All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2022 - Sean Hannity Show
32:43
How Bad Is Twitter? - December 8th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart podcast.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media, and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, hour two, Sean Hannity Show, toll-free.
It's 800-941.
Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, so Elon Musk is dump number two, if you will, as it relates to Twitter.
But what's really coming into focus for everybody is what is the role of James Baker in all of this?
James Baker, of course, the chief counsel for the FBI during the Russiagate hoax and then a former fake news CNN contributor.
What is his role in all of this?
Because what was Matt Taibbi made the comment, and he is working for Elon Musk, obviously, that in fact, it was him that was vetting the documents that they would finally release from Twitter that exposed the fact that Twitter was involved in election interference and that these meetings were taking place with the FBI on a weekly basis.
And the FBI was telling them, you got to be on the lookout.
There's going to be, you know, potentially foreign interference and hack and leak operations.
And some of it might be about Hunter.
At least we got that piece of information from Twitter's own head of site integrity.
Yoel Roth is the guy's name.
But what is his role and about the decision to fire James Baker and how important that is if Elon Musk, who he seems is sincere, wants to clean up the site?
James Baker, if you remember and you go back to the Russiagate hoax, he actually was still out there saying that Christopher Steele was reliable.
Now, remember, I'll give you the timeline with RussiaGate.
In August of 2016, even Bruce Orr was warning the FBI not to use Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for Russian disinformation dossier put together by Christopher Steele.
He was telling everybody it was a political document.
Anyway, so the FBI decided to check it out for themselves.
We learned this in the Danchenko trial.
So they sent over FBI agents in early October of 2016.
They offered a bounty.
They offered a reward, $1 million to Christopher Steele if he could corroborate that, in fact, the Steele dossier was true and accurate.
Well, he never got the money because he couldn't do it.
And then by the end of October, they still used the dirty disinformation dossier that not only was not verified, it was unverifiable because it was all phony.
They used that as the basis, the bulk of information, to get the FISA warrant approved against Carter Page, which then connected them to all things Trump World because of his attachment to Trump at different points and his campaign, meaning they spied on our president and a transition team, and at that point, a presidential candidate.
It's pretty unbelievable.
And James Baker defended it to the end.
Steele was a reliable source.
No, he wasn't.
In January of 2017, when Dan Chenko, the main source for Christopher Steele, was questioned by the FBI, he said none of it's true.
It was all bar talk.
Anyway, James Baker still defends it.
Listen to this.
So what is your view of the way the FBI interacted with Steele and how we should understand what his role was here?
That's a big question.
So, look, the investigation was not predicated on the basis of the information that Christopher Steele gave to us in the form of the dossier.
That was not my understanding at the time and has never been my understanding.
So just to say that flat out.
Steele, at the time, my understanding was that he was thought to be a reliable source that had a prior relationship with the FBI and brought this information to us.
Look, with, I don't know how to say this, other than, we're not stupid, right?
The FBI.
We're not stupid.
You take the information and then you try to vet it.
And that, my recollection is we spent a lot, we, the Bureau, the folks in the counterintelligence division, spent a lot of time trying to vet that information line by line.
And Andrew McCabe said, without the dossier used in the FISA application at the top of a FISA application that says verified, they would never have gotten approval for that warrant.
But they couldn't verify it because they couldn't give Christopher Steele the million dollars.
And Steele's source said, no, none of it's true when they finally interviewed him.
And their reaction to his response that it's not true was to put him on the payroll, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, Greg Jarrett has a great piece on his website talking about the Musk decision to fire Baker and how important that decision is for cleaning up Twitter.
Remember, it was Elon Musk that said, well, if you shut down dissenting voices, that is by its very definition, election interference.
He further went on to say about the media trying to downplay this.
Of course, they're going to downplay it because they're complicit in lying to the American public.
And they were acting as Twitter at that time was acting as the propaganda arm for the Democratic Party.
But it wasn't just Twitter.
