Trump DOJ Gives Ticketmaster a Huge Gift to Avoid an Antitrust Trial -- with Matt Stoller
Matt Stoller analyzes the Trump DOJ's settlement with Ticketmaster, which avoids an antitrust trial regarding illegal tying arrangements and dynamic pricing abuses. He details how firing Antitrust Division head Gail Slater undermined enforcement, allowing lobbyist Mike Davis to override legal processes despite state lawsuits by officials like Letitia James. This outcome signals a collapse of conservative populism on anti-monopoly issues, revealing a crony capitalist approach that selectively targets rivals while permitting monopolies to persist, ultimately eroding the rule of law for special interests. [Automatically generated summary]
All right, there's a major development in one of the most important antitrust and monopoly cases that the government has brought over the last couple of decades that has been pending for quite some time.
And that is the case involving Ticketmaster and all of the ways that the government had alleged in which many people in the American public complain.
They abuse consumer rights.
They eliminate competition.
They manipulate prices.
They engage in all kinds of unfair consumer practices that cost the ordinary American immense amounts of money, as well as artists and the like.
This was seen for a long time as one of the hallmark antitrust cases to ensure American consumers are treated well by large corporations, something that Donald Trump and his movement basically promised through three campaigns to safeguard, including through antitrust cases of the kind brought by, brought against Ticketmaster.
And yet with everyone's attention focused on the war in Iran, yesterday, the Trump DOJ announced that it was offering Ticketmaster and had agreed with Ticketmaster to what looks like a very generous settlement that avoids what had been an ongoing trial.
They had just a panel of the jury.
That trial will no longer take place, depending on certain events.
And in order to figure this all out, to understand what happened here, to understand its implications, both for the power of corporations to monopolize markets, as well as for the American consumer to have some fighting chance when they're dealing with these gigantic corporations, I am talking today with the perfect person who's a friend of mine, a friend of the show, always a person I have on when there's an antitrust issue, really has become one of the most influential voices in this area, one of the clearest and most influential.
And he is Matt Stoller, who, among many other things, he's director of research at the American Economics Liberty Project.
He's also the author of a tome, one of the definitive books on why antitrust and monopoly laws in the United States have become so important.
And the title of that book is Goliath, the 100-year war between monopoly power and democracy.
He's worked in a variety of regulatory offices and agencies in Washington for many years involving antitrust and monopoly.
This is obviously an issue in which he has a great deal of expertise and specialty.
And we are always happy to have him come and explain, not just to my audience, but to me as well, the intricacies of these developments.
Matt, it's great to see you.
Thank you so much for taking the time to join us.
Hey, thanks for having me.
All right.
So let's set the stage for this.
The notion of antitrust enforcement had been something that for a long time had been more or less a liberal or left-wing cause.
But over the past 10, 15 years, especially with the arrival of Trump and the emergence and his redefining of conservatives, it really has become a priority for a lot of influential conservatives.
And there was a lot of hope that the Trump administration, like they did in the first term in many ways, would be rigorous in their enforcement of antitrust law, of monopolies.
And one of the cases that has long been the most important, both for antitrust enforcement generally, the battle against monopolistic power and the protection of the American consumer, is this Ticketmaster case, Live Nation Ticketmaster, that the Trump DOJ, apparently more or less in quiet with everyone focused on Iran, settled yesterday.
Describe to us why this is such an important case for antitrust enforcement and consumer protection.
Well, you know, it's symbolic.
I mean, you know, you have companies all over the economy and the CEOs are paying attention to this case.
And so if the government goes hard on Ticketmaster, every CEO is going to think, wow, I could be next.
And if the government says, hey, whatever you're doing is fine, then every CEO says, okay, I can replicate and amplify in my business what Ticketmaster is doing.
So it's a permission slip to the actors in the economy to do the same things that Ticketmaster is doing.
All right.
So let's talk about that because antitrust cases have taken center stage more than probably at any other time in the last, say, 50 years.
You know, there was the famous trust busting of the Roosevelt era with Teddy Roosevelt and the like.
But a lot of this is focused on big tech companies.
And even when you have big tech companies that are the target of major antitrust lawsuits, like the Trump administration brought against Google, there's ones against Facebook and Amazon and Apple.
Monopoly Maintenance at Ticketmaster00:06:04
Even though people know those companies, it seems kind of abstract.
