Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:00]
Boost Mobile Announcer
He's dribbling the ball with everything on the line. He's driving down the pitch. He's facing price hikes and cuts past him. Carrier contracts, tries to block him. Oh, he leaves him in the dust. He's at the edge of the box. He cuts past the nonstop group chat, trash talk. He clears on goal. He shoots. Go unlimited data for $25 a month
- [00:17]
Boost Mobile Advertiser
forever Visit your local Boost Mobile store today to get unlimited data with a price that never changes. Boost mobile after 30gb customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost $25 Unlimited plan.
- [00:37]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
From executive producer Isaac Saul. This is Tangle.
- [00:51]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independ and thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Saul and it's Wednesday, July 1st. I'm feeling like Currently an Ivy League educated law student in the midst of SCOTUS week, we are diving in to many opinions and today we're covering the birthright citizenship ruling that has kind of lit the commentariat on fire. Also in today's podcast we're going to be talking about people lying when they answer political polls, a remarkable story story about how technology is allowing a man to communicate despite his motor neuron disease and much more. And of course it's worth saying that tonight I'll be turning my brain off for a couple hours to chant usa usa, usa and my TV while pretending I understand how soccer works. And I expect all patriots to join me in that endeavor. It's going to be a great show. I'm here with Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead. I'm going to pass it to her for today's main topic. I'll be back for my take.
- [02:11]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
Thanks, Isaac. First up, we have our quick hits. Number one NPR mistakenly published and broadcast a report that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, then retracted the story minutes after publication. The outlet's leadership said in a statement that the error resulted from legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg mishearing an announcement about retirements on the court and assuming it referred to Alito. Number two, Republican representative from New Jersey Tom Keene Jr. Made his first public appearance in four months, delivering a speech on the House floor in which he said he'd been diagnosed with depression and hospitalized on his doctor's recommendation. 3. Democratic socialist candidate Milat Quiros defeated 15 time incumbent Representative Diana DeGet in the Democratic primary for Colorado's 1st congressional district. Number four. In a financial filing, President Trump disclosed earning $2.2 billion in 2025, including approximately $1.4 billion from his family's cryptocurrency businesses. Number five, Anthropic said the Commerce Department has lifted export controls on its Fable 5 and Mythos, five artificial intelligence models. Roughly three weeks after the government imposed the control over national.
- [03:35]
Boost Mobile Announcer
Good evening. The Supreme Court today gutted one of President Trump's signature policies, rejecting his effort to end birthright citizenship as we know it. In attacking that 150-year-old right, the Trump administration argued it, quote, degrades the meaning and value of American citizenship and doesn't work in a modern world where, quote, 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen. But Chief Justice John Roberts rejected those arguments in a 26 page majority opinion, while Justice Samuel Alito, in dissent called this one of the most important decisions in the history of the court and a serious mistake.
- [04:14]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, ruling 6:3 in Trump v. Barbara that the order is unlawful. Three Republican appointed and three Democratic appointed justices comprised the majority, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch each authored dissents. For context. On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an order declaring that a child born in the US Is not a citizen if their father is not a US Citizen or permanent resident and their mother is either in the country illegally or only there temporarily. The order was immediately challenged on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in April. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the 14th Amendment was clear in its intent that children born in the United States to parents illegally or temporarily present in the country should still be U.S. citizens. The amendment citizenship clause, he wrote, excluded the children of foreign ministers and members of 19th century Indian tribes, but no such inter sovereign concerns apply to children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion dissenting from the majority's view that the Executive order violates the 14th amendment, instead arguing that it was illegal under a federal law enacted in 1940 that mirrored the citizenship clause's language. However, Kavanaugh suggested that Congress could amend that law and change the definition of birthright citizenship. Justices Alito and Thomas strongly disagreed with the decision. Alito called it a serious mistake, while Thomas said the ruling adds to the sad history of the 14th Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks, but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support. Finally, Justice Gorsuch, who also joined Thomas dissent, wrote that the citizenship clause does not apply to children born to parents who are temporarily in the United States, legally or illegally. However, he suggested that children of non citizens who intend to remain in the country should be considered citizens. Writing is a child born here to parents who have long chosen to make this nation their permanent home, not a Citizen under the 14th Amendment solely because his parents presence violates statutory law. If those parents are not domiciled here, then where are they domiciled? Today you'll hear perspectives on the ruling from the right and the left, followed by Executive Editor Isaac Saul's take Let's get into it.
