Speaker 1: And welcome.
Speaker 2: Hello, How are you on this Thursday, Today's nineteenth day,
March Year of Our Lord, twoenty twenty six. My name
is Tom Sullivan. And yes, the war, Yes it's still going.
Everybody's asking how long. Nobody knows the answer to that.
Of course, oil and gas prices continuing to go higher.
I think you probably know that from stopping by the
gas station in the last couple of weeks. We are
we've got a hearing on Epstein, remember the Epstein story. Well,
it's still owing, but there's some problems with the hearings
going on in Washington. And then a shaker roue Seesar Chavez,
who was the leader, the founder of the farm Workers
Union in California, is considered to be almost a saintly
it's now. The New York Times wrote an article the
other day about the fact that they spent five years
going back and found out that he was kind of
epstein ish. He molested young girls, underage girls, he molested
adult women. He was a sex maniac apparently, and he's
he is considered to be, like I said, almost a
saint in especially in California, but I presume in the
Hispanic community. So we'll get into a little bit of
that because it's throwing everybody at curve. And we've got
the Save of America Act, which is also still being debated.
Speaker 1: But let's start with the war.
Speaker 2: And the question was Israel bombarded an area that is
the natural gas oil fields that are in Iran and
a huge portion of their revenue. And we've been taking
the position we're not going to mess with your oil
or gas because you need we don't want to destroy
that because when the war is over, we've got to
have that intact for not only for you to survive,
but also for the world oil and gas markets to
be able to know there's a supply coming out of
your country and that that is where the prices will
go back down. So lo and behold Israel. They blasted
the gas fields in Iran that were the kind of
off limits. Donald Trump was asked about it and he
said he is not happy.
Speaker 3: I told him, don't do that, and he won't do that.
We didn't discuss, you know, we do. We're independent, but
get along great. It's coordinated, but on occasion he'll do
something and if I don't like it, and so we're
not doing that anymore.
Speaker 2: So there's a hullabuloo being made of this today because
the President is not happy Israel did it on their own.
The president, you're just heard saying we're working together, We're
doing this together, but wires get crossed from time to time.
But the other part about this is so Israel went
ahead and did the blasting of these oil fields. But
on top of that, this guy Joe Kent, who really
has a history of I want to say, it sounds
like he's an anti semi. He doesn't like Israel, and
neither is Tucker Carlson. And he went on Tucker Carlton's
show and they had a heyday about the fact that
Israel has drawn the US into this war, that they
talked Donald Trump into it, and and and the advisor
to bb Net and Yahoo is a guy by the
name of over Falk. He's a foreign advisor to him.
He said, that's a bunch of baloney. Oh, that's factually wrong, wrong.
Speaker 4: And again, I don't want to speculate about these internal politics.
I've never heard of this Joe Kent guy. And I'm
sure that I'm sure, one hundred percent sure that President
Trump is working for the for the American people. He
made the absolutely correct decision because what Iran was doing,
it was bearing their ballistic missiles underground. They're building it
at record speed. It was an imminent threat. Anybody with
it above average IQ could understand that. And they were digging,
they were they were bearing these missiles under ground to
a point where they would be immune. That's one.
Speaker 1: Two.
Speaker 4: There was high concern that they would attack first, So
we hit them before they hit us, and we're gonna
finish the job.
Speaker 2: That's another part that the media seems to be going
hog wild about is the fact that, well, where was
the immediate threat? Where was the immediate threat? Well, I
don't know how you feel about it, but I'll tell
you that I don't think you can wait for the
first atomic bomb to drop in the in This Time
Square or in Hollywood Boulevard or the Miracle.
Speaker 1: Mile in Chicago.
Speaker 2: I don't think we can wait until all of a
sudden they have a bomb, a nuclear bomb, and they
tossed one or two or many at us. I don't know.
They've been saying death to America for as long as
I can remember. Everybody agreed that they're working diligently to
try to get an atomic bomb that they could throw
it at us.
