← The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Tudor Dixon Podcast: The Changing Landscape Between Tech and Politics with Mike Benz
00:36:33
Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:01]
Tudor Dixon
Welcome to the Tudor Dixon Podcast. We've all been talking about what Donald Trump will do when he gets into office with all of these big companies that had been censoring him, and now everybody's kind of flocking to him. And it seems like even the Zuckerbergs of the world have been like, maybe I shouldn't make this guy mad again. So the world seems to be changing, but is it actually changing? We wanted to ask an expert, so we're bringing in Mike Benz. He is the director of the foundation for Freedom Online and a former former State Department official. In the Trump administration, he has become known as the Blob expert, taking on Internet censorship right here in the US and abroad. Thank you so much for joining me.
- [00:42]
Mike Benz
Thanks so much for having me.
- [00:44]
Tudor Dixon
So we're all watching this. We're all watching the Zuckerbergs and the Bezos and all these guys kind of come around Trump. But I mean, should we take this with a grain of salt, considering what they did to him?
- [00:57]
Mike Benz
Well, I think it's one of those things where you can forgive a little, but not forget, certainly not entirely, that you can trust someone as far as you can throw them, but still do business together. The fact is, I remember very vividly when I was in the White House, that MAGA was commonly called Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Amazon because these large tech companies were the largest companies in the NASDAQ and the New York Stock Exchange. And so they are, like it or not, US national champions. And it is the role of the foreign policy establishment, as well as our domestic facing agencies to support U.S. companies because they provide us jobs, they provide us leadership and technology. But you want them to be aligned as much as possible. And to the extent there's disagreement, you want there to be fair play on both sides of that. The issue is obviously from 2016 to 2020 and into the Biden administration, there was not fair play. You had a strange situation where the taxpayers, the Trump administration, were funding agencies to help Google and Microsoft and Apple and Amazon, and these companies were turning around and censoring the very people who voted for the government that was helping them. But I do think there is a bit of a sea change that's happened. I think a lot of that is because, strangely, the Biden administration, as bad as they were to their enemies, they weren't even good to their friends. The fact is they. They stuck a knife in Google with the current Justice Department prosecution of Google to break them up. They stuck a knife in Apple by not fighting for them against the Europe, Europe Digital Markets, Digital Services act, where they're facing a $15 billion fine. They, you know, were constantly twisting Amazon through the union fights and, and through censorship demands of Amazon books and multiple other entanglements. I mean, I think the only one that's really sticking by and refusing to come to the table right now is Microsoft, which is a whole other can of worms.
- [03:14]
Tudor Dixon
So as we look at this, I want to kind of break down what we think happened and what could happen in the future, because you recently spoke about the history of the intelligence state, and in that speech you talked about how we have interfered in elections in other countries and used not just the media to do so. But I thought, I found it interesting to think that we even made movies that we then projected into these countries to change sentiment, to change ideas, to change hearts and minds. And I think that we've seen that significantly in the United States, whether it is a progressive agenda or if it is actually for to, to influence an election. You see this in culture. You see this in TV shows, man. We started to see in t TV shows where you would have these shows that would be like, based on government and they would really be trashing a figure that was like Trump, you know, and you would, you would see them just turning the country against someone. So did we. Did the intelligence state take what they did in other countries and bring it here and become this massive arm of propaganda?
- [04:18]
Mike Benz
Yes, I was actually looking around. If you saw me looking around just now, I was looking for my, my copy of Total Cold War about the Eisenhower era and how the defense and intelligence apparatus was doing that right here at home in the 1950s. But, but in fact, that goes back to the, to the 1940s and even a little bit before, when there was a partnership between early Hollywood and that what at the time was just the Department of War that's now our Department of Defense. But we didn't have a CIA when all this started in 1942. We had something called the Office of War Information, which was a. For the War Department, you know, which is now our Pentagon, State, Defense Department, to centralize all media in the United States in order to do a total production, to galvanize propaganda and to make sure that all modalities of media supported World War II. And so Hollywood was wrapped up in that. The newspapers were wrapped up in that. The radio stations were wrapped up in that. The journals and periodicals were wrapped up in that. Interestingly enough, all three of the big three major Cold War broadcasting stations, abc, NBC and CBS had their founders come out of The Office of War Information. So there's always been this marriage between the, the war industry, statecraft and Hollywood and media. And in fact, during the Cold War, we actually had a formal U.S. government agency. It's called the, the U.S. information Agency, which was, it was a formal agency for, for US Propaganda, including at home. And you can freely see this on YouTube, these sorts of videos that were made that were, I think, probably familiar to all of our parents and grandparents and which we sort of look back on, I think a lot of us as patriotic Americans, as good propaganda. But, you know, the fact is, is this pattern and practice of partnering with domestic media and Hollywood allies to tilt the domestic culture to support a particular objective has a very, very long history.
