Speaker 1: And here we are welcome to the Big Podcast on
this Monday. Today is the seventeenth day of November, year
of Our Lord, twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan.
So man alive? Was that a one eighty or what?
Did you get? A whipped saw? I mean you might
need to go see a chiropractor for your neck. So
President Trump was jumping up and down about the Epstein
vote and the files, and it was clear that it
made him look like he was hiding something, and somebody,
I would love to know what the inside story. Someday
we'll hear it after he's long done with his presidency.
Somebody to write a book and go, what was it
that all of a sudden you went from no way
know how you're not going to release those Epstein files
and went after any Republican that even hinted that they
might vote for something like that. By the way, the
vote on the Epstein files is tomorrow at eleven am,
Tuesday the eighteenth, at eleven am. But somewhere over the
weekend somebody got to him and he came out this
morning and said, Epstein File's fine, let's release them all.
Vote for the as vote for the whole thing. Everybody. Yes,
it's just fine. So I don't even know where to
begin with something like this. Adam Horowitz is one of
the attorneys. There's a whole bunch of attorneys talking that
are label to ask lawyers for the victims, and he's
one of them. Let's see what he has to say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is quite a dramatic turn by the presidents.
Big a change as you'll see him make. And but
let's be clear, the alternative would have been worse for him.
He would have been facing a sharp rebuke from Republican
congress members, so it was probably a necessary move for
him to make. But we're glad to see that he
is in support of this bill, and hopefully some more
records will soon see the light of the day, because
one of the things that the clients that I'm speaking
with want to see is politics taken out of the equation.
A crime is a crime, no matter your party, and
victims do not want this turned into a political weapon.
They simply want justice. And yet almost every statement from
this president and his administration has injected politics into the issue,
falsely at times calling it a Democrat hoax, a scam,
and even attacking his own supporters for demanding accountability. So
that's what victims don't want. Our clients come from every background.
I represent abuse survivors, where Democrats or Republicans, they don't
want this turned into a political football in which only
the president's opponents become the target of a criminal investigation.
President now calling for the release of records, and at
the same breath he's asking the Attorney in general to
investigate certain people, and it could be turned into a
situation where the Attorney General says, well, well, we can investigate,
but we can't release the records. And so that is
a bit of a concern. It's difficult to know if
we'll get the full accounting. And what clients want above
all else is transparency. They want the public to finally
see how law enforcement failed them and how Epstein and
his accomplices received preferential treatments.
Speaker 1: Well, so he bills himself as one of the one
of the lawyers representing the victims. There's a lot of
victims in the Epstein story. But I don't think this
guy knows what he's talking about. He says, yeah, my
clients want to make sure that this isn't a political football. Well,
and to get politics out of it. That's not going
to happen. It's full of politics. And as far as
whether you think you're going to get all the information,
how do you know. Well, here's another attorney who bills
himself as a victim attorney. His name is Naima Ramini.
Speaker 3: Here's what he has to say, Pamela Will under the
Epstein files transparency. The House is trying to get everything
that the Department of Justice has, and let's be honest here,
the DOJ can choose to release these files at any time.
There are some restrictions, of course, for grand jury material
and for material that identifies victims of sex abuse, but
these are privileges that the Department of Justice has, the
law enforcement privileges, the deliberative process privilege, executive privilege. They
can waive that at any moment and release the files.
But if they produce everything to Congress, I expect that
to include everything, the judicial files, the terabytes of data
that were discussed in the Gelane Maxwell case, the Virginia
ju Free civil case. And I think if Congress does
have everything, we're going to see a lot more.
Speaker 4: Than the emails that were released last week.
Speaker 3: Potentially YUS and we know the US Attorney's Office in
the Southern District of New York, Attorney US Attorney Clayton
is going to lead that investigation.
Speaker 4: But let's not forget.
