Speaker 1: And Hello, Hi, how are you welcome to the Big
Speaker 1: Podcast on this Friday. Today's the thirty first day of October,
Speaker 1: Happy Halloween, on the year of Our Lord, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: My name is Tom Sullivan.
Speaker 2: So so so.
Speaker 1: We've got a lot to go over today. We just
Speaker 1: got word as we are recording this podcast today that
Speaker 1: the government, there's been two judges with this afternoon, one
Speaker 1: federal judge in Rhode Island and another federal judge almost
Speaker 1: simultaneously in Boston, so they're both New England, have blocked
Speaker 1: the Trump administration from stopping Snap benefits footstamp benefits during
Speaker 1: the government shutdown. So this all was supposed to come
Speaker 1: to a screeching halt tonight tomorrow. Those on SNAP were
Speaker 1: not going to be able to use there wouldn't be
Speaker 1: any funds on their cards. Now I don't personally know
Speaker 1: how those cards get loaded. The foodstamps. That terminology came
Speaker 1: because when the program first started many years ago, they
Speaker 1: actually had a book of stamps, and depending upon how
Speaker 1: much the bill was at the cashier, they peeled off
Speaker 1: a number of stamps. But it led to a lot
Speaker 1: of people feeling shame, guilt, whatever, some sort of negative
Speaker 1: feeling because they everybody stand in line. That was before
Speaker 1: they had the checkout automatic checkout things, but the kiosk uh,
Speaker 1: so everybody would see that, Oh, that's the person that's
Speaker 1: on food stamps. So they changed it to a card
Speaker 1: that looks like a credit card. I don't know how
Speaker 1: they load those. I don't know. With these judges, like
Speaker 1: I said, two of them this afternoon almost simultaneously said yeah,
Speaker 1: you've got to You've got a fund that those food stamps,
Speaker 1: the SNAP benefits. Uh. And what the judge said, This
Speaker 1: one judge out of Rhode Island named Judge Jack McConnell,
Speaker 1: said that, uh. The he said the administration must use
Speaker 1: a six billion dollar contingency fund already set aside by
Speaker 1: Congress to continue using SNAP benefits. Now, these funds, the
Speaker 1: six billion dollars, are apparently at the United States Department
Speaker 1: of Agriculture USDA. Now, yesterday the Secretary of Agriculture said
Speaker 1: we can't legally use those. Well, this one judge today said, yeah,
Speaker 1: well yes you can. But here's the problem. The contingency
Speaker 1: fund has six billion dollars in it sounds like a
Speaker 1: lot of money, but the SNAP program takes almost nine
Speaker 1: billion per month, so they can't. I don't know how
Speaker 1: they do this. If they if they load them once
Speaker 1: a month, I think so, but they don't have enough
Speaker 1: to load everything. They have six billion, but they cost
Speaker 1: nine billion, so they I don't know what they're going
Speaker 1: to do, and I don't know whether the federal government
Speaker 1: is going to appeal this or not. But that is
Speaker 1: the ruling that has come out, So that brings up
Speaker 1: the other question too. These are two judges, federal judges
Speaker 1: in federal districts New England, one in Massachusetts, one in
Speaker 1: Rhode Island. You know, they were judge shopping on this
Speaker 1: because that part of the country is very, very liberal,
Speaker 1: Rhode Island and Boston, of course, so you knew they
Speaker 1: were going to get a favorable ruling on this. So
Speaker 1: now the question is who's running the country. And I
Speaker 1: thought that the Supreme Court admonished federal judges and said
Speaker 1: you can decide federal law for your district, but not
Speaker 1: for the nation. That's not your role. But both of
Speaker 1: these judges have made rulings that basically apply to the
Speaker 1: entire country, the forty two million people that are on
Speaker 1: SNAP benefits, not just the people that live in Massachusetts
Speaker 1: or the people that live in Rhode Island. So again
Speaker 1: it goes back to who is running the country. Is
Speaker 1: it the judges or is it Congress. Congress is the
Speaker 1: one who set these funds aside, put them in the
Speaker 1: executive branch, and the executive branch said it wasn't legal
Speaker 1: to use. Judges said, yes you can. But again, the
Speaker 1: problem is they have a six billion dollar fund contingency fund,
Speaker 1: and that will be completely wiped out and then some
Speaker 1: because it takes nine billion dollars to do it. So
Speaker 1: we've got that. We've also well, let's let's get into
Speaker 1: this whole thing about pick up from where we left yesterday.
Speaker 1: President had come back from his Asian trip, and it
Speaker 1: was fascinating to hear the analysis because the president, who
Speaker 1: always the way he thinks, the way he works, the
Speaker 1: way he speaks is always everything's the greatest, the best,
Speaker 1: head on and on. And that's good. I'm glad to
Speaker 1: see the man as super positive. The problem is with
Speaker 1: a lot of people that know about the relationship with China,
Speaker 1: said no, China has got a different message saying it
Speaker 1: wasn't all that great. So there's still a lot to
Speaker 1: work out. Two things about the talks with China. One
Speaker 1: of them is about Taiwan. The other one is about
Speaker 1: the President said we're going to start nuclear testing again.