Speaker 5: Ari.
Speaker 2: I think that is sufficient in my world. But also
this business about trying to create some sort of division
between US and Israel, and again it goes back to
this thing about did Israel drop their bombs on this
gas field and back to over falk saying we've been
dropping bombs, and they've been dropping bombs on the targets
that we've agreed to.
Speaker 4: For the past twenty days, we've been hitting regime targets.
We've been hitting regime targets, and we're degrading the regime's capability.
On the other hand, the regime is targeting civilians, Israeli
civilians and civilians around the Gulf. That's the main difference
between US and this death cult regime in Iran. They
target civilians directly and through their proxies. They've been doing
this for forty seven years. For forty seven years, they've
been saying death to America, death to Israel, and I
think the rational people should believe it. Not only have
they called that, they've killed thousands of Americans, they've killed
thousands of Israelis, and they've slaughtered tens of thousands of
uranium people on the rees of day Iran. We're putting
an end to all of that, and we're creating the
conditions for the Iranian people to do the right thing.
Speaker 2: Usually he's referring to overthrow the regime. That's the ultimate goal. Meantime.
Brett McGirk, who again specialized in National security advisor for
four different presidents about the Middle East, ways in.
Speaker 6: Met this a couple boys. I think, first, it's very
It's troubling if an intel official is not simply stating
exactly what she knows as the facts from the Intel community.
Coming at this as a former consumer of intelligence, if
you're a senior White House official or a senior official,
you never get an assessment there will be an attack
tomorrow three o'clock, or there's a ticking bomb and you
have three hours. You'll get more probabilistic assessments. So Assama
bin Laden declared war in the US in nineteen ninety eight,
was that an imminent threat? Aron's missiles they continue to
increase in capability. The probabilistic say you wait two years,
mister president, you might not actually not be able to
degrade them, because they'll have so many missiles that can
overwhelm any air defense system. You get those kind of assessments.
So there's something too at the end of the day,
is for policymakers to determine what crosses the line for
something in which we have to act upon, and you
can act them anyways, sanctions, military action, whatever. But now,
if it's not a ticking bomb scenario or tomorrow or
do you have a probabilistic if you don't act now,
a year from now, eighteen months from now, mister president,
you might actually have a serious situation. You then have
a long runway, and that gets into where the work
that was not done heading into this. You can build
a coalition, you can do the preconditioning for what you
might be deciding to do.
Speaker 2: So that's a straight answer to me. Yes, it takes time.
If you know that they're trying to build something that
will wipe you out, that will damage you. They've worn
up one side down the other. Want to wipe out
all of Israel, and they certainly wanted to attack us.
Death to America. So if you see that coming, at
what point do you wait till the very last second
or do you start building up some sort of protection.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and even on is the regime still intact? I
think We usually go froment an intel briefer we have
low confidence, or we have moderate confidence, or we have
high confidence, and they have different assessments, and then policymakers
have to kind of weigh the intelligence of other things.
It is a it's an art, it's not a science.
You could have a sudden unraveling of the system, but
then I think you just have a vacuum. I've always
been extremely skeptical, based on my twenty years of experience
spending a year interac early on of any regime change
type objective using the military instrument of power for that objective.
I think the unintended consequences are are always apparent, and
the ability to do that from the air is almost impossible,
and even to do it from the ground, we've seen
what that looks like. So that's one thing that's troubling here.
I think the Allies are pursuing a regime change type operation,
whereas we if you listen to Admiral Cooper, the commander
of Santcam, or you listen to General Kin, our military
objectives are focused on the military industrial base of Iran,
the missiles, the drones, the nuclear the command and control
the navy, and we're kind of going after that now systematically,
and we've now added in the straight up worms.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So his question in mine too is can you do
a regime change using just the air force using air power?
And every military person that I've listened to over the
years has said, no, you have to do boots on
the ground. Well, now we're at that decision point.
