Speaker 1: And Hi, Hello, Hi, how are you? Happy Friday to you?
Welcome to the Big Podcast. Today's the fifth day of December,
Year of Our Lord, twenty twenty five. My name is
Tom Sullivan, and man's been busy, busy, busy, busy last
couple of days. Today's no exception. You want to start
with the latest time we had the bomb guy yesterday,
the guy that laid the bombs around Washington, DC five
years almost five years ago January of twenty twenty one,
and uh well the night before or the riot at
the Capitol. So the question that people are asking today
is you know, who is this guy? And everything else?
It's pretty fascinating because he is a very quiet person
who lives He lives at home, mother, sister, father, He
works part time for his father. His father, father is
a bail bondsman and a very quiet, low key guy.
And what I'm searching around for, and I don't have
an answer, is if he'd laid these bombs back in
January fifth and sixth overnight twenty twenty one, has he
done anything since then? It doesn't sound like it sounds
like that was a one time, one and done deal
for him. John Miller, former NYPD looks into the investigation
how they caught this guy.
Speaker 2: And one of the points Bongino made today was there
was no new evidence. Everything that they found that broke
this case had always been available out there. But it
was about putting new people in the investigation, fresh set
of eyes and saying, what questions have we not asked before?
But what they did is they did subpoenas and then
searches through the records of home depot and lows and
people in the Washington Capital area to see who bought
among the twenty two thousand eight inch galvanized pipes, who
were the purchasers of those who brought among the five
hundred thousand threaded end caps for such pipes, also bought
those wow who also purchased the black and red wires
with the little nine volt battery connectors on them were
the white kitchen timers. And then they had to bring
that down to Okay, well, these are all the people
who bought all those things, but what person bought each
one of those things in total, as opposed to plumbers
by pipes, and kitchen people by clocks and so on.
And it came down to just a couple of people
to look at and once they focused on Brian Cole,
they said, okay, so that puts him with all the
bomb components. How do we put him on the scene.
Then subpoenas for telephone cellular tower records show his phone
allegedly pinging that night in the area of both locations.
Then license plate readers come to show allegedly his car
ticking the license plate reader at the South Capitol exit
off of three ninety five. So all of that taken together,
according to the FBI's affidavit, shows that he had each
one of the bomb components, had bought additional equipment common
to bomb making, had had his car near the scene
on the night the bombs were placed, and his phone
pinging around both locations. None of the prevailing motives that
people thought of, which is where well it may have
been an organized distraction to pull resources away so that
the January sixth attack would on the Capitol would go
more smoothly, or that he was a trumper, or that
he was an anti trumper. He seems to be a
bit of a owner who pretty much stayed to himself,
worked in the bail bonds business with his father, who
was a bail bondsman and apparently didn't like politicians in general,
because placing a bomb both at the RNC and the
DNC on the eve of the election count in Congress
was probably one of the rare bipartisan things that happened
in Leushington. But a specific motive has not emerged yet.
It's a highly circumstantial case, but that's a lot of
circumstance it is.
Speaker 1: But the reporting today is that he supposedly told the
police that he planted the bombs because he thought the
twenty twenty election was stolen from Donald Trump. That's the reporting.
I'm kind of waiting to see more on this, but
from what John Miller was talking about, it does appear
that this is a guy because you ask yourself, why
would somebody put a bomb outside the DNC and also
another bomb outside the RNC. But he's not a pro
Trumper anti Trumper, I think what he is. I hate
to say it kind of my attitude about things. I
don't like any of them. I don't like politicians in general. Now,
I'm not going to try and build a bomb about it,
but I mean, I can see there's a lot of
people who look, I know, we are not alone. There's
a lot of people that look with disgust at the
people that think that they're so smart because somebody they
calmed enough people into voting for them to take a
position in high office. But I'm serious. I think he
was an anti establishment guy. He didn't like the establishment. Republicans,
didn't like the establishment. Democrats probably pro Trump mad that
Trump did not win in twenty twenty. And you know,
I'll let you decide whether you think it was stolen
or not. But he may have one more thing that
you know, John was talking about all these little pieces
of evidence that they had to find and now that
today a lot of people are asking the question, why
did the FBI not find anything about this guy over
the last four years. Well, there's a couple of answers.
One of them is Dan Bongino, the deputy director of
the FBI. This has been a big deal with him.