Speaker 3: But just in July, the dj issued its memos saying
there's no basis to charge anyone else related to the
Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse So that would be a one
to eighty not just for President Trump, but for the
DOJ itself. And when you're talking about a legal case,
you need more than what's in the Epstein file, those emails,
or even Virginia Jiuffre's memoir. For a criminal prosecution, or
even a civil case for that matter, you're going to
need a ready, willing and able victim. And unless someone
comes forward and accuses anyone of sex abuse and that
person is willing to testify a trial, everything that we've
seen it's hearsay. And under the confrontation Clause of the Constitution,
anyone who's accused of criminal defender, they have a right
to cross examine their accusers. So we're going to need
more than the evidence that we've been talking about, whether
it's emails, whether it's videos, to actually pursue a prosecution
against anyone. Everything we've seen so far is more for
the court of public opinion than evidence that can actually
be introduced in the court room.
Speaker 1: Now, I think this guy hit the nail on the head,
even though he's representing victims. In other words, why I
have never understood, and I'm sure there's probably some liability
reasons for it. Why don't the victims come out and
name names and say, Joe Doe, here's his name, he
raped me when I was under age, Name names. What
have they been waiting for? And so this guy says,
all this releasing files and emails isn't going to get
anybody anywhere unless one of these victims comes forward and
is willing to testify under oath exactly what it was
that happened to her and name names. So there's a
lot of hubbub about the big vote tomorrow about the
you know, there's obviously people are covering up the DOJ
said no, nobody did, no, nothing to see here, and
now they're going, oh, yes, we're all over this investigation.
So it's they're playing games, and none of that is
going to lead to a prosecution of any pedophile out
there unless a victim is willing to testify under oath.
And speaking of court battles, there is the President is
now going to sue the BBC, and I actually don't
blame him. I mean, there were some of that when
he went after CBS and ABC, and I kind of
the one thing that we do have in this country
is the Person Amendment and the media due to case law.
There's a famous case Sullivan versus New York Times that
basically said the media may get it wrong, but they
have as long as there's not malice, as long as
they're not trying to harm you on purpose and they
say something bad about you, you can't sue the media.
So I did not think that Trump was going to
be successful in going against CBS or ABC, but both
of those companies capitulated and wrote a big check. This
is different. This is the BBC clearly distorting what the
President said on the mall on January sixth and tried
to make it look like he was trying to say
something different to the people that were there than what
he actually said. Let's start with what the BBC put
out for the public to consume.
Speaker 5: We're gonna walk down to the Capitol, then I'll be
there with you.
Speaker 1: And we fight.
Speaker 4: We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell,
you're not going to have a country anymore.
Speaker 1: We're the that's the parts of the BBC. They took
part of what Donald Trump said and then almost an
hour later, what he also said and put them together
to what you just heard to make it sound like
he was trying to get the crowd to go and fight, fight,
fight at the Capitol. This is what he actually said.
Speaker 4: We're gonna walk down to the Capitol.
Speaker 1: And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and
congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be
cheering so.
Speaker 4: Much for some of them.
Speaker 1: So they literally edited his speech to it was an
hour long. They took apart from the beginning, and they
took some of it from near the end. They put
him together, and it cannoted a totally different message than
what he actually said. Why they did that on purpose,
I don't know. All of us in the media, we
are limited by time and so many times we will
clip out things that are extraneous. But that was putting
two messages together that were totally different and gave a
totally different view of what the President said. Back on
January sixth. It was an edit done on purpose. Jonathan Turley,
the constitutional law professor, reacted this way.
Speaker 6: Well, there's no question that President is right that this
was misleading. It's also very difficult to see how anyone
editing those tapes could have believed that this represented what
the President actually said. He made two points that were deleted.
One is we're going to go peacefully to Capitol Hill,
and second, the purpose was to cheer on our allies.
Those would seem rather material points for any legitimate news organization.
I'll remind you, John that the January sixth Committee routinely
did the same thing that in every one of their hearings.
