Speaker 1: And here we go. Welcome to the Big Podcast. Today
is Thursday, the twenty first day of August year, ball
Lord twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. So
a lot of some breaking news today. We've got the
Appellate Court in New York has ruled in favor of
Donald Trump regarding the five hundred plus million dollar fine
that he was assessed in the case that Letitia James
brought against him and the Trump organization regarding bank loans
that they She accused them of overstating the value of
the real estate and he got bank loans to provide
for buying or running whatever he was using the money
for for these real estate projects. And the case always
was a weird one because there are no victims. There was.
The banks made the loans. They obviously do their own
due diligence. They don't make loans without double trip, especially
big multimillion dollar loans, without sending their appraisal staff and
real estate experts out to make sure that the security
is there for making the loan. So banks made loans
to the Trump organization and they got paid back with
interest according to the term to the loan. The banks
did not lose any money. They obviously again did their
due diligence to make sure that it wasn't. They weren't
going to rely upon just what Donald Trump told him
the value of the property was. They were going to
do their own value. They made the loans, they got
a profit, they made, they got paid back with interest.
So that whole case has always been weird. But he lost.
He lost in a New York court and as a result,
the original fine was three hundred and some million dollars.
The judge really laid it on thick and that also
accrued interest. So today it's over five hundred million dollars
that Donald Trump and the Trump Organization owe to the
State of New York. So long and behold. The appellate
court took a look at it, and they disagreed with
each other, the judges on the appellate Court, but they
came to the conclusion about the penalty was way too excessive.
Here is a legal reporter breaking the news today when
the appellate court came out with their decision.
Speaker 2: This is a huge win for President Donald Trump. A
New York appeals court five member panels have agreed to
throw out the nearly half a billion dollar judgment again
the president. This was from the case brought by a
New York Attorney General, Letitia James. Now this is a
three hundred and twenty three page opinion. The judges remarkably
could not reach unanimity on any one opinion, and they
note that this was there were profound disagreements in how
they were analyzing this, but enough of them they had
agreed to this so that the case could move forward
to the next stage, where they expect it will be
appealed further. But this decision does say that the judgment
the nearly half a billion dollars is thrown out. You'll
remember that Trump had posted one hundred and seventy five
million dollar bond that will be given back to him
at some point. But that was a real significant judgment
against the president. At the time he was facing the
criminal charges, it was unclear if he would be able
to raise the money. But now that is no longer
a concern. That judgment is against him has been thrown out. Now,
this opinion did affirm the liability in the case, which
found him liable for fraud. But again the judges here
were not unanimous and how they felt that this should
play out one judge wanted a new trial, others saying
that that's impractical because Trump is the president of the
United States. So they are expecting there to be further
litigation on this. But the headline here is that Trump
is no longer liable for half a billion dollars. They
do the judges here do expect this to be appealed.
We've reached out to the New York Attorney General's Office,
have not heard back. Have also reached out to Trump's
legal team, have not heard back from them yet about
what their next steps here will be. But it is
likely the Attorney General's Office will appeal this, so the
litigation will continue. But a significant decision here throwing out
the half a billion dollar judgment that was facing the
president and his two adult sons, So for now that
is now off the table as this case continues to
play out.
Speaker 1: So this is the result of the appellate court taking
It's been one year that they have been working on
trying to figure out what the answer is. And like
the reporter said that the decision about civil was not change.
It was the penalty that was thrown out and now
Leticia James will probably appeal this up to the top
appellate court in New York State, and so he'll still
be subject to judges in New York. But it's right
it at the tippy top level of this obviously was
a big win for the President. Ellie Hoenig, who was
a former federal prosecutor. He hangs out mostly on the
left side of the aisle, but this is his reaction.
Speaker 3: I have been skeptical of the Attorney General's case for
a long time. I'm on record saying that this is
a huge win for Donald Trump anyway you cut it,
and this is a stinging rebuke to the Attorney General,
Letitia James. The finding here, it's a very long, complicated ruling,
but the bottom line is while the finding of liability
against Donald Trump can stand for now, at least the
damages award, which started at three hundred and fifty million
dollars with interest, gets up close to five hundred million dollars.