- [06:40]
Tudor Dixon
So what's your take then on Donald Trump suing 60 Minutes, suing ABC, suing the, what is it? The Des Moines dispatcher, I would dispatch one of the two over this that he says was election interference, which I think we have been seeing polls and other things that are very suspicious. And do they, do they change sentiment? And so for people who see that and they say, well, how does a poll actually influence. Well, not only does it influence the people on the ground, because they may say, why should I go out and vote if it's that far? Why should I? Even my vote won't matter, but also donors and people who would get involved. It keeps them out. The minute you put something like that out there in the paper, it stops all forward, moving progress.
- [07:23]
Mike Benz
Yeah, it's an interesting case. I mean, I'll be frank. I don't know enough about it to feel like my, you know, I'd be talking out of turn, you know, if the case does, in fact have merit or there's things about it that, that Trump believes are significant that I just don't know about because I haven't done the diligence on it. My initial impression is, you know, suing George Stephanopoulos for an obvious lie is one thing. That's the sort of classic bread and butter of defamation suits in this country. Although I do think that the defamation judgment system is completely out of hand. These uncapped damages and defamation suits, in my opinion, are frankly, insane.
- [08:12]
Tudor Dixon
The ability is that we saw with.
- [08:13]
Mike Benz
Rudy Giuliani like we saw with Rudy Giuliani what we saw with infowars, what we saw with Dominion, and frankly, just, you know, what we saw, even with, with things like, like Gawker and the fact that you have to settle for 15 million because you might be facing down a $150 million judgment you know, I do think that, that capping damages on these sorts of suits is something that the legislature should look into because it has really become an unbelievable weapon. I mean, we saw this even against Trump himself. The thing that he made the defamation suit against Stepanopoulos over was claims relating to a defamation suit against him from Eugene Carroll, which was bankrolled by the, by a, you know, Reid Hoffman, the sort of dark arts billionaire for the, for the dnc. This is a person who had, you know, made similar accusations against an untold number of people who was caught lying about the dress that, you know, that she claimed to have been. I mean, so many things that were just not admissible in the court. So, I mean, that they had back channeled with the New York State assembly in order to, you know, bring some of these cases in, in New York. But, but the fact is, is just because you're, you could be right about something and, and lose your entire livelihood and be bankrupted simply because the system is corrupt. In Rudy Giuliani's case, he defaulted on, on the, on the defamation charges because the FBI took his phone and his home computer and he couldn't afford the $20,000 a month access fees for the information to even defend himself. And in Trump's case, you know, they, he couldn't admit anything into court that actually absolved him. And so I, it is a little unseemly for a president to sue a media institution for defamation, given how weaponized defamation is. At the same time, Trump, there's been no bigger victim of that in terms of US Presidents than Trump, including on the defamation side, suing over polls. I don't know how I feel about that. I really need to look at, at what, you know, immediately I bristle at that. But, you know, there's an aspect of it I don't know.
- [10:43]
Tudor Dixon
I think it's interesting because so from the standpoint of someone who ran for office and had things like this happen, it is interesting because there is no way to stop a rogue media if you are a candidate, because they can say whatever they want under the guise of your public figure. We can say whatever we want. And I will say that I won the primary and then immediately one of our news organizations put out, oh, her biggest donor isn't going to stay with her in the general. Not a true story, no truth to it whatsoever. But once it's out there, you, like I said, suddenly the other donors like, why, why we should all sit tight and not give. And that effectively stopped any funding from coming in for enough weeks that the Democrats could completely, you know, define who I was the minute we were in the general. So the question is then where I. It's a tough, it's a double edged sword because you have free speech, but then can you just lie and interfere with an election like that? That's. It is, it's, I think it's like a gray area, right?
