Speaker 1: Hi, How are you Welcome to the Big Podcast. It
Speaker 1: is Wednesday. Today is the twenty ninth day of October,
Speaker 1: year of Our Lord, twenty twenty five. My name is
Speaker 1: Tom Sullivan. Welcome to the podcast. We have we have
Speaker 1: a lot to go over today. We've got a big
Speaker 1: unveiling of what looks like political games that were being
Speaker 1: played by by the prosecutors at the US Department of
Speaker 1: Justice and the Biden administration. They called it Arctic frost.
Speaker 1: Chuck Grassley is all over that. We've got the president
Speaker 1: doing trade deals. I mean, he goes off to the
Speaker 1: Middle East, he does a bunch of trade deals. He
Speaker 1: goes off to Asia. He's doing a bunch of trade deals.
Speaker 1: And tonight he is tonight our time tomorrow in Asia
Speaker 1: he is meeting with President she. But we'll go over
Speaker 1: some of the trade deals that were cut today. The
Speaker 1: shut down continues. Day twenty nine. The Fed cut interest
Speaker 1: rates exactly as expected, by a quarter of one percent,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, climate change is becoming a
Speaker 1: big deal because Bill Gates, who has yesterday I was
Speaker 1: talking about Gates spent over one point three billion dollars, no,
Speaker 1: three and a half billion dollars and I don't want
Speaker 1: to say down the tubes, but kind of and I
Speaker 1: think he's throwing in the towel and saying no, actually,
Speaker 1: mankind is not going to be wiped out, and if so,
Speaker 1: it was. I mean, if you think about it, you
Speaker 1: go back to some of the climate change people that
Speaker 1: have been out from King Charles, who was Prince Charles
Speaker 1: at the time. But this has been going on for
Speaker 1: thirty years about the demise of Mother Earth and that
Speaker 1: we're all going to die and within five years, ten years,
Speaker 1: and we're still here. So there's a lot to talk
Speaker 1: about that as well. And the economy. Of course, we'll
Speaker 1: go over the economy. Let me start. Let me start
Speaker 1: with some of the trade deals that have been done.
Speaker 1: The President was still in South Korea, but he met
Speaker 1: with the South Korean leader and they they're all doing
Speaker 1: the same thing. He got like the crown jewels as
Speaker 1: a gift. I mean they're massive, amazing jewelry and also
Speaker 1: a crown, so they say there's no king. Well, he
Speaker 1: got himself gold crown from South Korea. But Korea said
Speaker 1: that they were going to invest three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: billion dollars in the United States. We then turned around
Speaker 1: and lowered the auto tariffs for cars coming from South
Speaker 1: Korea to fifteen percent. They were twenty five percent, so
Speaker 1: that gives a better deal. And the semiconductors that they
Speaker 1: make in South Korea are going to have a teriff
Speaker 1: on them similar to the to the to the electronic
Speaker 1: goods that we buy from Taiwan in Japan. Toyota already
Speaker 1: has invested fifty billion dollars in the US with Toyo.
Speaker 1: There's factories in a number of places around the United States,
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollars worth of investments and forty nine dollars
Speaker 1: and employees worked for Toyota here in the US. But
Speaker 1: they're going to add to that. Toyota is going to
Speaker 1: build another ten billion dollars worth of auto plants. And
Speaker 1: let's see, we're going to have a thirty billion dollar
Speaker 1: partnership with Mitsubishi, and we've cut some sort of framework.
Speaker 1: We don't have the agreement, but we've got a framework
Speaker 1: with Japan on rare earth minerals, critical minerals that we want,
Speaker 1: and believe it or not, little old Japan, which is
Speaker 1: not that big, they apparently have some minerals that we want.
Speaker 1: So that is owing on the plane going from Japan
Speaker 1: to South Korea. One of the reporters asked him, so,
Speaker 1: are you going to run for that third term or not?
Speaker 1: And he said no. He said no, I'm not allowed to.
Speaker 1: So I think the whole Steve Bannon thing and present
Speaker 1: Trump they love the dizzyank the chain of people in
Speaker 1: the media. I want to play a clip from an
Speaker 1: interview that Senator Chris Kuns, the Democrat from Delaware, said today.
Speaker 1: He was very concerned about the fact that it looks
Speaker 1: like and he's worried that the president is going to
Speaker 1: allow China to buy and Vidia's super duper latest greatest
Speaker 1: chip called the Blackstone Chip. And well, let me play
Speaker 1: here's Senator Chris kuons.
Speaker 2: Sid and Trump did that interview while he's flying to
Speaker 2: a meeting in Korea where he now is soon with Jijingping.