Speaker 6: Let just to answer your question, I do not think
using a military military power to try to achieve that
type of political outcome that really opens up a Pandora's
box in my experience.
Speaker 2: So, speaking of looking at this from Afar, we have
been looking at Iran as a danger to our country,
to our city for a long time. Listen to Senator
Marco Rubio, this is eleven years ago on the floor
of the US Senate.
Speaker 7: They're going to build anti access capabilities, rockets capable of
destroying aircraft carriers and ships. Continue to build these swift
boats that are able to come on us, these fast
boats that are able to swarm our naval assets, and
they'll make it harder and harder for US troops to
be in the region. They'll also work with other terrorist
groups in the region. The target American servicemen and women.
They'll alts, will continue to build long range missiles, missiles
capable of reaching the United States, and then at some
point in the near future, when the time is right,
they will build a nuclear weapon. And they will do
so because at that point they will know that they
have become immune, that we will no longer be able
to strike their nuclear program because the price of doing
so will be too high. But I want to be
recorded for history's purposes of nothing else to say that
those of us who opposed this deal understood where it
would lead, and we are making a terrible mistake.
Speaker 2: And that was in response to brother Obama trying to
be friendly and get some sort of treaty and send
them huge planeloads of cash, I mean cash, and so
Mark Rubio was supposed to that said, someday Iron is
going to have the upper hand. We're not going to
be able to stop them. Voila, here we are.
Speaker 6: I mean, I have to say the missiles, I mean,
in twenty fifteen when he's speaking, the missile program was
a conventional missile. They were like scuds. You can launch them,
you don't really know where they're going to land. The
missile program and the ten years hence became what you
call an anti access area aerial denial system. They've got
way more accurate, from hundreds of meters to a kilometer
or two within tens of meters. Their payloads doubled, they
were able to go greater distances, and the arsenal expanded
with Russian and Chinese support. And then they started this
drone program. And you could look at that a few
years ago and say, well, you know a lot of
countries of missile programs, we can contain it. But I
lived through the Houthis and Yemen firing these Iranian missiles
anti shit missiles at US Navy ships going mock four.
Incredible technology, and so the Iranian missile program advanced to
such a degree it's a major major problem. We tried sanctions,
we tried interdictions, we tried almost every tool, and you
really couldn't get at it. And it became a strategic
kind of needle mover because they proliferate the technology to Russia,
which Russia's using in Ukraine. And we saw the attacks
against US and of course the attacks against Israel.
Speaker 2: So they have done very well. Congratulations to the Iranian engineers.
They are smart. They've been able to build a missile
program that went from scuds up to where they have
missiles now that travel at four times the speed of sound.
And on top of that, they're just plain math. They're
building so many missiles that it would be almost impossible
for anybody to take out there. They would have so
much defense capability. We would have very difficult time, if
maybe not possible, to stop them in their efforts to
continue with their heinous ways. So we're handling the military
side of it peace by piece, day by day. At
the briefing this morning, they said that they have hit
seven eight hundred plus targets, they have destroyed forty four
mine laying vessels. What about the regime? So back to
this whole idea. We're doing all that, but you still
how are we going to get the regime changed? Karim
sad Poor from Carnegie is an expert in this area.
Speaker 8: Really is and Israel is killing the pillars of repression
of the running regime. And the question is whether these
are foundational pillars kind of like a game of Djenga,
which ultimately will collapse the system, or are they men
who are easily replaceable. Up until now, we haven't seen
signs that this is a regime that is cracking. This
is a regime really fighting for its life. And when
you look at the collapse of other authoritarian regimes, one
of the key things which is difficult to measure from
Afar is resolve. You know, how much does this regime
want to stay in power? And in the case of
the Lomak Republic of Iran, if they lose power, they
lose their lives, and so that's why you see they've
been demoralized. But there's no signs yet that this is
a regime which is ready to relinquish power. This is
one of the loneliest regimes in the world if you
compare it to the next loiest lonely, yes, strategically lonely,
no real allies in the world. These men oftentimes come
from provincial backgrounds. A lot of them are on international
sanctions lists, so there's no great plan B for them.
