Speaker 1: And welcome to the Big Podcast on this Wednesday. Today
is the nineteenth day of November, Year of Our Lord
twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan. So, man,
we got a lot to cover here today. I mean
a lot, and I guess we could start with late yesterday.
The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is in Washington, d C.
Yesterday they had the big ceremonies, and they had the
big dinner last night, and then today the President was
over at the Nity Center with the Crown Prince and
they were talking to a global investors that came in
to basically hand their business card to the Crown Prince
and try and do business with the Saudist But in
the middle of all this, yesterday afternoon, there's the Crown
Prince sitting in the Oval Office like world leaders do
with the president and the president this is you're just
asking for it. You've got the media in there, and
you're opening up the questions to the media, and you
know what's going to happen. One of the questions Mary
Bruce from ABC News. If she didn't ask it, somebody
else would have asked the president about, Hey, you and
your family sure are doing a lot of business in
Saudi Arabia. And oh, by the way, your excellency, what
do you say about the killing of Koshogi that our
CIA said you ordered? So here's how that whole thing
went down.
Speaker 2: Christ and your royal minus. The US Intelligence concluded that
you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. Nine eleven
families are furious that you are here in.
Speaker 3: The oble office.
Speaker 2: Watched Americans Who you and the same team as so
who you with? I'm at ABC News, Sir, you with
whom AC News?
Speaker 4: Sir Fakeness? ABC Fakeness one of the worst, one of
the worst in the business. But I'll ask you a question.
I have nothing to do with a family business. I
have left and when I I've devoted one hundred percent
of my energy. What my family does is fine. They
do business all over. They've done very little with Saudi Arabia.
Actually they could. I'm sure they could do a lot,
and anything they've done has been very good. That's what
we've done. We've built a tremendous business for a long time.
I've been very successful. I decided to leave that success
bee behind and make America very successful and I've made
America more successful by far than it ever was, and
that it ever could have been. No matter who is president,
there would be nobody bringing in twenty one trillion dollars.
That I can tell you right now, as far as
this gentleman is concerned, he's done a phenomenal job. You're
mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people
didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about, whether you
like him or didn't like him. Things happened, but he
knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.
You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a
question like that.
Speaker 5: It was just as mister President, you allow me to answer.
You know, I feel painful about you know, the families
of and I live in in America, But you know,
we have to focus on reality. Reality based in CI
documents and based on a lot of documents that Lad
he used Saudi people and that event for one main
purpose is to destroy this relation, to destroy the American
Sadi relation. That's the purpose of Mike living. So whoever
buying that, that means they all helping or Lad in
purpose of destroying this relation. He know that strong nation
between America and Saudi Arabia. It's bad for extremism, it's
bad for terurism, and we have to uprove him wrong
and to build our relation, to continue to our relation.
It's a critical in the safety of the world. It's
a critical against extremism and terrourism. About the generals, it's
really painful to hear, you know, anyone that been losing
his life for you know, no real purpose or not
in a illegal way. And it's been painful for us
in Saudi Arabia. We've did all the right steps of investigation,
et cetera in Saudi Arabia, and we've improved our system
to be sure that nothing happened like that. And it's
painful and it's a huge mistake, and you're doing our
best that this doesn't happen again.
Speaker 1: So I thought, yes, I thought the question was interesting,
But it was also one that you knew was going
to be asked somebody in the reporter crowd. They had
forty law reporters in the Oval office there. You knew
somebody was going to ask about the conflicts with the
Trump family and especially about the Koshogi death. So and
the Crown Prince that you know, there's Trump trying everything
he can to fall all over himself to say I'm sorry,
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, don't embarrass our guest. But the
Crown Prince took it up and answered the question. Now,
the question is do you believe any of this? When
r CIA said that they believe that the Crown Prince
ordered the killing of Kashogi. Later, probably a year later,
sometime after the death of Koshogi, that the Saudis had
rounded up I don't know, five six, seven people that
were part of the murder squad, and they sentenced them
to jail. I think they got out pretty quickly. But
I guess real bottom line out of all of this
is one white house press people. If you're going to
do business that way, you're going to get those kinds
of questions. Number two is why we are so quick
to believe that the rest of the world lives by
our judicial system. It doesn't. And what I read is
that that still goes on over in Saudi Arabia. You
talk badly about the royal family, you will go to
jail and you may lose your life. They behead people,
They do all kinds of things in different parts of
the world, and so this is it's not the American
judicial system, and the Saudis know that. But I find
that if Mary Bruce from ABC wants to be outraged,
but quite honestly, we do business with a lot of
bad people. We do business with China. Talk to them
about human rights they have none, talk to Russia about
their endless targeting of civilians in Ukraine with their missiles.