That is thrown out. And the core reason for that ruling,
according to the judges, is essentially that there was not
enough of a showing here that there were actual victims,
and just to refresh people's memories, this is the civil
fraud lawsuit brought by the Attorney General. The core allegation
is that Donald Trump habitually overvalued his own assets when
he was trying to get bank loans from banks and
other lenders. And essentially the argument that Donald Trump made
below that has now had resonance in the appeals court
is you're talking about very sophisticated quote unquote victims. These
are billion dollar banks that made the loans, got repaid
on the loans by Donald Trump with interest, and actually
profited to the tune of millions of dollars. So it's
not the typical type of fraud case where you have
somebody stealing money from other people or ripping off unknowing consumers.
So this ruling by the appeals court is monumental. It
was also very unusual in that it took them nearly
a year to reach this decision. The next step is
going to be to go up to the highest or
in the state, the Court of Appeals in New York State.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's from a kind of hangs out on the
left side of the lawyer. Let's go to a guy
who hangs out on the right side of the aisle,
and that's Andy McCarthy. Here's his reaction.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that Trump may be ultimately completely exonerated
on this. For now, the penalty goes. There was division
in the appeals court about the merits of the underlying
suit what they found basically under an Eighth Amendment theory,
that's the amendment that prohibits full and unusual punishments. There
was such a mismatch between whatever wrong was actually established
in the trial and the outrageous penalty that was imposed
for it, which was I think three hundred and fifty
five million, which with interest and other costs is already
up to about five hundred and thirty million now because
it's continued to accruve for a while. That was such
a ridiculous mismatch between what the penalty was and whatever
the wrong was that was established, that that had to go.
The court is leaving in place some other what they
call injunctive rulings that were made by the court. So
some things have to be sorted out, like how much
monitoring Trump's organization is going to be under. But he's
out from under the most important part of the case obviously,
and I think there could still be an appeal to
the highest appeals court in New York, the Court of
Appeals where they will deal with the question that seems
to have vexed the appellate division, which is the whole
merits of the case, and whether Leticia James, the Attorney
General in New York State, should have been able to
use a consumer protection statute that had never been used
in this way to try to establish a fraud case
based on sophisticated financial actors, where you know, this is
not a situation that a consumer protection statute was ever
meant to apply. She lost, But I think Trump is
president because of law fair and I think this was
just one It was a big part of it, but
it was just one part of an overarching campaign in
which Trump actually won sympathy from even people who weren't
particularly sympathetic to him to begin with, but who saw
this could be done to him, It could be done
to anyone.
Speaker 1: There's another name that should be included in this as well,
as far as somebody who overstated everything in this case,
and that was the judge Juan Marshon ed Mershon. He
has a relative, I believe that was very active in
the Democrat Party. He should have recused himself, but he
obviously had an ax to grind on Donald Trump. He's
the one who came up with the three hundred and
fifty million plus interest fine. So that will be interesting
to see when it gets to the top court. In
New York state, the top court is an appellate court.
The Supreme Court is actually a lower court in the
state of New York. I know it's backwards, so this
is probably going to go up to the top court.
What Andy mentioned also the fact that this was lawfair
and because of the four indictments against Donald Trump's citizen,
he thinks, and I think a lot of people do
think that that actually did help Donald Trump. So the
backlash was there. The efforts by the Democrat Party to
get Donald Trump in jail before the election not only failed,
but it actually helped him in many people's eyes. Now,
speaking of law fair, and speaking of Letitia James, she
is now being investigated because of the fact that she
has applied for mortgages a home in Virginia and a
home in Brooklyn. And the home in Brooklyn has five
units and it's supposed to be five bedrooms, I should say.
And there's a big difference in the way that lenders
make loans based upon whether a property is your principal
residence or not. In other words, they're not going to
give you. They'll give you the best rate for the
home that you occupy. The reason behind that is pretty
simple is that if you get into financial stress, you
may skip the payment to visa, you may skip the
payment to your car loan, but you're not going to
skip the payment on the roof over your head. So
that is why principal residence loans get a better rate
because they're less risky of failure. So the otheries. If
you have some other property, you can call it what
you want, but it's not your principal residence. And in fact,
Letitia James got lied on the mortgage application is the
accusation and said that both the property in Virginia and
the property in Brooklyn were her principal residents, and that
the property had four bedrooms not five, because five gets
also a different rate than a four bedroom home. It's sorry,
it's just part of the banking risk management that they do.