Speaker 2: And I am alarmed by reports in that press conference
Speaker 2: from President Trump that he is considering allowing in video
Speaker 2: to sell China their most advanced it's called the Blackwell
Speaker 2: and it's twenty times more powerful than the chips he's
Speaker 2: recently allowed China access to. John the defining fight of
Speaker 2: the twenty first century will be who controls artificial intelligence,
Speaker 2: whether it's written and controlled and played out on the
Speaker 2: guidelines of the Chinese Communist Party, which will use it
Speaker 2: to attack our systems through cyber attacks, our military, to
Speaker 2: challenge our economic role and our system or whether artificial
Speaker 2: intelligence reinforces free and open societies. I think it would
Speaker 2: be a tragic mistake for President Trump, in order to
Speaker 2: get some soybean orders out of China to sell them
Speaker 2: these critical cutting edge AI chips.
Speaker 1: So that's Chris Coon's argument, and he's not alone. There's
Speaker 1: been others. Did I say black student's Blackwell Blackwell chip?
Speaker 1: What happened? Go back a few months and the President
Speaker 1: put the kabash on one of and Vidia's best chips
Speaker 1: and then later changed his mind. And the reason why
Speaker 1: was because a lot of people in the world of trade,
Speaker 1: more importantly in the tech world of trade, said, you
Speaker 1: want them to be able to buy in Vidia's best chip,
Speaker 1: don't keep it from them, because if you keep it
Speaker 1: from them, they will steal the technology, they will create
Speaker 1: a chip that is as good, if not better, They
Speaker 1: will figure out how to do it. So instead do
Speaker 1: like what Intel used to do when they were the kingpins.
Speaker 1: Is that Intel became the chip to own. Nothing else
Speaker 1: quite measured up. AMD and all the others tried, but
Speaker 1: as a result, all the competition basically was thwarted by Intel.
Speaker 1: And that's what they're rolling the dice on is that
Speaker 1: if we can let Nvidia just flood the world markets
Speaker 1: with their best equipment, there's nobody else is going to
Speaker 1: be able to compete with them. Nobody's going to take
Speaker 1: the time. Everybody that will want to do anything in
Speaker 1: technology will want the and video chip, not some knockoff
Speaker 1: made by some Chinese tech center, but it would be.
Speaker 1: So that's the reason why I'm assuming that the president
Speaker 1: is going to allow this chip to be sold to
Speaker 1: other people in China. But that's the theory behind it,
Speaker 1: and we'll see how it turns out if in fact
Speaker 1: it is approved. Shut Down day twenty nine. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of bills floating around, a lot of ideas
Speaker 1: trying to figure out how to stop this. And there's
Speaker 1: a bunch of people in Washington that are saying, well,
Speaker 1: why don't we have a bill to pay the military? Okay,
Speaker 1: then why don't we have a bill uh to put
Speaker 1: the money up for the food stamps. Then somebody else well,
Speaker 1: why don't we have a bill to pay the air
Speaker 1: traffic controllers and they're going through these piecemeal bills, and
Speaker 1: Senator John Kennedy explained why he's opposed to that.
Speaker 3: If you start taking the pressure off senators, then then
Speaker 3: that leaves of they shut down will last that much longer.
Speaker 3: And once you start picking and choosing helping this group
Speaker 3: versus that group, I'm willing to consider each on the marriage.
Speaker 3: But you enter a sliper slope.
Speaker 1: The other side of the aisle, Senator John Fetterman, I
Speaker 1: guess he's on the other side of the aisle. He
Speaker 1: also waited on that idea.
Speaker 4: When you have world kitchen feeding you no government workers.
Speaker 4: I mean that that's the absurdity of this, and that's
Speaker 4: why like pay these people open things up. I don't
Speaker 4: know why we're in this doing in this situation.
Speaker 1: So he really didn't have an answer about it other
Speaker 1: than it's a shame. Of course, it's a shame. Senator
Speaker 1: John Thune, who is the leader, the majority leader in
Speaker 1: the Senate, had a long speech that he gave on
Speaker 1: the floor of the Senate today. I wanted to pull
Speaker 1: a little bit of it for you because I thought
Speaker 1: he was very he was very thoughtful about where we
Speaker 1: are with the shutdown.
Speaker 5: What about the forty million Americans that are going to
Speaker 5: not get snap benefits starting on Saturday if the government
Speaker 5: doesn't open up, But every day gets better Corey center Schumer.
Speaker 5: And then of course this last week there was the
Speaker 5: House Democrat whip who said, of course there will be
Speaker 5: families that are going to suffer, but it is one
Speaker 5: of the few leverage times we have. Of course there
Speaker 5: are families that are going to up for.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: True, but it doesn't matter because we got leverage. Then,
Speaker 5: of course we have a third one here one of
Speaker 5: our colleagues here in the Senate, the senator from Delaware,
Speaker 5: who said this in an interview, frankly, this is our
Speaker 5: only moment of leverage. And although a very unpleasant tool
Speaker 5: to use, Yeah, yeah, it's unpleasant. It's unpleasant unless you're
Speaker 5: a Democrat who thinks that this gives you a moment
Speaker 5: of leverage. So unless there be any question about who
Speaker 5: is responsible for shutting the government down, make no mistake
Speaker 5: about it, these guys are the ones who are out
Speaker 5: there bragging about it getting better for us every single day,
Speaker 5: or we have more leverage now.
