Speaker 1: And hello, how are you happy Thursday to you? Today's
the fifth day of February, year of Our Lord, twenty
twenty six. My name is Tom Sullivan. And we got
a lot on Savannah Guthrie's mother today. A lot of experts,
a lot of officials talking news conferences, long news conference
in Tucson held by the sheriff. FBI was there as well,
so there's some of that. We've got. The Save Act,
this is one that is being debate. It's an old
debate about requiring voter ID, and the arguments are the
same old arguments if you'd require voter ID. Why I'll
play some of the people that commented on this about
the fact that that's going to somehow discriminated against minorities.
I'll play the interview for you. It's an eye opener,
to say the least. Federalizing, nationalizing elections I brought up.
But the big story today, truly is because of the
fact that so many officials and a long news conference.
I'm not going to play the news conference for you,
but a lot of the comments about what was said
at the sheriff's news conference today in Tucson, Arizona, I
think are good observations. Jim Kavanaugh is the former head
of ATF Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. Always articulate guy. He weighed
in on, well, let me before we get into him.
First of all, they came out, the FBI came out
and said fifty thousand dollars reward for finding Nancy. They
talked a little bit more. They were trying not to,
but finally the reporter squeezed it out of him, the
fact that there were there's one ransom note. It was
sent to three different news ass outlets the same ransom note,
and apparently the ransom note had a deadline of five
o'clock today, five pm today and the second deadline on there.
I don't know if they said if you don't do something,
what something's going to happen. They didn't get into any
of that. They said there's a deadline of five o'clock
today and another deadline on Monday, February ninth. So what
that involves is they're not saying as far as they
gave more details. On January thirty first, which was Saturday,
said at five thirty two pm, Nancy traveled to local
families home, and now we're finding out that she took
an uber to go over to her daughter's home, and
that was at five thirty two pm on Saturday. The
issue then is about the uber driver, and the sheriff
said that they were in contact with the uber driver
and interviewed him. At ninety eight pm, dinner's over, Family
drops Nancy off at home and garage door opens. That's
at nine eight At nine point fifty, the garage door closes,
So there's some sort of indicator that they have a
timing on those. But the thing about that is they
say family drops Nancy off. So the reporters were asking,
because yesterday there were a couple of reports out that
are not verified that the brother in law Nancy's daughter Anna,
her husband was a maybe is the term used, maybe
a suspect. They didn't say he is a suspect, but
they walked it right up close to the line. So
then a reporter said, well, on this family drops Nancy
off at nine forty eight pm, what do you mean family?
Was it Anna or was it her husband? And the
sheriff would not answer that. He said, we're going to
stay with family, So they avoided saying who was the
person who dropped Nancy off at her home at nine
forty eight pm on Saturday. Then we moved to Sunday,
February first, one forty seven am, the doorbell camera disconnects.
Apparently they think that whoever did this literally went up
to the doorbell and disconnected it. It wasn't a ring doorbell,
it was a Nest doorbell, same kind of thing, and
somebody went up and knew to disconnect it. That's at
one forty seven am. At two twelve am, software detected
a person on that camera. But there's no video available
and no subscription. So they had a camera but it
was worthless, and they went to Google, who operates the
net Nest system. They have, you know, lots of different
products that they offer. One of them this camera, and
apparently Nancy Guthrie did not keep up on her subscription,
so there was no video available. But somehow software detected
a person on the camera at two twelve. Well, they
said the camera was already disabled at one seven this disconnected,
So I don't know how that works, but that's what
they told is the pacemaker app shows that it was
disconnected from her phone at two twenty eight am. That
simply could be that she got out of range. It's
a bluetooth connection and once you get you know, so
the pacemaker but maybe just fine, but it was too
far away from the phone. That was two twenty eight am.
Then at eleven fifty six am, the family came and
checked on Nancy. At twelve oh three they called a
nine to one one and at twelve point fifteen the
first patrol car arrived. So with that, here's Jim Kavanov
from ATF.
