Speaker 1: And hello, how are you on this Monday? Today is
the eighteenth day of May, year of Our Lord, twenty
twenty six. My name is Tom Sullivan. And we've got
busy day today, very busy day. There's a lot to
get to and we've got the update on what's going
on with Iran about oil and gas. We've got the
lawsuit between Elon Musk and Sam Waltman. That case jury
came to a conclusion today. And also Luigi Maggione was
back in court today and a judge made some ruling
on what was admissible and what was not. And then
over the weekend, Bill Cassidy, the Senator from Louisiana. He's
a medical doctor, but he voted in favor of one
of the impeachments and Donald Trump has never forgotten it
and made sure that he had opposition, so he was primary.
They had the election on Saturday and man alive. Bill
Cassidy came in third, so there's two Republicans ahead of him,
so he got he got trounced. Basically. We'll get into
some of the numbers in just a minute, but I
want to start I normally do, but I'm thinking i'd
like to start with something else. But we just had
some breaking news just moments ago, is that the president
and the whole situation with Iran has done a one
to eighty because earlier today President Trump planned to strike
Iran tomorrow tomorrow. But now, in fact he was expected
to convene his top national security council in the Situation
room tomorrow morning to discuss military options. But apparently he
was planning to do a military strike on Iran tomorrow.
But we just found out moments ago that he has
decided to hold off and give negotiations yet another chance.
And he claimed that the decision was at the request
of several Arab leaders. So now we have one more
the stop of what was going to be a military action.
He wrote on True Social I've been asked by the
Emir of Qatar, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and
the President of the United Arab Emirates, to hold off
on our planned military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
which was scheduled for tomorrow. I know, he added, the
Arab leaders told him serious negotiations are now taking place
and that in their opinion, as great leaders and allies,
a deal will be made which will be very acceptable
to the United States as well as all countries in
the Middle East and beyond. President claimed the deal will
make sure that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. But this
is a repeated claim about progress that's being made since
the war began. But there's no breakthroughs that anybody has seen.
So he the President instructed Pete Hegseth and General dan
Kin to suspend the attack plans, but to be prepared
to go with a full large scale assault on Iran
on a moment's noticed in the event that an acceptable
deal is not reached. Now, I maybe this is just
his way of negotiating, but it seems like he caves
every time they say, oh wa wa, wait a minute,
wait a minute, wait a minute.
Speaker 2: And Moran.
Speaker 1: Iran is is famous for stalling techniques, and this appears
to be that. But he's the president and he said no, no, no, no,
let's not because I got this nice letter. But before
this came in, before this this news about Donald Trump
doing another one P eighty we found from General Jack Keene.
Of course he's been ready to go, chomping at the bit,
but this is what he said before the news broke
late this afternoon.
Speaker 3: Well, let's just start with that interview you just had.
Certainly our empathy goes out to the suffering of the
Iranian people. But believe me, a regime doesn't care about
that interview you just played. I mean, where they're coming
from is they believe they can stick with this and
run the clock out. And that's what they're trying to
do right now, even with modifying a negotiating position. They
want to run this clock out, increase the political economic
pressure on the president. And they just don't care about
the suffering of people. What do they care about. They
care about one the survival of the regime in themselves.
That's what this is all about. And if they get
a negotiated deal, they think that they'll get financing to
help recover the regime. That is what their objective is here.
Where are we The presidents exhibit a huge amount of
patience here since the ceasefire on April of the eighth,
and we've tried to work a deal with these guys
and it just doesn't seem possible. And where we are,
we're on the cusp of going back into military operations.
When we stop, we had two weeks to go a
little less than thirty percent of the targets. Those targets remain,
but we have better intelligence now after these five six weeks,
so that target list has expanded. It's considerably more comprehensive.
It'll be a combined operation with the United States and
Israel going full throttle, all out, no half measures here whatsoever.