Now he's admitting that he was wrong. When he had
his radio show, he had a conspiracy theory about this,
and it was absolutely wrong. But he now says they
have gone through this with a fine tooth comb and
they've got all this evidence and that the facts are
the facts. He says, I was paid for my opinion before.
Now I'm paid for the facts, and these are the facts.
So he's saying, this really is what happened. So one
of them is Bongino led the charge to go after
this case. Well, what were the what was the FBI
doing the previous four years. Well, I'll tell you what
they were doing. The guy dropped the bombs outside the
DNC and the RNC the night before January sixth. I
don't know if this guy had a clue that the
President was going to meet with people on the on
the wall or any of what was going to happen.
But once all hell broke loose on January sixth, that
kind of took the attention of law enforcement. I mean,
the DOJ under Merrick Garland prosecuted one thousand and six
hundred people because of January sixth. That meant that FBI
agents had to go out and do the investigations and
write up the indictments on these sixteen hundred people. They
were busy. They were busy up to their ears on
prosecuting the people went into the Capitol on January sixth.
I think that's probably the answer why it wasn't solved
during the last four years. So now Trump's pardoned all
those people, so that's done, and the FBI, whatever they
were working on, all those cases are basically tossed in
the trash and now they had time and with Bongino
making this a huge deal, he put the efforts of
the FBI on this case. And one more thing. I
said this yesterday. I still stay with it because of
the huge hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, maybe
more than a million if they had to go through.
They now have AI that I'm sure they used to
go through and match up all this evidence to see
if there was a correlation somewhere in all of that.
US attorney for DC, Janeine Piro, she waited on this
case today as well.
Speaker 3: What I can tell you is that he was always
wearing his headphones. He would take his dog out, he'd
go to the seven eleven. He was very, as you say,
low key, low profile. There wasn't a lot going on.
His closest friends or his family. He lives with his
mom and his sisters. He would go to work for
a few hours a day. His father had a bail bonds,
bail bonds from company, and he was just a very
low key person.
Speaker 1: Streng Jim and the fact that it was a one
and done deal. He has a pair apparently not done
anything since cash Battel also was asked more about it today.
Speaker 4: We looked at three million lines of evidence. We went
back and looked at the cell phone towered data dumps.
We went back and looked at the providers and what
information they provided, pursued to search warrants at the time,
and asked questions such as why weren't all the phone
numbers scrubbed, and why weren't they connected? And why wasn't
there any geolocational data done? Now that is either sheer
incompetence or complete intentional negligence, and neither of which is
acceptable for this fbis Yeah.
Speaker 1: I know that's Cash Btel. I really do think that
they were. They had their arms full of investigations regarding
all the people that were in the capitol on January sixth,
and that probably took well, I know, it took a
lot of time, probably enough to where it made it
hard to focus on this particular case. So we've got
that speaking of bad guys that are behind bars. Fourth
day of wrapping up Luigi and his arrest and the
fact that manager of the McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, where
they caught up with him. They played the nine to
one one call today on what the manager at McDonald's
had to say about turning in and finding Luigi.
Speaker 5: I'm a manager at Clainburg McDonald's dog here the boulevards, okay,
and I have a customer here that some other customer
forced that pessions of that.
Speaker 4: He looks like the CEO shooter New York.
Speaker 1: It is this individual full there.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he's fill in the back of our lobby by
the bathroom. He's wearing a black letter jacket with a
medical mat and a hand khaki colored like being okay.
So they're just really upset and they're like coming to me,
and I was like, well, I can't approach you know, no,
of course, not the only thing.
Speaker 1: He can see. So it goes back to that old
saying about if you see something, say something, But most
people are not willing to do that. And you could
hear the manager of the McDonald's hesitant about what, I
don't mean to bother you, but we've got this guy.
He kind of looks like the guy anyway. So that's
how it all started. So they're going through and I
can't believe it takes as long. Like I said yesterday,
it was one year ago yesterday that Luigi shot and
killed the CEO of United Healthcare on West fifty fourth
Street in Manhattan. And I don't know why this, Why
does it take a year? And they're just now having
pre trial motions to find out what the judge will say,
what can be used in the trial and what can't.
And this has been going on all week. I just
don't understand why the jud the justice system has to
be careful. But man, this is taking a long time.