Speaker 1: General Keen weighs in on both. Let's start with his
Speaker 1: reaction regarding the fact that nothing was said about Taiwan.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no doubt about it. I really would have
Speaker 3: liked that to be on the agenda. Maybe it was
Speaker 3: on the agenda. I don't know who was talked about.
Speaker 3: I think if it was that any progress would have
Speaker 3: been made there, we would know about it. I really
Speaker 3: do think that China clearly matters in sustaining Russia. Not
Speaker 3: just what do oil, but that's primary, but they provide
Speaker 3: everything short of a weapon system to them to keep
Speaker 3: them moving. They are their number one supplier in keeping
Speaker 3: Putin in the war and compensating for the short falls
Speaker 3: he has in his defense industrial base. And we're going
Speaker 3: to have to deal with China when it pertains to
Speaker 3: support for Russia at some point here.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious as to why Taiwan was not on
Speaker 1: the agenda. Wasn't even discussed about the nuclear testing. This
Speaker 1: is something that was brought up by President Trump just
Speaker 1: before the meeting with President she and his delegation in
Speaker 1: South Korea.
Speaker 3: You know, I can only speculate here, but it's been
Speaker 3: known for a number of years. I mean, the three
Speaker 3: countries that are testing openly nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan,
Speaker 3: and North Korea. We have suspected for years, and I
Speaker 3: likely Trump took a briefing before he went on this
Speaker 3: trip that China and Russia have been secretly testing nuclear warheads,
Speaker 3: and likely the President has a pretty good fidelity on
Speaker 3: what that is, if that actually has been taking place,
Speaker 3: and that may have been on his mind knowing that reality.
Speaker 3: I'm only speculating as to why he wants to resume
Speaker 3: that testing, because he wants to shut them down. This
Speaker 3: isn't He doesn't want to escalate, as you well know.
Speaker 3: He wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons we
Speaker 3: have while China is expanding it, trying to catch us
Speaker 3: and go past us. He would like to get into
Speaker 3: a deal with China, Russia in the United States sitting
Speaker 3: down around a table and let's reduce the number of
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons. Russia's increasing theirs because they've got tactical nuclear
Speaker 3: weapons now because they broke part with the IMF treaty.
Speaker 3: The Reagan established, and she is on the march with
Speaker 3: modernized nuclear weapons and his desires to go right past
Speaker 3: what Russia and the United States have. And when you're
Speaker 3: looking at the you got to look at the both
Speaker 3: of them as being adversaries of ours and combine their
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons together is the issue for the United States
Speaker 3: and dealing with this, And there's no wonder the President
Speaker 3: wants to sit down and have a discussion on bringing
Speaker 3: this all down to something that's far more reasonable.
Speaker 1: Fascinating because if Russia and China are both increasing their
Speaker 1: nuclear weapon capability and President Trump wants to reduce them,
Speaker 1: something's got to give. Here's what the President actually said
Speaker 1: about nuke testing.
Speaker 4: Things I discussed with President put in the other It
Speaker 4: wasn't just that, it was also other things. And I
Speaker 4: think the denuclearization is a very it's a big game.
Speaker 4: But Russia is willing to do it, and I think
Speaker 4: China is going to be willing to do it now.
Speaker 1: That statement by President Trump, that's from a comment that
Speaker 1: he made two months ago. So why he wants to
Speaker 1: start nuclear testing again? And the question is what kind
Speaker 1: of nuclear testing? Admiral Stravitees had this comment about it.
Speaker 5: I don't think related. You know three different things. Here,
Speaker 5: a nuclear weapon, everyone knows what that is, goes off,
Speaker 5: mushroom cloud, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, devastating. There is nuclear power, which
Speaker 5: is electricity generated by nuclear capability. That's benign generally and
Speaker 5: is part of what Putin has been talking about. Nuclear
Speaker 5: powered torpedoes, nuclear powered cruise missiles. Third thing nuclear testing,
Speaker 5: That is detonating a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 6: You're correct.
Speaker 5: The United States hasn't done that since the early nineteen nineties.
Speaker 5: Neither has Russia, neither has China. I hope we can
Speaker 5: avoid that. The only country that's done a nuclear test
Speaker 5: detonating a nuclear weapon of late is North Korea. I
Speaker 5: think it's unlikely to happen, and I think President Trump
Speaker 5: probably conflated nuclear power because Putin was talking about all
Speaker 5: of his new nuclear powered weapons. So President Trump kind
Speaker 5: of converted that to we're going to do nuclear testing
Speaker 5: to keep up with them, to show them we're strong.
Speaker 5: I'm all for showing them we're strong. I'm not for
Speaker 5: nuclear testing, and I doubt the President actually is either
Speaker 5: do we need to.
