Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for October 15, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and James Murray

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

JAMES MURRAY: Good evening. I'm James Murray. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JM: Tonight...

CO: Even home is not home-free. A black woman was in her house with her 8-year-old nephew when a police officer ordered her to put up her hands -- and then fatally shot her through her own window.

JM: Slinging hashtags. With less than a week to go, our guest says it's time for Canadians to start asking who is behind some of the most active Twitter accounts about the election campaign.

CO: Losing their voice. Syrian Kurds are devastated by the brazen murder of Hevrin Khalaf -- the head of a political movement that sought change through dialogue, not war.

JM: If the shoe doesn't fit. 17-year-old Naomi So looks set to win a sneaker design contest held by the company "Vans" when her entry was abruptly pulled -- and her images of protests in Hong Kong may have something to do with it.

CO: To have or have not. After reaching a stand-off the members of the Booker Prize jury take a stand and decide to give the literary award to two different authors. The head of the jury explains why.

JM: And snickering off this mortal coil. An Irish man is the life of the party, even when he's lifeless -- playing a recording at his funeral in which it sounded like he was pounding on the inside of the casket. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that hopes that no one we know pulls that prank [makes knocking sound]...knock wood.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Kurdish politician slain in Syria wanted to unite the country in peace, says friend

Fort Worth charges

Guests: Lee Merritt

JM: This weekend in Fort Worth, Texas, a man called the police. He was concerned about his neighbour, Atatiana Jefferson: the doors to her house were open, and it was late at night. Ms. Jefferson, who is black, was playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew when an officer named Aaron Dean, who is white, arrived on the scene. He entered her backyard and shot her through a window. Ms. Jefferson was killed. Aaron Dean is now a former officer. He resigned yesterday. He's now out on bail after being arrested and charged with murder. Lee Merritt is the lawyer representing Ms. Jefferson's family. We reached him in Fort Worth, Texas.

CO: Mr. Merritt as you know, Aaron Dean, the police officer who is accused of killing Atatiana Jefferson has been arrested and charged with murder. Are you satisfied that it was such a relatively quick charge and arrest in this case?

LEE MERRITT: No, not at all. The charge from a police department is just a referral to the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. The DA's office is where the real fight begins because the DA is responsible for formal charges. It's noteworthy that this district has a reputation for being exceptionally police friendly. Just because we have an arrest which is pacifying for the community, it doesn't even mean that we will get an actual indictment -- certainly doesn't guarantee a murder indictment or a conviction. So there's still so much more work to be done.

CO: I want to ask you about the facts we're starting to learn a bit which is that the -- first of all -- the officer who shot Ms. Jefferson doesn't appear to have identified himself as a police officer from what we've seen of the video cam before shooting. What's the procedure? How should that police officer have approached that house?

LM: On a wellness call -- law enforcement officers should simply walk up to the door, announce themselves and say, we notice that your door was open, a neighbour called because he was concerned. It's really without question, a simple procedure. I don't know how it escalated to a tactical scenario.

CO: There's also the talk about that initially, you were critical of how the police released information that there was a gun in the house. It does appear from the nephew that Ms. Jefferson thought she had to defend herself. She was holding a gun apparently -- that's what her nephew said. What do you understand about that altercation and how the shooting came about?

LM: Well there's two important things about the gun. First, they reference a gun after getting statements from the law enforcement officers. The statement that they put out says they were in the back-yard searching about the property, when he encounters what he believed to be a figure in the window that he perceived as a threat, and then he discharged his weapon. If he saw a gun -- that's going to make it into the report. And so what law enforcement did here, at least according to the warrant, was they ignored these statements of two trained professionals wearing body cameras and replaced their account of what happened with that of a traumatized 8-year-old who gave a statement that she stuck the gun out of the window, which would have been impossible because the window was sealed and there was no breach prior to Officer Dean firing his weapon.

CO: And what did Officer Dean say as he was firing the weapon?

LM: He said show me your hands or something to that effect. Put your hands up. Which again is important because officers are trained when they see a weapon to shout "gun" so that their partners can know that this is a gun situation.

CO: And he never did that?

LM: He never did. And it's worth stating that I don't disagree with the account that she likely recovered a weapon and went to the window. That's a legally owned weapon. And when there's prowlers on your property at 2:30 in the morning, it makes sense that you would go recover your firearm before you investigate. The problem is the mere possession of a firearm or even the use of a firearm and the protection of one's self against people who have not been identified by law enforcement is not illegal.

CO: We have to point out that this incident happens just a few days after Amber Guyger who is a white off-duty police officer who was convicted of murder -- sentenced to 10 years for killing a black man, Botham Jean, in his home. She was in the wrong apartment as we all know. And you represented Botham Jean's family as they went through that ordeal of that trial. What connections do you have in your own mind between these two cases?

LM: I couldn't imagine something more innocent and less threatening than sitting on your couch eating an ice cream. But now you have sitting in your home, playing video games with your 8-year-old nephew -- and my concern is I've seen some of the same patterns from the law enforcement community where they offer lip service to the idea of yes people should be secure in their home while simultaneously painting in a defense and conducting an investigation that sides heavily on the side of law enforcement. Here you have the Fort Worth Police Department responsible for the investigation of themselves. And naturally, they are making conclusions that they didn't do anything wrong. Maybe this officer did. But the Fort Worth PD themselves did everything right. And this was the rogue action of a poorly trained police officer. We need some sort of independent body that's responsible for both investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officers because this is a nation where at least on average 1,100 people a year are killed by law enforcement. And very few of those result in actual convictions of police officers.

CO: You have tweeted on the weekend that though you have seen so many of these cases you've been involved -- even recently with Botham Jean's family -- that this one was particularly emotional for you. Why is that?

LM: It was the involvement of the 8-year-old boy. And I have a 8-year-old son. I like to stay up on the weekends and play with them. And that hit home for me in a way that was disarming.

CO: Have you been able to see the nephew -- Zion? Have you had a chance to talk to him?

LM: I have. And his mother allowed me to take him to my home this past Sunday, and he got well with my kids. They played video games -- although they were supposed to be painting pumpkins. They opted for video games. From all outward appearances, he seems to be a really unaffected by this. But there are telltale signs that the people who know him can see that his personality is beginning to change a bit. And we are all anxious to get him started in professional care to deal with some of the conscious and subconscious consequences of being a part of this incident.

