Trump Wants to Change How We Vote. Will He Succeed?

Upstanding citizens are always turning out to be secret criminals, and I wouldn't even call

my cousin Alan an upstanding citizen, but it's one thing to know and another thing to understand. Alan, murder, me, what the hell was Alan thinking? From serial productions and the New York Times, I'm Em Gesson and this is the idiot, out my 26th wherever you get your podcast. From the New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams and this is the Daily.

This week, the Senate is debating the Save America Act.

“We're going to save America, the Save American, how can they find us, the Save America Act?”

A bill that could overhaul who gets to vote, and the president Trump has called his number one priority. They have to get it done because if we don't get this done, I'm for, if it takes you six months, I'm for not approving anything, I'm for not approving anything. I don't think we should approve anything until this is approved. Today, I speak with my colleagues Michael Gold about the bill and why some Republicans

are standing against the president to block it.

A Nick Course Needy about the administration's other plans to try and reshape the electoral process whether or not the bill fails. It's Friday, March 20th. Michael Gold, welcome back to the Daily. Thanks for having me.

I appreciate that you're talking to us in the capital, with a picture of the capital behind you. Are you going to sound booth or something?

“I'm in the sound booth with a picture of the capital, so that I never forget where I am.”

Which in this building is not insignificant, it's pretty big around here. It's 230 on Thursday afternoon, and the reason you're at the capital is that you've spent all day so far covering the deliberations over the Save America Act, which we expect to be

voted on in the Senate at some point in the coming days.

Can you just start by describing what the Save America Act actually is and what it would do? The Save America Act is this big elections bill that President Trump has been pushing for. And it has a few basic provisions, all of which follow what the president is looking

for on voter identification and voter registration. So the bill would require people to show proof of American citizenship when they register to vote. It would require that you show a photo ID at the polls when you go to vote. It would require states turn over their voter roles to the Department of Homeland Security.

And that's so that the Homeland Security Department can look for non-citizens who might be registered. It would broadly ban male invoting with a few narrow exceptions. And then the president tacked on two provisions that have nothing to do with voting or voter rights.

One of those would restrict medical care for transgender children and the other one would essentially ban transgender women and girls from taking part in women and girl sports. And the president has said that this bill is his top priority. He wants a bill that includes all of these things and he has told Congress that he will not sign any other pieces of legislation unless they pass that bill.

And he's made it clear that he's going to withhold his endorsement from lawmakers if they don't back this bill and push to get it done. What is your understanding of why the Save America Act, the rest of it, is so important to the president? Because obviously he keeps repeating the claim that the 2020 election was stolen, but he

did obviously get back into office in 2024. Like why are these election issues something that he's still so focused on? Yeah, I think if we're talking about this bill, we need to really zoom out of Washington and look at the bigger picture, which is that there are going to be midterm elections in November.

And the control of Congress is up for grabs, essentially. Of course. And Republicans are looking at polling that shows that the wind is a Democrats back. Traditionally, we've seen the president's party lose power in midterm elections. I think Trump knows that.

And he even told House Republicans, at their big meeting last week, that he believes that the faith of the midterms hinges on their ability to pass this bill. And why is that? What about this bill? Would actually give Republicans the upper hand in President Trump's mind?

So the contention that the president's been making is that this is a necessary bill because the only way that Democrats can win elections is by raking them. And again, I want to be clear, there's no evidence for Trump's claims that Democrats are cheating on elections, but this is the claim he's been making. And it's part of a larger effort that he's undergone in recent years to instill doubt

about the outcome of elections that he and his party don't win. So it sounds like it's just as much about what's actually in the bill as it is about the optics that the president wants to be able to portray about the election. I think that's correct.

“I think it's important to remember that as President Trump and Republicans keep talking”

about this bill, part of the idea is to raise questions in the mind of voters about whether

But I think another key part of the president's strategy here is to try and put Democrats on the defensive and force them to explain why they oppose voter identification for some to explain why they oppose some of these voter restrictions that the president portrays as common sense ideas and to force them to take difficult votes on things like these transgender provisions where polls showed that voters trust Republicans more on these kinds of issues.

He wants to put them on their back foot. He wants to put them on the back foot and especially had an election.

“I think both parties are trying to seek any edge they can get.”