Speaker 6: Show them that we're strong or do they know that
Speaker 6: we're strong.
Speaker 5: I think a bit of both. They're certainly aware that
Speaker 5: we have the pre eminent military force in the world.
Speaker 5: Our budget is triple that of China, it's four times
Speaker 5: maybe five times that of Russia. And it's a highly
Speaker 5: blooded armed force because of twenty years in the Forever Wars,
Speaker 5: a lot of combat experience. They know all that. On
Speaker 5: the other hand, or yes, we have to continually demonstrate
Speaker 5: to our opponents that we have that capability. Hopefully you
Speaker 5: do it without nuclear testing, without actually attacking other countries.
Speaker 5: You do it in tests and exercises, working with your allies.
Speaker 5: When necessary, use actual force, like the President did against Iran.
Speaker 6: What do these tests look like?
Speaker 5: It is if you were going to do one. You
Speaker 5: could do an underground version, that's what North Korea ostensibly did.
Speaker 5: You can do it above ground, but it creates a
Speaker 5: messy radiation cloud. Obviously, you do it in remote test sites,
Speaker 5: and I think these days the propensity to go find
Speaker 5: a place where you can detonate a nuclear weapon is
Speaker 5: quite low, so I wouldn't overstress this as a realistic
Speaker 5: possibility at this point. Fortunate.
Speaker 7: How do you think the relationship between President Trump and
Speaker 7: President Putin is emerging or shifting?
Speaker 5: It is, and I think it is shifting to the
Speaker 5: detriment of President Putin. And that's because President Trump has
Speaker 5: reached out on a number of occasions, including the red
Speaker 5: carpet ride he gave him up in Alaska at the
Speaker 5: Computative Summit a few weeks ago. Really, and all that
Speaker 5: seems to look like disrespect to President Trump because Putin
Speaker 5: is not shifting his position at all. He's continuing maximalist
Speaker 5: demands in Ukraine. And I think President Trump is beginning
Speaker 5: to see that President Putin is indeed an extremely malevolent
Speaker 5: actor in the international system.
Speaker 1: Beren Sadler, who is with the Heritage Foundation former in
Speaker 1: the navyes focused on nuclear submarines. His reaction to all
Speaker 1: this nukta.
Speaker 5: Yes, I mean this has been in the works for
Speaker 5: several years.
Speaker 8: The fact that the President chose to announce and to
Speaker 8: really publicly commit to this just before he met with
Speaker 8: President Chuging Pain is certainly not something to be missed
Speaker 8: for the strategic and the messaging significance of that. But
Speaker 8: you could start seeing testing, scaled underground testing in the
Speaker 8: very near future. Whether or not we're prepared as another question,
Speaker 8: but we definitely need to do this.
Speaker 5: It's long overdue.
Speaker 8: Nuclear weapons do go bad, kind of like bread, but
Speaker 8: we do need to test how the fundamentals are changing
Speaker 8: over time. You do that with digital kind of simulations,
Speaker 8: but those are only so good based on years old data.
Speaker 8: So the testing is critical to continue to have high
Speaker 8: confidence and the viability of our nuclear deterrence that we
Speaker 8: rely on.
Speaker 1: So back to the point that Russia and China are
Speaker 1: both expanding their nuclear capabilities, what do you make of that?
Speaker 8: Well, clearly the Russians and the Chinese have no intent
Speaker 8: to backing down on their decades long expansion and modernization
Speaker 8: of their nuclear weapon arsenal. The Chinese just a few
Speaker 8: years ago triple the size of their intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal,
Speaker 8: and so there's no real pressure for them to actually
Speaker 8: rein it in unless they're confronted with a strong American
Speaker 8: nuclear deterrent. And I think the President realizes that. Putin
Speaker 8: also understands the President's desire to get rid of these
Speaker 8: very dangerous weapons, and that's why he's dangled it out
Speaker 8: several times as a way to try to forestall Harsher
Speaker 8: actions against his war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So, while we're keeping an eye on China and Russia
Speaker 1: and trying to figure out why the president isn't being
Speaker 1: tough on China and talking about Taiwan and Russia and
Speaker 1: about the oil. But he hasn't, So we move on.
Speaker 1: There was an interesting tweet that came out from cash
Speaker 1: Pateel earlier this morning. It says the FBI stopped a
Speaker 1: potential terrorist attack in Michigan before it could unfold. Thanks
Speaker 1: to swift action and coordination with our partners, a violent
Speaker 1: plot tied to international terrorism was disrupted. This is what
Speaker 1: defending the homeland looks like. Vigilance saves lives. So what
Speaker 1: was this all about? We didn't know. All we know
Speaker 1: is that he put out this tweet and then later
Speaker 1: the FBI announced that they arrested multiple people in Michigan.
Speaker 1: I believe the number turned out to be five. So
Speaker 1: it what was this all about? What was going on?
Speaker 1: John Miller, former NYPD guy, chimes in.