Speaker 2: Well, this is the family reaching out Craig to the
abductors and saying, look, first, let's talk about mom. Let's
humanize mom. You know, she has grandchildren. They love her, children,
they love her. She's just a loving grandmother and mother.
Humanizer and she that a family talks about Nancy and
humanizes her with the abductors because she's been just an
object to the abductors, an object of their goal, which
either is money or some messaging or we don't quite
know yet. So that's very important. I think it was
excellent they did that. They need to humanize Nancy. And
they also say we're ready to listen. Here the family,
we want to listen. We want to hear what you want.
Do you want money? Do you want a message?
Speaker 3: What is it?
Speaker 2: You want tell us, we want to listen, and they
talk about, you know, the world of manipulated voices. In
other words, they know about these ransom notes. They specifically
discuss it, but there's manipulated voices, so we don't know
if it's really the abductors. We don't know if it's
really you. So reach out to us and let us know.
And then of course they strengthen mom. They kind of
close with strengthening mob We're all looking, we're all here,
We're not going to give up. So there's a lot
of messaging there from the family. It's very very good.
The abductors just to close, have to They went to
a lot of effort to break in, to assault Nancy,
to take her away, to hide her out. They went
to a whole lot of effort, and now they have
to close their circle for their goal, and that is
they have to communicate. So the best thing they can do,
their best options the abductors is to release Nancy, leave
her at the foot of a church somewhere the store,
or take the step to communicate to see if you
can reach your goal.
Speaker 3: So that's all.
Speaker 1: In response to the video that the Guthrie family released,
Savannah her brother and her sister released a video last night.
I'm not going to play the whole thing for you,
but a lot of people questioning it didn't sound like
the way that Savannah would talk. It was I'm surprised
to did not have a better microphone. It was kind
of one of those in a room, so a little echoey.
But the idea is that apparently the family wrote this
this video text to somehow communicate with the people who
abducted their mother, and then the FBI profilers and all
that got involved and wanted to make sure that there
were certain words in there like mom and mommy and
describing her as a wonderful grandmother with grandchildren that love her,
all of those things. Apparently the FBI thought that would
be important to put in as well. Here's a little
here's a piece of the clip from Savannah reading the
message that she hopes that the abductors are watching.
Speaker 4: We two have heard the reports about a ransom letter
in the media. As a family, we are doing everything
that we can. We are ready to talk. However, we
live in a world where voices and images are easily manipulated.
We need to know without a doubt that she is
alive and that you have her, we want to hear
from you, and we are ready to listen. Please reach
out to us.
Speaker 1: So the abductors are in a pickle. If she is
alive and they have her, they got to do something.
They've got they can't just just maybe maybe they will
leave her someplace that people can find her. But at
this point they're saying just contacts. Well, they're afraid to
contact because they're afraid that they will there will be
a trace and then the police will find them. But
at the same time, Savannah is absolutely right. I mean,
with AI and all the manipulation of voice and video images,
you've got to You've got to do more than just
take a photo of her. You've got to do something else.
Robin Draeke FBI, former FBI weighed in.
Speaker 5: They did pick up new information that was hopefully focusing
in their efforts in a new area. The fact that
they brought in canines, I thought was really relevant because
those dogs are phenomenally sense. They're tracking people, they're also
identifying new potential leads for them, as well as bringing
in drones. So that new renewed presence out there gives
me hope they're collecting a lot of information that we're
completely unaware of at this Paul.
Speaker 1: More of the former NYPD guy, he has been sent
down to Tucson to see what he can find out there.
This is what he said today.
Speaker 6: Yeah, according to the sheriff, what they did was they
took the physical camera and sent it to the company
that makes it and that administers it.
Speaker 3: It's Google.