Speaker 6: This President.
Speaker 4: This has gone on long enough.
Speaker 5: We made it abundantly clear that this is not about
Speaker 5: what the Democrats say it's about it's about the president
Speaker 5: in the White House. This is TDS, this is Trump
Speaker 5: Derangement syndrome on steroids, and they are asking the American
Speaker 5: people to pay the price for that. Thirteen times when
Speaker 5: Biden was present, they had no issues with funding the
Speaker 5: federal government with a clean CR. Now we bring a
Speaker 5: clean non partisan CR. No partisan writers, no policies, Republican
Speaker 5: policies attacked, just funds. The government comes over from the
Speaker 5: House a month ago. Now we put it here just
Speaker 5: asking a handful of Democrats to join us, because as
Speaker 5: we know, it takes sixty in the Senate, and most
Speaker 5: people understand that, I mean, they're trying to ignore the
Speaker 5: fact now that the Republicans have control of Washington, they
Speaker 5: have the House, the Senate, the White House. Anybody who
Speaker 5: follows this knows then in the United States Senate, the rules,
Speaker 5: the procedures, and the Senate by which we operate and
Speaker 5: are governed require sixty vote threshold. So it takes more
Speaker 5: than fifty one, meaning since we have fifty three Republicans,
Speaker 5: it's going to take a handful of Democrats. We've been
Speaker 5: able to generate fifty five votes consistently now thirteen different
Speaker 5: times for funding the government, opening up the government, but
Speaker 5: we need five more.
Speaker 1: Well, I think they're not going to get them until
Speaker 1: after election day, election days next Tuesday, So I don't
Speaker 1: I truly believe that John Thune was right. There is
Speaker 1: an element of Trump arrangements syndrome. They do not want
Speaker 1: to look to their base, the Democrat base, that they
Speaker 1: are cooperating or doing anything that would make Trump be happy.
Speaker 1: So that's part of it. The other part of it,
Speaker 1: and that's going to play a big part on We're
Speaker 1: not going to do anything until after election day because
Speaker 1: we don't want Democrats turning on us like they did
Speaker 1: the last time that Chuck Schumer went along with an
Speaker 1: increase in the debt limit and they excoriated him, and
Speaker 1: he doesn't want that again. Democrats are afraid that Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to turn on them if they do anything
Speaker 1: before election day. So I suspect after next Tuesday, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden presto changeol there will be a solution.
Speaker 1: But meantime, there's forty two million people that are on
Speaker 1: food stamps I've railed about this the last couple of days.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people of that forty two million
Speaker 1: who don't need to be on those food stamps. But
Speaker 1: let's just look at who that is. Of the forty
Speaker 1: two million, seventy three percent are at or below the
Speaker 1: poverty level. And you want to know what the poverty
Speaker 1: level is, Well, the national poverty level is. For someone,
Speaker 1: an individual that makes fifteen thousand, in six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty dollars or less is at the poverty level or below.
Speaker 1: That's one single individual. If it's a family of two,
Speaker 1: it goes up a little bit up to twenty one thousand,
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars at or below is the
Speaker 1: poverty level. Family of three, twenty six thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty dollars, family of four to thirty two thousand,
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars. So those are the poverty levels.
Speaker 1: And seventy three percent of the people that are of
Speaker 1: the forty two million that are on food stamps are
Speaker 1: added below the poverty level. Okay, we can dig into why,
Speaker 1: but regardless, seventy three percent of them are below adder
Speaker 1: below the poverty level. What about the other twenty seven percent,
Speaker 1: Who were they and why are they on this? The
Speaker 1: average benefit, the foodstamp benefit, The average is three hundred
Speaker 1: and three thirty two dollars a month. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: know how much you spend on groceries. Groceries certainly are
Speaker 1: more expensive. That doesn't go very far. But we are
Speaker 1: now at the point in this country where one out
Speaker 1: of every eight people are on food stamps. One out
Speaker 1: of eight. Look around, if you see seven other people,
Speaker 1: one of you is on food stamps, and it's not
Speaker 1: a Republican versus Democrat. There's a lot of food stamps
Speaker 1: in red states. So we'll see what happens. But I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to break before our election day.
Speaker 1: That's just my wild guess. On all of this climate.
Speaker 1: I told you there's a lot of talk about climate.
Speaker 1: That's because Bill Gates all of a sudden is talking
Speaker 1: about the fact that we're going to be just fine,
Speaker 1: and he's taking his money and focusing on helping people
Speaker 1: that are hurting or maybe hungry instead of on we
Speaker 1: have We're going to fix the climate when it comes,
Speaker 1: you know, one hundred years down the road. So let
Speaker 1: me play a montage of a number of people, Al
Speaker 1: Gore and Bernie Sanders a bunch of people in this
Speaker 1: montage about how the climate is so critical. Here's what
Speaker 1: they had to say. Certainly, climate change, we'll make entire
Speaker 1: ecosystems die off. It'll make parts of the world you know,
Speaker 1: impossibly live in.