- [11:49]
Mike Benz
No, it is. But you know, a lot of this is adjudicated in public opinion on the basis of the credibility of the media institution and the general media, legacy media family at large. Frankly, I think that's been one of the major sea change events of my lifetime and certainly of the past 18 to 24 months, slash past six to eight years has been the total erosion, justly of trust in mainstream media headlines and legacy media headlines. This is something Elon Musk probably tweets five to seven times a day now, is that you are the media, right? And you see legacy media outlets constantly wailing and gnashing. You see hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding going to shore up trust in news, which is frankly insane. But that's because many forces inside government know that they can only achieve their aims politically if they have allies in media who serve effectively as pawns and where there is a favors for favors relationship. And they need to prop up their pawns against the, the total destruction of their, their ratings, their revenue and the reputation. And I think on the reputation front, they've, they've earned the position they're now in.
- [13:17]
Tudor Dixon
We've got more coming up with Mike Benz, but first let me tell you about my partners at Sabre. Protecting our families and homes is essential, but are we truly pre. Did you guys know that break ins happen every 25 seconds? And even with a security system, you have to ask yourself, can you really keep intruders out? Well, you have to layer your defenses and buy yourself time. So start with Saber driveway alerts to know when someone's approaching and then pair them with floodlights to deter them. Saber door security bars reinforce your front and back doors, stopping up to 650 pounds of force to secure entry points even when you're not home. And if you are home. I know this is scary, but many invasions happen at night. Saber's home defense launcher is the ultimate choice to protect yourself and family. Saber projectiles hit hard, causing intense pain and can still be effective if you miss as intruders within the six foot pepper cloud will experience sensory irritation. Plus, Saber's home defense launcher is the only 68 caliber launcher with a 7 projectile capacity, offering up to 40% more shots than others. Stay secure day or night with Sabre Solutions. Visit sabre radio.com that's S A B radio.com or call 844-824 safe today to protect what matters most Now Stay tuned, we've got more after this. So let's talk about Reuters because you've been talking about this. The Biden administration paying over 300 million in government contracts and then suddenly there seems to be a connection between those government a lot of targeted investigations against Elon Musk and his businesses. So explain that whole scenario.
- [15:01]
Mike Benz
Well, the connection is that all 11 agencies under the Biden administration who have, who have filed actions against Elon Musk's business assets, Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and X. All 11 of those, whether that's the Justice Department, the Department of Transportation, the sec, the ftc, the fcc, you name it, they all have multimillion dollar contracts with Reuters. And Reuters this year won the Pulitzer Prize for their investigative work into the misconduct happening at all of Elon Musk's businesses under investigation. Tesla, Neuralink, Space X and X. So there is this strange coincidence where you have an obviously bad moral hazard going on. Now again I'm not alleging a direct pay to play here. This is something where, and again let me be totally to steel man, this. The fact is most of those contract dollars are to lines of business at Reuters that are not their news wire. So for example, Reuters has something called Thomson Reuters Special Services which does network intelligence and that assists law enforcement with being able to investigate suspects by culling all the news about them, all the information aggregated online. They have something called Thomson Reuters markets for corporations and the treasury and other agencies purchase those. But the fact is is we've seen this. I saw this myself when I was in the White House and I saw this as on the outside when our foundation was investigating the, the censorship industry which is that there is this constant favors for favors relationship that corporations have with government, especially when it comes to getting contracts or getting favors from the government where a corporation will often have non core elements of what it does that can help the government in some way. And if they leverage those outside elements to help the government, another aspect of their of their business will be helped by the government because the grant administrator, the White House, the agency head will see the favor done and pick them for the contract. And a great example of this is Facebook. You know we were talking just now about Mark Zuckerberg now donating to the Trump Inaugural fund and coming to Mar a Lago and apologizing for censoring Trump and blaming that on pressure from the Biden administration. Well, if you go back and look at the Facebook files, which were the subpoenaed documents from Jim Jordan's weaponization subcommittee on Facebook, we now know the reason. We know this from direct emails from Mark Zuckerberg and his top lieutenant, the head of public policy at Facebook, Nick Clegg, that Nick Clegg, when they were told by the Biden White House to censor all claims about COVID origins, censor claims about vaccines, censor claims about. About, you know, that criticized the Biden administration's public health response to Covid, Mark Zuckerberg at first put up a little bit of a fight on that, you know, calling it an unusual request, saying, do we really have to do this? And Nick Clegg, running the Public Policy Division, responded by saying, we need to think creatively about ways to be receptive to the Biden administration's demands for takedowns, because we have multiple fish to fry. I'm sorry, we have bigger fish to fry with the Biden administration on multiple policy fronts.