Speaker 6: From what I understand, it's actually not ring its nest,
the same kind of thing, so that they could try
to examine it to see if they could digitally extract
something that could shed a little bit more light on
what occurred. And the answer is a fast null. It
looks like, as the sheriff said, the subscription had expired,
the thing was over writing, and they just didn't get
anything off the camera. And you know, I was hoping
for the same thing because he said that thing at
the beginning of the press conference about we're in the
await the analysis mode. And that's why, just to clarify,
I went with the DNA question because if you remember
the Coburger case, where it looked like, in a similar way,
they've hit a bit of a wall. They don't have
somebody that they're looking at early on they did the
genetic genealogy when they got the DNA off of the
night HASP. In this case, they said earlier that they
put out the DNA on a rush job from the
most likely place, which was the front of the house,
and they expected to get an answer back overnight. That
time is come and gone. So when he said we
were awaiting analysis, what I was hoping we were going
to get from the local FBI agent, and that's why
I asked him, was yes, we got alien DNA that
shouldn't be there, but the person's on I identified. If
the person was identified of it person hit in the
federal database, that code is database, we'd already know who
it is. They apparently don't have that, nor did they
submit it yet. So what does that tell me? I
think at this point the DNA you have to say
is a blind alley. And to support that little bit
of a dampening metric, I would argue is that the
sheriff said kind of casually, but I felt it was
important that they were going to be putting up billboards
around the area and in Arizona to try to sensitize
the population here. To Nancy, what she looks like and
what's going on. You don't do that if you're making
real good progress or you're awaiting analysis from something that
you feel is going to blow the case open. So
I don't feel right now like they're in a position
to say, hey, we're making great progress. But let me
be clear, you got a lot of investigative muscle here.
They're going to get who did this? I feel certain,
just may take some time.
Speaker 1: So the question about the camera and the fact that
they no, there's nothing in the camera. It sends a signal,
It sends a digital file to your computer or to
your iPhone and maybe to a cloud. But what they
were looking in the camera for? And they also said
that it had been disconnected at one forty seven, So
if they disconnected it, maybe the culprit left the camera.
There's still there's a lot of questions out of all
of this. Then the question was asked about, you know,
you're only sixty miles from the Mexican border. Could this
be a cartel? Because of the fact that the cartel's
business of getting money from people that are trying to
get across the US border, that business has dried up.
Is there somebody in the cartel that's in Mexico, that
is hurting for money and thought they would do this.
Speaker 6: I would put that in these sort of outer ring
of possibilities. Of course, you can't discount it. You were
very close, and you know what happens in situations like that.
This would be a desperate move, certainly if you're a
cartel member. So why would a cartel member do something
that could potentially draw a light to the cartel because
this is not how they normally make money, certainly from America.
You'd be bringing a lot of heat. It would have
to be somebody who went rogue, maybe somebody who owes
a middleman a lot of money, something where they're just
really desperate.
Speaker 3: It would be a really foolish move.
Speaker 6: If you're a car if you're actually card carrying member
of the Sinaloa Cartel or something like that, because all
you're going to do is bring down the weight of
the federal government here. But that said, the fact that
they contacted TMZ and not the actual network that Savannah
works for argues some lack of familiarity with the landscape here.
And the other thing I'm wondering too, is this thing
about the Apple Watch. We know that they talked about
the fact that she had an Apple Watch and that
there was a floodlight. So when did that come in?
And they were a little unclear about that. They said
they were running it down. Here's what I would be
looking at. Is there anything in previous social media and
it doesn't have to be from the victim. It could
be from Savannah innocently putting out I spent a day
with my mother, etc. Where it's clear the mother is
wearing the water.
Speaker 7: There is there is.
Speaker 6: I can confirm that we have a picture we've been
showing often with Nancy Gothrie wearing the apple It's a
white Apple watch. So that pours a little bit more
water on the idea that this ransom note and it
could definitely be genuine. But the fact that there's no
protocols for an exchange, the fact that some of this
stuff is already out there, starting to suggest to me
that this is somebody sitting in a place we can't
reach who knows about bitcoin, maybe knows something about ransomware,
maybe something someplace in Russia or something like that, and
just piggybacked on this whole thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it could be. It could be somebody that's watching
the news from some far away country and said I'm
going to try and get some of that money. As
far as the ransom note, the FBI said the same
one was sent to three places. Paul brought up TMZ
and the fact that nobody sent the ransom note to NBC.
