Speaker 1: And welcome to the Big Podcast on this Wednesday. Today's
the twenty fifth day of June, year of our lower
twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. So we
as we gather around today, it's all about still looking
back at what happened on the dropping of the bombs
over the nuke sites in Iran and out of this
is becoming a battle primarily led by CNN New York
Times as well. There was a damage assessment, preliminary damage
assessment done by the DA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Yes
they are of the Pentagon, but it is a preliminary
report with what little information that they had, and they
said that it only set back Iran maybe a couple
of weeks. So CNN and New York Times are really
focused on that as if that is the gospel, and
it's not the gospel. There's the idea we don't know
what the damage was. The experts are still doing their assessments.
They don't know the extent of the damage yet. I
don't think we will ever know everything. They're not going
to disclose every single thing about this. So THEDIA Defense
Intelligence Agency says only sets Iran back by a few months.
Others are saying that it was obliterated. Others are saying
it's set them back a couple of years. So take
your pick on whichever one makes you feel the way
this says something the way you feel. If you don't
like Donald Trump, you're gonna what CNN is doing. And
New York Times, they're rooting for failure. They're rooting that
this did not work, and therefore they're rooting to see
Donald Trump. He's a bad leader, he's a bad president,
he's a bad guy, he's bad whatever you want. If
you believe all of that, then you're going to believe
this preliminary document that tries to portray this as a failure.
Now it may be it may in fact turn out
to be where it failed, but it could also be
where it was wildly successful, and we just do not
know what that is. But there's a big argument, and
it's becoming political. You don't like Trump, you believe the
thing failed. If you do like Trump, you think the
thing was obliterated. So I think they're just trying to
embarrass Donald Trump on this. I would like to I
would like to get to what really happened. I'm a
big enough boid to where I can take the truth.
If it did work, great, If it did not work,
that's not great. But we need to know, and we're
not going to know right away, and like I said,
I doubt we'll ever ever, ever really know. If you
focus on the military mission itself. The military mission was
a giant success. There's no question about that. These military
planners that put all of this together, and the pilots
and the refuelers and the people in the submarines, it
was amazing what they coordinated in order to pull this
thing off. So that's I mean to me, that's that's
really where the focus should be on that more than
anything else. But we don't know the damage. We don't
know if we got everything. General Jack Keene always seems
to be the voice, well not the moderate voice, but
he's the guy who sits back and he knows that
exactly how this works. So let's listen to what General
Keane has to say.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the evidence as it comes out will
be quite overwhelming. I've been in contact with the Israelis,
who are really the people on the ground taking a
look at this, and they believe based on their preliminary assessment,
because it's the people on the ground that are going
to make the most in depth assessment of what has
taken place here, and they haven't completed their assessment, and
they believe the program is set back at least two years,
if not longer, based on what's took place at those sites.
And obviously they hit all twelve sites before we hit
the major underground facilities here. And look at the DA report,
it was a preliminary report that had never reached the president.
Yet it has to go through a process with all
the intelligence agencies coming together, making an assessment and then
bring that conclusion to the president that has been truncated
by the LEA. So that process hasn't even been completed.
And certainly the people are reporting on in New York
Times and seeing and are trying to take advantage of it.
I think this will simmer down at some point as
the evidence is overwhelming in terms of the success of
this operation. But let me say a couple of more
points on this. The ceasefire I would have liked to
have seen it have some conditions, public conditions as well
as private condition, and that is is that you are
not going to rebuild your program, and if you do,
Israel and the United States.
Speaker 3: May have to stop it, and we will.
Speaker 2: I think that's implied, and the President certainly made statements
to that effect here, so cleared up any doubt of
what we're doing for it. Let's face the reality here.
The regime that's in power in Iran has not changed.
They're going to want still want a nuclear weapon because
they believe it protects them in terms of their survival.
They will try to find a way to rebuild its
kind of who they are. They are steadfast in their
resistance to the United States and Israel, and the United
States certainly is committed to Israel here to make certainness
doesn't have I mean, Iran is back on its heels
in a way that they have never been in forty
five years. They have lost their military capability, They've lost
their nuclear program, much of their ballistic missile program, much
of their leadership, and I think they've been politically weakened
inside of their country, which makes them more vulnerable to
maybe through violence and a coop change in the regime
or eventually the people themselves having to say about changing
the regime. But nonetheless, I don't want to focus too
much on regime change, but they're vulnerable to it.
