
Not to mention, Garrison, as you said, the Supreme Court is doing other things to make it harder to vote. Like, for example, of authorizing the administration to be able to use this immigration database, the SAVE database, not to be confused with the SAVE Act, the GOP’s voter suppression bill. And they’re gonna try to use that database to falsely accuse people of being noncitizens and to urge states to purge them from the voting rolls.
The good news is that for the midterms, they’re gonna have a hard time doing it, because the National Voter Registration Act prohibits voter purging 90 days before an election. So you can’t really do it now, but after the midterms, they’re going to basically use these obscure bureaucratic databases to say, we finally found all the noncitizens on the rolls, even though it’s going to be a lot of naturalized citizens that they’re going to falsely claim were noncitizens and try to purge them from the roll.
So then that’s something that—a lot of this is shaping up to be things that we see over a longer period of time, not just the midterms. I think what the Supreme Court has shown is that they’re not gonna tolerate Trump just outright stealing the election. That’s a bridge too far. We saw that in 2020, we saw that with the executive order and the Postal Service. But if they try to rig the elections in a quote-unquote orderly way, right, then the Supreme Court’s totally on board with that.
DC: So you can’t steal, but you can tilt.
AB: Yeah, exactly. Yes, you can’t outright steal an election, but you can functionally steal it by doing things like just totally redrawing the districts that Democrats represent and that Black voters represent. But if you do it under the guise of some kind of legal principle other than we just want all the power, then the Supreme Court might be okay with that.
GH: Yeah, to your point about the way, the orderly way—I mean, part of the in-the-weeds nature of the Callais decision was that it kind of gutted Section 2, but if you prove some other ways, you know, like, there’s this really nuanced and sometimes complicated language in the way that they go about these decisions, the Supreme Court. And so I want you to just kind of talk a little bit about that and talk about how we are to understand some of these decisions.
We have been looking at, you know, this voter database decision. I shared with you earlier, Ari, that it felt like the headlines around this decision was that Trump got this really, really big win. But we’re talking about Stress Test. And when you see those really kind of sweeping headlines about the wins that the Trump administration may be getting and things that are antidemocratic, it can feel a little stressful. Can you talk specifically about the voter database decision from the Supreme Court and whether or not they gave Trump the big win that maybe some people are thinking it is?
AB: They opened the door to a lot of possibly bad outcomes for democracy, but they did it in such a way that it’s hard to throw the door open immediately, if I can continue with this tortured metaphor. Because like I said, the impact of using this voter database in the midterms to purge people from the rolls, for example, is gonna be very limited because you can’t purge people 90 days before an election. But after the election there could be a lot more mischief. And so, yes, the headline was maybe a little bit scarier than the actual decision itself.
I think the Voting Rights Act decision, Garrison, was the opposite, though. The Supreme Court wanted to avoid the headline that said the Roberts court ends the Voting Rights Act. But that’s what they functionally did, because they’ve made it so hard to prove violations under the Voting Rights Act that it’s functionally dead.
I mean, I’ll just give you really quickly the example. They said in the Callais decision, you have to show intentional discrimination. So you actually have to have, like, evidence that they specifically targeted Black voters and they knew they were doing it. Well, in Alabama, a panel of Trump-appointed judges said that Republicans in Alabama had intentionally discriminated against Black voters. They found it before the Callais decision, and then they found it after. And then it came back to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said, no, that’s not the kind of intentional discrimination we’re talking about.
So, I mean, if they’re not gonna honor a finding from a Trump-appointed panel of judges in Alabama that so clearly laid this out, I don’t know what the breaking point would be for them. I don’t know what the January 6, 2020, moment for the Supreme Court would be when it comes to the Voting Rights Act, something that they just can’t ignore the criminality of. But it’s hard to see what it would be under the Roberts court.
DC: I think they’ve made their intention quite clear, as you point out. So quickly, Ari, before we let you go and back to reporting on all this stuff, of all the things midterms, what’s stressing you out the most?