- [06:53]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [06:57]
Ground News Advertiser
Hey everyone, quick thought before we get started.
- [06:59]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
If you listen to Tangle, it's probably
- [07:01]
Ground News Advertiser
because you're trying to escape the media echo chamber. But even when you read broadly, it's hard to see which stories are being emphasized and which ones are being ignored. This episode is brought to you by Ground News. Ground News is not a publisher. It's an app and website that gathers reporting on every news story from across the political spectrum and shows you each outlet's bias rating, factuality rating and who owns it. It's more than just an aggregator, it gives you context on every perspective in one place so that you can make up your own mind. For example, a recent story about a bipartisan border deal collapsing was covered by 50 plus outlets. One left leaning headline read GOP sinks border deal under Trump Pressure while a right leaning one said Democrats block Stronger Border enforcement. Same event, very different framing. Ground News lets you compare that instantly and even flags blind spots, stories disproportionately covered by one side. If you want unlimited access to these features, subscribe to the vantage plan for 40% off@groundnews.com tn that's groundnews.com tn tn promo code tn Again, groundnews.com tn code tn for 40% off if you care about seeing the full picture, I think you'll really value this tool.
- [08:15]
Boost Mobile Announcer
He's dribbling the ball with everything on the line. He's driving down the pitch. He's facing price hikes and cuts past him. Carrier contracts, tries to block him. Oh he leaves him in the dust. He's at the edge of the box. He cuts past the non stop group chat trash talk. He clears on goal. He shoots unlimited data for $25 a month forever.
- [08:34]
Boost Mobile Advertiser
Visit your local Boost Mobile store today to get unlimited data with a price that never changes. Boost mobile after 30gb, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay 25amonth as long as they remain active on the Boost $25 Unlimited plan.
- [08:55]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
First up, what the Right is saying the right mostly opposes the practical outcome of the ruling, though many acknowledge the majority's sound legal reasoning. Some say the decision could be a political boon for Republicans. Others argue Republicans should try to amend the 14th Amendment. National Review's editors wrote about birthright citizenship after Barbara the court took the traditional view of this broad language in the citizenship clause that most people in the country are subject to the jurisdiction of American law unless they are members of a sovereign Native American tribe or represent a foreign government. The Wong Kim Ark rule has the advantage of ease and clarity, and that plainly gave the court pause in unsettling it. In the specific case of parents traveling through the country, how long do they have to be here to be considered legally domiciled in the United States? And what other factors would weigh in such a decision? The majority was not persuaded that an alternative test could easily be located in the Constitution. It might have been wiser if the framers of the 14th Amendment had left the outer limits of birthright citizenship to Congress. Congress can adjust to new and changing situations and can write detailed rules to address distinctions that the courts are ill equipped to draw based solely on general language. Still, Congress and the president are not powerless. Even after Trump versus Barbara, stricter rules could be applied to discourage and deter birth tourism. Illegal immigration, of course, can be stemmed with the border security and enforcement tools the president already has and is actively using. In PJ Media, Scott Pinsker explored the political upside of losing the birthright citizenship case. Weirdly, today's Supreme Court loss was a net positive for the Republican Party, at least for the 2026 midterms and probably for 2028 as well. Traditionally, immigration has been President Donald Trump's top polling issue. Although he occasionally faced pushback for going too far because he lost, the immigration issue is still on the table. It's counterintuitive, but there's a cost to solving a political problem. It removes the issue from the public sphere. Because we lost today, the immigration issue is still relevant, and we can still use it to drive voters to the polls. If the Supreme Court hadn't demonstrated its independence, the Democrats pledge to pack the court and contort the Constitution would no longer look like an insane overreach. It also opens an opportunity for the GOP to tackle the immigration problem by other means. Now we can have a national debate over what it means to be an American. Is it in our national interest for pregnant immigrants to illegally enter our country, deliver an anchor baby and then claim lifelong citizenship? Or is that a recipe for abuse, fraud and government waste? In Fox News, Jonathan Turley said the ruling leaves conservatives with only one path. The