And when those target lists are complete, and they will
consist of the rest of the weapons that are remaining
to some indicate some of the what you just mentioned,
to include what remains of nuclear and also all the
organizations that sustaining the regime. We have better intelligence on
locations and other things associated with that, and certainly they're
going to be a comprehensive target list in of itself,
and then a grouping of targets that really deal with
all of our Iran's revenue sources to force an economic
collapse of the regime. Obviously, car galland Blockade is having
significant impact, but this attack will even further aggravate their
ability to gain revenue source. Without revenue, it's hard to
see how this regime can survive. So we put it
on a path and I think at some point at
the end of this thing, after we open the straits
of a moves and begin to get it secure off
of the IRGC leaders, you know, a tree trip out
to a place of their choice and see if we
can work a deal, that kind of a deal with
them and make some positive changes in the regime. So, yes,
we are on the cusp of returning to full throttle
combat operations.
Speaker 1: Well, you can hear from General Keane, he's been ready
to go. I mean this has been I think the
Iranian regime in Tehran, the IRGC, I think they're laughing
at us. I think they're going I can't believe we
we talked our way out of it again. But here's
the general, he is more than ready to go.
Speaker 3: Well, I think we've had a very good plan from
the outset, and we decided to go to the ceasefire
because the Ranians were making some noises about willing to
negotiate that plan. If anything, has improved considerably over the
last five or six weeks, as I've stated, so, our
people know what to do, and they certainly know how
to do it, and there's no doubt in my mind
that we're going to be able to accomplish the original
objectives we set for ourselves here and that's to make
sure they don't have a nuclear capability, dismantle their ballistic
missile and drone program rather comprehensively, and have them not
be in a position to continue to be predators in
the region, and support for proxies. And I think while
we're not going to put ground troops in the force
of regime change, I think we can do just about
everything that's possible to put them on a path for
that regime change. And I would hope that the CIA
and the Masada working very hard here to under minor
regime and also to provide any assistance we can to
the Iranian people. I'm just making the assumption that that
is a corollary program that's paralleling what we're about to
do with military operations.
Speaker 1: Well, so now we sit back and wait and see
what would you think are the chances that this peace
negotiation is going to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. Because
the last time, this last week, they sent over a
response to the United States and Trump, so I didn't
even finish reading it. It was garbage. So I don't
think the Iranian leadership, the IRGC, this is a game
for them. I think they are high fighting each other
right now and laughing at us. Yes, I do so.
Oil and gas is another. And the longer that this
goes on, the more the world's economy continues to go downhill.
Daniel Jurgen is legendary in the investment industry for being
an expert on all things oil and gas, and he
was asked about the situation in that industry.
Speaker 4: I mean now is the inventories that have helped keep
prices from going too high are getting pretty much drained out.
And that's the key factor. So where's the other're oil
going to go? Our numbers are that before the crisis,
about one hundred and thirty five ships a day went
through this strait of horror moves. In May, it's been
nine ships a day, so that you've lost about at
one point two billion barrels of oil so far. Because
I would know that there are inventories and alternative supplies.
The key question was how long was this crisis going
to go on? And what's happening now is the Iranians
are solidifying their control. They've set up what they call
the Persian Gulf Straight Authority and this little piece of paper.
If you want to send a ship through, they send
you an X cell sheet that you have to fill
out and then they'll decide whether you can go through
or not. And by the way, pay them. And this
is absolutely unacceptable to the Arab countries because they know
if they give, if they pay these tolls, this money's
going to the IRGC.
Speaker 1: So the longer this goes on, the more your cost
and mind in the world goes higher. And yet at
the same time, Daniel Jurgen still has some hope for
a negotiated settlement.
Speaker 4: Assume that there's a deal that, after all, deals are
what the Trump administration is all about. But we've seen
pretty far away from it right now. And the Iranians
know that they have a very strong position, by it's
not their new nuclear position is control of the straight right, so.
Speaker 1: They control the straight But at the other side of
the coin is they only respect strength, they don't respect
some sort of diplomatic behavior.
Speaker 4: Well, I think let's say it goes higher. I'm not
going to put one hundred and fifty or two hundred
t on it. But if we remain on the track
that we are, and we're going into the season of
increased driving around the world, increase air travel around the world,
so the call on fuel is going to go up,
and we've seen it.
Speaker 2: It ticks up the price.
Speaker 4: Either if somebody says something that sounds like maybe there's
going to be a deal, the future prices go down.
But if you watch what people are actually paying for cargoes,
those prices are higher and that shows that there is shortage.
Speaker 1: So let's assume that someday this is all going to
come to an end, either militarily or through negotiations. And
if so, mister Jurgen, do you think that oil prices
will drop like a rock.