You're kind of like just very distant to their immediate interests.
They don't really understand or see why these monopolistic issues directly affect them.
Ticketmaster, though, Americans interface with Ticketmaster all the time.
And these complaints about Ticketmaster emanated from the American public, from ordinary Americans who believe they're getting abused and harmed by Ticketmaster's monopolistic practices in all kinds of ways.
And you just referred to these kind of abuses that led to this case.
What abuses on the part of Ticketmaster specifically are you referring to and are at the center of this lawsuit that apparently was just settled yesterday?
Well, what they do is they just raise prices, they slap random fees on you, they enable scalping and just make it really hard to tell what anything costs.
And so the net effect is higher prices to the consumer and probably lower income to actual artists.
And so the venues are also getting harmed.
So there's a whole, the thing about Ticketmaster is there's a whole ecosystem.
Ticketmaster sits in between the venues, the performance spaces, the artists, and the consumers.
They have a number of lines of business.
One of them is a ticketing platform, which is not very good, but is, you know, the, you have to use it or you don't get access.
This is the case from the DOJ, or you don't get access to their venues and you don't get access to their artists.
They say to artists, hey, if you don't, you know, come with our promotional services, you may not get the venues that you want.
And then they say to venues, look, if you don't use our ticketing service, you may not get the artists that you want.
Well, you know, we might take our shows down the street to a different arrival venue or to a venue that we own.
And so they can do all sorts of things to coerce different business actors and consumers.
And then the net effect for most people who love shows is that you have a ticket and it says, you know, whatever it is, $40, $50, $100.
And then you go through the purchasing process and you get slapped with a service charge, an administrative fee, other forms of fees.
And the net effect can be like it's increasingly, it's really, really costly to see live entertainment these days.
Yeah, you know, I think a lot of people, I know a lot of people are angry at Ticketmaster.
They feel like the prices are outrageous.
There are these issues with what they call dynamic pricing, where prices can radically change literally from one minute to the next, seemingly without any rhyme or reason.
Although I suppose algorithmically there's some explanation that Ticketmaster can provide as to why these ticket prices change so drastically, but that fuels the idea that Ticketmaster is abusing the consumer, is engaged in unfair practices.
Millions and millions of Americans interface with Ticketmaster to buy tickets.
So if there's unfair consumer practices, if they're getting harmed in some way, it's going to be an issue that Americans really care about.
It's not abstract at all to them.
So I think a lot of people have an understanding of why Americans are angry at it and why the government therefore sued it.
But legally speaking, under the relevant antitrust and monopoly suits, what exactly is it that Ticketmaster is doing that renders their conduct illegal?
And just give a little bit of background about how this case came to be, the one that the Trump administration and the DOJ tried yesterday to settle.
Yeah, I should also say that there's another part of the cost, which is, you know, I think a lot of people remember the Taylor Swift fiasco where, you know, a lot of people were looking forward to seeing Taylor Swift.
And then they got, you know, text messages or emails saying tickets are available and you've got one reserved.
And they tried to reserve one and the whole system crashed.
And it was a total mess.
People spent days to try to get their tickets.
Oftentimes they would see a price of $100, then it would go to $1,000.
It was just like a total disaster.
And that was a result of just poor technology quality from Ticketmaster.
And one of the reasons is one of the things that came out in the first week of testimony is that the technology from their rivals was better, but venues couldn't use it because if they used their rival technology, they wouldn't get the shows that they need.
Or at least that's what some of the witnesses were saying.
Anyway, what your question was, what is Ticketmaster doing that is illegal?
So the law that they were allegedly violating is something called the Sherman Act.
There was a bunch of other state laws that they were violating, but the gist is you're not allowed to have a monopoly, which is some large percentage of the market, enough to control pricing, and then use that monopoly in ways that are unfair.
So you can't, if you have a big market share, you can't take the thing that you have that everybody needs and say, in order to buy this thing that I have that you need, you also have to buy this other thing.
That's something called tying.
And in this case, it would say, all right, we have these venues that you need, and we're going to force you to use our promotional services to get into that venue.
You can't say, hey, look, we have 80% of the market.
And if we, because that's essentially a monopoly, if someone else wants to compete with us and you're a customer, we're going to charge you more if you explore using our rival services.
That would be a form of monopoly maintenance.
And these things are, they're not illegal if you don't have a very significant share of the market.
