Category: Popular Transcripts


Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Lindzanity – Episode 1 – Farbood Nivi

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the Lindzanity podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time, just click the player below. And you can quickly navigate to sections by clicking the list icon in the top right.

Lindzanity – Episode 1 – Farbood Nivi | Convert video-to-text with Sonix

Announcer:
Howard Lindzon is the Founder and General Partner at Social Leverage. All opinions expressed by Howard and podcast guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of Social Leverage or StockTwits. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon for decisions. Guests may maintain positions and securities discussed in this podcast.

Welcome to the first edpisode of Lindzanity

Howard Lindzon:
Hey, everybody. Welcome to my first episode of Lindzanity. And I'm excited as the first guest to have Farbood, a friend of mine. And I'm not going to give his last name. It's like Madonna. And he's the Madonna of crypto. And so, Farbood is going to talk about Coinmine, and we're going to talk about crypto in the future.

Howard Lindzon:
Dude, welcome to Lindzanity.

Farbood Nivi:
Thanks for having me.

Howard Lindzon:
Guest number one.

Farbood Nivi:
Guest number one.

Howard Lindzon:
So, there's a little pressure that goes with that.

Farbood Nivi:
Am I the guest, or is this the guest?

Howard Lindzon:
Both.

Farbood Nivi:
Thanks.

Howard Lindzon:
This is Coinmine, everybody, but we're going to get to that. So, meet Farbood. Farbood is Canadian?

Farbood Nivi:
Canadian, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Born in Canada.

Farbood Nivi:
I wasn't born in Canada, but I grew up there since I was a little kid, so you know.

Howard Lindzon:
So, we have that in common.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
I'm from Toronto. But we met through a friend, Brian Norgard. And so, I wanted him in my first show when I started Wall Street back in 2006. And that was a daily show. So, that was like it my whole business, was going to be the show. I'm not an actor. I'm not anything. I'm not a media person at the time. I just had an idea to do a show. And it was going to be a show about, like, trends. And at the time, I was so bullish on Apple, and the retail stores, and that was our first show.

Farbood Nivi:
How long ago was this?

Howard Lindzon:
It's 2006.

Farbood Nivi:
Okay.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, flash forward to 2018, obviously, there's a low budget, Lindzanity. And the idea is talk about trends, money, millennials, culture, fashion, technology, investing, and everything about that-

Farbood Nivi:
All my favorite things.

Howard Lindzon:
… is crypto.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And I know maybe if the world has all this knowledge, I know this little bit-.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
… about crypto enough to be dangerous. And you know a lot more, but I can't put it in context how much you know.

Farbood Nivi:
Everyone in crypto knows very little about crypto. It's part of the nature of something that's that big, and moving that quickly, and that new.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, when Apple, in 2006, wasn't new, and the stores were like laughed at, and had 60 or 70 stores, and it's like, "You can't do retail," but in my mind, I knew it had kind of a jumped. Like retail was the thing. That was going to be their moat.

Farbood Nivi:
Right.

Bitcoin and crypto and why Farbood Nivi is a perfect guest

Howard Lindzon:
And so, Wall Street was about trends, and since the show is going to be about basically trends too, just a podcast, no better topic than polarizing, exciting, scary, out-there topic then Bitcoin and crypto. And then, compound that with how to make crypto or how to mine crypto. So, you're the perfect guest.

Farbood Nivi:
Thanks.

Howard Lindzon:
No pressure.

Farbood Nivi:
Thanks.

Howard Lindzon:
And we'll either look really smart in 10 years and go, "Wow, Howard had Coinmine on as his first guest."

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
Or you'll be a hunted man.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. I mean-

Howard Lindzon:
So, you have to live with it.

Farbood Nivi:
That's fine. I'm okay with all that. I mean, bullish on Apple in 2006, that's about-

Howard Lindzon:
It feels the same.

Farbood Nivi:
… one-quarter of the market cap than it is today. So, that sounded like a pretty good call. So, if we go the same way with Bitcoin, I mean, I think we may go more. And, you know, the past couple of weeks, we've been seeing things move. But quite frankly, even when it doesn't move, I think it's actually important and interesting when, you know, especially bitcoin's price stays consistent for, you know, half a year. That says a lot about it as much as when it's highly volatile.

Howard Lindzon:
So, when did you get the bug?

Farbood Nivi:
Probably-

Howard Lindzon:
Do you remember?

Farbood Nivi:
What is it? 2019? So-

Howard Lindzon:
It's April 2018.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And Bitcoin today-

Farbood Nivi:
'19.

Howard Lindzon:
Oh, 2019.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And we are crypto right around 49.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, a bit about that.

Howard Lindzon:
Bitcoin's about 5K. What's the market cap, give or take?

Farbood Nivi:
You got me. It's above a hundred.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. Let's say it's 100 billion.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
It's been as high as 200-300 billion.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Almost 400 billion. So, bear market, crypto winner, whatever we want to call it. And it's been — you know, luckily, for me, it doesn't change my life, but I'm over the hump of believing. Now, my belief comes from I hate the banks, I don't trust the financial system. I mean, I use it, I respect it, I pay my bills, I don't get nervous when I send a wire, but I hate my bank for whatever reason, and there's a million reasons to hate it. And if I'm middle America, or I'm poor, and I overdraft my account, it's $20. And as we were talking on the way over, someone just did a Bitcoin transact-

Farbood Nivi:
$63 million, yes.

Howard Lindzon:
$63 million transaction for $4.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
So, you have something over. My son-

Farbood Nivi:
Probably sent over in like 10 minutes.

Howard Lindzon:
My son sent a Venmo that he couldn't clear himself. He didn't have money in his account. It cost him $7.50.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
Someone just cleared $63 million on Bitcoin for $4.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
That's why I'm bullish. It's little anecdotes like that.

Farbood Nivi:
And, sometimes, wiring from one side of the planet to the other is a week. You know, you get an investor, they send their wire, and they're like, "Yeah, you should receive it in your bank sometime next week." People complain that a Bitcoin transaction can take 10 minutes or if it gets really busy, it might take a day or two. But it takes a week to wire, and it costs you hundreds of dollars.

Howard Lindzon:
The difference is you have some faith that you can go and yell at somebody if the transaction doesn't happen. Bitcoin's just that next leap of faith. So, there's where we've got to get over the hump. But the point is — so, when did you get the bug? And we'll get into all the rest.

Farbood Nivi:
2015.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, who got you into it?

Farbood Nivi:
Just, you know, living in San Francisco, it's tough to not know about it. You know, I think, probably in 2015, most people outside of San Francisco's barely had even heard of it, but people had been talking about it in San Francisco for five years. And I think it started in 2009.

Howard Lindzon:
So, it didn't resonate with you until then?

Farbood Nivi:
It didn't really resonate with me until then, but, I think, it was probably mostly because I was just busy with startups, and so didn't really take the time to sit down, and look at it, and think through it. But I think when you do, it's tough to not kind of be bit by the bug when you actually, like, take a little bit of time.

Howard Lindzon:
And where were you working at the time?

Farbood Nivi:
I was working on a previous startup, I think, Learnist.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. And your brother's famous.

Farbood Nivi:
Right, right.

Howard Lindzon:
Is he your one sibling?

Farbood Nivi:
Just one sibling. Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Your brother is the co-founder of AngelList.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. He started AngelList with Naval.

Howard Lindzon:
And what's he doing now?

Farbood Nivi:
Still doing some AngelList stuff and-.

Howard Lindzon:
He's living in LA like you?

Farbood Nivi:
A lot of advising, you know.

Howard Lindzon:
But he's a legend.

Farbood Nivi:
Citizen-

Howard Lindzon:
I didn't know you and didn't even connect the name. Many people are, but when I met you, I didn't connect that it was-

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
… you know, Nivi's brother.

Farbood Nivi:
He's slowly coming back out of the woodworks. You know, he's always been advising entrepreneurs like myself.

Howard Lindzon:
Is he older?

Farbood Nivi:
He's a couple of years older than I am.

Howard Lindzon:
Is he a Bitcoin believer or is he skeptical?

Farbood Nivi:
I'd say he's a believer, but he's not like a techno geek like I am. He's not a techno file like I am. You know, he likes to — the main thing he likes it do help entrepreneurs, to be honest.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
That's [crosstalk].

Howard Lindzon:
So, he's helping you. He's not part of the religion of it. How do you separate the religion from just building a business? And we'll get to Coinmine in a bit. How do you separate it? And what made you take the leap from like hearing about it, to believing about it, to starting Coinmine?

Farbood Nivi:
I don't think you can separate them. There's a lot of belief required in getting into anything that's new, that's trying to be big. You can't really separate the belief from it. The piece that, sort of, made me feel like we had to build Coinmine really comes out of the philosophy behind crypto, the philosophy behind Bitcoin. I think of it in terms of the printing press a lot. I talk about how, you know, the Gutenberg — the printing press existed for a long time, but only the people in power could use them. They were expensive, you couldn't print much, and it allowed people to control information and knowledge.

Farbood Nivi:
Gutenberg's innovations made it easy for anyone to do the printing press. It's sort of the situation, you know, where a genie gets out of the bottle and can't be put back in. And in certain places at certain times, it was illegal to have a printing press, and you might be put to death for having a printing press.

Howard Lindzon:
Well, you still may.

Farbood Nivi:
You still may.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
But the genie couldn't be put back in the bottle.

Howard Lindzon:
Got it.

Where crypto all started – Satoshi and Bitcoin mining

Farbood Nivi:
And so, with crypto, you know, you get these. You know, it started out with Bitcoin mining. And part of the beauty of crypto is this insane idea that Satoshi came up with where it balances all these different parties together and creates an incentive structure for people to share their computing power. They get rewarded in this thing where, you know, if you were mining Bitcoin in 2010, and Bitcoin is essentially worth pennies, you're kind of like a crazy person. Why would you give up a perfectly good laptop to mine Bitcoin that's worthless?

Howard Lindzon:
On an A6-

Farbood Nivi:
No, no. This is like literally on laptops people were mining it back in the day.

Howard Lindzon:
But how? Like the processes were-

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, it's fine because there wasn't that much hash power. So, a normal processor could mine Bitcoin.

Howard Lindzon:
And what's hash power?

Farbood Nivi:
That's just the amount of computing power that's sort of backing the network.

Howard Lindzon:
And back then, it didn't take that much?

Farbood Nivi:
Back then, at the beginning, it was just done on laptops.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
Right? So, you're a crazy person if you're wasting your laptop, and your electricity-

Howard Lindzon:
And your time.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, because you had to download all the software. You'd not have to know how to do all that stuff. So, very few people-

Howard Lindzon:
But you had to believe it would be worth more.

Farbood Nivi:
You had to believe in the mission.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
If you believed it was going to be worth more, you were probably still kind of crazy. You just bought into the mission, right, thinking-

Howard Lindzon:
Got it. You need [crosstalk] five cents.

Farbood Nivi:
… thinking that Bitcoin was going to be $20,000 when it was 10 cents.

Howard Lindzon:
You didn't even think it was — you didn't think it would-

Farbood Nivi:
Nobody was running with that in their head. There was nobody who's running the math in their head of doing that.

Howard Lindzon:
Right, right.

Farbood Nivi:
That's why most those people became accidental billionaires, you know. Not like, "Oh, yeah, I knew Bitcoin was going to be $20,000 when I was mining it in 2010." You didn't, but you believed in the mission. You were just on the, — you know, getting into the total global economic collapse.

Howard Lindzon:
It's only [crosstalk].

Farbood Nivi:
Right, just after 2008. You know, the Times article about banks getting bailed out is in the original Bitcoin block, the genesis block. We printed on the cover of our coin mines-

Howard Lindzon:
Let me see. Let me see. Oh, the Times. That's a great idea.

Farbood Nivi:
And all this is the data from the first block. So, a large part of why Satoshi did that was as, sort of, a bit of a — you know, don't want a middle finger to the system, but like an alternative.

Howard Lindzon:
It was like you created it.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, right. So, you bought into that mission. And, you know, then, we got into a situation where people figured out that they could make specific circuits called A6 that only did Bitcoin calculations, basically, making it so that instead of like tons of people having it on their laptops, it now collapsed to very few people basically controlling all these hash power.

Howard Lindzon:
That was dangerous though.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, that can be dangerous.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
And so, it became — you know, theoretically you could go buy a little antminer that's an ASIC machine and, sort of, decentralize this again, but it's difficult. And so, I kind of, you know, lovingly kind of refer to what we built as the Gutenberg version of the miner.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, I call it the easy bake oven.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, the easy bake over.

Howard Lindzon:
I'm from a very different generation. So, we had these ovens that cost — the parents to pay for this hunk of steel that you'll plug in the wall-

Farbood Nivi:
They're probably $40, which is maybe a lot.

Howard Lindzon:
… and your sister would make two cakes in it, and then get bored of it. And I would melt GI Joe dolls in it. I'm 10 years old. And that was the easy bake oven.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
This is an easy bake oven. But when you plug it in a wall, instead of making a cake, it makes money.

Farbood Nivi:
It makes money. It makes you Bitcoin.

Howard Lindzon:
And what's funny is when — and I'm hopping ahead here. The biggest laugh is when people go, "What's the ROI why on this?" And I'm like, "What was the ROI on an easy bake oven that your parents spent $300.?"

Farbood Nivi:
Well, what was the ROI on mining Bitcoin on your laptop in 2010? You were just made fun of.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. And what's your ROI on learning how to invest and trade, when you're buying penny stocks, and you're getting tips from your friends, and you're blowing thousands of dollars of your money, which most people still do.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So I look at this as I'm trying to get educated. So, what made you think, okay, of all the crypto business I can get into, why mining?

Farbood Nivi:
So, to me, you know, there was a ton of people doing exchanges. There were a ton of people ICO'ing protocols all over the place. None of that really appealed to me. I like the core of the mission more than anything else, this decentralizing information and knowledge. Money is one of the most important types of information that we have.

Howard Lindzon:
So, Gutenburg.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. So, supporting that seemed to me like the most interesting place to spend my time.

When Coinmine was started and why?

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. So, when did you start Coinmine?

Farbood Nivi:
We started Coinmine just about 12 months ago.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. So, it was luck what happened, I just met Brian.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And the first thing he came out is, "You got to meet Farbood."

Farbood Nivi:
It was in New York actually.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, it was in New York. Brian Norgard, who's like almost a co-founder, I guess.

Farbood Nivi:
Basically, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And built the app for Coinmine. He says, "You got to," you know. And I'm like, "I was into crypto, but not — I was into it because of the exchange." I had an investment in eToro, and Robin Hood, and obviously running StockTwits. So, I just knew about it from a price, and trading, and, you know, hype, you know, because a lot of the CEOs we're talking about it.

Farbood Nivi:
Totally.

Howard Lindzon:
I don't really understand it. I still can't say I fully understand, I'm starting. You know, you're teaching me, and I'm understanding it more or more. But where are we at in the curve of guys like me kind of believe but like do want to put all our money into it? We still believe as bad as the government is that there's going to be a parallel, a best of parallel universe where governments are going to continue to print money and do stupid things, and mining and crypto should be interesting, but will never be currency per se. So-

Farbood Nivi:
Oh, I think it will. But one of the most important things I think Bitcoin and crypto can do is actually just get the existing players to change their behavior and get them to improve their behavior.

Howard Lindzon:
And have you seen that happen?

Farbood Nivi:
That's a good question. I don't know. I mean, you're seeing banks getting into crypto, depending on how they want to get into it. If they want to get into it in the way that inspires the same confidence and a mission-driven purpose that Bitcoin has, yes, they'll have to change their behaviors. Like if you can send $63 million to someone for $4.50 as a fee in ten minutes, now, the bank has to compete with that.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
Right?

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
So, maybe they can't charge you this much.

Howard Lindzon:
Plus it's different, like you don't know who the players are. I mean, it's even better than somebody-

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, in the-

Howard Lindzon:
It's not about just the money, it's about security and it's about-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
… and know who the other party is.

Farbood Nivi:
Every country is different. Some countries are more scandalous and more corrupt than others. Some countries, the people in charge completely destroy the economy on a regular basis. The average fiat currency I think lives about 25 or 35 years before it's gone. The oldest one ever is the British Pound. The US Dollar has lost 90% of its value in the past hundred years. We printed four times more money than we had in 2008 because of the financial crisis. Most of these people admit they don't even know what they're doing, and they're trying to — and we're trusting our entire while civilization.

Howard Lindzon:
Well, and we said it. Jamie Dimon, even if he really believed, he can't really make a bet because he'll be dead or out of power anyways.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, that's right.

Howard Lindzon:
So, he'll get-

Farbood Nivi:
He's been sentenced.

Howard Lindzon:
He has a risk of getting fired if he goes all in on crypto.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
And if the stock went to 70 from a hundred, people would start questioning, "What are you thinking?" even if it was the right thing-

Farbood Nivi:
I mean, the disruption never comes from the top down. It comes either from the bottom up or from the side.

Howard Lindzon:
So, that's why people — I think, that was my point is like if people are looking to Warren Buffett, they have no — even if they wanted to believe, like who cares if they believe or not because even if they wanted to believe and spend every last minute of their lives working on it, they're not going to see the benefits of it.

Farbood Nivi:
Marc Andreessen did a great interview pretty recently. And I guess there's this New York Times reporter that he swears the New York Times essentially hired just to trash the internet when the internet was coming out. And you look at these articles that they were writing about the internet being a fad, no one's going to use it, no business will be done on the internet was what the New York Times-

Howard Lindzon:
The Times.

Farbood Nivi:
… was proclaiming to everybody. So, if you were looking to the New York Times to, you know, predict the future of business, information, communication, it wasn't going to be the internet. Yeah. I think we're going to look back at crypto and Bitcoin in 10 years, 20 years, and it's going to be the same thing. You're going to read these articles about people calling it all a joke, and the whole world will be running on this system.

Howard Lindzon:
No one will care, they'll move on to the next thing. So, you go from an idea to building this beautiful product.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. Thanks.

Howard Lindzon:
So, we end up being, you know, disclosure, Social Leverage, our fund, is an investor, but, more importantly, that you're educating me on this. And I come out up from an old person who just wants to experiment. I've blown my brains out trading and doing stupid things. So, this, to me, isn't about the end unit cost to me. If I'm going to truly understand this, no different than trading a stock, I got to have a brokerage. I got to understand this. So, you decided you want to make a machine, and what happened next?

Farbood Nivi:
So, I started working on the hardware and, sort of, hacking together the software part of it. My Co-founder, Justin, who's a-

Howard Lindzon:
You can't play games on this, and you can't get online on this?

Farbood Nivi:
Not yet.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. But the point is, so, you had to go build a special machine.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. So, we built it. Built the-

Howard Lindzon:
So, you got your founder friend. You founder, your co-founder.

Farbood Nivi:
He's the designer-

Howard Lindzon:
Of Pebble?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, that's right. He designed Pebble Watch 2.

Howard Lindzon:
So, he almost got to go. Like at one point, Pebble was $750 million valuation.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, he's seen the other side, and then had it come crashing down on him.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, you dragged him.

Farbood Nivi:
He sort of dragged me. He's the one who came up with this.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
We were roommates in San Francisco, and I've been building computers since I was a kid. My first startup was in high school selling computers that I'd made. So-

Howard Lindzon:
You just go get the parts and make it?

Mining Ethereum

Farbood Nivi:
I decided to make a miner myself, horrible decision, didn't leave the house for five days, turned into a crazy person. Finally, I got the thing up and running. And it was just like-

Howard Lindzon:
You were mining a Ethereum or Bitcoin?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, I was mining a Ethereum.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
And it was this ugly gnarly thing that you wouldn't even know where to put it because it was disgusting.

Howard Lindzon:
Right.

Farbood Nivi:
And then he decided to come up with the idea of doing what he called the Apple of crypto devices. He's like, "What if Apple did something like this? What would it look like?" And my first response was, "I don't know if it's possible."

Howard Lindzon:
God bless him for his big vision.

Farbood Nivi:
For sure.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
And my response was, "I don't think it's possible," but I couldn't get it out of my head.

Howard Lindzon:
But you have this huge machine, and this is still, theoretically, a big machine.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
I couldn't get it out my head. And when it clicked for me was when I realized that we could control the device with an app. And, now, if you have an app-

Howard Lindzon:
That's what got me excited.

Farbood Nivi:
That's what gets me excited too because, now, when the whole experience is through an app, you can start doing really interesting things, you know. So, now, Coinmine is a combination of hardware, software, and services. So, you plug this into your wall, you connect it to your WiFi, you're pretty much done with it.

Howard Lindzon:
And it disappears.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
Like I have it in my house, and just-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
… other than noise, in the closet, it disappeared.

Farbood Nivi:
The rest of your experiences is in an app.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, the rest of my experience-

Farbood Nivi:
You open it up and you see your crypto go up a little bit.

Howard Lindzon:
And they'll interspersed the app into a small show.

Howard Lindzon:
Cool, yeah. And you'll see it scroll up. You'll have a little more crypto. So, that's going on. But then, soon you'll be able to open the app, and we'll have services available to you. So, if you've been making some a Ethereum, maybe you'll be able to work with compound finance that earns you interest on your Ethereum.

Howard Lindzon:
Yes. Instead of it just sitting in your account.

Farbood Nivi:
Instead of just sitting there. Same thing with Bitcoin, Blockify is doing, I think, 5%-6% EPR on your Bitcoin through them. Coinbase custody is offering staking as a service, where you can stake your Ethereum and, sort of, get a little bit of fees that you earn for staking your Ethereum. So, now, you're doing all of this through our app. You're turning your electricity — literally dollar cost averaging your electricity into crypto of your choice.

Howard Lindzon:
Yes. That's the big, what people don't understand. You're turning electricity into money.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And, obviously, that's-

Farbood Nivi:
And you can plug it in at the office, or the dorm, or your parents' place, you're not even covering the electricity cost.

Howard Lindzon:
Eventually, this becomes money, you're just carrying it with you, and just taking other people's electricity.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
And, eventually, we may just release the operating system, so that you can turn-

Howard Lindzon:
And you call that Mine?

Farbood Nivi:
We call it MineOS.

Howard Lindzon:
So, that's the big idea too. But that, we'll get into that. But, eventually, you see the hardware disappearing?

Hardware is commoditized

Farbood Nivi:
I mean, the hardware is — hardware is, ultimately, commoditized everywhere. So, the way you can do hardware is you have to go to the edge of the commoditization, right? And so, we've been lucky to do that in the sense that our hardware person, our founding hardware person is a native Chinese.

Howard Lindzon:
So, there's three of you.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. I mean, there's four of us. There's a software, sort of, lead as well. But our hardware guy has been building, you know, hardware in Shenzhen for years. And that's the only way you can really do hardware is to go to that edge of commoditization where someone really can't out-commoditize you.

Howard Lindzon:
And you did that. So, I remember your trips to Shenzhen.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, was that the first? He took you, didn't he?

Farbood Nivi:
I went, yeah, yeah. I mean, he's there most of the time. I went a little bit crazy when I went there. It was like a pretty eye-opening experience.

Howard Lindzon:
That was just last year.

Farbood Nivi:
It was just last year. And it was my first trip to China. And Shenzhen is, obviously, a super-modern city. And you walk around at night.

Howard Lindzon:
10 million people.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. And it feels like you're in the middle of New York. Everybody dresses like you'd do in New York, and they're hanging out, and all the young people are out. The city is beautiful. I actually wrote a whole twit storm on my flight back-

Howard Lindzon:
I remember, yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
… that sort of went off a little bit. And some people got angry with me because I think they thought I was excusing the Chinese government for everything its ever done of its entire history. But the point that I was making is we went into a bookstore. I think it was 10:00 p.m.. There's blockchain books everywhere, There's kids sitting on the ground just consuming these books in the bookstore. That's where they go to find dates and stuff. And I was just really sort of enamored and blown away by it all.

Howard Lindzon:
Eventually, we can argue forever. Some things move forward whether we like it or not.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
So, you go to Shenzhen, you scope out the machine, that's where these are made. They're designed in Los Angeles basically, and engineered in Los Angeles-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
… and put together in Los Angeles, but you still are partnered with China?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, to make all the casing.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, I have one, what are these going to cost?

Farbood Nivi:
So, right now, they retail for $799.

Howard Lindzon:
And you can go at coinmine.com.

Farbood Nivi:
coinmine.com.

The future of crypto

Howard Lindzon:
And tell me about the future. Like, let's talk about crypto in the future. The future, as I see it, is people are arguing over price. Where do you think, in terms of, you know, what's happening, interesting, do you care what the price is? You, as a founder, in this industry, where does it matter to you?

Farbood Nivi:
I think usage is more important than price in the end because what we're trying to do is not make a little — we're not trying to get 1% of the human population to make a bunch of money. We're trying to get 100% of human population using a whole new system.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
Right?

Howard Lindzon:
And so, this powers a whole new system. Let's get people to understand that. Why is it — we're maybe 1% global. What do you think?

Farbood Nivi:
My guess is it's under 5%. It's a few percent probably. In some places like Korea, it's enormous.

Howard Lindzon:
What's enormous?

Farbood Nivi:
In South Korea, I think 80% of millennials own some crypto.

Howard Lindzon:
Wow.

Farbood Nivi:
And in the United states-

Howard Lindzon:
And what did they use as a wallet, per se, or do you know?

Farbood Nivi:
Probably one of the many different exchanges there, but they're very techno-savvy, and they get it. It's easy for them.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. They don't have enough money that they care, per se.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, they got a couple hundred bucks on the blockchain-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
… or on crypto, they don't care.

8% of US own some crypto

Farbood Nivi:
But even in the United States, I think some 8% of the US own some crypto. And if you look at like bitcoin's price, for example, bitcoin's price dropped, you know, 80% from its all-time high.

Howard Lindzon:
And most all dropped 90% to 95%.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
The computing power that's backing them did not drop that much.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, that's the important thing.

Farbood Nivi:
That's a really important thing to keep in mind because those people are putting literal skin in the game, right, especially if they're technically underwater at the moment in terms of their electricity, your CapEx and OpEx, for what they're able to pull out. They didn't all closed shop. You'll see people with-

Howard Lindzon:
I have friends that closed shop.

Farbood Nivi:
… closed pictures of A6 thrown into the street. There's some of that.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. The same thing with bikes and scooters.

Farbood Nivi:
Seriously.

Howard Lindzon:
There's no different.

Farbood Nivi:
You'll see it in San Francisco there.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
They're just literally throwing it in the streets.

Howard Lindzon:
People, they're those like, "Wait. You're talking about mining when we're doing this shit with bikes, and scooters, and all these other things, just throw in the river.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right. So, we didn't see the computing power drop 80%.

Howard Lindzon:
Exactly.

Farbood Nivi:
It's basically what it was when it was at its all-time high. So, people are still bullish on — they're using it, right? They're making it happen. I think it would've been a real big problem if we've seen bitcoin's hash power drop 80% because that's where you're like, "Okay, this whole thing could just disappear overnight if that's if this is what's happening, if people are literally just shutting the whole thing down," but they didn't. And that's what's important. That's what says a lot more than price.

Howard Lindzon:
I mean, people didn't mind losing a little bit if they're mining on the edge on their own. They didn't care if they were losing a little bit. Like us, like we're not going to do the ROI even though the ROI should work. We're not thinking about that.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
We're just thinking about what could be.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. And we call it — We, also, you know, if you're talking in financial terms, you can kind of look at this as plug-and-play speculation.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
Right? Grin is a really popular cryptocurrency that's out.

Howard Lindzon:
In terms of new-

Farbood Nivi:
It's new. It just came out in January.

Howard Lindzon:
I mean, a new — is it software? It's a staked software.

Farbood Nivi:
No, it's like Bitcoin.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
It's proof of work.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
And, in fact, even Bitcoin maximalists don't talk too much trash about Grin because it's pretty solid. It's sort of pseudo anonymous like Bitcoin. We don't really know who the original founder was. It's proof of work. So, it's not this, sort of, just — it actually needs computing power to do it. And currently, it's worth $2.50 for a Grin.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
Now, if you're grin-bullish, you're not going to mine it and sell it at the end of the week for $2.50. You're going to mine it and hold it for two or three years because you think Grin's going to hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars. If it does, and you do, then this device will make you tens of thousands of dollars, but you have to believe that, and that has to happen.

Howard Lindzon:
And you have to do your own work.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
It's no different than stocks, except you are the market.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
So, I was mining Grin at the beginning at like $5-$6.

Farbood Nivi:
Good. It didn't have a couple of issues. It's still young, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Then, I switched to Ethereum because I just got sick of seeing, you know. And I don't know what I'm doing other than, you know, open up the app.

Farbood Nivi:
Technically, Ethereum makes you-

Howard Lindzon:
And, literally, what's beautiful about the app is I can go Ethereum, Monero, Zcash, and Grin. I don't even know if you do Grin right now.

Farbood Nivi:
Right now, Grin's having some issues. So, we just pulled it down a little. It'll be back the next month or so.

Howard Lindzon:
For people who have Grin, it's still there.

Farbood Nivi:
It is still there, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, I switched to Ethereum, but, you know, that's why the app is so important. People need to see, and interact, and interface with their money. You can't just have a piece of hardware, and you go, "I'm going to forget the password." So, how do you take all that out of it? What's the other things that you're think about? Forgetting the hardware. So, now, I'm mining Ethereum.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
I mean even simpler.

Howard Lindzon:
So-

Launching Bitcoin mode

Farbood Nivi:
We're going to launch here in the very near future is what we call Bitcoin mode. And so, what the device will do is algorithmically-

Howard Lindzon:
Because, right now, you can't make Bitcoin on this?

Farbood Nivi:
Right now, it does not make you Bitcoin. So, when we launch Bitcoin mode, it will-

Howard Lindzon:
Let's move this off to the side.

Farbood Nivi:
When we launch Bitcoin mode, it will algorithmically mine whatever converts to Bitcoin the best.

Howard Lindzon:
So, that sweeps your convert.

Farbood Nivi:
And we just convert it.

Howard Lindzon:
So, it just sweeps your account.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right. And because everything in crypto is, sort of, you know, digital native, right, I can just have a software engineer do all of this. We don't need to do deals with banks, and we don't need to do business partnerships. It's all just done by one person sitting at a computer. So, you don't know what it will be powering. It could be powering Ethereum, Monero, Zcash, some other thing. It will algorithmically power whatever converts to Bitcoin. It will convert it to Bitcoin for you, keep it in your Bitcoin wallet. And then, again, for working with folks like Blockify, you'll be able to earn interest on that Bitcoin.

Farbood Nivi:
Or it also shifts with what's called a Bitcoin Lightning node, which is sort of these peer-to-peer payment systems. And if you fund your Lightning node with a little bit of Bitcoin, and other people send their payments through your channel, they call it, you'll earn a little bit of a fee. So, it'll earn you Bitcoin, and then earn new fees on your Bitcoin. And, again, if you're bullish on Bitcoin, you think it's going to $100,000 in five years, you're going to do great. If you think Bitcoin is going into the ground, then I recommend you have nothing to do with crypto at all. So, that's the real choice to make. It's not that complex. It's like decide if you think it's going to the moon in a few years, make your decision based on that.

Howard Lindzon:
And what makes eventually the price go up in the end?

Farbood Nivi:
Usage.

Howard Lindzon:
It's usage?

Farbood Nivi:
Usage.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, with usage, how does that make the price go up? So, explain that.

Farbood Nivi:
I mean, the bottom line is there's 21 million theoretical Bitcoins will ever be made, but don't even get close to that because millions of Bitcoin have already been lost forever.

Howard Lindzon:
So maybe there'll be 16 million.

Farbood Nivi:
16 to 17 million ever. Now, the cool thing about Bitcoin is each Bitcoin is divided into 100 million Satoshis.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. I think people don't understand this, you can buy fractions of them.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, and people, we kind of think that Satoshis will be the dollar of the future.

Howard Lindzon:
Bad marketing. What the fuck is Satoshi?

Farbood Nivi:
That's fair, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
You know, maybe dollar sounded dumb at the beginning and pennies but-

Farbood Nivi:
That's fine. Call them dollars. It doesn't-

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. I think that's part of the marketing and branding of others. Beyond Bitcoin, the branding has been terrible.

Farbood Nivi:
The branding has been terrible. Bitcoin is a great brand.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. But in each Bitcoin, there are hundreds of millions of smaller pieces of it.

Howard Lindzon:
Right.

Farbood Nivi:
So, it doesn't matter if a single Bitcoin is worth a billion dollars because each Satoshi, I could just send you a Satoshi, and that's going to be $10 or $1. So, it's fun, you know. So, it's really just a supply and demand thing. If you imagine like some chunk of the global economy running on Bitcoin, that's going to sort of determine the price of a Bitcoin, and it doesn't matter. You don't need to buy one Bitcoin. If one Bitcoin is $100,000, it doesn't matter, you can buy 10 Satoshis.

Howard Lindzon:
Yes. And so, usage drives it. And then, let's talk about transaction costs because there's just talk — you know, I really like Lightning Network.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Because that makes sense for me. You know, the one objection is, listen, in the United States, my kids use Venmo, my wife uses USA, I have Wells Fargo. I hate them, but like what's the point? Like I just leave a minimum amount of money in there, they do my monthly work and try not to give them any money in fees. And Visa and MasterCard. So, in the United States it's like, "What? I've got to learn something new?" So, how do you get over that hump?

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. Here's where I get a little vague, a little animated because this stuff gets me fired up. I mean, I think of the — so, in the US alone, there's, I think, $200 billion dollars a year or something stupid spent on, basically, credit card transaction fees. You're running a little coffee shop in San Francisco. So, that makes your cup of coffee, like, you know, $7 or something like that. You're paying 25 cents per transaction, plus another 3% on top of it.

Farbood Nivi:
So, to sell a $5 cup of coffee, you have to spend 50 cents in transaction fees. And if you're like a little coffee shop, all you're doing is selling $5 cups of coffees.

Howard Lindzon:
That's your margin, yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
That's 10% of your revenue is going to someone to process an electronic payment. Do you think it-

Howard Lindzon:
And it's a small transaction. It's a micro transaction.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
You trust everybody. Like, I mean-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right. They're going to lose $5, it'll be fine.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
So, to me, it's — like this is one of those, you know, the emperors running around naked, and none of us are noticing. We've all grown accustomed to a world where like 3.5% of your revenue just goes to someone for processing your payment. That's a business. That's a margin, but it's a literal business. People have businesses with smaller margins than that.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
So, this is just because we're stuck into this mode of thinking that this is like some law of nature that like to send a $5 transaction from one person to another, 10% of it has to go to a bank. That's just not the case. On the Lightning Network, you'll be able to do that $5 transaction, and it might cost you less than a penny.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. I mean, to me, no one's talking about it. I mean, the geeks are talking about it. So, I'm going to geek. I want to know what Lightning network-

Farbood Nivi:
They're starting though those squares. Going into its squares.

Howard Lindzon:
Oh, I understand.

Farbood Nivi:
Filing patents on Lightning Network hardware and things like that.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
You know, Jack just said he'll pay open source developers on Bitcoin out of their own Square's pocket just to have them there.

Howard Lindzon:
So, to me, it's like a highway system. You got to clog Bitcoin highway that's expensive.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
It's crowded all the time.

Farbood Nivi:
It can be, yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Expensive, blah, blah, blah. And Lightning Network is just this on-ramp for smaller transactions.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, let's off some of the steam. The smaller transactions can happen on Lightning when it gets-

Howard Lindzon:
Because the guy who is running the coffee shop doesn't need to worry, and he's dealing in Satoshis in $3 and $5 transaction.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
He gets — I mean, he-

Farbood Nivi:
He can't wait 10 minutes for a transaction to clear for the person who's buying a cup of coffee.

Howard Lindzon:
Well, he's still on the hook if someone screws him with the debit card.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
So, he's going to be on the hook anyways. And if all the transactions are small, there's a certain amount of crime and, you know, fraud.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
But he can take it on himself if he's not paying or she the 3.5% or more that they're doing on every transaction.

Farbood Nivi:
And it'll be fine if it was 3.5%. When it's $5 and the transaction cost 25 cents plus 3.5%.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
You know, just the 25 cents are almost at 5% revenue.

Howard Lindzon:
So, what happens if Lightning Network doesn't take off?

Farbood Nivi:
There's-

Howard Lindzon:
That's risk? There's risk there?

Farbood Nivi:
There's risk there. There's other technologies that will come up.

How did Lightning start

Howard Lindzon:
But how did Lightning start?

Farbood Nivi:
That's a good question. I'm not 100% sure. So, Lightning is not necessarily limited to just Bitcoin.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
It's sort of a — it's a concept of running a, sort of, side chain that resolves back to some main chain and has certain attributes of its own. So, theoretically, you can do other blockchains using a Lightning methodology.

Howard Lindzon:
Yes. But, eventually, this would come with a Lightning note or you'll ship one to the people-

Farbood Nivi:
Every one of these ships this entire blockchain on. That's why it's kind of heavy. No, just kidding.

Howard Lindzon:
So, you turn that on. Automatically, you can start sweeping in this machine into Bitcoin?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Wow, okay. And so, MineOS, the big, big idea that you guys have it. And explain quickly that before we-

Farbood Nivi:
Sure. So, you know, the real brains behind this is the operating system. Like I said, hardware is ultimately commoditized. You can do well at hardware if you go to the edge of the commoditization, but you can do better with hardware and software. So, MineOS is something that we're planning on releasing in the future, basically, as a standalone device. We'll sell little thumb drives. We, sort of, liken it to the, you know, original square card readers, you know. You could buy those.

Howard Lindzon:
Or what Iomega was back in the day with storage.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
It was just like a way to store and take it with you.

Farbood Nivi:
That's right, that's right.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
So, you can imagine our operating system being on a little thumb drive. And any old computer you have or a new computer, you just plug this thing in, and it turns your device into a coin mine. And, again, you're running it all through our app. So, you could have a-

Howard Lindzon:
10 machines, all that-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right. They don't need screens. They don't need keyboards. They don't need mice.

Howard Lindzon:
They just need a USB and power.

Farbood Nivi:
They just need a USB, and power, and some internet, and you're controlling it from your phone.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
So, now, you have your old desktops, your old laptops, maybe one day, your Playstation, you know, all just — it already works on these, like, sort of, at-home mining rigs that people make. They get seven or eight GPUs. We're already in beta testing, MineOS, on those. It's quite-

Howard Lindzon:
You're saying it's cool.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, yeah, it's really cool.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, if that works, the price comes down infinitely.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, that's right. I mean, the way we look at market size for us is it's purely a function of these sort of specs of the device, which is what it does, how much it costs, what it generates for you. So, as, you know, just stealing from Bezos better, faster, cheaper, right, as each Coinmine product becomes better, faster, and cheaper, more and more people will come on.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
And all we want to do is climb up that curve.