So not only is Leticia James under investigation, but a
new one popped up yesterday, and that is one of
the members of the Federal Open Market Committee the FED,
who votes on interest rates and her name is Lisa Cook,
and she said that she will not be bullied, she
will not resign. But she got lower rates because she
has a home in Michigan and a home in Georgia,
and she claimed on the mortgage application that both of
them are her principal residences. Well, that can't be one
of them. Is one of them? Isn't? The issue is
about lying to banks when you're asking for a loan.
So this could easily be called law fare backlash again
because now you've got Letitia James home in Virginia, home
in Brooklyn, You've got the Fed governor, Lisa Cook home
in Michigan, home in Georgia. And you've got Adam Schiff,
the senator from California. He has a home in Maryland
and a home in Burbank, and he's claimed on both
of those those are his principal residences, both of them,
and it can only be one. So lying on a
bank loan is a Some of the people on the
Morning show over at CNBC we're chatting about this this morning.
Speaker 5: It's law fair and it's probably a bad way to
run a And I'm not saying that Trump doesn't have reason,
because I think he thinks that the same thing was
done to him during his Adam it's Adam scheft Leticia James,
this person, this was four years ago. I didn't see
a maggot tweet that says, so the Fed won't lower rates,
but they'll get better rates for themselves, which is that's
the maggot take on. But this is right in your wheelhouse.
I knew it yesterday. Tell everybody about what we're talking about. Well,
supposedly four years ago, before she was a Fed governor,
she claimed the principal residence of some house she was
going to rent or some got a lower mortgage rate.
But this POULTI the FHFA. I guess you could say
that this is part of his purview. But this is
the third I think it was Adam shift to and Laticia.
It's all coming from from here. And then the President
himself tweeted or whatever it's called on social media that
she's got to resign. But it certainly looks like for
anybody who Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook says, she I
don't you know, I don't know if this. She says
she has no intention of being bullied to step down
from her position. Following claims by a Trump administration official
that she committed a mortgage fraud, and a statement, Cook
said she intends to take any questions about my financial
history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserves. So
I'm gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions
and provide the facts. Nominated to her position by Joe
Biden in twenty twenty two, the fight kicked offlin The
head of the FHFA, Bill Polti, sent a letter to
Justice Department officials asking the DOJ to criminally investigate Cook.
He allegedis Cook claimed two different properties, as we just said,
as her primary residence. At the same time, President trust
Weeks apart took out President Trump posts on Trusseau yesterday
that Cook must resign now. But you know, go back
to the FED building being remodeled. They're looking for the
look reason too.
Speaker 6: There's nothing that look if she did this, this is
a problem. You lie on federal documents. It is for
a mortgage application. It is a crime. The question comes
in with how you're getting this information, how you're using it.
I went and looked at the letter that Bill Polti
sent to Pambondi. He said, in the course of exercising
US Federal Housing authorities under the Federal Housing Enterprises, Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of nineteen ninety two, US Federal
Housing has identified matters that are appropriate for referral to
the US Department of Justice for consideration of criminal prosecution.
Were they, I guess the question is were they looking
through the list of people that they're trying to get
booted out of jobs for cause and using this information
that's collected that you at the.
Speaker 1: So it appears that this was the way they got
the information. And they're talking about Bill Poulty. He's the
grand son of William Poulty who started Poulty Holmes. So
he's a real estate guy and he is the head
of the Federal Housing Finance Authority. And somebody sent a
tip to him saying, hey, this FED member is claiming
two different homes as their primary residents. And therefore, I
mean the numbers. Somebody did the numbers the other day
about over a thirty year mortgage you could save with
a slightly lower interest rate that they give for primary residents,
you could save fifty thousand dollars. So it is a
crime and it was a tip, and I don't know
if the tip was somebody within the FED. We don't know,
but we I'm sure we'll find out. And speaking of criminals,
Menendez brothers parole herring got under way today and California
this is it's Eric Menendez. One of the boys had
his hearing today, the other one gets his hearing tomorrow,
and then the parole board, I presume, will take some
time to make a decision about what to do. They
have been in prison for thirty six years since they
took a shotgun and killed both their mother and their father. Yeah,
thirty six years ago. They were sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole. So what does that mean.