They removed these lines when the public was listening to
the president, and that was also obviously intentional. The problem
is the legal standard. The irony is that the better
place to file would be the United Kingdom. It's easier
to bring a defamation case there, but this case is
probably a bit too late to file over in London,
so they're likely to file here in the United States.
But we have a much more protective standard for the
media and for free speech under what's called the actual
malice standard. In a case called New York Times versus Sullivan. Well,
first of all, those earlier settlements came in cases that
themselves would have been quite challenging. The case against CBS,
I think would have been very challenging in court. This
one will be also challenging because BBC can argue that, look,
we messed up. We admitted it. It was bad editing,
but this was not actual malice that. In fact, what
the editor was trying to do is capture what the
editor believed was the thrust of his comments, and that
was to get stir up the crowd and frankly, get
them angry. The question is where the court and the
jury will accept that. The court may be very concerned
about the constitutional implications here. The Supreme Court in New
York Times versus Sullivan said it wanted to give some
breathing room for media organizations because of the role they
play under the First Amendment. The BBC is going to
be relying greatly on that breathing room.
Speaker 1: Another defense lawyer, Donna Rotundo, also weighed in on this
lawsuit against the BBC.
Speaker 7: There, it's a lot of money, and I think you
have to look at the premise first, right, the president's
premise of suing the BBC is because journalism and the
media should be fair and should be honest, and so
I think the honesty aspect here is really what's driving this.
What they did, and splicing that video made it sound
like the intent of his words was completely different than
what it was. So at the end of the day,
the intent in this lawsuit is correct. Again, I don't
think this has anything to do with the amount of money,
but the amount of money shows how serious this is.
So when the President throws these huge numbers out there,
I think that's because he wants the public and the
media companies to say she's serious, and we have to
be serious about what we're doing. And obviously these big
numbers are what make all of us stop and listened. Lee,
I think what this show is a pattern, and I
think hopefully media companies are learning from the others when
these things happen. Look at what happened at CBS the
President's suit CBS. CBS has had a major overhaul in
the last several months, and so maybe people are paying attention.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think the media companies are paying attention. But
the BBC one was agregious and the two top people
there stepped down the woman in charge of the news
for the BBC. She used to be the head of
news for NBC here in the United States. Just so
the media across the board. First of all, they don't
like Donald Trump and general because most of them are Democrats,
but they're going to have to pay attention to basic
journalism of get it right, regardless of your personal feelings.
Any stories gambling. The NBA gambling investigation is underway. Story
came out about the Los Angeles Lakers have been asked
to turn in their phones to the investigators. Apparently it's
more than just the Lakers. There are other NBA teams
as well that have been asked to turn in their
phone so that investigators can go through their phones looking
for gambling. Michelle Tafoya used to be sideline reporter on football.
She weighed in about sports and gambling and the problems
that appeared to be growing.
Speaker 8: Well, the way to correct it is going to be
very probably unlikable to a lot of fans. But I
find now whenever I've got whether it's a college basketball
game or an NBA game on the TV, and someone
misses a shot, it goes through my mind, do they
mean to miss that shot or they turn the ball over.
It goes through my mind, did they mean to turn
the ball over. I think that's the real danger for
these sports. What they're looking for with these NBA documents,
I believe is you've got to have your injury report
publicized five pm Eastern time on a game day, one
pm Eastern time on the second game of a back
to back. Those are firm times, and the reason is
they want to minimize or at least maximize transparency of
who's going to be playing, who's injured, who's ill, whatever
the case may be, and so those deadlines are very stringent.