Howard Lindzon:
And so, people are going to be aware of these. You've only raised with seed round. So, you've gone a long way with a little bit of money. What's that like? What's it been like selling? Because I'm an easy sell.

Farbood Nivi:
It's the coolest thing ever. It was-

Howard Lindzon:
How? It's been different, or easy, or harder, or what?

Farbood Nivi:
It's way harder, way cooler. Again, it comes down to people. Our guy, Stephen, in Shenzhen, we wouldn't be able to do with him. Obviously, couldn't do without my co-founder, couldn't do without the software team.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah.

Farbood Nivi:
You know, we're a very small team, and every single-

Howard Lindzon:
10 people? 12 people?

Farbood Nivi:
Not even. We're eight people.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay, eight people.

Farbood Nivi:
The company wouldn't be here weren't any of those people being-

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, and you can see the experience. I mean, from the packaging to the care. I mean, there's so many things that can go wrong when you're making.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
It's one thing to ship software and, you know, be like StockwTits where as long as the site's running, people are doing their thing.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
But to go to China, build this machine, raise the money, squeeze everything then, deal with customer experience because I'm like your-

Farbood Nivi:
They can deal with hard-

Howard Lindzon:
I'm your nightmare customer, right? You ship me one earlier, and I'm like everything breaks.

Farbood Nivi:
Like all the traveling-

Howard Lindzon:
Like for me, I break everything.

Farbood Nivi:
… investor problem that would cost in trying to get it resolved.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, I break everything. So, I've had one now for a few months, and it works great a worry. But, you know, if there's a bug, I'm going to find it because I don't know how to use anything. So, how do you deal with that on hte — how are you thinking through that?

Farbood Nivi:
That part's the easiest because you can just use software to troubleshoot with people, you know. And since, you know, our operating system is essentially a distributed network. So, to the extent that, you know, we can essentially go into your device and address any issue, it'll update itself overnight constantly, different platforms or, sorry, different protocols change – Monero, for example – forks every six months to kick the A6 off of it. You don't have to do anything. Your device will just automatically update.

Howard Lindzon:
But people have to trust you.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, the big leap of faith, they have to trust Coinmine as an entity.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. Yeah, that's right.

Howard Lindzon:
And you and the team. And so-

Farbood Nivi:
But if you don't move your crypto out of our wall that we make for you and-

Howard Lindzon:
That's the cool part.

Farbood Nivi:
… put it on your own cold storage, and swallow it, and-

Howard Lindzon:
I think that's what people are missing. At some point, you're going to let people just move wherever they want.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
You know, you don't want to-

Farbood Nivi:
And when you're starting, there's not a lot. It's not yet — day one is not a million dollars' worth of crypto.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah, you have a couple of pennies the first day.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. So, you decide how much you want to trust us, and where you want to, you know, hold your crypto.

One wallet to rule them all?

Howard Lindzon:
And how do you see it happening? Well, is it going to be one wallet to rule them all, or people just going to — where do you see it in the-

Farbood Nivi:
I see it would be a lot of different wallets, just like people have a lot of different wallets, and a lot of different bank accounts, with a lot of different places. You might have small amounts in this one, larger amounts in a different one. You may have, you know, Coinbase Custody controlling, you know, your $20 million of crypto, but you have like a smaller entity that has, you know, $10,000 of your crypto in there that you're using on a regular basis because the money that you have with Coinbase, you know, is being put to use, and earning you fees, and earning you interests or something like that.

Howard Lindzon:
Is there anything that I'm missing about Coinmine? Because I know we've been talking for a while. Is there anything like on the-

Farbood Nivi:
We even revealed a few things that we haven't told others yet.

Howard Lindzon:
Yeah. So, if people really want to speculate, is there something out there that — so, we're talked about Lightning, we talked about Grin, we talked about staking staking as a service just right. Talk about software staking, what that means versus mining.

Farbood Nivi:
That's a — It's really early on that.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. So-

Farbood Nivi:
It's not happening much. There's a few protocols where it's working. that were words working. Tezos, for examples. It's out there, and it's working. It's another, sort of, forum of crypto economics, basically. With staking, you're saying, "Hey, I'm going to put up this amount of, you know, Tezos or Ethereum. And if I do something nefarious on the computing side, right, it's going to be taken away."

Farbood Nivi:
So, it, basically, gets people to behave correctly by saying, "If you try to mess with the system, then you'll lose what you staked," you know. And if you don't-

Howard Lindzon:
That's cool.

Farbood Nivi:
… you'll earn a little bit of a fee for what you're staking because people are going to use your computer, so you deserve to be paid for it.

Howard Lindzon:
It's a rent

Farbood Nivi:
So, you sort of put up this collateral. Yeah, exactly. Someone's using your computing power, and they pay you a little bit of that same type of-

Howard Lindzon:
How could that not work? I mean, in theory, that's going to be the way. So, pretty exciting. Now, we call this — I call it easy bake oven. You call it a plug-and-play speculation. Say, people want to put a hundred, what's today for an American? They got $5000 they want to speculate, what's the easiest way to get onboarded? If they don't want to buy a machine and do this themselves, they want to just put $1000 into Bitcoin, what's the easiest way today?

Farbood Nivi:
Coinbase.

Howard Lindzon:
Coinbase, huh?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, they become synonymous with just opening an account.

Farbood Nivi:
I think so. They've got a pretty good slick UI. It's pretty easy. I personally would trust them with that amount of money. I do trust them with more money.

Howard Lindzon:
And with passwords, any tricks because, you know, sequences? What should human beings do? Should be a phrase in their mind?

Farbood Nivi:
There is a-

Howard Lindzon:
Should be-

Farbood Nivi:
This is good. There's a couple of things. One, never use a phone number to secure accounts. You know, you can-

Howard Lindzon:
How do get off of Horizon screwing you or AT&T?

Farbood Nivi:
It's impossible.

Howard Lindzon:
It's impossible.

Farbood Nivi:
It's always going to be a vector of, you know, vulnerability, people porting numbers-

Howard Lindzon:
Bastards.

Farbood Nivi:
… and things like that.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
But that's why it's very important to use either, you know, an app like Ofi or Google Auth. Don't use your phone number to secure as your-

Howard Lindzon:
Right, I use Google Auth.

Farbood Nivi:
… two-factor authentication because people can port your number. So, that's one very important one.

Howard Lindzon:
But in terms of Coinbase, I'm going to ask you set up a password, a phrase-

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah, with a phrase.

Howard Lindzon:
And you're going to die, and you're going to forget, you know, that you used your mother's maiden name, or her birth date, or somebody whose birthday. Was there any tricks to like phrases like-

Farbood Nivi:
There's no real tricks-

Howard Lindzon:
Should it be a name, should it be a word, or should it be numbers?

Farbood Nivi:
Well, they're going to-.

Howard Lindzon:
Like if you think in terms of what the average person do, do you use numbers or word?

Farbood Nivi:
Well, any time you're making passwords, you want to think in terms of phrases, right, because you can remember a phrase, and it's essentially impossible for someone to hack a phrase. If your phrase is, you know, "I love chocolate ice cream forever," no computer is ever going to hack that.

Howard Lindzon:
Right, it's in your head.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And you're not going to forget.

Farbood Nivi:
And you're not going to forget it.

Howard Lindzon:
Well, I could. I'm at the age where I forget-

Farbood Nivi:
It's impossible.

Howard Lindzon:
So, I really have-

Farbood Nivi:
But, also, you should use a password manager.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. And what's the best password manager?

Farbood Nivi:
I mean, there's a bunch of them. I like 1Password. They're pretty good.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay. These are important things.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
So, to get started, Coinbase, $1000. If you want to speculate, the easiest way I've ever seen is what you guys are building.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
It's phenomenal.

Farbood Nivi:
Plug it in.

Howard Lindzon:
And just the apps, joy. And we'll show some demos of the app. The 1Password, if you're going to do any computing, 1Password, okay, and just do that. And then, for your money, I think a phrase matters, you know.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Obviously-

Farbood Nivi:
And no phone numbers

Howard Lindzon:
No phone number or birthdays. I love chocolate ice cream. To who do you have to share that with? Your wife?

Farbood Nivi:
Nobody.

Howard Lindzon:
Meaning it dies with you and that's it?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. You may want to trust your wife or, you know, if you have a custody solution out there, if it's a lot of money.

Howard Lindzon:
But first tender day, do you give out your favorite-

Farbood Nivi:
No, probably not.

Howard Lindzon:
Okay.

Farbood Nivi:
There's also-

Howard Lindzon:
Because I've done that.

Farbood Nivi:
There's also what they call multi-sig solutions where it's, essentially you could set something up where five people have different pieces of a password, essentially.

Howard Lindzon:
Oh my God. That's how the machines do it?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
And to-

Farbood Nivi:
That's how critical it works-

Howard Lindzon:
But to clear it, then you can set the rules up that any three of them can cause something to happen. So-

Howard Lindzon:
So, I think for the average person, a phrase-

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
… that means something. It could be a movie phrase. It could be from a TV show. It could be-

Farbood Nivi:
Don't use the same password over and over. Use phrases. Use 1Password or a similar solution.

Howard Lindzon:
But don't let that be the reason you don't do this. Is that stupid?

Farbood Nivi:
No, no. I mean-

Howard Lindzon:
Like people are telling you it's going to get hacked or stolen.

Farbood Nivi:
Start with-

Howard Lindzon:
Only you are in control of that.

Farbood Nivi:
Only start with what you're willing to lose.

Howard Lindzon:
Yes. So, I think, you know, great advice. Thanks, man.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. Thanks for having me.

Howard Lindzon:
Hopefully, everybody learned a little bit from this first episode of Lindzanity, and they can check back in 10 years with Bitcoin at 5000 today.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah. And see how we did.

Howard Lindzon:
See how we did.

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
I'm pretty happy about Apple. I mean, the first week of Wall Street, we did Apple. I just knew in my mind. I know in my mind today that, yeah, Bitcoin could drop to 1000 or 500. But, you know, risk reward, when I think about the big — that it should be dead already. If Bitcoin is going to be zero, why isn't it zero yet?

Farbood Nivi:
Yeah.

Howard Lindzon:
Because it should be. Everybody's given up on-

Bitcoin has more computing power behind it than any other computing system in human history

Farbood Nivi:
It a lot of computing power keeping it alive. It has more computing power behind it than any other computing system in human history.

Howard Lindzon:
Well, and I look at it as the brand of Bitcoin. You can go to any corner of the earth and say Bitcoin-

Farbood Nivi:
That's right.

Howard Lindzon:
… and people are like — it's not the first time they've heard of the word. They may not only even understand what it means-

Farbood Nivi:
Both of the TSA employees that were checking out my Coinmine-

Howard Lindzon:
Oh, that's a good start.

Farbood Nivi:
… you know, they were like, "Oh, is that a miner?" I'm like, "Yeah." And as I was walking away, the lady said, "Good luck."

Howard Lindzon:
So, people still think it's a bit — that's the opportunity is people still think there's luck involved, et cetera, but it's really a little bit of-

Farbood Nivi:
When you really get to understand Bitcoin, you'll see that it's the most sound money that's ever existed, even on gold.

Howard Lindzon:
All right. We'll end it on that. Thanks. man.

Farbood Nivi:
Thanks.

Convert video to text with Sonix. Sonix is the best online video transcription software

Sonix accurately transcribed the video file, “Lindzanity – Episode 1 – Farbood Nivi” , using cutting-edge AI. Get a near-perfect transcript in minutes, not hours or days when you use Sonix. Sonix is the industry-leading video-to-text converter. Signing up for a free trial is easy.

Convert com/watch?time_continue=90&v=5kCHL_6Ficg to text with Sonix

When handling video (such as “Lindzanity – Episode 1 – Farbood Nivi”), thousands of documentary filmmakers and journalists use Sonix to convert com/watch?time_continue=90&v=5kCHL_6Ficg file to srt or vtt to make their media content more accessible to the viewing public.

Best audio transcription software: Sonix

Researching what is “the best audio transcription software” can be a little overwhelming. There are a lot of different solutions. If you are looking for a great way to convert com/watch?time_continue=90&v=5kCHL_6Ficg to text , we think that you should try Sonix. They use the latest AI technology to transcribe your video and are one my favorite pieces of online software.

New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Tiger Woods Winning Interview – Masters 2019

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Augusta National or the Masters. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time, just click the player below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Tiger Woods Winning Interview – Masters 2019 | Convert video-to-text with the best AI technology by Sonix.ai

Moderator:
Tiger, welcome back. Or should I say more appropriately, welcome home?

Tiger Woods:
Yeah. Just unreal. To be honest with you, just the whole tournament has meant so much to me over the years. Coming here in '95 for the first time and to play as an amateur, winning in '97, and then come full circle, 22 years later, we will do it again.

Tiger Woods:
And this is the way it all transpired today. There were so many different scenarios that could have transpired on that back nine. There are so many guys who had a chance to win. Leaderboard was absolutely packed, and everyone was playing well. So, you could have had more drama than what we all had out there. And, now, I know why I'm balding. This stuff is hard.

Tiger Woods:
Yeah. Just to come back here, and then to play as well as I did, and did all the things, all little things well this week, and to do it here. This has meant so much to me and my family, this tournament, and to have everyone here, It's something I'll never, ever forget.

Moderator:
This is clearly one of those monumental days in all of sport when people all around the world will say, "Where were you when Tiger won his fifth green jacket in 2019?"

Tiger Woods:
I know where I was. Yeah, I had a little one-foot tap-in. So, it hasn't sunk in at all. I mean, this is one of those things, It's going to take a little bit of time, and I'm just fresh off of just winning this tournament, and I just can't wait to see how it all unfolded from the TV perspective. I know I was grinding hard trying to chase Francesco today. And then, all of a sudden, the leaderboard flipped, and there were a bunch of guys up there who had a chance to win, and I hit some of the best shots on that back nine today. You know, I felt like I just flushed it coming home, which was — well, it's a nice feeling.

Moderator:
Questions, Jim?

Jim:
Tiger, congratulations. When you walked off the green, and you saw your mom and your children, did you flash back to your dad in the initial win?

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, absolutely. My dad shouldn't have come in '97. I mean, he had heart complications and wasn't supposed to fly, but he flew, and came, and gave me putting lesson on Wednesday night, and the rest is history. My dad's no longer here, but my mom's here, 22 years later, and I happen win the tournament. And then, to have both Sam and Charlie here.

Tiger Woods:
They were there at the British Open last year when I had the lead on that back nine, and I made a few mistakes, and cost myself a chance to win the Open Title. I wasn't going to let that happen to them twice. And so, for them to see what it's like to have their dad win a major championship, I hope that's something they'll never forget.

Moderator:
Ted?

Ted:
Tiger, congratulations. And comeback is going to be the word we're always going to think about here. So, how would you describe that for yourself? And also the doubts, since some of us who saw you at Torrey 11 years ago, it's a long time now, and the doubts that you could ever do this again.

Tiger Woods:
Well, I had serious doubts after what transpired a couple years ago. I could barely walk. I couldn't sit, I couldn't lay down, I really couldn't do much of anything. Luckily, I had the procedure on my back, which gave me a chance at having a normal life. But then, all of a sudden, I realized I could actually swing a golf club again. And so, if I could somehow piece this together and that I still had the hands to do it. The body is not the same as it was, you know, a long time ago, but I still have good hands.

Tiger Woods:
And so, that certainly has helped, and I've pieced it together, and next thing, you know, if you look at it, my first 14 wins in majors were always — I had the lead in every one of them or tied for the lead. To have the opportunity to come back like this, it is probably one of the biggest wins I've ever had for sure because of it.

Moderator:
Gary?

Gary:
Tiger, I don't know if you know, but you broke the streak. I had mentioned to you about winners who were in the top 10 the last 13 years. You were tied for 11th after the first day. So, you broke the streak, that you were the last one to do so.

Tiger Woods:
Congratulations to me.

Gary:
Yes. But you mentioned about this shot you hit coming in. After the tee shot on 11, was there anything that you relied on? Tee shot on 12, drive on 13, 14, 15, tee shot on 16, tee shot on 17 and 18. Was there anything specific that you leaned on?

Tiger Woods:
No, nothing specific because I felt like that was probably the strongest part of my game all week was driving the golf ball. I've been working on trying to shape the golf ball both ways coming into this event. And, you know, I was able to do that.

Tiger Woods:
And, yeah, the tee shot at 11 was awful. You know, I leaned on it, trying to hit it, trying to flight it a little bit ,and it got stuck underneath there. I had a shot. And I just kept saying, if I just sneak out of here with the par, we got a lot of golf left. And we have two par 5s, gettable pin at 14, another one at 17, and anything could happen up at 18.

Tiger Woods:
And so, I just said, just keep plodding along. And then, next you know, I see Brooksy make a mistake at 12. Francesco made a mistake at 12. Patrick was making a run up ahead. DJ was making a run. I mean, Xander was making a run. There were so many different scenarios that evolved. And I was looking at the board come off of 13 green. And then, there's six, seven guys with a chance to win this tournament.

Tiger Woods:
But I just kept telling myself, I have — well, along with Francesco, we have the most holes to play. So, whatever they do, I'll just birdie the same holes. Then, it's a moot point. And as you know, I birdied 13, I birdied 15 with two good shots in there, and almost whooped it at 16.

Tiger Woods:
So, that gave me the cush. And I kept telling myself on 17, on that tee shot, I said, "I've been in this position before." I had a two shot-lay with DiMarco and bogey, bogey. Let's go ahead and pipe this ball right down the middle. Let's hit the little flat squeezer out there, and I did, I just smoked it. I made par there.

Tiger Woods:
And then, 18, I said, "Hey, it's not over yet." Arnold lost the tournament, lost the hole with a double. So, let's just keep the hammer down. Brooksy could still make birdie up 18, and I can make bogey with. And the next thing, we're in a playoffs. So, it gets this ball in play. And I did. And I saw him tap out for par, and that gave me the cush knowing that I could make bogey.

Tiger Woods:
And I had a little bit of mud on my golf ball playing that shot, and I said, "Just make sure I overcut this thing. Don't undercut it. Overcut it to the right." And I did. I whiffed it, and hit it over to the right, and I was able to put that ball on the green and two-putt.

Moderator:
Kara.

Kara:
Tiger, you hadn't had the lead here on a Sunday since you won in 2005. When you had it today, was it like getting back on a bike? It was like you had never gotten off, or what was that like? What was your comfort level?

Tiger Woods:
It didn't feel unfamiliar because I had the lead at the Open Championship. So, that was just two majors ago. So, now, that would be something different if I didn't have the lead from '05 to now, but, you know, it was just last year in July that I had the lead.

Tiger Woods:
And so, I just kept saying, "I've been here. It wasn't that long ago. Just go ahead, and just keep playing the game, keep plodding along, and keep doing all the little things correctly. You can't miss the ball in the correct spots. Be committed to it, even if the winds puffing up and down. Be committed to the shot, and the shot shape," and I was.

Moderator:
Jeff.

Jeff:
Tiger, you appeared to exude extreme calm. Is that something you are sensing and aware of? And. also, is that something attributable to the gum, and why gum?

Tiger Woods:
Well, I'm chomping on this gum because I usually get so hungry, I keep eating so much. And it curbs my appetite a little bit, which is nice. Most of time, most of the issues I have at tournaments, I lose so much weight as you all know. And so, I'm aware if that's what it is. But what was there the question?

Jeff:
Calmness

Tiger Woods:
Calmness?

Jeff:
More than normal. did you just feel it?.

Tiger Woods:
Well, I just felt so prepared coming into this event. This year, my finishes probably don't really reflect it, but I was starting to shape the golf ball the way that I know I can, which I needed for this week. And prep for the Masters starts six months ago. And so, just trying to make sure that I get ready to peak for this one week, and I did, and everything came together this week, which is great. And I kept all the little things correctly. I missed it up on the correct spots time, and time, and time again. And if I was out of position, so be it. Take my bogey and move on. And no doubles this week. And just kept — as I said, I just kept plodding along.

Moderator:
Aman.

Aman:
Since your kids are growing up now, do they have a deeper appreciation of the work that you do? And second is, Joey and you had a conversation after five, Just some insight into that.

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, I think the kids are starting to understand how much this game means to me and some of the things I've done in the game prior to this comeback. They only knew that golf caused me a lot of pain. If I tried to swing a club, I would end up on the ground. And I struggled for years. And that's basically all all they remember. Luckily that I've had the procedure where that's no longer the case, and I can do this again. And so, you know, we're creating new memories for them, and it's just very special.

Tiger Woods:
The talk that Joey and I had off the five, I think he just listened. I was saying some things I can't really repeat here. And then, I went into the restroom and proceeded to say the same things over and over to myself. And then, I came out and I felt a lot better.

Moderator:
Robert.

Robert:
Tiger, congratulations. 1 through 14, I know that all majors are special to you, but one you usually have your focus on because of what it meant to you with your dad, and 14, obviously, had significance too with Torrey Pines. Where do you put this one?

Tiger Woods:
I mean, it's got to be right up there, right, with all the things that I've battled through and just was able to be lucky enough and fortunate enough to be able to do this again. It's ironic that I'm given a chance to play golf again. And lo and behold, I won a tournament coming from behind, which I had not done for the first 14. So, it's just amazing.

Moderator:
Jessie.

Jessie:
Tiger, my generation, we kids who grew up in the late '70s, the '80s, the '90s had to hear from our fathers about how great the 1986 Masters was with Jack Nicklaus in the crowds. Given what you remember from that tournament, that final round, maybe watching it on TV as a kid, and now being in this arena, does this Masters enter into that conversation as a possible rivalry as to the best Masters final round?

Tiger Woods:
I don't know if it is or not, but I can tell you that '86 meant a lot to me because that was the first memory that I have of the Masters. Seeing Jack celebrate a 4-iron in the green on 15, when he did that. I mean, I had never seen anyone celebrate an iron shot into green before. And so, that's the moment that stuck with me.

Tiger Woods:
And then, I remember seeing him hug Jackie there at 18, how special that was. And then, I remember, obviously, Seve made a mistake at 15, and Greg made a mistake at 18. So, the '86, and he was 46 years old. I'm 43. We had little spells in between. I mean, he had, what, six years or so, I think, where he didn't win a major championship. And for me, it was 11 years. So, in either case, and I think that's what everyone else is — that's for them to decide.

Tiger Woods:
It's special to me. It's special to my friends and family. And I think that everyone out here who is here got a chance to witness something that was amazing and just the competitive environment. I mean, everyone was playing well at the same time. And it could have gone so many different ways. I just happened to hang in there and persevere.

Moderator:
John.

John:
Tiger, for those of us watching, 12 seemed to be the seminal moment. When Francesco's ball went in the water, did it change anything you were thinking? Was it always going to be over the bunker, center of the green?

Tiger Woods:
That's all I was concentrating on. I had 47 over the first tongue in the bunker there. And so, my number was hitting at 50 and just be committed to hitting at 50. There's a reason why. I saw Brooksy, he ended up short. Poults ended up short as well. And so, when I was up on there on that tee box, and it was about my turn to go, I could feel that wind puff up a little bit, and it had been something. I mean, Brooksy is stronger than I am, and he fights it better than I do. And so, I'm sure he hit 9-iron, and didn't make it. And so, I knew my 9-iron couldn't cover the flag. So, I had to play left. And I said, "Just be committed. Hit it over that tongue in that bunker. Let's get out of here, and let's go handle the par 5s," and I did. Yeah, the mistake that Francesco made there led a lot of guys back into the tournament, myself included.

Moderator:
Kirk.

Kirk:
Tiger, do you think Jack should be worried now as far as the 18 majors?

Tiger Woods:
Well, I don't know if he's worried or not. I'm sure he's home in West Palm just chilling and watching.

Kirk:
Could you describe the impact you think you've had on your sport?

Tiger Woods:
I think that I've driven a lot more youths to the game. A lot of the guys that are especially on the tour now are training. They're getting bigger, stronger, faster, more athletic. They are recovering better. They are hitting the ball prodigious distances. And a little bit of that is probably a tribute to what I did. When I first turned pro, I was the only one in the gym, except for Vijay. And so, it was just basically he and I for years. And, now, everyone trains. Everyone works on their bodies, besides their game. And even Phil's working out. So, things have come a long way.

Moderator:
Joy.

Joy:
Tiger, I think I have my own personal inspiring story in sports today, but I just wanted to know what is yours? What is your most inspiring story in sport?

Tiger Woods:
Mine? I don't know. That's a great question. There's so many. I don't have one that really truly stands out, to be honest with you. Sorry.

Moderator:
Francisco.

Francisco:
Hi, Tiger. Of all the things that you've been through during the last years was struggling with your body issues. Is there any specific moment that has come to your mind during the last few hours?

Tiger Woods:
The last couple hours?

Francisco:
Yeah. Since you tapped the putt on 18. Is there any moment that has come to your mind?

Tiger Woods:
Not really one moment, no. I can tell you one thing, I'm pretty sore right know. I've definitely let it all go today, and I ramped up the speed. And I'm starting to have a little bit of pop on the bat out there, which was good to see. I can promise you one thing. I'm not going to hit a golf ball tomorrow.

Moderator:
Ian.

Ian:
Yeah, Tiger, the last time you won here, you said afterward that it meant a lot to you because of your father's health at the time. Were there moments today where you thought of him, his memory? Were you inspired by him? Was there a shot out there that you stood over the ball, and thought of him, and some of the lessons he laid down?

Tiger Woods:
The only thing I thought about was on a couple of the putts, like at 12, 13, coming down the hill, and especially the one on 9 was just putt to the picture. That's it. Just putt to the picture. That's what he always taught me to do, and that's what I just kept telling myself out there, just putt to the picture.

Moderator:
Brian.

Brian:
Tiger, was there — over here.

Tiger Woods:
Yeah.

Brian:
Was there a moment, even maybe early in the week before the tournament where you felt particularly good about your — sort of comfortable or so forth about your chances or maybe a shot early in the tournament that felt that way?

Tiger Woods:
As I said, the shots that I was playing throughout this year, or some of the shots that I was going to need for this week, and they were starting to come around. And at the Match Play, I hit a couple really nice draws out there off the tee. And I was starting to feel comfortable turning it from right to left. And I just felt that I'm getting comfortable with it. And pretty soon, I was starting to let it go. I'll start to let the speed go, and start to let it increase, and I did this week. And I started to put it out there. And every now and again, I dropped the tee down and just hit a little squeeze or cut out there.

Tiger Woods:
But even those, I didn't spin it too much, even those would go a little bit further. My swing was getting a little bit better. And more so than any other golf course that we play, you have to miss the golf on the correct spots. And so, I just kept doing that, time and time again. And if I didn't have a good look at a putt, I was going to lag it up there and move on. And I missed a few shorties out there for birdie this week, but I said, "Hey, you know what, that's fine. Everyone else is going to do it as well. Just keep missing the golf in the correct spots." And I did.

Moderator:
Luis.

Luis:
Tiger, you told us on Tuesday that you didn't need to win, but you really wanted to. And you also said that the win at East Lake confirmed that you could still win. What does this win confirm for you?

Tiger Woods:
Well, I can win majors now. The win at East Lake was a big confidence-booster for me because I had come close last year a couple times, but I still need to cross the finish line. And I just didn't quite do it. I didn't do it at Tampa. I didn't do it at The Open Championship. I was little better at the PGA, but, still, I didn't win.

Tiger Woods:
And so, East Lake was a big step for me confirming that I could still win out here and against the best players because East Lake, obviously, it's the hottest 30 guys for the year. And to be able to do that against Rory and Rosey there, it gave me a lot of confidence going into this year. And I said, I want to just keep building on it, and let's try to get the mind and body peaking towards Augusta.

Tiger Woods:
So, my last three major championships have been pretty good. And so, that in itself gives me a lot of confidence going down the road.

Moderator:
Chris.

Chris:
Tiger, I just wondered after you hit the first putt on 18, I don't want to call a quiet moment, but you're standing off to the side while Francesco and Tony putted out. What's going through your mind at that moment?

Tiger Woods:
It's a new green. That damn thing should have broke. I mean, I hit a pure putt, you know. I remember that putt breaking, and it just didn't break. No, but I was saying, "It's not over yet, I still got to make this putt. Come on. Just keep it together. Keep focused. Go ahead and make sure that I commit to, even if it's a one-and-half-foot putt. Commit." And I did, and knocked it in. And God knows what I did after that.

Moderator:
Ann.

Ann:
Congratulations, Tiger.

Tiger Woods:
Thank you.

Ann:
You have such a huge impact on so many people. Do you have any messaging after this comeback and persevering?

Tiger Woods:
Well, I was very fortunate to be given another chance to do something that I love to do. But more importantly, I've been able to participate in my kids' lives in a way that I couldn't do for a number of years. And so, they are a lot more active than I am, and I'm a little competitive myself. And so, I try and keep up. And I tried to do that for a number of years, and I just couldn't do it.

Tiger Woods:
But now, I'm starting to do it and starting to build. I play with them and then do things in their sports. And it's something that I had always missed because I always felt I could do pretty much anything physically. But then, for a while there I just couldn't even walk. So, now, I'm able to play golf again and do it at an elite level again, which is something that I'm just very blessed to be able to have that opportunity again.

Moderator:
Steve.

Steve:
Tiger, congratulations. I want to know, sort of, a follow up to Ann's question, people have different struggles in their lives. They have personal struggles, physical struggles, and you've overcome these things. What message might you say to people who are struggling? What encouragement would you give them not to give up, to say that you can possibly overcome these issues?

Tiger Woods:
Well, you never give up. That's a given. You always fight. I mean, just giving up is never in the equation. Granted, pushing and being competitive has got me into this position, but it's also what got me out of it. And so, I've always had a pretty good work ethic throughout my career and throughout my life. And I just had to change the work ethic a bit and work on some different things. And so, I focused on that and just keep fighting. That's just part of the deal. We wake up every morning, and there's always challenges in front of us, and keep fighting, and keep getting through.

Moderator:
Scott.

Scott:
Tiger, I'm curious what did Sam and Charlie say to you after it was over? And what have they maybe said to you over the past couple of years that perhaps motivated you?

Tiger Woods:
I don't think we heard — I definitely didn't hear them, because I was screaming. And I think everyone else was too. So, I think that — I think — I hope. I hope they're proud of me. Hope they're proud of their dad. And so, I've been very blessed to have two great kids, and just to have them here to see this, and witness this. I tried and described — they've never been to Augusta National. So, try and describe the slopes, and things, and everything. And I said, "This is a pretty unique event. This is very special. And I really hope you guys are able to come." And so, it all worked out and here they are.

Moderator:
Justin.

Justin:
Congratulations, Tiger.

Tiger Woods:
Thank you.

Justin:
I know you've touched on it a little bit, but it seems like your smile got bigger as the week went on. Can you just talk about how happy you were to be out there, and competing, and then obviously to be able to win?

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, I mean, I had a pretty good feeling going into this week that I was going to be able to contend in this event. I really felt that I was starting to shape the golf ball and my putting was starting to come around. My short game's been there. I know that I made a few mistakes last couple tournaments, but I just felt like it was there. My hands were good.

Tiger Woods:
And I just — as I kept alluding to you earlier is that I just kept telling myself to miss the ball in the correct spots. And I did time and time again. I was very disciplined in what I was doing out there. Even when yesterday, guys were shooting 64 left and right, I was just going around, just handle your business, work going up the board. We still got a lot of golf, a lot of holes to play, and just make sure that I'm there in the end.

Tiger Woods:
So, I can shoot myself out of the tournament, but just make sure that I keep myself in the event. There's so many different things that can happen on the back nine on Sunday. We all know that, and it played itself out again. There are so many different scenarios that could have happened after 12th. It could have gone so many different ways, and I just keep saying, "Just keep hanging in there until the last couple holes, and we'll see where we are. Just keep hanging in there, and birdieing 15 and 16." It gave me a nice little cush with the last two holes to play, but, still, there's different scenarios that could have happened there as well.

Moderator:
Ignacio.

Ignacio:
Tiger, does this victory change your playing schedule for the year?

Tiger Woods:
Nope. Want me to elaborate? As I said, I'm not going to play as much as I did last year. I played a little bit too much last year because I kept trying to qualify for a World Golf Championships and events in the Playoffs. And so, the playing schedule doesn't change. I'm going to play a bit less than I did last year. And again, just play in the tournaments I do play in. I'll be fully invested and committed to playing and trying to win.

Moderator:
Jeff.

Jeff:
You looked at some of the shots you played today, like the putt from the back of nine or the smart shot to hit it well left of the pin at 12. Do you feel your biggest asset on the grounds here is experience? Or if not, what is?

Tiger Woods:
Well, I think that if — and it helps being around here and playing this golf course so many different times. And, unfortunately, I've hit the ball in some weird spots like nine being one of them. I've been up there before, and I hadn't been that centered to that flag, center of the green. I've been more on the right side of the green, so I had a little better angle. But I've had a very similar putt to that speed-wise. So, I make sure I if I make a mistake on that putt, make the mistake a little bit short upon the middle ridge. Don't make the mistake of hitting too hard and have the gold in front of the green.

Tiger Woods:
I can walk away with the three-putt and still be in the tournament. Who knows, I can make one down from the middle shelf, who knows, but just don't make the mistake long and and make six. I know I have a putt, and I'm putting for birdie, but just don't make six here. And I think it's just the little things of discipline like that is what it takes to win on this golf course.

Tiger Woods:
I mean, you look at Bernie, he's 61, made the cut, and it was on the par. I mean, it goes to show you, if you understand how to play this golf course, you can be pretty much anyone because it's about how to play.

Moderator:
Gentleman in the back, sitting right at the back. Yes, sir, you.

Male:
Tiger, At the players you made the point that Jack's record of 18 majors wasn't one of those bullet points on the poster that you were chasing all your life. Now that you're one closer at 15, is that more of a focus? Is that a bigger goal now?

Tiger Woods:
I really haven't thought about that yet. I'm sure that I'll probably think of it going down the road. Maybe, maybe not. But right now, it's a little soon, and I'm just enjoying 15.

Moderator:
Brian.

Brian:
Tiger, you're talking about shaping shots and everything coming together. You used to rate your game, A, B, B+. Can you rate where your game is right now?

Tiger Woods:
I'm not going to do that, but I will tell you this, that it's the best I've felt with the driver in years. I was able to hit the golf ball both ways this week. And some of the shots I hit down 13, turn it around the corner. A couple of drives down two. Some of the bombs I hit down 3. And then, just hit little squeezers out there down the 7. You saw it today on on 15 and 17, and even on 18, just little trap-squeezers out there as well. So, I was able to hit both ends of the spectrum, low cuts and high draws. And that's not easy to do. So, I just really felt that I had that much control in my long game, and it paid off.

Moderator:
Mike, do you have a question? Next, Jim.

Mike:
Tiger, to be able to do this in front of your kids, I know a lot of people didn't think that you would obviously be here in this spot here on Sunday afternoon. But now to be able to give your children this memory what does that mean to you?

Tiger Woods:
It means the world to me. Their love and their support is — I just can't say enough how much that meant to me and throughout my struggles there when I really had a hard time just moving around. And just their infectiousness of happiness, that's — I was going through a tough time physically, I mean, there was a lot of times when I really could move. And so, that in itself is difficult, but just to have them there. And then, now, to have them see their Pops win, just like my Pops saw me win here. it's pretty special.

Moderator:
Jim.

Jim:
Tiger, how much more of a joyous experience is this? And, also, what does age mean anymore for a professional athlete. We've had a 41-year-old Super Bowl winner, and now you. Does age, has it been expanded and extended, or is it less relevant?

Tiger Woods:
Well, I think it's training and nutrition. Exercise programs have changed. They have progressed. The treatment protocols have changed. And the guys are able to take care of their bodies for longer period time. We know how important it is to eat perfectly and to train and also the recovery tactics that you have to employ, especially as you get older. As we get older, it sucks hopping in those ice baths, but it's just part of the deal.

Tiger Woods:
But I just think that athletes, because of the understanding of the general science of sports performance has allowed athletes to push their primes into much later stages. And then, also, you also have to be lucky too. You just can't have those big major injuries in some of sport, especially contact sports. My sport is different. I can play at a much longer period of time. I don't have to hit the ball 340 yards. I can still plod my way on the golf course.

Tiger Woods:
And so, we saw it here with Jack in '98. He had a chance to win. We saw Tom Watson at '59 had on his putter. So, in this sport, we're able to play a much longer period of time, and you're just seeing guys that are taking care of their bodies a lot better and able to play longer.

Moderator:
Fernando.

Fernando:
Tiger, congratulations-

Tiger Woods:
Thank you.

Fernando:
… on the win. This week was a very special week too for Latin American golf. It was the first time that Latin American Amateur Championship made the cut. So just a few thoughts about the amateur players that were here this week?

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, I just think the game is growing. I mean, before that, I think you had Joaquin playing well. The game of golf is growing. It's, now, a global sport. We're getting players from all over the world. And they're younger, they're better, and they're hungry to play. It's just a matter of them working their way up with opportunities. And so, we're starting to see the game has expanded. It's not just your general golf countries historically, whether it's United States, or the UK, or Australia, or South Africa, or even Japan. Now, it's truly a global sport, and you're seeing kids that are better younger at a much earlier age than you've ever seen before.

Moderator:
Joe. We're done in a bit, Tiger.

Joe:
First, congrats, Tiger. You've had such an influence on the younger golfers. And talking to Brooks outside, not too long ago, he said, "Tiger's back." Do you feel like you're back physically, mentally, and everything that it takes to win at this level?

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, I do, because I just did it. I was able to play some of my best golf over the last, basically, I think the last three days. And the first day was a little bit here and there, but the last three days, I really played well.

Tiger Woods:
I'm going to keep saying this, but there are so many different scenarios that could have happened on that back nine. And I've been in that spot before. I've been in a position where I've won, and I've been in a position where I've lost. But I just kept telling myself that at least I'm in that position. Let's go ahead, and we have a lot of holes to play. And I was able to handle the heat down the stretch and pull off some of my best shots.

Moderator:
Two more questions. Maximo.

Maximo:
This congratulation came from Italy, Tiger. And we are waiting for you if it's okay. We're waiting for you in Italy for three years to go to the Ryder Cup, the historic Ryder Cup in Rome. So, with this kind of shape you are showing, you're planning to come as a player and fight again maybe Francesco Molinari, or as a captain or vice captain? Last time you were in Italy someone, a cameraman, broke your teeth, I think.