Speaker 4: Well, I think the price would absolutely come down when
that happens, but it's still the crisis doesn't end in
a single day. The cleanup, we think would take about
six months to get everything back to normal.
Speaker 2: Which we get you to what wells in terms of
the price of oil.
Speaker 4: Well, if it went back to normal and we were
back to surplus situation, then we'd probably be in the
sixties or seventies or eighties. You know, before the military
build up started, oil was in the sixties. So the
price would actually come down, the tension would go out
of the market, but it's going to not get fixed quickly. Well,
six months to get the whole thing fixed and get
back to normal. But prices would certainly if there was
an announcement of the deal, things started to flow, there'd
be a giant sigh of relief and prices would come down,
whether maybe not down to sixty, maybe they go down
to eighty or something like that would reflect it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So bottom line, this guy is considered the three
imminent oil and gas expert. It's not going back to
sixty anytime soon, and it's going to take six months
to kind of clean things up. But he thinks it'll
go from one hundred dollars a barrel down to eighty
dollars a barrow when it was in the high fifties
and low sixties before the war started. So in court radio,
I feel like that sometimes. A couple of big court
cases today. First of all, there was Luigi Maggione was
or the Maggione or Magi I'm not quite Sherifford pronounced
both ways. But Luigi who shot and killed United Healthcare
CEO on the streets of Manhattan a couple of years ago.
He was back in state court today and a judge
has issued a ruling about some of the admissibility of evidence.
So remember how this went was that Luigi allegedly shot
the CEO on West fifty fourth Street and then took
off and they found him a couple of days later
in Altoona, Pennsylvania. So the police there did a couple
of things. One is, they took his bag that they
had and put it on another table at the McDonald's
where they found him, so that he couldn't reach it.
And then they also took that bag and then searched
through it. And the judge said that was a big
no no because he could reached the bag, therefore it
wasn't dangerous. But how did the police should look through
it to find out that there's a bomb or some
explosive in there? But the judge ruled, no, that you
were wrong. You should should have gotten a warrant to
look through that bag. Then they take the bag and
him and they bring him down to the police station
and in the police station they inventory the bag, which
is okay, and the judge says, oh, well, what you
found when you inventoried? What'd you find? And they said,
we found the gun and the judge said, oh, that's admissible.
Oh we also found his manifesto. Oh that's admissible. So
when all was said and done, they said that there
was a passport in the bag. You can't use that.
I don't know what that would do anyway. His phone,
you can't use that. That was in the bag as well,
but the phone would have who he had been talking to.
Was there any text messages any all that sort of stuff.
Is wallet, they can't use that. There was a computer chip,
they can't use that. And there was a magazine, a
gun magazine. They can't use that. But they can use
since they when they inventory the bag, the gun, and
that is critical that they find the gun that looked
like the gun on the video of him shooting the
executive and also ballistically matched to the bullets that killed
the executive. There was also a silencer in that they
found that they can use, and the notebook manifesto. So
let's start this with Jonathan Turtley, the law professor at
George Washington University.
Speaker 5: I think that is fair. The initial reports were that
the diary or manifesto were thrown out with the rest
of those contents other than the gun. The fact that
they got the gun and the manifesto are really the
two critical pieces of evidence that they most wanted and
it makes this a very difficult criminal case. I'm really
at a loss to come up with any type of
theories you mentioned. It's just confusing how you go to
a jury and still say the guy's not guilty when
he has the gun that matches the homicide. He's got
a manifesto explaining his philosophy for killing a healthcare executive,
and you've got a video of the guy that looks
strikingly like the defendant. That doesn't leave a lot of
room at the elbows. But it basically broke the way
that we had discussed initially between the searches and also
with the statements the court here is looking at when
he was put into custody. He's giving Maggione a little
bit of a benefit here saying that I'm going to
take out a couple of statements made just before you
were effectively coughed or put into custody, But he's allowing
in other statements. So in balance, it's still a good
day for the prosecution. They started out with a mountain
of evidence. I think they still have a mountain. Maybe
it's a plateau, but it's still pretty steep climb for
the defense.
Speaker 1: So listen, I fully subscribe to our privacy rights, and
the police can't just search you for no reason whatsoever.