They're not even publicly announcing who the replacements are because
they know if they announce those individuals, they put a
bullseye on their back. But we know that this is
a regime with I would say limited capacity at the
top levels, limited human capital.
Speaker 2: I think he was trying to imply that they're not
the brightest or the best, but that's all. That's it.
They come from a very close knit area and they
don't have any other way out of this. If they
don't win, they die, So they have to win in
their mind, and they have no allies, none whatsoever. That's
why you call them the loneliest regime out there. But
what about the big uprising by the people?
Speaker 8: It could We don't know yet because as of now,
the people of Iran are really observers here. They're not
yet participants. You know, they're under bombardment. Question is when
that bombing stops, are people going to see an opportunity
to mobilize or is the regime going to continue to
have its fingers on the trigger and be willing to
kill tens of thousands.
Speaker 2: So it's a big gamble for the people. Do they
step up and try and take back. They tried it
three four weeks ago and thirty thousand of them were
mowed down. They have no problem doing that. So now
what's the math? How many people does it take to
stand up?
Speaker 8: Indeed, on paper, those men exist, and you know it's
a country of ninety million people. So even if you
only have let's say fifteen percent of that population of
the adult population, that's still in the low millions of people.
But question is, at some point do these folks say,
you know what, we've reached the dead end and we
don't want to put our lives on the line. But
as I said, they don't have anywhere else to go.
And their mentality right now is killer, be killed.
Speaker 2: Sadly, that's it. Kill or be killed. That's the mentality.
Becca Hindrich, who worked for the Hudson Institute, that's her
area of study, and see what she has to say today.
Speaker 9: I think that the United States is working very hand
in glove with the Israelis about targeting, and so I
expect exspect. This is one of those instances in which
the United States knew the Israelis would do this actually,
but we were not participating in it. It was a
limited strike, and it's meant to do what I said
in the last time I just spoke, which is it's
militari it's military coercion over energy markets. So the United
States and israel Is saying we don't want to destroy
your ability to produce oil and gas, and this particular
field data is really important because it provides seventy to
eighty percent of energy to the Iranian people. And our
war is not with the Iranian people. But we want
to say to the regime we have the ability to
do this, we don't want to do it. But by
the way, the Iranians have been attacking oil and gas
infrastructure against the Saudis, the Qataris, the Emiradis, and so
this is not the first time, but it is the
Israelis responding saying, look, we can do this too.
Speaker 6: You don't want to play this game.
Speaker 9: So I think that the first of all, to keep
in perspective, we were only in three weeks into this war.
I mean wars can it can? It would still if
it was a year long war, that would still be
a very short war terms of the length and duration
that these things can go. I don't think it's going
to be that. I still believe that it's going to
be short. But we want to make sure that we
win the peace on terms that are good for the
American people. We are already dramatically safer than we were
three weeks ago, four weeks ago before this war started,
but we really do need to get our allies on side.
President Trump has used a lot of vinegar in diplomacy
with our allies. We've got to use some honey now
because we do need them. It'd be great to have
a coalition to help us open that straight. And by
the way, Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries, small countries, they're
the kings when it comes to mind sweeping. They've got
more capabilities than we do. So we need to get
some allies on side to get this thing done. But
I do believe the Iranians are on their back foot
and we're going to be in a better place I
think in the coming months.
Speaker 2: Well, I hope she's right. She's smart lady, and that's
what she studies. And it does appear that militarily we
are trouncing them, but at the same time, they're still
able to fire missiles and drunes. They're not done, and
they're trying as hard as they possibly can. So what
about the oil and gas fields and what about the
oil and gas markets? Fred Kempey is analyst in the
oil business. See what he has to say.