majority found the language and history of the amendment to be clear and, relying on prior rulings dating back decades, concluded that birth alone in this country is enough to confer citizenship, even if born to a tourist or someone briefly on our soil. It is a view that is rejected by the vast majority of countries which rightfully view birthright citizenship as bonkers, including some which followed the practice and then rescinded it. The United States remains one of the outliers in maintaining this ill considered practice. The matter now rests not with the Court, but the country. We have never truly had a national debate over the practice. The basis and future of birthright citizenship have remained matters almost exclusively for the courts. We must now decide whether to pursue such a debate as a constitutional amendment. While Congress can pass legislation cracking down on birth tourism, there is only so much that such laws can do in questioning why particular births occur in the United States. Next up, what the Left is saying the left supports the outcome, expressing relief that the majority upheld the established understanding of the citizenship clause. Some criticize the conservative justice's dissents as political opinions. Others worried that future birthright citizenship challenges could still succeed, the New York Times editorial board wrote. The Supreme Court Remembers its Principles the Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday to preserve birthright citizenship comes as a relief. President Trump's unilateral efforts to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from automatically becoming citizens was plainly unconstitutional, as the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts shows. The history of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, makes clear that subject to the jurisdiction refers to the power of the United States to govern people within its territory. Federal and state laws do, of course, apply to the children of migrants. The majority's decision is a relief because this Supreme Court is not always willing to apply the law equally to Mr. Trump. Yes, it rightly rejected his tariffs as a usurpation of Congress's authority to tax. But the Court's six Republican appointed justices have been inappropriately deferential in a string of other cases. The birthright citizenship ruling is a reminder of what a principled, Constitution bound court should look like in Bloomberg? Noah Feldman asked, how was the birthright citizenship decision this close? The bad news, and it is very bad, is that the vote in support of this position was 5, 4, not 9 0. You read that right. The highest court in the United States came within a single vote of casting aside the text and history of the 14th Amendment and joining the anti immigrant frenzy that accompanied Donald Trump to the White House nine years ago and has not yet fully abated. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh ride roughshod over the language of the Constitution, not to mention precedent. Their path is determined by their ideological preferences, even as they insist it is based on their constitutional respect. According to the four conservative dissenters, Congress could redefine the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof so that people not lawfully in the US Are excluded, yet everyone in the United States, lawfully or otherwise, is plainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All of us here are obligated to follow US Laws and can be punished criminally if we don't do so. These justices are supposed to take the text of the Constitution seriously. So how could they vote the way they did, ignoring the words of the 14th Amendment and rejecting the straightforward majority opinion that also relied on both history and precedent in common dreams? Jordan Liz said the battle is far from over. After several disastrous Supreme Court rulings on temporary protected status, asylum entries, transgender athletes, campaign finance restrictions, and presidential firing power, it may be tempting to see this decision on birthright as a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, there are reasons to be concerned. Kavanaugh believes that Congress could limit birthright citizenship themselves. A constitutional amendment would not be needed. The same is arguably true for Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito. If Congress were to pass legislation that codifies Trump's executive order and formally defines domicile status in a way that excludes undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, then those four justices would likely uphold it. What we needed was a clear 7 to 2 decision. Thomas and Alito were always going to dissent, one that acknowledged what the Constitution plainly says and what it obviously grants. As things stand, however, the Supreme Court is effectively one vote away from fundamentally changing who is entitled to US Citizenship and what it means to be an American. While birthright citizenship survive today, this ruling exposes how fragile its guarantee has become. That's it for the right and left. So now I'll pass it off to Isaac for his take.