Speaker 6: Well, the FBI swept out out from the Detroit Field
Speaker 6: office last night and through this morning, taking people into custody,
Speaker 6: executing search warrants, and doing subpoenas for phones, computers, and
Speaker 6: other material. This all relates to an investigation that started
Speaker 6: months ago into people who were communicating online with each
Speaker 6: other here in the United States in the Detroit area Dearborn, Michigan, Inkster, Michigan,
Speaker 6: but also talking to people overseas possibly connected to ISIS.
Speaker 6: The discussions were geared towards should they do an ISIS
Speaker 6: inspired plot here in the United States. The what that
Speaker 6: plot was, the when that plot would be, what the
Speaker 6: target would be was unclear as they discussed various options
Speaker 6: in terms of timing. But this week when a group
Speaker 6: of those men that were being monitored went to a
Speaker 6: shooting range with AK forty sevens and other weapons, fired
Speaker 6: a large number of rounds of ammunition practice tactical high
Speaker 6: speed reloads, and in the discussions it was picked up
Speaker 6: a reference to what we are told was Pumpkin Day,
Speaker 6: a possible reference to Halloween. The FBI went into the
Speaker 6: mode of do we have the correct controlling features around
Speaker 6: this group in terms of monitoring, physical surveillance, electronic surveillance,
Speaker 6: so that if a plot spun up quickly, we could
Speaker 6: stop it in time, because now intent has been established,
Speaker 6: but capability has increased by the trip to the shooting range,
Speaker 6: and the decision was made to take it down now
Speaker 6: and sort through who to charge, who to charge with
Speaker 6: what based on the evidence they've gathered over these many weeks.
Speaker 1: Which is an interesting dilemma for law enforcement because if
Speaker 1: they have a bid on a person or a group
Speaker 1: of people that are taught about doing terrorist activities, you
Speaker 1: can't arrest people for their thoughts or their social media
Speaker 1: communication per se. But you also can't wait until they
Speaker 1: actually kill somebody. So how do you go in and
Speaker 1: stop a terrorist attack before the attack takes place. There
Speaker 1: was a guy whose family called law enforcement in the Atlanta,
Speaker 1: Georgia area. This was a week or two ago, and
Speaker 1: the guy was making all kinds of claims of wanting
Speaker 1: to shoot up people in the airport. And sure enough,
Speaker 1: he shows up in front of the Atlanta Airport illegally,
Speaker 1: parks his truck at the where you drop off passengers,
Speaker 1: walks into the airport and is looking around. Now, they
Speaker 1: had the beat on this guy, and yet he didn't
Speaker 1: have any arms on him. He was just looking around
Speaker 1: or was he? Because in his illegal lee park kruk,
Speaker 1: it was loaded with high powered ammunition and guns which
Speaker 1: are legal to carry apparently in Georgia. So Juliet KM,
Speaker 1: who was also former FBI, weighs in more on this
Speaker 1: story today out of Michigan.
Speaker 9: It's typical for this administration and this FBI director. I
Speaker 9: think we were all sort of adjusting to it because
Speaker 9: he'll announce something. Sometimes he announces it not quite before
Speaker 9: it's done, and then we don't know what the details are.
Speaker 9: So when we read the FBI director saying a terrorist
Speaker 9: attack has been thwarted, that makes it sound like, you know,
Speaker 9: this was very imminent, as John says, we don't have
Speaker 9: that yet. It also is just it's it's just as
Speaker 9: it's a way that this director is that is not
Speaker 9: necessarily good for law enforcement. You don't want to get
Speaker 9: too far ahead about what the claims are. But you're
Speaker 9: also the investigation is ongoing. As John luted, this isn't
Speaker 9: Dearborn Michigan. It is the high Arab and Muslim American
Speaker 9: community and the highest in the United States. Anybody knows
Speaker 9: that community knows about Dearborn. What are those connections that
Speaker 9: those young adults and some of them not even adults
Speaker 9: yet under eighteenth had to people abroad? Who were those
Speaker 9: people and where are those people right now? If they
Speaker 9: were planning something serious? And then is the group bigger?
Speaker 9: So that's why this tactic of Patel I've been critical
Speaker 9: of before this and even will being now, And I
Speaker 9: want to just alert to one thing. There is a
Speaker 9: statement by the Dearborn Police Department about the FBI, and
Speaker 9: it seemed, at least in my reading of it, that
Speaker 9: there wasn't much connectivity between those two law enforcement. Asians
Speaker 9: you've seen this in the past, the FBI will sort
Speaker 9: of come in and sort of bypass normal protocols of
Speaker 9: Joint Terrorism task Forces law enforcement. So that just means
Speaker 9: a lot of people have to adapt because I don't
Speaker 9: think it's going to stop well.
Speaker 1: That disconnects sometimes between local law enforcement and the FBI
Speaker 1: has been around for as long as I can remember,
Speaker 1: so it's nothing new. But they were talking about basically cash.
