Speaker 1: Hello, Hi, Karen, It's me Amy.
Speaker 2: How are you since I've helped you?
Speaker 3: I know, I know, well, I feel like it. I
Speaker 3: mean it.
Speaker 1: It's maybe been like a couple of weeks, but it
Speaker 1: feels like two years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, long, because we used to talk about.
Speaker 1: You might have heard me mention my co reporter on
Speaker 1: this season, Karen Savage in the credits of every episode,
Speaker 1: and you've heard her voice a couple of times too,
Speaker 1: But she's been a really big part of this season
Speaker 1: behind the scenes and especially on our website, where Karen
Speaker 1: has been writing stories that go along with each episode.
Speaker 1: She's also the person I've called all season long to
Speaker 1: help make sense of this story or to help remember
Speaker 1: where this or that document is or who said what
Speaker 1: and when. So I wanted to bring her in for
Speaker 1: this last episode, where we're going to try to make
Speaker 1: sense of this story as a whole and what it
Speaker 1: means in the con text of climate Today, we're going
Speaker 1: to update you on what's happening for the Ecuadorians and
Speaker 1: dig into why we decided to tackle this story in
Speaker 1: the first place, plus what we learned from it and
Speaker 1: what it has to do with climate change.
Speaker 3: That's all coming.
Speaker 1: Up right after this quick break. Like most people, Pod
Speaker 1: Save America co host Tommy Vitor thought foreign policy was
Speaker 1: boring and complicated until he got the education of a
Speaker 1: lifetime working for President Obama's National Security Council. It was
Speaker 1: a crash course that taught him two things. Anyone can
Speaker 1: understand these issues, and we all have an obligation to try.
Speaker 1: That's why he started Podsave the World, a weekly podcast
Speaker 1: from Crooked Media that breaks down international news and foreign
Speaker 1: policy developments but doesn't feel like homework. Each week, he
Speaker 1: and former Deputy National Security Advisor and co host Ben
Speaker 1: Rhodes walk you through the latest developments with a variety
Speaker 1: of experts. Count on hearing behind the scenes stories, funny anecdotes,
Speaker 1: and maybe even a few f bombs along the way.
Speaker 1: New episodes of pod Say the World drop every Wednesday.
Speaker 1: Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. My sort of general sense of this story
Speaker 1: is just that the Ecuadorians have kind of been fucked
Speaker 1: over by everyone, and I just keep coming back to
Speaker 1: this thing that Joe Berlinger said, which is, if this
Speaker 1: contamination had happened somewhere in the world where you know, wealthy,
Speaker 1: white people live, it would have just been cleaned up
Speaker 1: first and then litigated later.
Speaker 4: If this incident had happened anywhere where white people live,
Speaker 4: it would have been cleaned up, you know, and then
Speaker 4: they would have figured out the culpability later, right, right.
Speaker 1: And like I just yet, I do feel like it's
Speaker 1: become all about legal procedure and not a wrong.
Speaker 3: Was done and should be addressed the.
Speaker 5: End, right right, because at this point it doesn't seem
Speaker 5: like that's even being addressed or even thought of in
Speaker 5: any of these, like all of these cor proceedings. And
Speaker 5: you know it would be I definitely couldn't do it myself.
Speaker 5: But like, how many of these court filings even mentioned
Speaker 5: the Equadorians or the mess that they're still dealing with, right,
Speaker 5: I mean there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not more,
Speaker 5: legal filings, and how many of them actually even mentioned
Speaker 5: the Equadorians.
Speaker 3: That's true, Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: That and it does it just like I think there's
Speaker 1: been this very asserted and successful strategy to make it
Speaker 1: all about the lawyers and not the people. Pablo Fajardo
Speaker 1: actually said when we talked to him too, that like
Speaker 1: this is about the people, not the lawyers.
Speaker 6: Can in whoish you in noise om pros Asum Processa Pueblos.
Speaker 1: And I understand his frustration and like the Ecuadorians frustration,
Speaker 1: But then I also grapple with like, well, how do
Speaker 1: you cover it without mentioning that stuff?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I think that's actually the biggest challenge
Speaker 5: to me. And well, no, it's not the biggest challenge
Speaker 5: because understanding all the legal stuff.
Speaker 2: Has been the biggest challenge.