CO: Mr. Merritt we'll leave it there. I appreciate you telling us about the family and the story. Thank you.

LM: Thank you.

JM: Lee Merritt is a lawyer representing the family of Atatiana Jefferson, who was shot and killed by a police officer this weekend in Fort Worth, Texas.

[Music]

Syria assassination

Guest: Sinam Mohammed

JM: Turkey's military operation in northeastern Syria has been swift and aggressive. And now the United Nations says executions carried out over the weekend could amount to war crimes. Video footage circulating online appears to show Kurdish captives being executed on the side of a highway by pro-Turkish militants. One of their captives appears to be a well-known Kurdish politician by the name of Hevrin Khalaf. She was reportedly ambushed and shot dead. She served as the secretary general for the Future Syria Party. Sinam Mohammed knew her well. She is the U.S. representative of the Syrian Democratic Council. And we reached her in Washington, D.C..

CO: Ms. Mohammed what does this mean for your community that Hevrin Khalaf is dead?

SINAM MOHAMMED: Hevrin Khalaf -- she is a Kurdish woman. She is a young woman. And she was leading a political party which was been established in 2018. And the first woman that was leading a political party. She wanted to have the future of Syria to be bright so that the woman can be in the decision making.

CO: And what have you learned about how she was killed?

SM: So there was a way -- a road which is called the main road. She was in her car with her driver going to this road. And unluckily this road was being controlled suddenly by these groups who controlled the road for just maybe I can say hours -- 1-2 hours. They stopped on the people on the road -- who all are civilians. They are asking them to get out of the car and (are) killing them directly. And she is one of them. She is a civilian. Always she believes in dialogue to solve the Syrian crisis.

CO: We've heard that a number of Kurds, of civilians, have been executed at checkpoints on the highway. And we have seen video that apparently shows these executions, including a video apparently of your colleague. Do you know who those are? The people? The mercenaries who were there, have they been identified?

SM: Actually, these mercenaries, they are from the name which is called the National Army, which is backed by Turkey. They were Free Syrian Army. And they are known as a radical groups -- Syrian people. They are the one who I mean killed our colleague or our friends -- Hevrin Khalaf -- and many other civilians are being executed on this highway.

CO: Did they know who she was?

SM: Yes. She told them. When they opened the car she said, I am the secretary of this political party. They shoot her. They could shoot her with one bullet, actually. And she could die with one shot. But they shot her tens of bullets all over her body, which shows how much they hate the Kurds, how much they are coming to killing everyone especially she is a woman. She is a peaceful woman. She is so kind. And she always seek to solving the problem in Syria in this political way.

CO: We've also seen that a newspaper in Turkey who said that Ms. Khalaf's killing was a, quote, "a successful operation against a terrorist threat." Why does Turkey view Ms. Khalaf as such a threat?

SM: If she's holding a weapon then she would be a threat. If she is in the military, a group, she might be a threat. But she is not in the military group. She is the head of the political party and she never hold a weapon. So I don't know how she would be a threat.

CO: She was, as you say, the secretary general of the Future Syria Party -- representing the Kurds. What's the goal of that party? What was she and the party attempting to do?

SM: You know during this issue of Syria and the crisis -- Syrian crisis and many division was there in Syria -- she wanted to seek to unify the Syrian people to a common goal, which is the unity of Syria, which is the equal gender, which is based on democracy, which based on opportunity and the unity of Syria through that diversity. She always said we have to solve our problems through dialogue. She was working in the other regions. She was working in Raqqa, she was working in Deir-ez-Zor, in many Arab cities and most of the people there they like her.

CO: We know that this Turkish operation started when U.S. President Donald Trump gave a green light to President Erdogan. President Trump says he would destroy Turkey's economy if it continues the operation the way it's doing it. What do you want the United States to do given Ms. Khalaf's execution, which many are saying is a war crime -- what do you think Donald Trump should do and say to President Erdogan?

SM: What should the United States do -- first of all, to stop this Turkish aggression and invasion to our region. Second, to stop killing our civilian. Third, to have a no fly zone, at least to protect our civilians from the Turkish airplane. And we would like to be in this process of the peace process talk in Syria so that we can end the bloodshed for the Syrian people. Turkey always make a veto on us not to be included in the constitution committee, not to be included in the peace talk. And in this way Turkey is attacking our people. And with the military attack it will end every door for that dialogue and peace. Unfortunately, the United States now they pull back. They say, okay, your mission has ended. We are not anymore allies. Okay you go and you face your fate with Turkey. This is what we feel very sorry and sad for that.

CO: Ms. Mohammed, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend and your colleague. And I appreciate you speaking with us.

SM: Thank you so much. And I can say this is the woman voice. So we have to raise our voice against this barbarian. Against the women executions. It is a war crime actually.

CO: I hear you. Thank you so much.

SM: Thank you so much.

JM: Sinam Mohammed is the U.S. representative of the Syrian Democratic Council. We reached her in Washington, D.C.

[Music]

Booker Prize jury

Guest: Peter Florence

JM: In the Booker Prize's 50-year history, it's only happened three times. As you probably heard by now, the Literary Award for Fiction was awarded to two authors yesterday: Margaret Atwood for "The Testaments" and Bernadine Evaristo for "Girl, Woman, Other." Here's Ms. Everisto speaking after her shared win.

SOUNDCLIP

BERNARDINE EVARISTO: I'm just so delighted to have won the prize. And yes, I'm sharing it with this amazing writer. But that I'm not thinking about sharing it. I'm thinking about the fact that I've got here with it. And I think that's an incredible thing, considering what the prize has meant to me and my literary life. And the fact that it just felt so unattainable for decades. So I'm just absolutely delighted to have the prize and to share the prize.

JM: Author Bernadine Everisto, one of this year's Booker Prize winners. The literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation has called the jury's decision to choose two recipients of the award an "explicit flouting of the rules." Peter Florence was chair of that rule-floating jury. We reached him in London.

CO: Peter the Telegraph has called this the most dramatic act of Booker insurrections since 1976, when Philip Larkin threatened to jump out of the window if his favorite book didn't win, which it did. Did it feel like an act of rebellion when the jury decided this?