Speaker 3: In a way they haven't been.
Speaker 4: Then.
Speaker 2: The second major point he made is deterrence the United
States in focusing on destroying the end state of Iran's
nuclear program with such a major, remarkable operation that was
conducted here. Our adversaries are looking at this and they
see the message, and that's the United States global leadership
returning to the world stage and their willingness to confront adversaries.
The other thing that makes this so important and critical
is look at the proxies. None of them came to
help Iran in a moment of desperation, particularly Hesbola, who
was organized with billions of dollars one hundred and fifty
thousand rockets and missiles to do principally one thing, defend
Iran against Israel.
Speaker 3: They never fired a shot.
Speaker 2: Where is Russia and China and helping their their partner,
their partner in the Access Alliance, no help whatsoever except rhetoric.
Aran is isolated here and we have achieved the measure
of deterrence. Both of those adversary countries need to know
and they got the message from President Trump. We are
willing to confront your aggression and your ambitions when they're
stepping on US national interests, and that is usually powerful
message that is coming out of what we're saying here.
Speaker 1: Another general that has his eyes on this retired for
Star General Joseph Botel. He was tentcom commander. This is
his assessment of the assessment that's coming in.
Speaker 5: Well, I said, I think his statement certainly is an
important one, and it's certainly underscores the significance of our
strike here and the fact that Iran's nuclear weapons capability
is not the same today as it was just a
week ago or just a few days ago. So I
think that's an important assessment. Of course, he emphasized the
importance in getting people on the ground to look at this.
I think the thing that's most important for people to
appreciate is this battle damage assessment process that has now
become kind of something common to talk about. It really
is a process, and it goes through certain phases. That
starts with very simple initial assessments and then it gets
more into the detailed total system analysis. And when we
look at that, we do value looking in getting information
from people that have been on the ground, but we
also look at other things like the effects of the
Israeli strikes for example, them going after things like the
conversion plants or the manufacturing process. These are all really
important things that have to be worked in to the
total system damage assessment that really tells us what the
long term impact of this is. Well, it's going to
be gayed two weeks, I think in terms of this
again as soon as as soon as people can get
on the ground and we can again look at all
the all the information that's being collected and the intelligence
community independent and I will have the opportunity to you know,
to make to make a to make a better assessment.
I think, Bob, well, what what what the impacts are?
But I think it's I think it's very clear there's
a significant amount of damage that has been gone to
the Iranian nuclear weapons. For I don't think there's any
any ability to dispute that it's definitely different today than
it was.
Speaker 1: So definitely different than it was is The assessment by
General Botel Pete Hags at the Defense Secretary at the
NATO news conference earlier today basically chewed out CNN and
The New York Times for jumping all over the DIA analysis.
Speaker 6: There's a reason the President calls out fake news for
what it is. These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these
air defenders. The skill and the courage it took to
go into enemy territory flying thirty six hours on behalf
of the American people in the world to take out
a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience
can fathom. And then the instinct, the instinct of CNN,
the instinct of the New York Times, is to try
to find a way to spin it for their own
political reasons, to try to hurt President Trump or our country.
They don't care what the troops think, they don't care
what the world thinks. They want to spin it to
try to make him look bad based on a leak.
Of course, we've all seen plenty of leakers, and what
a leakers do? They have agendas and what do they do?
Do they share the whole information or just the part
that they want to introduce? And when they introduce that
preliminary a preliminary report that's deemed to be a low assessment,
you know what a low assessment means? Low confidence in
the data in that report.
Speaker 3: And why is there low confidence?
Speaker 6: Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed
by twelve thirty thousand pound bombs is buried under a mountain,
devastated and obliterated. So if you want to make an
assessment of what happened at four to doh, you better
get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iron's
nuclear program is obliterated and somebody somewhere is trying to
leak something to say, oh, with low confidence, we think
maybe it's moderate. Those that the bombs precisely in the
right place know exactly what happened when that exploded, and
you know who else knows. Iran That's why they came
to the table right away, because their nuclear capabilities have
been set back beyond what they thought were possible because
of the courage of a commander in chief who let
our troops despite what the fake news wants to say.
Speaker 1: Well, one guy who seems to be very credible is
David Albright. He is one of the inspectors from the IAEA.
They're the International Atomic Energy Agency and they're the ones
to go around the world to where nuclear programs are
and determine how much of a nuclear program exists. Here's
David Albright, it could satellite images.
