Speaker 1: Hello, How are you welcome to the Big Podcast. It's Friday.
Oh yeah, definitely, it's Friday. Today is the twenty third
day of January, year of Our Lord, twenty twenty six.
My name is Tom Sullivan, and we've got quite a
variety of my little list here today. We've got all
the way from we may be getting ourselves into another
war to the Department of Homeland Security budget, all kinds
of wonky things there. Dems. You think Donald Trump's approval
ratings are low, wait till Harry Harry Enton has the
numbers on the Democrats and how they're stacked up. We've
got a big weather storm, I mean, not everybody, for
those of you in Florida and California, enjoy your weekend,
rest of us. And then of course we got the
NFL weekend, the playoffs for the AFC and the NFC,
so a lot to go over.
Speaker 2: Oh.
Speaker 1: By the way, I just mentioned this the other day
that Bill and Hillary. You know, they have refused to
come testify before the House Oversight Committee. They said, you're
just not going to do it. So today they had
a boat in the Judiciary Committee. The House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee is the official name about whether to
hold former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in contempt
of Congress. And guess what, a group of Democrats joined
in with the Republicans to hold them their feet to
the fire, for they can't just say they're not going
to come in. Who were they? Who do they think
they are? Well, there's nine Democrats who voted to advance
the resolution, Maxwell Frost from Florida, Democrat Rajah Kristiana Morthy
from Illinois, Summerlee from Pennsylvania, Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts, Iona
Presley one of the squad members, Emily Randall from the
state of Washington, Latifa Simon from California, Melanie Stansbury from
New Mexico, and Rashida Taleb from Michigan. There were also
two the two Democrats that voted President Dave men from
California and Yosimin and Sorry from Arizona. So it is,
this thing's going on, it'll go to the Senate, we'll
see what happens there. And then they referred over to
the DOJ, and the DOJ, well, this should they be
treated any differently than Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro. They
gave their thumbs down to appearing before the House, and
they were held in contempt of Congress. They starred four
months in jail, both of them. Most of the Democrats
on the committee shifted the blame and said, yeah, well,
Pam Bondi hasn't released the files, the Epstein files, so
why aren't we holding her feet to the fire. Even
John Stuart, that was kind of his approach to the comedian.
Here's John Stuart weighing in on holding the Clintons to
contempt of Congress.
Speaker 3: I absolutely do. But why should they comply if the
Department of Justice is not complying with releasing the files? Like,
is Alliance a kind of specialized individual indigenous opportunity or
is it? Should it be universal? I mean, the Department
of Justice has subpoenaed them to testifying the Jeffrey Epstein
case while not complying with releasing the files. So how
does that comport in any But do I personally think
they should comply?
Speaker 4: Absolutely?
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: He has a good point. I mean the Clintons have to.
They can't. They're not above the law. They're like all
the rest of us. If we got subpoeded, we would
have to show up, and if not, they would hold
us in contempt. But at the same time, where are
those files? And with all of the craziness going on
in the news barrel between Greenland and Maduro and Iran,
and I've lost track that the whole story about Epstein
has somehow been hidden way down in the bottom of
the news barrel somewhere. So I'm with John Stewart, hold
the Clintons in contempt and also go after PAMBONDI hold
her in contempt too. I don't know how that would work,
but in any case, so we've got that, We've got,
we've got an interest. Speaking about Democrats voting for things
that you would not expect them to, which is I
like to see. I don't like this both parties where
you have to salute and vote the way your leader
wants you to. But the Department of Homeland Security budget
was before Congress. Actually it was last night. But the
story is seven Democrats told Hakim Jeffries to go take
a flying leap and voted with Republicans to pass the
Department of Homeland Security annual spending bill. Remember they're coming
up on January thirtieth, and they have to have all
this stuff passed for a government to keep operating. So
the seven that vote four DHS budget went against their
own leadership, and it will. It's bundled in with other things.
It's a combination of one point two trillion in federal spending.
But they're trying to make this so that they avert
another government shutdown coming up in just less than ten days.
So two packages, one group together three spending bills to
fund the Department of War, Education, Labor, Transportation, and Health
and Human Services. The second standalone funding bill for DHS,
which of course includes Ice, and out of that, the
d SETH bill passed two twenty to twoh seven. So
it took some Democrats to jump over there and do that.