- [16:26]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
All right. That is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. Amid all the noise. Let me just remind people the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause reads in full, quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I did not think this was particularly complicated after oral arguments, and I don't think so now. Again, the amendment is not vague. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Maybe you think that amendment is a bad amendment. Maybe you think it is poorly written. Maybe you think subject to the jurisdiction thereof has such force and importance that all the words around it don't mean what they say. Maybe you think Congress should pass a law or states should amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship. But the language is right there Yesterday, senior editor Will Kbach graciously gave me some credit for rightly predicting the result of the late arriving ballots case, while he also noted that many court watchers and left wing writers were preemptively freaking out about the outcome, suggesting the conspiracy brain misinformed court was going to outlaw late arriving ballots. Then many of those people went silent when the ruling went the other way. Well, today I think it's only fair to note the reactions from many of the ascendant post liberal reactionary right wing pundits who are absolutely unraveling after the majority Republican appointed court upheld birthright citizenship. Sean Davis, the CEO and co founder of the influential conservative website the Federalist, is suggesting sterilization of all foreign visitors and the disillusion of the union. Matt Walsh called the ruling evil, accused Justice Amy Coney Barrett of being a DEI hire and argued that the worst Supreme Court justices of all time have been women. That's just a fact. Steven Crowder, the popular YouTube host who by the way, his mom is French Canadian and he grew up in Quebec, said, quote, amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts just decided that little Josue, born to illegal Haitians in Springfield, Ohio is just as American as you and me. End quote. Jeremy Carle, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, wrote, if you think it's a coincidence that the conservative Justice Roberts with no biological children and the Justice Barrett with two Haitian adoptees are fundamentally libs, when the chips are down, you have a lot to learn about politics. These reactions aren't just confined to formerly fringe, now mainstream punditry either. Fox News's Brian Kilnyate suggested to an agreeable Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, that we might start banning pregnant women from traveling to the U.S. stephen Miller, the White House senior advisor, said they were taking a serious look at this idea. This was a totally predictable and completely rational ruling from a 63 Republican appointed court. To call these responses from the right abnormal or unhealthy would be the understatement of the week. Frankly, I'm surprised the ruling wasn't more lopsided. When we covered oral arguments, I predicted this decision would come down 7:2 or 8:1, and I'm having a hard time accepting that it was much closer than it should have been. For instance, on Monday I wrote about the court's decision on two immigration cases. In one of them, Justice Alito used much of his opinion to describe the plain English meaning of arrives in arguing that when someone arrives in the United States, it means they are in the United States, not a port of entry standing in Mexico. Therefore, he said, the Trump administration did not have to grant asylum to migrants until they arrived in the United States because that's what the language said and thus they could block them from entering. I said that I agreed with this rationale because it makes sense. Yesterday, Associate Editor Karina Pacheco noted her support for Justice Alito's plain English interpretation of Election Day. Not week, fortnight, or month, but day. Therefore, she and Alito concluded, elections should not go on for weeks or months. Well, what does Justice Alito think it means when the 14th Amendment says anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen? What is the plain English meaning of that phrase? One might consider this answer a layup for such a staunch textualist. Yet instead, Alito focuses on careful analysis of the text of the 14th Amendment and the process that led to its adoption, end quote and argues that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who at birth owe allegiance solely to this country, end quote. These are words, language, and reasoning that appear nowhere in the text. It's hard not to notice the glaring inconsistency. The fact that Alito somehow arrives in a place other than the 14th amendment's very plain language is both frustrating and alarming, and makes it harder to defend him from accusations of motivated reasoning. Further, Alito and Thomas insistence that we focus on the historical context of the 14th Amendment does not to me help their cause. I went over a lot of this historical precedent the first time we wrote about this case, and it is