I thought life in prison without the possibility of parole
was life in prison without the possibility of parole. But
instead here we are. And I know it's been thirty
six years and the family is concerned about whether or
not they will be how they will be able to
re enter society as productive citizens. And I don't know
about you, but there's been a lot of things that
have changed in the last thirty six years. I mean
they don't have I mean the phones were plugged into
the wall with a wire when they went to prison.
I mean it's odd. I mean, computers and laptops and
all that did not exist back then. So how they're
going to re enter society. It seems to me like
they would be better off just to stay where they are.
They have I'm sure adjusted to prison life by now,
but I just it begs the question, why when you
see in a courtroom a judge sent in somebody to
life in prison without the possibility of parole, how does
that get changed? They slaughtered their parents, shot them both
with shotguns. I don't understand. All right, Onto the politics
of the day. The Democrats are trying to find a
message in trying to find some leadership, and the governor
of California, Gavin Newsom, has noticeably changed his plan. He's
doing social media a lot of it, and he's using
the same sort of tactics as President Trump. He will
be very brash, very bold, call people names, insult people,
whatever it might be. And why Trump gets away from
it is another whole story. But that's Donald Trump and
he's done it for years and the more he does,
people that support him really seem to like him even
more so. Gavin Newsom is trying to do Donald Trump.
And people have tried to do Trump's method and every
single time they have failed. But it's noticeable that he
has changed his method to where he's insulting people and
mocking everything that Donald Trump does. So one of the
press people from the Biden administration was asked about this,
her name is Kendra Barkoff, about what's going on with
Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 7: I think we need to try everything.
Speaker 8: It's clear that what we tried to do in the
last election did not work. The Republicans took over both
seats of Congress and has the White House, and so
what Gavin Newsom is trying something different and it's clearly
working to the extent that it's getting under the White
House's skin. Trump is heating about it, it's getting under
many maga Fox News commentators. You saw Steve Bannon talking
about it, you saw Dana Perino talking about it. Clearly
something is working because it is being talked about in
those circles, and he's trying to do something different that's
authentic to his voice.
Speaker 9: It's working.
Speaker 1: Well, that's the thing. It's not authentic to his voice.
That's not the way Gavin Newsom is ever operated, but
he is now and so people are talking about it
in the political cocktail parties. But Lanny Chen, who is
a big Republican out in California, this is his take
on it.
Speaker 7: Well, I think if his goal is to convince a
primary electorate of Democrats, very well could work for him,
because you've got a party that's completely in the wilderness,
doesn't appear to have a vision for the future of
the country. And really what it comes down to is
individual leaders staking their claim and I think Governor knew
some by engaging in this redistricting gambit puts himself in
a very unique position. And if you look at his
positioning in survey research in recent polls, it's clear that
what he's doing is breaking through a Democratic primary voters.
So from that perspective, a very savvy move by the governor.
Speaker 1: One thing that Laney pointed out, this is probably going
to help him in a primary contest where he's running
against other Democrats, but will it actually work in the
general election with the entire populace And it's not authentic,
It just is not, which brings up an interesting article
in The New York Times Shane Goldmacher and Jonah Smith.
This is yesterday. They wrote the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging
voters long before they even go to the polls. Of
the thirty states that track voter registration by political party,
Democrats have lost ground to Republicans in every single one
between the twenty twenty and twenty twenty four elections, and
often by a lot. The four year swing toward Republicans
adds up. This is New York Times adds up to
four and a half million voters that have gone from
Democrat to Republican. And they're writing a deep political whole
that could take years for the Democrats to climb out of.
So there is literally a stampede away from the Democrat
Party in the battleground states, the blue estates, the red estates,
it doesn't matter. So there's a problem. And now Gavin Newsom,
this may help him versus Democrats, but they're all basically
looking around in a circle at their belly buttons. They're
not getting that message out to the broad population. One
of the biggest problems that Newsom has is that he
is the governor of a state that is not doing well,
and as a result, people are going to look at
They've got the highest taxes, income taxes. They've got the
highest gas tax. We played it yesterday before Lady called
and said that the California gas tax just went up
another thirty cents a gallon and they're already just under
five dollars average gas price in California. So they don't
have a good record of managing their state and they're
going to try to turn this over to somebody else.
Marcus Lamonis, who is on the board of bed Bath
and Beyond, I know they went bankrupt and this Marcus
in another group bought out the name and are re
opening bed Bath and Beyond stores across the country, but
not in California. Here is Marcus.