Speaker 1: Betel is quick to send out a tweet about the
Speaker 1: fact that they're up to something. So we still don't
Speaker 1: have all the details, but there was something brewing and
Speaker 1: they jumped on it. We don't know if it was
Speaker 1: actually just some people talking big on social media or
Speaker 1: whether they were really going to go kill people. Politics
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. So here we are with the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five election on Tuesday, and living in New York,
Speaker 1: I got to tell you every single act is about
Speaker 1: the mayor's race here in New York, and also, since
Speaker 1: they're in the same media market, is the governor's race
Speaker 1: in New Jersey. I'm sure for those of you in
Speaker 1: Virginia you're getting inundated with ads for your governor's race
Speaker 1: and attorney general's race and so forth. But it's what
Speaker 1: happens is after Tuesday that really kind of starts the
Speaker 1: treadmill into a higher shifting into a higher gear, because
Speaker 1: that's going to start for then the midterms. We don't
Speaker 1: let up, do we we come act you with the
Speaker 1: two twenty five twenty twenty five elections. The minute that's over,
Speaker 1: everybody's looking at the race for twenty twenty six in
Speaker 1: the midterms. The other big race I don't want to
Speaker 1: take away from is it's not a race. It's a proposition.
Speaker 1: In California, it's called Proposition fifty and what it was
Speaker 1: put on the ballot by the governor and the legislature
Speaker 1: to basically say to the people of California, we wanted
Speaker 1: to take back the power to draw the legislative congressional
Speaker 1: maps for the state of California because we're going to
Speaker 1: try and squeeze five more Democrats out of the congressional
Speaker 1: districts because Texas is attempting to squeeze five more Republicans.
Speaker 1: I saw a study of all the states that are
Speaker 1: trying to do redistricting, and it turns out to where
Speaker 1: there's about half of them are pro Democrat, about half
Speaker 1: of them are pro Republican, and the net is maybe
Speaker 1: two or three seats different if they're all successful and
Speaker 1: they're redistricting. But I got a nice email from Sharon,
Speaker 1: the public health nurse. She lives in Tennessee, and she
Speaker 1: used to live in California, and we've talked before when
Speaker 1: I was doing the radio show. But she sends me
Speaker 1: this email. It was about a week ago and with
Speaker 1: some photos, and she says California election is a subject
Speaker 1: another example of incompetency. Question mark, ballot stuffing. Question mark.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. As I reported to you last year,
Speaker 1: our daughter, a registered Democrat, has received California ballots and
Speaker 1: election info since we moved to Tennessee five years ago,
Speaker 1: even though she has never lived here or with us,
Speaker 1: nor used this address for anything. She lives in North
Speaker 1: Carolina and she has registered in her state of residence,
Speaker 1: but she continues to get election material from California. However,
Speaker 1: our two sons, nor my husband, nor myself registered Republicans
Speaker 1: and Independents, have ever received any election material from California.
Speaker 1: I find this both interesting and concerning. Be well, Nurse Sharon.
Speaker 1: I do too, Sharon, and thank you. She sent me
Speaker 1: photos of what she got in the mail. And there
Speaker 1: it is a statewide special election November fourth, twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: from the California Secretary of State. And there's the ballot
Speaker 1: that's got to open it up and do all that.
Speaker 1: But I mean, this is why is the registered Democrat
Speaker 1: in her family getting a ballot the Democrats, but the
Speaker 1: Republicans and the independence in her family are not. And
Speaker 1: they don't live in California and they haven't for five years,
Speaker 1: which is why people say, oh, Tom, oh Tom. But
Speaker 1: I look at this and go, this is why I
Speaker 1: don't like mail in ballots. I want you to show
Speaker 1: up and present yourself on election day. I know it's
Speaker 1: old school, but I'm thank you, Sharon. I'm glad you
Speaker 1: sent that to me. So we've got what's going to
Speaker 1: happen and after Tuesday, and oh, by the way, back
Speaker 1: to Proposition fifty in California. If this passes, it will
Speaker 1: give Gavin Newsom a big edge up in the race
Speaker 1: to be the Democrat nominee in twenty twenty eight. I
Speaker 1: know the midterms have to come next in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: but they're all trying to position themselves for who's going
Speaker 1: to be the nominee for the Democrat Party in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight. If this passes, because this was Gavin Newsom
Speaker 1: and he's trying to do whatever he can to be
Speaker 1: the guy who the Democrats look to to fight Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and do all that sort of stuff. But he's
Speaker 1: got Kamala Harris who is hinting that she wants to run.
Speaker 1: You've got a Governor Shapiro from Pennsylvania. You've got Governor
Speaker 1: Basher from Kentucky. You've got a bunch of different Democrats
Speaker 1: that are going to be circling around trying to figure
Speaker 1: out who is going to be the Democrats nominee at
Speaker 1: the next presidential election, which is is they're going to
Speaker 1: have to obviously ramp that up in about a year.
