Transcript of Four Weeks to Go

Hi, it's Alexa Weybel from New York Times cooking. We've got tons of easy weeknight recipes, and today I'm making my Vegetarian Mushma Pita's. This recipe is just built for efficiency. You toss your mushrooms and red onion in your spices, throw them in the oven. By the time they're done, you've chopped your cabbage and you're ready to assemble. It feels crazy that this takes just 20 minutes of active time. It's just delicious. New York Times cooking has you covered with easy dishes for busy weeknights. You can find more at nytcooking. Com.

From New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily.

Voting is officially underway in Minnesota, Virginia.

There are just four weeks left until election day, and polls show that the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is the closest in a generation.

It is so good to be back in Wisconsin.

Michigan, we're going to bring back your car industry.

So I gathered three of my colleagues who are covering the campaign, Shane Goldmacher, Maggie Haberman, and Nate Cohn, to make sense of the major events of the past week that could change that math.

Thousands of dock workers are on strike.

Israeli missiles striking near the heart of Beirut.

Never before seen evidence in special prosecutor Jack Smith's election case against former President Donald Trump.

This is a one of a six-minute- And to explore the last minute strategies that both campaigns are hoping might tip the scales. It's Friday, October fourth.

So, welcome back to the three of you, the same cast as our last roundtable, which, as you remember, was the first historic roundtable Inaugural.

Yeah. So this is the second historical unprecedented inaugural.

Yeah.

Shane Goldmacher, Nate Cohen, Maggie Hammermann. Appreciate you guys being here.

Thanks for having us.

Thanks for having us.

Let's jump in. This has been a very eventful week. We have a widening war in the Middle East. We have a strike by longshoremen threatening the supply chain up and down the Eastern Seaborne. Finally, we have a court filing from the Special Council, Jack Smith, that might be our first true October surprise. Where do you want to start?

I think of the various things that you just described, the longshoremen strike. That's one that actually impacts people's lives, that impacts their daily existence. This involves supply chain, it involves working people. The fight over working class voters is key for this race right now. If everything we've just said, I think that's high up on the list.

Well, just explain why this strike matters and how both campaigns are or aren't seizing an opportunity with it.

We saw what supply and change having trouble did for the economy before. I think for Harris, it's actually just a reminder of a big vulnerability she has, which is she's tied to the current administration. You look at her candidacy and she is trying to ride above the fray. She is hope, she is joy, she is the future. This is very much the present. This is a problem. This is an issue that has not been solved by Joe Biden. In that way, it just pulls her back into the fray and doesn't let her ride above the clouds.

It's worth remembering that the promise of the Biden administration was we were going to get a return to normalcy. That once the pandemic was over, we would all go back to our pre-pandemic, pre-Trump lives and forget about politics. The Biden administration hasn't made good on that promise. All this adds up to a sense that America isn't necessarily under competent leadership. Maybe we should be going in a different direction. I think that the specifics of it are undoubtedly important, especially if they end up affecting the economy and people's lives. But more chaos in the news, I think, is just good news for Trump.

At a very basic level, this is a problem primarily for Vice President Harris because it reattaches her to a not especially popular incumbent President when she very much wants to be liberated from transcending the very idea of Joe Biden and his presidency.

Yeah, I would lump them all together as Nate just did. It's not just the longshoremen's strike. It's all of these things adding up to the sense that things aren't calm and stable. This is, in fact, something that Trump himself is saying on the campaign trail. It's something we saw at the debate this week between the two vice presidential candidates.

I want to know why neither campaign so far has used and uses a tricky word because it sounds so callous, but seised the opportunity to portray a strike by working class people and made this about what is wrong with America, what is perhaps wrong with income inequality and champion the workers on strike and not necessarily just treat it like a nuisance, something that might increase prices, but as something that could reinforce the heart of what these campaigns are about.

You sound like an irritated Trump advisor trying to remind him to focus on the economy. No, but in all seriousness, the Trump campaign has talked about it a bit, but it has not punched through all the other things he's talking about, which is namely defending himself against an indictment in the January sixth federal case and whatever else is on his mind at any given moment. Getting Trump to stick to a purely economic-focused message—economy is still the top issue for voters—has been very, very challenging for the Trump team. You're right, this actually presents a real opportunity. It's just not one that he has delivered effectively.