A lot of the Democrats are voting saying they're saying
they're not going to give Ice another dime, but the
seven of them voted in favor of that today. Now
it's got to go to the Senate and there's a
little problem and it ties in one with the weather
story that we've been all talking about late. Shannon Bream
says it's going to be tougher to get this budget
through the Senate.
Speaker 5: We hear from Senator Tim Kaine this morning and he
says we are not voting on these bills. We should
not vote on these bills unless we amend them. He's
got serious issues. So all of this ice stuff, immigration,
DHS could factor into the fact that, you know, this
weather is going to make it difficult for senators to
get back here. The Senate doesn't have proxy voting. They've
got to actually get here to vote on these funding bills.
So now Cain saying, unless we get amendments, we may
not move this thing forward. Democrats do have some power
to stop this thing.
Speaker 1: They do, and her point is right that this big
weather storm is going to hit Washington this weekend and
into Monday. But the deadline is Saturday, the thirty first
of January, so they should be able to get back
later next week and be able to get all this done.
But this whole Minnesota problem, it's out of control. I've
been telling you My opinion is that nobody's there's nobody's
a leader. There's no leadership both sides. It's totally out
of control and it will continue to be totally out
of control. I mean, today in Minneapolis, the temperature minus
twenty seven, not the windshill. Windshill was like minus thirty
six or something. Like that, but minus twenty seven on
the thermometer. And yet there were large crowds that were
out in the streets of Minneapolis protesting ice today. I mean,
I know they're hardy people, but so this is they're
not giving up on this darn thing. And apparently the
president is behind the scenes growing very frustrated because he's
he perceives that his immigration message is getting lost. Now
there's a bunch of polls out about Donald Trump, and
his numbers have slid quite a bit, except for I've
saw I'm not sure CNN I think poll where it
went down. He was underwater in the economy, and underwater
on this and underwater on that. But the one thing
that he was positive on people still gave him positive
scores on the border. So they're say, way to go
on the border, but not way to go on immigration
deportation enforcement policy. They don't like what they're seeing. And
you may argue all day long. I heard the head
of the Border patrol today trying to make a case,
and that's fine. He made some very good points, but
it is what it is. You see what you see
and people turn against you. So I would expect that
the federal government's the one that's going to make a
change and how they go about out enforcing deportation. And
I had, I know, it's kind of a bizarre thought,
but I thought, well, I told you before. What they
should do is they should pull back and instead of
adding another thout, making it three thousand federal agents in Minneapolis,
instead of doing that just getting bigger and tougher, that's
not going to stop the fight. Fact, it'll make the
fight even more pronounced. One of the more extreme ideas
to the other side is say, okay, okay, you win,
we leave. Yeah, it's all they're all yours. All those
thirteen hundred and some prisoners that you've got that are illegal,
that are in your jails, that are in there for
all kinds of terrible crimes, they'll stay in your They'll
stay in Minneapolis because they know if they go anywhere else,
they're going to be picked up and deported. So you
just enjoy having all of these illegal to poort illegal
immigrants in your city and see if the people go,
wait a minute, we don't want that, And if they
turn on the governor and turn on that goofy mayor
that they have that they've got to do something different.
That's obviously very extreme, But I do think they're going
to have to sit down and somebody who knows how
to do policing. Not Christineome. She doesn't have four seconds
of policing experience under her belt. Get somebody who knows
how to do modern policing and come up with a
different plan. The argument, there's this argument about a five
year old boy. I don't know if you've heard about
it or not. It's going around everybody's there's different angles
to this no matter how you look at it. This
is a story of a little boy who was caught
in the middle of a deportation enforcement and so what
happened was this five year old boy. There's photos of
this cute little kid and he's standing in the snow,
And if it doesn't pull at your heart, then you
don't have a heart. But depends upon which side you
want to listen to. Regarding the story, Iana Pressley came
out today and said, they are kidnapping your children. You
talk about inflaming things. She's such a fool, but she
said they are kidnapping your children. And she has people
to follow her and they're thinking, oh my gosh, you're
kidnapping children. Well, here's the story. This is DHS version.
On January twentieth, ice conducted a targeted operation to arrest
Adrian Alexander coneo Arius. AST agents approached the driver and
Alexander caneo Arius fled on foot, abandoning his child. For
the child's safety, one of our ice officers remained with
the child while the other officers apprehended mister Arius. Our
officers made multiple attempts to get the mother inside of
the house. They basically the father went to go pick
up the five year old from preschool and drove back
to his house in his driveway, and they swooped in
on him and he ran and the little boy standing
there in the front yard. So it says the officers
made multiple attempts to get the mother inside the house,
to open the door and take custody of her child.
