Speaker 1: And welcome, welcome, one and all to the Big Podcast
on this Wednesday. Today is the seventeenth Jack, seventeenth day
of June, Year of Our Lord, twenty twenty six. My
name is Tom Sullivan. And so they wrapped up everything
over at the G seven meeting, and that's in France
at the on right up the road from Geneva where
on Friday they're scheduled to sign this memorandum of understanding.
The memorandum is a little bit of a mystery. The
best anybody's been able to say about it is that
it is vague. But there's been a few items that
have come out about it. Let me just go through
a couple of them for you. There's fourteen points on here,
cease fire and end of hostilities. Okay, respect for sovereignty
whatever that means. I mean, I know what it means.
But okay, negotiate final deal within sixty days, end of
US blockade and withdrawal of US forces. Don't know how
far away they have to go, how many have to leave.
Safe passage through the Strait of horror moves doesn't say
anything about free just as safe passage. Iran Reconstruction and
Development plan that's a beggie. That's the three hundred billion
dollars that Iran wants for the damage that's been done.
End sanctions after Iran shows progress again very vague. What
who's grading them on? How on how they're doing on
progress of progress of what? Iran promises no nuclear weapon
to resolve enriched uranium issue. Well, they promised that in
the past and they did not keep their word, but
it's on the list. Then this next item is kind
of confusing because I just read off of this the
fact that they promised no nuclear weapon. But then the
next item on the list is Iran maintains current nuclear program.
I don't know what that means other than it makes
no sense. Next oil export waivers for Iran so they
can sell their oil. Next is US will release foreign
Iranian assets. That again billions, maybe one hundred billion dollars.
Next one is monitoring of compliance with deal, again vague.
Next one negotiations on remaining issues listed in MoU vague.
And finally, the last UN Security Council endorsement. Because if
there's one organization that you can rely on is the UN.
So that's that's the list of the of what's supposed
to be in this MoU and puzzling, to say the
very least. So the president had a news conference today
at the G seven side, and he kept preferring to
the stock market. Stock mark's been going up. Have you
seen the stock mark? His stock market's doing great, says
stock market, second setting records is stock market, boy, it's
going up. And I'm thinking this stock market does not
go up on international affairs. Necessarily, maybe indirectly. The stock
market goes up or down based upon corporate earnings. That's
all it is. So it has nothing to do with
the stock market is not weighing in and judging the
G seven meeting or the Iran MoU or any of
that sort of stuff. So that's what he talks about.
He talked about how he was the one responsible for
killing Solimani. He complained in this news conference about Israel.
He is not happy with Benjamin Nett and Yahoo, and
he made it clear he says they could have behaved better.
He says, after all, there's people in those apartment buildings
talking about the bombing. But you know, everybody knows what
his blah does. And Hamast did the same thing. They
set their soldiers and their operations and their launchers in
apartment buildings so that nobody would attack them because it
would kill civilians, so it will Basically, he wants them
to leave Hesbelah alone. He bashed Herbert Hoover about raising
interest rates and taxes back in the nineteen thirties, actually
because he was talking about how it put the country
into a depression. And he was talking about how this
country would go into a depression if he didn't do
this deal. But Hoover did that caused the great depression
was if you go back and look at it, it
was tariffs. He put tariffs on everything, but that was skypto.
He repeated that if iron doesn't behave that we will
go back to bombing them. I don't think anybody believes
that he would do that, but you never know what
Donald Trump, he complained a number of times about President Obama.
Howard Lutnick was standing behind him on one side, and
every time Donald Trump would do the I'm a tough
guy talk, Lutnick would smile. On the other side behind
Trump was Marca Rubio. And I'll tell you what, I
don't ever want to play poker with Marco Rubio because
through all the different things that President Trump said Mark
or Rubio kept a poker face, never never a smile,
never a grim nothing. So he brought up the president,
brought up the rigged election in twenty twenty and the
twenty four million people that Biden led into the country.
He made a couple of cracks about Biden not knowing
what he was doing. So it went on for about
forty minutes, and then he took questions and during the questions,
Peter Deucy from Fox News got the first question, and
it was about, can you explain, mister President about the
money that's going to be going the three hundred billion
dollars that's going to be going to Iran? And what's
the difference between funding Iran and just releasing their frozen assets.