Why hasn't Harris delivered on it?

I think this is a risky proposition for both candidates, to be honest. We just talked about how this strike could spiral to affect millions of Americans.

We don't want to get on the wrong side of it.

It's a dangerous game to side with a group of strikers who might disrupt the economy. Certainly, the overall narrative is potentially convincing to a lot of voters. But if it ends up disrupting their lives and either candidate was on the picket line with them, there are real risk is involved in that.

Okay, let's turn to the war, the growing conflict between Israel, Hezbollah, Iran, Yemen is now in the mix as well. What a challenge that presents to both campaigns. You have already all suggested that in a pretty clear way, it reminds people that Harris is vice president in an administration that hasn't ended this conflict. How does Donald Trump handle this? Does he talk about it? And does it matter, Nate, to voters very much?

I think that it clearly matters to a specific group of voters, Muslim and Arab voters, who are overrepresented in the state of Michigan. That's what I'm saying. I think it also affects the overall national mood, the sense that the world is unsafe, that the current administration is ineffective and not up to the task of solving problems at home or abroad, and that back when Donald Trump was President, the world was more stable, it was at peace. I think it helps Donald Trump in that respect, even if it's not narrowly about whether anyone has any view of whether Israel should send tanks into Lebanon or But is there a way in which the new developments in this conflict moves it away from that framework of simply Israel versus the Palestinians and towards a larger geopolitical set of issues that perhaps is of value to a vice president who's still very much searching for an identity on the world stage?

I don't see a world where this is helpful to the vice president. I just don't. I mean, number one, it's a conflict that is evolving out of an already existing interesting conflict that's been going on for a year now that the current president has struggled to contain, has struggled to have the Israeli leader listen to him on various points that he's made. To your point, she is establishing herself on the world stage. This is a very risky area in which to suddenly reveal yourself as to where you are and who you are. It's also an issue that Trump has staked out real ground, and we have seen him do this since long before he was President, but certainly since he was President. To never really be critical of Israel. Well, He was very critical of Benjamin Netanyahu for congratulating President Biden for winning the election. Then that caused this years-long rift, and Trump was initially somewhat callous in responding to the attack on Israel on October seventh of last year. That was, again, a product of this personal animus that he had toward Netanyahu. That has since been cleared up. Trump has a history of making anti-Semitic comments, but that has not cost him with Republican leading Jews and a lot of single issue Israel Jews in the US.

So this is a much easier issue for him. It's much harder for Harris to find ground on.

During the vice presidential debate, I take notes on the computer and then I have a side of paper where I circle something that feels Particularly important. Good method. And one of the first things I circled was JD Vant saying, Donald Trump is the candidate of stability. And this was, I think, a pretty audacious thing. Democrats, Nikki Haley in the primary, they have called him the chaos candidate since Jeb Bush. Here's his running mate say, he is the stability candidate. I think that it's worth thinking that this is an intentional frame that they're setting up. For a story I worked on this week, I talked to Matt Gates, congressman from Florida, really a close Trump ally, and he was very explicit about this. They are trying to say it was peaceful when he was President. Yes, there was COVID. Maybe you don't remember all those specifics, but there was general economic prosperity in the first three years, and they're trying to tap back into that. I think you could take the totality of all this and that line from JD Vance, the candidate of stability was really striking.

Okay. There was a development this week, though, that does not embody Trump's stability. That was the special counsel, Jack Smith, drawing us back into what may be one of the most unstable moments of the Trump presidency, which was the events before and on January sixth. I want to know why Jack Smith did what he did just now. We all understand that he was not able to bring his prosecution before the election. Obviously, he and his staff wish they could. Suddenly, we get this big filing that contains a lot of new information. Is that strategic and does it matter?

Jack Smith brought this filing because Jack Smith has had to file a new indictment. I shouldn't say he had to, but he did file a new indictment after the Supreme Court ruling on Trump and Immunity that basically said essentially everything Trump had done in the capacity as president in the context of this lead up to January sixth was in his capacity as president, an official act. There's this whole issue of what constitutes an official act versus not official act. Jack Smith tailored this filing to explain essentially why the case should move forward. I'm condensing this. But- Nicely, though. Thank you. I'm trying. If you read it, and I would encourage people to read it because it's a really important historical read, this does potentially remind voters of a very damning fact set for Donald Trump. There was one particularly striking new piece of information, which is that when Trump was told of this chaos happening at the Capitol on January sixth, 2021- He's at the White House.