While she was fearful because she also apparently would be deported,
so officers even assured her they would not take her
into custody, she refused to accept custody of her five
year old. The father told officers he wanted the child
to remain with him. DHS goes on to say, our
officer's primary concern during the entire operation was the safety
and welfare of the child. Following the mother's abandonment of
the child, officers abided by the father's wishes to keep
the child with him. Father and son are together at Dilly,
which is apparently a deportation facility in Texas. So there's
another story going around this afternoon that the five year
old has been brought back to his mother and his
home with the mother. The father is still in detention.
So they go on to say parents are always asked
if they want to be removed with their children or
place their child with a safe place of some kind.
So there's every story under the son. In fact, even
jd Vance was in Minnesota yesterday and he weighed on it.
Speaker 6: This way, father of a five year old, actually a
five year old little boy, and I think to myself,
oh my god, this is terrible.
Speaker 2: How did we arrest a five year old?
Speaker 6: Well, I do a little bit more follow up research,
and what I find is that the five year old
was not arrested, that his dad was an illegal alien,
and then when they went to arrest his illegal alien father,
the father ran. So the story is that Ice detained
a five year old, Well, what are they supposed to do?
Are they supposed to let a five year old child
freeze to death?
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this goes back to the whole point about
the president's frustrated because his immigration message is he's frustrated
because the immigration message is being turned into a war
between little five year old boys and big, bad ice
officers that are out there. So that's where that is
gone downhill as far as well, people that, by the way,
that voted, the seven Democrats had voted in favor of
the DHS budget. Let's see Henry Quaar from Texas, Democrat,
Jared Golden from Maine, Marie Glusen camp Perez from Washington,
Laura Gillen New York, Don Davis, North Carolina, Tom Swozy
from New York, and Vincent Gonzalez from Texas. So it
provides money. It's ten billion dollars for ICE, which is huge.
They also provide money in this bill for FEMA, for
tsa Secret Service, disaster relief. There's a number of federal
programs that were included in this bill. So since we've
got a couple stories today about Democrats voting against their leadership,
you don't see that very often with Democrats or Republicans.
But the Democrats are kind of well, we see all
these stories all the time. I've given you the numbers.
They're not pretty. Donald Trump's ratings have gone down, and
so I'm just about everything other than the border, including immigration,
including the economy, and go down the list. But Harry
Enton said, you know what, the Democrats are even facing
a worse approval rating. Here's Harry, they.
Speaker 2: Aren't so hot to trot.
Speaker 7: And as John was telling me before we came on,
the call is coming from inside the house. Take a
look at how Democrats who disapprove of congressional Democratic leaders. Hello,
we're talking about fifty seven percent in January of twenty
twenty six, the second highest disapproval rate for Democratic leaders
from their own party on record. It's only beat by
what we saw earlier on in this Congress when it
was sixty one percent. There's basically been no improvement. Democrats
hate their own congressional leaders. These numbers are awful, awful, awful.
Speaker 1: So what's going on, Harry. What's the reason behind the
Democrats saying we don't like the leadership of the Democrats
in Congress?
Speaker 7: Ah, why is there a Democrat on Democrat crime. And
it just simply comes down to this. They don't think
their leaders are fighting enough. Dems who say congressional Dems
are doing too little to oppose Donald Trump. In February
of twenty twenty five, it was seventy three percent. Now
that number is up to seventy eight percent. Democrats want
fighters and Congress and at this point they do not
believe that the Democrats in Congress are fighting enough to
oppose President Trump's agenda.
Speaker 1: Not to stick up for the Democrats, but I mean,
what can you do. You're in the minority. You're in
the minority. You just cannot force your thoughts. You've got
to go out and win seats. And that's why it's
going to be a big race for control of the
House of Representatives is coming November. So who are the
who are they picking on? Who is it that they
think isn't doing Who do the Democrats think which Democrat
is not doing a good enough job?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 7: Okay, So this is I think the veryry key nugget
going on. Who are they taking their anger out on.
It's not Hakem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House.
It's the Democratic leader, Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer. You know,
you go back to January twenty twenty five, you see
Jeffries net favorite Billy Ring was at plus twenty two.