And this is one area where the president thinks that he has the advantage. Okay. So as you've explained, the bill is a huge priority for the president and the president, it's worth noting has largely enjoyed getting what he wants from Congress or at least his

experience in a second term has been that congressional Republicans do not stand in his way.

Right. But this time is different. Explain why and also how. Yeah. It is different.

You're definitely right about that. And it is correct to say that this term the president has really been able to muscle his priorities through Congress. They've given him why latitude to do a lot of the things that he's doing. In the house, that was the case with the Save America Act, the House on a party line vote

pushed through this bill and they sent it over to the Senate.

“The problem is that in the Senate to advance this bill, you need to overcome the filibuster.”

So that means that you need 60 votes for any bill to move ahead.

And because of the math of the Senate where Republicans only hold 53 seats, they can't

pass this bill without the support of Democrats. And the only option they have to do this on a majority vote would be to get rid of the filibuster. And for those of us who do not live and breathe, Senate procedure and are not currently based on capital Hill, such as U-Michael Gold, what is the filibuster and what does it mean

to do away with it? Yes. A great question. One that I have to answer a lot. So the filibuster is set up in such a way that everyone knows that you need these 60 votes

to move a bill along. And so lawmakers tend not to bring anything to the floor for a voter for a debate if they know that they don't have 60 votes to move it on to the next step. Now getting rid of the filibuster would mean changing the rules of the Senate so that you can do everything on a simple majority vote.

But a lot of senators, including Republican senators, are really opposed to getting rid of the filibuster. Why? Well, think about it like this. If you need 60 votes to do anything, that gives individual senators a lot of power.

If you kind of start with the basic idea that a lot of Democrats are going to oppose a Republican bill and a lot of Republicans are going to oppose a Democrat bill, there's incentive for individual senators to try to work out compromises. And so if you're a moderate senator who wants to get something for your state, if you want to have a very specific influence on the piece of legislation, you can do that because

your vote is really critical.

And so there are a number of hard-line Republican senators who want to get rid of the filibuster and would rather see a majority rule, but a number of others who are more institutionally minded don't. And that includes Senator John Thune, the South Dakota or a Republican who's currently the majority leader and who got his job in part by promising to uphold the Senate's kind

of institutional value and its institutional mindset. So basically, this has become a test for Senate Republicans, right? And in particular, the Senate majority leader, Thune, because the choice they have is either bow down to President Trump, given what he wants, pushed the Save America Act through, or defend the filibuster, and by extension, the incentive to compromise in the Senate

and effectively block this piece of legislation that is so important to a president who has a history of defense trading allies at the slightest hint of disloyalty. Yeah, this is a really tricky moment for Senate Republicans. And it is a very tricky moment for John Thune. He has to kind of follow the will of a lot of the members of his caucus who do not want

to see the filibuster changed at the same time. The president is very influential, he holds a lot of sway among the Republican base. And so he's getting a lot of pressure, not just from some of his own members, but a lot of pressure from outside. And he's sort of face at this crossroads of trying the side how he's going to deal with

the Save America Act. Okay, so what does Thune do? So Thune goes to his members, he has a lot of conversations, and eventually he realizes that there's just no will for getting rid of the filibuster, there's no way for them to do it. But he knows that the president wants to see a vote on this, and so he says, okay, we're

going to bring this bill to the floor, we're going to have a long debate on it. We're going to come and make our points. We're going to force the Democrats to come and defend their points. We're going to do this for days, and even though everyone knows that it won't overcome the filibuster, he wants to have a vote, and they want to make sure that everybody has recorded

their position on the Save America Act. And presumably he wants to get some compelling soundbites of Democrats on the defense, right, debating this.

“And that's what we have started to see, play out on the Senate floor, a debate that is basically”

just for show, more or less, but in the meantime, he's hoping that this will release

Good afternoon, everyone, I think is everybody knows we are looking forward to having an important battle on the floor of the Senate this week.

“And so for the last few days, the Save America Act has been the only thing, basically, that”

the Senate has debated. Mr. President, I rise today to say, I support the Save America Act, and what we've heard from these Democrats here is nothing but fear, monitoring, and outright lies. Listen to the Democrats talk, I think it's fine, let any illegal immigrant vote. We're crying for a photo ID to vote is just common sense.