Here's Deucey and the President. We'll explained though, what the
difference is between giving Iran US dollars and unfreezing US dollars.
Speaker 2: For Well, the unfreezing is an easy one to answer.
We have taken a lot of their money, and we
have their money we have taken to them, or is
there our money? It's their money and we frozen. At
a certain point in time, I guess we're going to
have to give it back. You know, if we didn't
give it back, nobody would ever invest in the dollar
again if you took their money. Because I thought about it,
you know, I'm not the post perfect person. I said
to Scott, Scott, what do we keep their money? What
the hell are we giving it back to him? But
you know, people from lots of nations, some nations we
don't agree with, they have their money. The dollars become
very strong under me, and they don't want to have
a little conflict with somebody and end up having the
United States just take their money. So if you do that,
you really don't have a system.
Speaker 1: Well, you'll have to figure that one out, because basically
it sounds like he was kind of dodging and weaving
the whole question about the three hundred billion, And Peter
Doucey asked a great question, what's the difference between giving
them dollars and unfreezing the money that we kept the bellers.
That's what President Obama did, was he just basically he
didn't give them our money. He basically unfroze Iranian money that.
Speaker 3: Was held so.
Speaker 1: Well, there's also a question about ballistic missiles and one
of the things that the accusations from the military people
have been that Iran has been building a huge stockpile
of ballistic missiles, not only for them, so that if
anybody tried to attack them, they would have an enormous
fleet of missiles that would overwhelm any iron dome, namely Israel,
but also supplying Hesballah with thousands of ballistic missiles. But
here's what the President had to say about that.
Speaker 3: Can you elaborate on that? I want to make the retended, No,
I want to.
Speaker 4: I'm saying that if other countries have them, it's a
little bit unfair for them not to have some. A
ballistic missile is not the same thing as what we're
talking about.
Speaker 5: What we talk to play.
Speaker 4: Saudi Arabian guitar, and they all have some. I would say,
in relative proportion. I think it's okay, that's what I mean.
Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, he's fine with it. He's fine with ballistic
missiles around, having ballistic missiles. But what they were doing
was building so many of them that it would overwhelm
the Iron domea in Israel or anyplace else that they
wanted to attack, in Dubai or any of those other
places where they have energy Trey Goudi, a former federal prosecutor,
former congressman. Well, he's questioning what just happened. I was
a little surprised, honestly. I mean, we literally had our
foot on their throat militarily economically. And I read this
MoU if you will, I guess about forty eight hours ago,
and I didn't believe it. I thought somebody was spoofing
me when I saw it, because I see what we're
giving off and then I see this word down blend.
And I'm not the smartest guy in the world here,
but if you can downblend, then you can uplend. And
how long would it take Iran to upblend? Because Donald
Trpe is going to be gone in January twenty twenty nine,
but the so called Supreme Leader is not going to
be So here's my question for my fellow citizens. Do
you really think Iran has abandoned its nuclear ambition?
Speaker 5: Do you believe them?
Speaker 6: What do you think they're going to do with a
three hundred billion dollars What are they going to do
with the old revenue? You think they're going to build schools?
You think they're going to build like they're going to
make women's lives better or are they going to continue
to target America in Israel.
Speaker 5: I happen to think the latter.
Speaker 1: So the question was brought up with Trey about the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the fact that they will
be inspecting all of this. Tray is not impressed.
Speaker 6: Well, I'll tell you two things that do not reassure
the American people, and that is some international atomic nuclear
agency which people have zeal confidence. And the only thing
we have less confidence and would be the United Nations.
So I saw both of those entities in this MoU. Look,
as you know, I was a country prosecutor. I rely
on other people for expertise. I've heard from the President,
have tremendous respect for him. I'd like to hear from
Marco Rubio, and I'd really like to hear from John
Lee Ratcliffe on the intelligence of whether or not Iran
thinks they got the better of us, because I guarantee
we got the best intelligence community in the world. I'd
be really interested in what their reaction to this MoU is.
It might be I can't believe we got this because
we were losing. I mean, we had them, Xandra, we
had an economic stranglehold on that country. So you go
back to the status quo ante before the blockade? How
are we better off? Well, what did we get?
Speaker 1: What do you mean what did we get? Well, he's
not the only one asking that question. So the question
was was poised to Trey Goudy about then, what was
the purpose of going to war against Iran?