Speaker 10: So both things are true that you just said, which
is that you can't cut and run. You have to
finish this mission or you're going to head up in
the worst of all worlds. And the longer it goes on,
the more energy prices are going to go up. There
are really two wars going on. One is Israel and
the United States on the Iranian regime, and the other
is the Iranian regime's war on the global economy. What's
changed is because of all of these attacks on Iran's
golf neighbors, the golf neighbors agree with the President of
the United States that one can't cut and run, can't
one can't reward Iran for being the destabilizing factor. It's
again become at a time when it's at the weakest
point it's been in the last forty years in terms
of its military cape abilities, it's proxies, it's nuclear capability.
So I think you're going to see a real tension
here between the growing rise in oil prices, uncertainties after
the strikes of the last twenty four hours on the
natural gas fields, and the conviction I'm part of not
just the United States but the Gulf that one can't
let her on get away with us.
Speaker 2: So the President meantime is politically very desperate to find
a way to get oil and gas prices lower. But
Fred Kempy doesn't think that he's looking for a way
out of this war that takes priority over the price
of gas.
Speaker 10: I don't think he's looking for an off wrap. I
think as long as the Straits before Moves are blocked,
and they're not really closed, they're just blocked, no ship
or feels particularly safe going through, whether or not you
have insurance. But as long as it's blocked, I don't
think Donald Trump is going to stop his attacks on Iran.
It's a really high stakes game of chicken, and the
feeling is the more targets that the US can hit,
the closer we come to a point where one can open,
at least to a certain extent of the Straits before
Moves and where Iran is going to have to back down.
But what you're seeing is something that one didn't want
to happen, which is Iran ratcheting up. Whether or not
the President knew about the Israeli attack on the gas field,
which was then followed by the Iranian attack on the
Katari part of the gas field, that's certainly where things
where things have ratcheted up to right now.
Speaker 2: You mentioned the Katari part of the field. The Katari
and Iranian gas fields are geologically the same that summer
just on one side of the border's line and the
others are on the other side of the line of
the border between the two countries. But that's yeah, So
Israel attack the gas fields on the Iranian side. Iranians
attacked the gas fields from the same geological foundation on
the Qatari side. So that portrays the fact that the
Iranians are also getting desperate, and the question is how
desperate are they?
Speaker 10: Well, I think you have to watch the Iran side
of this. I don't think the president is going to
back off at this moment. There are two to three weeks,
although there are people in his administration that that perhaps
one needs to because of domestic political issues, But I
don't think he's going to. So you've got two to
three weeks. We hear from senior military officials, two to
three weeks worth of targets yet to hit in Iran.
If the straits remain essentially closed for five or six weeks,
you could see Brent going up to one hundred and
fifty dollars. That really does get into global recession territory.
If it hangs on for that period of time, and
so it really is a question of can they hit
another over time in Iran that the Iranian calculus ends.
Let's not forget there are three key officials that were
killed this week by Israeli attacks in Iran. So the
pressure continues on Iran, and my bet would be over
time this will end. That will go through a more
difficult time, prices will go up some, but in the
end Iran is so weak that something will give at
one point or another. You won't end the war, but
you'll get the war to a situation where the disruption
is such that it's manageable and you can start running
the world economy again. But we certainly didn't go into
this thinking we were going to be in threat of
global recession, and I think we really have to look
at that and see that as a real possibility.
Speaker 2: You heard right, he's using the R word, the recession word.
So Scott Bessant, Treasury Secretary, trying to be creative, is
now talking about not sanctioning anybody buying Iran's oil try
and keep the price of the global price of oil
under some sort of control.
Speaker 5: The Iranians had been pushing out that would have all
gone to China. In essence, we will be using the
Iranian barrels against the Iranians to keep the price down
for the next ten or fourteen days as we continue
this campaign. So we have lots of believers. We've got
plenty more that we can do. The largest coordinated spr
release in history, four hundred million barrels was approved last
week and some countries are going to do more.