- [19:06]
Tudor Dixon
Hmm.
- [19:07]
Mike Benz
And at the time, they needed the Biden administration to fight off the European regulators so that the State Department diplomats would argue with their European counterparts to shave down Digital Markets act and the Digital Services act, that they need the Biden administration's help staving off regulatory pressure and data monopoly pressures around the world. And that if they put a favor in the favor bank on censoring news stories the Biden administration didn't like, then they would get. They're more likely to get the favor in return on the bigger fish. They have the fry on the business side and on multiple policy fronts that have nothing to do with the, you know, the censorship of COVID now. So you can see the perverse incentive for. For Thomson Reuters in this case, where they've gotten $1.56 billion in government contracts. They're a major government contractor. They got 300 billion from the Biden administration alone. The Biden administration is targeting Elon Musk. If they. If they direct their reporting against the targets of those investigations, you can see how that would obviously tilt the calculus in terms of them securing future contracts.
- [20:19]
Tudor Dixon
But, I mean, aren't you kind of explaining a lot of companies? It's not just a censorship thing. I mean, there's. This is the. This is lobbying. It's like, you know, you've got. How did big pharma get so big? Hey, you help us, and we'll put some money into your campaign account. You help us, we'll get you elected. I mean, isn't this the corruption of crony capitalism?
- [20:41]
Mike Benz
Right. Well, I think what it gets to is the larger issue is that if indeed this was the case that Reuters targeting of Elon Musk and winning the Pulitzer for that was used by those government agencies paying Reuters as a government contractor or whether that was done in tandem, then it really dissolves the concept of independent media in terms of Reuters reputation because Reuters ISIS, Reuters and AP are the two big news wires. They are not just news media companies. They are the wire that news comes in on. Two news media companies. You know, most news institutions don't have boots on the ground in Tunisia or Egypt or Malaysia or Tanzania. Everything that they report on that's happening in foreign wars, that's happening in the day to day political or cultural or economic events in foreign countries. They rely on the truth and reputation of Reuters as the source for stories coming in off the wire. And if Reuters is not really an independent agency so much as it is state media, then you have a very different lens through which you should view the credibility of Reuters. And you know, I posted on my timeline on X recently the the long history of Reuters working with the Central Intelligence Agency. This is something that goes back a long time. Republicans did not have a problem with it during the Cold War because it was by and large targeting left wing governments. But now it's, you know, the, it's come full circle and the universal thump is being passed around.
- [22:31]
Tudor Dixon
We've got more after this with Mike Benz. But first let me tell you about my partners at Sabre. Protecting our families and homes is essential, but you have to ask yourself, are you trul prepared? Did you know that break ins happen every 25 seconds? And guys, even with a security system it can be really hard to keep intruders out. But if you layer your defenses, you buy yourself time. So start with Saber driveway alerts so you know when someone's approaching and pair them with floodlights to deter the person. SA's door security bars reinforce your front and back doors, stopping up to 650 pounds of force to secure entry points even when you're not home. And if you are home, many of these invasions are happening at night. Saber home defense launcher is the ultimate choice to protect you and your family. Saber projectiles hit hard causing intense pain. And even if you miss, your intruder is still going to suffer from the six foot pepper cloud and they're going to experience sensory irritation. Plus Sabers home defense launcher is the only 68 caliber launcher with a 7 projectile. Capacity offering up to 4, 40% more shots than others. Stay secure day or night with Saber solutions. Visit sabre radio.com that's S A radio.com or call 844-824 safe today to protect what matters most now. Stay tuned. We'll be back with more after this. So when does this kind of behavior then start to impact other media outlets? Because I think, you know, if Reuters is getting paid, but they're a huge organization so you know, that's not clearly obvious to anybody. If you're reading what they're writing, it's not like you're like, oh well that was probably because they are getting taxpayer money. So if you are a smaller news organization, because we're struggling with this in Michigan right now and I would imagine that probably in most swing states they also have some, some copycat behavior like this where we have a media that is totally in bed with the Democrat party. I mean, gosh, just in the past few days we've even had the, the speaker elect come out and say, look, it's bizarre. We're seeing the media tweet things out that the Democrats are then obediently doing because the media has said you need to go out and do this. I mean it's not even, there's not even a firewall between it. It's just very obvious, hey, go do this. They go do it. Hey, go do this. Go do it. There's a weird connection where there is no longer. It's like groupthink and the media and the Democrat side and it is an attack against half of the state but not just the electeds. It's an attack against the people.