It was every big tech company was having these weekly meetings.
Now we're finding out the State Department had their own separate group of people meeting with big tech companies, again, to censor important information.
In this case, information that very likely would have had a huge impact on the 2020 presidential election.
Anyway, Greg Jarrett is with us.
Sir, how are you?
I'm fine.
Thank you.
Amazing how James Baker clings to the lie, isn't it?
Yeah, I mean, it's a cozy little group.
I spent several hours reading through one of the deposition transcript of one of James Baker's pals, FBI agent Elvis Chan.
It's about 400 pages long.
And I find out on page 239 of Chan's that he's pals with Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and James Baker.
And it was Chan who organized these meetings with Twitter leading up to the 2020 presidential election, warning them of, you know, Russian hack and dump focusing on the Hunter Biden laptop.
So naturally, with the New York Post story.
By the way, it goes a little deeper with Chan because his postgraduate thesis claimed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help former President Trump.
And you're right, he's the one that organized these weekly meetings with big tech.
Yeah, and he's pals with Baker.
And, you know, these guys see a Russian behind every door.
And, you know, there's always a Russian conspiracy going on.
But they use it as an excuse, Sean, you know, politically.
And there's pretty compelling evidence that the FBI, together with Joe Biden's presidential campaign team, as well as Democratic authors, were pressuring Twitter and Facebook that when this story comes out, the Hunter Biden laptop, you've got to kill it.
And that, of course, is exactly what they did.
They had to conjure up an excuse, which was, oh, you know, it was hacked.
Well, it wasn't hacked.
And even the executives at Twitter knew that.
And the Twitter files show their emails saying, wait a minute, this wasn't, we can't justify it.
But it was James Baker who said, oh, yeah, well, we've got to continue to censor this story.
Well, they were saying internally, this hacked argument is not going to hold up.
It's not holding up now.
And it was Baker that was saying, no, it's holding up.
Right.
Exactly.
And so, you know, what is so insidious is that when Musk came in to clean up the place, he didn't unfortunately realize James Baker's role in the original censorship of the laptop story.
And then Baker gets into the Twitter files before Musk orders them to be handed over to a couple of journalists.
And it appears as though Baker started sanitizing the Twitter files, cleansing them of any incriminating information, not just related to him, but to what his old pals at the FBI were doing in trying to kill the Hunter Biden story.
You can't make this up.
And it was also the other ⁇ it wasn't just Matt Taibbi.
It was also Barry Weiss, you might remember, took on the New York Times.
We bring Doug Schoen into the discussion.
And David is a former counsel for President Trump, civil liberties attorney, et cetera.
Incredible credentials.
What's your take on the overall picture in Baker's role, David Schoen?
I think one of the keys you said earlier is cozy little group.
I think the listeners have to know the connections between all these folks.
There's a connection between Comey and Baker in the private sector.
Then when Baker's brought in to be general counsel of the FBI, he replaces Andrew Weissman of all people.
These are all part of a group, like-minded folks with a like-minded agenda.
It's not coincidental that Baker then ends up at Twitter.
I think a major question here is: what did Mr. Dorsey know about this at the time?
What was his role?
You know, he's given testimony.
Congress now is calling for the disclosure of all documents.
But what happened on his watch?
Because if you believe the files, as they have, at least up to this point, been released, they say that Jack Dorsey did not know and did not have any knowledge of this.
Right.
And he's calling for a full disclosure.
So let's have the full disclosure now.
But why didn't we have checks in place?
Because remember, this was a leading story at the time.
When the post came out with this and then the post was shut down by Twitter, this was a leading story that you covered over and over again to impress on the public the lack of integrity of this show, the lack of transparency.
Because remember, this is a group that was at the heart of the FISA warrants, as you mentioned earlier.
Those were the most intrusive mechanisms possible to invade the privacy of American citizens.
And they didn't hesitate even to use those kinds of tools.
So it goes to the very integrity.