Speaker 6: It is rushing at us with such speed and force.
Speaker 6: It's completely unprecedented.
Speaker 7: The world is going to end in twelve years if
Speaker 7: we don't address climate change.
Speaker 8: The world that you will be bringing your children up
Speaker 8: in and your grandchildren up in will be increasingly unhealthy
Speaker 8: and un inhabitable.
Speaker 6: It is what we decide now. It will define the
Speaker 6: rest of humanity's future.
Speaker 1: So Kennedy, who will sing, you'll handily save the world,
Speaker 1: she always says, had this reaction to the montage.
Speaker 9: Yes, the sugar Daddy is a little bit fickle on
Speaker 9: this issue, and he is going to be diverting his
Speaker 9: assets to where he sees they are most needed, which
Speaker 9: is essentially preserving life from things like hunger and pests
Speaker 9: and disease. And that was originally the focus of his foundation,
Speaker 9: and then he got hypnotized by these climate hysterics. Unfortunately,
Speaker 9: the rest of the world and for those of us
Speaker 9: who will have to pay higher taxes because of climate
Speaker 9: policy that is driven by these hysterics. People have gotten
Speaker 9: hysteria fatigue, and they've been told since the mid nineties
Speaker 9: the world is going to end. It's like that was
Speaker 9: thirty years ago and we are still here. Our technology
Speaker 9: is getting better, cars are greener, more people have solar
Speaker 9: panels of their own choosing. So when are they going
Speaker 9: to actually admit that things are better now than they were.
Speaker 6: A few decades after.
Speaker 1: So speaking of hunger and food stamps and all these
Speaker 1: other topics about food, I know we've all seen the
Speaker 1: videos of people starving in some god forsaken part of
Speaker 1: the world, Sudan or some other part, But seriously, do
Speaker 1: you see reports about people that are dying in the
Speaker 1: streets of America from hunger. I know there are probably
Speaker 1: people that go to bed at night with that are hungry,
Speaker 1: but we do have food and we do have food programs.
Speaker 1: So again, the pressure is going to ramp up after
Speaker 1: this weekend. But as far as the climate and the
Speaker 1: world's going to come to an end, there's even Bill
Speaker 1: Gates is going I used to think that, but I
Speaker 1: don't anymore. There's Noah Rothmuan from National Review.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is just background radiation.
Speaker 10: As Kennedy said, I was reading up on something that
Speaker 10: had to do with Gaza and you just came across
Speaker 10: this little statement from a United Nations institution that said
Speaker 10: Gaza will be uninhabitable in twenty twenty. It's just like,
Speaker 10: just throw this sort of thing out there, and they
Speaker 10: have no compunction about it and no interest in revisiting
Speaker 10: these claims because no one will ever call them out
Speaker 10: to it. That distant shriek you hear from Bill Gates's
Speaker 10: report is the sound of the activist groups screaming for
Speaker 10: their fundraising. There's been a subrosa schism I think within
Speaker 10: the climate movement that you kind of only know it
Speaker 10: if you're deep within it. There are those who are philanthropists,
Speaker 10: who are anthropocentric, who think that we should seek better
Speaker 10: outcomes for people, and there are misanthropes who advocate the industrialization,
Speaker 10: who say that humanity is really the problem and we
Speaker 10: should be pairing back human comforts and our productivity generally
Speaker 10: in order to save the environment. This really puts the
Speaker 10: thumb on the scale in favor of the philanthropists and
Speaker 10: the altruists and saying, listen, we got to seek better outcome.
Speaker 1: Well, Mannon, who has devoted his life to studying about
Speaker 1: junk science. You're in lomboard. He runs the Copenhagen Consensus,
Speaker 1: and his view of Bill Gates and everybody all of
Speaker 1: a sudden kind of waking up to the fact that
Speaker 1: the Earth is not going to be in peril. Well,
Speaker 1: he has been on that opposition to that for a
Speaker 1: long long time.
Speaker 11: You all the time here whenever there's a hurricane, oh
Speaker 11: see global warming. But that's not how science work. You
Speaker 11: actually have to look at the totality of all the
Speaker 11: hurricanes that have hit the world, and actually we have
Speaker 11: a good measure for that. That's what science does, and
Speaker 11: it tells us right now we have seen activity of
Speaker 11: about eighty two percent of what we normally have. So
Speaker 11: in fact, we've seen less hurricane activity this year than
Speaker 11: we normally see. This is not an extreme year. This
Speaker 11: is just simply NGO's pointing at whatever they can find
Speaker 11: on TV and saying, see, global warning doesn't work here,
Speaker 11: it doesn't work everywhere else. When they point to places
Speaker 11: at burn, but forget that the global statistics say there's
Speaker 11: less burn. We need to look at the global statistics,
Speaker 11: not just whatever is fashionable right now?