Speaker 4: Are we that good at figuring things out to where
this agency and there's a lot of agencies I think
working on assessing what happened. But for this particular report
to come out, what do you think they were facing
that on that the end that the structures are still
intact the building.
Speaker 7: I think it's I think they were dependent on settled
imagery and some communication intercepts and I don't think they
can tell them. And also from the reporting, I don't
know if they're talking about FORDAU or a mountain complex
at SFAH on nuclear site. I mean, it's very murky.
What we found at ford OW is we have building
designs for FORDA from previous or other work we do,
and we can geolocate what parts of the site were
being targeted. So there's a a very important ventilation shaft
that comes up from the bottom from the floor of
the centrifuge plant all the way up to the surface.
The three holes from the mops are right in that
ventilation shaft area or a ventilation system, so it's kind
of a clean shot all the way to the bottom.
You're not going through a mountain per se. We also
found that the other three were targeted at the end
of a centrifeude of the centrifuge hall. Going through an
older structure that had been on the surface and that
iron had covered up back and many years ago. So
we looked at we think that's a vulnerability in the mountain.
And so with these if these mobs got through, what
they're doing is if they explode, they're creating shock waves
that run throughout the complex from two different directions, and
so we wouldn't expect them roofs to collapse. We're just
to expect fire pressure shock waves that would destroy things
in their path. And so if it worked, it would
be extremely destructive. Well, you have to separate it.
Speaker 3: What is some of the.
Speaker 7: Media that leaking this, what are they intending to do?
Speaker 3: And they want when.
Speaker 7: Bears trump the DIA and it was probably were just
making an assessment, and we make them too, And what
are we thinking of. Yes, we have to be pessimistic
sometimes because we have to protect our interests, us interesting
and we want to know. We don't want to be blindsided.
So you want to do slightly pessimistic assessment, so you know, Okay,
here's the problem we need to solve. And so for
us identifying that there may be remaining stocks of sixty
percent remaining centrifuge just means we have to deal with
that problem. We can, and it's it's the residual part
of the centrifuge programs a massive damage to it, and
we have to deal with it. And we think the
best way is through diplomacy, and I would say through
Mosad continuing to act in Iran, luring people or encouraging
people inside the program to come forward to in a
sense realize your holding career has been shattered, and you
can provide some information about what's going on, and we
can help you find a new life if it's really important. Yeah, no,
and it's it is. It is harmful and and and
it HiT's free to debate within the within the intelligence
agencies and confuse the public, I mean, the who can
make sense out of it right now? And yet it's
something we need to make sense out of and find
ways to move forward. So you know, the only bright
thing I can see and it is that you know,
I worry that President Trump will move on and this
kind of press reporting as a reminder to him and
that this problem isn't completely solid.
Speaker 3: But he's.
Speaker 7: He and particularly Israel have accomplished a tremendous amount to
end Iran's enrichment program, and now we need to do
the rest. So they're kind of the residing parts and
do the rest. If you don't, those residual parts will
grow and become a threat to the United States.
Speaker 1: So what happens next, Well, the United States in Iran
announcement this afternoon that they will be meeting next week.
I presume this is going to try to start the
diplomatic effort to try to get the rest of whatever
wasn't bombed out last Saturday night. Meantime, Josh Kraushauer talking
about the President, spent the day today in the NATO
meeting in the Hague.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Look, this is a big political moment on the world
stage for President Trump, and you can see his confidence
in his conversations with these world leaders. Look, you know,
he was very adamant about maintaining the ceasefire it's held
so far. He wants to basically claim that his ability
to use force got peace. And that's the argument that
you're actually hearing some of the European leaders, Mark Ruti,
the head of NATO, the German Chancellor are crediting Trump
for his willingness to use force in order to get
to peace or at least in order to get to
a diplomatic path. Now, there's a lot of questions along
the way, coming forward to the intelligence reports you mentioned,
the nature of what the RAND is going to do,
whether they're coming to the bargaining table, whether they want
to actually get rid and continue to you know, whether
they want to abandon their nuclear program or whether they're
going to build it up again. Those are still important
questions that are elevant, but Trump certainly is coming to
the Netherlands at this very important moment. The other big
news is the five percent commitment from the European leaders.
It's been a theme of Donald Trump's ever since he
ran for president back in twenty sixteen, getting European countries
to spend more for their national defense, and from the
reaction from many of the top European leaders, that seems
to be getting closer to that goal.