Speaker 1: But if this passes, Gavin Newsom will get a leg up.
Speaker 1: It will give him a lot of cred in the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party for look what he was able to do,
Speaker 1: what a leader, even though the state is a disaster.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people in the country that don't
Speaker 1: know that. They think California is land of sunshine and
Speaker 1: hot tubs. But I digress. If it doesn't pass that,
Speaker 1: I think he's toast. I think he will be looked
Speaker 1: upon as just a goofball that he is, and people
Speaker 1: will go, well, that was a waste. By the way,
Speaker 1: it's costing the California taxpayers three hundred million dollars to
Speaker 1: put this this ballot measure on for the voters to
Speaker 1: vote on next Tuesday. So it's really critical for him.
Speaker 1: But people are talking about Kamala Harris too because she
Speaker 1: is out well, she's on her book tour, but she's
Speaker 1: really starting her campaign to try to make herself the
Speaker 1: candidate for the next round. Jeremy Hunt and Patrick Murphy.
Speaker 1: Jeremy is a Republican spokesman. Patrick is a former a
Speaker 1: Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania. Talking about Kamala Harrison, how she's
Speaker 1: doing out there, Let's start with Jeremy.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, look, if you're like us, if you're
Speaker 7: on the right and you're looking at this, they're saying,
Speaker 7: twenty twenty eight is already shaping up to look pretty
Speaker 7: good for us. I mean, there still can get the
Speaker 7: basic answers right to questions about this bite and cover up,
Speaker 7: then it's going to be a very easy next few years.
Speaker 7: But let me let's start by Harris start by saying,
Speaker 7: when I watched this you Kamala Harris media tours, book camp,
Speaker 7: book tour that she's on, I've learned one thing and
Speaker 7: that is nothing has changed about Kamala Harris.
Speaker 10: I mean, there have been no lessons learned. There have
Speaker 10: been no serious introspection. She is still vomiting out the
Speaker 10: same word salads, defending Joe Biden and saying that, oh,
Speaker 10: I think he could have gone another four years. I mean,
Speaker 10: give it a break. The cat's out of the bag.
Speaker 10: It's no secret. We know there was a serious cover up.
Speaker 10: We know that we had an auto pen in chief
Speaker 10: for four years. And the number one question that everyone's
Speaker 10: going to ask is what was your role in this
Speaker 10: cover up? And for her to go on this book
Speaker 10: tour and not have an answer to that question and
Speaker 10: is to keep going back to the same twenty twenty
Speaker 10: four talking points that lost her that election, saying, oh, well,
Speaker 10: Biden's fine, I didn't have any issues. Look, she is
Speaker 10: off on the wrong start already.
Speaker 7: And honestly, this is I think it's political malpractice for
Speaker 7: the Democrat side at the highest level.
Speaker 10: But if you're like us and ne're in the right,
Speaker 10: it's not a bad day, all right.
Speaker 1: So he's speaking from the viewpoint of a Republican. Patrick Murphy,
Speaker 1: former Democrat congressman from Pennsylvania. What's he think about Kamalo's
Speaker 1: book to her? And how is she doing?
Speaker 10: It?
Speaker 11: Does matter? And I actually agree with a lot of
Speaker 11: the points that Derry's banking, not all, but a lot
Speaker 11: of the points. And we you know, knowledge his service
Speaker 11: and is a great West play guy. I know him
Speaker 11: and his brother are great Americans. For some reason, she
Speaker 11: has not gotten a memo that she's the first Democratic
Speaker 11: nominee for president in the last two decades, twenty years,
Speaker 11: five elections that did not win the popular vote. So
Speaker 11: what does that tell us? That tells us that that
Speaker 11: was a mandate last year not to run again. And
Speaker 11: I don't know why. Wow, it hasn't sunk in.
Speaker 2: She's definitely reading the memo differently. If she has it
Speaker 2: at all, though, Patrick, because she made it all about
Speaker 2: the current President Trump, who not only won the popular
Speaker 2: vote but all the battleground states too. She made it
Speaker 2: about him. Does that help your party?
Speaker 11: I don't think it does. I really don't think it.
Speaker 3: Does, to be honest with yet.