So they sent the note to TMC and to two
local television stations in Tucson, KOLDTV and KGUN TV. So
that says to me that they at least took the
trouble to know what local media was there, or they
live in the area and they know exactly that those
are two local television stations. Sheriff also brought up the
fact that they are thinking about the fact that maybe
this wasn't supposed to be an abduction. Back to Paul Moro.
Speaker 6: In that case, then your most likely scenario is a
burglary gone bad, I mean taking off the table, something
crazy or revenge thing, or some other motive that's a
lot more malevolent. You would have to say then that
it was somebody who maybe made the connection, thought that
this person was very wealthy because of the connection, and thought,
you know what, I'm going to go in the house.
Speaker 3: She's probably got jewels that her daughter bought for her.
Speaker 6: And you know, look, I gotta give a reference that's
kind of blunt, but in cold blood the famous Truman
Capodi that came out of a jail house rumor that
a family had a lot of money, and so in jail,
the two perpetrators schemed the whole thing and committed to crime.
And there's not a lot of history of successful kidnappings
or things like that by any means. So you got
to look at things like that. Who has gotten out
of jail recently. You got to work your informants. Is
this from the criminal class that may have heard something
like this. That's why the reward is very important. I
have to say, I still think the reward needs to
be higher. You have to incentivize somebody who's maybe next
to the perpetrators here to say I'm going to give
this whole thing up. I had nothing to do with it,
but I'm not going to be quiet for their sake
because I'm looking at a big score. Still surprised that
you're not getting non government rewards being piled into this thing.
Speaker 3: There has to be a reason for that. I just
don't see it yet.
Speaker 1: Though. Another overpiece of the news conference, the sheriff of
the county there in Tucson brought up the fact that
Nancy was brought to her daughter's home for dinner on
Saturday night via Uber.
Speaker 8: We did speak to a driver because Nancy, we learned,
had been taken the Uber the family residence the daughter
for dinner, and we located that driver and spoke with
them and got that information.
Speaker 1: Well, Paul Morrow reacts to what the sheriff just said.
Speaker 6: Interesting because a lot of us have been speculating. Now,
she probably didn't drive herself a lot if you did
indeed have a car, and in fact, probably it's not
carrying groceries, going to the doctor, things like that, because
she was elderly, had a hard time getting around. So
what that suggests to me is, obviously she has an
Uber account. So now you can go back into the
Uber account and you can get that just off her
credit card and you can get it from Uber. Whoever
driver's been, what other drivers has she used? These are
people who have seen the house. As the old saying goes,
what do you cove it? You cover it what you see.
And if there have been people that have been in
and around the house that have come to the conclusion
that there's wealth for me here by whatever means. That's
what you have to start to look at. It sounds
like they washed out the Uber driver. Let's remember we
had an Uber driver in the Coburger case that provided
good information. We have nothing to do with the crime,
so let's not jump any conclusions. But you're definitely going
to be looking at people who were in and around
the house, whether a health aid, a driver, somebody who's
been in the house to drop off groceries or do repairs.
Those are the people you're going to scrape back very hard.
And it's probably or maybe it's not them, it's somebody
related who heard about it.
Speaker 1: So back to the FBI agent Robert Robin Draeke reaction
to all the events that were talked about today.