PETER FLORENCE: You'd think they're a bit hung up on the melodrama here. I mean, we're not throwing the tea into the harbor. We're not mounting a barricade. We are trying to find a happy solution that everybody can love to a wonderful conundrum: What happens when you get two books you love so much that you want both of them to win a really major book prize? We struggled with this for hours. And we took advice and we were told we could not share the prize. We discussed it more and tried to find other ways of making a decision that wouldn't betray what we felt in our conversations about the books. And we couldn't. And we went back and they sent us back again. And for the third time of asking the wonderful people at Booker very graciously agreed to accept our decision and to let us break their prize rule.

CO: Okay. Just so people understand, you had a shortlist of six books. And then what happens is that the day of the announcement the jury is sequestered and you have to come out of it with one book. That's the rule, right? And so that was yesterday.

PF: That's the rule. You go in at 10 o'clock in the morning and by lunchtime you're supposed to have a decision. Well, we went to the 10 o'clock in the morning and we were still talking at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

CO: And at what point are you expected to actually -- because there is a big awards ceremony, there's a lot of stuff that has to be done. How much pressure were you under by 4 o'clock to produce a winner?

PF: Well there's pressure and there's pressure. You know? Nobody was shooting at us or trying to take our visas away. They were saying, 'please meet our deadline. We've got to prepare a press release. Give us an answer.' And we were saying our answer is that we love both these books. And extraordinarily, actually, the books sit well together. They're both political. They're fully engaged. They're both beautifully...beautifully written. They're both complex and yet they are both page-turning-joyful-read. And they also really importantly, they're doing big things. They're looking at gender issues, race issues. They're looking at what we do in a very troubled world that is about celebration, survival, complicity, resistance, resilience. It's about, I think, an opportunity to say both these books matter hugely and we want to celebrate them both.

CO: Why is it so important to the Booker Prize Foundation that you choose only one?

PF: You know I don't know. I have no idea. I can understand that it might be easier to have one clear winner, but life is more complicated than that. Certainly the richness of this year's submission was more complicated than that. I don't much like binary decisions. I'm British. Why would I? I'm intrigued by the process of celebration here actually. There's a lot of emphasis on exclusion and I'm more of an inclusion enthusiast. And the opportunity to say "two, not one" I think was irresistible.

CO: The director of the foundation, Gaby Wood, said that the jurors effectively staged a sit-in in the judging room and that she says it's not that we accommodated the jury, it's that the jury actively chose to reject the rules.

PF: Well, I mean...you know, the Times called it today "distinction rebellion." It didn't feel like a rebellion. It felt like a solution to an unusual and rather wonderful problem.

CO: Margaret Atwood was saying of her win, she said it would have been quite embarrassing for a person of my age -- she's 79 about to turn 80 -- at this stage to have won the whole thing and thereby hinder a person in an earlier stage of their career from going through that door. I really would have been embarrassed. Trust me on that. She has in the first month of this book "The Testaments" -- I think it sold about 180,000 copies. This book by Bernadine Evaristo has sold just shy of 4,000 before you chose it. Do you think Bernadine Evaristo despite sharing it will be able to get as much limelight as the Booker Prize normally gives to a book?

PF: I hope so. I hope parts of the sharing will be that Margaret Atwood's readers will say a jury said this book should share the prize with "The Testaments" and that must mean it's a good book and we'd like to read it. It's very hard to measure anyone, alive or dead, against Margaret Atwood. There is an honorable tradition of people withdrawing themselves from eligibility for major prizes. I'm really glad that in this case, neither Atwood nor Rushdie chose to do that, because actually if you're trying to gather the greatest contemporary fiction those two people will always be part of that conversation. So I'm glad that it worked out that way. I'm delighted that Evaristo has won. I'm delighted that Atwood has won. Is there equality in all things? No, but there is an opportunity to say you might if you liked that, please consider this of equal quality. I think that's actually rather strong message about quite what Bernardine Evaristo's achievement is.

CO: Peter, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PF: Thank you very much indeed.

JM: Peter Florence was the chair of the panel that chose this year's two Booker Prize winners. He is the director of Britain's Hay Festival for Literature and Arts. And we reached him in London.

[Music]

Part 2: Online election manipulation

Online election manipulation

Guest: Marc Owen Jones

JM: Marc Owen Jones wasn't expecting to get involved in the Canadian election. Professor Jones is an assistant professor at Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar. His research focuses on the online manipulation of politics around the Middle East. But on Sunday, Professor Jones posted a long Twitter thread describing some digging he's done into a hashtag that's driving opposition to Canadian Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. We reached Marc Owen Jones in Doha, Qatar.

CO: Professor Jones, there's nothing in your profile that suggests you have an abiding interest in Canadian politics. So what got you to look into this Twitter hashtag "Trudeau must go?"

MARC OWEN JONES: Because I was following Twitter accounts with "Make America Great" in the biography. And I noticed they were tweeting on a lot of issues from Brexit to Middle East issues and also Canada. And because I was looking at these accounts, it made sense then that I look at why they were talking about Trudeau.

CO: What did you find?

MARC OWEN JONES: Well, I found that there's several thousand accounts that tweet about Trudeau. So even if I don't look at the hashtag, I just look at any account that has mentioned the word Trudeau and I analyze those. I found that most people who talk about Trudeau on Twitter tend to be these "Make America Great" accounts. So the discourse, the conversation, around Trudeau on Twitter seems to be dominated by this group of "Make America Great Again" accounts that tweet on a number of issues. And they tweet a lot. Like a lot of these accounts have maybe 80 to 90-thousand tweets, which would suggest that their sole purpose is to boost these specific discourses.

CO: If people are tweeting 80 or 90-thousand times, either they have nothing to do or they are not people. Right?

MARC OWEN JONES: Yeah, well, I don't want to take that personally. [Laughter] I think I'm only up to 30,000. If they are tweeting that many times, either it's automated or probably more likely it's people who tweet for a living. Because if you're tweeting 90,000 times on multiple issues, then you have to dedicate a lot of your waking life to actually engaging in using Twitter.

CO: You looked at their biographies too -- the biographical data. What did you find?