We still do business with them. We take a look
at a lot of the products you're buying lately made
in Vietnam. I mean, we do business, and we looked
the other way when it comes to the almighty dollar.
Now look at the Crown Prince was sitting there in
the Oval office and had just announced that he was
going to invest one trillion dollars in the US. And
you're going, oh, Tom, where are your morals? No, this
is I'm sorry, but we do business with bad people
around the world. If you are in Saudi Arabia, you
better follow the rules of Saudi Arabia or they may
arrest you or or even kill you. So it's in
a Saudi citizen here gets all the benefits of our
judicial system. So I find it fascinating that you can
have two different struggles in your mind. One about the
fact that that's their system, those are their rules. That
was a citizen of Saudi Arabia and it's not our rules.
And on the other hand, they're an important country for
security in the Middle East, so it's important to be
friends with the Saudis, and that's why we are selling
them a whole bunch of F thirty five fighter jets.
So I thought it was interesting, and of course everybody
came out of their shoes. The Kushogi thing with the
White House Press corpt will not stop on that. I
just I see it for what it is, that's all.
So that's the big stink that happened in that whole
thing Epstein. So since we last visited, the House passed
it what was it, four hundred and twenty seven to
one for the Epstein documents to be released. Then it
went over to the Senate. It was unanimous in the Senate.
So now it's over at the White House and asks
we're recording this podcast. President was over at the Kennedy
Center meeting with the Global investors and the Crown Prince.
But when he gets back to the White House, he's
expected to sign that. Now the question is will anything
come of that. Barry Levine is an author that has
written extensively going way back to the early days of
Jeffrey Epstein, and this is his reaction to all the
latest news.
Speaker 3: This is really a special, special day for the survivors.
I remember sitting when Judge Berman allowed two dozen of
the survivors to come into his court after Jeffrey Epstein's
death to make victim impact statements. It was very, very emotional,
very moving. And today the lawmakers applauding the survivors who
were up in the house gallery, and they in turn
applauding the lawmakers below. This was really a special day,
and now it's time to do the work. Now it's
time to get into those files and despite the redactions,
let's really see what's in there and see what we get. Oh,
he's heavily invested in the Epstein story, and he was
asked about essentially, if anything's really going to happen in Congress,
were they going to do something about this. Representative Massey
was referring to the SDNY summary statements of witnesses and suspects.
They're aware of twenty individuals and we need to see
the files to see what the FBI has done over
the years in an attempt to corroborate the stories of
the survivors against these men. That material I know is
very in those files. We may not get the names,
but we hopefully will get a sense of what they
did to apprehend these individuals. And if nobody else besides
Kleeen Maxwell was apprehended in addition to Jeffrey Epstein, then
why not?
Speaker 1: He said all about the fact that they know that
they've identified twenty individuals, So then why don't they release
the names of those twenty individuals. Everybody seems to know
on the inside, they're all carrying the secrets around with them.
This guy who has written books about Epstein, he knows
the twenty names he's wondering about apprehended. Why haven't they
apprehended them? What's that all about? Tara Paul Mary is
also another author reporter who has really devoted a lot
of her life to following the Epstein story and the victims.
She reacts this.