Speaker 6: Well, I hate to be sonical. You know that, don't
we have midterms coming up? Or gas price is high.
I mean, I hate to be sonical, but I don't
think it's a national security document. But I reserve the
right to be corrected. I need to hear from Marco
and I need to hear from John Lee, and if
they both tell me that this is as good as
a gainst, then I'll go back to being a country prosecutor.
Speaker 1: So I know we're the hostilities have come to a
halt as of a couple of days ago.
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 1: But as you assess this and take a look around
what Trey Goudi's talking about is I Ran actually benefited
from this war.
Speaker 5: They're better off than they were before the hostilities began,
and that should not be the consequence of war. When
you lose a war. I mean, think about this, we
went into Iran and rescued a down pilot. We had
total control over that country. We were winning militarily and economically.
And when you are in that position, you negotiate from strength.
You don't give people money, you don't give them access.
What are they going to do with the money. So,
I mean, you've been following this issue for a long time.
Despite your youthful appearance, you know that Iran is going
to use this for nefarious purposes. We all know that
the regime has not changed. They're just richer.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, there's no question that they're going to be richer,
and probably by the three hundred billion dollar fund that
they're going to be getting.
Speaker 6: I think the legal explanation would be that was their
money and we're just allowing you access to it. Again, Look,
I have not talked to the president about this, but
my guess is when he rolls up his sleeves and
he gets back and he's been keeping a very hectic
schedule and he looks at this and he talks to
Marco and he talks to John Lee, I'll be surprised
if he does not have a different reaction.
Speaker 3: He likes to.
Speaker 6: Win, and we were winning. Does this agreement reflect a
victorious country. I think that's the question he's going to ask,
and I'll be surprised if he concludes that this is
the best we can do.
Speaker 1: I mean, he goes on, he's not happy. He's not
the only one. There's a lot of people that are
really scratching their head. Start with Ian Bremer, who runs
your Asia group, and he also is he's a very
analytical guy. He's not.
Speaker 3: He's not.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's a Democrat or Republican. He's
just an analytical guy. And he was asked about his
reaction to the president. Did he did the President sell
the MoU to the American people?
Speaker 7: But it's not he lied, But he does that right, I mean,
that's not just spin.
Speaker 3: I mean it's just a lie.
Speaker 7: But again, Trump cannot be responsible for something that's bad.
That's just not in his personality. He did the war.
It was the biggest mistake of his administration, either one.
Speaker 5: And it's not like he's always fails.
Speaker 7: He's had major successes because not only is he willing
to roll the dice and be far more of a
risk taker than any American president in recent history, but
he still is the president of the most powerful country.
And so sometimes that works out for him, like with
the Abraham Accords for example, or like with Venezuela for example.
Speaker 3: This time he rolled the dice.
Speaker 7: He took a big risk and it was disastrous, and
so as a consequence, he has to sign a deal
that has literally none of his war aims, not a
single one. Not the ballistic missiles, not the nuclear file,
not the support for terror or for proxies in the
region using the next Supreme leader, not rescuing the Iranian people.
There was not a single war goal that the Americans
decided that this was why they had to go and
decapitate the Iranian regime that is being resolved by this agreement.
Speaker 3: Not one.
Speaker 7: And he can say he can speak otherwise if he
wishes to, and seventy percent of Republicans will say that
they support the war, as they continue to. But everybody
else in the US and everybody else around the world
understands that it is not as he says it is.
Speaker 1: Well, he was kind of describing the President and his
they hint rolling the dice in it turning out to
be not a good deal, But it kind of reflects
I mean, Donald Trump has had many, many successes in
the business world and people. I think a lot of
people decided to vote for him because they thought he
was a good businessman. But he did go bankrupt six times,
so he had a lot of successes. But he also
rolled the dice six times and it came up no,
it came up a loser. So it is not always
that's him.
Speaker 3: He is a risk.
Speaker 1: Taker and he's willing to take risks. Sometimes it works,
sometimes it doesn't. I know, General Keane is very careful
about what he says, but he's not happy either.
Speaker 8: You believe something is being developed there in terms of enrichment,
or there's advanced centifuges there, or whatever it was. And
in all those cases that intelligence was likely very good.