This was certainly the guy, and they knew that they
had him, and that he was the guy who had
just murdered on the streets the CEO United Healthcare And
so this seems like kabuki theater to me, to play
all these games about what can and can that be
admitted and you can. You can admit the things that
you found when you looked in the bag at the
police station, but you can't admit the things that you
found at the MacDonald's in the same bag. I'm sorry
that this makes the judicial system look semi silly in
my humble opinion. Paul Morrell, former NYPD investigator, says this.
Speaker 6: So you have to parse this quite Finally, while it
sounds like a partial win for each side, iss overall,
it's a big win for the prosecution in some the
judge decided under New York State arrest log, which leans
on the idea that the police can search stuff that
is lungible, grabable. That's the operational term that the perpetrator
can get to that stuff they're allowed to look at
because the cops and Altoona had taken the bag and
moved it away from Luigi by about ten feet. The
judge assessed that stuff was not lungible grabable. Therefore, the
search they did at this scene is suppressed. What did
they see at this scene, according to the decision, his passport,
his phone, a computer ship, those things out there not
coming in. As for the state case, understand, in the
federal case, it's all coming in back at the station house.
After they removed the backpack to the station house. Under
inventory procedures, cops are allowed to go through the stuff
that they bring into the station house the inventory to
make sure that there's nothing in there that's going to explode,
et cetera. That's solid New York State procedure. When they
do that, they get the gun and they get the manifesto.
Now those of us who have been observing in this
case realize, I think pretty uniformly that the gun that
has been tied by ballistics to the shooting of Brian
Thompson is key evidence because it's a one to one
The gun that he had in the backpack was the
gun that was used, according to ballistic science, to shoot
Brian Thompson. That gun's coming in as is the manifesto.
Portions of the manifesto have been published online. Those portions
reveal quite directly that in this case, Mangeon did what
he did for an ideological purpose. You carried out the
shooting of Brian Thompson and cognizantly chose the CEO of
United Healthcare me caan extremely damning So when you really
parse it out, at first it looked like, wow, this
went mengi Own's way to some of us quite surprised,
But it looks to me like the key evidence is
coming in.
Speaker 1: Well, it makes the justice system seem even more baffling
because there's two cases against him, and they're not double
jeopardy because therefore two different There are a number of
different charges, federal charges and state charges. This is in
the state court today, but you heard Paul Morrow talking
about the fact that all these things that were suppressed
can't come into the trial in the state court. The
federal judge has already said, sure, you can bring that
stuff in, so the federal trial they'll have different amissibility,
which just seems strange to me that you can the
United States justice system allows it in the federal corporate
not in the state court, or does it say something
about New York and the rules. He even mentioned the
fact that in Pennsylvania the search and caizar laws are
different than they are in New York, which should not
be a patchwork in our nation. But back to Parlim
a little more from Paul Morrow.
Speaker 6: Yeah, understand that police procedures and law in Pennsylvania different
and more permissive for law enforcement than in New York.
Here they're applying the New York law. So you have
to allow for that. They got there. They moved a
bag away from him for their own safety. You can
do that. But at that point, under New York law,
this judge decided you should have froze the scene and
got a search warrant. Now it's a long decision, and
I have to confess that we just got out of court.
Speaker 1: I literally just walked out.
Speaker 6: I haven't had a chance to read the whole decision,
so I'm kind of giving a summary for the audience.
I'm curious curious as to why, even with the having
been moved away from Luigi and he couldn't grab it,
that nonetheless the police didn't have the right to look
through it at the scene because they're gonna transport that
in a car police card to the precinct. What if
there's a bomb in it, then generally, if you can
articulate that kind of circumstance, you can inventory at the scene.
That's not how this went. There's a lot of narrative
in a decision that goes through who showed up, what
they said on the police side, what the discussion among
them was. So the judge must have decided that they
had come to the conclusion that the bag was safe
and they shouldn't have kept looking through it. That's my
read as to why he came to that decision. But
certainly the inventory search is coming in. That means they
did that right, and that means their key evidence. And
there's another piece to this. I should mention corrections also
did the right thing here as well. Once he was
in custody as of nine forty seven am, he was mirandized.