Speaker 11: And you know, like Jeremy and I were both army officers, right,
Speaker 11: both certainly combat and we have this. We have seven
Speaker 11: army values. One is loyalty, one is honor. We have
Speaker 11: a say in the army though, loyalty above all else
Speaker 11: except honor. Oh, it's pretty simple to say, hey, we
Speaker 11: made mistakes staying this and this and this, but you
Speaker 11: have to have that self reflection and I'm honest, accountability
Speaker 11: in your heart. And people articulate that and we're not
Speaker 11: seeing it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, Kamala Harris is still going around defending the
Speaker 1: fact that everything was fine with Joe Biden. He looked
Speaker 1: just as sharp as can be. There was no cognitive problems,
Speaker 1: none whatsoever. She's not the only one, you know, who
Speaker 1: else is really saying the same thing. Gavin Newsom the
Speaker 1: other day I'm paraphrasing, but he said, I'll go to
Speaker 1: my grave defending the fact that Joe Biden was perfectly fine,
Speaker 1: and I I think that's gonna hurt him. I think
Speaker 1: it does hurt Kamala Harris because all of the saw
Speaker 1: Joe Biden stumbling around and couldn't figure out how to
Speaker 1: get off the stage or get on the stage, or
Speaker 1: where to go or what to do, and he had
Speaker 1: to read cards that were given to him with pre
Speaker 1: ordained questions. I mean, just there was so much where
Speaker 1: they were coddling him because he just seemed totally out
Speaker 1: of it. So why would Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: basically put their political careers on the line and saying
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was absolutely fine. Let me play for you
Speaker 1: a couple of different cuts. This is Kamala Harris being
Speaker 1: interviewed just I think in the last week by an
Speaker 1: Australian reporter who asked her specifically about Joe Biden and
Speaker 1: what did you see, And Kamala Harrison decided to answer
Speaker 1: the question by saying Donald Trump was the guy I
Speaker 1: was running against and he's a terrible person, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And the Australian reporter literally tells her, no,
Speaker 1: you're not answering my question. Listen to this.
Speaker 12: Didn't you also have a responsibility? You were one of
Speaker 12: the people in the room.
Speaker 13: I did not question Joe Biden's capacity to be president
Speaker 13: at all for four more years. He did not question
Speaker 13: his capacity.
Speaker 12: It wasn't his refusal to recognize his own frailties the
Speaker 12: reason that you faced a nearly impossible task.
Speaker 13: I ran against Donald Trump for president, and Donald Trump
Speaker 13: ran on a platform that was, in large part, I believe,
Speaker 13: misrepresenting his intentions to the American people. You combine that
Speaker 13: misrepresentation of intention with also what was that play in
Speaker 13: terms of massive amounts of misinteristant for me? Now forgive me,
Speaker 13: I want to calendar in terms of yes, the clerk,
Speaker 13: I want to interrupt you because that is a world
Speaker 13: class pivot.
Speaker 12: But it is not the question that I asked you,
Speaker 12: which is about Joe Biden's failure to recognize his own
Speaker 12: frailties and what that did to you. Question is about
Speaker 12: Joe Biden. Are you still reluctant to criticize the former
Speaker 12: president in what regard?
Speaker 13: Please? Well, just in terms of that question, so you
Speaker 13: went exactly, would you like to ask be more specific?
Speaker 12: If you don't Joe Biden's decision, his failure to recognize
Speaker 12: his own frailties in that position that put you in
Speaker 12: the position that made it almost impossible to win that race.
Speaker 13: He was not frail as a president of the United States.
Speaker 12: But he had frailties. We saw the debate.
Speaker 13: I do believe that Joe Biden had the capacity to
Speaker 13: be president of the United States.
Speaker 1: So not only would she not answer the question, she
Speaker 1: eventually did. She said, I believe he had the capacity
Speaker 1: to be president of the United States, but it was
Speaker 1: also she I had to ask the reporter about the question.
Speaker 1: She says, did you see Joe biden frailty that made
Speaker 1: it difficult for you to win? And she said, I
Speaker 1: don't understand. Basically, I don't understand the question. Asked again,
Speaker 1: and she asked it again, and she says, and be
Speaker 1: more specific, I mean, how hard was it for her
Speaker 1: to understand the basic question that the reporter was asking.
Speaker 1: Apparently it was difficult. Okay, here's another one with John
Speaker 1: Stewart from The Daily Show. And he certainly isn't a
Speaker 1: right wing nut job. Listen to this.
Speaker 13: I believe he was fully competent to serve. Are you
Speaker 13: really yeah, I do.
Speaker 6: That surprises me.
Speaker 5: Actually, no, I do.
Speaker 13: But there's a distinction to be made between running for
Speaker 13: president and being president.
Speaker 1: Even John Stewart was flabberg asked as he says, that
Speaker 1: surprises me. Nobody's buying what she's saying. One more, here's
Speaker 1: good old James Carville.
Speaker 14: Be very clear here, no one that had anything to
Speaker 14: do with twenty twenty four. No Democrat wants to hear
Speaker 14: from her, Not Hunt of Biden, not Harris, not Tim Wallas,
Speaker 14: not the consultants, not anything. The twenty twenty four have
Speaker 14: left such a lingering bad taste in Democrats. We just
Speaker 14: don't just get out of the way.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I can't speak for the Democrats, but Carville can,
Speaker 1: and John Stewart and I don't know about the Australiant Reporter,
Speaker 1: but it did leave a bad test. Democrats have had
Speaker 1: a hard time since the twenty twenty four election. They
Speaker 1: don't have a leader. They're kind of wandering around trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what to say and what to do.