It's actually slightly higher now plus twenty nine. But look
at Schumer. Look at Chuck Schumer. He was on the
positive side of the ledger. And again this is among Democrats,
this is among Democrats. He was at plus eleven. Now
he's underwater at minus two. He I went back and
I looked at every single Democratic Senate leader. I looked
at all the polling I could. He pulls the lowest
for any Democratic Senate leader among Democrats dating back in
the last forty years.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but I mean, okay, Schumer, we get a
minus two. Democrats really don't like him a lot. But
it's not like Hakkeem Jeffries is doing great. He what
did Harry say? He had a plus twenty two, He's
gone up to a plus twenty nine. Donald Trump is
like forty well approval and Hakim Jeffries has twenty nine
percent approval. That's my point. People do not like the
Democrats or the Republicans, in my humble opinion, And when
you get that, I don't know what's going to happen
in November's too early, but people will change management just
because they're tired of the people that are there. But
if Hakim Jeffries has gone from a twenty two up
to a twenty nine and Trump's at a forty ish number,
high thirties, low forties, looks like Trump's doing a lot
better than the Dems. So back to Schumer, I mean,
what can you say. If I was a Democrat, I'd
want him gone too. But what are they going to do?
Speaker 7: This is the key question, right, because if you're going
to be a Democratic Senate leader, the key thing is
actually having the support of those in the Senate doesn't
necessarily matter this net favorability rating nationally, right, because it's
the senators who vote with the Senate leader. But take
a look here, all right, chance that Chuck Schumer wins
the next Democratic Senate leader election, it's only fifty six percent.
Speaker 2: It's only fifty six percent.
Speaker 7: I mean, it's on you know, the positive side of fifty.
Speaker 2: Percent for Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 7: But that's quite a low number given how long he's
served as Democrat Accently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, even the Democratic senators don't like Chuck Schumer. Barely
gets barely gets better than half. Iran is maybe heating
up as we're cooling down this weekend. Maybe Iran is
heating up. Here's the President on the flight back from
Davos yesterday. He was on Air Force one. It's a
little noisy in the background, but he's talking about the
fact that he's got an armada of ships heading right
for the Iran region.
Speaker 2: We know, we have a lot of ships going that direction.
Just in case, we have a big float jilly going
in that direction and we'll see what happened. Well, we
have ah an armada. We have a massive we have
a massive fleet heading in that direction, and maybe we
won't have to use us.
Speaker 1: So we have an armada heading that direction, and he
hopes he doesn't have to use it. David Sanger, who
was a National security reporter, thinks of it this way.
Speaker 8: When he decided not to use the forces, there were
sort of two reasons. The first was he won a
brief concession from the Iranians through a number of cutouts
and assurance that they would not hang several of the
protesters who they had run through their what resembles barely
a court system, and that they would stop shooting protesters
in the streets. It happened to be that the protests
were dying out, so the urgency went away. But the
fact of the matter is that as the more we
learn about these protests, the more we learn about the
numbers who were killed and the fundamental dynamics here. A
regime rotting from within and probably trying to go reassemble
its nuclear program is going to give him plenty of
reason if he decides to strike. The question is strike
for what end? Because it's not clear how you use
this military force in a way that actually benefits the protesters.
Speaker 1: So what would they strike anyway? In Iran, it was
easy when they had the out in the boonies, those
nuclear facilities. But now you're talking about you know, Tehran
is a city of about ten to twelve million, bigger
than New York. So what are you going to strike?
What are your targets?
Speaker 8: Well, there are a number of options out here. One
is to go after the sort of local militias that
have been enforcing the government's will to put down the protests,
and that's the besiege force, and he could hit some
of their headquarters and so forth. But of course these
are all in crowded urban areas and you can't do
strikes there without killing civilians. It's the opposite John of
what happened in June when he struck these three nuclear sites,
all of which were in remote locations, and he could,
you know, bury the nuclear material, the planes could turn
around and go home, and he talks about that with
great pride. In fact, he keeps a model of the
B two bombers that were used in that strike on
his desk in the Oval office, right next to a
bust of Lincoln. So it's pretty clear he's pretty proud
of that. But that isn't what this operation would be like.
He could also go after some nuclear sites that they missed.