I would imagine that paperwork. Now, look, if I know
Lebron's not going to play, and I know it two
days before the game, before that report has been published,
now I've got insider information, and I can place a
bet with information that nobody else knows. So I think
they're going to look through all these injury reports, the
things that were filed, the things that are very important
to the NBA to keep this game clean, and compare
that with some of the performances of these players or
the betting patterns of the betters out there. I think
you're right We're never going to get out of this
unless there's some really austere measure like stop prop bets,
maybe altogether, but it's going to it's going to be
painful because the amount of money this gambling generates. This
is why they do it, right, follow the money. It
is so lucrative, all of this betting, and it keeps
people's eyes on the televisions or the streaming or whatever.
They're no longer just cheering for the Lakers. They're cheering
for prop bets. They're cheering for the San Antonio Spurs
prop bets, and the Boston Celtics and every college game
in America. So those keep the eyeballs on the game.
Those keep the ratings sort of where they want them.
All of this generates money, and that's what it's all about.
And I hate to make it that simple, but unfortunately
it's going to You're going to have fans really lose
their faith in the game, and that's going to ruin things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's review the chances of getting gambling out
of sports. I think is they'll temporarily behave, but you're
not going to They've had gambling in sports for as
long as there's been gambling and or sports. And to
go back to the whole business about the Justice Department's
going to release all of the Epstein files because Congress
told him to. I don't that's not going to happen either.
But those are just my opinions on all of this.
Speaking of money. How about that dirty word, which also
is all of a sudden a big one to eighty.
The President said, stop talking about affordability.
Speaker 4: That's a hope.
Speaker 1: It's a Democrat thing. And now all of a sudden,
everybody's out talking about affordability. Here's the Treasury Secretary, Scott Pessant.
Speaker 9: So we inherited this terrible inflation. We are flattening it out.
The real thing that is going to happen that is
going to give Americans real purchasing power increases. It's going
to be through growth.
Speaker 1: Well he's right, but that's not going to make people
feel warm and cuddly about their economy. It doesn't matter
about the CPI or the gen or any of that
comes down to how do you feel, how does your
wallet feel at the end of the month. Kevin has it.
I think there's a much better job than anybody on
explaining what the problem is and he says the problem
was baked in during the Biden years and that we
haven't quite recovered yet. Well, I mean, for sure, people
still are trying to dig out from the big hole
that was dug by the previous administration's policy. So if
you figure the typical mortgage, monthly mortgage payment about doubled.
If you look at a typical bag of groceries, the
monthly bag of groceries cost about four hundred dollars when
President Trump was leaving office last time, and about five
hundred and twelve dollars right about when President Trump took office.
And since then it's gone up almost not at all.
Speaker 10: I think it's like five hundred and fifteen dollars, but
it hasn't gone back to four hundred dollars. And so
what the Democrats are doing is they're saying that this
runaway spending that we gave you guys, it created runaway inflation,
is one hundred percent your fault because you haven't fixed
it already. And of course that's very economically illiterate, and
I don't think really many people in markets are buying it.
A more precise way to say it, though, is that
purchasing power has gone up that so real wages that's
w divided bip for our technical people of the audience
have gone up by about twelve hundred dollars this year.
So the way to think about it is that we've
dug a three thousand dollars hole because of Biden policies,
and we've you know, gained twelve hundred dollars on the
way out already, which should give you a great deal
of hope for the future that the wage increases that
we're seeing will continue and even if inflation stays positive.
Make it so that people feel way better when they
go to the grocery store and to buy a car.
You know, we've reduced the cost to buy a car
with the deductibility of interests. I mean, there's a million
things that we're doing to fix this problem, but it's
just kind of astonishing to be that the cost problem
is somehow being blamed on us. Now think about it,
especially with the Obamacare thing. So Obamacare is one hundred
percent democratic policy. It's always about one hundred percent democratic policy.
What they did is they expanded the subsidies during COVID,
and then all those subsidies basically went right into the
pockets of insurance companies, and Obamacare insurance policies have doubled
in price relative to normal policies, and so the fastest
inflation in the economy is these big government subsidies thrown
at Obamacare insurance. Think about it's kind of like if
you give lots of student loans, then the tuition goes up.