I want to talk about Let's talk about this vote
that was taken the day. This is the committee that
has been set up to recommend to the CDC vaccine rules.
And the issue that they have been struggling with is
hepatitis B. And hepatitis B they decided back in nineteen
ninety one, so well over what thirty four years ago
they'd said, why don't we give babies when they're born
hepatitis B vaccine? Apparently fairly soon, like right away or
within a couple of days and lot and so people
that are worried about vaccines, one of them being RFK
Junior said, well, why are you doing that? And the
answer is is that you don't know if you have
hepatitis B. In all cases, you can be it's very
highly contagious, but you may not know that you have it. Well,
if a mother is carrying a baby, there's a pretty
good chance that that baby is also going to be
positive for a hepatitis B. It's an interesting vaccine because
again the decision was delayed yesterday. Apparently the paperwork and
the questions it was a complete mess. And these doctors
that were on this committee had no idea. It was
such a mess. They had no idea what they were
voting on. So they decided to scrap it yesterdays. They
voted today to drop the hepatitis BE shot for newborns. Now,
there's about, according to the data, about twenty five thousand
babies born in the US every year to mothers who
have hepatitis B. A lot of people, a lot of mothers,
a lot of people don't know if they have hepati
but it's highly highly infectious. Ninety percent of infants that
are born to mother to a hepatitis B developed chronic
hepatitis B and increases their risk for liver cancer. They've
replaced all seventeen members. He fired all seventeen members of
the vaccine panel. Not a one was kept, so these
are all new people. There's a lot of people are
skeptical now about what the CDC says. I've been skeptical
about them ever since they started changing their rules every
other day during COVID nineteen. A lot of conspiracy theories
out there. So it's a very successful vaccine. It's at
thirty four years of a track record of safety. They
have cut eighteen thousand babies back in nineteen ninety one
that were born with hepatitis be eighteen thousand a year.
It's now down to twenty two zero. That's it. Doctor
Chief Jaw, head of Medical Facility Medical Education at Brown University,
had this descent look.
Speaker 6: Captitis B is transmitted into newborns, one of the major
modes of transmission from moms who might be infected, and
giving vaccines at the time of birth essentially immunizes that
child against developing long term chronic complications like liver failure
liver cancer. So it's an enormously useful thing to do,
and we've been doing it for twenty five years. It's
worked great. Kids think largely don't have hepatitis B in
the US because of it. There's no reason to go
back and revisit this policy at this point, and that's
what ACIP is doing, is revisiting all of these well
established policies in a way that's really just not helpful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the argument is, why are you giving them to
all babies, because not all mothers have hepatitis BE. In fact,
most of them do not. But the problem is is
that there's a lot of moms that don't know they
have hepatitis B, and a lot of these babies that
were being born eighteen thousand a year wound up getting B.
So they do it as a precaution just in case
mom doesn't know that she has hepatitis B. Meg Correll,
who covers all the things regarding vaccines, had this report.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Kate, I.
Speaker 7: Think everybody's kind of trying to figure that out. There
was just a lot of confusion. There was a lot
of disagreement yesterday about the language that they were voting on,
and so as this meeting gets underwagh in just a
couple of minutes from now, behind me, I think there
are questions we've seen new voting language posted on the
CDC's website, So is that the language they're going to
vote on today about whether to change this universal recommendation
for the newborn dose of the hepatitis B vaccine because
there was disagreement even among the committee members themselves about
the language that they should be voting on, and there
was not universal agreement among these members that they should
remove this universal recommendation. However, it doesn't need to be
a unanimous vote. It's really the majority of the members
that will influence the recommendation that then goes to the
CDC Director, who can decide whether to accept it or not.
If the director accepts it, it becomes CDC policy.
Speaker 4: Sokay.
Speaker 7: Just a reminder of how significant a move this would be.
This is a recommendation that's been in place in the
United States since nineteen ninety one, and experts say there's
a more than three decade track record of safety using
this vaccine at birth. It has brought down the number
of hepatitis B infections in kids by orders of magnitude.
And one of the parts of the vote that they
could take today is whether to recommend delaying that birth
dose to at least two months of age if moms
test negative for hepatitis BE and decide not to get
the birth dose. And there has been modeling done to
see what the implications of that would be, and one
study found that delaying the birth dose to at least
two months old would lead to more than fourteen hundred
hepatitis B infections among children every year, more than three
hundred cases of liver cancer, and almost five hundred hepatitis
B virus related deaths. And of course this is a
disease that can be preventable with a vaccine.