Speaker 9: Planning and opening three hundred over the next twenty four months.
We've made the decision to not open in the state
of California when you look at the complexity, both on
the real estate side, on the regulatory side, both on
the product and the employee side. It's just too cost
prohibitive to do it. And at some point some business
needs to take a stand and remind the state of
California that while they keep reminding us that they're the
fourth largest economy in the world, that's going to dissipate
over time, so we are just going to serve those
customers with our online business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're opening three hundred stores nationwide. Not one of
them will be in California because of the regulatory and
cost of doing business in California. Let's talk about some
of the economic news that came out today. Jobless claims
Thursday morning always come out, and they went the wrong direction.
Jobless claims went up by a eleven thousand, up to
two hundred thirty five thousand. That is much higher than
had been expected. Continuing claims a million, nine hundred seventy thousand.
That is the highest continuing claims since November of twenty
twenty one. Purchasing managers, the purchase managers is an interesting
It's the institute of supply managers. I know it sounds
kind of wonky, but supply managers the people that are
actually out there in businesses buying things, buying product, inventory,
janitorial supplies, whatever they need for their business. A reading
on the index of fifty is square in the middle.
It ranges from zero to one hundred, and if it's
above fifty, it means the purchasing managers are buying more
things if it's below fifty, they're cutting back on their purchasing.
So today we got the purchasing manager's index for the
month of July and it was forty eight, below fifty.
In fact, it was down from June was forty nine.
July was forty eight. Anything below fifty means that the
purchasing managers are cutting back. Existing home sales came out
today and they were up. Kind of surprised everybody because
it was looking for unchanged, but it was up two
percent in the month of July. Not bad. It was
again expectations were it was going to be unchanged, so
that was better. And leading economic indicators, and this is
exactly what the title says, they're looking forward. It's not
a lagging indicator. They're looking forward. And the leading economic indicators,
down one tenth of a percent in July, is down
two point seven percent over the last six months. So
the leading economic indicators are pointing toward a slowdown in
the economy. Over getting near the end of the week,
let's get some phone calls in here from people who
have tapped our phone line. The phone number eight five
five two nine five sixty six hundred eight five five
two nine five sixty six hundred. If you can't remember it,
you can go to my website Tom Sullivan dot com.
There's the number. Okay, So this phone call from somebody
who wants to break up the state of California.
Speaker 10: Hello, some I'm Sullivans. We're all basks from from California. Well, California,
you haven't new something needs to be worried about. It's
about California not being broken in love because California is
way too big. In order for the United States to exist,
California needs to be broken up into smaller states than
Loder for general United States to to survive. And one
of one of my plans is to create a new state.
And my state will ash lead buy up all Californian
gas stations. I next them into my new state. We
will transport our our gas to those gas stations through
California or all roadways, and California can it cannot do
anything about it. We will sell that GasPort for only
ten central tacks. We will keep five SnSe attacked and
we'll get to look a jurisdiction and five CYS attacks California.
Even though pert should be broken up, Tila pleas.
Speaker 1: Well He's not the first guy to come along with
the idea of breaking up California. Who was that group
that was out there wanting to call They wanted to
split the state I think, in half and have the
northern half be the state of Jefferson.
Speaker 11: I don't know.
Speaker 1: It wasn't exactly half anyway, the state of Jefferson. They
had a name port the whole bit. They had supporters,
but it never went anywhere. I don't see that happening.
But as far as buying up all the gas stations
in California and then selling gasford what was it ten cents?
Sounds kind of ma'm donnie to me, but what do
I know? And then, uh, there's a call from Salty
that I always look forward to.
Speaker 12: Hey, Tomam, it's Salty. Oh my gosh, I hope you're
doing all right, buddy. You know, every now and then
I have these thoughts come and I've got to get
it out, So that's why I'm calling you. And well, now, look,
you know, Salty's had a bit of a past and
some hard times in his life, and you know, I've
had to do counseling and I'm not ashamed to say
that I've gone to a counselor before. And what I've
noticed with the counselor come is that date they dig deep,
They go into your past. They want to know about
your growing up and things that maybe happened I don't know,
let's say a twenty years ago, or or or eight
or or or seven or you know. That stuff doesn't
uh you know, it doesn't go past the statue of
limitations for a counselor to take a little deeper, you see.