Heck, if you want to get a library card, you have to show a photo ID. And we've seen Republicans make the same argument as the President about voter fraud about the idea that Democrats might be breaking elections. What this bill is, is they have voter suppression bill, it's a voter purging bill.

And Democrats have objected to the bill by arguing that the Save America Act basically

amounts to voter suppression. We know that this will disenfranchise thousands of not millions of Americans. This is not an ordinary voter ID bill. This is a way to keep Americans citizens from voting, and I'm-- When they're citing studies that show that millions of Americans don't have the documents

they need to be able to vote or to register to vote. And one thing that they're also pointing out is that those millions of Americans don't neatly follow one party or the other, that this law would hurt Republican voters, and it would hurt Democrat voters as well. If Republicans want to waste the Senate's time debating this bill so be it, we will continue

to debate it.

“That's what the rules allow the senators and Senator Thun to do.”

But we will continue to expose this is a load of nonsense. So it sounds like part of the reason why Republicans might support the Save America Act is about showing fuel to the president, right, validating his claims of voter fraud that this is a big issue as opposed to concrete, clear evidence that it would actually help them in the midterms.

I think that's right. And I think there's a sense in which they think that the president's priority is the most important thing right now. So given everything that you've laid out, Michael, is there any chance that this bill is going to pass in the Senate?

I would say no. Stranger Things have happened.

And I'm never in the business of absolute someone that comes to predicting the Senate.

But the numbers aren't there, Democrats are unified against it. The filibusers isn't changing anytime soon. So whenever they vote on this, it seems destined to fail. Michael, I can't help but wonder though how the president is going to view this sort of compromise that Thun is proposing, right, of at least having a debate of not pushing this through.

Given the fact that the president has made it clear, this is his number one priority. And just stepping back, there's a longer story here of the president Trump's control over his party. He has enjoyed basically being the boss. And this seems to be a rare moment of some Republicans standing up to him and saying,

no, there's actually something more important here than just us doing whatever it is you want. Yeah, I think that's right.

And the Senate has always had this independent streak and it's something that has

long but doubled Trump. It was a real issue for him and his first term. And a lot of senators are looking to the future when Trump won't be president and thinking about what they want the Senate to be and how they want the Senate to function. Especially in a world where they're not in charge anymore.

They don't want to hand Democrats the reins to push through laws without them.

“And so I think what you're seeing is a lot of these Republican senators really trying”

to take a stand here and say the Senate means something, the legislative branch means something and we can't just let you trample all over it. They're imagining a world where President Trump is not President Trump forever. That's right. Presumably he will not be president after the 2020 election.

And so they have to think about what their jobs are going to be after that. At the same time, Trump has made it clear that he's not letting go of this issue. And what we're seeing is he and his allies in the administration are looking to ways that they can achieve similar goals to alter the elections that are coming this November. Michael gold.

Thank you so much. Thanks Rachel. After the break, my colleague, Nicole Sineady, explains other plans from the Trump administration. They could reshape American elections regardless of whether the Save America Act fails. I'm Robin and I am excited to open my cross-play act.

I'm challenging John. My colleague at the New York Times. Robin played the word "grunge" which has a G which is four points. She got that triple word multiplier. I'm going to take facts and make it facts as for 30 points.

I might just take another two letter word here with Woe gets me at 23. I think this will put me back in the lead if my maths are mathing.

player from scoring high. I'm pretty competitive. It's fun to beat friends and co-workers and also get to learn new words. Crossplay.

The first two player word game from New York Times games.

Download it for free today.

“I think he thinks he has this in the bag, but I'm not so sure.”

Nick, our colleague Michael Gold just told us that the president has vowed to push through elements of the Save America Act, now that it looks like it's almost certainly going to fail. You've focused a lot of your recent reporting on those efforts and on election integrity more broadly. What is the president talking about when he's talking about the parts of the Save America

Act that he wants to preserve and push through another way? The Save America Act is kind of a key part of a multi-pronged approach that the administration is bringing to try and remake American elections according to President Trump's will.

That's the main battle happening on the hill. There's been a lot that's been percolating

in the background. The president has been using different agencies within his administration to intrude or start to investigate different parts of the electoral process. Right. When it comes to the electoral process, we should point out that the president has repeatedly

lied about the 2020 elections, specifically that it was stolen. Now he is seeking to influence the 2026 midterms in different ways, and this is where I'd like to acknowledge that there are so many fears out there about election interference, and I've heard plenty of theories, I'm sure you've heard all kinds of theories, and I think it's very hard for people to know where their fears fall on the scale of possible to totally

unlikely and ridiculous not land-ish. And so I wonder on the venn diagram of scary and likely, what is in that middle section? What is actually worth talking about?