He could go after some missile sites. But all these
are all steps with the Iranians would certainly respond to,
probably with missile strikes of their own, and that's what
has the Israelis concerned.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on with the run. We'll keep an
eye on whether or not something happens. But the Armada,
as the President called it, is heading toward the Middle East.
One of the I think it's the biggest aircraft carrier,
not as one of the biggest is the Abraham Lincoln,
Colonel Cedric Lytton kind of gives us a rundown. And
how big that thing is.
Speaker 4: This ship is one of the biggest aircraft carriers that
we have. Basically carries up to ninety planes and helicopters combined,
and that doesn't even include UAVs. So this thing is big.
And it's also accompanied by three guided missile destroyers. So
these kinds of ships can carry a weapons such as
the Tomahawk missile. The Tomahawk missile is first used in
back in Desert Storm, and it can go after personnel,
it can go after tank positions, it can go after
almost any target. And we saw that used to great
effect when we employed the Tomahawk back in the June
time frame against Iran. That becomes a major issue, you know,
for the Iranians, and it really shows how much firepower
we can bring to bear on them.
Speaker 1: So that's the run and that's what's going on in
the Middle East. But we've also got Ukraine and they
have for the first time ever we have Russian Ukraine
and US negotiators at the same table. Back to David
Sayer about is that going to break through to some agreement?
Speaker 8: Well, Steve Whitkoff, the President's sort of advisor and negotiator
on all of these issues, who saw Putin. President Putin
yesterday in Moscow with Jared Kushner said that at this
point they're down to pretty much an argument about land.
I'm not sure if that's completely correct, because there are
all kinds of other issues that we're cooking, but I
think that at this point the president President Trump's frustration
is more with President Zelenski for not giving into Russian
demands for land that Russia hasn't even taken over yet,
and I think the President just wants to solve this
any way he can. The Russians have very specific demands
and think that they are winning, so they're in no
particular rush to go strike a deal.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what they came up with out of
that three way meeting. But back to again, what is
going to happen with the Ron Stephen Yates was Dick
Cheney's right hand guy on national security issues, and he
weighs in, well.
Speaker 9: I expect action, but I would compare this to the
reference to what was in the Caribbean Sea as an armada.
Of course, there was kinetic action to take Maduro into custody.
But aside from that, that Armada was really there to
disrupt the sanctions busting ghost fleets that are in the
oil markets, and of course Iran is in that network.
And so I see this as President Trump using economic
and military tools to shape in the god ociations and
try to enforce the pressure input in place. He has
the twenty five percent tariffs on those doing business with Iran.
Having the armada in place sort of increases eyes and
ears on the comings and goings, so we don't get
to know what he really has in mind to ultimately do.
But neither do the leaders of Iran, and neither do
the leaders of those who are trying to do business
with Iran.
Speaker 1: So back to our country, Back to the US. You've
seen the stories where most of us we're going to
be finding some sort of severely cold, icy snowy weather
this weekend and end Monday. And it's I don't know,
it's huge. Just twenty states, two hundred million people will
be affected by this super winter storm. And it's only
January twenty third. We still have February is a big
snowmarth too. In any case, Duke Energy, Big big U
utility provider for the southeast, especially the Carolinas. This is
what they're doing to get ready. It's going to be
a very challenging of two part storm. We're going to
have significant icing across the Carolinas, looking at potentials of
anywhere from a quarter inch to an inch, and that's
going to create widespread outages, followed by some very cold
weather from multiple days, which is going to keep that
in place. So we're going to have treacherous travel conditions,
moving conditions, as well as down trees and down lines.
So it's going to be a challenging storm for sure.
Speaker 5: All Right, Jeff, what can you tell our viewers about
how you're preparing for it.
Speaker 10: Well, we've been preparing for several days, and part of
that includes bringing in additional resources. We're bringing in crews
today from more than twenty five states in Canada to
assist our restorations here, a force of about eighteen thousand
line and tree workers that will be on the ground
in North and South Carolina, and we're going to be
working very hard to get that power restored as safely
as possible, Understanding that it's going to be very challenging
can do for our crews as well, but we're very
committed to the job, and unfortunately we've had a lot
of experience at this.
Speaker 1: Well, Noah, they weigh in as well as far as
from a national standpoint, what are they doing.
Speaker 11: It's going to be areas that you can't help it.