Look, we know today Twitter, Facebook, these big companies like this are all provided public forum.
And if the public isn't getting fair news because something, because somebody's finger is on the scale, they're not being transparent.
They're not allowing a story to come forward that's of major impact potentially on an election.
We've got an extraordinary situation here.
That's why it's so important to keep reporting on this now.
All right, quick break more with David Schona and Greg Jarrett on the other side, 800-941-Sean, our number if you want to be a part of the program.
And as we continue, Greg Jarrett and David Schoener with us as we talk about James Baker, his involvement with Twitter and the release of these files showing election interference by Twitter and the FBI's involvement.
If not for the FBI putting their thumb on the scales in this case, and they did it similarly in 2016, which we covered extensively, Greg Jarrett.
But in this particular case, they had the Hunter Biden laptop themselves for 11 months.
I'm sure by then they would have verified that, in fact, it was real.
And yet They start a campaign to meet weekly with all of these big tech companies in the hopes that they can prevent this information from coming out publicly.
But they should have known it's true.
They should have even been prosecuting Hunter by this time.
And here we are three years later, and they still haven't done anything with the laptop.
And we know that it implicates his own father, Joe Biden.
James Comer has said this is going to be an investigation into the President of the United States, Joe Biden.
We know Joe Biden lied when he said that he never spoke to Hunter or any family member about foreign business dealings.
We have photographic evidence.
We have Hunter's implications in his own laptop.
And then we have chronicled meetings that have taken place with Hunter, Joe, and foreign business partners.
So, you know, the FBI is corrupt on two fronts here: they prevented the information from coming out that they knew was true.
And secondly, they didn't do anything about what the Bidens were involved in.
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
And you put your finger on something really important: that the FBI seized the laptop in December of 2019.
All right, that's almost a full year before the laptop story comes out by the New York Post.
But how is it the FBI knew that story was coming out to warn falsely the Facebook and Twitter?
Because they were spying on Rudy Giuliani.
And Giuliani had one of the copies of the laptop.
They knew he was shopping around to be published.
And so the FBI knew, you know, this thing's going to come out.
It may come out before the election.
We have to get Twitter and Facebook.
Well, this is interesting you're saying this because this FBI agent, the one that wrote the postgraduate thesis that claimed Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help former President Trump, the one that you said is friends with Baker and Strzok and Page, he didn't remember when he was under oath with the Solicitor General of Missouri last week whether or not they had ever mentioned Hunter Biden.
But Twitter's former head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, he remembered Hunter's name being mentioned very specifically.
Yeah, I mean, who are you going to believe?
The FBI guy who has a motivation to cover up, or the fired Twitter exec who's decided to, you know, spill the beans.
Everything in Chan's depot, and again, I read it last night, sworn testimony, coincides with exactly what Yoel Roth is saying, with one exception.
Chan said, oh, you know, gee, gosh, I don't remember mentioning Hunter Biden, but of course, he said we had discussions about Hunter Biden at the FBI.
So, you know, look, they were prepared for this to come out, and they concocted a scheme to try to kill it by pressuring Facebook.
And they had a perfect mole there at Twitter, and that was James Baker.
You know, you can't make this up in a spy novel.
Right.
Well, David Schoen, we'll give you the last word on this.
The last word is: I think fresh air is going to be the best disinfectant.
Let's get follow what Mr. Dorsey said: get all of these documents out in the open.
Then Congress is going to have hearings on the underlying story with the laptop.
I would like to say, Mr. Musk, I hope that Merrick Garland shows good judgment and doesn't try to shut you down.
What do you mean by that?
Why would he try and shut him down?
Well, because I'm afraid that there are many forces at play.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when we see how this Justice Department has weaponized the criminal justice system and the prosecutions of many people, I'm worried about it.
I thought Merrick Garland was above all of that, quite frankly, but he's going along with it far too far to a greater degree.
Oh, I think you give Merrick Garland too much credit.