It's that effect. And so now they're blaming President Trump
for Obamacare as well. They should have fixed Obamacare in
the first place. And President Trump had a plan in
the Big Beautiful Bill to give people some subsidies, but
the Democrats didn't like it because the subsidies weren't going
to their campaign contributors, the insurance companies.
Speaker 1: So another hitdch Andnapping moment over the weekend was they
have done away with a lot of the tariffs or
reduced a lot of the tariffs affecting anything at the
grocery store. So food tariffs substantially reduced or done away with,
which is again basically proving the point that tariffs do
lead to higher prices.
Speaker 4: Well, first, this is nothing new.
Speaker 10: If you go through all of the trade deals that
we've been doing all the way through, then there have
been things that we decided it was prudent based on
the economics of supply deband to exempt. And one of
those things that we've been exempting all along is something
that we don't make in the US, will never make
in the US, or almost ever. I know that in
Hawaii they make some coffee and so on. Shoring that
production really doesn't make sense. It's not part of our strategy.
And what the President just did with food is decided
to make like a blanket movement so that we weren't
going through each deal and picking this and that. Well,
it was done very quietly, but they have done away
with a lot of the tariffs that affect prices at
the grocery store. So this affordability issue is catching the
attention of the White House. At first, the President was
saying no. Now, obviously they're doing something about it. As
far as the love affair for Democrats or Republicans or
the not love affair, Harry Anton has the very latest
about how politics are shaking out from the latest news.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Democrats are in a considerably better position than they
were just four weeks ago. What are we talking about here? Okay,
chance of winning the House in twenty twenty six prediction
market outs.
Speaker 4: Look at this.
Speaker 5: In October twentieth the Dems were ahead, but they had
just a fifty.
Speaker 4: Six percent chance of taking the House. Look at where we.
Speaker 5: Are now up to a seventy two percent chance. So
Democrats and Republicans were quite competitive four weeks ago, and
now Democrats have taken the bull by the horns. They
are more than a seven to ten chance of taking
the House in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: Six, according to the prediction market.
Speaker 2: Od.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it makes a thing exactly right.
Speaker 5: Why are those who are putting their money on the line,
what are they seeing that's making them change the mind? Hmmm,
maybe Democrats have a better chance than we thought. Well,
one of them just comes down to redistricting, right, We
have been talking about this mid decade redistricting gains, and
this is the mid mid decade redistricting gains. You know,
if each sideed maxtowt we were talking about a Republican
gain of seven seats. But right now the projection based
upon current gates is actually a Republican gain of just
one seat.
Speaker 4: We're just talking about one seat.
Speaker 5: These numbers of seats, I wouldn't actually be surprised if
this flips over the Democratic side based upon what may
be happening in Virginia, and maybe Democrats are actually the
ones who benefit from the mid decade redistricting gains. They
could be the ones gaining seats instead of Republicans by
just one seat at this particular point, way south of
where we thought it.
Speaker 4: Was going to be.
Speaker 5: We thought Republicans we'd been picking up five, six, seven seats.
Speaker 4: Uh huh, no longer the case.
Speaker 5: You get Texas, but it's canceled out by California, Then
you get North Carolina, but that's canceled out by Utah.
So the bottom line is Democrats are doing considerably better
than we thought in terms of these mid decade redistrictists. Yeah, okay,
So the other thing that's going on is it's not
just the redistricting. It turns out that Democrats are doing
better in the polls. So let's take a look, right, okay,
Dems versus the GOP on the generic congressional ball The
dem lead has widened. It is widened. So a month ago,
Democrats were a head by three. Now they're ahead by
five in my aggregate of polls, and more than the
nearly doubling of the lead that Democrats have. We of
course had an election right and Dems outperformed their polls
in New Jersey and Virginia.
Speaker 4: So I think that is also playing a role here.