Speaker 6: Way and that Trump of the dj could find ways
to not release the files, right, then there's this issue
of reactions. You know, what if something like this happens, right,
either it's slow walked, or there's massive reactions, or would
the level of outrage force the issue as it has
now with the vote itself.
Speaker 2: I would hope.
Speaker 7: So, I mean, I know that a lot of people
who are dedicated to his story and to justice have
already been very furious about the fact that all we
have seen so far when the DOJ hands over for
anything is just redactions, black lines, black line useless papers, documents,
and documents that are completely useless. Bloomberg actually reported back
in August that when they foyed, which is a freedom
of information request, they asked the FBI to hand over
Epstein documents, they had actually redacted President Trump's name. Files
that previously had his name were redacted. So they've already
been working on this right now. Hundreds of people have
been going through and looking at the names of prominent men.
So I have to assume that those people who are
working on the freedom of information requests, which is our
freedom and right as Americans to know what the government
is holding on to have already started this process. Back
in July, they announced that there was nothing here, case closed,
although now the case has been reopened, and that's another
way they could stop this.
Speaker 1: See, and this is young lady who really has devoted
a lot. She knows an awful lot, and she sounds
like she's hesitant about whether names will come out. One
of the people that may name names. He listened to him,
Tom Massey, the Republican from Kentucky. He goes down the
list of not the names, but who they are. He
won't say the names, nobody will.
Speaker 8: List also includes at least nineteen other individuals, one Hollywood
producer worth a few hundred million dollars, one royal prince,
one high profile individual in the music industry, one very
prominent banker, one high profile government official, one high profile
former politician, one owner of a car company in Italy,
one rock star, one magician. At least six billionaires, including
a billionaire from Canada. We know these people exist in
the FBI files.
Speaker 1: See, he's got it right down, and he knows who
they are. He's got them by occupation. He also was
asked about, well, if nothing happens to all this stuff,
would you be willing to stand up on the floor
of the House of Representatives, where apparently there's some legal
protection and name the names.
Speaker 9: We absolutely would do that, Marjorie would do that I
would do that. They are Democrats who would do that.
But that's not the right path forward. That's the last
effort if we hit all of the walls. But so
far we're mantioning it through the walls and over the walls,
and we're getting this done.
Speaker 1: Forgive me. I'm still skeptical if we're going to ever
ever find out any of this stuff. And all they're
going to do is, like I told you yesterday, there's
some of the lawyers that say they're working for the
victims are going to drag them through the mud. They're
going to try and have congressional hearings and god knows
what else they're going to have. Howard Lutnik, he's yeah
Secretary of Commerce, very wealthy Wall Street guy before becoming
Secretary of Commerce, and he was talking about this like
he may know more than what he's letting on. Here's
Howard Luttnight.
Speaker 10: I assume way back when they traded those videos in
exchange for him getting that eighteen months set allowed him
to have visits and be out of jail. I mean,
he's a serial sex offender.
Speaker 1: How could he.
Speaker 10: Get eighteen months and be able to go to his
office during the day and have visitors and stuff must
have been a trade. So my assumption not I have
no knowledge. My assumption is there was a trade for
the videos because there were people on those videos.
Speaker 1: Wealthy guy probably does know who was involved. Without that
was his theory. And then I think the thing that
thinks cake Larry Summers is the only number, say, only
name that's really come out and very prominent economist, former
harp the Harvard president. He's a professor university professor, which
is the highest title at Harvard. He was the former
secretary of the Treasury. And how embarrassing is how weird
is this? Some of the emails that they have found
this came from the from the Epstein Estate show that
Larry Summers was asking dating advice from Jeffrey Epstein. He's
a grown man, good grief, wow who and he's married,
but he was asking in emails he had he was
the mentor to some woman and he kept trying to
hit on this woman and the woman was not going
for it, and he wanted to get information from Jeffrey
Epstein about how what's in need to do to be
successful in getting this woman. So don't you find that
strange that a growing I don't know forty. He must
have been fifty sixty years old, and he's asking about
how to hit on some woman that worked for him. Yeah,
I know the rules say you can't do that, but
I just thought that was that was weird and creepy.