And guess what Aron said, no deal, that's not part
of the protocol. The nature of the regime has not changed,
and we have got to be clear eyed in dealing
with these guys. What they say and what they do
are two different things. They cannot be trusted. We have
to enforce compliance.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, we need to enforce compliance, and the President
also talks about that. But here's the question that comes
down is if I'm Iran am I gonna take the
chance that Donald Trump is going to start bombing me again.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 1: The President in his news conference today spoke about the
fact that if they don't comply, we'll just start bombing
him again. I don't know if too many people that
believe that he would do that, especially as we're narrowing
down to the midterm elections. We start bombing again, oil
prices go up, gas prices go up.
Speaker 3: You think that.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's going to happen? I don't, But
you don't know. With President Trump. He is a maverick.
He does things that other people don't expect him to do.
But I logically, I think, and I think Iran is
probably going to roll the dice that they can do
whatever they want to do. They'll drag out these negotiations
more than sixty days. You watch, before the sixty days
comes up, all of a sudden, there will be another
extension of sixty days, and that'll put it right at
the midterm elections. I just don't think that they have
to comply with anything because they know that Donald Trump
is not going to bomb them again, at least not
before November. Robert Greenway, former National security guy, He weighed
in as well.
Speaker 9: I think General King's exactly right. I don't see evidence
that the regime has changed, even though we've got different
leaders in the chair. But I think the fundamental point
is the President of the United States has all the leverage.
He's brought them to a hard reset, eliminated the nuclear program,
their military, and changed a good deal of that leadership,
which I don't think has changed. And he's created an
enormous situation where the stress and their financial system requires concessions.
But General Kean's right. If in fact we relieve economic
pressure and they pocket the funds, they'll spend it on
ultimately resurrection of those capabilities.
Speaker 3: But President Trump and.
Speaker 9: Prime Minister net Yah, who are the two leaders that
were bold enough to confront and eliminate the threat, And
I think that they can be trusted to ensure that
we're not going to see shenanigans on the Ronnie inside.
But this is not the first deal they're going to
comply with.
Speaker 1: Again, I go back to have great respect for mister Greenway,
but I don't think they've eliminated the threat. That is
the problem I'm having. They've temporarily delayed, but they are
going to try to come back and rebuild their nuclear arsenal.
They want a nuke bomb and I don't think anything's
going to stop them.
Speaker 3: So we've got that.
Speaker 1: Another big story today is to follow up on what
we talked about yesterday that these twenty three people, young
men around the country were on signal talking to each other,
and more than just just talking tough, they were preparing
to attack the UFC event on the South Lawn to
the White House this past Sunday with drones that would
drop explosives and then position themselves in places where people
would run out of the area, out of the White
House area, and they would have guns to shoot and
fuel people as they were coming out. It was very elaborate.
It was basically uncovered by a mother who found out
what her son was up to. She this young man
in Ohio and carry or bond. Former DOJ lawyer is
still shaking her head about this one.
Speaker 10: That they find the rest of the people. According to
the FBI and the Secret Service, they are looking at
about twenty three people involved in this alleged plot that
you said, Bill. They have five people in custody right now,
but there's now a massive manhunt underway, and so we'll
see who else was part of this potentially horrific attack,
And a lot of credit goes to the mother of
the nineteen year old defendant. They're the ones out of
Ohio because she's the one who called into the police
that she was concerned about his son, some of her sons,
some of.
Speaker 5: The comments he had made.
Speaker 10: And because of that phone call, well, police were easily
able to obtain a warrant get into the kid's phone.
That's how they were able to see all of these
text messages which unraveled all of this, and it's why
they had basically a blueprint for their manhunt.
Speaker 1: How the part you didn't mention was apparently the Secret
Service is livid because Cash Pattel, the FBI director, yesterday morning,
put out a tweet all about the fact that what
was happening and the fact that they were busting these people.
The problem was they only had five in custody out
of the twenty three, so now they're out looking for
the rest of them. But Cash kind of spilled the
beans before everybody was in custody. The other Oh, here's
the Secret Service guy too. He's talking about they're going
to go get them.
Speaker 11: Just because we're done with freedom two fifty or that
particular event doesn't mean we're going to stop. There are
still suspects at large, and we're going to work it
until everyone's been identified.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they will. They know who they're looking for.