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, my tooth, yeah. I had a great smile after that one.

Maximo:
Waiting to see you playing.

Tiger Woods:
Well. I'm a captain this year. So, I'm hoping to make my own team. We'll see what happens when the tournament and the selection process goes to Italy. That's a long way to go. I mean, the points don't even start for a little bit. So, we'll see what happens from now and then.

Moderator:
Final question. Bob.

Bob:
Tiger, you got to play in the final round with one of your teammates from the Ryder Cup, Tony Finau. Tell us a little bit about what you think about his game?

Tiger Woods:
I mean, God, he hits it long. I mean, he makes a little half-swing, and still hits the ball out there 310, 320 in the air. It's just remarkable. And it helps that your ankles is not dislocated either. So, he able to walk around there and hit good shot. But Tony, he's made some amazing leaps in the last couple of years. He's really starting to piece together a game that's going to contend week-in and week-out. I mean, he shows it every now and again but it's getting more consistent. And he's learning what to do and what not to do strategically. And you can see that the mind working out there.

Tiger Woods:
So, it wasn't like he was when he was younger, just go ahead and pound it out there. He's trying to figure out shots and shapes and starting to understand how to play, and it's only going to get better. With that length, it's such an asset, especially in today's game, that he'll win multiple tournaments, and I'm sure the major championships is definitely in his future.

Moderator:
Tiger, could you indulge us and just tell us what the clubs you hit into which green, today, for the record please.

Tiger Woods:
Okay. In each green?

Moderator:
Each one if you could.

Tiger Woods:
I hit 8-iron into 1. I hit a 4-iron into 2. I hit a sand wedge into 3. I hit a 4-iron short of the green on 4. I hit 5-iron to the — sorry, a 4-iron to the right on 5. I had an 8-iron into 6. I hit an 8-iron into 7. I hit a 5-wood over the back at 8, chipped back. Nine, I hit an 8-iron there. 10, I pitched out, and then hit an 8-iron in there, and made bogey. 11, I hit a 7-iron. 12, I hit 9. 13, I hit 8. 14, I hit 9. 15, I had a 5-iron. 16, I hit an 8-iron. 17, I hit an 8-iron. And 18 I hit an 8-iron. How many 8-irons is that?

Moderator:
Tiger, thanks. Your victory today is going to inspire not only children but a lot of adults all around the world. Magnificent achievement. Congratulations. You are a very, very worthy champion, and we're proud that you're wearing that jacket for the fifth time today.

Tiger Woods:
Yeah, I'm excited about show-and-tell at school.

Transcribe video to text with Sonix, the best online video transcription software

Sonix quickly and accurately transcribed the video file, “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Tiger Woods Winning Interview – Masters 2019”, using cutting-edge AI. Get a near-perfect transcript in minutes, not hours or days when you use Sonix, the industry’s fastest video-to-text converter. Signing up for a free trial is easy.

Convert com/watch?v=-Qj_zt8UOv0 to text with Sonix

When handling video (such as “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Tiger Woods Winning Interview – Masters 2019”), thousands of documentary filmmakers and journalists use Sonix as a simple software solution for transcription and subtitling. Easily convert your com/watch?v=-Qj_zt8UOv0 file to srt or vtt to make your media content more accessible to viewers.

Best audio transcription software: Sonix

Researching what is “the best transcription software” can be a little overwhelming. There are a lot of different solutions. If you are looking for a great way to convert com/watch?v=-Qj_zt8UOv0 to text , we think that you should try Sonix. They use the latest AI technology to transcribe your video and are one my

New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Cash Flow Lessons Learned from a Cannabis Dispensary Owner

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Procurify. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time, just click the player below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Cash Flow Lessons Learned from a Cannabis Dispensary Owner | Convert audio-to-text with the best AI technology by Sonix.ai

Chris Cody:
There's still a lot of mismanagement, poor spending habits from even companies that are incredibly well-funded. There's the company you've probably heard of. They're fairly large. And, right now, the owners, the two primaries are being sued by several of their investors for, basically, what amounts to misappropriation of funds, where they have total control over their books, they have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and simply spend it as they will beyond their acquisitions and licensing that they have done. There's that. So, I mean, it's really all over the board. And they told them, like, "You guys are going to waste a million dollars. You're going to have this whole crop fail," and they tell them, "Well, we'll just spend another million."

Dani Hao:
Hi, I'm Dani.

Nicole:
And I'm Nicole. Welcome to the Spend Culture Stories Podcast where we explore the connection between company spending and culture. Join us as we dive deep into understanding the people, processes, and tools that makeup spend as a whole or what we call spend culture.

Dani Hao:
Hi, everybody. And welcome to another episode of Spend Culture Stories. And today, we have two special guests here today. One, we have Carlo and he is a cannabis technology consultant from Vancouver, BC.

Carlo Alvarez:
Hey, everybody. Hey, Spend Management Podcast.

Dani Hao:
And we also have Chris Cody, the CEO of Highly Functioning.

Chris Cody:
Hello, everybody.

Dani Hao:
Hey, Chris. And we're so excited to have you here today, just because I know we running a special segment on cannabis. So, we're really excited to hear from you on what the space is like right now, how is it like managing the finances of the cannabis business. And, also, what you have learned throughout the years.

Chris Cody:
Yeah. It's been a very interesting experience just from start to finish, I have to say, with so many different regulatory and tax implications for all this stuff.

Nicole:
Maybe you can tell us a little bit more about yourself and your previous roles because we looked at your LinkedIn a little bit, and we noticed that you open your own dispensary called Urban Legends. Can you give us a little bit of that experience and tell us a little bit more about your role there?

Chris Cody:
Yeah. So, in 2011, I founded a company called Urban Legends. It's a medical marijuana dispensary in Washington State, just south of Seattle. And it's very, very interesting. I mean, very wild west. Basically, what you needed then was at least a small little nest egg. I think between me, and my partner, and my wife, we had about 20 grand. And it was really just about finding a landlord who would rent to you. It was kind of a gray market and very challenging just to find that part.

Chris Cody:
And so, I'd spent a few months looking around. And, finally, had found a location that I could set up in. There's real basic stuff. The state here was going to be passing rules. And then, they didn't. And so, that became this very confusing situation where there was going to be a state regulation, and then there was not.

Chris Cody:
And so, from that, I became very involved in the political process. I helped form an industry organization here called the Coalition for Cannabis Standards and Ethics. The City of Seattle had come to a bunch of us, operators, who they had allowed to open thinking that this regulatory environment was going to exist. And then, they said, "Well, can you guys put together some self-policing rules, some standards that you will adhere to, so that we, at least, have some good actors to point at?"

Chris Cody:
And so, that's what we did. We spent about a year putting that together. And the whole time, each one of us, small business owner, running our own businesses. But activism was foisted upon some of us. Some of the operators were also activists. And, yeah, we, kind of, ground that out in a very unregulated environment. Within about a year of me opening my store, there were 10 stores within three blocks, very intense competition, very much a race to the bottom for the pricing.

Chris Cody:
One of those businesses was what they call a farmer's market. So, it would be 30 odd tables set up from producers who would just grow in their basements, or garages, or maybe drive it up from Oregon or California, and just sell it right there out of that store.

Chris Cody:
Anyway, so, a lot of competition, very interesting. And then we had legalization comp, which opened up a whole new raft of problems. So, here in Washington, they did a lottery that myself and my partner entered. And we won a few of those licenses. And then, we realized, how are we going to raise money? There are rules about where you could place the stores. There is limited availability for real estate because of the buffers and requirements of distancing from schools and whatnot. And especially in the City of Seattle, there are dozens of schools, and then also preschools, and daycares, and libraries, and all these things that you couldn't be near.

Chris Cody:
And so, the difficulty was trying to simply find a location. And then, once you found a location, how do you secure the lease or maybe even purchase? And a lot of business owners, in the same position, everybody had different solutions. Maybe you had a wealthy uncle, or you had done pretty well in medical, and you had a pretty significant bankroll. Literally, cash in most cases. But just being able to get a shop up and running was very difficult.

Chris Cody:
Some people lucked out. Their location's already buffered, and they had a good relationship with their landlord. For us, we had to try to cut a deal with a group that had secured a lease, and they were going to build out the shop, and provide the funding. And that did not go well. We ended up, essentially, losing that business. They had to pay us out after a year and a half of disagreements as to how it was all going to go.

Chris Cody:
And that's very common in this business. I can't tell you how many companies have folded or had significant troubles because of partnership, arguments, disagreements, much of it around the finances. Partly, a lot of that experience, along with my lobbying efforts, we were able to get a path to licensure again. And that's when I was able to open Urban Legends downtown in Seattle, which is still a going concern. I sold out of that a year or so ago.

Chris Cody:
And since then, I've been focused on the national legalization. At least, to state by state, following, tracking, and then also taking on clients, mostly in the retail realm, people trying to set up shops in the most efficient way possible. When I was talking about those financial difficulties, especially the taxes, many people just coming into the industry don't really understand what the IRS tax code 280E is and what it means for your bottom line. So, that's been a real challenge.

Chris Cody:
So, parlay that into consulting, and I've been up and down the coast, down to California quite a bit, helping people do mergers and acquisitions. I, also, go through licensing applications, just setting up their — doing their layouts and helping them with their SOPs, so they can be ready to go when opening day comes and be able to actually get to opening day, which is pretty difficult.

Carlo Alvarez:
That's actually really interesting that you mentioned that. I guess, in terms of the people that call you looking for help, in terms of like when it comes to finance, what are their biggest concerns?

Chris Cody:
Well, I'll tell you, most of them don't actually consider the finance. In my experience, you've got two basic kinds of entrepreneurs in the space. The first kind is rapidly disappearing, and that's the mom-and-pop shops. They're also called maybe heritage stores or legacy brands. These are the guys who've been in business in California since the early 2000s and in Washington since like the late 2000s.

Chris Cody:
A lot of them came up in the black market, gray market. The financing portion, the finances, I would say there's a strong strain of economic ignorance. People don't necessarily understand cash flow. They don't understand budgeting, you know, very basic things. They haven't really needed to use them for a very long time. Lots of issues there.

Dani Hao:
So, I just wanted to do like a follow-up question to Carlo's point. So, I know what the situation of the gray market at that time when you opened your own dispensary. And, now, with legalization coming into the States, I'm just wondering, how do you think business owners are now currently managing their books?

Chris Cody:
So, the other kind is not the mom and pops, it's the corporate guys coming in now. Most of it is private equity. And in a lot of cases, what I've seen is the people bringing in the money act as the CFOs. And if it's a big enough fund — like there's different sizes, right? There's some groups that are just trying to set up like one large grower, which is pretty significant in and of itself. There's other groups that are setting up chains of growers or chains of stores. And for those folks, a lot of them come from finance in some way. A lot of it is real estate money.

Chris Cody:
In terms of regular processes, yeah, they do have that. They do have, you know, budgets, and forecasting, and all of that. What I've seen though is there's still a lot of, I would say, mismanagement, poor spending habits from even companies that are incredibly well-funded.

Chris Cody:
There's the company, MedMen, which you've probably heard of. They're fairly large. And right now, the owners, the two primaries are being sued by several of their investors for, basically, what amounts to misappropriation of funds where they have total control over their books. They have raised hundreds of millions of dollars and simply spent it as they will beyond their acquisitions and licensing that they have done.

Chris Cody:
There's that. So, I mean, it's really all over the board. There are some companies that are very well-run. Some mom-and-pop shops who understood finance, and budgeting, and all that upfront, then they have been able to — as long as their business itself is strong, their location is good, and everything else, they've been able to parlay that into significant funds and are now able to find pretty decent rates on hard money from private equity.

Chris Cody:
And the other side of it is guys who does larger conglomerates that know how to raise money, but maybe aren't so much versed in actually running the businesses. And so, those companies are able to actually have a large footprint, but they're not run very efficiently. They have a lot of issues with their budgeting, with their spending, not really understanding where to put their marketing dollars. not really understanding how much they need to set aside for their tax burden.

Dani Hao:
Maybe you can give the audience a little bit clarification on the differences because I know some of our viewers are in the States. So, definitely around that kind of legal regulations, there is definitely a lot of difference there.

Chris Cody:
Yeah, okay. In the United States, there's a special tax code called the 280E, which was written in the '80s mostly to kind of go after coke dealers, people running cocaine from Colombia. And it goes back to an old United States tax law, which is that you pay taxes on what you earn, not what you do. So, it doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal, you're still liable for your taxes, right?

Chris Cody:
Anyway, what 280E does is it means that you cannot write off basic expenses. Like you can write off your cost of goods sold, right? But you can't write off your employees. You cannot write off your rent. You can be somewhat creative if your processes allow to roll some of that expense into your cost of goods. But anything that's considered trafficking by the IRS is nondeductible, which means that whatever your payroll is, whatever your rent is, you have to add that to your income, and you have to set aside cash for that base as it is income, which means that your end tax burden ends up being higher than it would be significantly.

Carlo Alvarez:
That was a really great explanation. Thank you for that. So, I guess, in terms of your company, Highly Functioning, so you manage growers, brands, retail outlets, real estate. What kind of tools do you think make a responsible company, cannabis company, need in order to survive?

Chris Cody:
Well, certainly, tax planning is a big one and having a very good standard operating procedure manual. Having those positions defined, making sure that people operate within their roles, making sure that you can back up your explanations in an audit to be able to tie things into your cost of goods sold that are directly related.

Chris Cody:
It's very important. It's happening now in California where a lot of companies, they've been licensed legal for a year. And, now, they've all got traceability software. Now, they're tracking everything. And now, they're not able to push stuff under the rug. It's all trash.

Chris Cody:
So, they're starting to look at their, now, tax burdens and they're significant. If a store does, like, say, a store is about $5 million annual growth, you are looking at maybe a million-dollar tax burden. Pretty significant. It's still nearly 20%. And then, once you add in all your other expenses, I mean, most of the properties that are involved in these transactions, especially for a decently cited retail location, they definitely get a premium. If you bought it, if you were able to purchase it, you have those holding costs. If you weren't able to purchase it, and you're paying extremely high lease, same problem. You can't write that off.

Chris Cody:
So, being responsible, yeah. I mean, you just have to be very, very organized. You have to have a good team that understands all of these things. They understand compliance because it's less of a marijuana or cannabis-selling business, it's more of a government-compliant business. That's what I tell everybody whenever I go in the shop. I'd say like, "We're in government compliance these days. We have to maintain seed-to-sale traceability. You can't endanger the license. You can't endanger our ability to operate." And so, that needs to be priority one, right next to generating as much revenue as we can.

Carlo Alvarez:
That's actually really interesting that you talked about compliance. I've actually been in contact with a few retail shops. In terms of the state-regulated compliance software, what are some of the gaps that you find is missing when it comes to managing their spending?

Chris Cody:
Well, number one, none of the systems I've used are — they're compliance systems. They're not for managing you're spending. The most they do is you can place orders through vendors, have them come in. The whole point is to make sure that all of that stuff is counted when it arrives, tracked and traced, paid. Outside of Washington, a lot of it's done in cash. Washington has banking, but most of the country does not. Although, that's hopefully changing. There's a bill right now in the US Congress that could allow for cannabis banking to be legalized finally.

Chris Cody:
But like I said, the compliance software, its whole job is to just be compliant. You can do histories. You can get your spreadsheets downloaded. They're supposed to integrate with QuickBooks. Most of the systems that I use don't. We have to print out our spreadsheets. And then, in a lot of cases, input that data into QuickBooks manually to be able to manage, and generate forecasts, and everything.

Carlo Alvarez:
In terms of the systems that you use in the past, can you describe what systems you have used that are for compliance and that don't really do the job that you're saying?

Chris Cody:
Well, there's about a hundred different solutions right now. BioTrack, Metrc, Leaf. Then, there's Green Bits, Corona, IndicaOnline. Those are the ones we're most familiar with. There's easily another 50. There's lots of tech guys who want to try to, like, solve problems.

Chris Cody:
In my experience, what they've kind of done is — I mean, especially the earlier systems, a lot of the more scab down. Oh, yeah. Like MMJMenu, MJ Freeway, those were products that were meant for a different business, and that were repurposed for cannabis. And those never really worked well for me in terms of, like, really being able to see a solid snapshot of your inventory, keeping things like very square.

Chris Cody:
I mean, it's been difficult. Like generally speaking, you've got a bookkeeper and then a CPA. And then, you're going over the numbers pretty regularly with both of them to make sure everything's coherent and that you're hitting your budgets.

Dani Hao:
Totally. And speaking of hitting your budgets, I'm just wondering, what are some misconceptions when it comes to CFOs and compliance when it comes to financial controls? Because you mentioned a lot of these businesses nowadays, you have like the big corporations, and you have the mom and pops. So, what the financial controls, like, obviously, if it's a bigger corporation, usually, you have a finance team there to, kind of, enforce policies and procedures. But with the like smaller shops that are trying to scale up their processes, what are some things that they lack?

Chris Cody:
Discipline. The mom and pops have a real problem, and that, like, a lot of them actually have, like, a mom and pop and your family around. I've seen it where, like, guys, the owner's dad come in, just pull cash out of the till, give stuff away for free to customers, that kind of stuff. When I try to tell the guy like, you know, "Get your dad out of here, man. He just [??]," he doesn't want to get rid of him. He trusts him. He doesn't mind that he takes some money from the till every now and then. So, okay, that was a difficult conversation to have, and it didn't really go well for me.

Chris Cody:
But that's not just the mom and pops. You know, the other thing I've seen is that a lot of these bigger companies that are managed to raise all this money, they just — amendment notwithstanding, a lot of them have real budgetary issues where they don't have real control. There's usually a group of owners at the top, people who hold equity and are signers of the bank accounts, and they will spend.

Chris Cody:
Some of them, they're making plenty of cash. And some of them have just raised plenty of cash. And you understand the difference there. It's just weird when you go into an office and set of offices that are very nice. You're looking around, and you're trying to figure out what the company actually does. You see like some kind of famous artist piece on the wall, hazard to say a Picasso or something. You're like, "Well, what do you guys actually do?"

Chris Cody:
And it's difficult. You know, especially, like I am very deep in the industry. So, I kind of hear about, you know, like, "What's up with these guys? What are they doing?" I'll dig down to it, and I'll find out like, "Oh, yeah. No, they had a huge grow, and it failed this last year. And, now, they're doing something else. I don't know. But they managed to raise enough capital that they can sit that out."

Chris Cody:
A friend of mine was doing consulting for a large grower here in Washington. And he was going through their facility, and they did not have a good SOP. In fact, it was terrible. They were tracking powdery mildew and mites from room to room without any kind of clean processes to mitigate that.

Dani Hao:
Oh, wow.

Chris Cody:
And he told them, like, "You guys are going to waste a million dollars. You're going to have this whole crop fail." And they told him, "Well, we'll just spend another million…"

Dani Hao:
Oh my goodness.

Carlo Alvarez:
Wow.

Chris Cody:
"… and get it right." Yeah. There's a whole lot of that, especially at these bigger groups. You know, once you've raised $100 million, especially if you've never had that much money, it's pretty significant. And you, kind of, just stop counting.

Dani Hao:
Yeah. So, that's really surprising to us because you would think that with all these VC-backed resources, they would be able to have more of like, I guess, robust way of tracking these finances. And, you know, you mentioned that cannabis is a heavily audited and a compliant industry. So, how are you able to get away with things like that?

Chris Cody:
Well, when you say auditing, you're talking about money?

Dani Hao:
Yeah.

Chris Cody:
The government says auditing, they're talking about inventory. They're not linked. I mean, not in a practical way here, right? The government doesn't care, like, if you blow every penny you've got, but you better not lose a pot because that's a violation.

Dani Hao:
Gotcha.

Chris Cody:
That's the biggest difference. And like I said, not every company is like this. There's plenty that are responsibly run and are doing very well, but it's just running the gamut. And another thing I would hazard to say is like some of these big idea guys, these VCs, they get maybe carried away, get sucked into the free style of the industry, in general, and kind of lose focus, or, you know, there's other companies where they've got the budget to lose money for a decade, and they're just comfortable with it already. And I've seen that as well.

Carlo Alvarez:
That's really interesting on how the difference with the auditing and what the government actually looks for. I guess in terms of the supply chain and procurement, seem to be big pain points based on some business owners we've spoken to. How does having a compliance software work with a procurement department in cannabis?

Chris Cody:
Well, I mean, it's pretty straightforward. The procurement department really needs like a budget from the CPA or bookkeeper, right. And that just tells them, like, you've got some rough projections, so you know about what you're going to do for that month. And so, you get a budget for your buying, for like a retailer anyway. And most of my perspective here is from the retail side, by the way. Growers is a little bit different.

Chris Cody:
So, yeah. So, the procurement department, the buyer, right, there's usually, like, every store or group of stores has a single buyer. And that buyer goes out to farms, and discusses terms, and places orders. The responsible or the best ones that, you know, they don't wait for the salesman to come around and provide samples. They'll go, and go to the farms, and see how the product's being grown to find out if it's going to be a good product for their store, something that will have a good consumer response and encourage repeat clientèle.

Chris Cody:
You know, the software itself, I mean, it's straightforward. The hard parts with it are there's gaps, there's data ghost from time to time, especially the point of sale system's not generally the same. Like they're integrated with the state track and trace systems, but they're not the same systems. So, sometimes, one loses products or mislabels products, which can cause a lot of lost time and tracking that down on an inventory audit. You know, there's all sorts of barcode errors. There's also just basic employers where you've got an employee ringing up a barcode that's a different lot but the same product.

Chris Cody:
So, if you've got one strain, say, Blue Dream, right, so many growers grow Blue Dream because it's a great producer. But then, the state has rules on, like, how large a lot can be, right. So, it's five pounds of Blue Dream is a single lot, right. But if you have a giant grow, you have maybe a hundred lots. I don't know, maybe 20 lots. Each one of those lots ends up with a different barcode, but they're the same product.

Chris Cody:
So, at the end user, when your bud tender's bringing up a customer, they've got something in the display that's just displayed for the customers to see. And they'll pull that out, they ring it up, it goes into the system. The system's tracking a different barcode now. And then, you're pulling the old barcode or the new barcode out of your inventory to actually make the sale. That can lead to — especially if that happens a few times a day over the course of the month, it can be a lot of time to track all that down and figure out like wherever they went and just making those corrections in the system.

Carlo Alvarez:
What kind of tools do you recommend to your clients when it comes to managing and tracking spend, as well as are there any features that you wish the industry offered?

Chris Cody:
Yeah, I mean, generally speaking, like the tools you need are just good forecasting, a good bookkeeper, a good CPA. And just good forecasting as you can get, so you can really optimize your bottom line. What I really wish is that — and like I said, I could be wrong right now. I hope I'm not. But having an actual point of sale system that is integrated with QuickBooks, so you can simply, like, run all the numbers directly into QuickBooks and not have to pay somebody to input them all and try to sort them out. That would be a super handy tool.

Dani Hao:
Yeah. When you mentioned QuickBooks, you think a majority of the industry that's kind of like a standard accounting solution that everybody uses.

Chris Cody:
A lot of them do. There's maybe some private accounting software used by the CPAs to represent these companies that they use. Maybe internally-specific things like they wrote it for themselves, if they're big enough. But anybody who's got their in-house bookkeeper, they're generally using QuickBooks-like product.

Dani Hao:
And do you think as cannabis companies scale, do they usually look for a CFO, or do you think they're usually okay with just hiring CPAs and bookkeepers to make sure that their books are clean?

Chris Cody:
It really depends on the scale. If you're talking retail, it's like five shops or less. If you're talking growers, it's like maybe one large grow, and you've just got like your internal team. But once you start jumping into different states, then people are looking for a CFO at that point because it's just too much to manage. You need somebody on board. And like I said, a lot of the CFOs that are currently doing it, they're finance guys who helped raise the money or even brought the money. A lot of them may end up just delegating it to somebody on their team already.

Dani Hao:
Awesome. I guess the one last thing is, like, what would you recommend to cannabis business owners to be more aware of its fan culture, from someone who has been in the cannabis industry for many years?

Chris Cody:
What I would say is don't spend your money, man. Live like you're making slightly better than minimum wage if you can. And just write it out because — especially in the states with the tax code, like I said, when you could end up owing for years. If you don't save that million dollars, or $600,000, or whatever it is that you have to, like, pay the IRS, and then you don't have it, and you've got to set up a payment plan, and then your next year's taxes come due, and you still don't have that saved. And now, you're just stuck in taxes on taxes and taxes, and you're never going to get out of it.

Dani Hao:
Wow. Yeah that would be a nightmare.

Chris Cody:
Yeah, literally. There's several companies I know doing that. Like they're in that position now, or they're literally in receivership because of it. So, it's something you just gotta keep your mind in. That should change as soon as it becomes legal here in the States, but I got to think, that same advice is applicable to Canada because you guys just generally have a higher tax rate anyway. And I know Canadians are not unfamiliar with detailed tax planning.

Dani Hao:
Yeah.

Chris Cody:
You know.

Dani Hao:
Well, awesome. Thank you so much Chris for joining us today and sharing your expertise with us.

Chris Cody:
Thank you. I really appreciate you having me on.

Carlo Alvarez:
This was an awesome conversation, and I learned a lot from you. So, thank you so much for coming here.

Chris Cody:
Yeah. Well, thanks, Carlo.

Dani Hao:
Thanks for tuning into this week's Spend Culture Stories Podcast, sponsored by the Procurify. If you'd like to learn more about your Spend Culture, take our quiz at spendculture.com.

Transcribe audio to text with Sonix, the best online audio transcription software

Sonix quickly and accurately transcribed the audio file, “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Cash Flow Lessons Learned from a Cannabis Dispensary Owner”, using cutting-edge AI. Get a near-perfect transcript in minutes, not hours or days when you use Sonix, the industry’s fastest audio-to-text converter. Signing up for a free trial is easy.

Convert mp3 to text with Sonix

For audio files (such as “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Cash Flow Lessons Learned from a Cannabis Dispensary Owner”), thousands of researchers and podcasters use Sonix as a simple software solution to transcribe, edit, and publish their audio files. Easily convert your mp3 file to text or docx to make your media content more accessible to listeners.

Best audio transcription software: Sonix

Researching what is “the best transcription software” can be a little overwhelming. There are a lot of different solutions. If you are looking for a great way to convert mp3 to text , we think that you should try Sonix. They use the latest AI technology to transcribe your audio and are one my

New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Gwyneth Paltrow interviewed in Spanish

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Gwyneth Paltrow. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

Gwyneth Paltrow Spanish Interview (transcribed by Sonix)

Entrevistadora: Estoy con Gwyneth Paltrow. Una gran actriz, ganadora de un Oscar, de un Globo de Oro. Cualquier premio, esta mujer lo tiene.

Entrevistadora: ¡Qué rico estar contigo! ¡Qué elegancia!

Gwyneth Paltrow: Gracias.

Entrevistadora: Y es impresionante escucharte hablar español. Hablame, ¿dónde lo aprendiste, y por qué te entusiasmó aprender español?

Gwyneth Paltrow: Bueno, cuando tenía 15 años, yo estaba estudiando español en el colegio Nueva York, que la profesora nos había dicho. Bueno, hay una oportunidad para ir a España, a estudiar ahí. Entonces, yo hacía un intercambio y vivía con una familia en el centro de España, cerca de Toledo.

Entrevistadora: ¡Precioso!

Gwyneth Paltrow: Y me encantó. Y fue como una temporada en mi vida muy importante. Me encanta españa, la cultura latina; siempre me voy a México por ejemplo.

Entrevistadora: Ah, que gusto.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Me gusta mucho la cultura, la lengua, la gente.

Entrevistadora: Así que lo aprendiste en la escuela, con la gente. ¿Ningún amigo en especial, amiga?

Gwyneth Paltrow: Yo tengo una amiga en Londres que es de Mallorca, se llama Rosario y con ella hablo, practicábamos. Bueno, yo practico con ella y también tenemos una niñera de España en casa. Porque para que mis niños pueden aprender también. Entonces, siempre estamos hablando en español y yo creo que es muy importante.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Yo tengo una amiga que hablaba como cinco lenguas, algo así, y ella me decía una lengua, una vida. Y yo creo que es verdad, cuando puedes hablar más de un idioma, puedes entender muchísimo más. Y yo creo que es una experiencia profunda para hablar más de un idioma.

Entrevistadora: ¡Qué bien por ti! Y nos ayuda mucho a nosotros.

Entrevistadora: La película Robert Downey Jr., la conexión entre ustedes impresionante, la química espectacular y lograste domar a un mujeriego. ¿Cómo le hiciste?

Gwyneth Paltrow: Bueno, siempre me encanta trabajar con Robert, el es supergracioso y la verdad es que es un tipo de genio. Siempre está pensando una manera muy no sé, muy inteligente, original.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Y para trabajar con él siempre me siento muy contenta, y él está siempre muy animado, y se pone todo su cuerpo en lo que está haciendo. Y en este, en el tercero, nuestra relación está aun más interesante.

Gwyneth Paltrow: También, yo me pongo su traje de Iron Man.

Entrevistadora: ¿Cómo fué eso?, lo que te iba a preguntar, ¿cómo es vestir y usar el traje de Iron Man?

Gwyneth Paltrow: Eso fue muy divertido. Y también mi niño estaba en el set, cuando estaba con el disfraz; y su cara, nunca lo olvido. Él estaba superorgulloso de su mamá. Y no estaba muy incómoda, ni nada, estaba bien.

Entrevistadora: Quizas tendremos a la Iron Man, Iron Lady.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Sí, exacto. Me encantaría.

Entrevistadora: Sería espectacular.

Entrevistadora: Sé que acabas de escribir tu libro en cocina. Cuentame, ¿qué te inspiró a cambiar tus hábitos de alimentación?, porque sé que un amigo especial que tuviste, te cambio toda tu alimentación. Cuentanos sobre eso.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Bueno, mi marido y mi hijo tienen alergias al gluten, a trigo, a leche de vaca. Entonces, yo soy la cocinera en la casa y no quería que mi niño estuviera comiendo; sabes, comida muy sana, sin sabor. Entonces, empezaba a hacer recetas con mucho sabor y como comfort food como: albóndigas, pero sin pan, sin huevo, sin queso y cosas muy ricas.

Gwyneth Paltrow: Entonces, eso fue.

Entrevistadora: Como te cambio e inspiro.

Gwyneth Paltrow:

Entrevistadora: Muchísimas gracias Gwyneth.

Gwyneth Paltrow: A ti.

Entrevistadora: Es un placer hablar contigo. Y tú no te pierdas Iron Man 3 que a lo mejor es posible que veamos también a Gwyneth como Iron Lady.

Entrevistadora: Gracias linda.

Gwyneth Paltrow: A ti.

Sonix is the best online video transcription software in 2019.

The above video transcript for “Gwyneth Paltrow Spanish Interview” was transcribed by the best video transcription service called Sonix. Transcribing and editing video files is painful. Need to quickly convert your video files to text? Try Sonix today. Signing up for a free trial account is easy.

New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: “Obama out” President Barack Obama’s hilarious final White House correspondents’ dinner speech

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Barack Obama. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: "Obama out" President Barack Obama's hilarious final White House correspondents' dinner speech (transcribed by Sonix)

Pres. Barack Obama: You can't say it, but you know it's true.

Pres. Barack Obama: Good evening, everybody.

Audience: Good evening.

Pres. Barack Obama: It is an honor to be here at my last and, perhaps, the last White House Correspondents Dinner. You all look great. The end of the Republic has never looked better.

Pres. Barack Obama: I do apologize. I know I was a little late tonight. I was running on CPT, which stands for jokes that white people should not make. That's a tip for you, Jeff.

Pres. Barack Obama: Anyway, here we are, my eighth and final appearance at this unique event. And I am excited. If this material works well, I'm gonna use it at Goldman Sachs next year. Earn me some serious Tubmans. That's right. That's right.

Pres. Barack Obama: My brilliant and beautiful wife, Michelle, is here tonight. She looked so happy to be here. That's called practice. It's like learning to do three-minute planks, and she makes it look easy now, but, next year, this time, someone else will be standing here in this very spot, and it's anyone's guess who she will be. But standing here, I can't help but be reflective and a little sentimental.

Pres. Barack Obama: Eight years ago, I said it was time to change the tone of our politics. In hindsight, I clearly should have been more specific. Eight years ago, I was a young man, full of idealism and vigor. And look at me now, I am gray, grizzled, just counting down the days till my death panel.

Pres. Barack Obama: Hillary once questioned whether I'd be ready for a 3:00 a.m. phone call. Now, I'm awake anyway because I got to go the bathroom. I'm up. In fact, somebody recently said to me, "Mr. President, you are so yesterday. Justin Trudeau has completely replaced you. He is so handsome. He's so charming. He's the future." And I said, "Justin, just give it a rest." I resented that.

Pres. Barack Obama: But, meanwhile, Michelle has not aged today. The only way you can date her in photos is by looking at me. Take a look. Here we are in 2008. Here we are a few years later. And this one is from two weeks ago. So, time passes.

Pres. Barack Obama: In just six short months, I will be officially a lame duck, which means Congress, now, will flat out reject my authority, and Republican leaders won't take my phone calls. And this is gonna take some getting used to. It's really going to … It's a curve ball. I don't know what to do with it.

Pres. Barack Obama: Of course, in fact, four months now, congressional Republicans have been saying there are things I cannot do in my final year. Unfortunately, this dinner was not one of them. But on everything else, it's another story. And you know who you are, Republicans. In fact, I think we've got Republican Senators Tim Scott and Cory Gardner. They're in the House, which reminds me, security, bar the doors. Judge Merrick Garland, come on out. We're gonna do this right here, right now. It's like the red wedding.

Pres. Barack Obama: But it's not just Congress. Even some foreign leaders, they've been looking ahead, anticipating my departure. Last week, Prince George showed up to our meeting in his bathrobe. That was a slap in the face. A clear breach of protocol.

Pres. Barack Obama: Although, while in England, I did have lunch with Her Majesty, the Queen, took in a performance of Shakespeare, hit the links with David Cameron. Just in case anybody is still debating whether I'm black enough, I think that settles the debate.

Pres. Barack Obama: I won't like, but, look, this is a tough transition. It's hard. Key staff are now starting to leave the White House. Even reporters have left me. Savannah Guthrie, she's left the White House press corps to host The Today Show. Norah O'Donnell left the briefing room to host CBS This Morning. Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN.

Audience: But the prospect of leaving the White House is a mixed bag. You might have heard that someone jumped the White House fence last week, but I have to give Secret Service credit. They found Michelle, brought her back. She's safe. She's safe back at home now. It's only nine more months, baby. Settle down.

Pres. Barack Obama: And yet somehow, despite all this, despite the churn, in my final year, my approval ratings keep going up. The last time I was this high, I was trying to decide on my major. And here's the thing, I haven't really done anything differently. So, it's odd. Even my aides can't explain the rising poll numbers. What has changed? Nobody can figure it out. Puzzling.

Pres. Barack Obama: Anyway, in this last year, I do have more appreciation for those who've been with me on this amazing ride. Like one of our finest public servants, Joe Biden. God bless him. I love that guy. I love Joe Biden, I really do. And I want to thank him for his friendship, for his counsel, for always giving it to me straight, for not shooting anybody in the face. Thank you, Joe.

Pres. Barack Obama: Also, I would be remiss. Let's give it up for our host, Larry Wilmore. Also known as one of the two black guys who's not Jon Stewart. You're the South African guy, right? I love Larry. And his parents are here who are from Evanston, which is a great town.

Pres. Barack Obama: I also would like to acknowledge some of the award-winning reporters that we have with us here tonight: Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber. Thank you all for everything that you've done. I'm just joking. As you know, Spotlight is a film, a movie about investigative journalists with the resources and the autonomy to chase down the truth and hold the powerful accountable. Best fantasy films and Star Wars.

Pres. Barack Obama: Look, that was maybe a cheap shot. I understand the news business is tough these days. It keeps changing all the time. Every year at this dinner, somebody makes a joke about BuzzFeed, for example, changing the media landscape. And every year, The Washington Post laughs a little bit less hard. Just kind of a silence there, especially at the Washington Post table.

Pres. Barack Obama: GOP Chairman Reince Priebus is here as well. Glad to see that you feel that you've earned a night off. Congratulations on all your success, the Republican party, the nomination process. It's all going great. Keep it up.

Pres. Barack Obama: Kendall Jenner is also here. And we had a chance to meet her backstage. She seems like a very nice, young woman. I'm not exactly sure what she does, but I am told that my Twitter mentions are about to go through the roof.

Pres. Barack Obama: Helen Mirren is here tonight. I don't even have a joke here. I just think Helen Mirren is awesome. She's awesome. Sitting at the same table, I see Mike Bloomberg. Mike, a combative, controversial New York billionaire is leading the GOP primary, and it is not you. That has to sting a little bit. Although it's not an entirely fair comparison between you and the Donald. After all, Mike was a big city mayor. He knows policy in depth. And he's actually worth the amount of money that he says he is.

Pres. Barack Obama: What an election season. For example, we've got the bright new face of the Democratic Party here tonight, Mr. Bernie Sanders. Bernie, you look like a million bucks. Or to put in terms you'll understand, you look like 37,000 donations of $27 each. A lot of folks have been surprised by the Bernie phenomena, especially his appeal to young people. But not me. I get it.

Pres. Barack Obama: Just recently, a young person came up to me and said she was sick of politicians standing in the way of her dreams. As if we were actually going to let Malia go to Burning Man this year. It was not going to happen. Bernie might have let her go. Not us. I am hurt, though, Bernie, that you've been distancing yourself a little from me. I mean, that's just not something that you do to your comrade.

Pres. Barack Obama: Bernie's slogan has helped his campaign catch fire among young people, "Feel the Bern. Feel the Bern." That's a good slogan. Hillary's slogan has not had the same effect. Let's see this. Look, I've said how much I admire Hillary's toughness, her smarts, her policy chops, her experience. You've got admit it though, Hillary trying to appeal to young voters is little bit like your relative who just signed up for Facebook, "Dear America. Did you get my poke? Isn't appearing on your wall? I'm not sure I'm using this right. Love, Aunt Hillary." It's not entirely persuasive.

Pres. Barack Obama: Meanwhile, on the Republican side, things are a little more – how shall we say this – a little more loose. Just look at the confusion over the invitations to tonight's dinner. Guests were asked to check whether they wanted steak or fish. But, instead, a whole bunch of you wrote in Paul Ryan. That's not an option, people. Steak or fish? You may not like steak or fish, but that's your choice.