Speaker 5: Democrats doing better in the polls, and a lot of
folks saying, you know, I don't think the Republicans are
going to outperform their polls like they did in twenty
twenty five.
Speaker 1: So that's a little bit of rear view mirror stuff.
Because over the last week or two since the elections
in New Jersey and Virginia, and those were blue states
and blue politicians won, so not a big surprise. California
got their redistricting, which is not a surprise because it's
a blue state. And what Harry was saying was all
this redistricting stuff is going to lead to basically a
break even. It's not going to change the head count
in Congress. But the other thing is all of this
happened in the last couple of weeks. If the Trump administration,
now that they've reduced the tariffs on food items, will
that be enough? What else do they have up their
sleeve to try to get the affordability issued to swing
more in their favor and they have eleven and a
half months to figure out how to do that. And
that also brings up the question of once, ma'am Donnie
and the new lady who's the mayor of Seattle both
the socialist. Once they get in office, wait and see
how people across the fruited plains take a look at
those two cities and goes, this is what we want.
Even Bill Maher was mocking the Democrat socialist.
Speaker 11: Democrats must recognize that Zurn Mom Donnie is the future
of the party.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, answer the Republican Party. And if you missed his.
Speaker 11: Victory speech in last week's mayoral election in New York,
don't worry. You'll see it in every attack ad for
the next two years. The thing is socialism will do
because socialism, to put it simply, just doesn't work and
has never worked. Democratic socialism is like a dating profile.
Things look great until you meet up in the real world.
Speaker 1: So even a spokeswoman for the Democrat Party, her name's
Melissa de Rosa, and she well listen to the way
she tries to defend the fact that, well, those Democrats
socialists are not Democrats. They're not real Democrats. So what
you have is you have a split in a Democrat party,
and there's the old Democrats and then there's the new
Socialist and it doesn't look like they're on the same page.
Speaker 12: Big tent yes, hijacked tent no. And I think that
the DSA spends more time attacking mainstream Democrats thays to
attacking Republicans. And I think that what you're going to
see going into the midterm is this crop of primaries
that are going to come from everyone from Hakeem Jeffries
to La Mayor Bass and it's going to distract from
what the actual political enemy is, which is the Republicans
and trying to take over the House. So I think
the DSA is fringe. I think they're extremists. I think
we're having a Democratic Party tea party moment where we're
going to try to see who we are and every
time you lurch to the left, how much do you
lose in the middle. How many moderate Democrats leave the party,
feel left out by the party and say, whoa, whoa,
this is not the party that I'm.
Speaker 1: Here at In Josh Gottheimer, who is a moderate Democrat
from New Jersey, this is his The DSA, by the way,
is shorthand for Democrat Socialist of America.
Speaker 13: Those are not our views and the views of where
reasonable common sense democrats across the country are, you know,
the we want common sense. We want people to stand
by cops and firefighters and amts to fight to get
taxes down, in childcare costs and energy bills down, right,
that should be what are focused on. We certainly don't
want a job killing, tax hiking socialist in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: So there's more and more of those coming out where
the Democrats have a split. It kind of reminds me
of the MAGA took over the Republican Party. You got
the old school, the old school establishment Republicans. They got
pushed out of power, and it looks like the Democrats
may be facing something similar in their party. In other politics,
I mentioned it on Friday about the fact that the
President came out with the idea of just sending money
directly to people for them to use to pay their
medical bills, rather than giving money through subsidies which go
directly to insurance. Instead of giving money to insurance companies,
give it to the people to pay their medical bills.
And a lot of people are scratching their heads going
how would this possibly work. I know what's going to happen.
They're going to take that money and they're going to
buy buy boo and cigarettes, And no, there is I'll
explain it again. There is a system that's been in
place now for quite a few years, the Health Savings Accounts.