Matter of it's down to a man hunt at this
particular time. But the question that really kind of comes
up is that they didn't have him all in custody.
They knew about what was happening, but they didn't call
the event off on the White House low and I'm
I'm kind of curious about why was this something that
they went to the President and asked him, we got
to shut this thing down before because there may be
an attack. We don't know yet, so we're going to
have to wait to find out more on that. Then
another little bombshell today the whole process about finding a
replacement for Tulsea Gabbard asked the Office of Director of
National Intelligence. The President wanted to get Bill POULTI. Bill
Poulty was described by many people as a political hatchet
man that he went into Fannie Mae Freddie Mack Federal
Home or Home Loan mortgage Corporation, and I use those
records to go after Leticia James and James call me
and Lisa Fox from the Federal Reserve Board, a bunch
of people. And I've said this before. He one of
the things because they had more than one home that
they said was their primary home, which is in fact
they shouldn't be doing that. So he forgot to mention
Scott Bessett, the Treasury Secretary, has the same problem, but
nobody filed any charges against him. So Paulty is a hatchetman,
and the President was not trying to be coy about it.
He said, I want Poulty, but he doesn't have any
intelligence experience, sir, that doesn't matter. I want him to
go in there and I want him to fire a
lot of those people, which brings up the question about
the fact that the President does not like from day
one in Trump one point zero, he doesn't like the CIA,
he doesn't like the FBI, he doesn't like a lot
of the intelligence people because of their roles doing whatever
was that they were involved with regarding Russia, Russia, Russia.
So he's held a bad spot in his mind for
both of those organizations. So when it comes to the CIA,
Bill Poulty would be the boss of the head of
the CIA, and he can raise all kinds of canes.
So what happened a couple of days ago? The President
picks Jay Clayton. Originally, Bill Poulte was just going to
be a temporary acting head of National Intelligence and with
that you don't have to go through a Senate confirmation. Now,
Tulsi Gabbard her last day is Friday. So Bill Poulty
is ready to move in to the that Director of
National Intelligence office on Friday. So the Senate is racing
because the President then said, oh, I'll pick Jake Clayton
to be the permanent Director of National Intelligence. So the Senate,
he said, hurry up and hold a hearing real quick
for the nomination of Jake Clayton. So that hearing was
supposed to take place today at ten o'clock in the morning,
instead at nine o'clock this morning. The President said no,
he didn't say anything. Jake Clayton called up the Senate
and said, the President has asked me not to appear.
He doesn't want me to appear, and so I've got
to do what the President says. And the reason the
President doesn't want Jay Clayton to appear was because the
Senate was going to do a real fast job on
getting him approved as the Director of National Intelligence to
block Bill Poltie from taking office on Friday. Well, so
after that the whole thing got canceled. Senator Mark Warner,
who is the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
was well, here's what he.
Speaker 12: Said in terms of our ability to stop Poulty unless
my Republican friends on this one would actually say, we
got to adhere to the law. The law on dn
I says Director of National Intelligence says, not only do
you have to have national security experience, but if the
DNI is removed, the number two becomes the acting DNI.
There is no provision to have an acting DNI the
way the President has proposed, and the number two is
a career intelligence professional. I didn't vote for him, but
he's got the bona fides, and I don't think you
would disclose secrets. His name is mister Lucas, So you know.
I think the President, by putting Poulty in, is again
going against the less of the law. But I'm not
sure that there will be an action that will prevent him.
And I don't know whether people will slow roll exposing
him to classified information. But we we don't know with Clayton.
He is he just getting going to get rescheduled or
is his nomination vin polls? And I don't think Jake
Clayton knows that either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the President can basically hold Jay Clayton in
abeyance so that Poulti has a chance to get in
and dig into the files of our nation. Cigarettes Now
here's the thing. Not only does Bill Poulty not have
any experience in national intelligence, which the law requires, but
in addition to that, he doesn't have even the security clearance.
So Trump's going to push him into that office one
way or the other. And that happens on Friday. A
former CIA agent was interviewed about this today.
Speaker 3: I've never seen anything like it.