Speaker 5: Paul Morrow was saying, this is a complicated case because
if you're looking at the stats and the probabilities, the
probability of abduction being the number one prime motive and
driver of this is so low and so remote. So
it might have been an afterthought as like something went
sideways inside that home and chaos ensued, But that messaging
was so rich and so powerful and so impactful on many,
many different levels. So the family comes in, they create
their heartfelt narrative that they want to give out to
the world, and then the behavior experts and the profilers
coming and they start crafting a little bit for a
lot of different audiences there. I thought the really compelling
words in there is that we're here and ready to listen,
because if this person took her out of spite, out
of resentment, that's saying, hey, I'm here to listen. But also,
Paul said, complicated case means there's a lot of leakage
if there's more than one person that's aware of this
in some way, and so this message they put out
is extremely empathetic. It plays on the emotions of everyone involved,
and so that might spur someone to take some action,
because that's really what they want to do. They want
the perpetrator of this is taken action because actions give leads,
they give data points that we can follow up on.
It's a collaboration because anytime you're working on a case
like this, you're collaborating with all the players involved. And
so whether it's initiated by law enforcement order by the family,
it's probably joint idea to put a message out there.
And typically what you'll have is like you tell the family,
put out a compelling message for your mom and for
the person that did this horrendous crime. And then what
they do is as behavior experts, they come in and
try to nudge things in a little bit of different
ways with just language and stuff, so the message will
be very genuine, organic to them, but really tweaked for
the messaging they're trying to get out to these different audiences.
Speaker 1: One more little fact we learned today. The sheriff said
that the blood drops that were on the front porch
of the house were in fact Nancies so could well, yeah,
she lived there, so it could have been from a
previous incident, but most likely it was as they were
forcing her or carrying her.
Speaker 3: Out of the house.
Speaker 1: And about the pacemaker, is that how critical is that
to a patient that has a pacemaker in there? Matt
monitors their heart doctor Nicole Sapphire answered those questions.
Speaker 7: We do know about Nancy Guthur is she is medically
vulnerable in the sense that she at least has a
hard condition that requires a pacemaker. And what they have
told the public is that that pacemaker stopped sinking early
in those morning hours. Now, this does not mean that
the pacemaker itself stopped functioning. What it means is it
was no longer transmitting to the local transmitter. Oftentimes this
is kept in the household. It can also be connected
via bluetooth to a phone or an Apple Watch. And
we were also told that all these devices were still
in the house. So the fact that the pacemaker is
no longer sinking, you know, that is not a cause
of concern in the sense that she has just been
now separated from those devices. Now, it is oran to
note about eighty percent of women over the age of
eighty have a pacemaker. The reason that women have pacemakers
is because of kind of what happens in older age
and electrical failure of the heart, and the pacemaker is
implanted to make sure that that heart is continuing to beat.
Speaker 5: That video is.
Speaker 7: Heartbreaking, and so that is my biggest concern is what
are those daily medications that she takes. They alluded to
the fact that she has limited mobility. She lives in
chronic pain. So it is possible that those daily medications
are pain medications. If they are even low dose opioids
and she doesn't have them, then she may be going
through some form of opioid withdrawal in addition to being
in chronic pain, and an opioid withdrawal can be a
medical emergency. On top of that, women who have pacemakers
tend to be on medications for high blood pressure by cholesterol.
Sometimes they're on blood thinners for clotting issues, and either
arrhythmic medications to keep their heart pumping correctly. So while
going a few days without these medications may in itself
be benign, prolonged absence of not take these medications can
result in a medical emergency. As I mentioned, withdrawal symptoms
high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack, and others. So we
hope and pray that she is found soon and gets
the medical attention that she needs.
Speaker 1: So that's the update that we got today. There was
a lot of new information late this afternoon. We also
found out that one of the ransom letters, even though
the same one was sent to three different places, they
said that a ransom letter. They found out who authored
it and it's a person in Los Angeles. The FBI
has located that person and that person is now in
custody under arrest. So is the person the author of
the three or the one with the different anyway, one
of the authors of one of the ransom letters is
now in custody. You've got to be somewhat twisted to
try and get involved in something like this, But there
are twisted people. So let's let me get another story
in here today. The Save Act, the SAVE Act is well,
you can bet that there's two different argues. I'm looking
online at the summary. One of them from the Campaign
Legal Center says a bill in Congress to Safeguard American
Voter Eligibility Act to SAVE Act could silence millions of
voters by creating new barriers to voter registration. Then there's
another version, and this one comes from the House. House
dot gov says the Act may be cited as the
Save Act, ensuring only citizens are registered to vote. So,
Harry Inton, this is a fascinating to watch. Harry Nton
put his analytical skills together and said, how many people,
other than politicians, how many people are for or against
having voter ID laws.