Pres. Barack Obama: Meanwhile, some candidates aren't polling high enough to qualify for their own joke tonight. The rules were well established ahead of time. And then, there's Ted Cruz. Ted had a tough week. He went to Indiana, Hoosier country, stood on a basketball court, and called the hoop a basketball ring. What else is in his lexicon? Baseball sticks. Football hats. But sure, I'm the foreign one.

Pres. Barack Obama: Well, let me conclude tonight on a more serious note. I want to thank the Washington press corps. I want to thank Carol for all that you do. The free press is central to our democracy and, no, I'm just kidding. You know, I'm gonna talk about Trump. Come on. We weren't just gonna stop there. Come on.

Pres. Barack Obama: Although I am a little hurt that he's not here tonight. We had so much fun the last time. And it is surprising. You've got a roomful of reporters, celebrities, cameras, and he says no. Is this dinner too tacky for the Donald? What could he possibly be doing instead? Is he at home, eating a Trump steak, tweeting out insults to Angela Merkel? What's he doing?

Pres. Barack Obama: The Republican establishment is incredulous that he's their most likely nominee. Incredulous. Shocking. They say Donald lacks the foreign policy experience to be president. But in fairness, he has spent years meeting with leaders from around the world: Miss Sweden, Miss Argentina. Miss Azerbaijan.

Pres. Barack Obama: And there's one area where Donald's experience could be invaluable, and that's closing Guantanamo because Trump knows a thing or two about running waterfront properties into the ground. All right, that's probably enough. I mean, I've got more material. No, no, no.

Pres. Barack Obama: I don't want to spend too much time on the Donald. Following your lead, I want to show some restraint because I think we can all agree that from the start, he's gotten the appropriate amount of coverage befitting the seriousness of his candidacy. I hope you all are proud of yourselves. The guy wanted to give this hotel business a boost. And, now we're praying that Cleveland makes it through July.

Pres. Barack Obama: As for me and Michelle, we've decided to stay in DC for a couple more years. Thank you. This way, our youngest daughter can finish up high school. Michelle can stay closer to a plot of carrots. She's already making plans to see them every day. Take a look.

Pres. Barack Obama: But our decision has actually presented a bit of a dilemma because, traditionally, presidents don't stick around after they're done. And it's something that I've been brooding about a little bit. Take a look.

Kristen Welker: The Obamas are staying in DC for two years after the president leaves office.

Chuck Todd: He's about to go from Commander-in-Chief to couch Commander.

Pres. Barack Obama: Boo, Chuck Todd. What am I going to do in DC for two years?

Joe Biden: It sounds like a dilemma, Mr. President.

Pres. Barack Obama: I can't golf every day, can't I?

Joe Biden: Which do you like better, this or this?

Pres. Barack Obama: Joe, they're the same.

Joe Biden: They capture different moods.

Pres. Barack Obama: Joe, I need some focus here.

Joe Biden: [Indecipherable].

Pres. Barack Obama: I'm sorry. What's that?

Joe Biden: I said, Mr. President, that you had to be practical. Look, you can drive again. You're going to need a license. You love sports. Why don't you volunteer to work for one of the teams around here?

Kristen Welker: Is this the Washington Wizards? I understand you're looking for some coaching help. Let's just say I coach my daughter's team a few times. Hello. Hello.

Female Voice: Ready for him.

Pres. Barack Obama: So, I'm going to be in DC for a while. And I thought I'd take up driving again.

Female Voice: What's the name?

Pres. Barack Obama: Barack Hussein Obama.

Female Voice: Yikes. Well, since you don't have a driver's license, you're gonna need a birth certificate.

Pres. Barack Obama: Really?

Female Voice: Really.

Pres. Barack Obama: It's real.

Chuck Todd: Is it?

Pres. Barack Obama: It's real.

Female Voice: But is it?

Pres. Barack Obama: Michelle left her phone. Let's see here She's got Snapchat. Obamacare is great, and it's really working. Sign up now.

Male Voice: Breaking news.

Male Voice: Michelle Obama in hot water after posting this video earlier today.

Pres. Barack Obama: Obamacare is great, and i really working. Sign up now.

Pres. Barack Obama: No?

Michelle Obama: No.

Pres. Barack Obama: Did we get a lot of views, at least?

Michelle Obama: Honey, enough. Why don't you just talk to somebody who's been through this? I gotta go to Soul Cycle.

Pres. Barack Obama: She's right. I know who I can to talk to.

Pres. Barack Obama: Hey, it's Barack. Listen, can we together?

Pres. Barack Obama: Now, that is a great movie.

John Boehner: Yeah.

Pres. Barack Obama: So, you got any advice for me?

John Boehner: So, now, you want my advice? First, stop sending me all these LinkedIn request. And second, here's the beauty of this whole thing, you've got all the time in the world to figure this out. You can just be you for a while if you're not going to do that again.

Pres. Barack Obama: So, I can just be me? And I can wear my mom jeans piece. I hate these tight jeans.

John Boehner: Good, good. Yesterday, I had a beer at 11:30 in the morning. And, you know, McDonald's now, serves breakfast all day long.

Pres. Barack Obama: You know, Michelle's gonna be at spin class, so she'll never know, right?

John Boehner: Let it go. And it won't be long, you'll be able to walk right out of the Oval Office singing, "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay." Man, you got plenty of time to work on your tan. And you know what? I finally got the grand bargain on a sweet Chevy Tahoe. Look here, you want one?

Male Voice: Barack Obama on his 347th round of golf for the year, and it's totally great. And Gloria, not a problem for anybody.

Gloria: I can't think of a reason to care. And believe me, I've tried.

Pres. Barack Obama: There you go. I am still waiting for all of you to respond to my invitation to connect to LinkedIn. But I know you have jobs to do, which is what really brings us here tonight.

Pres. Barack Obama: I know that there are times that we've had differences, and that's inherent in our institutional roles. It's true of every president and his press corps. But we've always shared the same goal, to root our public discourse in the truth, to open the doors of this democracy, to do whatever we can to make our country and our world more free and more just. And I've always appreciated the role that you have all played as equal partners in reaching these goals.

Pres. Barack Obama: And our free press is why we, once again, recognize the real journalists who uncover the horrifying scandal and brought some measure of justice for thousands of victims throughout the world. They are here with us tonight. Sasha Pfeiffer, Mike Rezendes, Walter Robinson, Matt Caroll, and Ben Bradlee Jr. Please give them a big round of applause.

Pres. Barack Obama: A free press is why, once again, we honor Jason Rezaian, as Carol noted. Last time this year, we spoke of Jason's courage as he endured the isolation of an Iranian prison. This year, we see that courage in the flesh. And it's a living testament to the very idea of a free press and a reminder of the rising level of danger, and political intimidation, and physical threats faced by reporters overseas.

Pres. Barack Obama: And I can make this commitment that as long as I hold this office, my administration will continue to fight for the release of American journalists held against their will. And we will not stop until we may see the same freedom as Jason had.

Pres. Barack Obama: At home and abroad, journalists, like all of you, engage in the dogged pursuit of informing citizens, and holding leaders accountable, and making our government of the people possible. And it's an enormous responsibility. And I realize it's an enormous challenge at a time when the economics of the business sometimes incentivizes speed over depth, and when controversy and conflict are what most immediately attract readers and viewers. The good news is there's so many of you that are pushing against those trends. And as a citizen of this great democracy, I am grateful for that

Pres. Barack Obama: For this is also a time around the world when some of the fundamental ideals of liberal democracies are under attack and when notions of objectivity, and of a free press, and effects, and of evidence are trying to be undermined or, in some cases, ignored entirely. And in such a climate, it's not enough just to give people a megaphone. And that's why your power and your responsibility to dig, and to question, and to counter distortions and untruths is more important than ever.

Pres. Barack Obama: Taking a stand on behalf of what is true does not require you shedding your objectivity. In fact, it is the essence of good journalism. It affirms the idea that the only way we can build consensus, the only way that we can move forward as a country, the only way we can help the world mend itself is by agreeing on a baseline of facts when it comes to the challenges that confront us all.

Pres. Barack Obama: So, this night is a testament to all of you who've devoted your lives to that idea, who push to shine a light on the truth every single day. So, I want to close my final White House correspondents' dinner by just saying thank you. I'm very proud of what you've done. It has been an honor and a privilege to work side by side with you to strengthen our democracy. And with that, I just have two more words to say: Obama out.

Sonix is the best online video transcription software in 2019.

The above video transcript for “FULL TRANSCRIPT: "Obama out" President Barack Obama's hilarious final White House correspondents' dinner speech” was transcribed by the best video transcription service called Sonix. Transcribing and editing video files is painful. Need to quickly convert your video files to text? Try Sonix today. Signing up for a free trial account is easy.

New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama’s Complete Victory Speech | Election 2012

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Barack Obama. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama's Complete Victory Speech | Election 2012 (transcribed by Sonix)

Barack Obama: More than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward. It moves forward because of you.

Barack Obama: It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope. The belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation.

Barack Obama: Tonight, in this election, you, the American people reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back. And we know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come. I want to thank every American who participated in this election.

Barack Obama: Whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time. By the way, we have to fix that. Whether you pounding the pavement or picked up the phone. Whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign, you made your voice heard and you made a difference.

Barack Obama: I just spoke with Governor Romney and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard fought campaign. We may have battled fiercely, but it's only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future. From George to Lenore to their son, Mitt Romney, family has chosen to give back to America through public service. And that is his legacy that we honor and applaud tonight.

Barack Obama: In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward. I want to thank my friend and partner of the last four years, America's happy warrior, the best vice president anybody could ever hope for Joe Biden.

Barack Obama: And I wouldn't be the man I am today without the woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago. Let me say this publicly, Michelle, I have never loved you more. I have never been prouder to watch the rest of America fall in love with you, too, as our nation's first lady. Sasha and Malia, before our very eyes, you're growing up to become two strong, smart, beautiful young women just like your mom. And I'm so proud of you guys, but I will say that for now, one dog's probably enough.

Barack Obama: To the best campaign team and volunteers in the history. You were new this time around and some of you have been at my side since the very beginning. But all of your family, no matter what you do or where you go from here, you will carry the memory of the history we made together and you will have the lifelong appreciation of a grateful president.

Barack Obama: Thank you for believing all the way to every hill, through every valley. You lifted me up the whole way, and I will always be grateful for everything that you've done and all the incredible work that you've put in. I know that political campaigns can sometimes seem small, even silly.

Barack Obama: And that provides plenty of fodder for the cynics who tell us that politics nothing more than a contest of egos or the domain of special interests. But if you ever get the chance to talk to folks who turned out at our rallies and crowded along a rope line in the high school gym or saw folks working late at a campaign office in some tiny county far away from home, you'll discover something else.

Barack Obama: You'll hear the determination in the voice of a young feild organizer who's working his way through college and wants to make sure every child has that same opportunity. You'll hear the pride in the voice of a volunteer who's going door to door because her brother was finally hired when the local auto plant added another shift.

Barack Obama: You'll hear the deep patriotism in the voice of a military spouse who's working the phones late at night to make sure that no one who fights for this country ever has to fight for a job or a roof over their head.

Barack Obama: That's why we do this. That's what politics can be. That's why elections matter. It's not small, it's big. It's important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs.

Barack Obama: And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy. That won't change after tonight, and it shouldn't.

Barack Obama: These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. And we can never forget that as we speak, people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.

Barack Obama: But despite all our differences. Most of us share certain hopes for America's future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers.

Barack Obama: A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow. We want our children to live in America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.

Barack Obama: We want to pass on a country that's safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this this world has ever known.

Barack Obama: But also a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being, we believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag.

Barack Obama: To the young boy on the south side of Chicago sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture worker's child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president.

Barack Obama: That's the heat. That's the future we hope for. That's the vision we share. That's where we need to go forward. That's where we need to go.

Barack Obama: Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there, as it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It's not always a straight line. It's not always a smooth path. By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won't end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward.

Barack Obama: But that common bond is where we must begin. Our economy is recovered. A decade of war is ending, a long campaign is now. And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you. I have learned from you and you've made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work he is to do and the future that lies ahead.

Barack Obama: Tonight, you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours, and in the coming weeks and months. I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together reducing our deficit, reforming our tax code, fixing our immigration system, freeing ourselves from foreign oil.

Barack Obama: We've got more work to do. But that doesn't mean your work is done. The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America's never been about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self government. That's the principle we were founded on.

Barack Obama: This country has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We had the most powerful military in history, but that's not what makes us strong. Our university, our culture are all the envy of the world. But that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores. What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth.

Barack Obama: The belief that our destiny is shared, that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and the future generations to the freedom which so many Americans have fought for and died for. Comes with responsibilities as well as rights. And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. That's what makes America great.

Barack Obama: I am hopeful tonight because I've seen the spirit of work in America. I've seen it in the family business whose owners would rather cut their own pay than lay off their neighbors. And then the workers who would rather cut back their hours than see a friend lose a job.

Barack Obama: I've seen it in the soldiers who reenlist after losing a limb and in those seals who charged up the stairs into darkness and danger because they knew there was a buddy behind them watching their back.

Barack Obama: I've seen it on the shores of New Jersey and New York, where leaders from every party and level of government has swept aside their differences to help a community rebuild from the wreckage of a terrible storm.

Barack Obama: And I saw just the other day in Minner, Ohio, where a father told the story of his eight year old daughter whose long battle with leukemia nearly cost their family everything, had it not been for health care reform passing just a few months before the insurance company. I had to you to not just talk to the father, but meet. This incredible daughter of his.

Barack Obama: And when he spoke to the crowd, listening to that father's story, every parent in that room had tears in their eyes because we knew that little girl could be our own. And I know that every American wants her future to be just as bright. That's who we are. That's the country I'm so proud to lead as your president. And tonight, despite all the hardship we've been through, despite all the frustrations of Washington, I've never been more hopeful about our future.

Barack Obama: I have never been more hopeful about America. And I ask you to sustain that hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. I'm not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.

Barack Obama: I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.

Barack Obama: America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founding, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love.

Barack Obama: It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight. You can make it here in America.

Barack Obama: It's.

Barack Obama: I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggest. We're not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions. And we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United.

Barack Obama: Grace, we will continue our journey forward and. Just what is that we live in the greatest nation on earth.

Sonix is the best online video transcription software in 2019.

The above video transcript for “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama's Complete Victory Speech | Election 2012 ” was transcribed by the best video transcription service called Sonix. Transcribing and editing video files is painful. Need to quickly convert your video files to text? Try Sonix today. Signing up for a free trial account is easy.

New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: David Sacks Interview with Kara Nortman | Upfront Summit 2019

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Kara Nortman or the Upfront Summit. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: David Sacks Interview with Kara Nortman | Upfront Summit 2019 (transcribed by Sonix)

Kara Nortman: We’re very fortunate today to have David Sacks with us. I think many of you guys know David Sacks, but I’ll give a quick introduction. Founding COO of PayPal, Founder and CEO of Yammer. And then most recently, in his operating repast, went into Zenefits during its most difficult time as CEO. And then, a very prolific and successful angel investing career in a few companies you guys might have heard of – Facebook, Slack, Airbnb, SpaceX just to name a few of them. And then, most recently, David started Craft Ventures, a $350 million venture capital fund. So, we have a lot of topics to cover today.

David Sacks: Great.

Kara Nortman: So, David, you’ve made some big bets both with your career and as an investor in trends kind of before other people saw them. So, FinTech with PayPal, the consumerization of communication in the enterprise with Yammer, which Microsoft obviously bought for over a billion dollars. I think what’s probably most interesting to start off with for this audience are: so, what trends are you most excited about? What are you thinking about? What are you investing around?

David Sacks: Yeah. Well, thanks. Thanks for having me. I think the computing era that we’re in right now is the era of devices and sensors. You know, each successive era in computing kind of redefines the one that came before it. When you had the shift to mobile, we kind of interpreted — we kind of reinterpreted the PC as an insufficiently personal computer. The mobile device is really the most important, is the most personal computer.

David Sacks: I think what’s happening with device and sensors is we’ll look back at the mobile phone as just one of, you know, end devices that become internet-connected and transformed in the process. Well, there’s going to be a proliferation that’s already happening of new kinds of devices, appliances, sensors. And I think that’s creating a lot of interesting new business models.

Kara Nortman: And you just used to invested in one, I think, that you announced last week. Do you want to tell us a little bit about Swarm?

David Sacks: Yeah. So, Swarm is a critical enabler of this trend. It’s a — Swarm actually creates a — It’s a satellite network, a new satellite network. But what it does is they’ve got a chip the size of a quarter that any developer will be able to put in their IoT device, and it will just be kind of magically connected to the internet. Right now, if you want to connect a device, an IoT device to the internet, you need to have a WiFi hotspot or a cell tower. And what Swarm will enable is just, you know, it’ll work anywhere just kind of automatically. You pay a metered rate for your data. And right now, that’s not really possible with the existing satellite solutions. They’re just kind of too expensive, and the procurement process is too difficult.

Kara Nortman: And so, what are the kind of the killer apps that once this is built you think will sit on top of these devices?

David Sacks: Yeah. I mean, it’s — So, the ones that are easy to think of are the ones where people are trying to connect a sensor where there’s no internet access. It could be a shipping container on a boat that’s the middle of the ocean, or it could be a sensor in an agricultural field, or it could be traffic lights. Well, you know, how do you connect those things easily?

David Sacks: But I think what’s really exciting is that once you create kind of ubiquitous connectivity, what are the new applications that we’re going to see that don’t even exist today in the same way that, you know, every expansion of internet access has led to all sorts of — whether it was — you know, first, it was kind of you went from dial-up, to broadband, to WiFi. And this is kind of the next step in that evolution.

Kara Nortman: And so, I mean, a couple questions for a company like this, right. It’s a big ambition, big vision, a lot of potential applications. I’d say, first, how do you due diligence the founders and the technology in a space like this?

David Sacks: Yeah.

Kara Nortman: Start there.

David Sacks: Yeah. So, I mean, in this particular case, we used some experts in our network to help us evaluate the core technology, the kind of the micro satellites. What they’ve done is they’ve invented a satellite that’s like this big. I mean, it’s tiny but fully — Well, they can put a satellite in space for about 1% of the cost of those big Iridium satellites. And so, it’s just incredibly disruptive on the cost side, and that allows them to offer this kind of very simple metered rate. It’s kind of API for internet access.

David Sacks: I think, for us, we’re not big on necessarily taking a tremendous amount of invention, like scientific invention risk. In this case, the company had already proven the satellites work. They had three of them already in space. And so, we just had to believe in the market adoption. And we feel very comfortable taking kind of market risks.

Kara Nortman: And so, then, flipping to the market side. So, sort of the world is your oyster. In terms of go-to markets, a bunch of different applications from bringing internet to the developing world, to connecting lights. I definitely have one light in particular I’d like to move faster. So, if you know anyone once it’s live, please lob in a request for me.

David Sacks: Right.

Kara Nortman: But how much does the team think — how much are you looking for the team to think about go-to market at this stage? And how far in advance are they developing those use cases?

David Sacks: Yeah. I mean, we talk about it extensively. For me, the founding team having a distribution plan is critical. In fact, I would say that the team innovating on the distribution side is as important as them innovating on the product side. And I’m always looking for a team that’s figured out a distribution trick.

David Sacks: The way we did at Yammer with, you know — Yammer was one of the first viral applications inside of the enterprise. And so, we use kind of consumer vitality as our trick to grow in the enterprise. At PayPal, it was also viral, but we used sign up for referral bonuses. We also bootstrapped off of eBay. So, I’m always trying to figure out like, what is the thing that’s going to allow this to grow at some unusually fast rate?

Kara Nortman: Got it. Wonderful. So, maybe shifting gears to another kind of company in the space that we both probably love to talk about, but you’ve been with since the beginning. Is Bird kind of one of those companies you think fits into this thesis?

David Sacks: Yeah, totally because it’s — you know, basically, you connect a scooter to the internet, and you, you know, pack it with new devices or new sensors like GPS and other things, and all of a sudden, you’ve got a new mode of transportation. And so, that’s really exciting. I think it’s a great example of how when you take a kind of non-obvious device and connect to the internet, you can enable all sorts of new businesses.

David Sacks: And I do think from our standpoint as startup investors, the device has to be somewhat non-obvious because Amazon and the big Google, big companies are connecting all the obvious ones. I mean, Amazon right now is running down a checklist of they’re connecting your microwave and all that. And so, if you’re just kind of doing that, I don’t think it’s interesting enough for startups, but if you take a really non-obvious one, I think Bird’s an example of the kind of magical things that can happen. And I really do think it’s a new mode of transportation in cities that’s just going to keep getting bigger and bigger.

Kara Nortman: Awesome. Okay. We’re going to unpack Bird a little bit. Have anyone heard of Bird? Can you raise your hand in the audience? Okay, just kidding. So, let’s start with the easier stuff. You funded Bird in the first $3 million round. It’s right in our backyard in Santa Monica. We eventually got smart and caught up. But what did you see at that stage? This is a founder you’ve worked with in the past, but in a space that no one was talking about back then.

David Sacks: Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, Travis had work for me at Yammer. I thought he was a terrific entrepreneur, and he came to me with this idea. I thought it was crazy. I mean, you know, you’re just going to leave these scooters. No one has really seen this. This is really a new type of scooter.

Kara Nortman: And you had funded him in something that didn’t quite work, right?

David Sacks: Yeah, I’d written his first angel check in his previous company, which was on-demand car washing service. It was called Cherry. The company didn’t work, but it created some interesting tech. It got acquired by Lyft. And then, he got recruited to be an executive at Uber. So, he was very deep in this transportation space. And what he saw at Uber was that half of trips in cities are under three miles, and he discovered this really new form factor with these new battery-powered scooters that were coming out of China, and he had this idea that we could solve that last mile problem more cheaply, more easily, more convenient doing this.

David Sacks: And, you know, when I first heard the idea, I thought it was crazy because, you know, you’re just going to leave these things on the street, and people are somehow going to know how to use them. But then, I actually tried the product, and it was a lot more magical than I was expecting. And so, you know, I wrote him an angel check. And then, when we had the fund, we wrote him, you know, a venture check as well.

Kara Nortman: Yeah. I mean, I remember. Obviously, the business grew up under our eyes. And so, I remember one day running around UCLA, and nobody was on any of the bikes, and everyone was on Bird scooters all over the place. And it was just very clear that something was happening.

David Sacks: Yeah. In fairness to you guys, I had the opportunity to preempt the round because of my relation with Travis. So, yeah, it would’ve been a tough one for anyone else to get. But, yeah, I just thought it was just this really magical thing. And you can see how transformative it’s been. And, now, we’re in a little bit of a, sort of, pessimistic news cycle about it. But people should just keep in mind that one year ago, scooters were only available in one city, Santa Monica, that was actually criminally prosecuting the company for launching there.

David Sacks: And a year later, we’re now in hundreds of cities all over the world. It’s become this revolution. And cities have now embraced it and accepted it. We’ve got operating agreements with dozens of cities now. The Mayor of Boston just said yesterday he wants to welcome them. The New York Times has come out on their editorial page saying that they should be brought into Manhattan. So, this whole wave is just getting started.

Kara Nortman: So, I mean, do you think — So, this market euphoria, slight pessimism euphoria. So, let’s kind of plot the line. Let’s plot the line through it.

David Sacks: Yeah.

Kara Nortman: So, what — Let’s hit some of the harder topics. Let’s first talk about safety. So, there’s a lot — you know, there’s a lot of opinions on safety. I think people don’t necessarily know the safety story of Bird, but tell me how you think that safety is, you know, the original board member, and what Bird is doing specifically in that area.

David Sacks: Yeah. So, I mean, from the beginning, Bird has been very concerned about safety. One of the things we realized very early on is that night riding. So, you know, riding late at night would be dangerous for riders. We never allowed it. So, I think, you know, we turn off all the scooters at 9:00 p.m. If you look at where are the fatalities and critical injuries have actually occurred, it’s generally been between midnight and 4:00 a.m. in the morning. You know, our competitors have not done this. They want the extra rides, and we think it’s irresponsible.

David Sacks: The only fatality that’s occurred on a Bird has been — It was actually a Bird that was stolen out of a charger’s house and was ridden at 4:00 a.m., which kind of it’s the exception that kind of proves the point about this, you know, riding late at night. That wasn’t something we could control because the scooter was in task mode. But if you look at our competitors, they’ve just had, you know, multiple fatalities at night. We think it’s really irresponsible. Anyway, the company has, I think, done a lot on the safety side. And, you know, they’ve given away a lot of free helmets. They’ll send you one if you want one. And they’ve done a lot on the rider education side as well.

Kara Nortman: And so, we have Travis here tomorrow. So, I’m not going to go too deeply on the economics and other questions that he’ll likely get to. But I think from that perspective of the investor and the board member, what are some of the lessons learned? What are some of the things you think the market’s getting wrong? You know, add to or dispel any myth that you’d like.

David Sacks: Yeah. So, I think, in 2018, the big challenges or the things that the company had to prove were, first of all, product market fit. I mean, again, everybody was incredulous, including myself, about this idea until Travis proved that people wanted it. And I think the company has proved that in its first year.

David Sacks: And the other thing is regulatory acceptance. I mean, we had to fight these battles including in, you know, our home city. But I think that cities have generally come out on the right side of this, which is it’s going to be allowed, there’s going to be operating agreements, or creating permits. And so, I think those are the big battles.

David Sacks: I think, in 2019, the big battle or the big things that the companies are focused on is dialing in on the economics. And there, the challenge is and what we’ve learned is that if you just use a retail scooter, scooter that’s available for sale on Amazon, which is what all the copycats are doing, the economics of that won’t work. The scooters aren’t rugged enough. They’re too easy to steal. There’s no supply chain for parts. And so, we’re seeing from Bird and, you know, also, the other kind of market leader, Slime, is they’ve now both vertically integrated, developed their own supply chains, developing their own scooters. And I think it’s a significant barrier to entry because if all you’re going to do is use these retail scooters, we can tell you that that business does not work.

Kara Nortman: Yeah.

David Sacks: But it’s what was available a year ago. So, when Travis want to prove product market fit, it’s what was available, it’s what he used. But, now, we’ve again gone vertical and are building our own.

Kara Nortman: Yeah. So, last quick question, and then we’ll move on to another topic. It’s a company that’s raised a lot of capital quickly, and is sort of in a blitz scaling moment, and suspending quite a bit of capital to take share. How do you think about, you know, bumpy markets for for a company like Bird?

David Sacks: Well, I think that is the right strategy. I mean, PayPal did the same thing. You know, we were — you raise a lot of capital, and you burn a lot of capital in order to take market share. And I think that is the right approach. The reality is that consumers aren’t going to want to have five scooter apps on their phone, you know. There’s going to be, you know, one, maybe two scooter apps on their phone. And, you know, getting the biggest footprint, creating the most liquidity in the market, developing that supply chain, those are all capital intensive things, but they’re what is required to win this big market.

David Sacks: And I’m not a fan of kind of Lean startup methodology. At least once you have product market fit, I am a fan of blitz scaling, which is once you know that there’s a market there, you need to basically go all out to win it. And I think that is the right strategy for Bird.

Kara Nortman: And also knowing that there’s margin there, right? And that-

David Sacks: Yeah.

Kara Nortman: And so — but totally makes sense.

David Sacks: So, we know there is because with every successive generation of scooter that we use, the economics keep improving. And so, if you look at like Bird Zero, which is their own homegrown scooter, it’s much more ruggedized. It’s better on anti-theft. The economics are vastly better than the retail scooters. And there’s — I mean, I don’t want to spill the beans, but there’s new miles of scooters coming. And with every successive generation of supply, the economics just keep getting better and better.

David Sacks: You know, one thing I can tell you about like retail, the retail scooters is you can now buy a $25 chip set or brain kit from China and convert, you know, those Xiaomi or Ninebot scooters. So, you know, you take that stolen scooter, convert it to a personal scooter. And that’s, I think, what’s fueling a lot of the theft. You can’t do that with Bird’s own scooter because it’s something they completely own. There’s no chip set for that. So, it’s just one example of how everything gets better when you control it yourself.

Kara Nortman: Absolutely, absolutely. One of the things I love about LA and about scooters growing up here is you literally would see women in their couture, maybe it was, you know, ready to wear, but, you know, they were dressed up with their heels on their Bird scooters. And it was — you know, a beautiful sight to see all kinds of people using Bird scooters.

David Sacks: Totally.

Kara Nortman: So, let’s hit — I want to get into some other things, but before we do, I know you’re looking at a couple other themes. Just to leave it with potential co-investors in the audience, what are some of the other themes at a high level you’re thinking about?

David Sacks: Yeah. So, I have two partners at Craft. You know, one of them is Jeff Fluhr, former founder of StubHub, which is, you know, the most popular ticketing marketplace. He’s spending a lot of time looking at marketplaces. But the big shift he’s seeing is moving from product marketplaces to service marketplaces. It’s not really about selling goods. It’s more about selling services. And a lot of those are B2B marketplaces. And so, we’re taking a look at a lot of those things.

David Sacks: And then, my other partner, Bill Lee, spends a lot of time on emerging areas like VR, crypto, gaming, and you know. And what we’re seeing there is, you know, we made a big investment in Cloudnine. We led that Series A round. It’s an e-sports company. E-sports has just gotten huge. And we think there’s a lot of things like that in gaming and virtual brands that get us excited.

Kara Nortman: Awesome. Wonderful, wonderful. Okay. Well, so, shifting gears a little bit. You know, one of things we sometimes in VC or newer VCs, maybe a bit more timid, you know, there’s kind of a maybe sometimes a lot of copycat investing, tiptoeing. You’ve made some big, bold bets very quickly. So, you know, one of my favorite and most overused words in venture capital, it’s the synergy of its time, is conviction. But tell us, you obviously have a lot of conviction to make the bets you’ve made. Tell us what gives you conviction.

David Sacks: Yeah. I mean, I guess, I’m not like tremendously worried about job security. And our LPs are diversified. So, I kind of figure it’s okay for me to be more concentrated. The number one thing that gives me conviction is when I can use the product myself. And I mean, that’s not always possible, but when I can use the product myself, and it’s a product that is useful to me, and I love it.

David Sacks: And so, Bird was a case like that where I tried it down here in LA. And then, when I went back to San Francisco, I felt myself missing it. So, you know, I’m listening to that voice in my head. Same thing with Uber, you know. I think I discovered Uber in 2010. And six months later, like I got rid of my car. I just went full Uber. And so, I reached out to the company to invest in that. Similar story with Houzz and PlanGrid, which I was doing a construction project, and I used PlanGrid for my plans, and I used Houzz for my interior design.

David Sacks: And so, anytime I’m using a product, I will reach out to the company and see if I can invest in it. Obviously, that doesn’t work for something like Swarm. And, you know that, I’m going to rely on things like, you know, obviously, how great is the team, and, you know, does this product make sense, can I put myself in the shoes of who the customer is, and have they thought of that distribution trick.

Kara Nortman: Yeah, I love it. I love it. I always say I know I’m very excited about a company only when I’m driving my husband crazy. If I can’t stop talking about this like, “Did you make an investment already?” So, I think it was passion, do the work, all the stuff that our mothers probably told us but not everyone does. So, that’s exciting.

Kara Nortman: Okay. So, we’re going to shift gears, and I’d love to talk a little bit. I think you and I were just talking about this. We met back when you were starting Geni, which is the predecessor company to Yammer. So, first question, you started Geni in LA-

David Sacks: Yeah.

Kara Nortman: … many moons ago, but then you moved Yammer up to the Bay Area. Is that — Why did you do that? And tell me how you would think about it today.

David Sacks: Yeah. I think, you know, that was 10 years ago. And, you know, we felt that the LA ecosystem, the tech ecosystem was a lot smaller back then. It’s not a decision I would make today. I think if I were down here with a startup today, I would not try to move it. And the reason is just because the tech ecosystem in LA has just gone so much bigger. It’s so much deeper. There’s so much more talent. There’s, you know, a lot more investors like you guys who cover it. There’s this — the relative advantage, I think, of Silicon Valley is just it’s much less, and there’s a lot of advantages to LA now as well.

David Sacks: So, yeah. I mean, I think, you know, LA is an ecosystem that we really like as investors. So, you know, I was an angel investor in SpaceX, and we did have a follow-on investment through the fund. They’re obviously been here for a long time. There was Bird, Cloudnine, the sports company I talked about. I think that LA is definitely the epicenter for all things, e-sports, and content, and gaming-related. We actually did a seed round in a B2B cannabis marketplace in LA and which is based in LA. And so, yeah.

Kara Nortman: So, if the other ones don’t go well, we got you guys covered.

David Sacks: Yeah. So, there’s been — you know, there’s just been a lot of really interesting companies that are coming out of LA now. And so, we think it’s a great ecosystem.

Kara Nortman: Awesome, awesome. And how — you’re also somebody who, in the distant past, made a movie, Thank You for Smoking, which was a great movie. If you haven’t seen it, those of you who are like in your early 30s, go back and watch it. But I was curious, like how do you compare and contrast innovation in Silicon Valley and in tech in LA to innovation in more of kind of the traditional content fields or Hollywood?

David Sacks: Yeah. I mean, after producing a movie, I went back into tech. I wanted the relative sanity of the startup business after my exposure to Hollywood. I think, you know, the basic problem is entrepreneurship is very hard in Hollywood, in the kind of traditional content business because the entrepreneur really kind of gets squeezed between the studios, kind of the distribution gatekeepers on the one hand, and then the talent on the other. And those are really the two big kind of rent extractors. And I think it’s very hard for an entrepreneur to come in and disrupt that.

David Sacks: You know, obviously, Netflix has done a lot of very big scale, but I think for a startup, it’s just very tough. And, you know, the great thing about startups is just, you know, there are no real gatekeepers yet. And the talent are the entrepreneurs. And so, you know, I always — there’s always something that kind of rubs me the wrong way about when I got to Hollywood and started producing this movie. You know, I learned that there were these people called the talent, and I wasn’t one of them. And that always, you know, maybe a little bit kind of concerned. So, yeah, I just think, you know, tech moves a lot faster, it’s much more scalable, and it’s much more kind of free and open to entrepreneurs. So, yeah.

David Sacks: Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. The room, they’re always there. When there are problems, there’s room for solutions as well. We’re just about out of time. So, maybe we’ll leave with one kind of last thing. Maybe a bit of advice. Again, we have a lot of VCs the audience. So, you’ve, now, been on both sides of the table.

David Sacks: Yeah.

Kara Nortman: As a kind of former operator and, now, board member, what’s your advice to, you know, somebody sitting around the table as a relatively new board member or, you know, a longstanding board member as to what’s been most valuable to — what’s the most valuable kind of board behavior you’ve seen? And what are the things that drove you crazy as a founder?

David Sacks: Yeah. I had, you know, really — I had a really great board at Yammer. I mean, I got along with everybody, and everyone contributed in different ways. You know, I think that there’s a lot of things that an investor can bring to a startup. You know, let’s say, first, is being a great sounding board. You know, giving feedback, strategic advice. You’re never going to be deeper in the problem than an entrepreneur, but I think you can provide — Again, you can just be a sounding board and make sure that you’re giving feedback, make sure they’re thinking about it the right way.

David Sacks: I, also, think that investors tend to have more breath. So, you know, founders are, you know, hopefully, just very heads down obsessed with what they’re doing. Investors get a lot more breath. And so, they can bring, you know, benchmarks. They can kind of tell you, you know, what’s working in other contexts. They can tell you what your numbers should be, you know, at this stage or, you know, what number — you know, is this cap number a good number or a bad number? So, you know, I tend to think that investors can provide perspective, and that can be that can be helpful.

Kara Nortman: Any pet peeves?

David Sacks: Probably the thing that that VCs do the most is just overestimate the number of things that a startup can really do. And so, there tends — You know, if you have a board that every board member has kind of their pet thing they want the company to do, the reality is that startups can’t get that much done. And so, you know, the thing I’m always pushing for is just focus, you know. Like what is the one most important thing that we need to get right now and let’s just be obsessively focused on that. So, yeah, that’s probably the — I don’t know it’s a pet peeve but it tends to be. Just by having a lot of voices at the table, that can be the unintended consequences as you kind of defocus the company a little.

Kara Nortman: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, listen, David, thank you so much. We’re so honored to have you here. This is a wonderful conversation.

David Sacks: All right. Thanks, Kara.

Kara Nortman: So, we really appreciate it.

David Sacks: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

Kara Nortman: Let’s give David a round of applause.

David Sacks: All right, great. Thanks. Yeah.

Sonix is the best online video transcription software in 2019.

The above video transcript for “FULL TRANSCRIPT: David Sacks Interview with Kara Nortman | Upfront Summit 2019” was transcribed by the best video transcription service called Sonix. Transcribing and editing video files is painful. Need to quickly convert your video files to text? Try Sonix today. Signing up for a free trial account is easy.

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Joe Rogan Experience #1236 – Jack Dorsey

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the BagMan podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Joe Rogan Experience #1236 – Jack Dorsey (transcribed by Sonix)

Joe Rogan: Three, two, one, boom. Hello, Jack.

Jack Dorsey: What's up?

Joe Rogan: Nice to meet you, man.

Jack Dorsey: Nice to meet you, finally.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. Keep this sucker like a fist from your face.

Jack Dorsey: Got it.

Joe Rogan: Good. First of all. dude, you started a company. When you started Twitter, when you guys first started, did you have any idea — Well, there's no way you could have had any idea what it would be now.

Jack Dorsey: No.

Joe Rogan: But one of the things I always try to emphasize with people when people are like, "Twitter's crazy," I'm like, "How could it not be crazy? There's never been anything like it before." Like imagine trying to predict the kind of impact — The President of the United States uses Twitter to threaten other countries.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: I mean, who the fuck saw that coming?

Jack Dorsey: Not us.

Joe Rogan: Nobody saw that coming.

Jack Dorsey: Not us.

Joe Rogan: What did you think it was going to be when you first did it?

Jack Dorsey: Well, you know, we were building this thing for ourselves. And that's how everything starts. We wanted to use it. We wanted to stay connected with each other. We-

Joe Rogan: Like a group text almost?

Jack Dorsey: Like a group text. We loved our phones. We loved technology. We actually started this as a hack week project out of a failed company called Odeo. It's podcasting.

Joe Rogan: I remember that. I remember Odeo.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. Super early on. We were really creative folks, but we weren't that passionate about where podcasting was going in our particular domain. And we just got a lot of competition early on. iTunes just released a podcast directory, but we knew we wanted to work together. We knew we love this idea of one-button publishing, we love this idea of collaboration, we love this idea of being anywhere, and being able to share what was happening. That was the idea. I mean, that was it, and that's what we wanted it to be.