So there's two other stories I've got to get to
because both of them, oh my, they are big oopsie stories. Oopsie.
On the first one, which is the Comy indictment, there
was a hearing today at the Federal court in Alexandria, Virginia,
Eastern District of Virginia, and the lawyers there were basically
trying to get the judge to throw out the indictment
against James Comy, And what we found out was that
the judge started asking the US attorney, the attorney representing
the United States, No, Lindsey Halligan is the US attorney,
but one of people on her staff, the attorney handling
the case in the court, was basically asked about the
process of getting this indictment from the grand jury. And
what the lawyer admitted to was that the grand jury
never saw the indictment, never read it, never even crossed
their eyes, and everybody's mouth dropped open. This was a shocker.
The grand jury never saw the indictment. Apparently there was
some kind of mix up, and so they had hearing
with a grand jury, but the grand jury never saw
the indictment. So they scrambled around back at the office
and then went and got the grand jury foreman to
sign the indictment page. But that was attached to the
indictment that nobody else saw. I mean, this sounds like
even a first year law student would know how to
do better than this. A former federal judge out of Florida,
Jeff Schwartz, weighs in on what happened with this fiasco.
Speaker 11: Okay, I think this all started when the judge asked
a question about a declaration memo, and the Assistant Attorney
General refused to answer the question because he had been
instructed by Todd Blanche's office not to answer that question.
That's when I think the judge decided to dig in
with the question. He had been waiting all morning to ask,
and that was based upon the order that was entered
a few days ago that in fact, there was this
long two hours where they were doing things and there
were two different indictments. He wants to know, how did
you get the jurors in the jury room to look
at this second indictment with only two counts in seven minutes?
Speaker 1: How did you do this?
Speaker 11: And all that turned out was all that happened was
that Lindsay Halligan took it to the four person and
one other person and had them sign it. Those jurors
never voted on the second indictment, so therefore there was
no indictment. And if there was no indictment, Comy wasn't charged.
He wasn't charged. The statute of limitations ran, and the
case is over. So the original appointed US attorney for
the Eastern District of Virginia, the guy who eventually resigned
because he was getting pressure to prosecute James Comy, and
he looked and wrote a memo apparently that there wasn't
enough evidence to charge Comy with anything. And that's what
the judge was asking about. And that's why this lower
ranking attorney was told, don't answer the question if the
judge asked you that, but look where it brought them.
This maybe.
Speaker 1: Basically throw the case out because of the fact that
they mishandled the legal process.
Speaker 11: No, that really wouldn't happen because the essence of what's
happening and the motion itself is that in fact the DOJS,
through the other representatives that handled this case, said no
charges here. And it was in those last few days
that the rush took place to get Halligan in place.
What we saw was the crossroads between arrogance and ignorance,
and they both crossed, Halligan being the ignorance, arrogance coming
out of Pambondi and Todd Blanche and they crossed at
It's a very crucial point and there's no cure for it. Well,
first of all, Halligan had no business handling this case.
She worked for a insurance defense firm in Miami called
Cole Cassane and Scott, and mister Scott is a former
a US attorney and he's a former district judge, and
she had a source to find out information. If she
didn't know what she was doing, she didn't know what
she was doing. And the big key to that is
when she told the grand jurors that mister Comy had
no right not to testify at the trial. I mean,
I don't know who taught her criminal procedures, but I
think the Fifth Amendment is still in place in the
federal system that says you can't be forced to testify.
Speaker 1: So I've heard before that this Lindsay Halligan is an
insurance lawyer, had never prosecuted anything in her life. I
did not apparently know how to what to do process
wise with the grand jury, so she blew that so
that the indictment was never read by the grand jury.
Was signed by a foreman of the grand jury, but
the grand jury itself did not see the indictment. Means
that the indictment did not happen, and the statute of
limitations has subsequently run, so they cannot go back unless
the judge pulls out some ruling that says the case
can go on. This looks like a judge is going
to rule this case is over. And poor o Lindsey Halligan.