Speaker 1: So vaccine world is still very controversial. In RFK is
radically changing a lot of the things that medicine has
has offered. Listen, you can do whatever you want, your choice.
Amy Walter who runs the Cook Political Report, Usually she
talks about politicians and who's ahead and who's behind, But
she was asked about the polling that she has done
and her company has done on this whole business about vaccines.
Speaker 8: And I think, when we think about the MAHA, that
is very good to point out that it does span.
It's not very strictly ideological from a partisan this issue, though,
I think a lot of folks came into it. I've
been talking to folks who've been doing a lot of
political work with some of these voters, people who are
either considered themselves to be part of the Maha movement
or say that they're Maha curious. And when you look
at at them, all of them, what does bind them together,
not surprisingly, is a skepticism of the healthcare system. And
that's understandable. We're all somewhat skeptical of all whether it
is you have your first child and you get all
this information coming at you. What is the CDC think?
What about these pharmaceutical companies? Who's making money off me?
How does the system work? Do I have access? Understandable?
Some of it is about they came in through a
healthy eating and exercise piece of it. But the one
thing that was really interesting about some of the focus
groups that these groups that this group has done is
that even as we say this is very confusing for
a lot of people, there is still trust in actual doctors.
There is still trust in the system itself. So while
they may be skeptical, what a lot of these folks
will do is hear recommendations like this and then go
talk to their doctor about and say I've heard all
of this stuff about the CDC, what do you think
about this? Or here's something that someone says and then
Google it or chat gpt it. So they're not taking
necessarily everything that RFK Junior is saying and making that
part of their.
Speaker 1: Lives, which makes all the sense in the world. The
Political Report, which Amie Walter runs is excellent work, and
I think her point on this is we're not listening
to government medical experts, whether it's the CDC or the
FDA or whatever it might be, we're listening to in
the case of our health, we're listening to our doctors.
You call your doctor up and ask them a question
or her, what do you think about this? So the
vaccine thing, it is, in my estimation, it is full
of all kinds of kooky conspiracy stuff. I think RFK Jr.
Is a weird guy and he's radically changing all of this,
But I don't think it's going to change the world
a lot because, if at all, simply because of the
fact that we have grown to the point where we
don't trust government, and that includes government doctors. So call
your own doctor up about whether or not you need
a vaccine, or you don't need one the drug boats,
So that continues to keep being battered around. What we're
getting out of the drug boats is we're getting is
becoming partisan. If you're a Democrat, you're probably and you
don't like Donald Trump, you're saying this was outrageous. If
you're a Republican and you do like Donald Trump, you
think this made all the sense in the world. Tom
Cotton one of those Republicans who was briefed in the
super secret Senate meeting yesterday, and this is what he
had to say.
Speaker 9: I saw the survivors trying to flip a boat loaded
with drugs down for the United States back over so
they could stay in the fight and potentially given all
the contacts we heard of other narco terrorist boats in
the area coming to their aid to recover their caro
and recover those narco terrorists.
Speaker 1: But then there's a little bit of a montage of
various Democrats in Congress who are looking at this completely different.
Speaker 10: They pay people to do that.
Speaker 11: People on a boat in the middle of the Caribbean
carrying cocaine are not a direct threat to the lives
of our service members or Americans.
Speaker 12: There is no such thing as a narco terrorist. There
are very very bad narcotics people, cartels, et cetera. But
they're desperate to make this look like it's isis or
a la kaita.
Speaker 1: Wow, did you hear that there's no such thing as
a narco terrorist? I think there have been, and there
have been. They've been called narco terrorists for decades of
prove it here in the second But the other part
about the one that said, the one Democrat that said
they're not a threat to the United States, Well, ask
the eighty thousand people who lost loved ones last year,
one hundred thousand the year before that from illegal drugs.
Of course they're a threat. Another whole story about the
people taking the drugs, but the people supplying them are
definitely a threat. Now you want to hear about these
narco terrorists, listen to this guy. This is the guy
that is by the name Senator Joe Biden, September nineteen
eighty nine.