- [25:18]
Mike Benz
Yeah, I mean it's a nasty thing. But that goes back to the history of, you know, media has always been this way. You can argue, I mean, I think Mark Andreessen told a funny story on Joe Rogan about, you know, the history of the 1700s in media and presidents fighting each other in the, in the papers and using synonyms, using pseudonyms. And you know, you look at the history of yellow journalism and you know, on, on into today, you know, that is part of the rough and tumble. There is a sort of funny phenomenon where we often talk about state run media like Russia Today or you know, the China Daily or these, or it's PBS or NPR or BBC. But we don't really talk so much about a media run state which is the funny phenomenon where political parties and governments often feel like they are controlled by the media because their political bonafides depend on the support of the media. If, if, if, if Trump is in the White House, for example, and he's already being pilloried by Democrat media and they're neck and neck in the polls, assuming some credibility to them, then if there's a dog pile from Fox News or from other significant sources of media support, then that could crater the White House political support, it could collapse support in Congress for White House objectives even with a Republican Congress. And so a political party or an empowered government will often feel beholden to its media allies just because it needs them for its own political survival. And so we'll almost take instructional orders. It can seem sometimes and you can, you know, sort of think of that as a, as a media run state. Of course, there's another aspect of it which is that most, you know, most media organizations are owned by, at least at the large level, excluding, you know, local news, but most major news media outlets are owned by a billionaire oligarch. I mean, you know, this with, you know, not just the, you know, the Samantha Powell, the, the Jeff Bezos types, the, you know, the owner of the LA Times who just recently came out and just, you know, said he was going to try to move that more center. But Elon Musk, you know, you would say about, about X, there's, you know, the famous New York Times, Carlos Slim Intervention, the wealthiest man in Mexico. I mean, this is a large media is a billionaire's plaything. And so often there's a relationship between the messaging coming from the media and the messaging coming from that faction of the donors.
- [28:14]
Tudor Dixon
Well, and that I think is very interesting. And we were talking about this the other day about how we talk about Ukraine and we talk about Russia with these oligarchs that are really moving the chess pieces on the board. But it is not that much different in the United States because we still have the same, like you said, the billionaires who are, who own these companies, they're also funding the candidates. So you have a lot of people think that it is we the people. And I think that Donald Trump had a big impact on that because when the, the donor said, hey, it's not you, it's Ron DeSantis or it's Nikki Haley, he went, well, fine, I don't need you. I have the people. And it was shocking, I think, to the oligarch class, to the billionaire class, because they went, no, no, we control this. We move the chess pieces. And then they saw, oh crap, actually in this case, the people are moving the chess pieces. They're taking it back. How do we Continue to push back on those folks that think they have control, total control.
- [29:16]
Mike Benz
Well, to me, my answer to that is you have to support places like X and places like Rumble and places that have unfettered, more or less free speech that allows you to add your one small voice to the masses. I think about that meme frequently where there's a shark and then there's a minnow, and then the next panel is the shark running away, because now you have so many minnows that they're bigger than the shark. And that really is that relationship, I think, between the sort of legacy billionaire media, the media owner over class, and the billions of people who can aggregate together on social media and overcome collectively the power that's held in the more centralized form by a media owner. And of course, there's some, not a small amount of irony in the fact that X, which is where so much of this is happening and so much of this counter force is, is being centralized with decentralizing media power, is owned by the wealthiest man in the entire world. So, you know, there is something of a, you know, noblesse oblige. There's, there's a little bit of a, we are still dependent on benevolent dictators, if you will, but you take freedom any way you can get it.