Speaker 1: All right, but what about Bill Gates? So he's not
Speaker 1: doing what's fashionable, he's changing his investments completely.
Speaker 11: Well, I think, I mean, I don't know, you have
Speaker 11: to ask him, but I think what he's really doing
Speaker 11: is he's saying, if you look at the science, namely
Speaker 11: the climate economics, they've been telling us for many years
Speaker 11: that yes, there is a problem with climate, but you
Speaker 11: also need to look at what's the cost and what's
Speaker 11: the benefit. And that's exactly what Bill is now saying.
Speaker 11: He's saying, for every dollars back, you need to look
Speaker 11: at where can you do the most good for human welfare.
Speaker 11: And unfortunately, many of the climate policies that people suggest
Speaker 11: will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and do very
Speaker 11: little good. Only one hundred years from now, there's so
Speaker 11: much more good we can do. You know, in Africa,
Speaker 11: not only are they telling us it's what they want
Speaker 11: to focus on, but it's where you can do a
Speaker 11: lot more good on education and nutrition, on disease. These
Speaker 11: are places where you can spend a little dollar, little
Speaker 11: amount of dollars and do an incredible amount of good.
Speaker 1: And that's what Bill Gates was doing on nutrition and
Speaker 1: education and diseased trying to find cures. Spent billions of
Speaker 1: dollars on that too, But he's wasted over three and
Speaker 1: a half a billion dollars of his own individual money.
Speaker 1: And you add up all the money's been spent on
Speaker 1: climate change. Trillions of dollars have been spent on that
Speaker 1: instead of focusing on things like education and disease. One
Speaker 1: group that has spent a huge amount of money is
Speaker 1: the World Bank, and Beyorn talked about that a little bit.
Speaker 11: So they actually say forty four percent of their money
Speaker 11: goes to climate and they're very proud of this. And
Speaker 11: of course, remember the World Bank was instituted to help
Speaker 11: poor people. Instead, we're spending forty four percent on this,
Speaker 11: on things that the poor themselves is saying, this is.
Speaker 6: Not what we want.
Speaker 11: First, we're essentially saying, yeah, I know that your problems
Speaker 11: with poverty, that I know that your kids might be
Speaker 11: dying tonight from easily curable infectious diseases. But you know what,
Speaker 11: We're going to cut carbon emissions instead, which will help
Speaker 11: you a tiny bit in one hundred years. It's really
Speaker 11: really wrong, and we need to stop this. We need
Speaker 11: to get the World Bank and everybody else back to
Speaker 11: basics and back to doing what really works.
Speaker 1: Our old friend Harrietton heard all about this climate story
Speaker 1: and he jumped on it. This is his the results
Speaker 1: of his opponing.
Speaker 8: Really, yeah, I think a lot of people will agree
Speaker 8: with Bill Gates that maybe this wouldn't be the end
Speaker 8: of humanity. And I think, you know, we've been talking
Speaker 8: about climate change now for decades upon decades upon decades,
Speaker 8: and the worry in terms of climate change, simply put,
Speaker 8: hasn't shifted. It has not reached the majority of Americans.
Speaker 8: What are we talking about greatly worried about climate change?
Speaker 8: You go all the way back to nineteen hundred and
Speaker 8: eighty nine, thirty five percent, two forty percent, twenty twenty
Speaker 8: forty six percent, and in twenty twenty five, look at that,
Speaker 8: it's forty percent, the same number as we had twenty
Speaker 8: five years ago, back in twenty two thousand, and then
Speaker 8: only just five points higher than we had back in
Speaker 8: nineteen hundred and eighty nine.
Speaker 6: Really, we've just seen consistency on this issue.
Speaker 8: The bottom line is that the climate change message that
Speaker 8: folks who of course believe that climate change is real
Speaker 8: and is quite worrisome. Simply put, has not really worked
Speaker 8: with the American people. Yeah, it is not anywhere close
Speaker 8: to being the biggest thing that people are worried about.
Speaker 8: What are we talking about here, Well, why don't we
Speaker 8: just talk about top issue facing the US climate change?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 6: I got some numbers for you on the screen right here.
Speaker 8: You don't have to be a mathematical genius to know
Speaker 8: that these numbers are not particularly high. Top issue facing
Speaker 8: Knit States climate change it was three percent and twenty
Speaker 8: twenty one, two percent in average polls in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 8: and this year the average poles two one two. It
Speaker 8: is very very low on the list of priorities. I
Speaker 8: was trying to count it down the Gallup pole, and
Speaker 8: basically it was so low down, you know, I was
Speaker 8: counting all the different iss almost lost trackers like fifteenth
Speaker 8: or twentieth.