I think that their pursuit of Donald Trump is evidence of all that.
Anyway, Greg Jarrett, David Schoen, thank you both for being with us.
Appreciate it.
800-941 Sean, if you want to be a part of the program, later, by the way, Rebecca Coffler will join us.
We'll talk about this prisoner exchange with Russia, Brittany Griner for the Merchant of Death, and why didn't a Marine by the name of Paul Whalen get released also?
He should have been part of this deal.
We'll get to that.
Jobs.
Joe Biden can't spell it and he can't keep them for the American people.
Check out the Sean Hannity Jobs Forum today.
Now, Hannity's on coast to coast.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
All right, 25 to the top of the hour.
So when you think of all of the people dying from fentanyl overdoses, when you think all the people dying from heroin overdoses, on average, 300 Americans a week, if you look at the border and we now will set a record high number of illegal immigrants coming into the country this year, over 2.5 million, under Joe Biden, we're approaching 5 million for two years as president.
I mean, it's unbelievable.
All the other problems associated with open borders, the cost on the American people, it's impacting every single state, the preferential treatment that Joe has given them.
And Joe Biden has had an opportunity, was only a little over 100 miles away from the border this week, but couldn't be bothered going down there to see firsthand what's going on at the border.
When asked about it, Debbie Dingell from Michigan said, well, I don't care if Biden visits the border.
He's seen photos.
He knows we have a problem.
Does he know we have a problem?
Because if he knew we had a problem, why wouldn't he go back to the policies that worked under Donald Trump?
Anyway, listen to this and listen to how callous this is.
Congressman, would you like to see him visit the border?
I don't care if he visits the border or not.
He doesn't need to visit the border to know we've got a problem.
He's got people that report to him every day about what the problem is.
And sometimes we fixate on these little issues.
Do you think the president doesn't know we got a problem at the border and what the issues are?
I know he does.
But not necessary to see it firsthand.
That's a little issue?
I think he knows it's got to be addressed.
He's gotten the reports.
He's seen the photos.
So that's, I mean, at some point, he may or may not come, but I think he knows what's got to get fixed.
And you've seen him begin that process.
We haven't seen him begin any process.
And never mind the fact that they caught this year alone over 100 people on the terrorist watch list.
How many of those people snuck through and were undetected?
Anyway, let's hit our busy phones.
Let's go to Texas.
Dean needs to be propped up, I see, a little bit.
Dean, what's on your mind?
Your heart seems to be troubled.
What's the matter?
Well, sir, thank you for taking my call.
I will tell you the reason I called is because all these issues that we're having are still going to be issues unless the country changes direction.
And we just had this election, and folks are wondering, a lot of conservatives, I'm a conservative.
A lot of my friends are wondering why we aren't winning these.
I mean, if you look at how the socialist and hyperspending, anti-American rand of the left candidates, we should be running away with this stuff.
So the question is why we aren't.
And I don't think that the damage is coming from the opponents from the Nancy Pelosi's and Joe Bidens.
I think the damage is truly coming from inside of our own party.
I really think, and I know this is going to sound like frustration or even repudiation, but it's not.
I'm worried about winning in the future and changing the direction of this country to stop the illegal immigration, to stop these horrendous things that are going on.
And sadly, the problem is when the face of the party are people like McConnell and Graham and Romney and Collins and Kramer, all these people that supported the $1 trillion infrastructure plan, it becomes very difficult for people like me to look at my friends, my conservative friends, and say, go vote, go vote.
We'll change things.
No, we won't because these same people are going to be able to do it.
Let me ask you, was it worth voting for Greg Abbott?
No.
I don't think so.
Greg Abbott.
I voted out if you were to.
Is it worth voting in Texas for Ted Cruz?
Because I would vote for Ted Cruz in RP.
Yes.
Ted Cruz is one of the exceptions.
To me, Ted Cruz is taking heat because he's standing by the conservative principles he believes in.