MARC OWEN JONES: I found that a lot of them have "Make America Great" in the biography. But this often correlates with other keywords such as "Patriot" "Proud" and then a number of other kind of U.S. centric terms like KAG -- which is Keep America Great. And QAnon which was that conspiracy theory that materialized a couple of years ago in the US. So there tends to be this kind of discourse that is not just pro-Trump, but quite alt-right. And if you look into the accounts that tweet in this case about Trudeau, if you look further down the timelines, you will see them tweeting on multiple issues from the Gilets jaunes in Paris, and also issues related to these conspiracy theories. So they're not just tweeting on one issue, which is the strange thing, they're tweeting on like a global amalgamation of kind of right-wing causes, which include things like Brexit. So I think it's very interesting to see the global narrative of these accounts. And what's unusual about this -- you wouldn't necessarily expect your typical Trump supporter maybe living in the Midwest to be keyed into all these kind of pertinent issues, which makes it even more suspicious.

CO: You zero in on one particular tweeter -- Sarah Spencer. Who or what is she?

MARC OWEN JONES: Good question. In some ways Sarah feels very familiar because I've seen so many accounts that resemble her account. So often you'll see Twitter accounts that have a couple of flags next to the handle -- often a U.S. flag, sometimes an English flag, in this case, Canadian flag -- coupled with a couple of lines that again are a familiar like "Make America Great Again." The interesting thing about Sarah -- the reason I saw her account is because when I did a network analysis of all the tweets, she was one of the most vocal accounts and she was surrounded by a network of other people that were retweeting her. But what really was very curious, I've never interacted with Sarah before -- and when I clicked on her accounts, I found that I was blocked, which is very unusual, because if I've never interacted with them, why would she have blocked me? And one of the things that happens, at least we believe to happen with Twitter researchers is that they get put on block lists. So if there is some sort of body of people engaged in this kind of practice of mass tweeting for a particular political cause, they might well have lists of people that they block or are told to block to prevent those people from attempting to analyze their accounts.

CO: At what point do these kinds of hashtags like "Trudeau must go" "Trudeau must go to jail" -- at what point do they start to trend? And people start to think, oh, there must be so many other people who have this point of view.

MARC OWEN JONES: Twitter's algorithm is selective. So if something is constantly trending all the time, it won't show it is trending. But if you look at "Trudeau must go" -- we're looking at every day thousands and thousands of tweets. And it has been the case for the past, probably, two months. Right. So you could make an argument that "Trudeau must go" has been trending for a long time. And even if real legitimate people with verified Twitter accounts stopped using it for a couple of days, you can guarantee that these network of suspicious accounts keep it going. So they will just keep taking along until the time when someone else decides they're going to tweet again about Trudeau and use the hashtag "Trudeau must go." So I think a lot of these networks are suspicious accounts. They keep the kind of fire burning, as it were. But I think the important thing to note is that leading up to this election is that this hashtag doesn't seem to be going away.

CO: But Twitter Canada says they have looked into it and they find no evidence of manipulation.

MARC OWEN JONES: Actually, Twitter Canada were quite circumspect. They said specifically they had no substantial evidence of bots -- that needs to be qualified. Firstly, they say no substantial evidence. So they don't say no evidence. Also bots is a very specific thing. Bots are different from trolls. Bots are more like automated accounts or software. They're easier for Twitter to detect. And Twitter are probably more proactive in getting rid of bots. However, they didn't mention trolls. Now, trolls could be real people working in farms. They could be activists. They could be people paid to politically campaign using Twitter. It's very hard for anyone, including Twitter, to know that a troll account is a troll account.

CO: And do you think these are trolls?

MARC OWEN JONES: I think they're more likely trolls, yeah. If they're bots or AI, they are far more sophisticated. They're very sophisticated and that would be very worrying.

CO: Do you have any sense as to what the objective is of all these bots or trolls? What are they trying to accomplish?

MARC OWEN JONES: Well, I think there's a number of things. I think generally you could say that they're trying to divide society. They're trying to polarize people because you know as we've seen in a lot of issues now with Brexit and certainly the U.S. discourse is people going to one extreme of the spectrum. This creates potential for conflict and instability. So that's one goal. But I think a lot of it is agenda driven. If you look at a lot of these types of troll accounts, you'll see a lot of them for example are anti-climate change. They are kind of climate change skeptics. So you have to think, well who would have a dog in that fight? Is it just general conservative right-wing kind of extreme groups or is it energy companies? Who knows? You know, there's all sorts of actors that could pay a PR company or some entity to engage in and influence campaign with a very specific purpose. So this is the problem with not knowing exactly who's behind them. All we can do is look at the discourse that they produce and deduce things from that discourse to try and determine who might be behind it.

CO: Okay. Well, that's a tall order for anyone trying to engage in this election or engage in politics. But I guess that's what we have to do.

MARC OWEN JONES: It's the future, apparently -- sadly.

CO: Professor Jones, thank you.

MARC OWEN JONES: Thank you very much.

JM: Marc Owen Jones is an assistant professor of digital humanities at Khalifa University in Qatar. We reached him in Doha.

[Music]

Hunter Biden

JM: Tonight, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates will gather in Ohio for their fourth debate. But today, it was the son of one of those candidates in the hot seat: Hunter Biden. The son of former Vice President Joe Biden, gave his first broadcast interview since becoming the focus of attacks by President Donald Trump. Mr. Trump, of course, recently asked the President of Ukraine to launch an investigation into the Bidens, which in turn has led to an impeachment inquiry in the United States. Speaking to ABC News' Amy Robach, the younger Mr. Biden addressed allegations of wrongdoing.

SOUNDCLIP

AMY ROBACH: I want to get to the heart of it. Did you and your father ever discuss Ukraine?

HUNTER BIDEN: No. Only time was after a news account -- and it wasn't a discussion in any way. There's no 'but' to this. No. We never did.

AMY ROBACH: Your dad said, I hope you know what you're doing.

HUNTER BIDEN: Hope you know what you're doing.

AMY ROBACH: And you said I do.

HUNTER BIDEN: I said I do. And that was literally the end of our discussion.

AMY ROBACH: Why?

HUNTER BIDEN: Because my dad was Vice President of the United States. There's literally nothing as a young man or as a full grown adult that my father in some way has not influence over -- as it does not serve either one of us.