Jack Dorsey: And I think the most beautiful and, also, sometimes, uncomfortable aspect of Twitter is we really learned what it wanted to be, and the people helped create it. Like everything that we hold sacred now, the @ symbol, the hashtag, the retweet, those were not invented by me or the company. Those were things that we discovered, things that we discovered people using. And we just observed it, and we noticed what they were trying to do. They're trying to talk with one another. They were trying to collect tweets around topics with a hashtag.

Joe Rogan: Has anybody figured out when the first use of hashtag something was created?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, it was actually our Lead Designer, Robert Anderson, who leads our design of the Cash App. Hired him for a Square later on, but he was the first one. He was actually communicating with his brother, and he put @Buzz. His brother's name is Buzz. And it just spread. It wasn't en masse, but people were doing it.

Jack Dorsey: But what was most interesting is not what they're doing, but what they wanted to do with it. They wanted to address each other. And that changed the company completely. That changed the service because it went from just broadcasting what's happening to conversation and to being able to address anyone publicly out in the open, which, came with it, a lot of power and, also, a lot of issues as well.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. The use of hashtags, like looking up #Fryfest or hashtag — Anytime that something weird that's in the news, that's such a unique way to find things. But to go on Twitter and to utilize that, it's — I mean, it's interesting that this guy just did it just to contact his brother.

Jack Dorsey: Well, that was the @ symbol. The hashtag was this guy, Chris Messina.

Joe Rogan: Oh, different guy.

Jack Dorsey: And he was trying to tag around topics that he was tweeting about. And, again, that spread. All we did was made it easier. We made it more accessible. We enabled everyone to do it. With the @ symbol, we made a page that collected all mentions of your name. With the hashtag, we allowed people to search immediately, so you could tap on the keyword, and you would see everyone talking about that or tweeting about that specific hashtag. So, these things were just emergent behaviors that we didn't predict, and they became the lifeblood of the service.

Joe Rogan: What's fascinating to me about something like Twitter or even something like YouTube is that there's not a lot of other ones like it. There's just this one thing.

Jack Dorsey: Absolutely.

Joe Rogan: Like how does that happen-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: … where this one thing sort of gets adopted by everybody and takes over, and then just becomes these overwhelmingly massive platform? I mean, there's really — Here's Vimeo and there's a few other videos services, but nothing on the scale of YouTube. And that's the same thing with Twitter. There's nothing on the scale of distributing information in a quick, short, 280-character form like that.

Jack Dorsey: I don't think we could plan for it. I don't think we could necessarily build for that. Someone said recently too, we just gathered a bunch of our leadership last week in Palm Springs for an offsite, and someone said recently that Twitter was discovered. And I think what's behind all that is that it hit something foundational. It hit something essential. And my co-founder, Biz, likes to say that Twitter can never be uninvented. It's here. It changed everything, but the use of it has been revolutionary.

Jack Dorsey: And it's just a simple idea of if you could text with the entire world, if you could actually reach anyone in the world, or anyone could see what you're thinking, which I think is also the beautiful thing about text and the medium, you can actually get someone's raw thoughts, and anyone in the world can see that instantaneously. It becomes a subconscious. It becomes this like global consciousness. And it gets to some really deep places in society. And some of those places are pretty uncomfortable.

Joe Rogan: Well, it also gets to some really deep places psychologically. There's a weirdness to it, right? There's a weirdness to-

Jack Dorsey: Definitely.

Joe Rogan: … sending text particularly @anonymously, and there's so many accounts that are just an egg.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: There's so many accounts where they're clearly designed. Like sometimes, someone will twit something mean to me, and I'm like, "Hmm, I wonder what this person's up to?" So, I go to their site, and it's just them tweeting mean shit at people all day long. Like it's probably some angry person at work, and they're like, "I'm just going to find people and fuck with them all day."

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Did you realize or when did you realize — I'm sure you're aware of it. When did you realize that this was almost out of your control in terms of the scale of it?

Jack Dorsey: There wasn't one moment. There wasn't one moment that it just felt completely resonant. It's unfolded into the next thing, and the next used case, and it just keeps surprising us with how people are using it. You know, it definitely — Recently, I think, we've identified some of the areas of the service that we need to pay a lot more attention to.

Jack Dorsey: Twitter is unique, and that it has two main spaces. One, which is your timeline. And those are the people that you follow. And when you follow someone, they've earned that audience. And then, it has this other world where anyone can insert themselves into the conversation. They can actually mention you, and you'll see that without asking for it. You can insert yourself into hashtags, into search, and these are areas that people have taken advantage of, and these are the areas that people have gamed our systems to, in some cases, artificially amplify it but, also, just to spread a lot of things that weren't possible with a velocity that they're not possible before.

Joe Rogan: Now, when this is all happening, what's the conversation like at Twitter? When you're recognizing that this is happening, that people are gaming the system, like, what do — How do you guys — How do you mitigate it? What's the discussion?

Jack Dorsey: Well, early on, it was pretty surface level like, how do we change some of the app dynamics? But more recently, we're trying to go a lot deeper and asking ourselves a question. When people open Twitter, what are we incentivizing? What are we telling them to do when they open up this app? We may not explicitly be doing that, but there's something that we're saying without being as clear about it. So, what does the like button incentivize? What does the retweet incentivize? What does the number of followers and making that number big and bold incentivize?

Jack Dorsey: So, I'm not sure what we should not — I'm not sure if we should incentivize anything, but we need to understand what that is. And I think, right now, we do incentivize a lot of echo chambers because we don't make it easy for people to follow interests and topics. It's only accounts. We incentivize a lot of outrage and hot takes because of some of the dynamics in the service not allowing a lot of nuance and conversation earlier on.

Jack Dorsey: Pseudonyms, this ability to not use your real name, incentivizes some positive things like it allows for whistleblowers and journalists who might fear for their career or, even worse, their life and under certain regimes but, also, allows for people, like the example you mentioned, of just random fire and spread of abuse and harassment throughout.

Jack Dorsey: So, those are the things that we're looking at. And how do we enable more of the conversation to evolve? How do we increase the credibility or reputation of accounts? How do we identify credible voices within a particular domain? Not just through this very coarse, grain, blue, verified badge, but if you're an expert in a particular topic how do we recognize that in real time and show that, so that we can provide more context to who you're talking to, and if you want to engage in a deeper conversation or just ignore, mute, or block them?

Joe Rogan: But what is the conversation like while you're at work? Like when you're realizing that all this stuff is happening, and you're realizing that, now — I mean, particularly, because the president uses it so often. It's such a — I mean, it's his preferred platform for communicating with the people, I mean, even more so than addresses. It's very strange.

Joe Rogan: What's the conversation like in the office when you're trying to figure out, "Hey, what's our responsibility here? Like, how are we supposed to handle this? How do we-" I mean, in some ways, what Twitter is doing is it's really kind of — it's flavoring the public narrative. It's flavoring the way we communicate with each other in our culture worldwide.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. I mean, the conversation has definitely evolved. I think, in the past, we just got super reactive. We were reacting to all the negative things that we're seeing, and that led to a lot of short-term thinking. More recently, we've just looked much deeper. We don't react to the present day. We look for some of the patterns.

Jack Dorsey: And, you know, we have a company that is not just serving the people of this particular country, the United States. This is global. We have global leaders all around the world using us in different ways. Some, with a higher velocity. Some recognize more the power. Some put out statements. Some lead conversations. But it's looking at all those dynamics and not trying to hyper focus on any one, a particular one, because if we do, we're only building it for one portion of the population or only one perceived present-day crisis.

Joe Rogan: But what I'm trying to get at was like, okay, when things come up, like, say, if you find out that there's people from ISIS that are using Twitter, and they're using Twitter and posting things, like, what is the conversation like? How do — What do we do about this? Do we leave this up? Do we recognize this is free speech? Do we only take it down if they're calling for murder or hate speech? Like, what — How do you handle that?

Jack Dorsey: Well, it evolves, I mean, because we first saw ISIS when the world saw ISIS. And we needed to change our policy to deal with it.

Joe Rogan: What was the initial reaction to it? So, once you realized that people from ISIS were making Twitter accounts, and they were trying to recruit people, and doing all these things, what was the thought process?

Jack Dorsey: It's the question, like, what are we going to do about this?

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: We haven't experienced this before. We need to-

Joe Rogan: Nobody has. I mean, you're essentially pioneers.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, but there are people who have experienced it in different forms and different mediums. So, we reach out to our government partners and friends and to our law enforcement partners. We reached out to our peer companies to ask if they're seeing the same things that we're seeing. We have a bunch of civil societies that we talk to to get their take on it as well. And we try to balance that across, you know, varied spectrums, whether it'd be, you know, more organizations that are more focused on preventing online harassment, all the way to the ACLU and EFF who are protecting the First Amendment online.

Jack Dorsey: So, we try to get as many perspectives as possible, take that, and then make some informed decisions, but also realize that we're probably going to make some mistakes along the way, and all we can do to correct some of that is just be open about where we are. And that's probably where we failed the most in the past is we just haven't been open about our thinking process, what led to particular decisions, how our Terms of Service evolve. In Terms of Service as an area in our industry, it's just a — it's a mess. No one reads them.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: You know, you sign up for these services, and you quickly hit accept.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And we expect people to read these rules of the road, but they haven't read them, and-

Joe Rogan: Have you ever read them?

Jack Dorsey: I have read them read.

Joe Rogan: You've read your own.

Jack Dorsey: I've read-

Joe Rogan: Have you read Facebook's?

Jack Dorsey: I haven't read Facebook's.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. You-

Jack Dorsey: I'm not on Facebook.

Joe Rogan: You're not on it?

Jack Dorsey: I'm not on Facebook.

Joe Rogan: Wow. Fuck Facebook, right? No, I'm just kidding. What about Instagram, you've read theirs?

Jack Dorsey: I was in the first 10 users of Instagram.

Joe Rogan: Really?

Jack Dorsey: Kevin was an intern. Kevin Systrom was an intern at Odeo. And I was one of the first investors of Instagram and love the service. I don't think I've ever read their Terms of Service.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, that's what I'm saying, even you.

Jack Dorsey: Even me. But I read ours, and one of the things I noticed right away as, you know, you read our Terms of Service, and one of the first things that we put at the top of the page was copyright and intellectual property protections. You go down, and you scroll down, and you see everything about violent threats, and abuse, and harassment, and safety. And it's not that the company intended for that to be the order. It's just we just added things going on.

Jack Dorsey: But even a read of that puts forth our point of view. Like we're actually putting copyright infringement above the safety-

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: … the physical safety of someone. So, we need to relook at some of these things, and how they've evolved, and how they reacted, and-

Joe Rogan: But is it above just because it's listed second? I mean, they're essentially all in the same one sheet.

Jack Dorsey: They're on the one sheet.

Joe Rogan: When you bring it up, when you discuss it first, is that really critical? They're all part of the Terms of Service.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, but I think that ordering matters. Like, what do we consider to be most important?

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: And we have to consider physical safety to be that one thing that we protect the most.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: And I-

Joe Rogan: So, physical threats.

Jack Dorsey: Physical threats.

Joe Rogan: Doxxing.

Jack Dorsey: Doxxing, anything that impinges on someone's physical safety. This is an area where I don't think technology and services like ours have focused on enough. We haven't focused on the off-platform ramifications of what happens online.

Joe Rogan: So, what do you do, like, here's a good for instance. This situation with this young kid who had the MAGA hat on, and the Native American gentleman who was in front of him banging the drum. And then, people are calling for this kid's name. They want his name, they want his address, including Kathy Griffin. Like, how do you handle something like that?

Jack Dorsey: Well-

Joe Rogan: Because that's essentially request for doxxing.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. And that is a new vector that we haven't seen en masse. I mean, these are the cases that bring up entirely new things. So, we have to study it. We have to see how we reacted, what happened with the network. But this goes back to the incentives. Like we are incentivizing this very quick reaction, and it's taking away from some more of the, like, considered work that we need to do to really diagnose what's happening in the moment. And it was — It's such an interesting case study to see how that evolved over just 48 hours. And-

Joe Rogan: Yes. That's one of the most fascinating news cycles or stories in the news cycle in quite a while because it's nuanced. There's many different levels to it.

Jack Dorsey: It's extremely nuanced, yeah.

Joe Rogan: And a lot of like really knee-jerk reactions.

Jack Dorsey: Totally, but we helped that.

Joe Rogan: How did you help it?

Jack Dorsey: Well, it's just that's how some of the dynamics of the service work. And those are the things we control.

Joe Rogan: But is that how some of the dynamics of the service or is it the way people choose to use the service? Like, if you are a thoughtful person, you wouldn't just — Like, for instance, the original image that was distributed came from an account that's now banned, right? And so, it was discovered that that account was a troll account. How does that happen? And what was the thought process behind that? Because the image that they posted was a legitimate image. It really did happen. It was a part of an actual occurring event. So, why did you ban the person or the troll account that put it up?

Jack Dorsey: I don't know about this particular case, but it's likely that it was found — There's a lot of what you see on the surface of Twitter, and some of the actions that we take on the surface, but where we spend a lot of our enforcement is actually what's happening underneath. So, in many cases, we have trolls or people, like the case that you mentioned, whose sole purpose is just to harass, or abuse, or spread particular information. And, oftentimes, these accounts might be connected, or they start one account that gets banned, they start another account. But we can actually see this through a network lens, and we can actually see some of those behaviors. So, that might have been one of the reasons. I'm not sure in that particular case but, you know, the-

Joe Rogan: How do you know? Do you know because of IP addresses? Do you know because of the-

Jack Dorsey: A variety of things. So, it could be trying to use the same phone number or same e-mail address, IP addresses, device IDs, all these things that we can use to judge what's happening within the context. So, we do have a lot of occurrences of suspending or temporarily suspending accounts because of activities across accounts. And that happens a ton. But what I mean in that we're helping this right now is like some of the incentives, like just imagine seeing that unfold, and when you see someone with one take, it kind of embolden something to follow along, and then this mob kind of rolls.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: So, there has to be a way for us to incentivize a lot more considered and more nuanced introspection of what's going on.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, give everybody mushrooms. It's probably the only way. I don't know. How are you going to get people to be more considerate? I mean, what-

Jack Dorsey: Providing more context.

Joe Rogan: I mean, this is essentially your engineering social behavior, right?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, providing more context.

Joe Rogan: Providing more context. How so?

Jack Dorsey: Providing more context. Like, an example, let's say Brexit for example.

Joe Rogan: Okay.

Jack Dorsey: So, if I followed a bunch of accounts, I like Boris Johnson who is constantly giving me information about reasons to leave, I would probably only see that perspective.

Joe Rogan: Nigel Farage.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. And those — A lot of folks just will not follow accounts that have a completely different perspective or a different influence. A number of people do. Hopefully, journalists do. But most people won't do that work. So, this is the only tool we give people: follow an account. If, however, during that time you followed the hashtag, you followed the hashtag #voteleave, 95% of the conversation in the tweets you see are all reasons to leave, but there is a small percentage that shows a different perspective and that shows a different reasoning. We don't make it easy for anyone to do that. And that is a loss-

Joe Rogan: Easy for anyone to follow-

Jack Dorsey: Follow the hashtag.

Joe Rogan: … outside of perspective.

Jack Dorsey: Follow the hashtag, follow a topic, follow an interest. And because of that, we help build an echo chamber and something that doesn't really challenge any perspective. And not to say that we should force it upon people, but we don't even make it easy for people to do in the first place. So, the way you do that today is you go the explorer tab, you look, you search for a hashtag, or you tap into a hashtag, and you can see all the conversation.

Jack Dorsey: But that's work. And most people just won't do the work. They'll stay in their timeline, and they'll see what they need to see, and I can certainly imagine why if I'm just following a bunch of people who have the exact same take on this, it just continues to embolden, and embolden, and embolden, and they see nothing of a different perspective on the exact same situation.

Joe Rogan: What's interesting to me is the difference between Twitter and Instagram. Essentially, it's not just the photographs. What's weird that has happened was there's shitty people on Instagram as well. I mean, there's a lot of arguments and things along those lines, but they don't overwhelm the initial post; whereas, with Twitter-

Jack Dorsey: Totally different surface.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Instagram is a post. I mean, it's a post that's not really eliciting conversation. It's eliciting comments.

Joe Rogan: But not just that. It's difficult to follow the conversations.

Jack Dorsey: I don't think there is a conversation. It's-.

Joe Rogan: Well, sometimes, there is. Sometimes, people are going back and forth about a particular subject that's discussed in the initial post, but it's not very clear.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Whereas with Twitter, it's only conversational.

Jack Dorsey: It's only conversation.

Joe Rogan: But even if there's a photograph, even if somebody posts a photograph on Twitter and has conversation under it, the photograph seems to be lack of secondary importance.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, it's super fluid and super messy too.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: But the thing is every — On Instagram or any blog, you have this post, the statement, and you have comments underneath; whereas, with Twitter, everything is on the same surface.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: It's all one surface.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. My friend, Kurt Metzger, likes that about Facebook. He says because in Twitter, he goes, "I post something, and then all these fucking morons post something." And he goes — You know Kurt, he's very animated. He's like, "And their shit looks just like my shit. It's all together, all piled up." He goes, "But if I post something on Facebook," he goes, "I have this whole thing. Like this is the original statement."

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, my control.

Joe Rogan: And then, underneath it, yeah, you fucking say whatever you want, but no one's no one's reading.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like they're reading the original initial post, and it's clear that there's a differentiation between the initial post and the secondary post.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. You know, there's room for both models, but this conversation, most conversations, it's not you making a statement, and me just reacting to that.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: Like our conversation of all of us based on what we say. We can interrupt one another. We can-

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: You know, we can completely change the subject. I can take control of the conversation. And the people who might find that interesting follow it. And the folks that don't just stop listening; whereas, you can't do that in a post-comment model.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. Also, text is so limited. I mean, it's great for just getting on actual facts, but it's-

Jack Dorsey: Also thinking. It's just so close to thinking, right. There's no composition.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: You know. And that, to me, is the most beautiful thing about Twitter, but also something that, you know, can be uncomfortable. Like I can compose my life on Instagram, I can compose my thoughts within a Facebook post, and they can look so perfect, but the best to Twitter is just super raw, and it's right to the thinking process. And I just think that's so beautiful because it gets to consciousness. It gets us something deeper. And I think that deeper-

Joe Rogan: Well, how so? How is it different than a post on Instagram or a post on Facebook?

Jack Dorsey: The speed demands. You know, the character constraint, the speed kind of just demands a more conscious, present, focused thinking versus like stepping back and-

Joe Rogan: Composing a letter.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, and composing a letter, and thinking about all the outcomes.

Joe Rogan: But, oftentimes, people do compose it as a letter, and they break it up into separate 280-character posts.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, the thread.

Joe Rogan: What was the thought process in going from 140 to 280? Because the one thing that I liked about 140 is you can't be verbose.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: You can't just ramble and, you know, like, it's great for comics because it forces us to write jokes like with the economy of words.

Jack Dorsey: Exactly. We found a lot of resonance with journalist because of the headlines. We found a lot of resonance with comics because of the rhythm. And we found a lot of resonance with hip hop as well because of the bars, and just the structure, and the constraint allowed that flow. The thinking was we looked at, you know, languages around the world, and there's some languages like German, 140 characters, you can't really say much. You can't really say much at all.

Joe Rogan: Right, because the words are so long.

Jack Dorsey: There are some languages like Japanese, 140 characters is 140 words. And what was interesting about Japan was Japan is one of our largest countries where we're bigger than Facebook there. We're-

Joe Rogan: Are you not bigger than Facebook in America?

Jack Dorsey: No.

Joe Rogan: What the fuck? I don't even use Facebook. Sorry, Facebook.

Jack Dorsey: I don't either.

Joe Rogan: I mean, I use it in terms of if I post something on Instagram, it goes to Facebook.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: But when I go to Facebook, it just seems like a lot of — Well, this does seem like Twitter too, a lot of arguing. But Twitter seems to be more fun, if that makes any sense. Even though there's a lot of chaos, when something — One of my favorite things is when someone posts something stupid, and then underneath it is a bunch of GIFs. Do we says GIFs or GIFs? How do you say GIF? Does anybody know?

Male: Ask him.

Jack Dorsey: GIFs. GIFs.

Joe Rogan: How do you say?

Jack Dorsey: I say GIFs. I know it's juries out.

Joe Rogan: A bunch of GIFs that are hilarious.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like I was just mocking someone relentlessly. Like that is one of my favorite things about Twitter. When someone, like Donald Trump posts something ridiculous, and then I'll go, and I'll look at the responses, like, "Baaaa." How do you care?

Jack Dorsey: It's a public conversation. You can-.

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: You can see how everyone react, but like it's all — The interesting thing about Twitter is there's not one Twitter. It's like you have politics Twitter, which can be super toxic. You have sports Twitter, you have NBA Twitter, you have MMA Twitter, you have a UFC Twitter, you have KPop Twitter, you have e-sports, whatever.

Joe Rogan: Black sports.

Jack Dorsey: You have black Twitter.

Joe Rogan: That's Jaime's. Jaime loves black Twitter.

Jack Dorsey: You have all these different twitters, and you have a completely different experience-

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: … based on what Twitter you follow-

Joe Rogan: Sure.

Jack Dorsey: … and what Twitter you participate in.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Some of them are like super engaging, super funny. Some of them are you want to walk away from it.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. I got to a certain point where I couldn't read replies anymore. I just, "Hmm." It's just — Not that it's that toxic. The vast majority of interactions I have with people are super positive.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: I mean, absolutely like more than 99%. But it's — I didn't — I don't have time, and I don't have time to be constantly responding to people. And it just didn't — The sheer numbers. I think when I got around 3 million-ish followers I'm like, "I can't do this anymore." It's just it's overwhelming. Like I don't have the resources.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. I am a huge believer in serendipity. So, you look at your replies once, and you might see something that just like strikes you, and that's enough. You don't need to read through all of them.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, sometimes.

Jack Dorsey: And it's just-

Joe Rogan: But then, you might miss something groovy.

Jack Dorsey: You might, but I also believe the most important things come back up.

Joe Rogan: What I used to do a lot, I would go through my mentions. And when people would essentially use that as almost a news aggregator. I'll go through my mentions that people would post cool stories, and I would retweet those. And so, because people knew that I would retweet them, they would send me a lot of cool stuff. So, because of that, because it's reciprocating, I got a lot of really cool stuff sent my way.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're pushing. You're pushing more out to expand the network.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. And I reinforced it. I just I wanted to thank people for posting cool stuff, and they love the fact they would get a retweet. And so, they would send me like interesting science stories or, you know, very bizarre nature stories. And I'd just be retweeting them all the time. Go to — But then, after a while, I'm like, "This is a lot of time." It's a lot of time. So, now, essentially, what I do is I just post something and I'm just kind of like, "Ugh." I just walk away.

Jack Dorsey: But that, I mean, that speaks to what we want to incentivize more. We want more people contributing things back to the network, back to the-

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Back to the public conversation. And I know it doesn't feel like this today for most people, but my ideal is someone walks away from Twitter learning something, and they're actually learning something entirely new.

Joe Rogan: I think that happens a lot.

Jack Dorsey: And it might be a new perspective.

Joe Rogan: That happens a lot.

Jack Dorsey: It probably happens more often than we think.

Joe Rogan: Depending on who you follow.

Jack Dorsey: Exactly.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: It's all dependent on the Twitter you follow. And like, you know, the health Twitter is amazing. You know, I learned some. Like I followed Rhonda Patrick and a bunch of folks who are into sauna.

Joe Rogan: She's amazing. Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And Wim Hof and [Ice Bess] and Ben Greenfield. And you just follow them, and you just get all this new information about alternative views of how to stay healthy, how to live longer. And I can't find that anywhere else-

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: … in one place like that.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: And then, it's not just them broadcasting. When they retweet something or when they tweet something, there's a whole conversation about it. So, you know, some people say this is — you know, "This has not been my experience," or "This is not true for me," or "Actually, have you seen this connected thing?" And I just go down this rabbit hole, and I learn so much. But that's not the experience for everyone. ***

Joe Rogan: No. Well, yeah, it's not the experience for everyone, and it's not really — I don't think it's what everyone wants either. Sometimes, people just like to go on there and talk shit.

Jack Dorsey: That's true.

Joe Rogan: I mean, someone that's trapped in a cubicle right now, and they just want to go in there, and get in arguments about gun control or, you know, whether or not Nancy Pelosi is the devil. And this is-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: This is what — You know, it serves a purpose for them.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: The thing that gets strange though is who's to decide. You know, there's this concept — There's a discussion, I should say, where some people believe that things like Twitter, or Facebook, or any forum where you're having a public discussion should be considered almost like a public utility. Like anyone has access to the electric power. Even if you are — You know, even if you're a racist, you still can get electricity. And some people think that you should have that same ability with something like Twitter or the same ability with something like Instagram. Obviously, this is — We're in uncharted territory. And you-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: You are in uncharted territory.

Jack Dorsey: Totally.

Joe Rogan: Just no one has been there before. So, who makes the distinctions? When you see someone that it's saying something that you might think is offensive to some folks but not offensive to the person who's saying it, maybe the person who's saying it feels like they need to express themselves, and this is important to say, and how do you decide whether or not this is a valid discussion, or if this is "hate speech," which is — You know there's some things that are hate speech, and there's sometimes people who use the term hate speech, and it's just a cheap way to shut down a conversation.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. So, the simple answer is we look at conduct. We don't look at the speech itself, we look at conduct. We look at how the tool is being used. And you're right in that, like, I think when people see Twitter, they see and they expect it to be a public square. They can go into that public square, they can say whatever they want, they can get on a pedestal, and people might gather around them, and listen to what they have to say. Some of them might find it offensive and they leave. The difference is there's, also, this concept of this megaphone. And the megaphone can be highly targeted now with Twitter as well.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: So, it's not the speech. It's how it's amplified.

Joe Rogan: So, what do you do if, like, say — Let's say there's someone in the media. Let's say it's a prominent feminist. And then, you have a bunch of people or let's say just one person, and their Twitter feed is overwhelmingly attacking this prominent feminist. Just constantly a tagger, calling her a liar, calling her this, calling her that. When do you decide this is harassment? When do you decide this is hate speech? Like, how do you — I mean, this is-

Jack Dorsey: We look at the context.

Joe Rogan: This is a fictional account, right?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah.

Joe Rogan: Fictional person we're talking about. But in this for instance, what would dictate something that was egregious enough for you to eliminate them from your platform?

Jack Dorsey: Well, that's a heavy action. So, that's the last resort. But we look at the conduct. We look at — Oftentimes, as you said, the probability of someone who is harassing one person, it's highly probable that they're also harassing 10 more people.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: So, we can look at that behavior. We can look at how many times this person is being blocked, or muted, or reported. And based on all those, all that data, we can actually take some action. But we also have to — We have to correlate it with the other side of that because people go on, and they coordinate blocks as well, and they coordinate harassment, and they coordinate — I'm sorry not harassment but reporting. Reporting a particular account to get it shut down and to take the voice off the service.

Jack Dorsey: So, these are the considerations we have to make, but it all starts with conduct. And, oftentimes, we'll see coordinated conduct, whether it'd be that one person opening multiple accounts or coordinating with multiple accounts that they don't own to go after someone. And there's a bunch of vectors that people use retweet for that, the "tweet" for that a lot as well. Like they'll quote tweet a tweet that someone finds, and they'll say, "Look at this idiot. Twitter, do your thing." And then just this mob starts, and goes, and tries to effectively shut that person down.

Jack Dorsey: So, there's a bunch of tools we can use. The permanent suspension is the last resort. One of the things that we can do is we can down-rank the replies. So, any of these behaviors and conduct that looked linked, we can actually push farther down in the reply chain. So, it's all still there, but you might have to push a button to actually see it. You might have to show more replies to actually see this harassing account or what might look like harassing language.

Joe Rogan: And this is manually done or this-

Jack Dorsey: No, no, no. This is all automated.

Joe Rogan: It's automated?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah.

Joe Rogan: But how would you know?

Jack Dorsey: A lot of the ranking, and looking at amplification, and looking at the network is automated.

Joe Rogan: Right. Like in terms of down-ranking, is there a discussion as to whether or not this person's reply should be down-ranked? How do you figure that out?

Jack Dorsey: It's a machine learning and deep learning model and they just-

Joe Rogan: Whoa. So, it's AI?

Jack Dorsey: It's AI, and they learn.

Joe Rogan: Oh, Christ.

Jack Dorsey: And we look at how these things are doing, and where they make mistakes, and then we improve it. It's just constantly improving, constantly learning.

Joe Rogan: Does that feel like censorship to you, like automated censorship? Because, I mean, who is to decide other than people whether or not something is valid?

Jack Dorsey: Well, we're not looking at the speech in this particular case. We're looking at the conduct.

Joe Rogan: The conduct.

Jack Dorsey: The conduct of someone in fast velocity attacking someone else.

Joe Rogan: Okay.

Jack Dorsey: Right. So, those are the things that our technology allows. It changes the velocity. It changes how to broadcast a message that someone didn't really ask for and didn't want to hear. We don't touch — If I follow Joe Rogan, you'll see every single tweet. We don't touch it. Right?

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: But that's an audience that you earn. But in your replies page, we have a little bit more room because this is a conversation that starts up, and some people just want to disrupt it. And all we're saying is we're going to look and move in the disruption down. Not that it's hidden, but it's still there, but you just see it a little bit further down.

Joe Rogan: Like, there was — What was the instance with Ari? I should text him right now, get him to answer me in real time. But Ari Shaffir got kicked off Twitter because he said something to Bert like, "Bert, I'm going to fucking kill you." Bert Kreischer, being our good friend, all of us are good friends, and he's like, "You fucking dummy, I want to kill you," or something like that.

Male: He took his record albums. He said like, "I'm going to steal and break them all." He jokingly got mad.

Joe Rogan: Right, right, right.

Male: That's Ari though.

Joe Rogan: Bert was — I think it was all bullshit, right?

Male: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joe Rogan: I don't mean Bert really stole his records.

Male: Yeah, yeah, yeah. He kept them. Yeah, he gave them back to him eventually.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Male: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: He's like< "I'm going to fucking kill you."

Jack Dorsey: So, what happened or probably happened, and I'm not sure of that particular case, but what probably what happened there is someone might have reported that tweet. One of our agents, human agent, without context of their friendship or that relationship, saw it as a violent threat and took action on that.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: And those are the mistakes that we're going to make. That's why we need an appeals process.

Joe Rogan: Or Bert needs to keep his fucking greasy hands off Aris' records, right?

Jack Dorsey: That's probably not going to happen. We need to make sure that we're reacting the right way.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Like, look, we're going to make mistakes. We're trying to — The problem with the system right now is most of the work and the burden is actually on the victims of abuse while they're getting harassed. So, a lot of our system doesn't enforce or act unless these tweets are reported, right? So, we don't take suspension actions or removal of content actions unless it's reported.

Jack Dorsey: The algorithms rank and order the conversation, but they don't take suspension actions. They don't remove content. They might suggest to a human to look at this, who might look at our rules, and look at the content, and try to look at the context of the conversation, and then take action. But we would like to move towards a lot more automated enforcement.

Jack Dorsey: But more importantly, how do we highlight? How do we amplify more of the healthier discussion and conversation? Again, not removing it. We're going to a world, especially with technology like blockchain that all content that exist, that is ever created will exist forever. You won't be able to take it down. You won't be able to censor it. It won't be centralized at all.

Jack Dorsey: Our role is around what we recommend based on your interest, and based on who you follow, and helping you to get into that on ramp. But if you look at the arc of technology, it's a given that anytime something is created, it's going to exist forever. This is what blockchain helps enable down the line. And we need to make sure that we're paying attention to that, and also realizing that our role is like, how do we get people the stuff that they really want to see, and they find valuable, that they'll learn from, that will make them think, that will help them evolve the conversation as well.

Joe Rogan: Now, when you say amplify the messages that you deemed to be more positive, right, like how do you decide that?

Jack Dorsey: People decide it.

Joe Rogan: People decide.

Jack Dorsey: People decide it based on like, "Are they engaging in replies? Are they retweeting it? Are they liking it?" Are they-

Joe Rogan: But, sometimes, it's really negative. Like, sometimes, the people that are engaging in it, engaging, they're attacking someone. So, is that valuable, or is it just unfortunate?

Jack Dorsey: It's valuable. I mean, every signal is something that we can learn from, and we can act on. But it's going to constantly evolve.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: I mean, these models that we have to build will constantly have to learn what the network is doing and how people are using it. And our goal is healthy contribution back to the public conversation. That is what we want. We want to encourage people into more bigger, informative, global conversations that they will learn from.

Joe Rogan: Are you constantly aware of how much this is changing society, and that you are one of the four or five different modalities that are radically changing society? Whether it's Facebook, or Instagram, or any of these social media companies, it's radically changing the way people communicate with each other. There's a giant impact on the way human beings talk and see each other. And the way we process ideas and the way we distribute information is unprecedented. There's never been anything like that before. And you setting up something that you think it's going to be a group chat.

Joe Rogan: Do you member the early days when you would say like "@Jack is going to the movies." You would say it. Like, that's how we would say it. I would say "@JoeRogan is on his way to dinner."

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: That's how people would do it.

Jack Dorsey: The status.

Joe Rogan: It's fucking — it was weird-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: … that somewhere along the line, that morphed, and it's-

Jack Dorsey: It morphed because that's what the world wanted to do with it.

Joe Rogan: That's what they wanted to do with it.

Jack Dorsey: That's where they wanted to take it.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And I just think it's so reflective of what the world is and, in some cases, what the world wants to be.

Joe Rogan: So, it's a pathway for thinking. Just a pathway for people to get their thoughts out, but a really — a powerful one, an unprecedented method of distributing information. It's really nothing ever been like this before.

Jack Dorsey: No, no. And it won't. This mode of communicating will not go away. It will just get faster. It will become a lot more connected. And that's why our work is so critical to figure out some of the dynamics at play, that make it — that cause more negative outcomes and positive outcomes.

Joe Rogan: I think about it because — Well, I think about it because it's just a hugely, significant thing. But I also think about it because of podcasts because podcasts are in a similar way. Just no one saw it coming, and the people that are involved in it are like, "What the fuck are we doing?"

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like me, I'm like, "What am I doing? What is this?".

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like, for me, it's like, "Oh boy, I get to talk to guys like Ben Greenfield, and Jonathan Haidt, and all these different people to learn some stuff." And I've clearly learned way more from doing this podcast than I ever would have learned without it. No doubt about it, unquestionably. But I didn't fucking plan this.

Joe Rogan: So, now, all the sudden, there's this signal that I'm sending out to millions and millions of people. And then, people are like, "Well, you have a responsibility." I'm like, "Oh great." Well, I didn't want that. I didn't want a responsibility to what I distribute. I just want to be able to have a freak show, just talk to people, like whatever. There's certain people that I have on whether it's Alex Jones or anyone that's controversial where people will get fucking mad. "Why are you giving this person a platform?" I go, "Okay. Hmm, I didn't think about it that way and, and I don't think that's what I'm doing. I think I'm talking to people and you can listen."

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: But it's giving that person a platform because they're saying, "Well, no, they'll tone down." Like Milo Yiannopoulos, that was one of the arguments people gave me. Like he toned down his platform when he was on your show, so you could get more people to pay attention to him. I'm like, "Okay, but he also talked about-" That was one of the reasons why he was exposed was my show because he talked about that it's okay to have sex with underaged boys if they're gay because there was like a mentor relationship between the older gay man and the younger, and people were like, "What the fuck are you talking about?"

Joe Rogan: And that was a big part of why he's been removed from the public conversation. That was one of the things. And then, there's the discussion like, "Well, what is that? What is removing someone from the public conversation? If someone is very popular, and they have all these people that like to listen to them, what is the responsibility of these platforms, whether it's YouTube, or Twitter, or anyone. What is their responsibility to decide whether or not someone should or shouldn't be able to speak?"

Joe Rogan: And this is a thing that I've been struggling with, and it bounced around inside my own head, and I see that you guys struggle with it, and pretty much everyone does. Youtube does. And it is a hugely significant discussion that is left to a very relatively small amount of people. And this is why this discussion of what is social media? Is it something and everybody has a right to, or is it something that should be restricted to only people that are willing to behave and carry themselves in a certain way?

Jack Dorsey: I believe it's something that everyone has a right to.

Joe Rogan: Everyone has a right to, but you still ban people. Let's say like, Alex Jones. you guys were the last guys to keep Alex Jones on the platform. You were the last ones.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And I believe you hung in there until he started harassing you personally, right?

Jack Dorsey: No, no, no, no. He did not-

Joe Rogan: He came to your house, he begged.

Jack Dorsey: No, no. You know, he did a very different things on our platform versus the others.

Joe Rogan: Oh, okay.

Jack Dorsey: So, we saw this domino effect over a weekend of one platform banning him, and then another, another, another in very, very quick succession.

Joe Rogan: Right. And people, I think, would have assumed that we would just have followed suit, but he didn't violate our Terms of Service.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: And afterwards, he did. And we have — You know, we a policy. And if there's a violation, we take enforcement actions. One might be asking the account holder to delete the tweet. Another might be a temporary suspension. Another might be a permanent suspension.

Joe Rogan: So, what you're saying — So, like, let's use it in terms of like him saying that Sandy Hook was fake. He did not say that on the platform. He did not say that on Twitter. He only said that on his show.

Jack Dorsey: I don't know all the mediums he said it in.

Joe Rogan: What did he do?

Jack Dorsey: What we're looking at is the conduct and what he did on our platform.

Joe Rogan: So, what did he do on your platform that was like — that you all were in agreement that this is enough?

Jack Dorsey: I'm not sure what the actual, like, violations were. But we have a set number of actions. And if they keep getting — If an account keeps violating Terms of Service, ultimately, it leads to permanent suspension. And when all the other platforms are taking him off, we didn't find those. We didn't find those violations, and they weren't reported. But again, it goes back to a lot of our model. People weren't reporting a lot of the tweets that may have been in violation on our service, and we didn't act on them.