- [30:56]
Tudor Dixon
Yeah, and I think that's, I love that. I think that's a great point. And you mentioned at the beginning that Elon Musk is constantly saying, you are the media, but you have to continue that pressure. I mean, this is a pressure campaign of making sure the right thing is happening. And I find this interesting right now as I look at my own state and I have Democrats who have never. Well, some of them have pushed back, but some of them have always just been, you know, go with what the party line is. And they're pushing back against the governor and saying, you're not going to force us into this and you're not going to force us into that. And I find it interesting because the things that they're fighting back about is don't vote on corporate welfare if you haven't taken care of Detroit. Don't vote on corporate welfare if you haven't taken care of the water. You know, and this is like, I think this is a change because of this election and because of what you're saying, because I don't think that people felt empowered in the past in their own party to push back and say, well, wait a minute, we're not going to vote on a bunch of crap for the other rich people when we don't have clean water, and we don't have our communities taken care of, and we don't have a good public safety record. Come on, take care of people. Now. It's the little guy speaking up. It's the average American citizen who is saying, pay attention to us. And I think I love the fact that that imagery of the minnows, because I do believe that that's what we've seen on X, is that push. But that has kind of allowed people to feel like I have the minnows with me totally.
- [32:31]
Mike Benz
And their safety in numbers.
- [32:32]
Tudor Dixon
Yeah.
- [32:33]
Mike Benz
And they know it. And not only that, the huge variety, diversity, you know, of those masses makes it. Makes it a hard target because you can't just take out one thing and, you know, and take it on unless you're taking out the platform itself, which is why they are. They're trying to do that to Elon in the eu, in Brazil, in Australia, in Pakistan. And I have no doubt, if the election had gone the other way would have been in the United States. So, you know.
- [33:10]
Tudor Dixon
Well, he had no doubt either he was like, I'm screwed if this doesn't work out. You know, he has to win or I'm in trouble. But, I mean, the point you make is fantastic, because I actually called one of these legislators and I said, hey, I know we're on opposite teams, but I just want to say thank you. I'm sure you're getting a lot of pushback because of what you're doing, but thank you. And she amazingly said, no, no pushback. My constituents are thrilled I am getting so much support. Support for keeping people from voting. Because, you know, she's. She's standing in the way and saying, I'm not going to allow bogus bills to go through while the people in my district are suffering. So I just think it's incredible to see that here you have someone who is really taking a pretty radical stance, and she's like, nope, I'm good. I've got everybody. Everybody's with me.
- [34:00]
Mike Benz
Yeah. It's interesting watching this happen right now on the Democrat side, because I think the party has been really held in, you know, in a more or less monolithic way by the power exercise by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. And I think it's been a little weaker under Hakeem Jeffries. But, you know, there has been this. You cannot dissent from the consent from the Democrat consensus, whereas Republicans this whole time have been fighting, you know, I mean, fighting with Crocodile Dundee knives in a. In a phone booth. Between the MAGA faction and the, you know, the legacy Republican Bush era and Mitt Romney factions, I mean, there's, there's been no hotter fight in Washington, I would say, than Republicans versus Republicans. And so, I mean, even more than Republicans versus Democrats, I would argue, I mean, even right now, we don't know with a Republican president, a Republican Congress, a Republican Senate and a Republican Supreme Court whether Trump will even be able to pass his budget because there's so much, there's such a robust fight within the party. And, you know, they air their disagreements. They don't just suck it up and, and fold to consensus. It's being fought out. So it is actually nice and refreshing to see that on the Democrat side. And we're seeing figures like Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian and, and many others who I think had these sort of populist left wing, whatever you think about them, had these sort of populist left wing roots, but then during the Trump era, completely folded into the Borg, just, you know, seemed to have forgotten their entire individual identities so that they'd stay in the good graces of, of mainstream Democrats. And then once they lost that power over them, suddenly they're free to criticize again. So, but that's, that's just the nature of power, I think.
- [36:04]
Tudor Dixon
Well, it has definitely been fascinating to watch and I always enjoy what you're out there tweeting so we can follow you and I encourage everybody to follow you. But I appreciate you coming on today. Mike Benz, thank you so much.
- [36:16]
Mike Benz
Thanks so much for having me.
- [36:18]
Tudor Dixon
And thank you all for joining us on the Tudor Dixon podcast. For the this episode and others, go to tutor dixon podcast.com you can subscribe right there or head over to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts and join us next time. Have a blessed day.