AMY ROBACH: When he said, I hope you know what you're doing -- what did he think you were doing?

HUNTER BIDEN: Well he read the press reports that I joined the board of Burisma, which was a Ukrainian natural gas company. And there's been a lot of misinformation about me -- not about my dad. Nobody buys that. But buys this idea that I was unqualified to be on the board.

AMY ROBACH: What were your qualifications to be on the board of Burisma?

HUNTER BIDEN: Well, I was vice chairman of the board of Amtrak for five years. I was the chairman of the board of the U.N. World Food Program. I was a lawyer for Boies Schiller Flexner, one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.

AMY ROBACH: You didn't have any extensive knowledge about natural gas or Ukraine itself though?

HUNTER BIDEN: No, but I think that I had as much knowledge as anybody else who was on the board -- if not more.

AMY ROBACH: In the list you gave me of the reasons why you're on that board, you did not list the fact that you were the son of the Vice President.

HUNTER BIDEN: Of course, yeah.

AMY ROBACH: What role do you think that played?

HUNTER BIDEN: I think that it is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I'm the son of the Vice President of the United States.

AMY ROBACH: You were paid 50,000 dollars a month for your position.

HUNTER BIDEN: Look, I'm a private citizen. One thing that I don't have to do is sit here and open my kimono as it relates to how much money I make -- did or didn't. But it's all been reported.

AMY ROBACH: If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of Burisma?

HUNTER BIDEN: I don't know. I don't know. Probably not. I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life that if my last name wasn't Biden.

AMY ROBACH: I think people are thinking, how could that not have crossed your mind or you wouldn't have felt just a little bit in your gut -- like this might not look right.

HUNTER BIDEN: You know what? I am a human. And you know what -- did I make a mistake? Well, maybe in the grand scheme of things, yeah. But did I make a mistake based upon some unethical lapse? Absolutely not.

JM: That's Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to ABC News.

[Music]

Vans designer

Guest: Naomi So

JM: In an online shoe design contest, Naomi So was leading the pack by leaps and bounds until the shoe company took her out of the running. Last month, the Toronto teenager entered a contest organized by Vans -- the popular California based shoe company. Vans had put out a call to submissions for the coolest custom shoe design. And Naomi's design was a head turner. It featured scenes from protests in Hong Kong. And it garnered more than 200,000 votes. But overnight, those votes disappeared, along with Naomi's design. Critics are wondering whether that has anything to do with politics -- and Vans' booming shoe sales in mainland China. We reached Naomi So in Toronto.

CO: Naomi, first of all, can you describe what your shoe design looks like?

NAOMI SO: So my shoe design is overall black with a yellow tongue for the shoe. And there is a yellow umbrella near the front. And two Bauhinia flowers where the laces are. And on the side, there is a group of Hong Kong people that represents the movement of the anti-extradition law.

CO: You've been following it closely. What's going on in Hong Kong with the umbrella protest, the yellow umbrella and all. That's something that you're connecting to I guess.

NS: Yes.

CO: And what inspired you to make a shoe like that?

NS: So my parents, they've been following the events in Hong Kong and they've always shared videos and pieces of art that were designed by citizens in Hong Kong. So when my brother shared this contest with me, I immediately thought of Hong Kong and wanted to design the events that were taking place. And I made my design to purely express this impactful event in history as I see my role as a designer and a reporter, because reporters use a camera, pen and paper while I use my artwork as a medium to express.

CO: And your parents are from Hong Kong? Is that right? They moved to Canada.

NS: Yep.

CO: And so you submitted your design, your shoe design, to Vans -- this shoe company based in California. And it was an extremely popular entry in the contest. You got 200,000 votes, right?

NS: Yep.

CO: What did you think when you saw that reaction?

NS: I was really surprised and happy that so many people supported me and my design.

CO: At what point did you discover that your entry had been removed from the contest?

NS: So, my friends they had been following along with the votes. And on the fourth day of voting, they told me they're like oh your design isn't on the website anymore. And I was not sure why. So I decided to check. And to my surprise, it wasn't there either. So I decided to email Vans and see what was the reason to why they had taken my design down.

CO: What did they say?

NS: The next day I got an email that said that Vans had no political stance and that they believed my design had a political stance. And that was the reason why they took it down.

CO: They accepted it in the beginning, right? It was up there for enough days to get all those votes. So they saw it, they knew what it was, and they had accepted it. Is that right?

NS: Yep.

CO: What do you think happened in between it being accepted and the time that they took it down? What changed?

NS: Personally, I thought that because there was an article that was released in the morning before it was taken down by business of fashion, and they had said that they tried to contact Vans to see what their next steps were, because if Vans were to produce my shoe they would face the wrath of the China consumers or if they do not produce it then Hong Kong people might not support it.

CO: Critics are pointing out that Vans has a booming sales in mainland China. And do you think that that was the reason? Do you think there are commercial reasons why they removed your entry?

NS: I think they removed my entry in business perspective as China does have a lot of assets to offer.

CO: And what do you think about that?

NS: I think it's understandable from a business perspective. But as a designer, I think it is really unfair because they took my design off which disrespected my freedom of expression.

CO: What are you hearing from Hong Kong? The protesters there were really happy with your design. What are they saying?

NS: Well, they all really wanted it to be produced. And if Vans was not going to produce the shoe then they have manufacturers and people that were willing to produce my shoe.

CO: And will you do that? Will you go with them?

NS: Well, personally, a lot of the people that have contacted me they wanted the money that was made from the shoes to be donated to protesters that were on the front lines. And because my design in the beginning it was made to just project an event and not to choose a side, which is why I would prefer not to decide and take sides on this matter.

CO: But the images on your shoes, the protesters are there -- they're clearly the pro-democracy protesters. How can you say that you haven't taken a side?

NS: Yes, I do support their freedom of expression. But I don't support everything that protesters do because right now protesting has been violent. And in the beginning, when I first made my design, it was very peaceful where it was just to honor the anti-extradition movement.

CO: What do your parents say about all of this and what you should do? What advice are they giving you?

NS: They've just supported whatever decision I will make, but I have not made that decision yet.

CO: All right, Naomi, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

NS: Thank you.