He's getting these updates.

Yeah, and Mike Pence, the vice president, is under threat, as are others. Trump's response was allegedly, so what? Now, what's striking about this document is not that there are hugely surprising new damning details.

We always understood his approach to all that violence that day was basically to shrug.

It's a compilation of a really, really disquieting and disturbing series of reactions that he allegedly had and that his aides allegedly took and that a lot of people around him took with his desired impact being to overturn the election. It brings it all back with a month left until election day. January sixth came up as a key moment in the vice presidential debate when Governor Walsh talked about it and pushed back on J. D. Vance. You have Vice President Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney this week. There is just this cumulative effect of reminding voters of what took place at the end.

Liz Cheney, of course, being the leader of the Congressional Committee that investigates January January sixth, and really makes America aware of the depth of the President's disregard for the rule of law that day, but also his embrace of some of the violence.

And a conservative Republican who would not normally be ideologically aligned with Kamala Harris.

It's worth noting, too, that the Harris campaign has really struggled to make this election about January sixth and democracy. The Biden campaign took for granted that in the end, voters would cast their ballots based on what happened that day. That was in part because in the midterm election, that seemed to have happened. But there is no January sixth Commission this time, driving the news down the stretch. There isn't a wave of Stop the Steal candidates campaigning on overturning the election in the key battleground states as there was in the midterms. I think it's a big deal that we have a series of news events this week that have put this issue back because it's a really good issue for Harris, and one of the few issues that's really good for Harris. It's the issue that if it's what voters are thinking about, that her chances of winning go way up compared to a world where the swing voter looks at the news and sees chaos in the Middle East and strikes along the Eastern Seaboard.

I mean, this is like a central defining thing of the Biden campaign is they thought that this was going to be the background music of 2024, just as it was in 2022. But the music never got loud. And it wasn't that loud. And when Harris has taken over, she's moved away from it. The Biden campaign began with the word freedom, and they were applying it to democracy, and they were applying it to abortion. Harris has applied it heavily to abortion and has not focused on this issue as much. It's not a core part of her stump speech. So For her, it's good to have this out there without her having to talk about it. She's going to talk about the economy. She's talking about the kitchen table issues. That's what they think is going to win them this election. But they want this to be part of the factors that people are thinking about, especially those undecided voters.

But we shouldn't expect Vice President Harris to lean into this moment and try to reorient the race back around to the issue of democracy to January sixth, to his efforts to overturn.

They want to motivate their base on that issue. That's right. They did it right after the debate moment. The first thing they said, they cut an ad. The only ad they cut immediately after this debate was the collision between Tim Walls and J. D. Vance, where JD Vance would not say that Donald Trump lost the last selection. That's the only ad the Harris campaign announced the next day that they had cut from the debate. It wasn't the abortion answer, which was powerful. It was this issue.

Last question on this. Is there a world where January sixth reemerging into the ecosystem of the campaign is perhaps to Trump's advantage, maybe because he gets to re-up the argument that a witch hunt is going on? No. An election was stolen from him.

No, okay. That's a uniform note. He's maxed out on the voters of his who care about this and are going to get behind him on it.

There's a final thing that happened this week, and Maggie, it's a line of reporting that you pursued into Donald Trump's health. What did you find? Why did you do this? And is what you found important?

So one of our colleagues and I worked on a story about where things stand with Trump health-wise, because after the assassination attempt against him in Butler, Pennsylvania, he told a CBS reporter that he He had taken a cognitive test and had to check up, and he would gladly release the records. And we asked for the records.

After the shooting, he took a desk. Yes.

So he says, and they won't release them. They never did a medical briefing after the shooting in Butler. He just went to the hospital, left the hospital. They issued a statement saying he was fine. He took a CAT scan, but we don't know the results. We know that he was sicker with COVID at the end of his presidency in 2020 than they ever said. We know that his father had dementia. We don't know much else about his family background. We know that he was obese at clinically at points in the White House. We know that he has high cholesterol. Very high cholesterol, according to what you found. Some history of cardiac disease. And so all of these are risk factors, especially when we are talking about someone who would be the oldest president at the end of his term if he wins. And these are valid questions. They were valid questions about President Biden as well. They are valid questions about Donald Trump. Now, we've also sought records for Vice President Harris, too. It's important to understand the health of a sitting US The former President is very secretive about a lot of personal matters, but particularly his health.