Greg Abbott is far and away better than Beto O'Rourke, who shouldn't be a candidate, in my opinion, for dog catcher.
Listen, I'm not saying that Greg Abbott is perfect.
I think he's done a good job as governor, which is why he won by double digits in his reelection.
Let me concede a point to you.
There is a battle between the establishment wing of the Republican Party and the more conservative wing of the Republican Party, the America First Wing, the Make America Great Wing, if you will.
That is real.
That's not fake.
That's not phony.
But there are certain fundamentals that both sides, at least on paper, say they agree with.
One would be energy independence.
One would be going back to the Trump policies on the border.
Another one would be the belief in law and order and safety and security.
Most Republicans I know want school choice.
Most want conservatives on the bench.
So there's enough low-hanging fruit.
There's enough 90-10, 80-20 issues that we can agree on.
No party is going to have full agreement on everything, although the Democrats seem to.
It sounds like in a way you can't.
But I must point out that there are some things that you, in my opinion, this is just my opinion, but I think there's some things you can compromise on.
I think there are some things that you can negotiate with.
Principles are not one of them.
principles are the thing that make you who you are uh and and give me specific examples like Like, I would agree with you on the Second Amendment.
We shouldn't compromise.
I would agree with you on we shouldn't compromise on the border.
We shouldn't compromise on energy.
We shouldn't compromise on law and order.
We shouldn't compromise on education.
What specifically are you worried about?
Spending?
Is that the main issue?
In Texas, I have to go by Texas because I know this one because that's where I'm from.
In Texas, the GOP has a set of principles.
This is in addition to their platform, which is very large, but they have 10 principles.
Among these principles are things like smaller government, lower taxes, self-reliance.
These things are all things that I think not just Republicans, not just conservatives, but a lot of Americans agree on.
But it seems like that when people get elected to these offices and they have an R after their name, they quickly turn on these when their political self-interest becomes an issue.
Some do and some don't.
And I can give you an example of it in Texas, if you'd like.
In Texas, there's a couple of examples, and I have to say, before I say this, Texas voters, and this was across the board, Republicans and Democrats, cross-party lines, was 45.7% of the 17.7 million registered voters in Texas, which is down 7.3% from 2018 midterms.
And the reason I looked that up was because I felt like there was less voting, and it's because we're not charged.
Had Ted Cruz been on there, I think there'd have been more people.
Ted Cruz is a principled man, at least from what I've seen.
But for instance, Greg Abbott, Greg Abbott still has the emergency disaster COVID-19 declaration in place to this very day.
That puts us in the likes of California, Illinois, Georgia.
Whereas most red states have dropped this.
There's no reason to continue it.
Our Texas Speaker, a Republican named Dave Phelan, continues to seat Democrats on committee chairs just so that he can keep the speakership.
Whether you agree with these or not, when I talk to conservative friends, they look at these examples.
They're not stupid people.
Most of Americans I've met are certainly smarter than me.
And they look at this stuff.
They see it and they go, why?
It's the same person with a different letter after their name.
Why should I get excited about voting for that person?
The Democrats have a horrible agenda, in my opinion.
But it does.
If you're saying to me that there are rhino-Republicans, I'm acknowledging and conceding the point.
If you're saying to me that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I would say that just isn't true.
Even Republicans that are more in the middle or even more to the left or rhino-Republicans, as we call them.
Look, politics is not science.
Principles are scientific.
You stay on your principle.
You stand on them.
There is an art of politics.
And part of it is you have to work with varying groups of people that have differing philosophies, governing philosophies.
And it means a lot of times when you're putting together a bill or whatever it happens to be, that you're not going to get everything that you want.
But you've got to fight hard to get as much as you possibly can.
And is any bill ever really going to be perfect?
Well, I mean, sometimes, but that's usually not the case.
It sounds like you're a little too discouraged by it, but my advice to you is rather than pull back from the process, it is to get more engaged in the process.