Speaker 10: We think we should do more to stem the flow
of drugs across our borders, and we think we should
go one step further. Let's go after the drug lords
where they live with an international strike force. There must
be no safe haven for these narco terrorists and they
must know it.
Speaker 1: Well, how about that. I agree with Joe Biden was
nineteen eighty nine and he called him narco terrorist. But
why have we not done anything? And it doesn't matter
republ Democrat. We really haven't done a thing to go
after the people that are supplying the drugs. So finally
we are. But there are people that are all upset
about it because there's a guy in the White House
who they don't like. Rick Crawford is the head of
the House Intelligence Committee, the number one guy. This is
his take on what he saw regarding the attack on
that boat back in September. Yeah.
Speaker 11: I think he characterized that pretty accurately. I wouldn't disagree
with his characterization at all. I got the same grief,
and you know, Tom pretty well nailed it. I mean, look,
these are got to remember who we're dealing with here.
Speaker 13: I mean, we're dealing.
Speaker 11: With cartel operatives. They are so vile the things that
they do. You know, say nothing of the fact that
they bring Ulsted drugs in the United States, but their
conduct makes isis look like boy scouts. So I don't
know that we should shed a tear over these strikes.
That are keeping Americans.
Speaker 1: I played this for you yesterday. It's a different version
of a different interview. But Congressman Jim Hines from Connecticut,
who's the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, he sits
next to Crawford, and this was just a reminder he's
all upset about this boat blowing up on that room.
Speaker 13: Was one of the most troubling things I've seen in
my time in public service. Any American who sees the
video that I saw, we'll see the United States military
attacking shipwrecked sailors. Bad guys, bad guys, but attacking shipwrecked sailors.
Now there's a whole set of contextual items of the
admiral explained, Yes, they were carrying groves. They were not
in the position to continue their mission in any way.
Speaker 1: Hmm. He said something about the admiral had contextual items
that he explained. We never really heard what that was
all about. Back to Rick Crawford, the head of the
House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 11: Yeah, this isn't the Stipper and Gilligin on the ss
MENO that we're going on after here. This is these
are hardened drug traffickers.
Speaker 1: That was Look.
Speaker 11: I have the utmost respect for my ranking Member Jim Hines.
But respectfully, you know, we just disagree. We're dealing with
a vile element here, and they were as as my
friend Senator Cotton characterized, they were trying to ripe that ship.
It was still laden with cargo because it was strapped
end of the boat. They were potentially signaling other vessels
in the region. We don't know if they had access
to satcoms or not, but as he characterized, still in
the fight. And this is characteristic of these kinds of
strikes where we hear the term double tap. It's completely
consistent with the same tactics and techniques and procedures that
took place under President Obama's watch when he took strikes
on terrorists, some of which were US persons and or
US citizens. So I didn't I don't recall the outrage
on those strikes when it was the Obama administration exercising.
But we have all this righteous indignation because President Trump
is taking an active role in protecting Americans.
Speaker 1: David shed a name that I did not recall. He
was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. This is
the CIA's brother, if you will, in the military. This
is the intelligence group within the military. He ran the
Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, and they asked
him about blowing up this drug voat.
Speaker 14: My read of that particular hit is that if you
look back on the history post two thousand and one
and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force the
AUMF as it's known applicable to terrorists in terms of
their designation, resulted in the hits that would take out
al Qaeda subsequentle Isis as well and other extremist groups
that were designated under the AUMF in terms of targets,
and as a result, the second tap, as I would
call it, if there was in the term of art,
was squirting. If individuals were running from the vehicle or
running from the cave or wherever the hit took place,
there would be a second strike, perhaps even a third
strike if necessary. It certainly does satisfy me. Although I
will tell you, as a non lawyer, maybe perhaps an
armchair one, I will tell you that getting an opinion
from the Department of Justice in terms of the Legal
Council on what constitutes a target large in terms of
falling under the AUMF, is really a vital step to
be taken in terms of the designation now of FTOS,
foreign terrorist organizations and individuals associated with these drug smuggling
boats that are being targeted now at the twenty second
vessel that has been hit as recently as in the
last twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he broke little news. So there was a drug
boat hit in the Eastern Pacific. This is where the
fentanyl is coming up through the Eastern Pacific up to
the United States or up to Mexico then to the
United States. So all the Caribbean stuff that's going on
apparently is mostly, if not all, cocaine. Affordability, that word
will not go away. It's going to be brought up
over and over and over again Byron York and the
Washington Examiner was asked about affordability and the President going
on the road next week to try to sell his
economic plan.