JM: Naomi So lives in Toronto. That's where we reached her.

[Music]

Funeral Prank

JM: It was one of those rare inside jokes that everyone gets. In fact, it was a double inside joke. First, because only a select few family members had the inside scoop that it was even happening. And second, because the guy telling the joke was physically inside something: a coffin. On Saturday, 62-year-old Shay Bradley was laid to rest in Dublin, Ireland. He'd been diagnosed with cancer three years earlier, which gave him a lot of time to think about his family, about his legacy, and about a wildly inappropriate prank he could play on everyone who showed up to pay their final respects. With everyone gathered around the gravesite at the end of the service, they suddenly heard something...something surprising. The voice of the dearly departed.

SOUNDCLIP

[Bagpipes being played]

VOICE: Hello? Hello. [Knocking sound] Let me out! Where the [censor bleep] am I? Hello! Hello! [Knocking sound] Let me out [censor bleep]. [People laughing] Is that the priest I can hear? Let me out! Hello!

[People laughing]

JM: That was Shay Bradley speaking from beyond and within the grave. To clarify, Mr. Bradley is not alive. That was a recording. After a video of his funeral went viral, his daughter Andrea explained that the prank was the ultimate expression of who her late father was. She told the Irish Independent newspaper, quote, "This message was his way to say both goodbye and to let us know 'right, the sadness of today is over. Go and celebrate the life I lived in a joyous way.'" Only a few people knew about the joke beforehand, so it came as a genuine shock before people started laughing. Partly because the joke was funny and partly because it was just like Shay Bradley to throw in one last burial plot twist.

[Music]

Part 3: Dementia and MAID

Dementia and MAID

Guest: Ellen Wiebe

JM: For years, dementia patients have fought for the right to medically assisted death when their condition gets severe. And for years the Alzheimer's Society of Canada has been against that. But not anymore. The non-profit recently changed its stance, saying it will no longer oppose legal changes that would allow dementia patients to consent to the procedure in advance. But the issue is far from settled. A recent Quebec court decision could see advanced directives revisited. Dr. Ellen Wiebe is a long-time advocate for medical assistance in dying -- or MAID. She performed the country's first legal assisted death outside of Quebec. But she says she's against performing the procedure on a late stage dementia patient, even with advanced consent. We reached Dr. Wiebe in Vancouver.

CO: Dr. Wiebe, I know you have administered dozens of medically assisted deaths. So when it comes to someone with the late stages of dementia, what do you think of that prior request that when they get to that stage, they would like to terminate their life?

ELLEN WIEBE: My feeling is that the person who says when I get to the stage where, for example, I don't recognize my family then I want you to end my life. That person is different than the one who is, in fact, in the bed unable to recognize people. It's not the same person. And I mean, we all fear dementia because we don't want to turn into another person. But that's exactly what dementia does. And I will never provide for somebody who doesn't want that provision.

CO: But everybody, once they get closer to death, they are different people, right? We change, we evolve, in all kinds of ways -- not just dementia patients. So what's different about this disease?

EW: Because at that point, they can't ask me to provide and all my other patients do and can. And I need that. I need somebody to say, I want to die now. I'm finished.

CO: There's a patient with dementia in early stages in London, Ontario, Ron Posno, who has been talking about this. And he says that he believes that he would like to have prior consent and be able to have someone administer medically assisted death when he is, quote, "Unable to recognize and respond to family and friends. Frequently experiencing hallucinations, paranoia or acute depression." When he becomes routinely incontinent and is unable to eat, clean or dress himself without assistance. That is when I want it to be over. Can you understand where Ron Posno is coming from?

EW: Oh, of course. I mean, we all don't want to be kept alive past that when we are thinking about it as something abstract in the future. But when I meet people who are in that state -- because I've been a doctor for over 40 years, so I have met many people at the end stage of dementia -- and what I find is that many of them, like my mother before her death, were quite satisfied with their lives, even though there was a time in their life when they would not have been satisfied with someone else taking care of all their bodily functions. If they are not comfortable, so often they are paranoid and they are fearful of somebody hurting them. And very often this is the medical caregivers. So they're afraid, for example, that a doctor would hurt them. And I wouldn't dream of going into a situation like that and providing medically assisted death to somebody who wasn't asking me and knowing what it meant.

CO: So then is it about you?

EW: I guess.

CO: But shouldn't it be about them?

EW: Well, I see that person as a different person than the one who asked for it. So the man you just told me about. I would say at the time when he is no longer recognizing his family, he's a different person. And that person would have to be able to tell me and make me believe that he understood that he wanted his life terminated.

CO: But then there are doctors who would not administer MAID under any conditions. And they have been accused of being selfish -- that they are making it about them and not about the needs of those patients. And so is there a spectrum of saying, I'm not going to do it because I can't?

EW: Well, you know, when I first learned about how to provide assisted dying, I went to the Netherlands. And so I was hearing from people that they must be personally convinced of each case. And I thought to myself, oh, isn't that rather paternalistic? Because, after all, isn't this the person's own choice? And then I realized that when it came to actually pushing a syringe, that I must personally be convinced every single time. So it's not esoteric. It's not theoretical. It's so very real that I must know the person in front of me wants it.

CO: Federal legislation doesn't permit advance requests. But the Quebec court case invalidated parts of our legislation around medical assistance in dying. And it could be we're in a position where this law gets rewritten and that advance requests will be back on the table. What will you say? How will you respond to that?

EW: I would certainly not fight it in any way if that's what our legislators believe we should have. I will accept it, but I won't actually provide in that situation. Every single one of my patients must be able to tell me that that's what they want.

CO: So if the law changes, you will not change?

EW: I am guessing that I would be willing to do it in a situation with a very short timeframe. So, for example, if someone was assessed and approved for MAID and then within a time period, for example, perhaps within 10 days lost the ability because of terminal delirium -- then I would probably say yes if the family was all in agreement, because I would think that they weren't for that reason able to consent. But that there was no reason to think that they had changed in any way.

CO: Dr. Wiebe we will leave it there. A very complex ethical issue. Obviously, we'll keep talking about this, but I appreciate you joining us today.

EW: Thank you.

JM: Dr. Ellen Wiebe is a doctor who performed Canada's first legal medically assisted death outside of Quebec. She's in Vancouver.