Joe Rogan: Right. Like a good instance is what's going on with Patreon. I'm sure you're aware of the Sargon of Akkad thing. He did a podcast a long time ago, I believe six months or so ago, where he used the N-word, and the way he used it is actually against white nationalists. And he also said a bunch of other stuff, and they decided, Patreon decided that what he said on a podcast was enough for them to remove him from the platform, even though he didn't do anything on their platform that was egregious. And, also, they had previously stated that they were only judging things that occurred on their platform.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: There's been a giant blow back because of that because people are saying, "Well, now you're essentially policing, and not based on his actions, just on concepts and the communication that he was using, the way he was talking. You're eliminating him from being able to make a living, and that you're doing this because he does not fit into your political paradigm. The way you want to view the world, he views the world differently. This is an opportunity for you to eliminate someone who you disagree with."

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. I mean, I don't know the nuances of their policy, but we have to pay attention to folks who are using Twitter to shut down the voices of others.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: That's where it gets weaponized. And we also have to pay attention to where people are using it that put other folks in physical danger. And that is where we need to be most severe. But, otherwise, everyone has a right to these technologies. And, I think, they also have a right to make sure that they have a very simple and open read of the rules. And we're not in a great state there. Our rules and our enforcement can be extremely confusing to people.

Joe Rogan: What has been the one thing that came up that was perhaps the most controversial? Like I know my friend, Sam Harris, was trying to get you guys to ban Donald Trump and saying if you follow your Terms of Service-

Jack Dorsey: I just did a podcast with him actually as well. It should come out today or tomorrow.

Joe Rogan: He's a fascinating guy, Sam Harris. I love him to death. But what he was trying to do was like saying, "Hey, he's threatening nuclear war." Like, he's saying, "Hey, Korea, my bombs are bigger than your bombs. Like what else does the guy have to do to get you to remove him from the platform?" When you guys saw that, what was your reaction to that? Was there an internal discussion about actually banning the President United States?

Jack Dorsey: Well, so, two things there. One, it was the context that presidents of this country have used similar language in different mediums. They used it on radio, they used it on television. It's not just through Twitter. And even if you were to look at the presidency of Obama, it wasn't exactly the same tone in this exact same language, but there were threats around the same country. And we have to take that context into consideration.

Jack Dorsey: So, the second thing is that we need — The most controversial aspect of our rules and our Terms of Service is probably this clause around public interest and newsworthiness, where powerful figures or public figures might be in violation of our Terms of Service, but the tweet itself is of public interest.

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: There should be a conversation around it. And that is probably the thing that people disagree with the most and where we have a lot of internal debate. But we also have some pretty hard lines. If we had a global leader, including the President of United States, make a violent threat against a private individual, we would take action. We always have to balance that with like, "Is this something that the public has interest in?" And I believe, generally, the answer is yes. It's not going to be in every case but, generally, the answer is yes because we should see how our leaders think and how they act.

Joe Rogan: And essentially, it all-

Jack Dorsey: That informs voting. That informs the-

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: … conversation. That informs whether we think they're doing the right job, or we think that they should be voted out.

Joe Rogan: Well, it's very important to see how someone uses that platform. And when someone uses it the way he uses it, and then becomes president, and continues to use it that way that's when people are like, "What?"

Jack Dorsey: He's been consistent. I think he joined in 2009, 2012.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: You look at all of his tweets all the way back then, and it's pretty consistent till today.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. I mean, he likes to insult people on Twitter. It's fun for him.

Jack Dorsey: Yes, he does.

Joe Rogan: It's just I never thought he would keep doing it. I thought once he became president, maybe just lock it down, try to do a good job for the country. And then, after four years or eight years, just go back to his old self, "Fuck you, fuck the world, fuck this," but no. He's just — It's just, in one way, it's hilarious. See, as a comedian, I think it's awesome because it's so hilariously stupid. It's so preposterous that he even has the time to talk about Jeff Bezos' affair, and the fact that he got caught with the National Inquirer getting text messages and calls him Jeff Bozo like, "Don't you have shit to do man?"

Joe Rogan: But as a comedian, I am a gigantic fan of folly, almost against my better judgment. I like watching. I like watching disasters. I like watching chaos. When I see nonsense like that, I'm like, "Oh Jesus". I'm drawn like a moth to a flame. But on the other part of me is like. "Man, this sets a very bizarre tone for the entire country," because — one of things about Obama, like Obama or hate Obama because he was very measured, very articulate, obviously, very well-educated. And I think that that aspect of his presidency was very good for all of us because he represented something that was of a very high standard in terms of his ability to communicate, his access to words, the way he measured his words, and held himself. I think that's good for us. Like yeah-

Jack Dorsey: It's aspirational.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. It's like, "Look at that guy. He's talking better than me, That's why he's the president." But when you see Trump, you're like, "He doesn't talk better than me. He doesn't use Twitter better. He's not — He's just this fucking mad man."

Jack Dorsey: But isn't it important to understand that-

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: … and to see it-

Joe Rogan: Exactly.

Jack Dorsey: …and like to — Hopefully, that informs opinions and actions.

Joe Rogan: 100%. That's my point. That's my point is like that this is this weird gray area where I think, overall, I definitely support your decision to not ban him for violating your Terms of Service. Like we need to know.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: You know, and it's — How do you know how many accounts are bots? How do you know how many accounts are from a Russian troll farm?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like how do you know that?

Jack Dorsey: So, this is really challenge and something that we're trying to wrap our heads around, but like one of the things we're trying to do is like let's scope that problem down a bit. Let's use the technology we have available to us, like face ID, like touch ID, like the biometric stuff to identify the humans. Let's identify the humans first.

Joe Rogan: So, how do you use that because face ID not really available? Is it available to you guys? You just leaked something you shouldn't have told me?

Jack Dorsey: No, no, no, no. We haven't used it yet, but you can use it for things like, is this a human operating this?

Joe Rogan: It's like Apple Pay, you can use it for that, so.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, it's completely locked into the local device. We don't have access to your images, to your face, or whatnot, but the operating system can tell us that this is the legit owner of this phone; and therefore, it is human. And technology always has to change. People find ways around that and whatnot. But if we go the opposite direction, and we look for the bots, the problem with looking for the bots is people assume that they just come through our API, but the scripting has become extremely sophisticated. People can script the app, can script the website, and make it look very, very human.

Jack Dorsey: So, we're going after this problem, first, trying to identify the humans as much as we can, utilizing these technologies. None of this is live right now. These are considerations that we're making and trying to understand, like what the impact would be and how we might evolve it. But we need to because that information would provide context for someone like this is an actual human that I'm talking to. And I can invest more time in it, or I can just ignore the thing because it's meaningless.

Joe Rogan: Now, is Apple willing to share that with you. I mean, when you're talking about biometrics, fingerprints, or face ID

Jack Dorsey: No, no, no. Not the data. It's just the operating system verifies that, you know, this-

Joe Rogan: That there's individual user.

Jack Dorsey: It's an individual, and it's unlocking.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: Like, you know, when you use the — Our Cash App uses this, right. So, Square's Cash App, when you want to make a transfer to someone, when you want to send someone money, or when you want to buy bitcoin, we turn on face ID, and you verify that you are you, and you are the owner of the phone, and then it goes. We don't get images of your face. We don't see who you are.

Joe Rogan: That's what you want me to think. I know, yeah.

Jack Dorsey: That's all locked down by the operating system, and that's the way it should be.

Joe Rogan: Right. Right, sure. Has there ever been any consideration to not allowing people to post anonymously?

Jack Dorsey: Well-

Joe Rogan: Like what you said earlier about journalists and whistleblowers, that is political.

Jack Dorsey: So, look at platforms that have a real names policy. Look at Facebook.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: Are the problems any different?

Joe Rogan: I don't know because I don't go there, but for what I understand, there's a lot of — still, a lot of arguing there.

Jack Dorsey: It's the same-

Joe Rogan: A lot of political arguing. A lot of old people.

Jack Dorsey: They're the same vectors, the same patterns.

Joe Rogan: I think, older. It's like older, in general.

Jack Dorsey: It seems. I, also, am not really hanging out there, but it seems a little bit older.

Joe Rogan: It's a lot of grannies looking at pictures of their kids, grandkids, and stuff.

Jack Dorsey: That's what it's made for. It's connecting-

Joe Rogan: Arguing about ignorance.

Jack Dorsey: It's connecting with the people that you know. And that, to me, is the biggest difference with Twitter. It's connecting with the people you don't know-

Joe Rogan: Well-

Jack Dorsey: … that you find interesting, and like it's around topics and stuff that you find that you want to learn more about.

Joe Rogan: When you saw Zuckerberg testifying, and realizing like how this platform is being used, and what are the dangers of this, and then you see these senators that really don't know what the fuck the technology is or-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: It really highlights how we're entering this-

Jack Dorsey: There's a gap.

Joe Rogan: Really, yeah. Well, not just a gap. A gap and the critical understanding of how these things work, and what they are in terms of like how these really important politicians who are the ones who are making these decisions as to whether or not someone has violated laws, or whether or not something should be curbed or regulated.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And they don't really even understand what they're talking about.

Jack Dorsey: No. I mean, there's-

Joe Rogan: So few people do.

Jack Dorsey: Because they're not using it directly. They're not using in the way that people are using it every single day and-

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: … they don't have the same experience that people have every single day. And, you know, in terms of regulatory, and our regulators, and our governments, you know, I think the conversation is often about how regulators will come in, and start writing rules, and setting expectations for how companies or services might behave. But there's a role for the company to educate, and there's a role for the company to educate on like what technology makes possible, whether it'd be positive and also some of the negatives that become possible as well.

Jack Dorsey: So, I think, we have a role to help educate and to help make sure that we're — you know, really, we're pushing towards what I think the job of a regulator is, which is, number one, protect the individual; number two, level the playing field, and make sure that those two things are not compromised by special interests trying to protect their own domain, or profits, or dominance within a particular market.

Joe Rogan: What do you mean by level the playing field?

Jack Dorsey: Level the playing field, so that an individual has the same opportunity that someone else might have our company might have.

Joe Rogan: So, okay. So, like anybody-

Jack Dorsey: So, anyone-

Joe Rogan: … can have a Twitter account.

Jack Dorsey: Anyone can have a Twitter account. And, you know, they have, at least, you know, an equal opportunity to contribute to it. And whatever they do with it will change the outcome. Some people might become very popular because they're saying stuff people want to hear. Some people won't see any following whatsoever because they're not adding anything original, or interesting, or different in terms of perspective.

Joe Rogan: Where do you see this going? When you look at these, kind of, emerging technologies, not necessarily emerging anymore, established now, but still, you know, a new thing in relative terms of human history, where do you see this going? And does it get more intrusive? Does it get deeper into our lives? Like what — And when you look at new technologies like augmented reality and things along those lines. do you see new possibilities and new things that make things even more complicated?

Jack Dorsey: I mean, yeah. I mean, we just have to assume that we naturally use more and more technologies, more and more things become open, more and more things increase the velocity. There's more communication, not less. Like this is not going away. And it's just-

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: It's just a question of what we do with it. So, where I want it to go, and where I want Twitter specifically to go is, you know, I think, it's existential right now that we have global conversations about some things that will become crisis. Climate change being one of them. There's no one nation state that's going to solve that problem alone. Economic disparity being another, the rise of AI, and job displacement, and just like us offloading decisions to these algorithms.

Jack Dorsey: Those are things that that no one nation, no one community is going to solve alone. It takes the entire world to do so. So, I want to make sure that we're doing our best to get people seeing these global conversations and, ideally, participating in them because it helps. It helps us solve the problems faster. I just believe that more open society allows us to solve problems much faster.

Joe Rogan: So, you, in many ways, see Twitter as having some sort of a social responsibility in this discussion.

Jack Dorsey: Totally, totally, totally. Yeah. And I think a big part of is like, right now, like how are we ensuring that there is more healthy contribution to that global conversation. And, you know, I just think it's so critical that we start talking about the things that are facing all of us, not just one nation. I do think that that's where our current model really puts the world at a disadvantage because it incentivizes more of the echo chambers, which lead to things like nationalism, instead of taking the broader picture, and looking at what's happening around the world to all people, to all of humanity.

Joe Rogan: What do you do though to balance the conversation, or what responsibility do you think you have to balance a conversation in terms of the way conservatives view it versus the way liberals and progressives view it.

Jack Dorsey: Balance it. I mean, show-

Joe Rogan: I mean, is there a responsibility? Do you have a responsibility, or is it just leave it up to the people and let them figure it out, the same way they figured out hashtags and everything else?

Jack Dorsey: I think we have a responsibility to make it easier to do that.

Joe Rogan: Easier. How so?

Jack Dorsey: Right now, it's just too hard. Most people will not — You know, have a sticker mindset.

Joe Rogan: Venture outside of their bubble.

Jack Dorsey: They will not venture out. They will not break their bubble.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: But if you — because it's — Right now, on the surface, it's just so hard to do that. I can only follow accounts, and I have to look into and just imagine like, you know, trying to get an understanding of your own politics. People can't just look at your bio. They have to look through all your tweets, they have to listen to a bunch of your podcasts and whatnot. And that's a bunch of work. If we shift it more towards topics and interest, at least, we have the potential to see a bunch more perspectives. We see-

Joe Rogan: How do you do that though?

Jack Dorsey: The simplest thing is like follow a hashtag, follow a topic. Like why can't you just follow Warriors Twitter or, you know, NBA Twitter? Why do you have to go and find all the coaches, and the players, and the team.

Joe Rogan: So-

Jack Dorsey: We can do that. We can help make that a whole lot easier for folks.

Joe Rogan: So, there's something like Brexit or something. So, if you go to #Brexit, you're going to get the whole conversation. You're going to get the pros, the cons, the left, the right, the whole deal, the centrists. You're going to get everybody versus following the people that you already follow that agree with what you think.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. The probability is higher that you'll get more. You'll get more variety of perspective. And not even — Don't even follow Brexit. Follow Vote Leave if you want to leave. But within that topic, there might be some dissenting opinions. And you get to choose whether those inform you, whether that emboldens your position or not. And, again, I'm not saying that we should force that upon it, but it's not easy to even do that today, right. The only tool we give you is finding and following the accounts. And that-

Joe Rogan: But people search hashtags. They do search hashtags, right?

Jack Dorsey: They don't based on the timeline.

Joe Rogan: They don't?

Jack Dorsey: I mean, it is a small percentage of people. The people that really know Twitter know how to do that. But most people, they follow an account, and they stay in their timeline. And their world is their timeline.

Joe Rogan: Hashtags can be corrupted too. I mean, people-

Jack Dorsey: Totally, they can be gamed.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: They can be gamed.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, I-

Jack Dorsey: And taken over.

Joe Rogan: I took over #vegancat. Go to #vegancat.

Jack Dorsey: What is that?

Joe Rogan: It's a rap. That's mine now. In my last Netflix special about a woman who said a bunch of horrible things to me because I've put a picture up on Instagram of some deer meat. I wrote, "This is a meat from a deer that like to kick babies. It was about to join ISIS." And I wrote #vegan, which was the mistake, right, to write #vegan. But the #vegan people went fucking crazy and came after me because I entered into their timeline with meat.

Jack Dorsey: There it is.

Joe Rogan: Have you got a #vegancat? It's all either pictures of — See. Like it says, "Joe Rogan," right, "Thank you. I haven't laughed that hard in a while #vegancat." It's people that are feeding their fucking cat vegan food, and they're all dying. And in the special, I say, "Every cat looks like it's living in a house with a gas leak." Like they're all-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: … like laying like, "Where the fuck is the real food?" But this is real. Like this-

Jack Dorsey: It generates conversation, different perspective.

Joe Rogan: But the thing is if someone does something like that, like you can — like pick a person, you know, whatever that person is, whatever they're doing, if they have a hashtag that they utilize all the time for their movement or whatever, someone could mock them, and then use that. And if it's a public figure or someone who's got a prominent voice, then, all of a sudden, that hashtag becomes — People just take it over and start mocking them-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: … with that hashtag.

Jack Dorsey: But it has to be done en masse.

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: I mean, it has to be coordinated. And, sometimes, people like figure out how to game the system, and coordinate it, and amplify that message in an unfair way. And that's what our systems are trying to recognize.

Joe Rogan: How sick did that cat look?

Male: Amazing.

Joe Rogan: That poor fucking cat. That was a real one. That was a real #vegancat.

Jack Dorsey: Wow.

Joe Rogan: These poor bastards. So, when you look back at emerging social media, like we go all the way back to MySpace, right. MySpace, you got Tom. Tom was sitting there, and you're in your top eight, and, you know, people would like post music that they liked, and it was never political. It was very — often, very surfaced. And for comics, it was a great way to promote shows, and it was an interesting way to see things. But it was like the seed that became Twitter or Facebook or any of these.

Jack Dorsey: That's one of them. I think, we — At least, for us, like, we got more of our roots from AOL instant messenger and ICQ.

Joe Rogan: Hmm, ICQ.

Jack Dorsey: Because, it was — You know, you remember the status message where you said like, "I'm in a meeting," or "I'm listening to this music," or "I'm watching a movie right now."

Joe Rogan: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Jack Dorsey: That was the inspiration.

Joe Rogan: Oh.

Jack Dorsey: And what we took from that was being able to — Like, if you could do that from anywhere, not bound to a desk, but you could do that from anywhere, and you could do it from your phone, and you could just be roaming around and say, you know, "I'm at Joe Rogan's studio right now," that is cool. I don't need my computer. I'm not bound to this, chained to this desk. I can do it from anywhere.

Jack Dorsey: And then, the other aspect of instant messenger was, of course, chat. So, one of the things that the status would do is you might say like, you know, "I'm listening Kendrick Lamar right now," and I might hit you up on chat and say, like, "What do you think of the new album?" But, now, it's all public.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: So, it's just everyone can see it. That's the biggest difference. And that, to me, is what Twitter is, Myspace, it was profiles. And, you know, people organized around these profiles and this network that developed between people. And that is Facebook. Facebook optimized the hell out of that, and they scaled the world. We were something very different. You know, we started with a simple status. And then, people wanted to talk about it. And we decided that it should be on the same surface. It shouldn't be subservient to the status. It should be part of that flow. And that's what makes Twitter, you know, so fluid.

Joe Rogan: Now, when you look at this sort of metamorphosis or this evolution between those initial social media, whether it's AOL, Instant Messenger, that eventually became like ICQ, what was that one that we would use, that gamers would use, that it was like a livestream-

Jack Dorsey: Search?

Joe Rogan: … message board. No. It was like-

Male: For a while, people were using TeamSpeak, but I don't know-

Joe Rogan: No, no, it wasn't. It wasn't that.

Male: … if that's on your plan that's more recent.

Joe Rogan: It wasn't that. It wasn't TeamSpeak. It was — Like you would go there, and share files and stuff, and people would go — Like if Ice play a lot of online video games-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And we play on teams, and we have teams go play other teams, and he would use this sort of — It was like a — It wasn't a message board because it was all in real time. What the fuck was it called?

Male: OnLive?

Joe Rogan: No.

Male: No? Okay.

Joe Rogan: All right, forget it.

Male: Yeah, sorry.

Joe Rogan: Anyway, guys would go there, and you could send people files through it.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And, you know, teams would go and meet, and it would be a chat, like an online chat-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah.

Joe Rogan: … that would be in real time.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, it's — I mean, we have a lot of our roots in AOL, Instant Messenger, but also like IRC, Internet Relay Chat and Usenet, which were, you know, these old internet '70s technology.

Joe Rogan: IRC is what I was talking about.

Jack Dorsey: IRC?

Joe Rogan: Yeah. That's the one.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, okay, okay.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: So, Internet Relay Chat is-

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: … like this giant chatroom that anyone can join. It's a range around topics. And-

Joe Rogan: That's — What's interesting about that is you could see people typing. You see it occurring in real time. You see it popping up in real time.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: You know. Just I wonder like, what is the next evolution of this? Because no one saw anything going from ICQ to Twitter. No one saw anything going from that to Instagram, and to where we're at right now where it really does flavor the conversation of our entire culture. I mean, before, it was just a thing that was happening, that was happening on people's computers.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Now, it's a thing that's happening on people's computers. And, now, phones. And, now, your whole life. It's a very different influence.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And I wonder because everything does accelerate.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Things constantly move forward and become more and more integrated into our life experience. And I wonder, what is the next stage of this?

Jack Dorsey: I mean, like the secular trends, and, you know, you look at technology, and you look at technologies like blockchain, for instance, and I think, you know, we're moving to a world where anything created exists forever; that there's no centralized control over who sees what; that, you know, these models become completely decentralized, and all these barriers that exist today aren't as important anymore.

Joe Rogan: When you think of something like gab, like gab seems to be a response to the fact that some people are getting banned from other platforms, and they're just allowing anybody to come on say and anything they want.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: The downside of that is, of course, the most horrible people are gonna be able to say anything they want with no repercussions. The good side is anybody can say whatever they want.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. I haven't studied them too much, but I do know that they have taken action on accounts as well. They have suspended accounts. And they have-

Joe Rogan: At what basis?

Jack Dorsey: … a Terms of Service as well.

Joe Rogan: What do they suspend accounts for? Do you know?

Jack Dorsey: I don't know. It's probably conduct-related. It's probably — It might be doxxing, you know.

Joe Rogan: Probably, right?

Jack Dorsey: But it's just a question of, like, you know, the rules. And if you agree to the rules, then, you know, you sign up for the service. And if not, there will be other services. But like you look at the trends, and I think, you know, certainly things become a lot more public, and certainly things become a lot more open. Certainly, the barriers and the boundaries that we have in place today become less meaningful. And I think there's a lot of positives in that. And I also think there's a lot of danger that we need to be mindful of.

Joe Rogan: Now, you, as a CEO, as a guy who's running this thing, what has this been, this experience been like for you? Because I've got to imagine that it wasn't anything that you predicted. No one predicted Twitter, right?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: So, to, all the sudden, have this responsibility-

Jack Dorsey: Twitter changed everything. I mean, it-

Joe Rogan: And you're a young guy. How old are you?

Jack Dorsey: 42.

Joe Rogan: That's young to be in control of that much, and to have it over the time of — What has it been? 11 years?

Jack Dorsey: 13 years.

Joe Rogan: 13 years.

Jack Dorsey: We'll be 13 in March, yeah.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. So, you were really fucking young.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like what has that been like for you?

Jack Dorsey: It's been both beautiful, and scary, and uncomfortable, and learning. It's just been a ton of learning and evolving. And like it it shows me every single day where I need to push myself what I don't know. And I think a big part is like just the realization that we're not gonna be able to do this alone. And I don't think we have to either. These are what the technologies that continue to allow us.

Jack Dorsey: We can — If we have to have all the answers around enforcement or policy, we're not going to serve the world. We have aspirations to serve every single person on the planet, and we have aspirations to be the first consideration for the global public conversation. And, you know, if we're the bottleneck for all of this, we're not going to reach those aspirations. So, it's just thinking deeply about how we might distribute more of this work, and decentralize more of it, and look at, you know, the platform itself, and like what we need to change to reach that reality.

Jack Dorsey: And I think we've got to look really deep and foundational. It goes back to, you know, your question on 140. One of the things that we saw was, you know, we shifted to 280 characters, and that — You know, this 140-characters is so sacred, you know.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: It became this cultural thing. And I was in love with it, and so many people are in love with it. But one of the things we noticed as we moved to 280 is that the vast majority of tweets that are broadcast don't go above 140, even with that limitation raised. But where they do go above 140 is in replies. When people reply, they tend to go over 140-character limit, and even bump up into the 280 limit.

Jack Dorsey: And what it allowed — What we've seen it allow is just more nuance in the conversation. It allows people to give more context and kind of just get their experience on the table a bit more; whereas, 140 did not allow that. So, we have seen that increase, the health of those conversations and the discussion. So, it's stuff like that that we need to question and not hold so sacred.

Joe Rogan: Is there any consideration to expanding it further?

Jack Dorsey: Not right now. We were-.

Joe Rogan: How about a million characters? No?

Jack Dorsey: Well, we don't have edit tweets right now. So, we-

Joe Rogan: Do you think that that's good or bad?

Jack Dorsey: Well, if you can't edit 140 characters, you're going to be really pissed off if you write a million characters in kind of those things.

Joe Rogan: You know what I would like? I would like edit, the ability to edit like if you make a typo or something like that, but also the ability for people to see the original.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like edit but see the original.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Like say if it is-

Jack Dorsey: We're looking at exactly that.

Joe Rogan: Oh really?

Jack Dorsey: We're looking at exactly that. The reason we don't have it in the first place is we were born on SMS. We're born on text messaging. When you send a text, you can't take it back.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: So, when you send a tweet, it goes to the world instantaneously.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: You can't take it back. So, when we-

Joe Rogan: But does not exist anyway. I mean, no matter what, if you send someone something even, if you — on Instagram, people are gonna know the original.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, they screenshot it, and they-

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: You know, they do their thing. But like you could build it such that, you know, maybe we introduce a five-second to 30-second delay in the sending. And within that window, you can edit.

Joe Rogan: I'm gonna need more time than I do. If I fuck something up, like someone has to tell me.

Jack Dorsey: But the-

Joe Rogan: "Hey, man, you misspelled that word." Shit, did I? God damn it.

Jack Dorsey: The issue-

Joe Rogan: But sometimes, autocorrect gets you.

Jack Dorsey: Totally. But the issue with going longer than that, it takes that real time nature and the conversational flow out of it.

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: So, then, we're delaying these tweets. And like when you're watching UFC or you're watching like Warriors basketball, a lot of the great Twitter is like just like in the moment. Just like, you know, it's the roar of the crowd. It's like, you know, looking across at someone you're in this virtual stadium with, and just saying like, "Oh my god, that shot. Can you believe it?" And-

Joe Rogan: But isn't clarity more important because you're not going to-

Jack Dorsey: It depends on the context.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: It depends on the context.

Joe Rogan: But you're still gonna have the ability to communicate quickly.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: But you also have the ability to clarify.

Jack Dorsey: That's where we need to really pay attention because if you're in the context of an NBA game, you want to be fast, and you just want to be at the moment, and you just — You know, you want to be raw. But if you're in the context of considering what the president just did or making a particular statement, then you probably need some more time. And we can be dynamic there.

Joe Rogan: What's interesting to me is how few people use video. Like I thought when you guys have video on Twitter, I'm like, "Well, a bunch people are gonna be making videos and putting those up on Twitter." And it's not. It's not that often.

Jack Dorsey: It depends on who you follow. It's huge for some aspects of Twitter. It's-

Joe Rogan: Is it?

Jack Dorsey: It's less so in others but-

Joe Rogan: What aspects is huge for?

Jack Dorsey: A lot of sports. I mean, we see a lot of like just the replays and the recaps and like-

Joe Rogan: Right, for sure, yeah.

Jack Dorsey: You know, aspects of a particular shot that people want to comment on. I don't like — I think it's dangerous for us to focus too much on the medium, whether it'd be images, or GIFs, or video. It's more about the conversation around it. Like that's what we want optimized for.

Joe Rogan: It's definitely very popular for sports, and in a folly, and, you know, there's a — What is a — There's a bunch of animal attack videos that you can-

Male: Nature is Metal.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, Nature is Metal is a good one and Hold my Beer. That's another good one. I mean, it's all videos. But what I meant was people making a video, talking about something.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joe Rogan: This is what I was trying to say. What I think is this and that, blah, blah, blah. You don't see a lot of that. And I thought maybe that would be something that people would adopt more.

Jack Dorsey: To a different speed, you know. And I think, like the consumption of video, I mean, you see this in the technology right now. Like people are subtitling every single video because people might be in an environment where they can't turn the audio on, or, like, a video, like I have to scrub through to see what's interesting.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: With text, I can just see it. And it allows for a lot of serendipity to find something that I probably wouldn't have seen unless I watched the whole damn video. So, like the ability to clip something, the ability to like index in, I think, is really critical. So, it's not — To me, it's not about the format. It's about the use case and the context that you're in.

Joe Rogan: Now, going back to the responsibility that you guys have, and you in particular, like when this became what it is now, and when it became evident that it became this gigantic way of changing the way human beings communicate with each other, was there ever any regret, or was there ever a moment where you're like, "What the fuck have I gotten myself into?"

Jack Dorsey: I mean, there's — I'm always reflective of where I am and what I'm doing. I think that the biggest has been around — Twofold. One, how the dynamics of the service allow it to be weaponized in order to silence someone else or to drive them off the surface entirely, which goes against the entire concept of free speech and free participation. Like we just can't stand for that. We need to make sure that everyone feels that they have an opportunity at a voice. And when you have these coordinated attacks, it's just it's not fair.

Jack Dorsey: Second is around, you know, this concept of an echo chamber and the filter bubble. I just — I don't feel personally good about that. I don't feel that we thought that through enough in the early days. I think we should have moved towards biasing the service towards topics and interests much, much sooner than we're now considering doing.

Joe Rogan: Now, when you have these considerations, when you take these actions, do you consult with psychologists, or sociologists, or historians, or people to try to put in perspective for you what the ramifications of each individual move would be?

Jack Dorsey: I try to read as much as possible. I try to talk to as many people as possible. Just get a completely different perspective and-

Joe Rogan: Is there any internal disagreement about actions that you take?

Jack Dorsey: Oh yeah. There's always debate. There's always debate. But, I think, my role is to ask ask questions and make sure, like, what is our goal here? What are we trying to do? You know-

Joe Rogan: And that evolves?

Jack Dorsey: That evolves, that evolves. Like, is this, over the long term, going to be a net positive for all humans, all humanity? Like, how do we balance the considerations of, you know, how we serve everyone? And, like, how do we get down to something? How do we get down to a fundamental answer and a central answer? And that, to me, is where the real truth is, is when you can get to something foundational. But, you know, I like having conversations with as many people from as many different fields as possible and getting the perspective on it. So, I ask questions all the time.

Joe Rogan: It's interesting the way you're phrasing this too that you are looking at this as a method to save, or to help people, to serve people. You're looking at this as a way that you can benefit society, that society can benefit from your platform, can benefit from this ability to communicate. You're not just looking at it as a tech company that has to remain profitable. And that is-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: One of the more interesting things about tech companies, to me — I mean, there's been a lot of criticism, maybe justified in some ways, that tech companies all lean left. But what is interesting to me is that name another corporation that willingly, of its own choice, takes that into consideration that they want to serve the world and serve culture in a beneficial way regardless of profit.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: I mean, because you're not really selling anything, right. You guys have a platform. Obviously, it's financially viable, but you're not selling things, right?

Jack Dorsey: Well, I mean, we do our models based off people's attention.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And they're paying us with their attention. And that's extremely valuable, and something that we need to really, really honor. But I agree with you. I mean, look at Tesla. You know, I just listened to the recent earnings call. And one of the things that Elon said was, "Look, there are two reasons for Tesla. Number one is to advance, you know, different sources of energy and more renewable sources of energy because it's a fundamental and existential crisis that's facing all humanity. And number two is to advance autonomy because it'll save lives and give people time back."

Jack Dorsey: And then, you start talking about how to make that possible. And that's where, you know, our business comes in. How do we make that possible? And we have a great business. We need to improve a bunch of it, but it serves what we think our larger purpose is, which is serving the public conversation. We want to see more global public conversations. We want our technology to be used to make the world feel a lot smaller, to help see what common problems we have before us, and, ideally, you know, how we can get people together to solve them faster and solve them better.

Joe Rogan: You also seem to be embracing this responsibility that you're helping to evolve culture. And this is part of providing this method to communication — of communication rather. It's helping to evolve culture. And this is something that is really only applicable to tech companies in some strange way. And it's weird that so many of them share this.

Joe Rogan: Like I was personally a little weirded out when Google took out Don't Be Evil. Like that was a big part of their operating model.

Jack Dorsey: Did they take that out?

Joe Rogan: Yes. Yes. Right?

Male: Mmhmm.

Joe Rogan: Make sure. I don't want to get sued. Pretty sure they removed that from what would — What do you call that? Their operational directive? What is-

Male: It's in the code of conduct.

Jack Dorsey: Code of conduct. And it's not there anymore, right? They removed it.

Male: So, yeah. The other article says they removed the clause.

Joe Rogan: And this-

Jack Dorsey: It's kind of a weird thing to tell people not to be evil.

Joe Rogan: It's weird that they take it out. Once you already said it, it's way weirder to say, "Yeah, fuck it. We were wrong. Just go ahead."

Jack Dorsey: There's another way of saying that though.

Male: They changed it to, "Do the right thing."

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Oh. Well, what does that mean? What the fuck does do the right thing mean? Do the right thing, so you can make more money? You know, like, "Hey, we want to make money. We'll do the right thing. It's makes more money.".

Jack Dorsey: I mean, that's why — Like, that's why this openness is so critical. I mean, that's why-

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: Like the public — To me, the public conversation is so important. We can talk about stuff like that.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: And there will be companies forming today that look at objectives and mandates like that and base their whole culture around it. And is that the right idea?

Joe Rogan: Well, it's-

Jack Dorsey: I don't know. But if we're not talking about it, we won't be able to answer that question.

Joe Rogan: What's also interesting because Google is so all encompassing, right. You have Gmail, you have Android. I mean, that — They are the number one operating system for mobile phones in the world on top of being a search engine. There's so much involved in that company. And, again, like almost all tech companies, they heavily lean left, and they — Because they had that Don't Be Evil as a part of their code of conduct, it seemed like something that was a good idea to have.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And it, sort of, defined what I was talking about that tech companies are uniquely progressive.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I don't know what makes that. I think, no matter what, like, we — The internet allows for a very healthy skepticism of nearly everything.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: I'm from Missouri. It's a Show-Me State.

Joe Rogan: Are you really from Missouri?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, I'm from St. Louis, Missouri. We're all skeptics. My mom was a Democrat. My dad was a Republican. My dad listened to Rush Limbaugh and Hannity all the time. I found myself somewhere in the middle. But one of the things I appreciated, we had a ton of fights, and arguments, and yelling matches around the kitchen table. But, like, I appreciate the fact that we could have them. And I felt safe to do so. And I didn't feel like — I mean, obviously, they're my parents, but they weren't judging me because of what I said, and-

Joe Rogan: They didn't force you to be a Republican or a Democrat.

Jack Dorsey: Didn't force me to think a particular way. Like, I think they were good, at least, showing different perspectives even in this union that they have. And I don't know. It developed a skepticism in me that I think is healthy, and I have a lot of skepticism of companies like ours and leaders like me. I think that's right. I think that's right, and people should. And we — I mean, I was formed through a lot of the ideals. I think I just fell in love with what it made possible.

Jack Dorsey: And I never ever want to run afoul of those ideals. And, you know, the removal of barriers, and boundaries, and the connection that we have because of it. And, you know, I think often and reflect often about my role and the centralization of my role in our company, and I want to figure out and help figure out, like, how we can continue to add massive value and be an amazing business, which is us and will always be us.

Jack Dorsey: But at the same time, be a participatory force in this greater good that the internet has really started. And it's not led by any one individual or any one company. And that's the beauty of it. And I want to make sure that we find our place in that, and we can also contribute massively to it. And I think we can. It's just going to take a lot of work, a lot of introspection, and a lot of experimentation. A lot of making mistakes and failures too.

Joe Rogan: Well, and it's very encouraging that you have that attitude because, you know, a lot of people, I think, in a similar situation would try to control the narrative. They would try to reinforce their own particular perspective on things and try to get other people to adopt it or try to push it. And I think it's very important-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: … to just have this open discussion. And I think it's very important to review your own thoughts and ideas.

Jack Dorsey: Totally.

Joe Rogan: And one of the best ways to do so is through the-

Jack Dorsey: Put it out there.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, put it out there.

Jack Dorsey: Put it out there and have other people review it.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Peer review is a great process. And the-

Joe Rogan: That was the way this podcast has evolved more than probably anything.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. That's the thing. I mean, you did this because you want to learn from people. And the platform that you've created, millions get to learn from it as well.

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: And that's just so amazing. Like I learn from your podcast all the time. And that's what technology makes possible. But with that power also comes ramifications. And if we're not talking about the ramifications and, like, at least, being open about what we know and what we don't know. And, I think, we're — I think we state and post a lot more of what we know rather than what we don't know.

Joe Rogan: Why don't you guys-

Jack Dorsey: And that's just so interesting.

Joe Rogan: Why don't you guys steal Don't Be Evil? Put that in your own shit. Fuck you, Google.

Jack Dorsey: I don't know if that's going to help anything. Then, what is that telling our employees to do?

Joe Rogan: Don't be evil. It's real simple. Don't be a dick.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. I mean, how do we get deeper in just, like, seeing more conversation around what is "evil."

Joe Rogan: Have you guys considered expanding your influence in other venues? Like, you know, Google started off as a search engine. Now, it's fucking everything. Have you guys considered doing something similar?

Jack Dorsey: I think, we probably did too much of that early on. And that's what led to a bunch of issues from a corporate standpoint. We're just trying to do too much too many times.

Joe Rogan: Like what?

Jack Dorsey: I don't know. We're trying to be everything to everyone. And like, you know, we had, you know, a video thing, and we had — We're looking at gaming stuff and messaging. And it lost focus of what we are good at. What we're good at is conversation, and what we're good at is public conversation. So, we now have — As a company where, we have just such an amazing focus on what that means and how that evolves.

Jack Dorsey: And there's just — There's some really cool things that we can do there. Like we have this app called Periscope. And one of the things that we're discovering is, like, a lot of people are using it to podcast. A lot of people are using it to share their thoughts, and these people come in, and, you know, they chat, and have a conversation. And one of the things we did recently is we allowed the audio to play in the background. It's super simple, but what we found was that people didn't necessarily want to watch the video of people talking. They just want to hear what they're saying. And that just opened the door for more types of use cases.

Jack Dorsey: And there's some really exciting things coming out with Periscope that, I think, add a new dimension to what conversation looks like, and how it is experienced, and how it evolves. And those are the things I get really excited about. It's like, how can we make conversation better? And, you know, how do we make it feel more live? How do we make it feel more electric? And how do we bring new technology into it that just opens a door for an entirely new way of talking?

Jack Dorsey: And that's the thing that I think has been most educational to me about Twitter is, you know, as we talked about, we started with this idea of sharing what was happening around you. And then, people told us what they wanted to wanted it to be, and it became this conversational medium. It became this interest network. And it became a thing that was entirely new. And, you know, we observed it, and we learned more and more of what it wanted to be in. And as we get deeper and deeper that we're going to be surprised by some of the technologies that we thought would be used in this way, but it turns out that the massive use case, and the resonant use case, and the fundamental use case is going to be created right before our eyes by the people using it.

Joe Rogan: Now, did you guys acquire Periscope or was-

Jack Dorsey: We acquired Periscope, yeah.

Joe Rogan: And what was the thought process when you were acquiring it?

Jack Dorsey: We like the live nature of it. We like the broadcast aspect.