Speaker 6: It was just very very low down.
Speaker 8: So the bottom line is, not only are we seeing
Speaker 8: that the number has not really moved over the last
Speaker 8: thirty six years, but in terms of being the top issue,
Speaker 8: it's simply put, has not broken through two percent. There
Speaker 8: are just a ton of things that rank way higher
Speaker 8: in the list of him, look at this climate change
Speaker 8: effect on my home area will be harder to stay here.
Speaker 8: Look in twenty twenty three, it was twenty three percent.
Speaker 8: Look at where we are now seventeen percent. Now, you know,
Speaker 8: these numbers are pretty comparable, but they're pretty comparable on
Speaker 8: the low side. Is what we're talking about here, as
Speaker 8: Americans simply put, just don't think we'll have the type
Speaker 8: of impact that will really change their lives, which again
Speaker 8: goes back to the message that Bill Gates was saying, Right,
Speaker 8: this is not something that's going to be devastating for humanity.
Speaker 8: It's something we can work our way out of a
Speaker 8: lot of Americans agree. And even on this, we're talking
Speaker 8: about just twenty seven percent of Democrats who believe that
Speaker 8: climate change effect to my home area would be harder
Speaker 8: to stay here. So, even on the left wing, where
Speaker 8: you'd expect the climate change message to hit most home,
Speaker 8: it's simply put, is not reaching that type of level
Speaker 8: in terms of the doomsday scenario that Bill Gates is talking.
Speaker 11: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Literally, over the decades, I've watched pauling and you look
Speaker 1: down to what are America's priorities, what are people most
Speaker 1: concerned about? It's always been at or near the bottom.
Speaker 1: So Bill Gates getting I guess, finally getting the message
Speaker 1: that that's not worth his money anymore. He's going elsewhere.
Speaker 1: So the FED held their meeting today and yesterday and today,
Speaker 1: and they came out this afternoon and said exactly what
Speaker 1: people thought they would do. They lowered interest rates by
Speaker 1: a quarter of one percent. So the Fed funds rate
Speaker 1: is now three and three quarters to four percent range.
Speaker 1: I made a few notes from the news conference, but
Speaker 1: basically what j Powell. The news conference was held half
Speaker 1: an hour after they made their announcement always is Jay
Speaker 1: Powell came out and basically what he was talking about
Speaker 1: is that the Federal Reserve. He didn't say this, This
Speaker 1: is my impression the Federal Reserve. Eight major economic reports
Speaker 1: have not been produced this past month, and the FED
Speaker 1: has been basically working blind. Let me go through some
Speaker 1: of the I made notes about what Powell said. So
Speaker 1: they're going to stop doing quantitative tightening, and what that
Speaker 1: means is along with that, that's a way to lower
Speaker 1: interest rates to basically allow the banks to have more
Speaker 1: funds that they can use to lend to people who
Speaker 1: want to command and borrow. There were two members of
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee that dissented. One of
Speaker 1: them was the new guy Miriam who Donald Trump just appointed.
Speaker 1: He wanted a half a percent cut, not a quarter
Speaker 1: of a percent cut. The thing about him, this is
Speaker 1: his second meeting, and so far, even though President Trump
Speaker 1: put him in there to try to be get the
Speaker 1: FED to be more aggressive, he's not getting anybody else
Speaker 1: signing up with his views. Second meeting, second time, he's
Speaker 1: voted for a half percent cut and nobody else went
Speaker 1: along with it. The other person that descended about the
Speaker 1: quarter percent cut was the president of the Kansas City
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve Bank. Schmid wanted no cut whatsoever. So Pale said,
Speaker 1: both hiring and layoffs remain low. The downside risk to
Speaker 1: employment appears to have been increasing in recent months. That
Speaker 1: housing services inflation has been coming down. That inflation from
Speaker 1: other than tariffs is not far away from their two
Speaker 1: percent goal, but that's for things that are not being
Speaker 1: affected by the t tariffs. That the policy that the
Speaker 1: FED has come up with is still fairly restrictive. That
Speaker 1: the modestly restrictive are the words that he used. That
Speaker 1: he brought up twice, the lack of data, the fact, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're blown. They're flying line. They and besides that, some
Speaker 1: of the unemployment reports, remember how they were major revisions.
Speaker 1: This is before the government shut down. He also mentioned
Speaker 1: that a rate cut at their next meeting, which is
Speaker 1: coming up in December, is far from a foregone conclusion,
Speaker 1: though he's not saying we're going to jump on that.
Speaker 1: That higher tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories
Speaker 1: of goods, that there's no risk free path for them
Speaker 1: because they got at tension between their goals of keeping
Speaker 1: the employment strong and keeping in the cost of money low.