Speaker 5: But one of the biggest challenges has been doing this
Speaker 5: story without having gone there. I keep saying that, but
Speaker 5: you know, I have never written before about any kind
Speaker 5: of toxic contamination or allegations of contamination without going there
Speaker 5: and seeing it, do you.
Speaker 2: Know what I mean?
Speaker 5: Or experience like climate change, We all experience it, even
Speaker 5: though we're not like right there at the refinery sense line,
Speaker 5: but you know, having not talked to these people and
Speaker 5: their homes, you know, or sat down and had coffee
Speaker 5: or whatever, you know, Yeah, all of those things that
Speaker 5: you can just kind of get to know folks and
Speaker 5: get to know how their lives have been affected.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think is huge. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So yeah, we did not get to go to
Speaker 1: Ecuador for this season, which was not the plan. We
Speaker 1: kept thinking we'd be able to go in a couple months,
Speaker 1: but obviously that never happened. The other thing that did
Speaker 1: not go as planned this season was the schedule. We
Speaker 1: were going to launch in June, and then it was
Speaker 1: July for sure. We ended up finally launching at the
Speaker 1: end of September because there was just so much reporting
Speaker 1: to do and documents to read and people to track
Speaker 1: down and just thinking too. This story is a really
Speaker 1: weird one because on the one hand, it's so simple.
Speaker 1: Toxic waste was dumped in the Amazon rainforest. Whoever's responsible
Speaker 1: for that should clean it up. But the legal system
Speaker 1: can make that whoever's responsible part really tricky. And then
Speaker 1: you had this whole complicated thing happening where a US
Speaker 1: judge was evaluating the decision of an Ecuadorian judge. And
Speaker 1: then there's the whole Petro Ecuador thing. How responsible are
Speaker 1: they or the Equadorian government which let these oil guys
Speaker 1: in in the first place. And that's why we couldn't
Speaker 1: just talk about this case with Chevron. We had to
Speaker 1: start by talking about colonialism.
Speaker 5: And it's totally as we've talked about before, like a
Speaker 5: story about colonialization, right you know.
Speaker 1: There's yes, the Equadorian government was complicit in that initially, right,
Speaker 1: But even in that situation, you know what choices did
Speaker 1: they have really between playing ball with oil companies in
Speaker 1: order to develop their economy in this world that was
Speaker 1: dictating like.
Speaker 3: You either do this or you starve.
Speaker 5: Right, right, because that at the very heart of this
Speaker 5: is the inequity that was set up so long ago, right,
Speaker 5: that like leaves people fighting over crumbs, and sometimes.
Speaker 2: We're really bad crumbs. Yeah, you know in this.
Speaker 5: Case, yeah, I mean, And honestly, what all of these
Speaker 5: court cases are doing is just muddying everything up, right.
Speaker 5: It kind of seems like everyone involved is just throwing
Speaker 5: stuff out there to get themselves unstuck. But over on
Speaker 5: the other side, the Ecuadorians are still there, still suffering,
Speaker 5: still living in a contaminating environment.
Speaker 1: One thing to keep in mind is that the Ecuadorians
Speaker 1: are absolutely not sitting around and waiting for someone to
Speaker 1: save them. They're doing everything they possibly can to try
Speaker 1: to improve their situation on the ground. Judith Kimmerling, the
Speaker 1: lawyer who went down to Ecuador in the nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: and wrote about it, really kind of kicking off a
Speaker 1: lot of the legal action that happened in the later
Speaker 1: decades said this.
Speaker 7: For example, this lawsuit was a relatively small group of
Speaker 7: people trying to accomplish something for a huge area, in many,
Speaker 7: many people. And in that area, you know, what's overlooked
Speaker 7: is that there are a lot of people who haven't
Speaker 7: been engaged in the lawsuit, but they've been engaged in
Speaker 7: their own processes, in their own dynamics, in their own
Speaker 7: efforts to survive the impacts caused by Texaco and you know,
Speaker 7: secure a future for themselves and their children. And the
Speaker 7: by raity are one of them. And so to present
Speaker 7: their story in that way as okay, So in the
Speaker 7: tort law, in human rights law, we call them victims,
Speaker 7: but really their survivors. They have their own aspirations, they
Speaker 7: have their own processes, they have their own efforts, their
Speaker 7: own struggle.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 7: In Spanish se Luca.