“So I think it's important to start these conversations, looking at what the federal government”

has actually done, what actions have they taken, and then understand where they could go based on what they've already done, and there's a few buckets here that the federal government has started on, and the most pressing, at least from what election experts across the country have told me, are these FBI investigations into the 2020 elections? And what that's looked like so far is the FBI raided an election warehouse in Fulton County, Georgia,

and they took ballots related to the 2020 election. This was a pretty unprecedented move. That's right. We talked about that on the show earlier this year, and not only was the raid unusual, but Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, we learned had actually broke her phone call between the FBI agents involved and President Trump, and that is totally unusual.

That's exactly right. And then they subpoenaed election materials for Maricopa County in Arizona, the biggest county. But then allies of the president have continued to push that effort further. In Michigan, we reported that election activists there obtained copies of ballots and other election materials from Detroit, another Democratic powerhouse in a key swing state.

And what would the point of those investigations be? Like, what is the FBI gain from getting access to information from the 2020 election, and what does that have to do with potentially 2026? There's kind of two goals here. The first is adding like a veneer of legitimacy to the many false and baseless claims that the president's made about the 2020 election. But it could

also kind of significantly impact the 2026 elections. And this is where I hear so much fear and worrying from election experts. These investigations, whether it's real or not, could produce reports or claims that there were errors, malfeasance, problems with the running

of elections in these critical areas. And then that could be a justification for further action

from the federal government. Further action like.

“So it could take a couple forms. And I think we can just look at what President Trump”

has said so far. In an interview with the times earlier this year, he said he regretted not having the national guard sees voting machines in the 2020 election. He has also said that he wants to nationalize elections and that he wants Republicans to take over elections. And you know, in a worst case scenario, you could see the president directing any arm of the federal government to intrude in an election, seize machines, seize ballots, and all trust

and best practices about the election would be out the window. But there's an underlying worry that comes with these FBI investigations. And that's the very grounds on which they were brought. So when the affidavit was unsealed in Fault and County, we see that there was a host of

taking these ballots. And a judge signed off on them. And so there's been election lawyers who I've spoken to who were just baffled that this was the bar that was needed for the FBI to go and take these ballots. And they worry that the bar could be just as low for a possible intrusion into the midterms. One of the things that feels sort of different about the world that we're living in now

is that while we're talking about hypotheticals, we are also talking about an FBI and a

judiciary that in the second Trump administration we have seen been quite acquiescent at times

compliant with the administration's demands or agenda. And so I can imagine that that is adding fuel to the concerns about whether this kind of intrusion could occur in a place like, I don't know, Detroit or just some other area that is really pivotal to an election to the midterms. That's exactly right. What's fueling so much of this unease is that this administration is staffed with so many allies of the president who are willing to go along with a lot of his efforts.

And if we look at the election space, so much of the leaders of these levers of the federal government, people like Attorney General Pembondi, they were outside the government in 2020, but they were standing with the president and his efforts to overturn that election. Now, they're inside the administration. They're the ones who will be pulling those levers of

“power. And I think that is part of what's making so many of these hypotheticals feel a little bit”

more real to election experts, Democrats, even Republicans that that I've talked to. Okay. So what you have just described about the FBI, the DOJ that I think is one bucket of concern, right? What is the next bucket of concerns that you think we should be paying attention to? So there is a fairly unprecedented effort by the federal government to create what would essentially be a national voter role. And they're demanding private voter roles, which are kept by states,

and they include personal identifiable information like social security numbers and drivers licenses. They want that entire data set sent to them by secretaries of state or top election officials to create a national voter role list. And it's part of this investigation into voter fraud and non-citizens voting that the president claims is happening. In reality, no investigation is found widespread voter fraud, nor widespread, non-citizens voting in elections.