Speaker 15: Absolutely, after the Biden inflation, the voters elected Trump to
do something about the economy, and we've had pole after
poll after poll that suggests voters don't think Trump has
paid enough attention to it. He hasn't made it his
absolute number one agenda item. So the reason we're seeing
this tour starting next week is because those voters don't
have a lot of faith in what Trump has been
doing about the economy. Now, Trump's economic plans has always
been very very simple. Cut taxes, cut regulation, and make
energy cheaper. And it's a pretty good plan. It works
a lot. So he'll be touting that. The one thing
he can't do on this tour is tell people things
are great for them when they're not. They need to
know what he's going to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was the trap that Joe Biden got into.
They constantly told us, you don't understand you're doing better
than you think you are. And I think we're in
that same boat again where people are going I don't
think so. And yet the economics people are saying, oh,
we've got these great plans and it's going to be
a great twenty twenty six. Ben, I'm going to weigh
in on all of this.
Speaker 16: I think the problem that they have is that they
have short time in terms of the mindset that people
have as voters going into the next election. Effectively, what
we know from prior elections is that people start to
make up their minds on this stuff in the spring,
not in the fall, and they are aware of the
different factors that are hitting their pocketbook at that stage,
I'm not sure that you're going to see the ramifications
of policy here. And I think one of the problems
here is actually the success that Donald Trump had in
his first term. A lot of people thought that re
electing him would automatically lead to an economic turnaround, and
I don't think that they actually had built into their
heads how bad the Biden economy was. And because of that,
I think that there's going to be a lot of
work that needs to be done on the side of
Republicans in order to encourage people and to frankly message
against what they're going to get hit with.
Speaker 1: Here's the guy that's been charged with the messaging, Kevin Hasseid.
He was out on the White House long today talking
about how thanks are going to get better.
Speaker 17: We understand that like if a typical person buying a
home saw their monthly mortgage payment will go up by
more than one thousand dollars, Grocery prices a typical families
grocery bag went from about four hundred dollars to five
hundred and twenty five dollars a month. And so that
all that happened under Joe Biden, and now we're getting
inflation under control. We're getting wage growth to grow again.
People's spending power is up about twelve hundred dollars so
far this year after dropping three thousand dollars under Joe Biden.
It's going to take a little bit more time to
get the whole that Biden dog to be completely filled,
but we're going to do it. We're highly confident we're
going to do it well.
Speaker 1: I hope for all of us that he's right, that
the policies will start kicking in better economics for everybody.
We did get one economic report came out today, consumer
Sentiment Index. There's two of these done. The Conference Board
does one, University of Michigan does the other. This is
the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, and it went up.
It went up from fifty one in November up to
fifty three point three in December. This, however, is YIX.
It went up, but it's near the all time low
that we've seen on consumer sentiments. The sentiment improved a
little bit, but very near historic lows. People are still
concerned over high prices. They asked about inflation expectations, and
people thought that inflation expectations were down for tenth, for
fourth month in a row, so people are thinking inflation
maybe is under control. They expect an inflation rate of
four point one percent versus they thought last month. They
thought the inflation next year will be four point five
So a little bit better. It's still pretty bad. People
still need to get warmed up. So the President is
going down the road Tuesday. He's going over to the
Poconos in Pennsylvania, and that's going to be the start
of him giving speeches on his economic plan and trying
to get people to feel better about it. It will
be interesting to see if he can focus on that
because when he does these kinds of he hasn't done
a real rally sort of appearance in a while, but
you know how he gets going all over the place.
So Wall Street today was also feeling a little bit better. Yesterday.
We had a very slow mixed market today. The Dow
up one hundred and four to forty seven, nine fifty
four s and P up thirteen, NASDAC up seventy three,
so all the major indexes were higher. Price of gold
fell fifteen dollars down to forty two twenty seven, and
oil went up a little bit more. It's back above
sixty up half that forty seven cents today. It wasn't
much to a change, but oil now is sixty dollars
for one barrel of oil. Thank you, thank you, thank
you for coming by. Have a wonderful weekend. We'll be
back on Monday. I hope you are too,