Speaker 13: I mean, occasionally there'll be a congressional hearing where a
witness from outside the government doesn't show up and they'll
put the name played up and you sort of criticize
the guy in his absence to embarrass him. There have
been cases where executive branch officials who have taken the
Fifth Amendment at hearing, just a few of those. But
I can't recall any confirmation hearing with the nominee being
pulled back at the last second.
Speaker 1: So this is something they haven't seen in Washington ever.
So the question about Jake Clayton is he qualified?
Speaker 13: So he's qualified. You know, he headed the Sullivan Cromwell
law firm, which another CIA director Alan Dallies, had been
a partner there. Back in the day he headed the SEC.
Another former SEC's chairman, Bill Casey, became CIA director, and
you know, then most recently he has been running the
US Attorney's Office for the Southern just from New York,
which does a lot of national security work.
Speaker 3: So he's qualified for the office.
Speaker 13: He said some things as US attorney which were pretty political,
more than you'd typically get out of the Southern District.
Speaker 3: But he's certainly qualified.
Speaker 1: So it is fascinating to watch because once everybody pushed back,
Republicans and Democrats pushed back on Bill Poulty, the President
turned right around a couple days later and nominated Jay Clayton.
We thought that was going to solve everything, but apparently
the president's still holding out. He has said that he
wants the Senate to pass the Save America Act. This
is the voter ID bill and all of that, and
it being hung up in the Senate so this is
the President using Bill Poulty as a leverage to try
to get the Save America Act passed that he wants
to have done. So some hardball politics. So in some
other news today, First of all, we got our about
the economy May retail sales. They were up nine tenths
of one percent for the month of May. That's almost
double what was expected. So retail sales very strong. A
lot of it is the higher price of gasoline. Not
that they're buying more gas, they're just paying more for it.
The FED meeting was held today and Kevin Walsh as
his first meeting as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
Remember the President was putting him in because he wanted
him to lower interest rates. Well, first meeting they held
rate steady. The announcement from the Fed was that the economy,
the economic activity is expanding at a solid pace, so
they're not going to be cutting interest rates at least
for now. So first meeting under his belt for Kevin Walsh.
On oil and gas, the International Energy Agency today did
their predictions about what's going to happen with oil and gas.
They're predicting that the demand for twenty twenty six, they're
looking at oil falling by one point one million barrels
a day. That has been China who has been cutting
way back on importing oil. So with some sort of
agreement maybe with Iran, maybe their prediction will be not accurate.
But they're calling for cut in demand for oil worldwide
by one point one million barrels a day, and that
next year twenty twenty seven, that we will wind up
with oil surplus, which should mean that the price of
oil and gas should go lower. As far as oil
and gas goes, gasoline prices triple a four dollars in
three cents of gallon. That's down a penny from yesterday,
down twelve cents from a week ago, down forty eight
cents from a month ago. But it's still a dollar
five higher than what it was back before the war started.
So we'll see if it goes the right direction or not.
Oh in Luigi, the guy who's being accused of shooting
the United Healthcare ceo on the streets of New York
the state trial. The judge in that trial said that
his defense is going to introduce psychiatric defense, in other words,
insanity plea and what was he if it comes up
with this or not, and whether it goes before a
judge for that or before a jury, will the jury
be sympathetic saying, yeah, the guy must have been crazy.
But apparently his lawyers are saying that he experienced emotional
disturbance at the time of his killing. Problem with that
is that his writings in his manifesto book showed where
he planned for weeks maybe actually it was in a
couple of months to try and hunt down and kill
the CEO of United Healthcare. So that doesn't show insanity.
That shows that he was just playing cold blooded killer
who was planning to kill the CEO. So Wall Street today,
let's take a look at that. The market was doing fine. Yeah,
I know there was the press conference at the G
seven and all the business about Iran, but they were
focused on the Federal Reserve meeting and that the announcement
came out. They were holding interest rates steady. That was
at two o'clock the dow was still in positive territory,
not by a lot, but it was up just a
little bit. And then at two o'clock in the afternoon,
the market sold off and the dow went down five
hundred and seven. The dow now at fifty one thousand
and four, ninety two, SMP down ninety one, Nasdaq same
story down three hundred and fifty four, Gold fell seventy
seven dollars to four thousand and two seventy seven, and
even oil down forty cents at seventy five dollars for
one barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil. So that's
it for today. Thank you for coming by. We'll be
back again tomorrow. I hope to see you then