But theoretically though, the idea that the federal government would basically say,

we want this information so that we could come up with another check against people who shouldn't

“be voting voting. I think that that's something that a lot of people might hear and kind of be on”

board with, right? I think most Americans are on board with voter ID requirements in general. Yeah, on the surface, it sounds like a good check, right? But it's actually pretty faulty in its foundations. A voter role list in any state is effectively a living document. People die, people move, people get married. People turn 18. People turn 18. And that changes their voter registration. These changes in the voter list are happening every waking second. And

real federal government's effort is much more of a snapshot like a picture. So as soon as the federal government gets this information, it would instantly be at a date. Okay, but presumably the federal government is well aware of the limitations of creating such a snapshot. Like they know how voting works. They know people turn 18 and get naturalized. So they would know that

“a list today is not a good list for tomorrow. What then is the purpose of something like this?”

So this is actually probably serving two purposes. The first is to kind of in further investigate

this baseless claim that the president has continued to make that the voter roles are dirty that there's millions of non-citizens on them that there's other types of voter fraud happening everywhere. And if you had a national voter list that could be scrubbed, you'd be able to prove that. But there's also pre-significant concern among these election officials that are refusing to hand over the state that it could be misused. That it could be, you know, kind of manipulated,

distorted in a way to kind of prove those claims. And then either service justification is we were talking about earlier for more intrusions into elections or allow the government to make claims about the midterms that just aren't true that could impact results. I want to ask about a theory that's been put out there about using federal troops like the National Guard to somehow police polling stations or intimidate people of polling stations. Where does all of that fall in the

venn diagram we talked about? Well, in this one, the law is pretty clear.

The Trump administration has left a little ambiguity in their statements.

Christy Nome, the former Secretary of Homeland Security, you know, refused to rule out having ice agents at polls. But, you know, in private conversations with election officials, some Department of Homeland Security officials have said we're not going to do this.

“So that fear, I think, is kind of been answered by the administration, even with slight ambiguity.”

But the fear that I'm starting to hear more from, you know, kind of governors of states, isn't that these ice agents will go into polls? It's that they'll go into cities or go into democratic strongholds. Like we've seen in Minnesota. Exactly that. It's not so much that there will be

armed federal agents watching you vote. It's that the situation in a city could suddenly become unstable

and what suppressive impact that might have on voting. So there is a concern about federal troops. It's just not quite the concern that I think is sort of the loudest about them being physically at polling places. Exactly. There's clear laws prohibiting armed agents in the polls. But there isn't that to have armed patrols of cities. But I think it's worth pointing out, though, that this is an administration that pushes the legal limits all the time. And after taking

some kind of action gets rained in by a court. And while the courts were a bull work against the claims of election fraud in 2020, we have talked about how they have also been quite compliant in some cases with the administration's demands. And I sort of wonder how we should be thinking about the courts pitching forward as it relates to them being a check on anything that we might be discussing here today for the 2026 midterms or beyond. Well, we've seen time and time again that

the judiciary has become politicized in this country. So there's lots of fears that politically connected judge could side with the federal government on any of these claims. And it also, you know, can take time for a judge to rule. So if, say, troops were dispatched to an election center or had intruded to the process in some way, the damage was at least momentarily done,

“right, before the court rules. But I think it's also important to not forget that the Constitution”

is very clear. The president and the executive branch have no explicit authority over elections. Right. So when the president says he wants to nationalize elections or when he claims he's going to enact the voter ID through an executive order, there's no constitutional authority to do that. And in fact, we've already seen courts knock that down. In March of last year, the president signed an executive order, seeking to make a host of changes to American elections. That was swiftly

knocked down and has been almost completely blocked by federal courts. So there are moments where the courts clearly provide a check on the president in his efforts to change the electoral process. But in the heat of the midterms, you know, what could be done in a moment or what might take some time to correct? There could be damage still done. I want to linger for a minute on the role of the states here. You know better than anyone that elections are decentralized, the states

oversee their own elections. So even beyond the court stepping in and saying no to the president,

there's this reality that it's always been really hard to imagine. Anyone quote unquote

rigging an election or influencing an election nationwide, simply because there are thousands of people across the country who are actually in charge of how elections are run and they are not connected to one another. So you couldn't just say flip a switch and all of a sudden, everything changes on the national level. That's exactly right. And that's one of the strengths of the American electoral process. The decentralized nature where local officials and state officials

are running elections makes it very hard to corrupt or hack or rig an election. But this is also kind of where we've seen some of the most significant change from the 2020 election to what could happen in the midterms. In 2020, a lot of local election officials were bullmarks against the efforts to subvert the results by the president. And in 2016, some of those offices have changed. So we're kind of in a new reality here as the battleground areas are different. And so some of the election