fascinating. The upshot is that the plain language of the 14th Amendment fits cleanly within the historical record. When Congress was voting on the 14th Amendment, it had also just drafted the Civil Rights act of 1866, which gave citizenship to, quote, all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power. Amid debate about the amendment, Pennsylvania Senator Edgar Cohen objected to the citizenship clause, fearful it might let Chinese immigrants overrun California. Senator John Conness from California responded that the children begotten of Chinese parents in California shall be citizens, and that the Civil Rights act had already established that the children of all parentage, whatever, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States. Congress simply thought it was putting the idea of birthright citizenship out of reach of legislative undermining, and largely intended it to do just that. Or, as Chief Justice John Roberts put it, the amendment's framers wanted to, quote, permanently enshrine, end quote, the idea that a child born on American soil and subject to American law was made an American citizen, end quote. Roberts rightly described the scant evidence for any revisionist reading of this history. Again, maybe you don't like this amendment or its language, but I think it's pretty clear the framers of the amendment understood the ramifications of its wording. Still, the court rules 6:3 to uphold birthright citizenship does not really capture the nuance of what just happened in reality. Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson all join the critical majority opinion. Justice Kavanaugh concurred that Trump's executive order was illegal, but did not concur in the reasoning. He argued that the order did not violate the 14th amendment but did violate federal law and suggested Congress could amend that law or enact new legislation to make exceptions for children born in the US to temporary visitors or foreign citizens. Meanwhile, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito all dissented, but for different reasons. Thomas's dissent, which Gorsuch joined, argued that the 14th Amendment was narrowly designed and understood to secure equal rights for freed blacks, but had been repurposed for political projects that it was not intended to address. Justice Gorsuch also offered his own dissent, explaining that he'd distinguish between temporary visitors and immigrants here illegally. He would deny birthright citizenship to the children of temporary visitors, but allow it for the children of non citizens illegally in the country but with intent to stay. Gorsuch focused on the Court precedent and the historical understanding of domicile, arguing that an unauthorized immigrant could be domiciled here and thus their children would be conferred citizenship. As reasons Robby Soav noted, that makes it more like a 7:2 decision on the issue of whether the children of immigrants here illegally are citizens and the core political lens a lot of people are viewing this case through, and in reality it was probably 8:1 or 9:0 on that question. Both Alito and Thomas left open the idea that the children of at least some unauthorized immigrants who live here would qualify as citizens because their parents were domiciled. In other words, there really was consensus on one of the core political questions downstream of the narrow legal question as a matter of pure outcome, not legal debate. I actually find Gorsuch's view the most aligned with my own. The children of someone intentionally and obviously domiciled here, even illegally, should be citizens, while the children of someone who travels here temporarily and happens to give birth on US soil or only stays long enough to give birth should not. Not so long ago, even stricter restrictions on birthright citizenship were mainstream among Democrats. I don't believe this is what the 14th Amendment says, but I do think it would be the best case scenario for how we address some of our modern day immigration issues. Whether Congress or the courts can get there at a future date is an open question, but it is not the question the court resolved correctly on Tuesday.
- [26:23]
Boost Mobile Announcer
He's dribbling the ball with everything on the line. He's driving down the pitch. He's facing price hikes and cuts past him Carrier contracts tries to block him. Oh he leaves him in the dust. He's at the edge of the box. He cuts past the non stop group chat trash talk. He clears on goal. He shoots no unlimited data for $25 a month forever.
- [26:41]
Boost Mobile Advertiser
Visit your local police Boost Mobile store today to get unlimited data with a price that never changes. Boost mobile after 30gb customers may experience lower speeds. Customers will pay 25amonth as long as they remain active on the Boost 25 Unlimited plan. PNC bank brings you call of the Wild Money Moves Hear that yolo? That's an Internet troll telling you to put all your money into a single investment. He wants you to leave, liquidate your emergency fund YOLO and buy a digital racehorse named Silicon Steve. Yolo stay vigilant. He's very persistent. YOLO Guard against Wild Money Moves with PNC bank brilliantly boring since 1865.