He was very key to have his personal doctor release an exuberant letter in 2016 saying he was the fittest person ever in the universe to become President. Incredible strength and stamina. The files in that doctor's office, according to the doctor who's now passed away, were later absconded with by people working for Trump. We don't really have a full picture of his health. These These are real questions.

Why do we think that the collective political camera has never really swiveled around in a focused way to questions around Donald Trump's health, especially given his age, all the things you just said in the way that they did so forcefully around Joe Biden?

I think for the most part, it's because he was running against Joe Biden and the physical diminishment of Joe Biden was there for everyone to see in a way that it has not been as apparent for Donald Trump. You could just see the aging of Joe Biden before your eyes. But it is true that Donald Trump, should he win, would be older at every stage of his presidency because he's older when he would take the oath of office than Biden was. These are really legitimate questions. You saw what aging happened at that age in a president. You saw what an 80-year-old president looks like, and you would see that again if Donald Trump were to win. I think these questions about his health and that secrecy is really a point of attention and something of interest to voters. We saw how much voters cared about the mental state of the president I think it's a really good question in a line of reporting for Trump.

Where is the line between whether someone is too old and not fit to be President versus just young enough? At some point, Joe Biden crossed that line and the electorate reacted decisively. They went from saying he was fit to be President by a three to one margin to saying he wasn't by a three to one margin. For whatever reason, Donald Trump hasn't crossed that line. He may be very close to it, and we don't know. We didn't know when Joe Biden took office, how close he was and where that line would be. But Donald Trump hasn't crossed this invisible threshold.

All right, with that, we're going to take a break, and Maggie, I'd like you to have the honors again.

We'll be right back. Wow.

She's like, Nailed it.

She nailed it.

So, Nate, you made a claim over the past week that I want you to explain, and then I want to fact-check it based on everything that we just talked about. You had said that we've entered a stretch of the race that is placid, where there hasn't been too much going on, and where as a result, there's a clearer than ever understanding of the race. I want you to justify that, and especially given how much news there was over the past few days.

Yeah, sure.

Stepping back for a second, the The last two months have been full of big political events. Joe Biden dropped out of the race. Kamala Harris introduced herself to the nation. She selected a vice president. There was a Democratic Convention, and there was a presidential debate in a six-week period. Each of those events- You didn't even mention the two assassination attempts. I didn't even mention the assassination attempts, or before that, that Donald Trump was convicted of crimes. In any case, each of these events raised a big question about, would there be a big effect on the race? Would voters react to Harris's debate victory? Would the convention make a splash? Similarly, the polls taken after each of those events were clouded by these same questions. Is this just a reflection of a post-debate bounce or a post-convention bounce or a post-VP pick bounce. I don't think we have those same questions today. There is still plenty of news going on. We've talked about that news, but I don't think that there are any of the classic events that have the potential to distort public opinion. It's also noteworthy that the polls have been relatively stable the last two weeks.

We've seen almost no change in the polling averages that we publish here at the New York Times. They show a really close race. Between the relative stability of the news and the stability of the numbers, I think we can say this is the race we have right now with far fewer questions than- This is the resting state of this candidate. With far fewer questions than we've had to this point.

Okay.

Within that framework, briefly, what is this resting stable state stasis Exactly.

The resting stable stasis appears to be something like a more or less exact tie with- That's a stunning statement. It is a stunning statement, and it's not something that we've seen in the time, at least I've been covering polls, and I think if you look back historically, you'll find that it's very rare or maybe even unprecedented. Over the longer term, no discernible real favorite in the polls. If you had to squint, you would say, Well, I guess the average of polls is Harris ahead by seven-tenths of a point in Pennsylvania. Therefore, if the polls were absolutely perfect, which they're not, she'd win by one state. But it can't be any closer.

Do the campaigns embrace that understanding? Oh, yeah.

Do they accept it?