Anything subsequent to that's not coming in because he has
a right to an attorney, and so any statements he
makes that are elicited by the police no good. However,
he made spontaneous statements two corrections subsequent to that, including
talking about the contents of his bag, including the three
D gun, saying it's a three D printed gun, which
is obviously a rare item. So his mouth gets him
in trouble as well. Apparently he seems to have been
bragging a little bit while he was locked up. So
all of that stuff's coming in I think will win
for the prosecute in the federal court. The first time
I saw him, I have to say he came in
it felt to me a little attitudinal already hadn't shaved,
He had a strut. He kind of looked around the courtroom.
It was almost a little bit of an air of defiance.
I didn't get that this time, recognize something the decision
that was released literally while I was sitting in the
courtroom boats the prosecution and defense got this morning, which
means he already knew the import of that decision. So
I have a feeling that had he been feeling cocky previously,
some of that might have got knocked out of him
because he realizes the key evidence, including statements he may
are going to be coming into the case and they
don't help them.
Speaker 2: So he didn't look at the gallery.
Speaker 6: He has this thing where he doesn't shave, so he
always comes in looking five o'clock shadow a little spruffy today.
He had a suit on, unlike the federal system where
he had the fatigue, you know, the orange fatigues on.
But he won't look at the gallery. He does seem engaged.
They don't keep them along there. He comes in, they
do what they do, They get them right out. So
this does air a little bit of get them out
of here, because if you recall, in the federal case,
he had an outburst where he says something about double jeopardy.
And interestingly, those statements are now on the t shirts
of his supporters down here on Center Street.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and those supporters, as much as they're weird because
they're wearing little costumes and everything else, it's bizarre. But
the thing about them, they're not saying that Luigi is innocent.
What they're saying is that the shooting in the back
three times of the CEO was justified.
Speaker 6: Well, one of the things that I apologize for the
noise there outside of court. There's a lot of emergency
vehicles here. But one of the things I would mention
is the import of suppressing the phone and the computer
chip because while they have this other evidence against Luigi,
were you going to expand this case to any co conspirators.
Now you have a little trouble with that because the
phone a computer chip. That's the kind of stuff you
would use as a cop to start digging into this
thing and say, with somebody else involved, did you have
some help? And I have to tell you, in light
of his background, I continue to wonder when did he
get a three D printed gun that actually worked? So
I think there were still some questions remaining in this case,
and my gut tells me they're in the digital world.
Speaker 2: That digital world has been.
Speaker 6: For the most part suppressed in the immediate case here
on state court.
Speaker 1: Now, however, that has not been suppressed in the federal court.
So it's going to be interesting to see how that
worked out. But I mean, I can't imagine. I don't
care how cocky he is. He's got to know they've
got him sixteen ways from Sunday. I mean, this guy
is as guilty as sin. But I guess if you've
got a really big ego, you think I can get
away with murdering people on this sidewalk and everybody will
forgive me because it was an insurance company executive. Well,
a little bit of politics we've got, like I said
at the beginning of Bill Cassidy, doctor Bill Cassidy is
going to be going back, presumed to his medical practice
because at the end of the year he's done being
a Senator from Louisiana. And it really shows. I mean,
he came in with twenty five percent of the vote.
There were two Republicans who beat him, and one of
them was endorsed by Donald Trump, the other one was not,
but they both beat him. Louisiana is a very red
state and they are mad at Cassidy about the fact
that he voted for impeachment on the impeachment two point
zero back during Trump one point oh. So it also
shows because I think Cassidy is a good senator, smart guy,
makes pretty good decisions, very conservative, but he crossed Donald Trump.
And one of the things that is still true today
is it was when Trump first came down the escalator
is if you cross him, he is going to come
after you. And so far he has been extremely successful.
He just went after the state of Iowa in the
state senators there, he got four out of the five
that he put up primary opposition, and now this and
then tomorrow in Kentucky is a primary Thomas Massey, who
has gone up against Donald Trump a couple of different times,
very outspoken. He's been pushing for the Epstein files and
things like that, and Trump has already primaried him with somebody.
We'll see how that works out tomorrow in Kentucky. But meantime,
here's well, here's a little clip from Tom Massey.
Speaker 2: And if you lose, what message with that said?
Speaker 7: If I lose, I think it's going to disenfranchise a
large part of the coalition that was formed to give
us the majority here and to give us the White House.