Speaker 1: And Josh Oham's former McConnell chief of staff talking about
the world leaders at the NATO somewhat and what their
opinion is about the efforts by the US and Israel.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, it continues to be totally astounding how
many people in the intelligence left of this country and
somewhere in the deep state of our government is basically
rooting for America's failure in many ways. But I think
the larger piece, and what Josh was talking about here,
is you're watching an American president, over a course of
a few days, restore America's position as a leader in
the free world. And you're seeing it now play out
this NATO summit. I mean, it was during his first
term where everybody thought that Donald Trump was being provocative
and offensive by suggesting the European country's ante up for
their mutual defense. And now here we are going to
two percent and then now five percent of their.
Speaker 8: GDP to do just that.
Speaker 3: He is leading the world at this point.
Speaker 9: He saved NATO in many ways, and he's also providing
leadership in the Middle East that's gravely necessary.
Speaker 1: Former Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln weighed in by saying,
writing to The New York Times, the strike on three
of Iran's nuclear facilities by the United States was unwise
and unnecessary. Now that it's done, I very much hope
that it succeeded. Josh Krashauer with the reaction to Anthony Blincoln.
Speaker 8: Well, the success of the strikes against Iran's nuclear program
and the fact that the day after where we're on
the we've got to cease fire, is making the democratic
argument very complicated. If you read that blinkin op at
he's trying to have it both ways, saying, yeah, you know,
I'm hoping the strikes work and maybe there's going to
be some opportunity to bring a ranto the negotiating table
as a result. But he also wants to kind of
claim credit for the Democratic record which led to Iran
kind of building the nuclear material and not not restraining
them as a lot of folks had hoped. So there's
a lot of trying to recreate the record in the
case of Blincoln. And look, Democrats are in a little
bit of an awkward position because they rushed to oppose
Trump's strikes against Iran, trying to think they could politically capitalize,
and because of their success and the limited nature of them,
the fact that we're now getting this, we now have
the cease fire, they're not living up to their initial rhetoric,
and they're trying to focus more on this War Powers
resolution that's before Congress and less so about actually opposing
what happened in the nuclear in the strikes against around
the nuclear program program themselves. So Democrats are in a
little bit an awkward position. They're divided between folks who
are worried about Iran's nuclear program and are glad with
what Trump did.
Speaker 3: And those who are much more left wing on foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Then there's a question about AOC and a few others
suggest or not suggesting they want to start them eachment
process against Donald Trump. Over all of this, a lot
of Democrats are saying, please don't do that. The fact
they're voting against AOC, they do not go there. And
again we've talked about this during impeachment one and impeachment two.
Unless you have sixty seven senators that are in the
same camp with you, you're basically wasting your time. You're
going to have a show trial with nothing to show
for it, and who comes out stronger at the end,
President Trump? Because one more time, so the Democrats are
even telling AOC to knock it off. Here's a Josh
Holmes with his reaction.
Speaker 9: Now that's absolutely a rudderless ship. And people who say
that they are pro Israel and they're for the defense
of Israel, of course, have talked about this forever. Again,
such a kick out of that Anthony Blinkett ibed, I
mean contrast the policy of the Biden administration where he's
delivering peers outside of Gaza to make sure that Hamas
has three squares a day without providing any meaningful defense
of Israel whatsoever, and all of a sudden he thinks
that this was a bad idea. I would suggest that
if Anthony Blincoln thinks that you made a bad foreign
policy decision, it's probably right on the money.
Speaker 3: And at least that's what it looks like from my perspective.
Speaker 1: Speaking of AOC, she has been a giant endorser of
the man who won the New York City Democrat primary
election yesterday. His name is Zoron Ma'am Danny, and he
is an avowed socialist. He's going to be run well,
we don't know if Cuomo's going to run on a
separate line. Cuomo came in second, Ma'am Danny came in
clearly first. So the way New York City politics works
is that you can have different lines for different parties,
and there's a whole bunch of different lines. So it
may be where the Ma'am Danny runs against Eric Adams,
the current mayor who is going to have to run
on some other ticket, and also maybe the Mario excuse me,
Andrew Andrew Cuomo, who can find another line to have
his name on the ballot. So there's going to be
a lot of jockeying before the general election in November.
But what a shocker. And Eric Adams, this is his reaction.
He calls him a snake oil salesman. And then here
is Ma'm Danny with his working the crowd up into
a frenzy.