I think both campaigns embrace that understanding, and they know that there are seven states that are being competed in. And that, speaking of those polling and polling averages and polling misses, that if the polls are off by a little chunk, that all seven states could still move. That these are states that are in play, that places like Arizona, which appears like more of a reach state for Kamal Harris is not out of play. You look where they're spending their money, and it's in all of these places. That's right. There are places you see more money going lately that tell you that they're competitive, like North Carolina. The Trump team has moved more money there when he was running against Joe Biden. They thought this was a state they had more or less in the bag on those lists of seven. They no longer feel that way. You see the Harris campaign putting money, putting time. Time is the most valuable resource at this point. They have one month left. Watch where the candidates go, watch where they spend their money. That's the answer to where they think this race is happening.

All right, well, tell us, don't make us watch. Tell us where the candidates are spending their time and money, how they're going to be making the most of these dwindling final days of the race, which constituencies they're going to be most focused on, given just how startlingly close the race is.

It's going to change a lot. They're both going to be ripping up their schedules. I think really, Trump more than Harris. Yeah, Trump's been very reactive. Harris has tended to have a little bit more of a direct theory of the case of where she wants to campaign.

Which is what? Just briefly.

Which is she is going to the three blue wall states, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. If she loses those, her path is pretty difficult. Trump, you are going to see, Try to shore up North Carolina, Try to shore up Georgia, two states that she could win. The Trump campaign feels very good about Arizona and Nevada. Democrats feel a little better about Nevada than Republicans think they should. We will find out who is right. Trump is hanging his hat on a turnout of low propensity voters, younger men all across the board. In particular, Nate can speak to this more eloquently than I can, but they don't quite- You're right. Thank you. Love that. Very eloquent. But they're very eloquent. But they can't guarantee these folks are going to come out and vote, and that's what I'm There are low propensity votes.

Correct.

And so that's a big gamble. And so you are going to see Trump doing not just in-person events. And he is constrained, as Shane and Jonathan Swann and I reported recently, by these security threats against him. He is not a sitting President or vice He just simply has a different level of security, and he's a little more vulnerable. But you are going to see him doing podcasts. You are going to see him continuing to reach out to people in unique media ways. We will see where it all falls in a couple of weeks.

To win, you need 200 170 electoral votes. And there was just a fight recently about one state that splits up its votes, Nebraska, in a single district that Democrats are favored to win. Republicans were trying to flip this rules in Nebraska. So all All of the electoral votes would have gone to Trump. The effort failed, but this was about that blue wall. Because if you didn't flip that, and Harris just won those three states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she and he would end at a 269 tie. It's not even unlikely. They were talking about plans to get to a tie. That's how close this race is.

That's why the Trump folks wanted to change the rules in Nebraska. They wanted, in the event of a tie, for that final tie-breaking vote to not go to Kamal Harris. They wanted a winner-take-all model that would go to his.

I don't know how replicable whatever Donald Trump ends up with in this coalition that he is building will be for another Republican who comes after him.

What does that mean for Republicans?

Well, I think it means that Donald Trump, as problematic as he has been for down ballot in particular, is still their best hope at winning a national election for the foreseeable future. Maybe that won't be true, but we'll say.

Or at the very least, a hypothetical Republican national victory would look really different than the one that Donald Trump might be about to pull off.

What does it look like?

I don't know that. We'll find out what the final election result will be. But if it turns out that Harris narrowly wins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, other critical battleground states while struggling nationwide, I think it will be hard to wonder whether Donald Trump's Stop the Steel campaign was a relevant factor and why he just couldn't quite do as well in the very states with the very voters whose votes he tried to throw out last time around. So January sixth will come back. That is what happened in 2022 in the midterm. It's very hard for us in the polling world to find this. We're talking just a small number of people, maybe one in 100 people or one in 50 of Trump's former supporters just being like, You know what? That was over the line. It was their votes. Maybe that's what it is.

It's a good point.

Again, to bring it back to Jack Smith, here he is on his own terms, reinjecting that subject into the race.

Re-injecting that subject in its rawest form without anything that Trump can say, This was in my power as I'm sure he will still make that argument, but Jack Smith is trying to avoid it. It's still a pretty bad fact set for Donald Trump.