AB: The unknown-unknowns are the thing that’s stressing me out the most, which is that, okay, we can be reasonably certain that Trump’s plans to interfere in the midterms aren’t working now based on the evidence that we have before us. But this is just one phase. We’re in the preelection phase of the election. There’s the voting period of the election. There’s the vote-counting period of the election. Then there’s the election certification period of the election. What we saw in 2020 is all hell broke loose after voting ended.
And so that’s why I don’t want to sit here and say, like, everyone’s fine. No need to stress. We’re all good. Because we don’t know what’s going to happen in those next phases where people vote, where votes are counted, and where elections are certified. That’s likely where they would try to do the most targeted interference because they’ll know this is how close the races are, this is where the margins are critical. These are the races that we need to keep control of a state or one or both houses of Congress. That’s likely where you’re to see the Trump administration, the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, all these federal agencies mobilize to try to manipulate the result if they feel like there’s a close enough election and some kind of pretext for them to do so.
DC: And as we’ve seen with the Trump administration putting political ads out under the budget of the DHS and others, legality, normal—normal politeness, whatever, courtesy, abiding by rules, the general framework we’ve had for things—won’t matter. Won’t matter. They will try to do whatever they want to do.
So anyway, Ari, thank you so much. People should make sure to check out his and Pema Levy’s story on how the Roberts court has eviscerated decades of voting rights progress. That’s—you can find that at MotherJones.com. You can see it in the issue, the September+October magazine issue. It’s on the cover. And you can make sure to catch him on the—our Reveal podcast episode, which is coming out on October 17. Ari Berman, thank you so much for being with us on Stress Test.
AB: Great to see you both. Don’t get too stressed out.
GH: Thanks, Ari.
DC: So Garrison, after that, do you feel better or worse?
GH: David. My goodness. I don’t think I feel—no change is what I’m gonna say if I’m at the doctor. No change in my stress actually after that. I feel a little bit better about the way, you know, some of these things, some of the efforts to maybe overthrow democracy, if we can say it in the most dramatic way imaginable. Some of those are unsuccessful. That’s good to know.
But I really am concerned about the way voters are interpreting these things. You know, Ari talked about how sometimes the headlines are a little bit more, you know, severe than the reality. The Supreme Court decisions are really, really complicated. So we get that, but I’m really concerned about the way people are ingesting this information and internalizing this information and how that is affecting the way they actually show up to vote and their voting behavior. And so I’m a little stressed about that. But overall, I’m so grateful for Ari and Pema’s incredible reporting around all of these issues. It’s a must-read for anyone who’s interested in this topic.
DC: Yeah, and you know, after 2020, I think one of the lessons that some of us learned, but unfortunately not everybody, is that our democracy is fragile. Trump came pretty close, even with all the guardrails, even losing, you know, 65 court cases, still came kind of close to overturning the results and destroying our constitutional republic and remaining in power. And since then he has spent six years discrediting democracy and our electoral system. So I don’t think that’s gonna stop over the next five, six weeks.
And I do think he will have the ability to create narratives and disinformation and conspiracy theories that try to undermine the election before, maybe after it happens. And whether or not that succeeds in terms of who ends up in Congress or in the governor’s houses across the nation, it will have an impact on how Americans overall see this election and whether everybody accepts the final results. So that’s also what I’m worried about. But I’m glad that so far he hasn’t succeeded in many of these efforts.
GH: Listen, that was a great conversation, and we have so much more for you in store. I want to tell you that our great journalism, all this work that we put in to report on these stories, to get in the weed, to make sure you have reliable information, stuff that Ari and others are doing, that stuff is how you can support this show by going and supporting our work at Mother Jones. Your views and your subscriptions keep us going. So don’t forget to like and share and subscribe. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and let us know what you think of this episode down in the comment section. I’m sure our producers will be very delighted to hear that you’re enjoying what we’re putting together here, even if you don’t get to see them on the screen. They’re incredible. Listen, we’ll be right back here in just a couple of days with another episode of Stress Test.