Speaker 3: He's this snake oils sellsman. He was say and do
anything to get elected.
Speaker 10: Where rent stabilized, apartments are actually stabilized, where buses are
fast and free, where childcare doesn't toss more than cuney.
It's where the mayor will use their power to reject
Donald Trump's fashes two stuff mass ice agents from deporting
our neighbor.
Speaker 1: So Mandani wants to run up the city a totally
different way. He is a great believer in raising the
minimum wage to thirty dollars an hour. He wants to
offer free buses for everybody. He wants the city to
run the grocery stores in New York City. He's four
open borders and the way he's going to pay for
all of this is of course packs the rich and
tax business, and so the business leaders in New York
are downright panicking, going, oh my gosh, this guy is
really catching on and if that happens, what will happen
to the financial capital of the world. He is thirty
three years old and has been a state legislator for
a couple of you. What does this say, though, about
other big cities in this country. They're all blue, they're
all run by Democrats, and you can't help but wonder
if maybe the socialist message is getting through to a
lot of people that live in big cities that are
low income and they're struggling, and they're looking for a leader.
The Democrats are looking for a leader. This isn't the
Democrats winning. This is the far far, far far far
left winning, like far than even AOC. So is this
the way the Democrats are going to go? It really
makes you wonder what other big cities are going to do,
because yesterday the Chicago Tribune gave a warning to the
people of New York saying, don't do learn from the
mistakes we made in Chicago by electing Brandon Johnson, who
is also a socialist, and the Chicago Tribune says he's
ruining Chicago. Don't make the same mistake. But what did
the people do? They voted for this thirty three year
old socialist who has big dreams of a socialist empire
within the city of New York. And you know that
businesses not only can pick up and move, they don't
have to move far. They can just go across the
river to New Jersey, or they can go up about
ten miles up to another county, Westchester County, get out
of the City of New York. Or they can move
to Texas like a lot of them have. Harry Enton,
the strategist over at CNN, and this analysis of the
mayor oral race and its impact on Democrats across the nation.
Listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 11: Let me tell you this was a political earthquake that
should have the Democratic establishment running scared. What are we
talking about here, Well, New York City primary upsets like Mondani's,
this is truly one for the record books. They're really
only two that I could think of that or anything
like this, And that's back in eighty nine for Mayor
David Dickins one over third three term Mayor Ed Koch
was running for a fourth term. The voter said, uhh,
there was big turnout then, just like there was big
turnout last night, and of course more recently, if you
want to take a look at a national picture, think
back to twenty eighteen New York's fourteenth Democratic primary going
for Congress when AOC House DEM Caucus Chair Joe Crowley.
This to me is very much like that, energizing young voters,
energizing voters on the left, and providing what truly was
a historic night last night in democratic circles.
Speaker 6: More a New York City thing, or is this more
of a sign of a larger national trend when it
comes to the Democratic gas Yeah, just.
Speaker 11: Like AOC's victory in twenty eighteen. This did happen locally,
but I think you can take it up nationally. What
are we talking about here, Well, you know, you think
about democratic establishment, you think about Democratic party leaders, pretty
much all of.
Speaker 3: Them were behind Andrew Cuomo.
Speaker 11: But the bottom line is the Democratic base is fed up,
done with the Democratic establishment. This is true in New York,
it's two nationally Democrats who say their party leaders should
be replaced.
Speaker 3: Look at this, This is a recent pull from rouydership.
Speaker 11: So sixty two percent of Democrats nationally say their party
leaders should be replaced. Party leaders like Andrew Cuomo, party
leaders like Jim Kleiber and who of course endorsed Andrew Cuomo.
You think about all the Democrats that were behind Andrew
Cuomo in the establishment. The Democratic base is fed up
with them. And the bottom line is, nationally, the vast
majority of Democrats think that their party leaders should be replaced.
Speaker 3: But it's more than this.
Speaker 11: Right, of course, Mandani ran a left, pretty far left campaign,
right compared to what we normally see in democratic circles.
But the bottom line is, you talk to me. Twenty
thirty years ago, there was no way I thought a
democratic socialist could win a nomination from mayor in New
York or nationally. But look Democrats who identify as liberal
nationally in nineteen ninety four, twenty five percent, You go
to two thousand and four to thirty three percent, twenty
fourteen to forty three percent. Now the majority of Democrats
nationally identify as liberal. If there are a democratic establishment.
Folks who think this is just going to be contained
in New York, I say this is a warning sign
to you it very much may not be.