Speaker 1: But pay attention to this business about defending Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: because again you saw what I saw, what everybody saw,
Speaker 1: was sadly a elderly man that did not seem to
Speaker 1: have anywhere near full cognition. In fact, very deficit on
Speaker 1: his cognition. He could not figure out what to say,
Speaker 1: or what to do, or how to get on a
Speaker 1: stage or off a stage. Even at the terrible debate
Speaker 1: that he had, he had to be helped down three
Speaker 1: stairs off of the dais. He had the cards put
Speaker 1: in front of him at news conferences so that he
Speaker 1: would only call on reporters that had already submitted questions.
Speaker 1: It was I mean, it just went on and on
Speaker 1: and on about the fact that Joe Biden sadly had
Speaker 1: become not able to do just about any job, let
Speaker 1: alone president. So if Kamala Harris wants to keep defending him, okay,
Speaker 1: and Gavin Newsen have jumped on that same bandwagon. I
Speaker 1: think it's a huge mistake for any Democrat. I think
Speaker 1: they should just ignore it. Like Carvel said, just stop
Speaker 1: talking about it. I've got to play. I've got another
Speaker 1: one here. I forgot about that. I wanted to play
Speaker 1: for you too. This was She's on the book tour
Speaker 1: and Caris Wisher was the moderator. She was on stage
Speaker 1: with Kris Wisher and launched into this story the debate.
Speaker 13: Look I mean, okay. So part of it is so
Speaker 13: what happened was.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 13: So part of what I do talk about is that
Speaker 13: so debate camp, which was really intense. And then we
Speaker 13: get to Philly and my team and it's Kirsten Allen,
Speaker 13: who many people here may know, and Brian Fallon and
Speaker 13: they're getting me ready and they're like, hey, boss, So
Speaker 13: we saw Donald Trump coming off the plane coming to
Speaker 13: the debate and Laura Lumer was on the plane with him,
Speaker 13: and so they basically say to me, we didn't tell you,
Speaker 13: but she's been talking about people eating cats and dogs.
Speaker 13: They said, we think we need to tell you because
Speaker 13: his propensity is to say the last thing he heard.
Speaker 13: Oh it's sure enough on the debate stage. He said it.
Speaker 9: He said it, and they were ready did Yeah.
Speaker 13: I was brought, but not really.
Speaker 1: I gotta admit I'm that whole story about the cats
Speaker 1: and dogs or eating cats are eating dogs. It's a
Speaker 1: funny story. But she doesn't I don't know if the
Speaker 1: gravitasa just it sells one more see if you can
Speaker 1: figure out what she's saying. This is more of the
Speaker 1: going back to her word solad business. I don't remember
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris doing word talar when she was the attorney
Speaker 1: general in California. I don't remember her doing words tellar
Speaker 1: when she was the Senator and she was quizzing Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Something's going on with her, in my humble opinion, in
Speaker 1: the last few well else in the last four years.
Speaker 1: And she starts wandering down a thought process and then
Speaker 1: she switches before she finishes that thought to another thought,
Speaker 1: and then she interrupts herself to yet another thought, and
Speaker 1: it's just it creates a word salad. This is from
Speaker 1: the book Tour.
Speaker 13: But for example, I discussed in the timeline we had
Speaker 13: policy work to do that was about letting people know
Speaker 13: where I stood on the fact that I wanted to
Speaker 13: make sure that for example, it was my intention. And
Speaker 13: I know a lot of beautiful public servants here today,
Speaker 13: some of who are not have been let go over
Speaker 13: the last several months, and some of who are furloughed,
Speaker 13: And I thank you all for your service and everything
Speaker 13: that you do, and if we can just applaud those
Speaker 13: who are here. But for example, one of the things
Speaker 13: that I intended to do was as the president, we
Speaker 13: then have the largest workforce, right is the federal government.
Speaker 13: And I intended to figure out a way to reclassify
Speaker 13: job descriptions by skill, not just by college degree.
Speaker 1: So she got there, but she wandered, I mean all
Speaker 1: over the map before she got there. So I mean,
Speaker 1: this is going to be interesting to watch to see
Speaker 1: as she I'm going to guess she's going to try
Speaker 1: to run. Remember when she ran the first time, she
Speaker 1: was the first Democrat in, and she was the first
Speaker 1: Democrat out. She got out before the primaries because people
Speaker 1: just absolutely did not connect. So I find it interesting
Speaker 1: to see. And again after Tuesday, that's going to be
Speaker 1: more of the focus on all of that. Wall Street
Speaker 1: today was positive again, the Dow up forty at forty
Speaker 1: seven five sixty two, SMP up seventeen, the NASDAK up
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty three, the price of gold the
Speaker 1: only down, airrowyc down five bucks to four thy ten,
Speaker 1: and oil price is up thirty cents to just under
Speaker 1: sixty one dollars for a barrel of oil. Thank you
Speaker 1: for coming by today. Happy Halloween to you. Have a
Speaker 1: great weekend. We'll be back on Monday. Hope to see
Speaker 1: you then.
Speaker 13: The s