Joe Rogan: Why keep it as Periscope? Why not have it be like Twitter Live?

Jack Dorsey: There's a specific community on Periscope. And I think it's interesting from an experimentation standpoint. We can play with ideas there. It's a smart playground.

Joe Rogan: Scott Evans, I think, uses it better than anybody. He gets on it-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, he's really good at it.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And he's one that I think has figured out just the knack behind it. You know, he starts every one of them with this simultaneous sip of coffee.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: So, he gets his listeners and his viewers engaged right away. And then, he just goes on. And then, every now and then, he'll, you know, look at the comments, and riff off them. So-

Joe Rogan: He lets people build up too. Like, he'll announce that he's going on, and then wait a little while, say hello to some people.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Then, once a bunch of people are in the room, then he starts talking.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah. And I just — I find that so interesting because that is the future of conversation. It's looking at the patterns. It's looking at what people are trying to do with the thing. And then, you build technology around it. And that becomes the next big thing. And we just have to — We have to hone our power of observation, hone our power of, like, connecting the dots, and looking at all the patterns, and what people are — It's what's the question behind the question? What's the statement behind the statement that they're making? And if we can get good at understanding some of those fundamental central things, then we've reached — We've, at least, created the probability that most people in the world will find it useful and find it valuable.

Joe Rogan: Joey Diaz as the other person that uses Periscope better than anybody live, but he just gets on.

Jack Dorsey: I haven't seen his.

Joe Rogan: He just gets baked. It gives you a morning — What does he call it? Morning Band Head?

Male: The Morning Joint.

Joe Rogan: The Morning Joint, yeah. He'll smoke a joint or smoke a bowl in the morning, and then just sort of let everybody know-

Jack Dorsey: Doing something-.

Joe Rogan: … what's mine is mine.

Jack Dorsey: Doing something in sync with one — with more people is interesting. Like we've had some folks who are interested in doing meditations through Periscope.

Joe Rogan: Oh, that's a great idea.

Jack Dorsey: You can — I mean, if you look at the surface level, you can't imagine anything more boring than like watching someone meditate. But if you're actually meditating with them, there's something powerful about it. And, like, what can we do to improve that experience?

Joe Rogan: What about people using it for group workouts? Is anyone doing that?

Jack Dorsey: I'm sure it's happened, and I haven't seen it personally, but I'm sure it's happening.

Joe Rogan: How much more people do you have on Twitter than Periscope?

Jack Dorsey: A lot.

Joe Rogan: A lot more, huh?

Jack Dorsey: A lot. It's one of those things that I, personally, just have a lot of conviction around, and I have a lot of belief in the format, and I — You know, every now and then, we don't have instant hits. It just requires a lot of patience. And we need to really learn what it wants to be. And, sometimes, that takes time. And, you know, I think, oftentimes, I've certainly done this, you know, we shut down things a little bit too early.

Jack Dorsey: We did this at Square. Like we had this amazing technology, an app I love called Square Wallet. And it allowed you to — You know, you link your credit card, and you have all these merchants around you here in LA, and you could walk up to a coffee merchant. And as you walked up, your name would pop up on the register, so you could say like, "I want a cappuccino. Put it on Jack." And it just automatically charge your card. And it would only happen if you were within, like, two feet. We're using Bluetooth, and geolocation, and whatnot.

Jack Dorsey: But, you know, we had it for about three years, and it just didn't take off, and we shut it down. And I kind of regret doing that, but it also paved the way for another thing that I didn't want to give up on, and that was the Cash App. Like for four years, it was just a slug. Like a lot of people in the company wanted to shut down the thing. They saw it as something that wasn't successful. And, you know, recently the team reached number one in the App Store in the United States.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Like, we are all — We are against all these incumbents like Venmo, and PayPal, and it finally clicked. And it's just because we have the patience and the conviction around our belief.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, it's a great app too. And the ethics behind it are really fantastic too. We're really thankful for the Cash App, especially my friend, Justin Rand, and his fight for the forgotten charity that every time you use the code word, joerogan, all one word, it all goes-

Jack Dorsey: We match it.

Joe Rogan: $5 goes to that. And they've built two wells for the pygmies in the Congo.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And they've raised thousands of dollars in building more wells right now. It's really, really cool.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: We're really, really happy about that.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah. I love it. I think it's-

Joe Rogan: It's a great way to save money too. I mean, when you can save 10% at Whole Foods-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: I mean, that's real.

Jack Dorsey: Well, the other thing is like the population that we serve, typically, are underserved by banks or unbanked entirely.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Today, we are their bank account.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: But more importantly, they don't have access to things like rewards. You don't get rewards on a typical debit card or credit card.

Joe Rogan: Right.

Jack Dorsey: So, like, just, you know, going to your favorite place and getting an instant 10% off, or whatever it is, is out of reach for most people because the financial institutions don't enable that, and they won't even enable them to get in the door in the first place.

Joe Rogan: Well, if people were listening to this on YouTube, you don't know what the fuck we're talking about, the Cash App has a thing called the Cash Card, which is a debit card that you get with it, and there's a thing called Boost. And with Boosts, all you do is pick a boost in the app, and then use your cash card as a debit card, and you get these automatic discounts. And they're real discounts.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And in this-.

Jack Dorsey: Instant, instant.

Joe Rogan: For folks with bad credit, there's no credit check. You can direct deposit your paycheck right into the app. And the fact that you guys do things like support Fight for the Forgotten, and you're supporting UFC Fighter Ray Bourque's son who's got some serious medical bills-

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: … it's really, really cool.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah. I'm really proud of that. I'm really proud of the team. It's a very small team, but they're doing some big things.

Joe Rogan: I hear a lot of good things about it too. I've run into people on the street that tell me they use it, and they're very happy about it.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: So, it's nice to see, again, an emerging technology that's profitable, but, yet, also, has a really good set of ethics.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joe Rogan: Do you have Don't be Evil in Cash App's code of honor?

Jack Dorsey: No, no, no.

Joe Rogan: Maybe you should not take it. It's free now.

Jack Dorsey: One of our equivalent operating principles within Cash and Square is like under — like, how do we understand someone's struggle? Like, how do we understand? Like, how do we have empathy for like what they're struggling with? And, like, when it comes to finance, they're struggling with a lot.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Typically, they're struggling with the ton.

Joe Rogan: What was the thought process with — I mean, one of the things that's kind of cool about the Cash App is that you can buy and sell bitcoin with it.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: Are you guys going to consider other forms or cryptocurrency as well?

Jack Dorsey: Not right now. So, back to the internet, I believe the internet will have a native currency.

Joe Rogan: Really?

Jack Dorsey: It will have a native currency. And I don't know if it's Bitcoin. And I think it will because just given all the tests it's been through, and the principles behind it, how it is created. And, you know, it was something that was born on the internet, that was developed on the internet, that it was tested on the internet. It is of the internet.

Jack Dorsey: And the reason, you know, we enabled the purchasing of bitcoin within the Cash App is, one, we want to learn about the technology, and we want to put ourselves out there, and take some risk. We're the first publicly-traded company to actually offer it as a service. We're the first publicly-traded company to talk to the FCC about bitcoin, and what that means. And it made us uncomfortable. We had to, you know, like really understand what was going on. And that was critical and important.

Jack Dorsey: And then, the second thing is that, you know, we would love to see something become a global currency. It enables more access. It allows us to serve more people. It allows us to move much faster around the world. And we thought we were going to start with how you can use it transactionally, but we noticed that people were treating it more like an asset, like a virtual gold. And we wanted to just to make that easy. Like, just the simplest way to buy and sell bitcoin. But we also knew that it had to come with a lot of education. It had to come with constraint because, you know, two years ago, people did some really unhealthy things about, you know, purchasing bitcoin. They maxed out their credit cards and put all their life savings into the bitcoin.

Jack Dorsey: So, we developed some very simple restrictions and constraints, like you can't buy Bitcoin on the Cash App with a credit card. You have to — It has to be the money you actually have in it. And we look for day trading, which we discouraged and shut down. Like that's not what we are trying to build. That's not what we are trying to optimize for. We made a children's book explaining what bitcoin is, and where it came from, and how people use it, and where it might be going. So, we really tried to take on the role of education and have some like very simple healthy constraints that allowed people to consider what their actions are in the space.

Joe Rogan: Now, when you have something like the Cash App, which it's very much a disruptive technology in terms of, like, decentralization of banks and currency. And, you know, to have it where everything is going right — You're direct depositing a paycheck right in the app if you so choose. Then, you could also buy Bitcoin, which is another disruptive technology. I mean, that — This is another step towards this sort of new way of doing things now.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And is there pushback from any companies or is there-

Jack Dorsey: Oh, yeah, yeah. I mean, like, you just look at, like, some of the major banks and their consideration around Bitcoin. They all love blockchain because of the efficiencies it can create for their business and potentially new business lines. But, you know, I think, there is a-.

Joe Rogan: Explain blockchain for people who don't know what we're talking about.

Jack Dorsey: Blockchain is a distributed ledger. And what that means is that it's, basically, a distributed database where, you know, the source of truth can be verified at any point around the network. And you can see, you know, this annotation around how content or how around money, like, traveled.

Joe Rogan: So, you don't have to go to an institution to get them?

Jack Dorsey: So, the records, yeah, there's no centralized check. There's no a centralized control over it. And I think that is threatening. It's certainly threatening to certain services behind banks and financial institutions. It's threatening to some governments as well. So, I just look at this and, like, how do we embrace this technology, not react to it, you know, more from a threat standpoint, but, like, what does it enable us to do, and where does our value shift?

Jack Dorsey: And that's what we should be talking about right now is like how our value shifts. And there's always really strong answers to that question. But if you're not willing to ask the question in the first place, you will become irrelevant because technology will just continue to march on and make you irrelevant. And it's the people that like are, you know, growing up with this technology, or born with the technology, only knowing that technology, or are asking the tough questions of themselves that are going to be super disruptive to their business, and they're thinking about right now, and they're taking actions.

Jack Dorsey: And, you know, we're doing that at Square, and we're doing that at Twitter. And like that, to me, represents longevity. That represents our ability to thrive. And we got to push ourselves, we got to make ourselves uncomfortable, and we've got to disrupt what we held sacred, and what we think is success because, otherwise, it's not going to be bigger than what we have today.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And I think that cryptocurrency, to me, represents one of the more interesting discussions on the internet lately.

Jack Dorsey: Totally.

Joe Rogan: What is money?

Jack Dorsey: Yeah.

Joe Rogan: And why are we agreeing that it's these pieces of paper that the Federal Reserve prints out?

Jack Dorsey: Totally. It's a fascinating time in technology because, like, that, to me, was one of the last, big, centralized nationalized instruments is currency, is money. And when you think about the internet as a country, as a market, as a nation, it's going to have its own currency. But what's interesting about the internet as a nation, it's the whole world. It is the whole world. So, the world gets one currency. It gets one thing they communicate in. And that, to me, is just so freeing and so exciting.

Joe Rogan: Yeah, I'm very excited by it. And I'm also very excited at the fact that it's only been around for such a short period of time but-

Jack Dorsey: 10 years.

Joe Rogan: And it's become a part of the global conversation.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, it's like a good brand.

Joe Rogan: I also think that it's going to open up the door to potential universal languages. And I think this is-

Jack Dorsey: Totally.

Joe Rogan: This is-

Jack Dorsey: Totally.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: Yeah, that excites me a lot about Twitter is like, how do we — Like it — If we want to get the world into a conversation, not a single conversation but, at least, being able to see that global conversation, like we've got to work on technologies that would like instantly translate.

Joe Rogan: Yes.

Jack Dorsey: We got to work on technologies that I can speak as I'm speaking right now. And in real time, people are hearing it in their context, in their language, in their dialect. That is amazing. That is so exciting.

Joe Rogan: Yeah.

Jack Dorsey: And like just how that evolves, and how it impacts, not just communication like this but music. And just like, you know, how hip hop, and rap, and, you know, just — It just — It's amazing to think about where that can go and where that can take us.

Joe Rogan: Yeah. And I think you and I are extremely fortunate to be alive right now during this time because, I think, it's one of the strangest and most unique times-

Jack Dorsey: Totally

Joe Rogan: … in human history.

Jack Dorsey: Totally.

Joe Rogan: I don't think there's ever been a time where things have changed so radically, so quickly.

Jack Dorsey: Totally. Yeah. And I feel, you know, we're just — We're able through technologies like Twitter to, at least, see and acknowledge some of the issues that we're still facing that we're probably in the dark before. And I think that's so critical to making any sort of improvements for making any sort of evolution and for making it better for everyone on the planet.

Jack Dorsey: And, you know, as uncomfortable as, you know, sometimes Twitter makes people feel, I think it is necessary to see those things and have conversations about them, so that we can understand how we might move forward and how we might really get at the biggest problems facing us all. And, you know, there's some huge ones, some huge ones right now that if we don't have — if we don't talk about it, like, it will drive us to extinction, and like it will threaten our ability to be in a planet, to live on this planet.

Joe Rogan: I agree. Thank you.

Jack Dorsey: Thanks again.

Joe Rogan: Thanks for everything, man. Thanks for being here.

Jack Dorsey: Thank you.

Joe Rogan: Thanks for doing what you're doing. Thanks for having the attitude that you have. I really, really appreciate.

Jack Dorsey: Thank you. Joe.

Joe Rogan: My pleasure. Bye everybody.

Sonix is the best online video transcription software in 2019.

The above video transcript for “FULL TRANSCRIPT: Joe Rogan Experience #1236 – Jack Dorsey” was transcribed by the best video transcription service called Sonix. Transcribing and editing video files is painful. Need to quickly convert your video files to text? Try Sonix today. Signing up for a free trial account is easy.

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Rachel Maddow Presents – BagMan – Episode 6: A Disappearing Act

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the BagMan podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

Rachel Maddow Presents – BagMan – Episode 6: A Disappearing Act (transcribed by Sonix)

Rachel Maddow: What you're about to hear, I think, is one of the most surreal clips I've maybe ever heard when it comes to American politics. This is a TV interview with a Vice President. And what he's about to allege here is that the President of the United States, who he served with, was threatening to have him murdered. This is not an outtake from some over-acted political thriller. This is a real interview that really happened. And the Vice President here, of course, is Spiro Agnew.

Male Voice: Agnew says he left because of a death threat from the White House. He quotes Nixon Chief of Staff Alexander Haig urging him to resign with the words, "The President has a lot of power. Don't forget that." Agnew writes that the remark sent a chill through his body. He took it as an innuendo that anything could happen. He might have, in Agnew's words, "a convenient accident," an interpretation that, even today, he refuses to disown.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: I didn't know what General Haig meant when he said, "Anything may be in the offing, things may get nasty and dirty." There's no doubt in my mind that these things are possible. I don't say it was a probability, but I do say it was a possibility.

Male Voice: You think that there were men around Richard Nixon, either in the White House staff or in the official mechanism of the CIA, who were capable of killing a Vice President of the United States if they felt he was an embarrassment?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: I don't doubt that at all.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew didn't just make that allegation that one time. He made it repeatedly. He wrote about it in a book. He went on the record in a series of interviews stating that he believed President Richard Nixon might have him killed.

Male Voice: You say that you were actually fearful that if you did not go along, President Nixon or General Haig, it's not quite clear, might have ordered you assassinated. Could you explain that?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: I was concerned. And I think my concern at that time, based on my frame of mind after being seven months in a pressure cooker of attempts to get me to resign office, gave me reason to be concerned. I brought along with me this testimony from the Select Committee on the Government Operations Committee involving intelligence activities. This is the United States Senate-

Rachel Maddow: What Spiro Agnew pulls out at this point is a copy of a US government report about the CIA's efforts to assassinate Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. He says what that report shows is that even though the CIA was never given a direct order from the President to kill Castro, they knew they were authorized to do it. He's making the point that even if Nixon never gave a direct order to kill him, to kill his Vice President, it's conceivable the CIA would take its cues from Nixon and act anyway.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: It is possible for these things to happen. I've never said it was a probability that my life was in danger. I said it was one of the factors that crossed my mind, and it was the straw that broke the camel's back after all the pressures that had been put on me.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew was alleging on national television that as a sitting Vice President, he was possibly the target of a contract killing by the President. He said he even bought a gun at the time for his own protection.

Nick Thimmesch: You acknowledge that you had fear at this time, but after you left office, did you ever go to the federal government to get a permit for a handgun?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Yes.

Nick Thimmesch: Why did you get that handgun, and what period was this?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: I think was immediately after I left office. I got it because I still had some fears.

Nick Thimmesch: Do you have a handgun?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: No, I've never carried a handgun. I thought it was sufficient that people would know I had the permit to carry one.

Rachel Maddow: This is the story that Spiro Agnew wanted people to believe about the circumstances in which he left office, that he was another one of Richard Nixon's victims. Agnew's tale of woe was that Nixon's inner circle, specifically Nixon's Chief of Staff Al Haig, pressured him for weeks to resign. And when he refused to do it, they threatened his life. And thereby, forced him out when he otherwise wouldn't have left. Okay, maybe. Seems nuts, but maybe.

Rachel Maddow: That said, there is another explanation for why Spiro Agnew stepped down when he did. And it does involve a three-letter federal agency but not the CIA. It involves special agents from the IRS who had been quietly and very diligently going through Vice President Agnew's past.

Rachel Maddow: Those agents and the Baltimore federal prosecutors working with them had already turned up the smoking-gun evidence of the bribery and extortion scheme that Agnew had been running in Maryland and in the White House. But they also started turning up something else, details about what exactly Spiro Agnew seemed to be doing with all that money he was making as a criminal. And that part of the investigation got into areas of Agnew's personal life that were maybe becoming a little uncomfortable for him.

Ron Liebman: There were some personal expenses in there that pre-Monica Lewinsky and pre all that we've come across, and some stories that we came across, which, unlike Ken Starr, I guess, we just said, "This is not a part of the case."

Rachel Maddow: Ron Liebman and his fellow Baltimore prosecutors had stumbled upon an aspect of Agnew's life and crimes that may have hit a nerve for the Vice President.

Ron Liebman: You know, these guys, they have all personal peccadilloes. You know, they have money and power, and they do stupid things. And we came across financial evidence of that, and we heard some stories about that. One of them quite bizarre, but that wasn't part of the case.

Rachel Maddow: The Baltimore prosecutors never actually used the information they would start to uncover about Agnew's personal life, but Spiro Agnew was aware that the IRS was digging into it. And what it involved was evidence of what seemed like a secret life. mistresses, sports cars, expensive gifts that never seemed to make it to Agnew's wife, Judy. Here's Prosecutor Tim Baker.

Tim Baker: There was jewelry, too.

Mike Yarvitz: Jewelry to Agnew?

Tim Baker: A woman's watch, which Judy never got.

Mike Yarvitz: What does that suggest?

Tim Baker: Uhh.

Rachel Maddow: Death threat, and handguns, and CIA assassination plots sounded like a really cool reason to have to step down. But that probably wasn't the reason he had to step down. Spiro Agnew had carefully crafted this straight arrow, moralistic, hard line public image as a man of honesty, and virtue, and conservative integrity. He knew that if he continued to fight, all of that would come crashing down around him. It was finally time to cut his losses and go away.

Rachel Maddow: You're listening to Bag Man. I'm your host, Rachel Maddow.

John Chancellor: Good evening. Washington was stunned today by the disclosure that Vice President Agnew was under criminal investigation by federal authorities in his home state of Maryland.

Ron Liebman: Well what we were concerned was, you know, he gets into court, and he says, "Well, wait a minute, I changed my mind."

Marty London: And the people in the room, they gasped. It then became clear what this was about.

John Chancellor: Spiro Agnew is in disgrace, fallen from power, a convicted criminal.

Female Voice: Dinnertime can be a challenge for busy families, especially this time of year. Well, Gobble is here to help. They are your solution for delicious, stress-free dinners this holiday. Gobble's dinner prep kids are delivered fresh right to your doorstep and can be cooked up in just 15 minutes. Really. That's because gobble sous chefs do all the prep work for you. They take care of peeling, chopping, marinating, and creating the perfect sauces.

Female Voice: By a long shot, the Gobble meals I've cooked were some of the simplest and quickest I've ever made. I haven't stopped thinking about the roasted broccoli and cauliflower quinoa bowl I made from Gobble. Gobble wants to help you keep your holiday season stress-free and healthy. So, they're offering listeners of Bag Man this special limited time deal. To get $50 off your first box of fresh delicious dinners, just go to gobble.com/bagman. That's gobble.com/bagman.

Rachel Maddow: Episode 6: A Disappearing Act.

Male Voice: The Tonight Show will not be seen tonight, so that we may bring you the following NBC News Special Report.

John Chancellor: Good evening. The country tonight is in the midst of what may be the most serious constitutional crisis in its history.

Rachel Maddow: The Saturday Night Massacre took place on October 20, 1973. It was Richard Nixon in a fit of rage, trying to end the investigation into Watergate that his own Justice Department was conducting. Nixon ordered his Attorney General, Elliot Richardson to fire the Special Prosecutor who was leading that investigation. And when Richardson refused to do that and resigned himself instead, that sparked a true-blue constitutional crisis.

John Chancellor: Agents of the FBI, acting at the direction of the White House, sealed off the offices of the Special Prosecutor, the offices of the Attorney General, and the offices of the Deputy Attorney General. That's a stunning development. And nothing even remotely like it has happened in all of our history.

Rachel Maddow: The Saturday Night Massacre is the signal moment in US history. But many of the people who've lived that history are still around to tell it. JT Smith was Elliot Richardson's top assistant at the Justice Department that day.

JT Smith: I don't want to sound like a pretentious 29-year-old, but I was sorely vexed by events. And I had a lot of yellow, legal pad notes that bore upon the stuff we've been talking about. I took my notes, put them in my briefcase, and walked out without being searched by the FBI. And I took them home, and I was sufficiently paranoid about the direction of the country, I hid them in the attic of my house.

Rachel Maddow: What sort of incredible to realize with hindsight and what's never mentioned in the history books about that moment is that Elliot Richardson and his team, when the Saturday Night Massacre happened, they were just coming off what may have been one of the most dramatic moments in the history of the US Justice Department.

Rachel Maddow: The Saturday Night Massacre happened on October 20, 1973. Just 10 days before that, on October 10th, Attorney General Elliot Richardson had single-handedly forced the resignation of the Vice President of the United States. It was October 9th when Elliot Richardson cut a high-stakes plea deal with Vice President Agnew's lawyers that would keep Agnew out of jail, but in exchange, he would offer his immediate resignation from office. Agnew's attorney, Marty London, helped reach that deal.

Marty London: I thought Elliot Richardson, in the end, made a deal because he saw this as a potential Constitutional crisis and a national disaster.

Rachel Maddow: The deal was made. As controversial as it was, it was made. But what happened to Spiro Agnew in the last 24 hours of his Vice Presidency? It was this all-night, sirens wailing, down to the last minute, surprise sweat fest like you can't believe.

Rachel Maddow: In all of US history, a Vice President had never before been forced to resign. And at that moment, it wasn't really clear how to do it, logistically even. They had to dig through the archives to figure out the logistics, to figure out that the way a Vice President technically resigns, the instrument of resignation, turns out it's through a letter submitted to the Secretary of State. Okay, so, he'll resign to the Secretary of State.

Rachel Maddow: After figuring that out, and finalizing the deal, and setting a court date for the very next day, October 10th, Marty London and the rest of Agnew's defense team rushed back to the Vice President's office to draft that resignation letter. Again, there was no precedent for what that should look like. What should the letter say?

Marty London: Nobody had written, thought about preparing for this. So, we've got two hours to get out a resignation letter. I don't know how so many people got in that room. He had — The Vice President had some guy who was like counselor to the Vice President, another guy was there, another guy was there, Frank Sinatra had sent a lawyer. And, now, people are writing fantastic, long explanations.

Marty London: One guy said, "I'm resigning because the President is pushing me out, and outrageous." Another guy writes a letter, "I'm resigning because of the press wanted me gone." And the other guy said, "The Department of Justice want to be gone." And another guy said, "It's the fucking Democrats, they want me gone." It's everything. And we're going nowhere. It's an hour and a half later, the clock is ticking, the temperature room is 85 degrees, I said, "I got it guys. I got it." Thus, I pat myself on the back here. I got it. "Oh yeah? What's your letter?" It says, "I hereby resign as Vice President of United States. Respectfully." Everybody says, "Well geez, that will do it."

Rachel Maddow: That chaotic scene in the Vice President's office though, that was nothing compared to what was happening back in Baltimore that night at the US Attorney's Office. The plea deal that had been reached with Agnew allowed the prosecutors to submit a detailed statement of evidence into the record laying out what crimes exactly Spiro Agnew had committed. The payoffs as Governor, the payoffs as Vice President, everything the prosecutors had.

Rachel Maddow: What the prosecutors would, ultimately, draft was a 40-page long statement of evidence laying out Agnew's alleged crimes. But the night before the court date, it wasn't done yet. And these three Baltimore prosecutors, they stayed up all night that night trying to get it finished in time.

Barney Skolnik: It was all written the night before we went to court. I mean, it was like this all-nighter thing, like it was being back in college. We were exchanging drafts. I think maybe Timmy wrote, you know, these parts. And I wrote some parts. And Ron wrote some parts.

Tim Baker: We just started dictating and drafts would go, pages would. It wasn't like complete drafts. Sections would go back and forth, back and forth, marked up, retyped, marked up, retyped, and we were on a deadline.

Ron Liebman: At like 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, the Attorney General of the United States and Henry Petersen, I think, drive to Baltimore in the middle of the night, early in the morning, and sit in George Beall's office as we start feeding him these papers, which was extraordinary. This is the Attorney General the United States at 2:00 in the morning in Baltimore? You know, on my best days, I wouldn't want to be in Baltimore at 2:00 in the morning.

Tim Baker: And I think it's like 6:00 a.m., it's given to the US Marshals, who then, we were later told, at points on the Baltimore-Washington Expressway, we're doing in excess of 85 miles an hour. And then, it had to be to Agnew's lawyers by something like 8:00 a.m. in Washington. It was some terrible hour, and they got it there just in time.

Rachel Maddow: They got it there, in fact, five minutes late. This 40-page statement of evidence that was thrown together all night, overnight, it was rushed to DC with a sirens wailing police escort, like it was the holy grail. For these prosecutors, it kind of was. Spiro Agnew was about to walk into court and plead to a felony count of tax evasion, and these prosecutors wanted the American people to know that he had not only been caught for tax evasion.

Tim Baker: We knew what it had to do. It had to bury him, so that the country could see this wasn't a witch-hunt, to use a current expression, that there was a very substantial, solid case against him.

Ron Liebman: It was a big issue for all of us, all of us, because what we certainly couldn't allow to happen would be for Vice President to plead Nolo to a tax count, and then the walk out and say, "This is nothing. This is some little mistake I made. This is absolutely — These guys are liars. I made a little mistake on my tax returns. I've made amends. I'm going to pay back the money that I should have paid. And I'm going back to work."

Rachel Maddow: So, the statement of evidence was finally ready. The Vice President's resignation letter was finally ready. A 2:00 p.m. court date was set. But not a single soul in the country, except for the people directly involved, knew what was about to happen in that courtroom.

Rachel Maddow: Now, the press knew that there was going to be a hearing in court that afternoon, something to do with the wrangling over the Agnew case, but what the press thought the hearing was going to be about was them, about newspapers' efforts to quash these subpoenas that Spiro Agnew's lawyers had sent to various reporters to try to get them to reveal their sources. The press showed up that day ready to cover a hearing about that. All of the lawyers for the news organization showed up at the counsel's table ready to fight about those subpoenas to the reporters. And then, into the courtroom, walked the attorneys for the Vice President.

Marty London: And they see us walking in, and we sit at the near table, and they look at us with hostility. I mean, sneering. Just Angry. And then, two federal marshals come over to them, and they say, "Pick up all your papers and move to the gallery." And they're resistant, but, I mean, these are federal marshals, and the marshals do not explain why. They just said, "Clear this table and clear it now. You can go stand in the back." And they stand in the back. And in walks, to occupy that table, Elliot Richardson, George Beall, and some more of Beall's assistants.

Ron Liebman: The bailiff makes an announcement, you know, "Ladies and gentlemen, proceeding is about ready to begin. This courtroom is going to be locked. So, if you can't stay, you have to get out. You have to leave now."

Rachel Maddow: The Baltimore prosecutors are there, sitting next to the Attorney General himself. They know, and the Vice President's lawyers know, that what was about to happen in that courtroom was something really big and surprising. The resignation was ready. The 40-page statement of his crimes was ready. The deal was ready, and the country was about to have the whole thing sprung on them for the first time. The hearing was set to begin at 2:00 sharp. There was just one problem.

Marty London: It's now 2:00, and I am sweating because at our table is me and Jay Topkis, and Jud Best is back in the clerk's office on the telephone. And it's 2:00, and somebody from this play is missing.

Rachel Maddow: Everything was set. One of Agnew's lawyers was in the clerk's office at the court waiting to give the order over the phone to deliver Agnew's resignation letter, to transmit that letter to the Secretary of State as soon as the Vice President himself walked into the courtroom. It was all choreographed. Each moment scripted and ordered for a very specific reason. And the time was now, but the Vice President of the United States was nowhere to be found. On the prosecution side, they had long feared that something just like this might happen.

Ron Liebman: What we were concerned was, you know, he gets into court, and he says, "Well, wait a minute, I changed my mind. These are bogus charges. I don't know why I'm here. I'm the Vice President the United States. I'm immune from prosecution. Marshal, could you unlock that door please. I got to go." You know, we're dealing with the Vice President of the United States. We are being as careful as we can be. We're on tenterhooks, right? We want this done just so. It had to be done just so, or it wouldn't happen.

Rachel Maddow: At 2:00, when the Vice President was the only one missing, it looked for a brief moment like it might not happen, even to Agnew's lawyers.

Marty London: Listen, you want to know if I got a little nervous between 2:00 and 2:01 because the man was a minute late? The answer is I was anxious. I wouldn't say nervous, but I was anxious. I said, look, if I have a 2:00 court date, I'm there at 1:45. I mean, I've been doing this for a long time. I can understand him not wanting to come into that courtroom, and I do get it, him not wanting to come into that courtroom, and sit there at that table for 15 minutes with all those people staring at the back of his neck. So, I don't know. I assume that he may have been there at 1:45, sitting in his car out at the curb, looking at the watch and saying, "Okay, I better go in." And maybe my watch was a minute fast. Maybe he was there at 2:00. I was anxious, but I'd never occurred to me that he was not going to do it.

Rachel Maddow: That wait for the Vice President to show up, the question of whether or not he would show up, that hung in the air for a very tense moment, until the courtroom doors swung open again.

Marty London: 2:01, exactly, in walks our client. And the people in the room, they gasped. It then became clear what this was about.

Ron Liebman: It was a noticeable hush. Gasp. You know, it was a surprise to so many people in there. The courtrooms is locked, Agnew walks in, the judge gets on the bench, the bailiff or the law clerk calls, "Oyez, oyez. All rise." Everybody rises, everybody sits down, and there's, you know, Spiro Agnew in his well-tailored suit and his nice haircut about to plead Nolo Contendere to a felony.

Marty London: Jud Best comes out of the clerk's office and says, "I've just been on the telephone with the offices of the Secretary of State. They have received the Vice President's resignation letter." And, ultimately, the judge accepts the plea, and he sentenced him to a fine and a sentence of probation. And we walk out of the courtroom with the ex-Vice President of the United States. It was a stunning, stunning, stunning development.

Rachel Maddow: For the first time in American history, a sitting Vice President appeared in court to answer criminal charges. For the first time in American history, a Vice President plead to a felony. And for the first time in American history, a Vice President resigned his office in disgrace.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew arrived at the courthouse as the Vice President. As he crossed the threshold into the courtroom, his resignation was simultaneously submitted. He left that courtroom minutes later as a convicted felon. He, then, spoke to the stunned reporters outside who had had no idea that any of this was coming.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: I categorically and flatly deny the assertion that have been made by the prosecutors with regard to their contention of bribery and extortion on my part. I will have nothing more to say at this point. I will make an address to the nation within a few days.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew decision to agree to a plea deal and resign, it happened so fast that Agnew's own staff at the White House didn't even know that day that it was going to happen. Here's David Keene, Agnew's top political aide.

David Keene: He went to Baltimore to plead nolo. And Mike Dunn, who is the Chief of Staff, and he called the senior staff together to tell us. And I pounded my fist on the desk and said, "Can't the son of a bitch have the balls to come and tell us himself?"

Rachel Maddow: There was a lot of crazy stuff that happened in the United States of America in 1973. But the Vice President of the United States suddenly resigning in disgrace, surprise. That stunned the country.

Male Voice: Good evening. If you have just joined us, we are obliged to tell you the story we've been running since shortly after 2:00 this afternoon, namely, that Vice President Spiro T. Agnew is now the former Vice President. He resigned today. It's been quite a day for news, JC.

Female Voice: It really has. I think the public is still in shock. Many people just disbelieve it. It's hard to accept that it has come to this.

Male Voice: There was disbelief on Capitol Hill where most House and Senate members had come to believe the Vice President's assertions that he fully intended to fight the charges all the way.

Mark Hatfield: We have a period of time when there is political erosion. Confidence and faith in the whole system has been challenged by many people. And, now, to have this confirmation of the worst suspicions that some people held is really a very profound impact on the whole country.

Male Voice: Can you tell us what your reaction is to the resignation?

Mike Mansfield: Well, it was totally unexpected. And I don't know what to say.

Rachel Maddow: That was the Majority Leader in the Senate at the time, Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield. The reaction in the country to Spiro Agnew's sudden resignation was kind of a muddled mess. It was a lot of things all at once. It was stunned confusion from a lot of people. There was elation from those who felt that justice had been served. There was also absolute outrage from Agnew's supporters, who really had stayed with him right til the very end.

Female Voice: I'm just sick about it. I think he's a man of his word, and I think they've all been doing the same thing ever since I started voting. And I think it's just too bad. I think he's a great man.

Female Voice: I think it was very unnecessary. I'm just, oh, I'm just sick. I'm very unhappy. I don't think it was necessary. I think it's a lot of political hogwash. And I'm, oh.

Male Voice: Did you vote for Agnew?

Male Voice: I certainly did.

Male Voice: What do you think of him now?

Male Voice: I think it's very unfortunate. The man seems to be railroaded or something. I don't know if this is all fact, a lot of insinuation has been brought out.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew built this base of support in the Republican Party. He convinced his supporters that he was innocent. He was the victim of a witch hunt. And even though he had just plead no contest to a felony in open court, his supporters just still couldn't accept it. They couldn't absorb it. They have been primed to believe in his innocence, and to hate, and resent, and suspect everything about this prosecution.

Rachel Maddow: But, you know, a weird thing happened in the courtroom that last weird day. It was just an odd moment in the courtroom itself that didn't seem like much at the time, but it would ultimately shake even Agnew's most committed supporters. And it would ultimately cost Agnew much more than just having to resign from office and walk away. That's next.

Chris Hayes: Hey, it's MSNBC's Chris Hayes. If you enjoyed Bag Man, be sure to check out my friend, Rachel Maddow, on my podcast, Why is This Happening?, where I get the opportunity to dig deep into the forces behind the stories playing out in the news in order to understand why certain cultural and political phenomena came to be. Rachel joins me to talk about covering the news in this unprecedented political moment. We also talk all about Bag Man and how this incredible podcast came to be. So, click on over and check out Why is This Happening? And you can listen now wherever you get your podcasts.

John Chancellor: Spiro Agnew is in disgrace, fallen from power, a convicted criminal. It's something that none of his critics would even have predicted not long ago. And it is one of the biggest news stories of our time.

Rachel Maddow: The day that Spiro Agnew walked into a federal courthouse in Baltimore to plead to a felony and resign the Vice Presidency, one of the people inside the courtroom that day was a Law Professor from George Washington University, a professor named John Banzhaf.

John Banzhaf: I showed up and, initially, they would not let me in. I was reluctantly led into the courtroom, but with a very solemn warning that if I attempted to say anything, if I stood up, if I did anything at all, there were two big marshals behind me, and they would immediately take me out of the courtroom. And I was told in very strong language, "Don't stand. Don't say anything. Don't try to have any role."

Rachel Maddow: It was a little bit of a strange thing for this law professor to be in court that day. To him, it was stranger still the way that he felt threatened by those federal marshals. But in his view, the strangest thing about the whole proceeding in that courtroom that day was the resolution of it. Spiro Agnew was being allowed to plead to a felony, but he wasn't being sent to jail, and he wasn't even being forced to pay back any of the bribe money that he allegedly took.

Rachel Maddow: What was the punishment here exactly? I mean, resigning from office, yes. But is that it? After that remarkable day in court where, surprise, the Vice President is pleading to a felony and, oh by the way, he's also resigned, after that day, Banzhaf went back to his law classes at GW. And there, he found that his law students were as perplexed as he was about how the whole thing had shook out.

John Banzhaf: I mean, they said to me, "Professor Banzhaf, if somebody robs a bank, and he's given a plea deal, he's, at least, required to give back the money." Agnew, as a Governor and Vice President, should be held to an even higher standard. They were outraged that he was allowed to get off on a minor plea, no time, and keep all the ill-gotten gains.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew had resigned his office. He was basically starting to disappear into obscurity, but this class of law students decided they were going to make a project out of him. They weren't going to let him go away quietly.

Rachel Maddow: The law students and Professor John Banzhaf's class came up with a plan. Their first effort was to lobby Maryland's governor to bring a civil lawsuit against Agnew, since after all when he was taking those bribes and shaking down those contractors, it was the State of Maryland that was being defrauded. The State of Maryland should get that money back.

Rachel Maddow: The Governor of Maryland met with these students to hear them out, to hear their plan. But even though he took the meeting, and he heard what they had to say, at the end, he told them no, he wouldn't do it.

John Banzhaf: When we left, we were literally bewildered. I recall riding back in the car and the students are saying, "Well, why didn't they bring it? We don't understand. What's going on?" And I'm their professor who's supposed to know these things. And, of course, I had no answer for them. I could not figure out why they wouldn't want to bring the action. It was only quite a bit later when we learned that Governor Marvin Mandel was, likewise, on the take and was probably on the take, literally, while he was deciding not to bring this action.

Rachel Maddow: The State of Maryland had been harmed, but the Governor of the State said he wasn't willing to bring this case. So, the students went to Plan B. They found an old British common law legal principle that they believed would let them sue on Maryland's behalf, even if they didn't have the State's support to do it. They found some Maryland taxpayers to be their plaintiffs.