Speaker 1: He doesn't think that spending to build data centers is
Speaker 1: especially intrasensitive because there's a lot of money going into that,
Speaker 1: billions of dollars. That the unemployment rate remained low through August,
Speaker 1: and it's consistent, he says, with recent data. That the
Speaker 1: downside risk to employment appears to have been going up
Speaker 1: in recent months, and that job gains have slowed. That
Speaker 1: the economy is expanding at a moderate pace, and this
Speaker 1: is the fascinating part that most economists are scratching their
Speaker 1: head on. The economy is growing, but we're doing it
Speaker 1: with fewer people. The labor market is softening, it the
Speaker 1: economy is expanding. He talked about business investment and equipment
Speaker 1: has continued to expand. He said the activity in the
Speaker 1: housing sector remains weak. People are locked into their low
Speaker 1: mortgages and they're not moving. That the government shut down
Speaker 1: will weigh on the economy if it continues to cyst
Speaker 1: that the rates of treasuries have remained basically unchanged over
Speaker 1: the last couple of months. And it's interesting because a
Speaker 1: lot of headlines lately about big layoffs. Who did we
Speaker 1: get yesterday? Was it? That they're keeping an eye on it,
Speaker 1: But it really comes down to the big companies. It's
Speaker 1: all headline grabbers because the numbers are so big, But
Speaker 1: the smaller companies in this country create eighty percent of
Speaker 1: the jobs. And small business needs lower rates than big
Speaker 1: business does, especially right now. That's at least what every
Speaker 1: survey of small business owners says, we want lower interest rates.
Speaker 6: So J.
Speaker 1: Powell has four more meetings before he is out, and
Speaker 1: so far he's sticking with economic principles to the best
Speaker 1: way that he could possibly do it. But he is
Speaker 1: very cautious, I think overly cautious, but that's him. And
Speaker 1: then what looks like a stink is starting to grow
Speaker 1: from Charles Chuck Rashley, the senior Senator from Iowa. He
Speaker 1: has the trust of whistleblowers, and whistleblowers have come to him.
Speaker 1: We talked about this. He mentioned it about a week
Speaker 1: or two ago something that there was a government program
Speaker 1: in the Department of Justice in the Biden administration called
Speaker 1: Arctic Frost, and what they were doing was they were
Speaker 1: spying on eight different senators, all Republicans, and so Grasty
Speaker 1: uncovered just a little bit more about it today. But
Speaker 1: he's digging into this and I don't know where this
Speaker 1: is going to go.
Speaker 7: A little bit of history before I get to what
Speaker 7: we're releasing today. I started the investigation into Arctic Fraud
Speaker 7: July twenty twenty two based on whistleblower disclosures. Based on
Speaker 7: these disclosures, we know that weaponized taxpayer funded agents and
Speaker 7: prosecutors advanced the investigation. As Arctic Frost advanced, ninety two
Speaker 7: Republican organizations or individuals were targeted, not just Trump, and
Speaker 7: they were added to its scope. And author of that
Speaker 7: targeting list was Special Agent Washin Walder Jareddino. He's the
Speaker 7: same weaponized agent who was involved in other cases against Republicans,
Speaker 7: including Peter Navarro. We've learned Jack Smith secretly obtained phone
Speaker 7: record data from at least eight senators and one congressman.
Speaker 7: I've recently been informed by Verizon that at least eleven
Speaker 7: members with Verizon accounts were affected. That includes a hardline
Speaker 7: for Senator Cruz's office and a staffer sell phone for
Speaker 7: former Senator Leffler At and T inform me. They challenged
Speaker 7: the legal basis for Jack Smith's efforts, and Smith back down.
Speaker 7: So today we're making public new records that I've attained
Speaker 7: through legally protected whistleblower disclosures. One hundred and ninety seven
Speaker 7: subpoenas were issued by Jack Smith and his team. These
Speaker 7: subpoenas were issued to thirty four individuals and one hundred
Speaker 7: and sixty three businesses, including financial institutions, and one of
Speaker 7: the points of contact on many of these subpoenas was
Speaker 7: that person I previously named special Agent Walter gear Dino.
Speaker 7: The subpoena requested records and communications related to over four
Speaker 7: hundred and thirty individual and organizations, all of them appeared
Speaker 7: to be aimed at Republicans. A subpoena to event strategies,
Speaker 7: requested records relating to Turning Point USA and the Republican
Speaker 7: Attorney General's Association. One subpoena to Apple sought records relating
Speaker 7: to Trump and the January sixth prison choir. Earlier this year,
Speaker 7: I obtained emails between and among JP Cooney, one of
Speaker 7: Jack Smith's prosecutors. That email exchange was March twenty twenty
Speaker 7: three about a partisan news article on January six And
Speaker 7: this is what Cooney said in the email. Can we
Speaker 7: do some work to nail down Trump's role in this,
Speaker 7: perhaps with the same process on Ed Henry's LLC just
Speaker 7: the next month, April twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: So he's sniffing out a political weaponization of the FBI
Speaker 1: again again. I know that there was corruption back when
Speaker 1: Jay Edgar Hoover was running things, but this popped up
Speaker 1: when Obama administration they were going after Donald Trump on Russia,
Speaker 1: Russia and Russia. I would have thought that they would
Speaker 1: have learned since then that that obviously blew up in
Speaker 1: their face. And now here we are again. So where
Speaker 1: this is going. Mollie Hemingway from the Federalist has been
Speaker 1: all over this story.