I'm holding up the Maha wing of the party, the
privacy warrant for spying wing of the party, the less
war wing of the party. If I'm gone, I think
you showed that the tent has significantly been diminished, and
we'll make winning the majority harder in the fall.
Speaker 1: So Harry Enton, the statistician, did some looking back at
surveys on how politicians do when they're incumbents usually are
re elected, and as far as Tom Massey goes versus
Donald Trump, here's a little bit from Harry.
Speaker 8: To put it mildly, I don't think that Donald Trump
likes Thomas Massey, And if you look at the prediction markets,
it looks like they may get their men.
Speaker 2: They may get their man.
Speaker 8: Look at this chance that Massy is in fact the
Kentucky for GOP nominee. It has been falling considerably over
the last ten days according to the cashbrit prediction market.
Look at this. It was seventy one percent ten days ago.
Look where that number is now, it's forty four percent.
Chances more likely than not, though it is very close,
very close, that Massey will in fact go down to defeat.
But again we're just gonna have to wait and see
the votes getting cast encountered because this is quite close.
But anytime an incumbent member of Congress goes down, he
has done something seriously wrong in the minds of the voters.
And in this case, if Massey goes down, it is
that he crossed Donald John Trump. Yeah, I think one
of the things that people who are putting their money
where their mouths are seeing is seeing exactly what Johnny
B said, which was so what happened in saw what
happened in Louisiana on Saturday.
Speaker 2: And I went back and this is sort of just going.
Speaker 8: Back through the archives to see how bad Bill cassi did.
Speaker 2: He got twenty five percent of the vote.
Speaker 8: Okay, I went back and I looked at every single
non in pointed, non appointed senator. This in my mind
was the worst primary showing ever at least since the
end of World War Two.
Speaker 2: That is how Bill casts is how badly Bill Cassie did.
Speaker 8: He think worse than every single one getting twenty five
percent of the vote in a for a senator.
Speaker 2: And a primary, It's literally unheard of.
Speaker 8: And that is because, of course, Donald Trump endorsed against
this guy. You know, we've quoted the movie Good Burger
every single time basically when we've done this. When in fact,
you go against President Trump, you go on the grinder
and you could just see this times Trump endorsees have
won in GOP primaries. It's about ninety five percent each
of the last four cycles. Now, I will not you know,
sometimes he endorses and there's no real challenger, But even
in those cases, the challengers to the combent have won
a majority of the time as well. And one of
the key reasons why that is right is you look
at Trump's approval rating within the GOP twenty first century
own party approval at this point in term two, he's
still at eighty three percent. That's more popular than Obama
was with Democrats, way more popular than George W. Bush
was with Republicans back in two thousand and six. So
the power of Trump endorsement is still sky high. And
we'll see tomorrow if that happens with Thomas.
Speaker 1: Mass Well, it's much closer for Massey life Harry said,
to get re elected than it was for Bill Cassidy.
Bill Cassidy just got crushed in Louisiana. So we have
a couple of late breaking stories. There's a shooting at
a Islamic mosque in San Diego or The early reports
are that two suspects in the shooting are dead and
that a security guard was shot. Some reports say he's
in serious condition, others say he was killed as well.
So a shooting that brought out a million billion police
cars in their San Diego area at the Islamic mosque there.
And then the other which was another court case today,
Elon Musk sued Sam Altman because he said I put
the money up, I started Open AI, which he did.
That's all true, and that it was supposed to be
a nonprofit and that Altman took it and changed it
into a for profit and Musk is mad because he
said that money should have gone to charity. Well, they
had a couple of week trial and today the jury
came back and said Elon Musk were throwing your lead
lawsuit out. That he did not succeed in suing Sam
Altman over at Open AI. So a big loss for Musk.
Wall Street today it was a mixed bag. The Dow
it was up one hundred and fifty nine, the Dow
at forty nine thousand and six eighty six, the S
and P fell five, the Nasdaq fell one hundred and
thirty four. The price of gold was up seven dollars
to four thousand and five sixty nine, and oil up
another dollar today, up at one hundred and six dollars
and some change for one barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude.
Well that's it for today, Thank you for coming by.
We will be back again tomorrow and I hope you'll
see you.
Speaker 6: Don