[Music]

Chris Hayes

JM: When powerful people hear that journalist Ronan Farrow is publishing a new article, they get tense. After all, Mr. Farrow's investigation into sexual harassment and abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein took the movie mogul down and prompted a global conversation. So when Mr. Farrow called out NBC in his new book "Catch and Kill" for trying to shut down his reporting to protect former Today host Matt Lauer, the network's boss hit back, calling it "false and offensive." Not everyone at NBC feels that way. And last night on his MSNBC show "All In" host Chris Hayes not-so-subtly called out his bosses on national television. Here's what that sounded like.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRIS HAYES: For the last few weeks, as impeachment has dominated both the news and the show, I've been watching with increasing horror and bafflement as the NBA has enforced a kind of silence and speech code on its players and management for fear of offending the Chinese government and Chinese basketball fans. After a single tweet in support of the Hong Kong protesters by Houston Rockets executive the NBA has scrambled to lock down any other signs of criticism of the Chinese government -- hoping to preserve access to an extremely lucrative and growing market for the sport. Now, of course, this kind of shying away from confrontation -- choosing the path of least resistance, quite familiar in the news because it's what so many Republican members of Congress do every day when confronted with the bile, bigotry, and rank corruption, abuse of power or the man who's ahead of their party. But it's important to note that it is not limited to them. In fact, the insidious-destructive force of the path of least resistance is everywhere you look. Heck, I feel the tug of it myself as my own news organization is embroiled in a very public controversy over its conduct. As you've probably seen in his new book "Catch and Kill" my former colleague Ronan Farrow contends that NBC News slow-walked and then ultimately killed his reporting on Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment and assault because it was intimidated by Weinstein and didn't want to cross him. Most distressingly, Farrow suggests NBC News was worried about the allegations of sexual assault and harassment against Matt Lauer coming out as a result of reporting on Weinstein and desperately wanted to avoid that. In Farrow's view he was unable to break through what was effectively a conspiracy of silence from NBC News management. Now, NBC News vigorously denies this account. The president of NBC News, Noah Oppenheim, called Farrow's book a conspiracy theory. In a memo sent out today, citing an internal NBC investigation that concluded that the extremely upsetting allegations against Lauer were not known internally at NBC. NBC has called any suggestion it did no false and offensive. Oppenheim and others have also maintained since Farrow's departure two years ago, the Weinstein story was never broadcast because it lacks sufficient on-the-record sourcing even after NBC supported Farrow's assignment for seven months. One thing, though, is indisputable -- Ronan Farrow walked out of NBC News after working on the Weinstein story and within two months published an incredible article, The New Yorker, that not only won a Pulitzer, but helped trigger a massive social and cultural reckoning that continues to this day. It is the kind of journalism that you want to do as a journalist -- that everyone who works in this business should want to facilitate. Of course, there is a reason it took so long for the true story about Weinstein to be told for the many allegations of him to stay locked in a vault. And that's because time and again, the path of least resistance for those with power was to not cross Weinstein or his army of friends and lawyers. Same goes for the many, many, many other powerful predators that we've come to know about. The path of least resistance is always there, beckoning seductively with an entirely plausible cover story. You've got bigger fish to fry. This is the hill to die on. The story isn't ready. But of course, it's the very ease of that path that makes it the enemy. The kind of work that we as journalists are supposed to do.

JM: That was NBC host Chris Hayes speaking on his show "All In" last night. He was talking about Ronan Farrow's allegations that NBC tried to kill his reporting to protect former Today host Matt Lauer.

[Music]

Personalized drug

Guest: Timothy Yu

JM: Mila is an 8-year-old girl from Colorado with a neurodegenerative condition. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration -- or FDA -- authorized a treatment for her. A drug called "milasen" -- made especially for her. According to The New York Times, it's believed to be the first custom treatment for a genetic disease, which has raised some questions about the ethics of personalized drugs. A report on Mila and milasen was published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Timothy Yu was the senior author of that report. He's also one of Mila's doctors. We reached him in Boston.

CO: Dr. Yu when did Mila's parents first become concerned about her health?

TIMOTHY YU: They told me that they began noticing subtle signs as early as three and a half. They said that she was always a really active and really coordinated girl, but her grandmother was talking to her mother one day and said, Yeah -- oh yeah Mila's a little bit of a clumsy child. That was the first sign that something was a little bit unusual.

CO: And so what changes? What was her quality of life like as far as this disease progressed?

TY: Well, it was actually very subtly impacted at first. So really, at three and a half, it was just fine small things like her toes pointing in a little bit as she walked. But then at age four, she began having trouble reading bedtime books late at night. And at age five she began actually stumbling in a very unusual and repetitive way. And it really wasn't until age six that the seriousness of the regression really set in. She began to lose her -- well her stumbling turned into falling, and then she began to lose her speech and her behavior started to change and her vision rapidly deteriorated that year.

CO: She was diagnosed with what's called Batten disease. Why did you choose the course of looking for an individualized drug -- a drug that would work just for Mila?

TY: To be honest, we actually didn't look to start doing that. And the way that we were drawn into this case was really step by step. We started out actually trying to help the family confirm a diagnosis. You see, she had been diagnosed with this disease because she had symptoms that fit this pattern and some lab testing had suggested that this was likely one of the Batten diseases. But when it came to finding the actual mutation that caused it -- one of the mutations that should have been there was missing. So it was really first an effort to try and solve this puzzle, to confirm that she really had this type of Batten disease that got us engaged with the family. And we ended up finding out that it was a very unusual mutation. And that unusual mutation actually then turned on a light bulb in our head because it was a type of mutation that altered the way the gene was assembled. And looking at that particular type and thinking about what we could possibly do about it, we realized there was an opportunity to try to fix that defect.

CO: So you developed a drug that works for Mila. It's actually called "milasen." It's after her name. What does that tell you about what it takes to deal with a disease like this?

TY: Well, you know, I think that this is a really tough disease and it's a disease that has so few affected patients that it really is very difficult for any company to justify going after making a drug for it.

CO: That was a lot of money for you to do this. Who paid for it?

TY: Well, so this is a research project and this was an effort that had contributions from lots of different parties. The bulk of the research funding did come from Mila's Miracle Foundation -- the family's foundation that they started in support of finding treatments for Batten disease.