And if you really feel that strongly about all these things, and I hear a lot of passion in you, then I think you ought to consider putting your hat in the ring and getting in the state legislature and getting a leadership position and start pulling people over to your side and winning the argument, the more conservative arguments that you want won.
Does that make sense?
Because, I mean, we could sit and bitch and moan about the imperfection of it all, or we can do something about it.
It does make sense, but I don't want to deviate from the main point, which was these were examples of passion.
Look, again, please understand I am not supporting any leftist or liberal agendas.
The liberals have tapped into a passion.
It's a negative passion, but it's a passion nonetheless.
If the Republicans don't stand and fight for these principles, and I'll tell you where it has worked, it's not just negative.
Look at Florida.
Florida had an increase in conservative voters.
Why?
They didn't show up because the voting process was better.
They showed up because they believe in Ron DeSantis, and they know he'll fight for them, and they'll go and fight for him.
It is a map for us to follow.
That's what we need.
And we need it in our leadership.
In spite of what you say, I can't snap my fingers and tomorrow be the Senate majority leader.
But we have.
Well, you can begin the process.
Listen, you live in a pretty darn good state that is about one of the most conservative in the country.
And it's the reason why so many people want to leave their states and move to your state.
I'm sure your system's not perfect.
I'm sure the people that run the state are not perfect.
However, I mean, you're in a much better position, I can tell you, than a lot of other states around the country.
And if you think that you have ways to improve the system, form a group of people, start meeting with these elected officials, start telling them what they're doing right, what they're doing wrong, and what you want them to do.
I'm trying to give you an answer.
And when I do, you just seem to pull back from that and go back to your list of grievances.
Okay, you've got your grievances.
You've explained them.
I understand them.
They make sense to me.
Now I would argue, go do something about it.
All right?
That's my advice to you.
I hope that helps, Dean.
Quick break.
We'll come back 800-941-Sean.
Our number, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, let's get back to our busy phones here.
Natasha is in Ohio next on the Sean Hannity Show.
What's up, Natasha?
How are you?
I'm good, thanks.
Thanks for taking my call.
My question is about possible consequences for these people and organizations that are complicit in this Hunter-Biden laptop free speech suppression ordeal.
I mean, I know we're used to people on the left getting away with everything under the sun, but I think the severity of these blatant violations against the American people and the First Amendment demand accountability and real consequences.
And I want to know what that might look like.
I mean, is that lost?
You know what might end up being a blessing that with the Republicans winning the House and having a smaller majority than some anticipated, it might result in them doing things in a more bold way because I think the conservative caucus within the Republican Party in Washington is going to demand it, meaning the Freedom Caucus, for example, and others.
They're going to demand it.
And I think what's going to happen, and I hope it happens, I hope they unite together behind a real agenda and they don't stop until they fulfill every single issue that's on their top priority list.
You know, look, one thing happened this week.
We haven't spent a lot of time on it, but as a result of Republicans fighting, they actually got the military vaccine mandate provision removed from what I hope will not be an omnibus bill.
I hope it's going to be a continuing resolution on spending.
I think that is a huge win for the military, number one, and hopefully that'll eliminate the mandate for everybody else as well.
I think we have a real opportunity here with the evidence that has come about and with what Elon Musk has done, I mean, to capitalize on, you know, taking some of these people down.
It just, people need to be able to do that.
This is a particular point of frustration for me.
I spent three years exposing the Russia collusion hoax, and there was a very small group of us that were digging deep every single day, and we actually got every fact right, and we proved what they did, and nobody was really held accountable.
It's a shame.
However, the American people did learn.
What's that?
I don't want that to happen.
I feel like that happens over and over again, and I agree with you.
It does.
We don't have equal justice under the law in this country anymore.
But hopefully over time, this might be the tipping point that cleans up the FBI.
The FBI should be the world's premier law enforcement agency.
It's not.
It needs to reclaim that title.
And the only way they'll do that is cleaning it up.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
▲
Export Selection