Speaker 3: Take a look here, favorite photo id to vote.
Speaker 9: Eighty five percent of white people favorite, eighty two percent
of Latino, seventy six percent of black American's favorite. So
the bottom line is this voter ID is not controversial
in this country. A photo ID to vote is not
controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party,
and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority
of Americans agree with Nicki Minaj that, in fact, you
should have a photo ID to be able to vote.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a guy, his name is Amy Horrowitz, and
well let's get his story. He went out and did
some surveys on the street. Well, let's play those first, because,
as Harry said, eighty five percent of whites, eighty two
percent of Latinos, seventy six percent of blacks are four
photo ID when you read the vote. And so Amy
went out onto the street of various cities around the
country and he started with asking only white people about
do they do they? Are they for or against a
requirement for photo ID to vote?
Speaker 3: Do you have an opinion of voter d laws. Yeah,
they're usually pretty racist and they're bad. I think voter
ID laws are a way to perpetuate racism. You say,
would you go as far as those laws are racist?
Speaker 7: For sure?
Speaker 3: Do you think it suppresses the African American vote?
Speaker 7: Definitely, because they're less likely to have state IDs.
Speaker 10: Minority voters are less likely to have the kinds of
ideas that have been described or required.
Speaker 6: These type of people don't live in areas with easy
access to d mbs or other places where can get identification.
Speaker 3: You can always get ideas do over the internet. Is
that also make it difficult for black people.
Speaker 10: In particularly, Yeah, ye have to have access to the internet.
You have to be able to pay an incident service
provider for certain faith.
Speaker 3: Do you think that's harder for black people to go online?
Speaker 5: Well, I feel like they don't have the knowledge of
how of like how it works.
Speaker 3: A lot of people have smartphones, they might have data.
Speaker 11: For most of the communities, they don't really know what
is out there just because they're not aware or like
they're not informed. I also think there's a repression of
like black voting with how they how if you're a
convicted felon, like you're not allowed to vote and everything.
And when you look at swing states like Florida, that's
a huge population of the of the like African Americans.
Speaker 1: Wow, he found a lot of racists. I mean those
were all young white men and women and they all
were saying, no, it's it's racist, it's terrible. And besides that,
minorities are too dumb or too poor, or they're convicted felons,
so it's not fair. Wow, what a bunch of racists.
That's their view of Black America or Latino America. So
let's go to another group that he stopped on the
sidewalks of America, and this is all African Americans responded
to his questions about should there be photo ID required
to vote?
Speaker 3: Do you carry ID? Yes?
Speaker 8: I do.
Speaker 3: Do you know anybody who any black person doesn't carry?
Speaker 1: Idea?
Speaker 3: No, and one that I know has ID.
Speaker 4: Why would they think they don't have ID?
Speaker 7: Huh, that's a lot.
Speaker 3: Why would they say that do you have ID?
Speaker 11: Yes?
Speaker 10: Because I have my ID and my friends have the idea,
so we know what we need to carry around.
Speaker 7: Everybody that I know have ID, Like that's one of
the things you need to walk them around with New
York with ID.
Speaker 3: Do you know any black adult who does not have ID?
Speaker 10: No?
Speaker 3: I don't. Is it a weird thing to even say that? Yes?