You just don't have any power.
You can do pretty much whatever you want.
But once you have a certain lot of power in the market, a bunch of things that would just be tough competition, in fact, become coercive or aggressive and lead to unfair high prices, unfair, low wages, or low compensation to suppliers.
Monopoly Power and Antitrust00:15:18
That's the kind of thing that we see or low quality.
That's the kind of thing that we're seeing with Live Nation Ticketmaster.
It's also the kind of thing that I think we see across the economy in lots of different industries.
It's just Ticketmaster is something everybody knows.
The politics here, Matt, are really interesting.
We've talked about it before, but for people who haven't heard it before, I think anti-trust, anti-monopoly issues had long been associated with the left because the right has in the past stood for free markets, letting corporations do what they want, no government interference, anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulation or lawsuits or government interference in the market.
And therefore, it had broken down the carnival this sort of left-right dichotomy through like the Reagan years and obviously before that.
And then with the emergence of Trump and right-wing economic populism and this anti-corporatism, a lot of people on the right, not like random voices on the right, but like JD Vance and Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri, and Matt Gates, and a lot of others became kind of champions of more robust antitrust action.
President Biden had a very aggressive head of the regulatory body over monopolies, which is Lena Kahn.
And there was a kind of a word going around Washington, conservatives for people who really liked her, like JD Vance did, like Josh Hawley did.
And there was this kind of idea that the Trump administration was going to be far more aggressive on antitrust enforcement than any Republican administration in the past would have ever been considered, even more than Democrats.
And they did, for example, initiate the antitrust suit against Google, which is a serious major lawsuit that kind of signaled this was more than just rhetoric.
And yet in the second Trump term, like so much else, there's a question of how much are they going to really adhere to this new populism.
And then when it comes to antitrust, it was a big question.
And then I guess last month, the head of the antitrust division who had worked with JD Vance closely, Gail Slater, was fired.
She wasn't particularly great to begin with, but in comparison to the rest, she seemed better than the possibility.
She fought a lot with Pam Bondi, who was a big lobbyist before she became attorney general.
How do you think that firing of Gail Slater, the head of the antitrust division in the DOJ, relates to this?
And what does it signal about where the Trump administration is going on what had been a centerpiece of their supposed economic populism to protect the working class, the American middle and lower classes against big corporate unrestrained power?
Well, just to say, in terms of MAGA, one of the biggest critics of Ticketmaster is Kid Rock.
He testified last, I guess in January in the Senate, really going after Ticketmaster and actually his fellow artists for being cowards and not speaking out against Ticketmaster.
It was pretty cool, actually.
So, you know, he was a potential witness at trial.
So this is not like a lefty thing, right?
This is something that both sides, I think, were, you know, no one likes Ticketmaster, I think is the deal.
Gail Slater was fired and the person who got her fired allegedly is a lobbyist or one of the people who got her fired is a lobbyist named Mike Davis, who was on retainer by Ticketmaster.
So it's a pretty direct line, right?
Mike, she was doing other things that he didn't like.
You know, he was trying to get his merger, mergers.
He's a very like aggressive MAGA culture warrior type, but then he makes his money presumably from, you know, from serving corporate clients and helping to get their money.
This like big social media presence on Axe, like just a hardcore, blindly loyal MAGA Trump supporter, one of those kind of like just accounts that, and I guess unlike a lot of people who do it for money or clout, he does it to curry favor with the administration on behalf of his lobbying clients.
And it seems to work.
He's close with Trump personally, from what I understand.
And, you know, and he has something called the Article 3 Project.
So he's kind of a funnel for a lot of people that want to be judges.
Like there's so, so he has a lot of influence on the right.
And he is a die-hard kind of social conservative, or maybe just a cynic, who knows.
But yeah, he makes his money through these corporate lobbying approaches.
And what he, he got into a fight, he helped Gail Slater get her job.
And then she actually opposed some of the mergers, I guess, that he was trying to move through.
And so he tried and I guess successfully got her fired.
So there was other mergers, like there was a merger between Hewlett-Packard and Juniper Networks, which was a $14 billion merger.
It doesn't really matter what the details are.
It's just that it got challenged and then went through under very suspicious circumstances.
There were screaming matches, and then a whole bunch of Trump officials got fired who are Gail Slater's underlings at the behest of these lobbyists.
And then, you know, and then eventually Gail Slater gets fired.