And uh, I'm just wondering why the Democrats and the
MSNBC and the cnnners and all them, their people are
just losing their minds over of what TASS is trying
to do and all these data, uh you know, dumps
were they're just dumping all kinds of information. And now
that the John Solomon's from the Just the News guy,
he's I've seen him a lot and heard him and uh,
he's been saying this stuff for years, but now it's
apparently it's all coming out in a real documentation way.
And I'm just wondering why in the world the Democrats
are losing their mind. I think then you can go
see a counselor, because if that gut, that there Trump
gyrangement syndrome going on or something anything Trumps for trying
to clean up the capital Uncle Art, our great country,
and they're losing the dang minds time over that. And uh,
I just pool, I'm just getting all fired up. I
don't understand they would, the Democrats and the Liberals, they'd
rather have us suffer than Trump be able to try
to help fish things. And uh, I just I'm sure,
I'm just so sad for these Democrats. Well they just
relaxed a little bit and let this process happen, you see,
and uh, maybe we can make this country better than
it is. I'm I'm all, you know, I'm all Mada
ma America great again. Uh, but you gotta deal with
the past. And uh as much as they want to
talk about, uh that without one seven years ago or
eight years ago, they always want to talk about, you know,
when we was uh you know, having the Civil War
and we're the only country that actually has had war
to end slavery. But they they always talking, uh you
know about that kind of stuff. But they won't go
back and talk about some of this trillingess had happened
in the last you know, five to ten years and two. Anyway,
I just hope that they settle themselves down, because they're
gonna blow ahead gask and like Salty's about to do.
All right, buddy, I better stop while I'm ahead. I
love you, I'll see you.
Speaker 1: I love you too. Salty. Well, I think you might
be onto something because, as we've reported to you earlier
that the New York Times is even reporting that the
Democrats are losing a substantial number of registered voters are
leaving and going to the Republicans. So you're not alone
in your observations. Even the New York Times can spot it.
And this caller is keeping an eye on this negotiation
for peace with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 11: I hope, I hope Trump are going to offer putinnk.
Speaker 1: Well, short and sweet and to the point. And I
don't know if anybody's offering Alaska to Russia. Remember Russia
had it first. We bought it from them. Seward's folly
if we paid seven million or seventy millions a long
time ago. But so far, no, we haven't offered Alaska
to the Russians. And then there's this call from TK
and he has been calling this program for I don't
know twenty years. Let's listen to what Tk's up to.
Speaker 11: Hey, Tom, old friends, this is t K and Missouri.
I'm still a chicken and I sure miss with you,
but's been so hot back here yet. Let's take care
even setting on ice pack, that's how hot it is.
But I'm sure miss your conversations. And you're WITHSDOM and
I hope you're doing well. I hope you're help staying
with yet and I'll be trying to pick you up
somewhere somehow and anyway the past two year tom By.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So that's one of my frustrations is there's a
lot of people that listen to the radio show, and
TK was a loyal listener, and I don't know how
to reach them and tell them how to connect to
the podcast. And it's it's frustrated. I don't know how
to how to I don't have his email, I don't
have a phone number, I don't have anything. So if
you know ta Hey in Missouri, you tell him how
to reach the podcast would be much appreciated. And of
course Laurie the comment line lady, she's left me a
handful of messages, but I've needed to sort through them
and I'll play you this one, which is about her
view on her senator in California, Adam Shiff.
Speaker 11: Shif has always looked like a deer in the headlights.
Speaker 10: Now finally he.
Speaker 11: Has a good reason.
Speaker 1: Yes he does. I'll see how serious they get about this.
But seriously, all these political people, the member of what's
their name, Lisa Cook on the Federal Open Market Committee
of the BED and Adam Shiff and Latitia James, all
lying on bank loan applications about their residents' status. So
we'll see if they they would prosecute you. We'll see
if they prosecute them.
Speaker 4: All.
Speaker 1: Right on Wall Street today, a bunch of red arrows
Dow down one hundred and fifty two to forty four thousand,
seven eighty five, SMP down twenty five, nasdack down seventy two,
the price of goal down five dollars to thirty three
eighty three, and oil was up just twenty cents or so,
up to sixty three dollars and some change for a
barrel of oil. Thank you for coming back today. We
will try this again tomorrow, and we'll hope to see
you then.