Speaker 1: There's an extremely cool project using mushrooms to absorb the
Speaker 1: petroleum and toxic waste in the oil pits. For example,
Speaker 1: it's called Sukumbio's Alliance of Bioremediation and Sustainability ABSs. Fung
Speaker 1: Guy it turns out, are probably our best weapon when
Speaker 1: it comes to remediating all sorts of toxic waste sites.
Speaker 1: There are mushrooms that gobble up everything from the hydrocarbons
Speaker 1: and petroleum to heavy metal and even plastic. So there's
Speaker 1: the Mushroom Project in Ecuador. There's a mutual aid group
Speaker 1: that looks after the area's many cancer patients. This is
Speaker 1: a community that looks after its own and knows how
Speaker 1: to survive. The core system is not their only tool,
Speaker 1: but there are more cases too. Pablo Ardo, the lead
Speaker 1: attorney against Chevron in Ecuador, has also sued Petro Ecuador
Speaker 1: to encourage it to clean up its share of the
Speaker 1: pollution in the Amazon. Fajardo's organization you adapt UDAPT is
Speaker 1: also encouraging the government to appeal the arbitration decision that
Speaker 1: came down in favor of Chevron. You might remember us
Speaker 1: talking about that this season that an arbitral tribunal in
Speaker 1: the Netherlands ruled that the Ecuadorian government owed Chevron millions
Speaker 1: of dollars for allowing this case to proceed in its courts.
Speaker 1: Documentary filmmaker Lindsay Afrias, who we also talked to during
Speaker 1: the season, talked about what the Ecuadorians are continuing to do,
Speaker 1: and why their work on the ground always seems to
Speaker 1: be ignored in press reports about this case.
Speaker 8: And that's the thing it's really passating to, however, the
Speaker 8: way in which fingers get pointed, where Chevron will be like, oh, no,
Speaker 8: it's Petro Ecuador, and petrorectord Or will say no, it's Chevron,
Speaker 8: And there is a world in which we can see
Speaker 8: them all responsible but in different ways. And ironically, you know,
Speaker 8: the people who are who are taking the most responsibility
Speaker 8: or the people who are actually least responsible for having
Speaker 8: caused this situation. And so I was able to spend
Speaker 8: significant time with you know, the plaintiffs who have turned
Speaker 8: into I would call like emergency responders, where they've created
Speaker 8: their own health committees, their own environmental cleanup committees.
Speaker 3: And they're doing unbelievable work.
Speaker 8: That gets no attention. And I often find it difficult
Speaker 8: to even think outside of the law and imagine, you know,
Speaker 8: with them, what is possible to do in the face
Speaker 8: of corporate and state impunity. And you know, while it
Speaker 8: is a worthy endeavor to continue fighting through the legal system,
Speaker 8: how can we still direct resources to the people who
Speaker 8: are most affected, who are building responses and they have
Speaker 8: really brilliant ideas, and they have very brilliant structures already
Speaker 8: in place in which they're working, and they could be
Speaker 8: even more effective if you know, everybody else somehow paid
Speaker 8: them some respect.
Speaker 1: This is a really key point and reminds me a
Speaker 1: lot of how we think and talk about climate change,
Speaker 1: as though climate action can only happen through these very
Speaker 1: specific systems that are mostly controlled by powerful interests. A
Speaker 1: couple people have told me that while they find the
Speaker 1: story of this Chevron Ecuador case interesting, they're not really
Speaker 1: sure what it has to do with climate change. Sure,
Speaker 1: Chevron is an oil company, but this story isn't really
Speaker 1: about climate change, right. Here's how I think it connects.
Speaker 1: This is a story about power and accountability, which is
Speaker 1: really at the root of every climate story. I always
Speaker 1: say climate change is a power problem, and I don't
Speaker 1: mean energy sources. You don't get a problem like catastrophic
Speaker 1: climate change where a small handful of people have shifted
Speaker 1: the world away from acting on the problem just to
Speaker 1: benefit themselves without some sort of major power imbalances. A
Speaker 1: lot of people who think we need to act on
Speaker 1: climate also think that oil companies can and should be
Speaker 1: part of that action. That it will negotiate and act
Speaker 1: in good faith on climate. When I look at this case,
Speaker 1: I don't see how that could possibly hold true. I
Speaker 1: kind of started this season thinking this, and it definitely
Speaker 1: turned out this way that it is such a good
Speaker 1: example of the lengths that oil companies will go to
Speaker 1: even when they lose a battle or lose a case,
Speaker 1: to not be held accountable.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, to me, I just feel like this is I
Speaker 1: don't know, this is like the thing I will probably
Speaker 1: point to you whenever people say things about negotiating with
Speaker 1: oil companies over climate policy.
Speaker 5: Just right right, I look at the you know, the
Speaker 5: inequality of the court system, yes, you know what I mean,
Speaker 5: the things that different folks told us about the Rico trial,
Speaker 5: and you know, the hundreds of lawyers that Chevron was
Speaker 5: able to work with, and the much less number of
Speaker 5: lawyers that you know, Stephen Donziger and the plaintiffs and
Speaker 5: that Ecuadorians were able to hire. And honestly, if you
Speaker 5: look at that in terms of everyday people, they were
Speaker 5: very lucky to have even been able to mount the defense.
Speaker 2: That they did.
Speaker 3: Right right.
Speaker 1: I thought that was such a good point that Julio
Speaker 1: Gomez made about how like the only one that can
Speaker 1: really go up against Chevron is like another oil company.
Speaker 1: Julio Gomez was the attorney for the Equadorian plaintiffs in
Speaker 1: the Rico trial. We heard from him a few times
Speaker 1: this season, but here's what he had to say about
Speaker 1: inequality in the justice system.
Speaker 9: People don't understand the incredible inequity in our legal system.
Speaker 9: To finances, it's Microsoft can only go up against Google,
Speaker 9: Apple can only go up against Samsung. Chevron can only
Speaker 9: go up against Exon Mobile and vice versa, because that's
Speaker 9: the only way to do it right. To meet every expert,
Speaker 9: to meet every motion, you need exactly the same resources.
Speaker 9: And unfortunately, our judicial system does not take that into account.
Speaker 1: People have this tendency to forget where laws and the
Speaker 1: justice system come from. It's not like this neutral, fair
Speaker 1: thing that it's sometimes painted as. You know, It's like
Speaker 1: most of the laws were written by, let's face it,
Speaker 1: wealthy white guy is in an attempt to maintain their
Speaker 1: wealth and power.
Speaker 3: Right, the idea that.
Speaker 1: It still tends to mostly work in favor of people
Speaker 1: with power and wealth should not surprise us.
Speaker 5: Right, yeah, yeah, Well, I said, have those thoughts that
Speaker 5: always come back to the Ecuadorian court system, Yeah, which
Speaker 5: affirmed the.
Speaker 2: Ruling at all of the levels.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And so part of me says, you know, here
Speaker 5: is the US and a US judge and a US
Speaker 5: corporation interfering with another.
Speaker 2: Country's judicial system. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean, what would happen if someone came in here
Speaker 5: and did that to our judicial system?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it would never happen. It would never happen. Okay.
Speaker 1: So I described this show as a true crime podcast
Speaker 1: about climate change, but this season was by far our
Speaker 1: most true crime and I feel like we need to
Speaker 1: address the elephant in the room, Donziger.
Speaker 10: The fact that this whole thing is built on a
Speaker 10: house of cards with a lying witness makes the case
Speaker 10: really vulnerable. And I think that explains why they're going
Speaker 10: after me, because I tell the truth about it and
Speaker 10: I have a lot of credibility. Other courts are probably
Speaker 10: going to be looking at this, I mean in other
Speaker 10: countries who enforced the judgment, And it's in Caplan's interests,
Speaker 10: in Chevron's interest that I be silenced. So you know,
Speaker 10: what better way to do that than to make up
Speaker 10: these criminal contempt charges and make me the first lawyer
Speaker 10: in US history ever detained pretrial and a criminal contempt
Speaker 10: case where I can't travel my passports confience gate, and
Speaker 10: I can't go into court.
Speaker 1: Did he do any of the things Chevron accused him of?
Speaker 3: All of them? None of them? Does it matter?
Speaker 1: Karen and I had some variation of this conversation a lot,
Speaker 1: in part because Donziger tried to control the story a lot,
Speaker 1: and we wanted to make sure that we weren't being
Speaker 1: influenced by what he alone was telling us. On a
Speaker 1: much smaller scale, we could really relate to what filmmaker
Speaker 1: Joe Berlinger told us about his experience covering this story.
Speaker 4: Here's the ten page memo from Donziger in which he's
Speaker 4: asking me to make a zillion changes, and I didn't
Speaker 4: make those changes and wrote him a terse email in
Speaker 4: response saying, Hey, I'm not making these changes. I'm the filmmaker,
Speaker 4: I have final cut.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'm going to ask I'm going to ask you
Speaker 1: the million dollar question, Karen, Uh, what are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: I'm Stephen Donziger.
Speaker 5: I'm trying to put this in the right in the
Speaker 5: right words. I think that regardless of whether you know,
Speaker 5: you can look.
Speaker 2: At the at the.
Speaker 5: Documents, as they're presented, which you know they've set our
Speaker 5: out of context. It's Donziger and the plaintiff has said
Speaker 5: set our out of context and not.
Speaker 2: You know, the narrative is not correct.
Speaker 5: So whether you believe that narrative that Chevron put out
Speaker 5: there or not, I think if you look at the
Speaker 5: heart of what is happening, I think that the intent,
Speaker 5: which was to get justice for the Ecuadorian people, is true.
Speaker 5: And I do think that this is one of those
Speaker 5: cases that you.
Speaker 2: Can look at it. In fact, I've done it myself.
Speaker 5: If I'm reading stuff that Chevron has put together, I'm.
Speaker 2: Like, Wow, this is looking really bad for this guy.
Speaker 5: But then if I look at stuff that that that
Speaker 5: Stephen Donzegrant and his team have put together, I'm like.
Speaker 2: Of course, why is Chavre even trying to say that?
Speaker 2: So you know, I go.
Speaker 5: You know, if you if you get your head too
Speaker 5: far deep into one narrative or the other, it's easy
Speaker 5: to see that side. So honestly, I cannot tell you
Speaker 5: what happened, but I can tell you what is still happening,
Speaker 5: and that's what the Ecuadorians have not gotten justice, and
Speaker 5: you know, they're doing everything they can, Like you said,
Speaker 5: they're you know, they're they're they're.
Speaker 2: Doing as much natural remediation if they can.
Speaker 5: They're doing their own litigation, you know, hoping to get
Speaker 5: the accountability. But at the end of the day, all
Speaker 5: of these more powerful people failed them, yes, in whatever
Speaker 5: way it was, you know, and it's just it just
Speaker 5: makes me sad that these folks are still dealing with
Speaker 5: I mean, this is going on several generations. It's not
Speaker 5: just like, you know, oh, when your kids are little,
Speaker 5: they're exposed to this, and now they're not. It's like, oh,
Speaker 5: when you are little, you're exposed to this, and now
Speaker 5: you're grown, and you have kids who are exposed to this,
Speaker 5: and now they have kids, and your grandkids are exposed
Speaker 5: to this, and their kids are going to be exposed
Speaker 5: to this.
Speaker 1: I keep thinking about this thing that Joe Berlinger said.
Speaker 4: I am not smart enough to tell you whether or
Speaker 4: not Chevron has wrapped itself up in enough legal arguments
Speaker 4: to be legally correct in this situation. But there is
Speaker 4: a moral issue here. There's a moral flaw that with
Speaker 4: such devastation, why are we not cleaning it up now
Speaker 4: and figuring out the legal responsibility later?
Speaker 1: Ultimately, even people who didn't necessarily like Donziger or the
Speaker 1: way he approached this case, think what's happening to him
Speaker 1: now is totally unjustified. In fact, folks pretty consistently see
Speaker 1: it as a very scary precedent that a company would
Speaker 1: go after a lawyer personally in the way that Chevron
Speaker 1: has gone after Donziger. Judith Kimerling was pretty critical of Donziger.
Speaker 1: She said this, for example.
Speaker 7: But the point I want to make is that, you know,
Speaker 7: while I think that the actions against Stephen are excessive,
Speaker 7: I don't think that he's just a victim because he's
Speaker 7: a human rights defender. I mean, I think that narrative
Speaker 7: is very simplistic. That we're pressed that Rico trial, who
Speaker 7: were asking me, well, you know, if they're real injuries,
Speaker 7: why why did these guys have to engage in fraud?
Speaker 7: And that's the question that Steven's conduct is begging. And
Speaker 7: the answer was, well, we have to win a battle
Speaker 7: in the with the press. And you know my response
Speaker 7: to that was you can win with the truth. And
Speaker 7: this you know, Chevron loves having the story be about Stephen.
Speaker 7: They're using it to discredit the real people who've been injured.
Speaker 7: It's problematic in many ways, and I think it's unfortunate.
Speaker 7: I don't see any soul searching, you know, on the
Speaker 7: environmental side about you know, what the mistakes were made
Speaker 7: and how it could be done better. Instead, it's just
Speaker 7: Steven's a victim, and you know, this is all because
Speaker 7: of how bad Chevron is and has nothing to do
Speaker 7: with his decisions and choices.
Speaker 3: But she also said this, I do think.
Speaker 7: That what's happening to Steven it's really excessive. I think
Speaker 7: that you treating Stephen like a criminal is really excessive.
Speaker 1: When we talked about this, Karen's take was basically, look,
Speaker 1: even if both sides did the exact same corrupt things,
Speaker 1: and we're not saying that they did, but if they did,
Speaker 1: one was doing it to try to clean up pollution
Speaker 1: and help a bunch of indigenous people and subsistence farmers
Speaker 1: in the Amazon, and the other was trying to protect
Speaker 1: shareholder profits a company losing profits and people not having
Speaker 1: clean water to drink for generations and being poisoned for
Speaker 1: generations are not equal.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 3: That is it for this season.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for staying with us.
Speaker 3: If you have.
Speaker 1: Questions or comments, please send them our way you can
Speaker 1: reach me at Amy at drillednews dot com. Big thanks
Speaker 1: to our Patreon subscribers. You guys helped make this season happen.
Speaker 1: If you would also like to support our work, go
Speaker 1: to Patreon dot com slash drilled. Big announcement, we are
Speaker 1: in the process of taking this podcast entirely ad free.
Speaker 1: If you're a listener to the podcast, you know that
Speaker 1: I have been reading ads for a while, and you
Speaker 1: might also suspect that it's something that makes me deeply uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: So you know, we have a few ads that have
Speaker 1: been sold already that I'll be reading in the coming weeks.
Speaker 1: But we are going the route of being entirely ad free,
Speaker 1: so I do hope that more folks will sign up
Speaker 1: for the patrio to make it possible for us to
Speaker 1: do that. You'll also get access to bonus content. We're
Speaker 1: going to drop some longer interviews in there related to
Speaker 1: this season, so you'll hear more from several of the
Speaker 1: folks that you heard a bit from this season, and
Speaker 1: we will have some update episodes for you on a
Speaker 1: few things. Donziger will eventually go to trial next year,
Speaker 1: so we'll have an update.
Speaker 2: Then.
Speaker 1: We'll also have an update for you soon on whether
Speaker 1: the Ecuadorian government decides to appeal the arbitration decision or not.
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for those, and then next year we will
Speaker 1: have a two part season that traces the fracking boom
Speaker 1: to the plastics boom. Come back for that and more.
Speaker 1: Thanks again, and hope you're all closing out the year
Speaker 1: with a nap. Drilled is an original production of the
Speaker 1: Critical Frequency Podcast Network. The show was created, reported, and
Speaker 1: written by me Amy Westerveldt. My co reporter this season
Speaker 1: is Karen Savage. Our editor is Julia Ritchie. The show's
Speaker 1: editorial consultant is Rika Murphy. Mixing and mastering by Mark Bush.
Speaker 1: Original score by b Beman, fact checking by woudn Yan.
Speaker 1: Our artwork for this season was done by the super
Speaker 1: talented Matt Fleming. Special thanks to Trevor Gowen and Emily Gertz.
Speaker 1: You can find stories, documents, and photos related to this
Speaker 1: season on our website at drillednews dot com. That's it
Speaker 1: for this time, Thanks for listening, and we'll see you
Speaker 1: next week.
Speaker 8: I think
Speaker 1: Hm