Speaker 2: And that was nice. But did the price go down, No,
it keeps going up. So I don't know about this
using Iranian oil, taking the sanctions off so that the
price of oil doesn't go out of control, doesn't spike up.
But you know they want to try it. We'll see
what happens. Wish them nothing but success, but I have
my doubts. Meantime, in other news, you've got the Epstein
hearing very weird. Yesterday late evening there was a hearing
the Oversight Committee had and they brought in Pam Bondy
and Todd Blanche, the number one and number two people
in the Justice Department. And instead of asking them questions,
the Democrats, not all of them, some of them on
the committee threw a hissy fit and literally would not
ask a single question of the number one and number
two person from the DOJ. They were right there in
front of them, and instead they just gave speeches and
a couple of them demanded television cameras. That's what they wanted,
was television so they could do their performance. The committee chairman,
James Comer is just shaking his head.
Speaker 11: It's a briefing and it's different. But would the Democrats say, oh,
there's a cover up, there's a cover up that we'll
talk about it, talk about ask it. There was not
one question from the Democrat. There were from Republicans, and
obviously the Democrats had someone secretly tape recording that in
there because reporters were going into great detail about, you know,
the conversation that I had with Summer Lee and all
of that. So, uh, that's a violation of the rules too,
but I don't care. I stand by what I said.
And uh, it's unfortunate to the Democrats that they they
displayed a gross lack of seriousness. That's very concerning moving forward.
Speaker 2: So they're going to try it again, But at this
point it was basically of farce and in that category
of Epstein says our Chavez. I told you at the
top of the podcast. I mean he is literally at
a level of almost saying in especially the Hispanic community,
especially in California. He was the founder of the United
farm Workers Union. And there are people shocked to find out.
New York Times wrote a lengthy piece after a five
year investigation that he was sexually attacking women that worked
for him, but also underage girls, so very much along
the Epstein line. And there's nothing, no, nobody, nobody can
stick up for Sazar Chavez. I mean in California alone,
since I lived there for a long time I'm familiar with.
There are plazas named after him, there are statues of him,
there are streets and buildings named after him. There's a
statewide holiday it's coming up at the end of the
month in California. And even Governor Gavin Newsom was holding
a news conference yesterday for something else. On the reporter,
of course, brought up these accusations about says Oar Chavez
in the California state holiday.
Speaker 9: Would you consider changing the holiday name to reflect the
movement instead.
Speaker 12: Of the yeah, look I would, yeah, no, I appreciate,
and look, yeah, I'm oping. Obviously these are brand new conversations.
So we're having conversations in a very public way right now,
but those are important conversations. I think we need to
have those conversations. I think that's the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, it just hit me. That was very
much a Kamala Harris answer. When you don't know what
to say, you say, let's have a conversation about it.
That's what she used to do. She used to do
that all the time. Well, I think we should have
a conversation about that. Well what about this controversial topic. Well,
I think we should have a conversation about that. So
that's what Gavin Newsom just did. Senator Alex Padilla, who
is one one of the senators from California, was asked
about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well I appreciate the question, Jake. And look, yes,
we're gonna rework that piece of legislation, not just for
the name and the title of the legislation, but the
substance of it as well, to better reflect the form
worker movements as it pretends to today's reports that we've
all read in the New York Times, image just saying
it is heartbreaking, these horrific accounts of abuse and so yes,
first and foremost, Like so many of us, we stand
with the victims. They deserve to be heard, they deserve
to be supported, they deserve to be treated with dignity
and respect. We have to demand accountability whenever there's an
instance of exploitation, a piece of minors, the stuff that
we're learning about in real time. And I think the
best way to honor the formworker movement and the values
that it represents, the justice and dignity for all, is
to not shy away from these very painful conversation that
we're having in real time across the country, but to
also lean in to the true values of the movement
and the med accountability whenever we showed these instances of abuse.
Speaker 2: I don't know how they're going to demand accountability. The
man died twelve years ago, so they can't. No, they
can't drag him out of the grave. But that is
at least he had an answer. It was pablom, but
he had all the right words in there about you know,
we're gonna oh, this is terrible. Even involves Dorothea Werte,
who was the co founder of the United farm Workers Union,
and she's a very elderly lady now but she's still
with us, and she said that he raped her twice,
So it's an ugly story. Matthew Garcia wrote a book
about the well out Chavez and Wuerta and the starting
of the United Farmworkers Union. This is his reaction.
Speaker 13: Yeah, during the nineteen seventies, when the Farmaker's movement had
gained so much first contracts for field workers and an
Agricultural Labor Relations Act that allowed them to have collective
bargaining rights, Caesar took his eye off the goal. He
wanted to build an intentional community at Lapause, the headquarters,
and he moved to purge people that he saw as
people that betrayed the movement and betrayed him. And I
think those aggressive behaviors now we see it in a
wider light that it also involved victims, very young victims
in this case girls and Dolores. Yeah, I documented an
extramarital affair that apparently, I'm told, shook loose some repress
memories of the victims. It came forth in a closed
Facebook list that people talk about. The asked and then
they were forced to put it down. But there was
enough people that saw it that they wanted to blow
the whistle, and they reached out to me, and I
facilitated the communication with Manny and Sarah at the New
York Times, and then I helped Manny and Sarah over
the five years that it took for them to do
their tremendous reporting. I understand their desire to get this right,
but I think it's really important for them to take
a beat and step back. They created a confidential channel
for other victims to come forward, and I think we're
at the level where if someone did experience something with Caesar,
it's something that should be reported to authorities. At this point,
I'm really wondering about the victims and what legal recourses
they have, and how they might given the changing statutes
of limitations on prosecuting, you know, these kinds of abuses,
how might they get recompense from the enablers or the
perpetrators or the profiteers. We've seen this in Epstein, and
I wonder if we will see it here.
Speaker 2: It's very Epstein is ish, isn't it? Where the question
is are there our neighborhoods, Because again, Sayzarshav has died
in two thousand and thirteen, so you're not going to
get him. But were there other people that were helping
him get these women and the especially the underage girls.
It's also not I hate to be so brash about it,
but I mean Epstein, powerful billionaire, pushed his way around
to get underage girls and women. Look at John F.
Kennedy was famous for the trysts that he had on
a regular basis, even when he was in the White House.
Bobby Kennedy, same Martin Luther King. They documented a number
of affairs, not underage girls, but affairs. So these are powerful,
powerful men that take their power into areas that they
should not have gone. So this says our Chavez story.
Like you heard from Gavin Newsom, he was it was
flat foot. He didn't know what to say. He did
not know we need to have a conversation about it.
That's all he could come up with. So this this
is just the beginning. So Wall Street today was like
we've been experiencing the roller coaster. Today was a down day.
Speaker 1: It was.
Speaker 2: It was down in a number of ways though. The
Dow down two hundred three at forty six thousand and
twenty one. So I believe that brings us back to
below where we started the year, down two hundred three
to forty six thousand and twenty one, the SMP down eighteen.
But there's also some technical problems with this. This is
puts the S and P five hundred below its two
hundred day moving average, and yeah, that is a bad
technical sign. Nazdack down sixty one. The price of gold
fell two hundred and forty four dollars down to four thousand,
six point fifty one, and oil down a dollar today.
There's a difference between This is West Texas I always
give you because that's the benchmark for the US Brent
brent Is indexes over one hundred, was over one hundred
and sixty day, but the West Texas Intermediate Crew the
US prices if you will, down a dollar to ninety
five dollars and some change for a barrel of oil.
Well that's it for today. Thank you for coming by.
We will be back again tomorrow. I hope to see
you that
Speaker 10: Ass