As you guys know, roundtable is exceptionally hard to end because it's round. There's no place to get a handle on it.

Can't just fall off. Time is a flat round But I want to try with just...

But in my effort to try to end this roundtable, there was a quirky bit of news that floated into the universe over the past few days. Melania Trump is pro-choice. She her husband, more than any single elected official in the history of the Republic, has restricted abortion. She said this in her book.

She said it in her book, and the Trumps have a history of putting things in books that make a lot of news and sell those books. I think there is a world in which this is not a hidden attempt to try to soften him, although I imagine that he would welcome that and would make him happy. It was simply a way for her to get her thoughts out and get attention. But attention, it is getting. It is not something that former White House advisors remember her talking about in either direction, pro or con. Abortion rights was not exactly a small issue when he was in office. He was in the middle of appointing this conservative supermajority of the Supreme Court, as you noted, that repealed the Roe v Wade abortion rights decision from 1973, and she is apparently against it. Her husband is still struggling mightily with how to articulate what he actually thinks on abortion, while also saying that he terminated Roe v Wade, and he's very proud of it. I don't know how these two align or how voters will receive it.

It's just interesting that a first lady who has been a complete non-entity on the campaign trail, peaks up and says, I disagree with my husband.

On the most volatile issue on which her husband is deeply aware of his vulnerability.

I hear you guys saying that there might be more than meets the eye.

It's hard not to see the timing in an October book as anything but strategic to release this.

I don't find it that hard to see it as anything other than strategic.

I'm accepting I'm accepting the political world you all live in every day.

It's hard to imagine he didn't know that she was going to do it. I don't think that the entire book was built around her saying this and having it come out in October.

Have you read it?

I've not. I don't have it yet. I have pre-ordered it, though, as I do, all political books. Right.

No favor to some here. On that note, Maggie, Shane, Nate, thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for having us. We'll do it again soonish.

On Thursday night, after my conversation with Maggie, Nate, and Shane, the union representing Longshoremen suspended their strike after receiving a higher offer on wages from their employers. But the union cautioned that no deal had been reached and that their strike could eventually resume. You can watch a video version of this episode at nytimes. Com/thedaily or on the New York Times YouTube channel. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, the Israeli military issued evacuation warnings for more than 20 additional towns and cities in Southern Lebanon, where Israeli troops are fighting Hezbollah militants, suggesting that the scope of Israel's invasion there may be expanding. The warnings came as Israel continues to bombard Lebanon with hundreds of airstrikes and as it weighs a military response against Iran in response to its airstrikes against Israel. One scenario that Israel is now considering is an attack on Iran's lucrative oil industry, a possibility A bill that President Biden briefly acknowledged on Wednesday as he boarded Marine One before trailing off.

Would you support Israel striking Iran oil facilities, sir?

We're discussing that. I think that would be a little… Anyway.

In response, oil prices surged over fears that an Israeli attack would soon disrupt the global oil supply. Remember, You can catch the latest episode of the interview right here tomorrow. My colleague, David Markezi, talks with the one and only Al Pacino.

Some of the early stuff I did in school, 14, 15 years old, when I did it, it was in those place.

That was still the most inspired work I had done.

I didn't know what I was doing.

The most inspired work you did was a 14 or 15-year-old kid?

I think so. I think so because I was so in it. Today's episode was produced by Olivia Natt and Mujdj Zady, with help from Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Brenda Clinkenberg, with help from Paige Cawet. Contains original music by Ron Eumistow and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Lanferk of Wunderly. The Daily is made Rachel Quester, Lindsay Garrison, Claire Tennis-Sketter, Paige Cawet, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexander Lee Young, Lisa Chou, Eric Krupke, Mark George, Luke Van der Polug, MJ Davis Lynn, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoît, Liz O'Balen, Asta Chathervedi, Rochelle Banja, Diana Wyn, Marion Lozano, Rob Zipko, Alisha Baetube, Mujdj Zady, Patricia Willens, Ron Emisto, Jody Becker, Ricky Navevetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Landman, Shannon Lynn, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Nat, Daniel Ramirez, and Brenda Clinkenberg. Special thanks to Lisa Tobin, Sam Dolnik, Paula Schumann, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Maur, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddie Macielo, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam, and nick Pitman. That's it for The Daily.

I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.