You get essentially a credit card, but it won't work
on anything other than approved medical expenses. If you go
to the store and you buy you go to a
CBS and you buy some medicine, and you buy some
over the counter medicine, and you pick up your prescriptions,
and you pick up a candy bar while you're there,
and you go to the cashier and run the run through,
and you try to use your HSA card health Savings
account card, it won't pay for the candy bar. You're
going to have to pay for that separately. So there
is a system. Bill Cassidy, the senator from Louisiana, he
is a medical doctor, and I'm right there with him.
He's all enthused about it, and soul Am.
Speaker 14: You've got to have a plan that can work by
January first, twenty twenty six. So that puts a little
bit of a constraint on what you can do. Now,
there's two types of subsidies in Obamacare. There's a subsidy
in the original Obamacare, call that the baseline, and then
there is the extra subsidy that was started under the
Biden administration. That's called the enhanced the enhanced subsidy. So
the plan that I'm thinking would work for January, the
first is to allow the baseline subsidy to continue to
apply to a policy on the exchanges, but the enhanced subsidy,
as the President says, will be put into a health
savings account. Now why does that work? Because someone can
take the subsody they would have gotten for a more
expensive policy under the baseline scenario. They can buy a
bronze level plan, which is a cheaper plan on the exchanges,
and then use their health savings account to pay for
the higher deductible. This decreases your overall cost to be
an insurance instead of having to work through a six
thousand dollars deductible to get the silver plan to.
Speaker 4: Work for you, you.
Speaker 14: Have like say fifteen hundred dollars or two thousand dollars
in your health savings account. The President Trump speaks of
to pay for the first part of your deductible and
you've got the cheaper premium on.
Speaker 2: Top of it.
Speaker 14: I think this is a great idea. I think the
President's right on.
Speaker 1: So do I so do. I know. I'm obviously very
leary about the fact that government can do anything fast.
And the Obamacare subsidies that the Democrats put in place
for five years are going to expire at the end
of this year. So can this be done? Yes, it
could be. I doubt it will be because it's government.
But doctor Bill Cassidy man, he understands it. And again
he brought up the silver plan. You have to spend
six thousand dollars on medical bills before the Obamacare policy
will pay a penny. This would eliminate all that. So
there's no more giant deductible of six thousand dollars. So
we'll keep talking about it because it's going to take
a lot of talking. But I hope somebody in Washington
besides Bill Cassidy is paying attention to all of this
other quote money news. OJ Simpson he's dead. Yes, he's
still dead, but his estate is settling with Ron Goldman's
family and fifty some million dollars they've agreed to pay
the Goldman's Donna Rotundo, a lawyer, got weighs in on
this one.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 7: I think for the Goldman family, this truly was never
about money. This was about justice. This was about watching
someone pay, especially when they did not get what they
wanted out of the criminal court. The civil court was
their only avenue. So going to civil court getting a
judgment vilified mister Simpson and vindicated Ron Goldman. So I
think that's really what this was about. So obviously any
type of money they can recover now I think will
at least add to the feeling of them having some
justice in this matter. So at the end of the day,
I think that's really what this is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't think it's about the money, but at
the same time, yeah, the murder was thirty one years ago.
Ron Goldman today he was a young guy waiter at
local restaurant Mezzaluna. He would have been fifty seven years
old today. Nicole Brown Simpson would be sixty six if
they had lived well Wall Street today it is following
whatever Nvidia is doing, and Nvidia had a big sell
off again today. Bitcoin also ninety one thousand dollars. They
have wiped out all of their twenty twenty five gain today,
going down to ninety one thousand dollars on bitcoin, but
the dow down sharply, down five hundred and fifty seven. Again,
the favors that drove the market up are ones driving
it down down five hundred fifty seven to forty six
thousand and five ninety SMP down sixty one, NASDACK down
one hundred ninety two. Gold was down fifty dollars to
four thousand and forty three in oil down about thirty
cents fifty nine dollars now for one barrel of oil.
That's it for today. Thank you for coming by. We'll
be back again tomorrow. Hope to see you them