And then the Ticketmaster settlement happens.
And so we just really see this total collapse of any kind of conservative populism around anti-monopoly because there's just been this, it's just, it's like everything else.
They just don't really believe in the rule of law.
They don't, I mean, sorry, not to get like, I'm pretty cynical at this point, skeptical about these guys.
And so I'm not, I'm not trying to be partisan, but it is really obvious that when you can get in there and you can effectively lobby your way out of an antitrust case in ways that no one really has, not that DC was great.
It was very bad, but you used to get these, to do something corrupt like this, you had to be very passive aggressive.
And now they're just upfront with it.
And there's, that's kind of a step change.
So no one's ever seen anything like this.
And it does really suggest that there's nothing, you know, the rule of law has really declined.
I will note, though, that the DOJ, the federal level, they were only one set of plaintiffs.
There were actually state attorneys general who were also opposed, who were also bringing the case against Ticketmaster.
They did not drop their claims.
And so there's this very strange dynamic where the DOJ dropped its claim and settled.
And there's very weird things that just happened in the courtroom today.
But the states have said, no, we're going full steam ahead and we're going to continue.
So this is not over by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah.
And I do want to hasten to add, just in terms of what you said, that for those who don't know Matt or aren't familiar with his work, though he does identify as a Democrat and kind of has been on that side of the political spectrum.
You know, Matt is somebody who probably more than anybody helped inform my understanding of how much there had been this unprecedented space opened up on the right for antitrust and monopoly enforcement.
Big he's regularly praised to the anger of many people on the left, people like Josh Hawley, and has been open to the idea that this could be a real thing that people on the left should be open to as this kind of bipartisan or trans, you know, kind of like anti-establishment right-left union when it comes to standing up to corporate power.
So he's not just criticizing it because he's a partisan, but because I think you're probably actually disappointed to see that a lot of that turned out to be, at least in the second term, fake.
Let me just ask a couple more questions.
You referenced the proceedings of the courtroom, as well as the issue of the state's attorney general.
My understanding is that they announced this, this, the DOJ did announce the settlement.
And again, they have the benefit that everyone's paying attention, Shoron.
And because when you have a DOJ case, a case with the government and a big corporation pending in federal court under antitrust, you need the approval of the judge for the settlement.
The judge has to, the judge is basically acting as the advocate for the public to make sure it's reasonable under the law.
And they basically notify the court, hey, we settled, but didn't even give the judge the settlement terms.
And he was enraged.
Not sure how much he'll be able to do about it, but clearly they, you know, this is a pretty common practice.
And then at the same time, you do have the state's attorney general.
I saw Letitia James, the attorney general for New York, and a couple others saying, we're not part of the settlement and we are going to continue.
How much of an impediment could either the federal judge in this case be who has to prove the settlement or the ongoing suit from the states on these same grounds against Ticketmaster?
Yeah, I would also say that though there were a bunch of blue states who were involved in challenging it.
So a bunch of red states also were like Jonathan Scrimmetti.
Which ones?
Like which ones?
Well, Jonathan Scrimetti is a real antitrust lawyer from Tennessee.
He's a hardcore conservative.
And he's also saying like, we're going to challenge this as well.
And there's a number of others, but I, you know, I didn't track them all.
There's, I think, like 20-something states who are challenging it as well.
So, so this is not, um, it, it, this, this didn't break, this actually didn't break down on partisan lines on on um with state challenges, and it often does break down on partisan lines.
So this is kind of um unusual in that score.
Um, so what happened, my understanding, and this was very weird.
Normally, when you're when you're negotiating a settlement, you tell the judge, right?
You're like, okay, we're in negotiations for a settlement.
And the judge like sometimes pauses the case and says, do your negotiations, or say, or he just says, keep going, and but like, I'll manage the flow.
You know, it's, it's, you do, you do that even if that you don't need the judge, like, you know, for private parties to settle, you don't need the judge's approval.
You can just settle on whatever terms you want.
Like, he's going to pay me one penny.
He's going to pay me $10 trillion.
Judge isn't even involved, but you still tell the judge, hey, by the way, we're having settlement talks.
But when the judge, you need the judge to sign off, to not involve the judge in the settlement talks, even to let them know that they're ongoing is something I've never heard of.
It's just rude.
I mean, the judge, it's like the judge's time and courtroom space, and he's got a bunch of other priorities.
And then you've also got a jury, right?
So this was a jury trial that convened last week.
So what happened apparently is the settlement, we don't even know what's in the settlement.
I mean, the rumors are there isn't really a settlement.
It's just kind of like a vague term sheet.
But the rumors are that it was signed on the 5th, which I guess is last week.
And then the judge was apparently notified that there was a settlement last night and he didn't even get the terms of the settlement until this morning.
And then he said to the DOJ lawyer, the civil guy who's running the case, David Dahlquist, he said, you know, what is up with these terms that I saw only this morning?
And David Dahlquist said, I don't know.
I just saw them this morning for the first time as well.
Yeah.
So, so the DOJ's own staff, not the political guys, but their own staff who was running the trial didn't even know there was a settlement and didn't see the terms of the settlement either.
So this is this is like crazy and very weird.
And so the judge was furious and said, you know, this is outrageous.
He was also mad at the states for unrelated reasons.
I mean, basically, it's like, are you guys ready to go?
And the states said, oh, we haven't done, we were leaning on the DOJ.
We need to, we need to like get up to speed ourselves.
So we can't start now.
Like we have to have some time.
And the judge said, you've known that they might settle for a long time.
Why aren't you ready?
So he was mad at everybody, but he was especially mad at seems like at the DOJ and Live Nation for doing like this settlement behind behind his back.
He can cause problems.
You know, your question is, how much of a problem can he be?
There's something called the Tony Act for antitrust, which says that the judge gets to oversee and approve settlements, antitrust settlements.
He can be a pain in the ass if he wants to and say, you know, I want to figure out how this settlement was negotiated.
I want to see if this settlement does things correctly.
But more likely, he'll just say, all right, the states, you guys go ahead with the case and I will essentially try to get the jury to kind of disregard the DOJ part of this decision.
Or I'll, you know, what the what Live Nation is going to say to this about the states is going to say, we already settled with the government and that took care of the competition problem.
So let that play out.
So the judge, if he wants to, can be kind of a pain in the ass in that sense and say, yeah, you disregard that.
That is not relevant here.
You've just got to look at the evidence in front of you.
Or he could say, yeah, you do have to consider that when you're thinking about monopolization.
There's a judges, I think, have a lot of discretion here.
And so it's not a good idea to annoy the judge.
And then the other thing is that if the jury says that, yes, Live Nation has violated the Sherman Act, the jury doesn't come up with the remedy.
At most, I guess they could come up with monetary damages.
The judge has to come up with the remedy.
So then the judge is going to say, all right, here's what.
Here's what's going to happen to the company.
It's going to be split up.
It's going to have minor modifications of behavior, whatever it is.
So again, it's just generally not a good idea to anger a judge if you can avoid it, especially with petty stuff like this.
Yeah, yeah.
But it does seem to indicate that this was yet again another example of kind of political upholds coming in and overriding what would be the natural force of the government in favor of very special interests or donors or lobbyists, which is obviously the tactic of the swamp, the classic tactics that, of course, Trump famously vowed to vanquish.
All right, last question, Matt.
During the transition after Trump won the 2024 election, before he was inaugurated, I was hearing from a lot of Trump people that, you know, essentially everything was a war about what the second term is going to be.
You had, you know, in foreign policy, neocon warmongers against the anti-interventionists.
You saw this play out everywhere, including in antitrust and corporate regulation in general.
And what I had heard was kind of consistently that the people who want to kind of free the government to free the corporations, kind of let them be unrestrained again, kind of like Reaganomics, laissez-faire, were likely to prevail in the antitrust context, except when it came to big tech, where they were going to be extremely aggressive, as aggressive as before, as the Biden administration was, as the first Trump term was, when it came to anti-inforcement and Trump, antitrust enforcement against Trump, against the big tech,
in part because of how angry Trump was with big tech and the fact that they banned him and the perception that they censored his political movement and conservatives, all of which is true.
This is like this.
This is like a blood feud between Trump and the White House and big tech.
And that's the one area where this is not going to be a rollback.
Then you started seeing things like, you know, Facebook, Meta, and Google, and, you know, all of them giving millions of dollars to Trump's inaugural party.
He made them go there to the inauguration, which he did.
You had Mark Zuckerberg trying to appease Trump by announcing a repeal of disinformation, censorship, you know, and they've been doing everything in their power to urge Trump to force the DOJ to drop these cases against them.