Speaker 1: Arl Lewis, who was a local New York political guru,
laid out the differences between Andrew Cuomo and this new
socialist that's leading in the mayor's race.
Speaker 12: Well, look, this was two candidates who just could not
be more different. If Cuomo had been elected, he would
have been the oldest mayor in the history of New
York City. By contrast, we haven't had a mayor this young.
If he should succeed, Mam Donnie would be the youngest
mayor in one hundred years. You have somebody who had
a ton of experience. Cuomo had won seven statewide campaigns,
three for his father, four for himself. Mam Donnie, by contrast,
had only been in the Assembly, the lower chamber of
the State Assembly of the state legislature, for.
Speaker 3: Two terms about four years.
Speaker 12: So you had new and fresh and somebody who was
just bursting with energy as opposed to somebody who really
literally physically represented the Democratic establishment.
Speaker 1: And Chuck Rosa, who is a Democrat campaign guy in
New York. He pointed out not only the fact that
people really wanted change, but also the impact of social
media on Mendami's campaign.
Speaker 13: There's a lot of lessons to be learned from this election,
not just that the establishment may be on their way out,
but lots of different things. Some other numbers that wasn't
talked about yet was the money normally in politics, And
y'all have covered this. Whoever spends the most money normally
wins well. Cuomo and his supers pack spent over thirty
six million dollars in Mamdami only spent nine million. That's
a huge difference. So the way that the campaigns were
run are really different. Will this New York race fit
in every race around America? No, But the energy and
the change and the need for change. I think that's
why people were really drawn to him. There's some things
that happened underneath that Mamdami won those preseincts. So you
could have had voters last night who had voted for
Donald Trump and voted for him because this is a
populous moment more so than a left or right thing.
Folks are just sick tired of the establishment. They should
talk about things that are popular and avoid things that
are controversial. That seems very elementary, but he won last
night saying rent is too high and the buses should
be free.
Speaker 3: That's something.
Speaker 13: If we've got enough money to give all these millionaire's
tax break, we should be able to afford those things.
And when you're in places that are purple, talk about
things that are grounded around family and work. Mondnni also
did something that was very different, which was his big
presence on social media, three million views of a single
ad while other folks were buying lots of evening news,
which still works for old folks. Because the one thing
that's not talked about the most in this particular race
is they open up the primary where you could vote
early more days. Back in the day when we were
all younger, you only had one day to vote in
New York City. Now you can vote over a week
or two, which added a lot more people to the
roles being able to vote. This is how Donald Trump,
when nobody likes to talk about it. I'm one of
the few Democrats to give them credit. There's a lot
of new voters that showed up last night and they
saw him on their social media. Remember where I started.
Thirty six million dollars spent on TV. Mondannie only spent
nine million. Most of that was on TV because he
was paying to put and boost his ads on Facebook
and on Twitter and on other places where folks, young
folks are consuming and guess who are the biggest participants,
who had the biggest growth margins were young people. Now
the ceilings low because they normally don't vote. They showed
up in masks last night, and that was the biggest difference.
Speaker 1: So these political actors point out all the differences between
Cuomo and Mandami, But what I heard from both of
them was what we've been talking about on this program
for a long time, and that is started with Barack
Obama open change. And he said at the end of
his eight years as president that he said that they
were mad and that's why they voted for change. And
he says at the end of the eight years, they're
still mad, and so who do they vote for. They
voted for Donald Trump, and they obviously wanted change after
the first four years of Trump, so they voted for
Biden and they're still mad. They voted for Trump again.
And I think that's what happened in New York, and
I think that's what's going to happen around the country,
is that people are not happy with the establishment, the
elite politicians, and as a result, they're willing to vote
for something radically different. I think that's what happened in
the mayor's race. And speaking of New York, the markets
today not a lot, but we'll we'll take it. The
Dow finished one hundred and six points lower, back below
forty three, down to forty two nine eighty two. The
SMP unchanged, the Nasdaq went up sixty one points, but
a big boost for the Nasdaq was the fact that
Navidia has completed their complete recovery. They're back to a
new record closing high for Navidia. That helped the Nasdaq
up sixty one points. The nineteen thousand and nine seventy
three go up fourteen dollars to thirty three forty eight,
and oil up just about it a dollar to sixty
five dollars and some change. So that's it for today.
Thank you again for coming by, and we'll hope to
see you again tomorrow.