Rachel Maddow: And those law students did sue Spiro Agnew on behalf of Maryland taxpayers to recoup the bribe money that he had taken. It ended up taking years, but, eventually, they won. A court ruled that Agnew had, in fact, taken bribes, that he had defrauded the State, and he was ordered to write a check to the State of Maryland for more than a quarter million dollars.

Rachel Maddow: And those students, they not only exacted some of the punishment, they felt like Agnew had escaped back in 1973. They also got one more crucial thing when it comes to the scales of justice here. They got a confession. Well, a confession by proxy.

Rachel Maddow: Back in 1973, when this little investigation in Baltimore first started, Agnew himself, it turns out, admitted the whole scheme to his lawyer, his personal lawyer, a man named George White. Then, later, in his own book about the scandal, Agnew, oops, broke the confidentiality of his own attorney-client relationship with George White when he chose to write about the conversations he'd had with White while the case was unfolding.

Rachel Maddow: That was a mistake because when that lawsuit was eventually brought against Agnew by the law students at GW, not only was the court able to force Agnew to pay back some of the money he had ripped off from the taxpayers, the court was also able to get sworn testimony under oath from Agnew's own lawyer about Agnew confessing that he was guilty.

Female Voice: Today, only because ordered to by the judge, George White broke his silence. He described learning about the kickback scheme from three Agnew associates who were threatening to implicate the Vice President. Confronting Agnew, he said, "Ted, this is terribly serious. You've got to level with me. I've got to know the truth." According to White, Agnew replied, "It's been going on for a thousand years. What they told you is true."

Rachel Maddow: Quietly, in the courts, when Spiro Agnew was already a trivia question and a hard one, quietly, while basically nobody was watching, Agnew's entire story fell apart. All the denials, all the claims that this was a witch hunt, or that he was the real victim here, iI all fell apart. And his guilt was laid bare in court and for the record because his longtime personal lawyer flipped on him.

Rachel Maddow: When Agnew showed up to court that day in October 1973 to plead to a felony and resign the Vice Presidency, that 40-page statement of evidence that was assembled by the prosecutors, it was released to the public. It was this damning recitation of what Agnew had done as an elected official. All of the payoffs, all of the extortion, all of the crimes committed even as Vice President.

Rachel Maddow: And that document, all these detailed allegations from the prosecutors, it is a matter of public record. But even so, it's one that sort of feels secret even now. All these years later, it is hard today to find that document, even if you're really looking for it.

Rachel Maddow: The information contained in it is not what people immediately think when they hear the name Spiro Agnew. "Oh yeah. Agnew, Nixon's Vice President. Didn't he have like a tax evasion problem? Something from back before the time he became Vice President?" That's how Agnew's remembered, but Agnew really was way worse than history remembers him for, if he's remembered at all.

Rachel Maddow: Agnew, basically, disappeared into history after he resigned. He got a job working for Eva Gabor's fifth husband, seriously. Frank Sinatra helped him pay the relatively minor fines that were imposed by the court back in 1973. Agnew wrote a bad novel, a thriller with sort of unsettling sex scenes in it, frankly. He also published that memoir in which he claimed that Richard Nixon was going to have him killed. But basically, big picture, Agnew just went away. And the few times that he did reappear, he was always asking for sympathy. This was from an interview with him in 1980.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: The penalty I've paid is very heavy. People say, "Agnew didn't pay any penalty. He bought his way out of jail with the Vice Presidency," but they don't know what a penalty I paid. They don't understand I lost my right to practice law, I lost my pension. And the worst penalty of all is during those years immediately following my resignation when I was not at all answering the charges to walk down the street and see people say. "There he goes." To be recognizable, not just in the United States, but any place I went in the world. That's a pretty severe penalty.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew probably does deserve to be more infamous than he is. But the team of federal prosecutors who discovered his crimes and took him down, they deserve to be more famous than they are. George Beall, the US Attorney who refused to let pressure from the White House interfere with his investigation. He went on to prosecute that subsequent sitting Governor of Maryland for corruption. Marvin Mandel, a Democrat. He got him too.

Rachel Maddow: Run Liebman and Barney Skolnik, They both took part in that prosecution of Maryland's next Governor. And then, like George Beall, they both moved into quiet careers in private practice. Tim Baker he ended up getting George Beall's old job as Maryland US Attorney before he, too, went into private practice. They all ended up doing fine.

Rachel Maddow: But none of them ended up etched into our history books and our national memory for the role that they played in, well, saving the republic from a national catastrophe, saving the country from a criminal Vice President ascending to the Presidency amid the ashes of Watergate, which would have plunged the country from Watergate right into another catastrophic scandal in the White House, and likely the forced removal of the next President right after Nixon.

Rachel Maddow: What further damage would have been inflicted on the country if we had had to remove not one but two corrupt criminals sitting Presidents back-to-back within months of each other? These young kids from Baltimore, these determined federal prosecutors, they saved us from that disaster. Their case was obstructed from the White House on down. They were attacked and maligned by the most powerful politicians in the country. They endured that at the ripe old average age of about 32, they kept their heads down and they kept going.

Rachel Maddow: Their bosses, US Attorney George Beall and Attorney General Eliot Richardson, they led them without fear or favor. They shielded them. And then, Elliot Richardson single-handedly got Agnew out, restoring and protecting the line of succession for the American Presidency.

Rachel Maddow: Elliot Richardson held a press conference the day after Spiro Agnew resigned as Vice President. And remember, Elliot Richardson would, himself, be forced out of office just days later, less than two weeks later in the Saturday Night Massacre. But during that press conference upon the resignation of Agnew, Richardson was asked directly what lessons the country should take from what we'd just been through.

Male Voice: We've been through a period of unprecedented in American history. What do you believe a nation can learn from the Agnew case?

Elliot Richardson: I would hope, first, that the nation would feel that the process of criminal justice is one that it can trust and have confidence in. I would hope they would feel that the interests of the nation have been placed first by all those concerned, including the Vice President himself. I would hope that, most fundamentally, all of us would have confidence that our system works.

Elliot Richardson: Indeed, I think this is the most affirmative aspect of all that has taken place over recent months, all the disclosures, the investigations, the indictments. They have exposed the shoddy side of the governmental and political process, but they have also demonstrated that the governmental and political process is capable of uncovering these things and having uncovered them taking proper action.

Rachel Maddow: The system works. The system is not destroyed by bad people behaving badly. It can deal with bad behavior and with corruption from those in power. Our system doesn't break when that happens. It's designed to confront that problem and to fix it. And in this case, it did. A criminal occupant of the White House who tried to obstruct justice at every turn, to destroy the credibility of his own Justice Department, to smear the free press reporting on it, he was not allowed to get away with it.

Rachel Maddow: Thanks to Elliot Richardson, and George Beall, and that team of young, scrappy Baltimore prosecutors, the line of succession to the US Presidency was restored and protected, and justice was done.

Rachel Maddow: George Beall passed away not long ago. He died in January of 2017, just days before the inauguration of our current President. Upon his passing, one of his successors as US Attorney in Maryland put out a public statement honoring the work that George Beall did throughout his career, but particularly focusing on this case.

Rachel Maddow: The statement said this. "George Beall was a legendary federal prosecutor, an exemplary public servant, and a lawyer of unsurpassed integrity. Although George Beall's family was politically active, and Vice President Agnew was a member of Beall's own political party, Beall did not hesitate to pursue this case. His commitment to justice serves as an example to us all."

Rachel Maddow: That statement about one Republican having the courage to pursue another without hesitation, that was written by one of George Beall's successors as Maryland's US Attorney. It was written by Rod Rosenstein, who's now Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

Rachel Maddow: Be sure to join us next week for the final episode of Bag Man. You will want to hear how this all turns out. That's next week. We'll see you then.

Rachel Maddow: Bag Man is a production of MSNBC and NBC Universal. This series is executive produced by Mike Yarvitz. It was written by myself and Mike Yarvitz. Editorial and production support from Jonathan Hirsch and Marissa Schneiderman from Neon Hum Media. And you can find much more about the story on our website, which is msnbc.com/bagman.

Sonix is the best audio transcription software in 2019.

The above audio transcript of “Rachel Maddow Presents – BagMan – Episode 6: A Disappearing Act” was transcribed by the best audio transcription service called Sonix. If you have to convert audio to text in 2019, then you should try Sonix. Transcribing audio files is painful. Sonix makes it fast, easy, and affordable. I love using Sonix to transcribe my audio files.

Popular Transcripts FULL TRANSCRIPT: Rachel Maddow Presents – BagMan – Episode 4: Turn It Off

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the BagMan podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time , just click the player below.

Rachel Maddow Presents – BagMan – Episode 4: Turn It Off (transcribed by Sonix)

W. Clement Stone: This is W. Clement Stone saying I feel healthy, I feel happy, I feel terrific.

Rachel Maddow: W. Clement Stone was an eccentric, self-made millionaire. A business tycoon who transformed himself from insurance salesman into a power-of-positive thinking, self-help guru.

W. Clement Stone: I love all my fellow men. I love every one of you. And it's my sincere prayer that you respond and learn how to help yourself by learning the art of motivation.

Rachel Maddow: W. Clement Stone looked sort of the way that he sounds. He had a pencil-thin mustache. He was always immaculately dressed in a bow tie and a vest, sometimes a big cigar. He was an ostentatiously wealthy millionaire who wanted you to be a millionaire too. And the way you could do it was by purchasing his motivational records. The Sounds of Success.

Announcer: The Combined Group of Companies presents The Sounds of Success.

Rachel Maddow: W. Clement Stone's patented self-help you can be rich to mantra was PMA, positive mental attitude.

Rachel Maddow: And in the Fall of 1973, he came to the rescue of a man whose mental attitude and whose life, in general, had suddenly become something quite less than positive.

John Chancellor: Good evening. For the first time in American history, a grand jury today began hearing evidence, which could link a Vice President to criminal charges. The federal prosecutor's office in Baltimore began, in strict secrecy, the presentation of evidence concerning Spiro Agnew.

Rachel Maddow: Vice President Spiro Agnew was facing the prospect of a federal indictment on bribery and extortion charges. And what John Chancellor said there was right, nothing like that had ever happened before in US history. And in that darkest hour, the man who rode to the rescue of the Vice President was W. Clement Stone.

Rachel Maddow: That fall of 1973 with the possible indictment of the Vice President looming, Stone's setup the official Spiro T. Agnew Legal Defense Fund. In a slightly over-the-top press release, he described how honored he was to start accepting donations from average Americans on behalf of the Vice President. He estimated that Agnew's defense bills could reach a half-million dollars. And after setting up a nationwide phone bank to start taking in those donations from across the country, W. Clement Stone, by the end of that first week, had raked in all of about 300 bucks. It didn't work.

Rachel Maddow: But Spiro Agnew did like having celebrity friends like W. Clement Stone. Frank Sinatra also came to his aid. Sinatra hit up his friends to give money to Agnew. One friend of Sinatra's reportedly told him in response, "Look, we don't give a damn about Agnew, but if you want some money, Frank, we'll give it to you.".

Rachel Maddow: The truth was Spiro Agnew really did need the money. He had hired this team of big-name lawyers who were waging an aggressive battle in the courts to try to keep him out of jail. He also had his PR strategy, at that point, which was to throw the kitchen sink at his own Justice Department to attack the prosecutors as biased. That was the strategy that was happening out loud in public, so you could see it.

Rachel Maddow: But there was also his strategy that was hidden from public view. Hidden then and hidden for years after. That was the one Spiro Agnew had been waging secretly from the very beginning. It was a coordinated effort to obstruct justice, to use the power of his position in the White House to block that investigation, to shut it down before it closed in on him. And that story, the story of that secret obstruction effort, it hasn't even been known to the prosecutors who were investigating Agnew at the time. They are about to hear it here for the first time.

Rachel Maddow: You're listening to Bag Man. I'm your host, Rachel Maddow.

John Chancellor: For the first time in American history, a grand jury today began hearing evidence which could link a Vice President to criminal charges.

HR "Bob" Haldeman: He feels the publication of this stuff would finish the VP.

Barney Sklonik: That's the kind of classic crap that we feared might happen.

Ron Liebman: Forty-five years later, and my blood still boils when I read stuff like that.

Chris Hayes: Hey, it's MSNBC's Chris Hayes. If you enjoyed Bag Man, be sure to check out my friend, Rachel Maddow, on my podcast, Why is This Happening?, where I get the opportunity to dig deep into the forces behind the stories playing out in the news in order to understand why certain cultural and political phenomena came to be. Rachel joins me to talk about covering the news in this unprecedented political moment. We also talk all about Bag Man and how this incredible podcast came to be. So, click on over and check out Why is This Happening? And you can listen now wherever you get your podcasts.

Rachel Maddow: Episode 4: Turn it Off.

Barney Sklonik: This is an actual conversation?

Mike Yarvitz: Yeah, transcript of an audio recorded conversation.

Barney Sklonik: Whoa. Oh my God. This is beautiful.

Rachel Maddow: You've heard from Barney Skolnik before. He was the senior prosecutor at the US Attorney's Office in Baltimore in the spring of 1973. What he's reacting to here is a transcript of a conversation that he has never seen before. My producer, Mike Jarvis, gave him a copy.

Barney Sklonik: "There's an investigation going on in Maryland. He asked Bob for help in turning it off." Okay. Well, these are fun.

Mike Yarvitz: Well, let me give you a couple more.

Barney Sklonik: Don't get my juices flowing. I mean, I'm too old for this shit.

Rachel Maddow: In the spring of 1973, this team of young federal prosecutors in Baltimore, led by Barney Skolnick, they were hot on Spiro Agnew's trail.

Rachel Maddow: Agnew had been the Governor of Maryland before becoming Vice President. He'd been Baltimore County Executive before that. And what this team of prosecutors had just discovered is that throughout his time in government, Spiro Agnew had been a crook. He was a shakedown artist. He had been extorting money from government contractors for years, demanding payoffs, excepting envelopes stuffed with cash. It all started back when he was first elected in Maryland politics, but it continued right through his time as Vice President. It was cash delivered to him, usually through a Bag Man, in exchange for government contracts that he controlled.

Rachel Maddow: And in early 1973 when Spiro Agnew first learned that there was some investigation going on back in Maryland, he started taking actions almost immediately to try to make that investigation go away. What we know about this secret effort from within the White House to interfere with that ongoing investigation, we know about because there are tapes.

Richard Nixon: You've got it across very strong to him that this is terribly important.

Rachel Maddow: Richard Nixon's secret White House recording system famously led to his own demise as President. But the tapes from that recording system also picked up hours of conversations about this investigation in Maryland that was closing in on the Vice President.

Rachel Maddow: In April 1973, Vice President Agnew first heard that one of his co-conspirators, a man named Jerry Wolff, was on the radar of prosecutors.

Ron Liebman: Jerry Wolff, who is another one of these guys, became hysterical in his lawyer's office, we were later told, and was screaming in the hall about, you know, "He's going to take everybody down." You know, he was — It was terrible pressure.

Rachel Maddow: Jerry Wolff had been a really big part of Agnew's bribery scheme. He got a cut of the payoffs himself, he knew all about what Agnew was doing. And when Agnew learned that Jerry Wolff was about to be questioned by prosecutors, he went to one of President Nixon's closest aides, White House chief of staff HR Haldeman, for help.

HR "Bob" Haldeman: Wednesday, April 10th, the President got me in first thing this morning.

Rachel Maddow: What you're hearing right now is an audio diary that Bob Haldeman kept during his time as Nixon's White House Chief of Staff. Here's what he recorded that night about a conversation he'd had with Agnew that day.

HR "Bob" Haldeman: Vice President called me over today and said he had a real problem, because Jerry Wolff, who used to work for him back in Maryland, and then brought him to Washington with him, is about to be called by the US Attorney up there who's busting open campaign contribution cases and kickbacks to contractors. It seems that Wolff kept verbatim records of meetings with the Vice President and others back over the years.

Rachel Maddow: Agnew tells the White House Chief of Staff that this guy, who's now under scrutiny by prosecutors, he kept verbatim notes of all his meetings. Agnew clearly knew that Jerry Wolff was a really dangerous witness. If he squealed, he could potentially unravel the whole thing. What Agnew wanted HR Haldeman to do about this threat was help him stop the prosecutors.

Rachel Maddow: Now, in order to understand what you're about to hear on these tapes, there's one other character that you need to know about. The US attorney in Maryland who is leading that investigation was someone we've talked about a lot, a Republican US Attorney named George Beall. He oversaw that team of federal prosecutors. He also came from a family that was, basically, Republican royalty in Maryland.

Rachel Maddow: Part of the reason that he was Republican royalty was at the time that George Beall was leading this investigation out of the US Attorney's Office, his older brother was a sitting US senator from Maryland, Republican Senator Glenn Beall.

Glenn Beall: The United States is the strongest free country on the face of the Earth. And since we are that, we are interested in promoting freedom around the world.

Rachel Maddow: And Spiro Agnew and the Nixon White House, they thought that Glenn Beall, the Senator, would be their key to making this entire investigation go away.

HR "Bob" Haldeman: He made the point that George Beall, who's Glenn Beall's brother, is the US Attorney there. And that if Glenn Beall would talk to him, he could straighten it out. The Vice President's tried to get him to, but apparently not successfully. So, he wanted me to talk to Glenn Beall, which, of course, I won't do, in order to verify a White House awareness and concern. He feels the publication of this stuff would finish the VP because Wolff was with him for so long.

Rachel Maddow: If you're ever trying to explain the concept of "obstruction of justice" to a second grader, this would be a good case study.

Rachel Maddow: The Vice President believes that what this witness will say could finish him. He tries to get the White House to stop the prosecutor from questioning that witness by pressuring the prosecutor through his family. It is an overt, spelled-out effort to use political power and political leverage to shut down this potent criminal case.

Rachel Maddow: That said, if it was just a failed effort, if this had ended there at that conversation with HR Haldeman, and Haldeman saying he wouldn't do it, then you could maybe just chalk it up to the Vice President blowing off steam and having obstructionist inclinations.

Rachel Maddow: But it didn't stop at that conversation. Bob Haldeman didn't agree to pressure Senator Glenn Beall himself, but he did relay that request from Agnew to another top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman. And then, three days later, Ehrlichman was discussing it with President Nixon in the Oval Office.

Rachel Maddow: Now, don't worry about picking up every word here. I will sum up the gist of what you're about to hear. The first voice you're going to hear is John Ehrlichman, and the voice you're going to hear in the background is President Richard Nixon.

John Ehrlichman: Did Bob tell you about his meeting with Agnew?

Richard Nixon: No. I didn't see Bob and Agnew. What is it? He saw him?

John Ehrlichman: Well, he saw him two or three days ago. And your Vice President has problems of his own.

Rachel Maddow: "Your vice president has problems of his own," Ehrlichman tells Nixon. What you're going to hear next is Nixon asking if this has something to do with Watergate. Ehrlichman, then, has to correct him, get him up to speed to let him know that this is Agnew's own totally separate scandal.

Richard Nixon: With this?

John Ehrlichman: No, something else, back when he was governor. Apparently, there's an investigation going on in Maryland, and he asked Bob for help in turning it off.

Rachel Maddow: "There's an investigation going on in Maryland, and he asked Bob for help in turning it off."

Rachel Maddow: And, again, if it just stopped right there, if Nixon, Ehrlichman, and Haldeman all said, "Agnew was trying to get us to interfere with this investigation, but we obviously can't do that," if it had stopped right there, then maybe, but it didn't stop there. Days later, Agnew himself was in the Oval Office putting a plan in place with the President himself to obstruct this investigation, to shut it down.

Rachel Maddow: The tape you're about to hear now is a little bit rough. Don't worry about picking up every word. What you'll hear first is Agnew venting to President Nixon in the Oval Office about that US Attorney in Maryland, George Beall, who's been digging into the county where Agnew got his start.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Can you imagine a guy going into an in-depth investigation and going into the county that I was in at the beginning of this ..

Rachel Maddow: Agnew's complaining here about this US Attorney, George Beall. And what Nixon immediately moves to is, " Who is this US Attorney and what can we do about it?" Listen.

Richard Nixon: Who is this US Attorney that's handling it? Is it Beall?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Beall.

Richard Nixon: Well, is he a good boy? Why the hell did we appoint him?

Rachel Maddow: "Is he a good boy?," that's what Nixon asked Agnew. "Why the hell did we appoint him?" What the two men, then, start putting together is a plan to start pressuring George Beall to stop this investigation. What you'll hear in this next clip is Agnew, first, talking about all the IRS agents who have been assigned to the case. And then, Nixon and Agnew talk about getting to George Beall, getting to the prosecutor through, his brother, Republican Senator Glenn Beall.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: He's got 30 IRS people in there snooping around. They're lookig at everybody, every angle.

Richard Nixon: Well, how can we get that word to him though?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Glean Beall's the only way to influence this.

Richard Nixon: The senator?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Yes.

Richard Nixon: Well, look, has Glenn Beall been talked to? Well, Glenn Beall better take a real deep. We helped him bury that one in '70.

Rachel Maddow: What you heard Nixon say at the end there is, "We helped Glenn Beall bury that in 1970."

Rachel Maddow: That was actually the key here. Senator Glenn Beall owed the Nixon White House because Nixon and Agnew helped him get elected. The father of George Beall and Glenn Beall had previously held that US Senate seat in Maryland, but a Democrat had beaten him and taken the seat in 1964. When that seat came up again in 1970, Nixon and Agnew helped the Beall family avenge that loss and take back that seat in the US Senate.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: I think we have a candidate in Glen Beall that we can be extremely proud of. I think he's a candidate who will carry the …

Rachel Maddow: And it worked. The Republican Party got that Senate seat in Maryland back, but so did the Beall family. And, now, one of the Beall's sons was going to try to destroy Spiro Agnew with this investigation? No. Nixon and Agnew decided no. Now, it was time for Senator Glenn Beall to return the favor and to shut down his little brother.

Rachel Maddow: Agnew goes on in that conversation to bring up a potential witness who might tell prosecutors that he came to the White House to hand Agnew an envelope full of cash.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: He may say he gave me a kickback of some kind, came over here, and handed me $50,000. That is totally ridiculous.

Rachel Maddow: Agnew says that claim would be totally ridiculous, but listen to how Nixon responds to that, to this idea of a witness who could incriminate Agnew inside the White House. Listen to the very end of this.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: There are all kinds of rumors.

Richard Nixon: Good God, isn't it awful?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: But this man is-

Richard Nixon: Well, can we destroy him?

Rachel Maddow: Did you hear Nixon at the end there? He says about this witness, "Can we destroy him?" So, what the President and the Vice President are discussing in the Oval Office at this point is, number one, how they can get a US Attorney to shut down an ongoing investigation of the Vice President? And number two, how they might destroy any witnesses who might try to come forward with information on the Vice President?

Rachel Maddow: But there is one more piece of this conversation I want to play. What they're talking about here is instructing the US Attorney George Beall, specifically, to fire the main prosecutor working on the case., Barney Skolnik.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Somehow, get Glenn Beall or Georgie Beall, the brother, to realize that he's — to get — go in there, finish up what he's doing. Get this thing over with, and get this guy, Skolnik, who's a Muskie volunteer, the hell out of his office.

Rachel Maddow: "Get this thing over with, and get this guy, Skolnik, who's a Muskie volunteer, the hell out of his office." So, end the investigation now and fire the lead investigator from the case, Barney Skolnik. He's a Democrat.

Rachel Maddow: That was June 1973. Fast forward a little more than a year, Nixon resigns after the revelation of his role in obstructing the investigation into Watergate. The first article of impeachment drawn up against Nixon was obstruction of justice for his role in trying to cover up that scandal.

Rachel Maddow: But what we can, now, hear on these tapes is a robust obstruction effort by Nixon and Agnew totally separate from Watergate. It's Richard Nixon hearing about an investigation into his Vice President and saying, "How do we go about shutting this down? How do we use the power of the White House to force the prosecutors to drop the case? How do we destroy witnesses that might come forward?" And they weren't just musing about doing this. They did it. That's next.

HR "Bob" Haldeman: Monday, April 30th, Resignation Day.

Rachel Maddow: In April 1973, Richard Nixon's White House Chief of Staff HR Haldeman suddenly resigned over his role in Watergate. When he did, the man Nixon named as his replacement, his new Chief of Staff was General Al Haig.

Male Voice: Press secretary Ron Ziegler said General Haig's appointment is an interim one, but he said Haig already is on the job carrying out most of the duties HR Haldeman used to perform.

Rachel Maddow: When Al Haig took over that job, one of those duties that he inherited was a White House plan that was already in action to obstruct and try to shut down a criminal investigation of the Vice President. Al Haig took the job, and he didn't miss a beat. Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew had come up with a plan to get to George Beall, the US Attorney leading that investigation, and they would get to him through his brother, a Republican US Senator named Glenn Bell. It was Haig's job to make that happen.

Rachel Maddow: And, again, we know that because there are tapes, like this one where you can hear Nixon and Haig in the Oval Office putting together a plan to have a White House adviser, named Mel Laird, be the middleman. Now, the tape here's a little rough, but you'll hear Nixon trying to figure out with Haig how to do this secretly, how to do this in a way where Nixon's fingerprints weren't on it. Nixon starts here by saying, "I think you better talk to Mel."

Richard Nixon: Well, I'll tell you, you better talk to Mel.

Al Haig: I'll talk to Mel.

Richard Nixon: I don't think I better-

Al Haig: No, no, no.

Richard Nixon: I can't have it put out that I was trying to fix the case.

Al Haig: No, no, you cannot do this.

Rachel Maddow: Nixon says there, "I can't have it put out that I was trying to fix the case." And Haig says, "No, no, you cannot do." Al Haig, then, lays out what exactly they want this Senator Glenn Beall to do for them.

Al Haig: So, if Glenn Beall can get his brother, who's the US Attorney, who we appointed, who's a Republican, but who's turned this thing over to two fanatical prosecutors, if he just sits in on them and supervises this.

Rachel Maddow: "If Glean Beall can get his brother, who's the US Attorney, who we appointed, who's a Republican, but who's turned this thing over to two fanatical prosecutors, if he just sits in on them and supervises this." In other words, what US Attorney George Beall needs to do is sit in on these fanatical prosecutors in his office who are taking this investigation to places we don't want it to go.

Rachel Maddow: Nixon and Haig are devising this plan in secret to interfere with this ongoing investigation. They, then, start putting this plan into action. But the middleman they end up using, the guy who they dragged into this obstruction scheme, ultimately, isn't Mel Laird. Who they end up using for this obstruction effort is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee at the time, a man by the name of George Herbert Walker Bush.

Rachel Maddow: The future President of the United States, George Bush, gets enlisted in this effort to reach out to Senator Glenn Beall to have him pressure his brother to shut down this investigation. Listen to this phone call between Richard Nixon and Al Haig. The audio here is a little bit distorted, but the first voice here is Nixon, and he's talking to Haig about enemies of the White House who are now going after everybody.

Richard Nixon: It's amazing, isn't it? By golly, the way they start, they go after everybody, don't they?

Al Haig: Yeah, they're after everybody. And the Vice President has been very nervous. He called me three times.

Rachel Maddow: I know. I know, and you decided to have Harlow try to — Well, he isn't here.

Al Haig: He isn't here, so I did it through George Bush on the first run.

Richard Nixon: That's good. That's good.

Rachel Maddow: "I did it through George Bush on the first run." This didn't ever stick to George HW Bush, maybe because these audiotapes have just been collecting dust for the last four decades. But George Bush was brought in to a potentially criminal effort organized and directed by the then-President of the United States, Richard Nixon, to obstruct an ongoing investigation into his Vice President.

Rachel Maddow: And George Bush did it. US Attorney George Beall ended up donating his papers to Frostburg State University in Maryland. And if you go to those archives, you can now see an official memo-to-file that US Attorney George Beall wrote that summer of 1973. In that memo to file, it is made quite clear that after the White House came up with this plan, George HW Bush did, in fact, contact US Senator Glenn Beall, and he tried to have Senator Glenn Beall get word to his little brother, the US Attorney about this investigation.

Rachel Maddow: This is what he wrote in the file. "With respect to conversations with my brother, Glenn, the discussions were most superficial and very guarded. He occasionally mentioned to me the names of persons who had been to see him or who had called him with respect to this investigation. Names of persons that I remember him telling me about included Vice President Agnew and George Bush."

Rachel Maddow: Now, there are a few amazing things here. First, of course, is that a future US President participated in what was likely a criminal scheme to obstruct justice. But there's also the fact that Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew would even attempt this sort of thing in the climate of Watergate that they were in.

Rachel Maddow: This was the summer of 1973. The Senate Watergate hearings were on TV every day. The Watergate cover-up was starting to unravel around Richard Nixon. Nixon had just fired his Chief of Staff, HR Haldeman, his White House Counsel John Dean, his Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, his top Domestic Aide John Ehrlichman. It was all supposedly to clean house from the Watergate mess.

Rachel Maddow: But right then, at the same time, Nixon and Agnew decided to undertake a whole separate effort to interfere with a totally unrelated investigation into Agnew. And the final amazing thing here is that the Baltimore federal prosecutors who were building this case against Agnew, at the time, which Agnew and Nixon were actively trying to shut down, they have never known about any of this. 45 years later, this is all brand new to them.

Barney Sklonik: This is an actual conversation?

Mike Yarvitz: Yeah, transcript of an audio recorded conversation.

Barney Sklonik: Whoa.

Mike Yarvitz: That's Barney Skolnik, the lead prosecutor on the team. Remember that audio diary from HR Haldeman?

HR "Bob" Haldeman: The Vice President called me over today and said he had a real problem.

Rachel Maddow: Here's Barney Skolnick learning about that recording for the first time.

Barney Sklonik: Oh, he had an audio diary? Jesus.

Mike Yarvitz: He made the point that George Beall, who's Glenn Beall's brother, is the US Attorney there, and that if Glenn Beall would talk to him, he could straighten it out.

Barney Sklonik: "If Glenn Beall would talk to George, he could straighten it out." Yeah. Well, you want my reaction to this. I mean, you know, it's exactly what you would think. That's the kind of classic crap that we feared might happen is, you know, somebody like Agnew going to somebody like Haldeman, to go to somebody like Glen Beall. I mean, that's — You know, that's the — What our president calls the swamp. I mean, that's — You know, that's the swamp, you know, in operation.

Mike Yarvitz: But you didn't know at the time that it was an operation.

Barney Sklonik: No. Well, I mean, we knew — We had some sense as the whole country did of what kind of administration Nixon, with Haldeman, and Enrlichman, and so on, were running. But we had no knowledge that this was happening.

Rachel Maddow: Here's Ron Liebman, another one of the Baltimore prosecutors, seeing Nixon on tape here talking about destroying a potential witness in their case.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: There are all kind of rumors.

Richard Nixon: Good God, isn't it awful?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: But this man is-

Richard Nixon: Well, can we destroy him?

Ron Liebman: "Well, can we destroy him?" Forty-five years later, and my blood still boils when I read stuff like that.

Rachel Maddow: That conversation between Nixon and Agnew in the Oval Office, also, included them strategizing about how to pressure Senator Glenn Beall.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Glenn Beall's the only way to influence this.

Richard Nixon: The senator?

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Yes.

Ron Liebman: This is the Nixon White House. This is what they did across the board.

Mike Yarvitz: I mean, what does — You're a lawyer. What does that look like?

Ron Liebman: Clearly obstruction of justice or attempt to obstruct justice clearly. Clearly.

Mike Yarvitz: If you had known about that at the time, would obstruction have been something in your mind in terms of-

Ron Liebman: You bet. Yeah, you bet. Sure. I think — I don't think it would have been very difficult at all to start investigating obstruction of justice if we had known about this.

Rachel Maddow: Here's Tim Baker. He was the third prosecutor on the team. Tim Baker, himself, is referenced in one of those conversations as one of the fanatical prosecutors that's taking this investigation in a direction they didn't want it to go.

Al Haig: So, if Beall can get his brother, who's the US Attorney, who we appointed, who's a Republican, but who's turned this thing over to two fanatical prosecutors.

Tim Baker: Two fanatical prosecutors. Funny. Well, we were — I'm a fanatical. Boy, once we thought he was guilty, then we were really focused on it. We were going to do this. We were going to get this guy out of there and more.

Rachel Maddow: Tim Baker wasn't the only one of the prosecutors referenced directly in these tapes. Remember that conversation between Nixon and Agnew about getting the lead prosecutor, Barney Skolnik, thrown off the case? Barney Skolnik himself never had any idea about that.

Spiro "Ted" Agnew: Get this thing over with and get this guy, Skolnik, who's a Muskie volunteer, to hell out of his office.

Barney Sklonik: Oh, there's my name. Wow. Agnew said my name. Oh joy. "Get this thing over with, and get this guy Skolnik, who's a Muskie volunteer, the hell out of his office." Oh, man, you got to give me a copy of this.

Mike Yarvitz: You can have it.

Barney Sklonik: Oh, wow. Makes my whole life worthwhile. Oh, that's beautiful. "Get him the hell out of his office." Oh, thank you, my man. This is so beautiful. Michael, you really have — You really have this. This doesn't just make my day. This makes my decade, "Get this guy, Skolnik, who's a Muskie volunteer, the hell out of his office."

Rachel Maddow: These prosecutors who are now reading through these conversations for the very first time, their emotions about this case, and what they're seeing, 45 years later, it's all still very much on the surface for them.

Ron Liebman: It makes your skin crawl, doesn't it? It really makes your skin crawl. Even 45 years later, with all the stuff that we have come across in terms of public corruption, it still makes your skin crawl.

Barney Sklonik: This is essentially somebody under investigation going to an authority — In this case, it happens to be the President — to say not just stop the investigation but get a prosecutor fired for no apparent reason other than he's running the investigation. That's obviously illegal and obstruction of justice.

Barney Sklonik: And to have political pressure put on the lead prosecutor, George, to stop the investigation, again, for no discernable reason, I mean, you know, stop the investigation because statute of limitations has run or, you know, fill in the blank, some legitimate reason but this is, "Stop it because I want it stopped because I am exposed to possible criminal prosecution." Obviously, that's obstruction of justice. I mean, all of these conversations are, if not literally illegal, they are certainly suggesting that illegal things be done.

Rachel Maddow: So, it's remarkable for us to realize that the prosecutors have never known about any of this until now. It's amazing to hear them reacting to it for the first time. But the reason they never knew about it until now is not just amazing. In a sense, it's sort of heroic. Think about what this says, what this means about their boss, George Beall, the Republican US Attorney who was overseeing their investigation.

Rachel Maddow: That coordinated obstruction effort launched by Spiro Agnew and carried out by Richard Nixon and the whole machinery of the White House and the Republican Party, that plan was actually carried out as intended. People close to Richard Nixon, including George HW Bush did, in fact, push this senator who may have owed his seat to the White House, they pushed Senator Glenn Beall to try to influence this investigation.

Rachel Maddow: Spiro Agnew himself, personally, lobbied Senator Glenn Beall over and over again. Agnew's records and papers are now held at the University of Maryland. What you find when you go through those papers, as we did, are multiple face-to-face meetings that Agnew himself held in his office with Senator Glenn Beall. It's all right there in his notes in his daily calendars

Rachel Maddow: This effort to get to that senator, to get him to help them shut down this investigation that his little brother was running, that plan was put into place. And the first part of it worked. Senator Glenn Beall himself took all of that pressure that he was getting, and he did, in fact, reach out to his little brother, George, about it.

Rachel Maddow: In that same memo to file in his papers in the Frostburg State Archive, George says his older brother related to him expressions of concern from George Bush, and Agnew, and others. His senator brother was contacting him, telling him about all the powerful and important people in Washington who'd been in touch with him, concerned about Georgia's investigation. The obstruction effort got to George Beall. And George Beall memorialized that pressure that he was getting for the record, for history, but he stopped it there. We, now, know he never once passed a word of any of it along to his team of young federal prosecutors who were just quietly working that case.

Tim Baker: There wasn't any moment in which the George hesitated at all about this.

Ron Liebman: George never, to me, as far as I know to my colleagues, never once said anything like, "Hey, you know, my brother called, and he says this is really causing a problem. Are we really sure about this? Do we really want to do this?" Nothing like that ever, ever happened.

Barney Sklonik: There was never any. Not only was there never any specific information along those lines, but there was never any indirect indication from the way George spoke to us that anything his brother had said to him had any effect. Whatever they wanted George to do, he didn't do.

Rachel Maddow: If that had happened, there would have been the mutiny of mutinies on the part of Tim, Barney, and me. There would have been a world-class mutiny, but it wouldn't have happened because there's no way that our boss, George Beall, would come near that, 100%.

Rachel Maddow: US Attorney George BeAll was all of 35 years old at the time. He was a Republican on the rise in Maryland. He had his whole career in Republican politics ahead of him, but he refused to bow to that pressure that was coming right at him from this Republican White House through his direct family.

Rachel Maddow: This coordinated obstruction effort that involved Vice President Agnew, President Nixon, HR Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Al Haig, George Bush, this coordinated effort to shut down an investigation into the sitting Vice President, it failed. And it failed because this Republican US Attorney was in a position of responsibility. He had this investigation to pursue, and he never once blinked.

Rachel Maddow: And so, what happened next when that obstruction effort failed because of him? Richard Nixon had been actively trying to interfere with this investigation on behalf of his Vice President. But when that effort failed, Nixon was more than willing to turn on Agnew in order to save himself. And that is when things went totally off the rails, to the point where Spiro Agnew actually believed that Richard Nixon might be plotting to have him killed.

Male Voice: You say that you were actually fearful that if you did not go along, President Nixon might have ordered you assassinated. Could you explain that?

Rachel Maddow: That is a real live part of this story, and that is still to come. I'm Rachel Maddow. And this is Bag Man.

Rachel Maddow: Bag Man is a production of MSNBC and NBC Universal. This series is executive produced by Mike Yarvitz. It was written by myself and Mike Yarvitz. Editorial and production support from Jonathan Hirsch and Marissa Schneiderman from Neon Hum Media. And, by the way, if you want to see that memo to file that George Beall put in his archives at Frostburg State University, we have posted it at MSNBC.com/bagman, along with a whole bunch of other materials you might want to see from this episode.

Sonix is the best audio transcription software in 2019.

The above audio transcript of “Rachel Maddow Presents – BagMan – Episode 4: Turn It Off” was transcribed by the best audio transcription service called Sonix. If you have to convert audio to text in 2019, then you should try Sonix. Transcribing audio files is painful. Sonix makes it fast, easy, and affordable. I love using Sonix to transcribe my audio files.