“officials and some of these key spots are much friendlier to the president, his past claims about”

election interference and fraud and a lot of conspiracy theories. You know, those are also held by some of these local officials. And can you give us an example of a state that has shifted into this way that matters for the midterms? Yeah, the clearest example of this is in Georgia. The state election board in 2020 was, you know, overseen by Brad Raffinsberger, the secretary of state who

out votes. Now, it's run by allies of the president who have supported his conspiracy theories about

“elections, supported the raid by the FBI in Fulton County. And the state election board has”

pre-significant powers. And one of the ones that could really come into play in the midterms is this new state law that would allow the state election board to suspend those in Fulton County who oversee elections and install their own person to run the election. But with the midterm election, the states that we need to pay attention to are actually quite different than a presidential, like Texas. So in a midterm, Texas has multiple battleground house districts and democratic

held house districts. And there's state officials there, like the Attorney General Ken Paxton,

who, you know, launched the lawsuit in 2020 to overturn that election. And there's concerns

and we don't exactly know how that might play out in a midterm because it hasn't been tested. In some ways, the idea of states preemptively taking action that they think is in line with

“the president's agenda or might help the president or might help their Republican party, that sounds”

like at least spiritually sort of the center, the bullseye of that venn diagram. That's exactly right. So we've already seen these states take action at the behest of the president to help Republicans in the midterms. So as we look ahead, you could see how it's actually the state officials that could play the biggest role. I want to just emphasize that a lot of

our discussion is hypotheticals, right? We're living very much living in the land of what could

happen based on what we have seen so far. But the fears that people have about the midterms, about future elections, as you pointed out, are largely based on actions that have been taken both at the federal and the state level. The stuff is not happening in a vacuum. And one thing that does very much seem like it is not outside of the realm of possibility is that the overall impact of all of these efforts and all of these claims and all of these justifications for

what we have seen could further erode the trust that voters have in the electoral system itself. And we already know based on the claims from 2020 that there are a lot of people that just simply do not believe in the integrity of our electoral process. And I just sort of wonder how we should be thinking about the role of that doubt going forward and what impact it actually has practically speaking on people turning out to vote. There has been no greater change in American elections

in the Trump era than this widespread doubt and eroding of faith in the electoral process. You know, American elections have been challenged before. We saw it go to the Supreme Court in 2000. But what happened in 2020 and the movement that spun out of it is a new front in American politics and American elections. And so with all these actions that have already been taken, these raids by the FBI, these requests and lawsuits to get voter information, the presence of federal troops and

cities to carry out immigration raids, these state election officials kind of taking power and siding with some of the election conspiracy theories. It all contributes to the doubt and the eroding of faith in elections. And that can have a profound impact on whether Americans trust their elections and what actions they take when they don't. Nick Korsynidi, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks, Ratmey.

We'll be right back.

“Here's what else you need to know today. The Pentagon has asked for $200 billion in funding”

for the war in Iran, a significant sum that adds to the cost of an already divisive campaign. The White House will review the request before its formally submitted to Congress. Defense Secretary Pete Hegsev said in a news conference on Thursday that the number "could move." Obviously, it takes money to kill bad guys. The sum is nearly a quarter of the country's entire annual defense budget and it's already

raising eyebrows among some moderate Republicans who would be key to approving the new money. And two former FBI agents fired last year for having worked on an investigation into President Trump's attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Filed a lawsuit accusing senior leaders of the Bureau and the Justice Department of targeting them for, quote, "political retribution." In their suit, the agents claimed that FBI Director Cash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi

Even though they had worked on the election interference case, only briefly,

“and enlargedly administrative roles. The suit is the latest effort by FBI employees”

to hold Patel and Bondi accountable for the sweeping purge of investigators and analysts

who had taken part in inquiries into Trump or his allies.

“Today's episode was produced by Shannon Lynn, Jack Dissidero, and Eric Rupki.”

It was edited by Rachel Quester and Lexi Dio.

Contains music by Marian Lazzano and Dan Powell. Our theme music is by Wonderley,

“this episode was engineered by Chris Wood.”

That's it for the Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you on Sunday.