Speaker 12: Yeah, what's so interesting about this is we had in
Speaker 12: the first Trump administration that whole investigation, the Russia collusion hoax,
Speaker 12: where we saw the FBI and members of the DOJ
Speaker 12: acting inappropriately and in a highly political fashion. A lot
Speaker 12: of people have looked at this and said that was
Speaker 12: inappropriate what they did, and it seems like because nobody
Speaker 12: was ever held accountable for that, they did not learn
Speaker 12: their lesson at all, and they went after the Trump
Speaker 12: administration or Trump and people who supported him vociferously post
Speaker 12: twenty twenty election. This is a massive number of people
Speaker 12: that they're looking into here, and a lot of them
Speaker 12: are like the infrastructure of the Republican Party, and so
Speaker 12: it's interesting to learn about this. Attorney General Bill Barr
Speaker 12: had tried to put in protection so that people wouldn't
Speaker 12: engage in these type of overtly political investigations, and it
Speaker 12: appears that they just ran right over those protections and
Speaker 12: decided to do it again. So this is interesting. I
Speaker 12: think we should pay attention to what Senator Grassley is doing.
Speaker 12: He always has the goods. He has a very good
Speaker 12: relationship with whistleblowers, and so when he says something, you
Speaker 12: can kind of take it. And again, this is about
Speaker 12: legally protected activity. They were going after people for their
Speaker 12: own speech on challenging elections, for doing legally protected challenges
Speaker 12: to elections. It was a political cause of one political party,
Speaker 12: the Democrat Party, to fight that type of thing. That's
Speaker 12: an inappropriate thing for the FBI and DOJ to be
Speaker 12: involved in. And so unless something happens to these people, though,
Speaker 12: it will continue the moment they're able to continue. My
Speaker 12: sources inside the FBI say that among the politically politically
Speaker 12: motivated agents, they felt that Walter Giardina was the worst
Speaker 12: of the bunch. He was someone who prosecuted other people
Speaker 12: involved with Trump, like Peter Navarro, and he's frequently showing
Speaker 12: up in council stuff. But just people who know him
Speaker 12: say that he was highly motivated politically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's perfectly legal for Democrats to go after Republicans
Speaker 1: for their views, that the Republicans can go after Democrats
Speaker 1: for their views, but to have the FBI or the
Speaker 1: DOJ involved in it is dirty. Pool Jason Shave's former congressman,
Speaker 1: he's pretty much shocked by it.
Speaker 13: The size and scope of this is just on parallel
Speaker 13: to one hundred and fifty six people that we know of.
Speaker 13: There is a separation of powers in this country. And
Speaker 13: yet what Jack Smith is allegedly doing was just a dragnet.
Speaker 13: What was the predicate to justify such a wide array
Speaker 13: to such a net out there? That is absolutely stunnying.
Speaker 13: I'm glad Senator Grassley's on top of this. He's one
Speaker 13: of the best in the business, best there's ever been
Speaker 13: in terms of oversight. I think the numbers and the
Speaker 13: gravity of what we're going to see are going to
Speaker 13: be absolutely stunning. And how they did this, why they
Speaker 13: did this, It's just not justified. You can't go after
Speaker 13: that many people with what and what charges were there?
Speaker 13: Relatively nothing?
Speaker 1: Yeah, those are those were wire taps on one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty six Republicans, one hundred and ninety six. The
Speaker 1: penis going after their bank records, going to financial institutions
Speaker 1: and getting bank records for the senators and others that
Speaker 1: are active in the Republican Party. I mean, this smells
Speaker 1: pretty bad. So that's what we got for today. Let's
Speaker 1: check Wall Street and see what happened there. So the
Speaker 1: Fed did it expected as expected, and the lowered rates
Speaker 1: by a quarter of a percent. But Wall Street, you know,
Speaker 1: it's the old buy on the rumor, sell on the news. Well,
Speaker 1: they kind of went ho home. The Dow down seventy
Speaker 1: four points off their record high. The Dow at forty
Speaker 1: seven and six thirty two s and P basically flat,
Speaker 1: NASDACK up one hundred and thirty. The price of gold
Speaker 1: it was down sixty nine dollars to below four thousand,
Speaker 1: thirty nine twenty nine for an ounce of gold, and
Speaker 1: oil also pretty much unchanged at sixty dollars for a
Speaker 1: barrel of oil. That's it for today. Thank you for
Speaker 1: coming by. We will be back tomorrow. Hope to see
Speaker 1: you then