CO: And they've raised about 3-million dollars for a variety of research efforts. Is that right?

TY: They did. They did. And I will point out that they raised that money really to try and promote or to try and find and work with scientists to develop a type of gene therapy that was different than actually the effort that we took on.

CO: I guess the concerns people are having are just the questions being raised is that when you develop a drug that can work for a genetic disease like this, that it doesn't benefit many people -- it costs a lot of money, doesn't benefit a large number. And so does it go in the direction of developing a kind of two-tier system where only a small group of people, only handful, could benefit from the work that you've done?

TY: This is the way that I like to think about it -- we were really driven by our patient and taking a look at her needs. Our efforts here were obviously focused to try and find some compassionate solution for a disease that otherwise had no other options. And while there are larger, definitely large, societal issues about the price of drugs especially for rare disease in general, I think that the significance of this case is that it's a proof of concept for a pathway, a method, that could be used to deliver drugs for even diseases where there is as few as one patient who might be eligible. It's a very first attempt. It's a very first marker in this space. And I think that what's important here is the concept. This is a pathway that we think has real potential. And now that we know that it's possible, we can polish it and we can refine it. We can work on efficiencies and we wouldn't have done this if we didn't think that there may be a way to make this really truly cost effective for many other patients.

CO: There are many others who -- not just who have this particular disease, Batten disease, but other diseases that affect only a small group. And they will seek these kinds of treatments. How will the medical system decide who's going to be helped and who won't be?

TY: This is early stage research. And I think that each of these cases has lessons that may inform many others. And early medical work to develop interventions for heart transplants and liver transplants and bone marrow transplants, the investments required to make those types of interventions -- very meaningful interventions, offer both to many patients -- were large. And in the early cases, those investments were done on only a handful of patients. But now we have ways of delivering those kinds of lifesaving therapies to many kids. Now, will they be expensive? No, undoubtedly. Will there come a time when it is within reach and with on par with other services that we provide? That's the whole goal.

CO: Just back to Mila finally. Batten disease is considered to be a fatal disease. Will Mila's health improve?

TY: Neurodegenerative diseases are tough. And in general, the goal as a starting a treatment in a condition like this is to halt the progression of the disease. Now, when we take a look at Mila's case, she is a young girl who still had a lot of vibrancy to her. She had lost a lot. But she also enjoyed a lot of qualities that really gave her as meaningful time with her family -- smiling and laughing in response to songs and interactions and hearing her parent's voice and her favorite tunes and her favorite movies. And so our goal is to preserve as much as that quality of life for her and her family as we can.

CO: And you think you've done that?

TY: We think that we've offered something in this case that has at least slowed the course of her disease. And we're working very closely to make sure we make the most of this opportunity.

CO: All right, Dr. Yu we will leave it there. Thank you.

TY: Thank you very much.

JM: Dr. Yu is an attending physician and researcher at Boston's Children's Hospital. He is the senior author of a report on 'milasen' that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. We reached Dr. Yu in Boston.

[Music]

Prey

JM: "Kill it immediately, then freeze it." That is the advice a fisherman in Gwinnett County, Georgia, likely would have heeded had he heard it when he reeled in a sinister looking fish earlier this month. Instead, he tossed it back in the water. But he was sufficiently struck by its appearance that he snapped a photo of it first. He then contacted Georgia Wildlife Resources and spoke with a state biologist who delivered the grim news, which sparked an official hunt for his catch. He had caught a snakehead fish -- a creature every bit as creepy as its name and aspect suggest. Able to breathe air, the snakehead can exit the water, and slither around like a serpent where it will trade its preferred diet of fish for frogs, lizards and other land based animals. A voracious predator. It's considered highly invasive. And for that reason, it might have made perfect prey for "Prey." "Prey" the pop-up restaurant that is. It opened in Miami in the spring of 2016. And that's when, As It Happens guest host, Helen Mann, spoke with the head chef Bun Lai about the many invasive species featured on the menu -- starting with the "catch of the day" lime fish.

SOUNDCLIP

BUN LAI: Yeah, well, in particular, at "Prey" we're serving lime fish that we shoot ourselves in front of the hotel.

HELEN MANN: You shoot it yourself?

BUN LAI: Yeah. You can't net lime fish that are around coral reefs. You have to get them one by one by a spear gun.

HELEN MANN: A lot of these things are invasive species on your menu, at least some of them. Which invasive items are there that you serve?

BUN LAI: Well, the lime fish that I was just telling you about. A whole bunch of invasive plants such as mugwort, Japanese knotweed.

HELEN MANN: I hate that stuff. You serve knotweed?

BUN LAI: We do. And it's delicious.

HELEN MANN: What do you do with that? Because I tell you, I had a huge fight with knotweed that went on for years in my backyard.

BUN LAI: Did you win it?

HELEN MANN: Yeah. Mostly by paving over part of the backyard. [Laughs].

BUN LAI: Yeah. It's so difficult to beat without pesticides.

HELEN MANN: Yeah. I didn't use pesticides. So what do you do to serve it?

BUN LAI: What we do is we make them into kimchi pickles and we take those pickled Japanese knotweeds and then we batter fry them in whole wheat tempura. And then it comes out as really spicy and tangy and umami-rich knotweed chips. It's amazing.

HELEN MANN: Now you've also got roasted feral pig, is that right?

BUN LAI: It's one of the best meats you'll ever eat.

HELEN MANN: Do you have to convince any of your patrons to give this stuff a try? Are they reticent a little bit?

BUN LAI: Inherently when you're doing something that people aren't used to, not everyone is going to be okay about eating it. The kind of cuisine we have isn't for everybody, especially at the first try.

HELEN MANN: Are there any invasive ingredients that you yourself have tried that you also have rejected and said this just isn't working for me?

BUN LAI: I've had what is called a sea squirt that was kind of shaped like a penis and kind of squirts in your mouth as you eat it. And I just never really got use to it to tell you the truth. And I tried it twice. That's the only thing I can think of.

JM: From March 2016, Chef Bun Lai speaking with Helen Mann about "Prey" his Miami based pop-up restaurant featuring invasive species. And we've reposted the full interview on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

October 15, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode