Speaker 1: And hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast
on this Wednesday, the twenty ninth day of April, year
of Our Lord, twenty twenty six. My name is Tom Sullivan.
And well, we have a lot of big personalities that
are making headlines today. One of them is follow up
more or follow up to Jimmy Kimmel and his situation.
We've got James Comy. We told you yesterday, just before
the we've finished recording yesterday that James Comy was being
indicted and was going to be arrested. The Grand Jury
has issued an arrest warrant, so he's back in the
news today. And then today was supposed to be the
last meeting of the FED having Jay Powell as the chairman. Well,
I think that's going to remain, but there's news about
Jay Powell. He's kind of sticking it in Trump's eye
a little bit. So where do you want to start today?
Let's just start with Kimmel. Let's follow up on Kimmel
because I'm in the school. What bothers me is I
don't like big government, and I don't like big government
throwing their weight around, and I feel like that is
what Brendan Carr the head of the Federal Communication Commission.
Don't these people know about the first The first number
in the bill wrights is free speech, yes, and so
it's not only free speech, but it's also just the
big boot of government stepping on anybody. I don't have
to like. I don't care for Jimmy Kim. I don't
know the man. All I know. I don't watch his show.
Not many people do. His readings are terrible. But the
more you insist that you fire somebody. And now Brendan
Carr is going to go after all the licenses of ABC,
and I'm going that's just the big voodhoo government throwing
their weight around, there being big bullies, and I don't
like it. I just don't. So a funny thing happening.
Kimmel apparently played it on his show last night. Yesterday,
with the King of England at the White House, the
President was addressing the people on the South lawn to
the White House, the King and the Queen consort and
the assorted crowd that was there, and he brought up
a story about the fact that he probably wasn't going
to be able to live as long as the Queen
of England and Prince Philip being married for a long Well,
let me let the president tell the story. And then
the reaction.
Speaker 2: They were married for sixty three years, and excuse me
if you don't mind, that's a record. We won't be
able to match, Darling. I'm sorry, just not going to
work out that way. We'll do well, but we're not
going to do that well sixty three years.
Speaker 1: Oh, it was funny. He turned to malowneys that we're
not going to be able to be married sixty three years.
And it brought up the fact that there is a
twenty some year twenty four years I think, yeah, twenty
four year age gap, and that he's going to be
eighty here in just a couple of weeks. So he
brought up all of our eventual demises and made it
kind of funny. Well, Kimble picked up on it quickly.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, did he just make a joke about
his death? You should be fired for that.
Speaker 2: Only Donald Trump would demand I'd be fired for making
a joke about his old age.
Speaker 4: And then a day later go out and make a
joke about his own old day.
Speaker 1: Well, whatever you think about Donald Trump or Jimmy Kimmel,
I thought that was the time, he was impeccable in
any case. David Urban, who's a strategist on the Republican
side of the aisle, weighed in on this whole controversy.
Speaker 5: Yeah, look, I agree with Senator Cruz as despicable as
I find this stuff, right, I mean, I'm not quite
sure who finds people's deaths humorous or like widow jokes humorous.
It's it's just it's in bad taste and just and
just dumb. It's not funny. But I don't want the left.
I don't want the Biden administration or some future Democratic
administration policing speech on the right that they might find reprehensible.
And I don't want the right to police speech that
they find reprehensible on the left. There's loocause. You know,
anyone who's been to law school, first year law student
knows there's a difference between you know, there's certain things
you can do and certain things you can't do.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: You can't go into crowded movie theater and yell fire.
There's certain things that account classifies hate speech. But just
because it's disgusting speech doesn't mean that you can't still
say it. It's reprehensible it's dumb, Jimmy Kimmel's not funny,
but it shouldn't be prohibited by the FCC.
Speaker 1: And he made two really good points. One of them
was there was a tweak that Ted Cruz put out.
And he's a big constitutional guy, and he basically is
saying that he was upset about the fact that the
government is trying to stick their nose into what a
comedian can say and cannot say. I'm with Ted Cruz
on that. And then the second point he made was
we're going to get into this tit for tat stuff
back and forth. Well, the previous administration they did this
to me, so I'm going to do this to them,
and we're going to get back to where someday a
Democrat will be elected president. And do you want them
to come after your favorite conservative comedians. I don't. And
besides that, we all have biases, every one of us.
And I don't want the Federal Communication Commission to go
in and tell Fox News that they have to be
more liberal, nor do I want them to tell whatever
they're called now MS now. I don't want them to
tell them that they have to be more conservative. Do
you decide by by your choices of turning on the
television or turning on the radio, turning on the internet,
and finding out what you want to listen to. That's
more important than anything. So I told you the other
personality today was James Comy. So yesterday we found out
late in the day that there was a two count
indictment on James Comy. Came from Grand Jury in North Carolina.
The first of the felony counts, first of two, threatening
the president of the United States and the second one
transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. And they're related to
the twenty twenty five Instagram photo of seashells that James
Comy said he found on the beach arranged to say
eighty six forty seven again, account one threatening the press
an end of the United States and count two transmitting
a threat in interstate commerce. All right, let's a lot
of people have a variety of things to say about this.
Let's start. Let's go back to David Urban find out
what his take is on this.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so listen. Jim Comby's another gentleman you'll find I
think is incredibly reprehensible. He's a smart man. For him
to say, oh, I didn't realize that forty six eighty
seven might have excuse me, eighty six forty seven might
have some negative connotations to it. Jim Comey is again
similarly reprehensible, terrible, not funny. You don't joke about people's death.
He's a very smart man. He knew exactly what he
was doing. You know, you probably get these over, you know,
emails and things. I get numerous numerous emails that skirt
the border of threatening my life, that say, I hope
you die a slow death, David Urban, I hope your
family suffers. Know what they're doing. They don't cross the line.
I do get some that say I'm gonna hunt you
down and kill you, and those go to the FBI
to be followed up. People are smart, they know what
they can do and what's up, just up against the
line of acceptable and not criminal. Jim Comey is in
that camp of being reprehensible, going up to the line
knowing what's it. Doesn't cross over the line. It doesn't
mean it shouldn't be condemned. Doesn't mean Jimmy Kimmel shouldn't
be condemned. But should it be prosecuted. No, I don't
think it should be. It should be condemned wily by you,
myself and others just like you know, back think about
poor this all started to think. Remember when Sara Huckabee
Sanders got shadowed out of the restaurant in suburban Virginia
and then Maxine Waters said, wherever you see Trump people
go up in former crowd, don't let them out, shout
them out, scare them out. I mean, that's not acceptable.
We shouldn't be doing that. There's a new GOV pull
out recently early last year that says that under forty
five year olds told me to finish forty five year
olds and under on the left think that about twenty
five percent of the thing that the political violence is acceptable.
It's never acceptable. We got to condemn it, always, always, okay.
Speaker 1: So James Colemy got in front of the camera on
his laptop or someplace and gave this response to this
latest indictment.
Speaker 7: Well, they're back, this time about a picture of seashells
on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this
won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed
with me. I'm still innocent, I'm still not afraid, and
I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he says they're back. Tom Dupree is a
former US attorney. Let's see what this reaction is to
all of this.
Speaker 8: Well, it really depends on what Komy does.
Speaker 9: In some cases, you'll see defendants go in very quietly,
they'll submit, they'll sign paperwork, maybe get fingerprinted, and then
leave quickly. On other cases, you'll see the defense want
to make a public statement. Wouldn't surprise me if Comy
used this as an opportunity to speak to the press
along the lines of the statement that he issued overnight,
again proclaiming his innocence, saying he thinks these are politically
driven charges and he's confident that he will prevail. So
Comy has the opportunity to speak to the public, but
he doesn't necessarily have to do it today.
Speaker 1: Well, he showed up at the US Courthouse in Alexandria,
Virginia and went in quietly, did not no, no, They
did not put handcuffs on him, they didn't make him
go through a purp walk, and he didn't say anything.
So it was done quietly in the bowels of the
US Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia. Todd Blanche, the acting U
Attorney General before the media again today and they quizzed
him on did you really want to prosecute James Comy
on this? I mean, is this you being a soldier
for President Trump because you know President Trump wants to
go after James Comy? Is that what you're doing? And oh,
by the way, this reporter found a case where somebody
had put out all kinds of merchandise that was eighty
six forty six, in other words, something that was about
Joe Biden to eighty six forty six, and nobody was prosecuted.
And they were selling all kinds of merchandise on eighty
six forty six. So what are you going to do,
Todd Blanche?
Speaker 10: Will the Justice Department pursue that case? Because they sound
very similar? That's just completely not true. That's not how
a grand jury does this work. They don't just look
at a single image and then say, okay, yes, well
indict or okay, no, we won't indict it.
Speaker 3: They do an investigation.
Speaker 4: This conduct took place in May of last year, May fifteenth.
Speaker 3: It has been almost a year.
Speaker 4: I assure you, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the
US Attorney's Office have not been sitting around doing nothing.
They have been investigating. I have no idea whether there
was an investigation into the other times that that post
has been made, and whether that investigation yielded different results.
This investigation that we undertook resulted in a two count indictment,
so you cannot compare well what happened last time what
happened this time.
Speaker 3: Every investigation is different.
Speaker 1: So the big investigation is going to be interesting to
see because apparently the indictment was all of three pages long,
so it's pretty thin. Don Bacon, former Air Force general
now congressman from Nebraska, was asked about it today.
Speaker 11: I think it's foolish. I don't defend Director Comy for
putting that post out. I thought it was foolish in
his own right for doing it. He took it off
right away. But to prosecute a guy for putting that
post out also seems foolish to me.
Speaker 1: It's overreach.
Speaker 11: I think most Americans we don't like seeing lawfare going
after people's opponents, and I think we've seen it, not
just this administration. We've seen it a few administrations now,
and I just think it's it's not healthy for our country.
Speaker 1: So I think this will be short lived. A judge
will throw it out.
Speaker 11: I'll see any jury do a guilty thing for a
picture like that on our social media.
Speaker 1: Finally, Andrew Turkowski, he's a defense lawyer in Washington, DC.
He was asked all about the James Comby indictment.
Speaker 12: So found probable cause and a grand jury returning an
indictment is a significant and serious event in a criminal prosecution.
But we all know that an indictment and a probable
cause standing is a lot different than a proof beyond
a reasonable doubt standard. And so here we have a
statement eighty six forty seven. Some people interpret that term
eighty six as a threat, a kill threat. Others, including
Merriam Webster Dictionary, says that it isn't actually a violent threat.
The standard here is whether James Comy recklessly disregarded the
idea that this would be taken as a threat. The
information with him is that he's I mean, he's so
deep on the inside, and so did he receive some
sort of briefing. Is there some sort of communication trail
where he recognizes that eighty six has a very violent
or threatening tone to it, where most people or some
people might use that term one way he had that
specific information. It's not in the indictment, it wasn't specifically
said in the briefings that we received, But that I
think is the is the key to saving this from
a First Amendment claim that would essentially have this dismissed.
Speaker 3: At one stage he's in courtant.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's going to be all kinds of motions to
try to get this thing dismissed. And if it does
have to go forward, it would be under the claim
of free speech First Amendment. But I'm watching this. James
call me two point zero the whether it's Letitia James,
whether it's John Bolton, all these various perceived enemies of
the president, and he's going at them. I told you
yesterday he said when he was campaigning he was going
to do retribution and hide it. He advertised it, and
this is retribution. Now will these cases? None of them
seem to hold water when they go to court. So
what is Donald Trump doing? And I'm just going to
take a wild guess, but I believe that what he's
doing is he's taking all the people that put him
through the legal grinder, had him hire lawyers and sit
in courtrooms and testify or not testify whatever it might
be that they made his life miserable, and all the
people that made his life miserable, he's going to make
their life miserable. So I don't know if he thinks
they're actually going to get convicted of these crimes that
are brought up against these various people. I think what
he wants to do is just give them a taste
of what he had to go through, make them hire lawyers,
make them go through the stress of being indicted, make
them go through all the same things he went through.
And I think that's all he's looking for. I don't
think he thinks these are good. Nobody thinks that these
things are gonna hold water in the court. Very few
people do. And I don't think Donald Trump thinks they're
gonna hold water. I think he's just doing this to
make them miserable because they made him miserable. That is
a definition of retribution. All right. One more guy that
the president's been on his back is Jay Powell. And
today the Federal Reserve had their May meeting, and just
to cut through the numbers, the Fed left interest rates
unchanged three and a half percent, Federal funds rate three
and a half to three point seventy five, talked about
developments in Iran are expanding, uncertainty, the jobs market remains
low as far as hiring goes. And it's the first
time since October of nineteen ninety two that there were
four descents on the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee. Four
of the governors voted against, well three of them voted against.
They wanted to maintain rates, They did not want to
lower interest rates. That's three of them. Hammock, Cascari, and
Logan and then Miriam who was appointed by Donald Trump
last year. He has wanted to cut interest rates each
and every meeting that he's been involved with, and there
was no difference today. He wanted to cut rates by
a quarter of a percent. It's interesting, but after the
Fed had their meeting, Jay Powell came out and held
his news conference, and in the news conference he surprised
everybody because his term expires as chairman May fifteenth, so
in two weeks he's out kind of, but there's a
rule in the Federal Reserve that says the chairman can
stay on as a governor of the Federal Reserve Board
until his term expires, which would be January thirty, first
of twenty twenty eight, so another year and a half
and Jay Powell surprised everybody by most chairmen when they're
done with being chairman, they step down. Not Jay Powell.
Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8: It is extremely important not for the people who work
at the FED at any given time, but for the
people that we serve that the FED remain able to
conduct monetary policy in a way that doesn't get pulled
into politics trying to help or hurt any particular politician
or political party. It's critical for the people that we serve.
In terms of when I would leave, I will leave
when I when I think is appropriate to do so.
Was that all your questions or was it?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 13: I just have a follow up, which is, what would
you say to the criticism that by remaining on the board,
you're actually taking a political act and denying President Trump
the majority of the board, which as president he would
have if you left.
Speaker 8: I don't see that at all. And as I mentioned,
you know, I'm literally staying because of the actions that
have been taken. I had long planned to be retiring,
and you know, the things that have happened really in
the last three months of I think left me no
choice but to stay until until I see them through
at least that long.
Speaker 1: So he is not leaving because he wanted to, but
he's not going. He's going to dig his heels in.
He's not leaving because Trump has been on his case
for the last year and giving him really a hard time.
So he's sticking his feet in the ground and holding on.
According to the rules, he can stay until January thirty
first of two thousand and twenty eight. So that was
not a huge surprise, but it was. It's not the normal,
let me put it that way. So he's basically given
thumbing his nose at the president one last time. Kevin
Walsh got approved by the Banking Committee, so now it
needs to go to the full Senate. I'm sure he
will be approved. But with the FOURD descents today, Kevin
Walsh is going to take over a Federal Reserve Board,
Federal Open Market Committee is what it's called. That is
going to be. Usually they just go along with the chairman,
and what they're saying is, no, we're not going to
do that anymore. We are going to be our own
independent Federal Open Market Committee board and so welcome as chairman,
but you're going to have to work to get us
to agree with whatever you want the Fed to do.
But there's your three personalities today. You got Jimmy Kimmel,
You've got James Comy, and then Jay Powell thumbing his
nose at the president. Today. Let's talk about oil and gas,
shall we? The price. I don't know if you've noticed
the prices, but the price of gasoline has fightd I
mean way up. It was. It was kind of topping
out there for a little bit and going down a
couple of cents here, a couple of cents there. Nope,
not anymore. The average the from the Triple A, the
average price for gasoline, the cheap stuff in this country
is up to four dollars and twenty three cents. That's
up a nickel from yesterday. Diesel was unchanged at five
dollars forty six cents. The five states two three, yeah,
five states that are above five dollars average, they're all
on the West coast. State of Washington five dollars fifty
four cents is the average for the cheap stuff. Oregon
five dollars twelve. California is the granddaddy five dollars and
ninety eight cents. That's yeap. Round it to six bucks. Nevada,
you're at five dollars and ten cents. In Hawaii five
dollars and sixty three cents. And I was looking at
the California report by counties. If you're going to Yosemite,
get gas before you go there, because that county that
Yosemite is located in, it's a beautiful national park. Six
dollars and eighty eight cents average price for the cheap
stuff in that county where Yosemite is located. So gas
price is going back up today. Joseph Amato, who is
the top analyst at Newburger, was talking about the stock
market and the oil and gas prices.
Speaker 14: In Middle East politics one of them, or do you
have I mean, say extracise. You have people that know
be We have lots of resources within our firm for sure, right,
and trying to understand how these situations will affect markets. Right,
We're not opining about the political issue per se, but
where it impacts markets is an important element. And what
we've seen actually is earnings have been driving this market higher.
So as much as people are scratching their head saying,
I can't believe we're at all time highs. Well, earnings
are at all time highs. Earnings pre conflict to now
have actually been upgraded in the case of the SP
five hundred, so it shouldn't be that big a surprise.
We expect earnings to be in the double digits for
this quarter and for this year, and even though.
Speaker 1: It Yeah, so that's about stocks, But let's swing over
to what do he thinks about the oil and gas markets?
Are they going to get worse or better? What about
one hundred and five extended one hundred and ten.
Speaker 14: I think the first thing to appreciate is the global
economy is we estimate fifty percent more less energy intensive
than it was back in the early nineties. So that's
an important element one of the reasons why oil is
probably remain more under on the levels that that we
would worry about. We think you have to get to
one fifty to one seventy five for six months plus
to start to see real demand destruction and GDP estimates,
whether it be global or in the US, to come
down a bit. It's again it wouldn't push into recession
territory necessarily, but you'll see in the case of the US,
we estimate probably half a point less GDP growth.
Speaker 1: You're that's saying something you just said one fifty to
one seventy five for six months and still no recession.
He said, No demand destruction. No demand destruction. Demand destruction
is when you pull into the gas station and you
look at the price and you gasp and you say,
that's it. I'm parking the car, we're not going to
we're taking the bus to work, whatever it might be.
You stop buying the product because the price has gotten
so high. And what Joe Almato over at Newburger says
is so far you're still paying the price. You're still
paying those four five six stallar gallon gas prices. There's
no demand destruction.
Speaker 14: He goes on, likely, Yeah, partly because of the energy intensity,
if you will, and and the resilience of the US companies.
You know, they've had to deal with a lot, whether
it's trists, whether it's COVID, companies have proven to be
pretty resilient and have been able to adjust their cost
bases to continue to drive earnings higher. Well, you have
a bunch of central bank meetings this week, right, so
you know, with the FED today, we expect no change.
That's the consensus we do think there'll be a rate
cut or two in the second half of the year
as the labor market continues to grind a bit softer,
where you know, it is shown to be a bit
soft over the course of the last three to six months.
Now the other central banks will tend to be a
bit more hawkish as they're focused more on inflation, whether
it be the BOJ the other day or ECB BOE.
Speaker 1: So he's very bullish on the stock market and he's
watching to see if anybody is going to stop buying
gas at certain prices, but so far it's not happening.
United Arab Emirates has been a member of OPEC forever,
ever since they started back in the nineteen seventies, and
Opek called up, I'm sorry, United Arab Emirates UAE. They
picked up the phone and called Opek yesterday and said,
guess what, we're out. We're going to do our own thing.
We don't need to be part of this group. Amos Hockstein,
who's a Middle East expert, commented on that and just
the whole situation over there.
Speaker 15: Look, it was definitely a huge move by the United
Ab Emirates and it's not a blow to opic in
the sense that will it be able to control right
now the price of oil. It has no effect on
prices today. It is a big deal because it's more
of a political decision and it's a consequence of this war.
The UAE and other Gulf countries are recalibrating their alliances,
their defense postures, their diplomatic relations, and the UA has
been made it very clear we now want to go
to loan. We want to make decisions for ourselves on everything,
how we defend ourselves, who we align with, what our
political decisions are. We're not going to coordinate with others
in a way that restricts our right to move. Because
oil prices are so high and because the straits are closed,
it doesn't actually change anything in the day to day,
but it does have an impact on understanding the future
of the Gulfs well.
Speaker 1: Back at home here in the US Supreme Court came
out today with a decision involving a case out of
Louisiana regarding gerrymandering the redistricting map in Louisiana, and the Court,
on a six to three decision, ruled that the map
that Louisiana had drawn up was unconstitutional. The problem was
the Constitution versus the Voting Rights Act. Voting Rights Act
was passed in nineteen sixty five, with Civil Rights Act
in sixty four, Voting Rights Act in sixty five. Lyndon
Johnson signed it. So it's sixty some years ago they
passed this, and what it said was hey, and mostly
it applied to a handful of Southern states, saying you
have been discriminating against blacks, and you can't do that anymore.
In fact, we're going to have federal monitors monitoring the
way you run your votes in your states. So over
the last sixty five years that has dwindled down to
where they I'm not sure they're even monitoring any states anymore.
But this case, what Louisiana did was they wanted to
make sure that there were at least two congressional districts
in Louisiana that were minority majority districts. In other words,
they were a majority of African Americans that lived in
those districts, so that the African Americans in those districts
would have a better chance of electing an African American.
So that's what they did, and they went back and
they got in trouble for it before they changed it again.
There's about fifteen to twenty other congressional districts besides these
two in Louisiana. The others they're all mostly in the South.
But they wanted to protect the black vote in Louisiana.
And the reason for it is Louisiana has six congressional districts.
The population of Louisiana is thirty three percent black. So
they said, let's see thirty three percent of the six,
that'd be two, so two four six. And they said, well,
let's make sure that two of the districts represent Black
Americans in Louisiana. And the court said, no, you can't
do that, because what you're doing is your drawing lines
based on race, and that's not right. You can't, for example,
go draw a district up that would be all white.
So they shot it down, and a lot of people
are gasping because that basically throws the protections of the
Voting Rights Act as far as some people think. But
I mean, they were trying to get equal representation in
the state of Louisiana and instead they did it based
upon race, and the court said you can't do that.
Here's Shannon Bream talking about it.
Speaker 16: Okay, So this at first plush here is a win
for the plaintiffs who were not black plaintiffs. They were
non minority voters who challenged this decision. These two districts
that were minority majority. Essentially, louis had drawn up districts
and then they were told in a legal battle that
they had not represented black and minority voters sufficiently. They
went back and drew a second district, so they had
two of these minority majority districts. Well, then non black
voters sued and said, this is now violating our rates,
our rights on the basis of race.
Speaker 5: So it looks like this is a six' to three.