- [27:26]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [27:34]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
Foreign
- [27:37]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Jennifer in Toledo, Ohio. Jennifer said, I just read about ghost students defrauding colleges, universities, the government and taxpayers out of millions of dollars. I don't understand how people can make money off this scheme. I thought that when people were awarded scholarships, grants and or financial aid, the amount they were awarded was deducted from what they had to pay. Can you explain this? Okay, great question about a fascinating story. A recent Department of Education analysis found that the government has dispersed nearly $90 million of fraudulent student aid, including $30 million to people who were dead. In 2023, three California women were indicted for using the identities of prisoners to falsely enroll in community college and obtain student loans, defrauding the government of roughly $1 million. These fraudsters are called ghost students. Receiving federal student loans is basically a three step process. First, prospective college students apply for aid through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or fafsa. Future students input their financial information and their prospective schools so the government can consider their level of need. Second, after a student is accepted into a school and opts into the available federal funds, the government disperses a personalized aid package into the student's account with that school. This is true even for tuition free community colleges, since many students receive aid packages to help with books, travel, or cost of living while enrolled. Third, the schools disperse the aid for any package that disperses more in aid than the student's tuition costs. The school will send the aid costs to the student after a 30 day period, which is meant to prevent fraud. Go Students exploit vulnerabilities at each stage of the process. First, they steal Social Security numbers from other people in order to apply for aid under false identities. Then they enroll in colleges with low or no tuition. Most colleges verify enrollment in classes after disbursing aid, and some do not require students to provide Social Security numbers when they register for classes. That means that fraudsters can even register and attend some classes themselves under fake identities until the schools pay them out. Then they ghost them. In California, where community colleges are free and forbidden by law from requesting Social Security numbers of students, the California community college chancellors estimated last spring that over one third of all applicants were fraudulent. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to Audrey for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one.
- [30:17]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Next up, we have the under the radar story. Two thirds of Americans believe people lie in political polling. Does that mean most polling is flawed because it relies on self censored responses to politically sensitive questions? What do Americans really believe? In a recent series of polls divided along political, ideological, racial and economic lines, a new initiative called the Honesty Project asked respondents for their public and private opinions on contentious issues. The polling found that Americans are privately more patriotic than they expressed publicly. Gen Z shows higher private support for political violence and a majority of polled Americans privately believe other Americans are the country's greatest threat. The overall data appears to coalesce around one common Americans may be performing a certain flavor of politics in public while harboring much more complicated and sometimes completely different beliefs in private. The Free Press has the story and you can find the link in the show notes. Finally, last but not least, we have our have a nice day story. Six years ago, 48 year old Casey Harrell was diagnosed with a motor neuron disease that left him paralyzed. But through his brain computer interface, a device that operates through microelectrodes in his brain's speech motor cortex, Harrell can send texts and emails, operate a computer and keep working in his climate advocacy position. A recent study analyzing nearly two years of Harrell's home use of the device found that he had communicated 183,060 sentences, 92% of which he labeled at least mostly accurate. Harrell said, quote, this has allowed me to keep working and earn money and insurance for my family. This is reconnecting me with the friends and family who are too shy or too afraid to come over and not be able to understand me. Nature has the the story and you can find the link in the show notes. That's it for today's show. If you would like to support our work, head over to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, a podcast membership or a bundle membership that gets you a discount on both. We will be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and everyone else on the team, this has been Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead. Have a nice day and peace.
- [32:32]
Tangle Executive Editor Isaac Saul
Our Executive Editor and Founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive Producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kbach and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.
- [33:11]
Tangle Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead
Keep your wellness routine going strong all summer. Cachava's new travel packs help you stick to your daily ritual even when you're on the go. Just one packet of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake provides complete nutrition wherever you are with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and more. Simplify your daily ritual. Go to cachava.com and use code news for 15% off. That's K A C H-A V A.com code news.