I mean, it's it's hard to protect power lines from
from trees that fall. Are power lines that fall from
a half inch to an inch of ice, and and
at first that doesn't seem like a much, right, a
half inch or an inch that is an incredible amount
of weight on a on a power line. So the
advice to everybody is, you know, have have ways to
be able to protect ourselves if you lose lose power.
Speaker 2: Well, if I may.
Speaker 1: When I first moved to the East Coast, bought my
first home on the East Coast. As one of the
things I said to the builder, I said, so, what
do I need to know about living in New York?
And he said, you want to get a generator? So
I'm so we bought a generator. And so when the
power goes out, generator kicks on. It's fabulous, and it's
it's it's only about a seven second gap and all
of a sudden, everything powers back up again, the lights
flicker and you're back in the heat. The stove, the refrigerator,
everything's working. And I can't I don't have any stock
in a generator company, but I should. I really believe
in them. And then I heard Steve Hilton, who's running
for governor of California, interviewed earlier today and he said
that California and part of their climate change agenda, won't
allow anybody to buy a generator. And that's the state
where the utilities, because they're afraid of starting a wildfire
with their lines, they cut power off. They just cut
you off. So living in California, you lose power on
an irregular basis. I can't believe that they can prohibit
you from buying a generator. But man, in this kind
of weather, I am so happy. I'm already bring it on.
And since it's going to be cold, super cold, and
the snow is going to be up to here the well,
the NFL playoffs are on Sunday. Hey, perfect timing. The
NFL is probably going to get record television ratings. Here's
one of the sports guys talking about if you're not
able to go anywhere because of ice and snow. You're
going to be sitting at home not doing anything. You'll
be turning on football.
Speaker 12: Right, I mean, don logically speaking, you would assume that
TV ratings would be up if you're in the house
and you don't have anything else to do. To your point,
barring those power outages that you just heard Jeff talk about.
So I called around to some sports media executives, some
sources at Nielsen, and I said, look, does the data
back this up? And they basically told me, yeah, does.
Usually it's more localized, such as there's a bad storm
and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are playing, then you'll see
the ratings jump in Tampa. What's interesting about this game
is that the AFC Championship in the NFC Championship are
two of the highest rated games all season for anything
on TV after the Super Bowl, often their number two
and number three. Last year, he had over fifty seven
million people watched the AFC Championship game. And the other
interesting thing is that this storm is so large, as
you just heard, two hundred million Americans affected. So you're
already seeing sports events canceled from Texas over to Washington, DC,
to Connecticut, things being shifted around So I tried to
figure out is there any real parallel for this, a
big national game with a huge winter storm, and I
found one. In twenty fifteen, the Super Bowl had a
storm very similar to this, over a foot of snow
from Iowa all the way to the East coast. And
do you know who played in that Super Bowl? Seattle
ends New England.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. So Seattle is one of the teams
playing for the NFC, and New England's playing for the
the AFC Championship. So deja vu, Seattle is playing Let's
see who are Seattle is playing Los Angeles in Seattle,
And so that's not anywhere near the West coast, is
not going to be part of this big superstorm that's
going through most of the country this weekend. And as
far as New England and the Broncos, thank goodness to
not playing in Boston because that's going to be hit hard.
But Denver should be. Okay, it's far enough west to
where this big storm is mostly east of the Rockies,
and they're right at the Rockies. So Sunday Patriots versus
the Broncos in Denver and Sunday six thirty pm, the
Rams plays Seahawks in Seattle. So hey, if you're going
to be snowed up to your ears, you might as
well enjoy yourself and get a little entertainment with some football.
You know, these playoff games many times are the best
football of the year. I think, better than the Super
Bowl in most occasions, most years. Speaking of winning and losing,
the winners today did not show up on Wall Street.
Speaker 8: Nope.
Speaker 1: The well, we've been back and forth, up and down.
The last two days have been big rallies. We had
the big sell off before Donald Trump got over to Davos,
and then after he said everything's fine, market shot up
two days in a row. Today went down, at least
the Doubt did down two hundred and eighty five the
Dow at forty nine thousand and ninety eight, SMP up
just two points, NASDAK up sixty five points. Gold continuing
to go higher, up sixty nine dollars to nine eighty three.
In oil up about two dollars today, sixty one dollars
for a barrel of oil. That's it for today. Thank
you for coming by, Stay warm this weekend, enjoy the football.
If well, what else you're gonna do, and we'll be
back here on Monday. Whether or not, have a great weekend.
We'll see you then.