Speaker 16: Decision there is one concurrence, here but it looks like
the descent sticks together With Justices, Kagan, sodomayor And. Jackson
but here's what the majority. Says they insane and some
because The Voting Rights act did not Require louisiana to
create an additional majority minority, district no compelling interests justified
the state's use of race and CREATING sb, eight that.
Speaker 3: Was those two new.
Speaker 16: Districts that map is an unconstitutional jerrymander and its use
would violate the plaintiff's constitutional.
Speaker 5: Rights, now this.
Speaker 16: Opinion is almost one hundred pages, long so we're going
three to see if it says something more broadly about
The Voting Rights. Act that had been the fear on
the left that somehow this, decision if it was favorable
for those challenging these, maps that it would somehow do
a big chunk out of The Voting Rights. Act haven't
gotten to language that suggests that. Yet it sounds like
this decision is primarily about what happened In. Louisiana so
we'll keep digging through, this but for right, now it's
a win for those who were challenging these two minority majority.
Speaker 1: Districts so, well let's go To Joey, jackson an old
friend of. Mine he is An African american defense lawyer
here In New York, city AND i wanted to get
the comments From joey and what he thought about.
Speaker 3: This this is.
Speaker 6: A collision between The Voting Rights act and The, constitution
the fourteenth and Fifteenth amendment non discrimination. Clause so there's
a little bit of history here that people need to.
Understand So, louisiana As joey, said has six congressional districts
and about one third of the state's population is. Black,
now after the twenty twenty, Census louisiana drafted a new
congressional map that had one majority black.
Speaker 3: District, now that was challenged under The Voting Rights.
Speaker 6: Act, basically those plaintifs, said, well there should be two
because it's one third of the. State that then went
up and was challenged in the courts and was struck.
Down after, That louisiana went back to the drawing board
and came up with a map that had two majority
black districts and an effort to remedy that that was
then challenged by a different group of. Plaintiffs and now
it ends up at The Supreme.
Speaker 3: Court so which is it going to?
Speaker 6: Be and The Supreme court tells us now that this
two majority black district map is. Unconstitutional it is an
unconstitutional discrimination against based on race In. Louisiana, now this
decision is a six to three. Opinion it is something
we've seen. Before it's the six conservatives in the, majority
it's the three Liberals, Kagan, sotomayora And jackson. Dissenting and
the fundamental question, is, well what happens when you have
a situation like? This The Voting Rights act says you
cannot deny or dilute the votes of any given, Person
but the fourteenth and Fifteen amendments say you cannot discriminate
on the basis of. Race so where you have this
second map Where louise has gone out of its way
to try to draw two of the six districts as
being majority, black is that constitutional or? Not and the
answer is, no it is not constitutional because it discriminates
on the basis of. Race so in that collision between
The Voting Rights act and the fourteenth and Fifteenth, amendment
according to this, decision the fourteenth and Fifteenth amendment do.
Speaker 1: Prevail so here we are almost In, may and like
primaries are underway and there's going to be a bunch
of them coming. Up so what will be the, Impact
LIKE i, said fifteen to twenty maybe twenty five other
congressional districts In southern states mostly will be impacted by this,
decision and so they're going to have to scramble to draw.
Lines in, meantime people running For congress are trying to
figure out what their congressional district even looks. Like so it's,
late but it's going to create all kinds of questions
for Politicians Wall street, Today, well it was a mixed.
Market The dow finished lower by two hundred and eighty
down to forty eight thousand and eight sixty. ONE smb
also down, lower down three. POINTS nasdac did, fine up
a little more than. Nine the price of gold down
fifty bucks to four thousand and five point fifty, seven
and the price of oil once, again it just keeps going,
higher up eight dollars For West Texas. Intermediate that price
for a barrel of oil is now one hundred and
eight dollars a. Barrel that's it for. Today thank you
for coming. By we will be back again tomorrow AND
i hope to see you that