Speaker 1: It is okay. So the white people said that blacks
can't figure it out, they're too poor, they don't know
how to get ID, or they're convicted felons, and the
black people are all going, I'm don't know anybody that
doesn't have ID. So go back to Harry Inton. What
was it. Eighty five percent of whites, eighty two percent
of Latinos in seventy six percent of black say there
should be photo ID to vote. And the guy who
did this survey, like I said, his name is Amy Horowitz,
and this is why he did it. It's an interesting story.
Speaker 12: It's also they deny that there's voter fraud out there.
And the reason why I made that video originally is
because I was going to vote and in Los Angeles
at the time, and my father had died just like
six seven months prior to that, and I went to
vote and his name was on the voter rules, okay,
which I wasn't crazy because you know, he just died
if I don't know how long it takes them to read
the voter rules, but somebody had voted for him.
Speaker 3: Right there's a check martin next to name.
Speaker 12: And I said to the guy, go, my father died,
he's dead.
Speaker 3: It came in, gave his name, gave.
Speaker 12: His address because easy look that up, and they voted
for him. And that's what inspired me to do that video,
because there's massive, massive amount of voter fraud out there,
and voter d were eliminate a lot of that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, but just think about this when you when
you see the next group come forward, uh and say that, no,
we can't have this, this will discriminate against blacks. Oh,
I want to hear things like this. I think back
to Malcolm X who said white Americans who identify as
a liberal are the most dangerous and deceitful thing in
the Western hemisphere. So that was Malcolm X on white liberals.
And boy, you just heard it in that in that
sidewalk survey, they all thought that blacks were incapable of
getting photo ID. What a put down. I'm sure they
don't think of themselves as racist. They probably think of
themselves as wonderful people to help the poor, uneducated black person.
We'll see if the Say Act get anywhere. But the
Democrats in Congress are of course very much opposed to it.
On Wall Street, today's Wall Street's getting pretty interesting. This
is another big down day today for the markets. A
lot of the a lot of the companies out there
that are in the business of building data centers so
they can expand their AI power. A lot of Wall
Street investors are thinking maybe they've gone too far, maybe
they're spending too much, they're not getting a return on
investment yet. And if you take and they're worried about
the fact that software companies that AI is going to
be able to wipe out software companies. So a lot
of the software company stocks tech stocks have been going
downhill for weeks now. But if if you think about it,
even a company who wants to plug in AI into
their company, they're not going to go in and tear
out all of their software and run their entire company
on AI. That just is if that happens, it's many
many years down the road. So there's a lot of
kind of crazy thinking I think going on on Wall
Street right now. And then add on to that, they're
all trying to figure out who is going to be
the leader of AI, and they're throwing a lot of
money at it. It's making Wall Street nervous. Last night,
after the market closed, Alphabet Google if you will, came
out with their fourth quarter earnings and their plans for
making more investment in AI, and they said they're cap
x spending the capital that they will spend to push
into new eras of AI wall was thinking they're going
to go really crazy, maybe spend one hundred billion dollars. No,
it turned out they said we're going to spend one
hundred and eighty five billion dollars. So alphabet slash Google
is going to pour even more money into AI investments.
And so all of this is causing a lot of
selling in the tech sector because people are afraid that
their companies have gone too far, their software is going
to be wiped out, that they're not going to get
a return on their investment from their capac spending for AI.
But again may also just be the fact that there
was a big run up in all of these tech stocks.
So today, when all was said and done, the Dow
started lower and stayed lower, went down five hundred ninety two,
the Dow at forty eight thousand and nineh eight, SMB
down eighty four, Nasdaq down three hundred and sixty four,
the price of gold down one hundred and fifty two
dollars to forty seven ninety eight, price of oil down
two bucks to sixty three dollars or a barrel of oil.
And Bitcoin is also part of the selloff. I mean,
they were up to about one hundred and twenty five
thousand dollars. They're now half of that lost fifty percent.
It's now down. It was down today to sixty three
thousand and some change for bitcoin. So a lot of
volatility is really showing up on Wall Street trading. So
that's it for today. Thank you for coming by. We
will be back again tomorrow. Yay it's Friday. We will
see you that