How does that look in terms of whether that's going to succeed and they're going to get a similar kind of positive treatment as Ticketmaster just got, or whether there really will be this institutional momentum that takes off and continues to really put the screws on them for their monopolistic practices?
Big Tech's Cronyism vs. Libertarian Ideals00:04:14
Yeah, that's a great question.
It's a hard question to answer because in some ways the Trump administration has continued those cases and run into difficulties in the courts that are not of their making, or at least sort of of their making, right?
Like the Google case, you know, the Biden administration won the search case, but then there was a remedy and the judge, who's an Obama appointee, did a terrible job with the remedy.
That is now on the Trump administration did appeal it, right?
They did a bad job litigating, but that was just because they lack talent, right?
It's a movement that didn't believe in government until relatively recently.
So unsurprisingly, they don't have a lot of talent to staff government.
But they tried.
They lost.
Then that's on appeal.
And that's a good thing.
They lost the meta case.
That is also on appeal.
So, you know, sometimes you just lose.
That just happens.
The Apple case is ongoing.
The Amazon case is ongoing.
They have, you know, they have, there are some, I think there's some tactical questions, right?
They haven't really put a lot of new effort into doing anything on big tech.
I think that Trump really believes in AI and AI investment.
And so there's kind of like no one really wants to go after big tech in a different way and take on the new problems with AI.
So that's kind of where you really see it.
I guess, you know, I look at the problem and I think it's basically on pause doing stuff on big tech and antitrust.
There isn't, you know, they did blunt the momentum, but that's largely because they didn't have good strategies for pursuing the cases when they ran into roadblocks.
It's not because you saw the same kinds of corruption that you've seen with, say, Ticketmaster or Hewlett Packer Juniper or railroad mergers or other kinds of things.
Although I will say, sorry, this is kind of this complicated, but they have allowed for acquisitions.
So Google has bought up, you know, really large companies, some of their biggest acquisitions ever.
And you're not really seeing any opposition to that at all.
So I guess what I'd say is, generally speaking, they've done a pretty bad job, but it's not as bad as it could be.
Like they haven't kind of gone 180 degree reversal on their work on big tech.
It's just that you really, to take on big tech, it's a really massive problem.
And you need like real all of government to take on these guys to win.
And they're just not putting that.
There just isn't that level of priority for big tech.
I don't think there was that level of priority for big tech under Biden, although there was definitely more aggressiveness.
But you don't see, you definitely don't see that under Trump.
But it's not the Reagan administration either, where they're just like, we don't believe in antitrust enforcement.
And we know what corporations do we want kind of somewhere in the middle, I guess.
It's weird, right?
Because they're not going back to the libertarian model, but they are, they're going for like more of a crony type of approach, which is just like, do the thing I want, or else, you know, give me political concessions, political favors, or else I'll come after you in an aggressive way.
So they don't want to say, oh, the government can't touch corporations because then that would limit their leverage.
Right.
And so it's not, it is that better than like a libertarian approach?
I mean, it's kind of more like quasi-authoritarian in some ways.
And again, I'm not trying to be partisan here.
I'm just telling you what I saw.
The Live Nation thing, Obama is the reason that that became a monopoly in the first place.
A lot of the stuff that we're trying to do is to fix what Obama screwed up.
And I had really hoping that Trump would be a part of that solution.
But instead, he's kind of cemented it and turned it into kind of like a crony thing for the right, which is really too bad.
Yeah, absolutely.
I guess I should say, like, having dealt with a lot of libertarians in my life and, you know, there are some libertarians who actually do believe that monopolistic power is a violation of the free market, that when you have no competition or very anti-competitive practices, that that does violate the free market that's sacred to them.
And so there are some libertarian pockets where anti-monopoly enforcement is favored.
Out of Time for Venting00:00:42
But in general, yeah, it's a very laissez-faire philosophy, obviously.
All right.
So that's it, Matt.
I know you've had a lot to say on the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.
You're very, very angry at Jewish people.
We're going to have you back on to kind of have a good anti-Semitic venting session, but we've run out of time.
And so we're just going to go ahead and leave it there.
Thank you so much.
All right.
I was like, I was ready to get into it.
No, we'll get into it next time.
Just go check Matt Solar's Twitter feed if you want to understand what I'm saying.