I mean, she should have said I'm not qualified. And
it really does make you wonder. You don't even have
to be a first year law student to know any
of us that have watched anything about I take the
Fifth is that you have the right to take the
Fifth Amendment and not testify. And she made an argument
in court that he had to testify. So she's not
looking good out of this, The DOJ is not looking
good out of this. The idea of going after Camy
was just totally mishandled. It looks like from afar, well,
see if the judge makes a rule that somehow going
to keep this thing alive. But I don't think so.
The other big oopsie of the day is remember the
big hubub about Texas and the fact that they were
going to do redistricting, and by doing the redistricting they
were going to be able to produce five more Republicans
that will therefore be members of the House of Representatives
after the midterm election, and that the Republicans will keep
control of the House. And then California responded by saying, Okay,
we're going to do the same thing. And subsequent to that,
there's been five or six seven states they all kind
of cancel themselves out. Well, a federal judge, a judge
appointed by Donald Trump, ruled that the Texas map is
not valid because they used racial reasons for drawing the map,
and that get thrown out. Molly Hemingway from the Federalist
blames this.
Speaker 12: So that's why these two members on this three member
panel are trying to say that it's not partisan, that
the Republicans and the Texas Legislature were not doing this
for partisan reasons. They're saying they did it for racial reasons,
because then it would be able to be reviewed by
their court.
Speaker 2: But it's kind of a difficult case to making.
Speaker 12: There's a long opinion, but it's going to be difficult
to see how that goes when it gets to the
Supreme Court level, in part because the facts of the
case do seem to indicate President Trump asked the Texas
legislature to give him five more seats for political gain.
They said, we'll do that for political gain. You have
the testimony with the person who drew, who drew the district,
saying I did this to maximize Republican gains. And so
then the court is saying, no, actually they did it
for racial reasons. That's something that might be not seen
as holding under scrutiny when it gets to the spring.
Speaker 1: Apparently, the courts of ruled in the past. Supreme Court
is ruled in the past that the court have no
business interfering in partisan politics, and so if they redraw
maps based upon partisanship, that the Court do not have
the authority to tell them that they can't do that.
But if they draw a map based upon racial identities
racial population, that is something that the court can review.
That is why the Texas officials kept saying, we're doing
the redrawing for partisan reasons so that the judges won't
review it. But when it was brought to court, the
panel of judges have said, looks like he did this
for racial reasons, so they can review it.
Speaker 4: Molly goes on, if it's not the right thing to
do in Texas, how could it be the right thing
to do in California.
Speaker 12: Yeah, so it's different cases, but it's a similar situation
in that the DOJ has said that California did use
too much race in their redistricting in California. Now again
we've got Supreme Court presidents saying you have to separate
out race from politics. Those things tend to overlap quite
a bit, though. People of certain racial groups tend to
vote in groups, and so it can be difficult to do.
But it does show really how much better Democrats have
been at maximizing their congressional districts relative to Republicans. You
have states that have forty forty five percent Republicans with
no representation in Congress, and the Republicans tend to know
they're starting this game a little bit more, but they
are well behind, decades behind where Democrats have been. And
you can also see the tenacity with which people like
Newsom are willing to push it even further.
Speaker 1: If this, if this stays and Texas map has been
thrown out, then they're not going to be able to
add the five more Republicans. Meantime, California, in response to Texas,
they went ahead and passed their redistricting and if that
doesn't get shot down, then that means that they're going
to be able to produce five more Democrats. It was
where California was canceling out Texas. But if Texas has
been canceled out by the courts, then the California Prop
fifty adds five more Democrats. Then the Democrats are going
to take control of the House if this stands the
way it is. So this afternoon, Gavin Newsom sent out
a tweet I'll read it for you, says Donald Trump
and Greg Abbott played with fire and got burned and
democracy won. This ruling is a win for Texas and
for every American who fights for free and fair elections.
And he was responding to the story that federal judges
blocked Texas from using their redrawn map for the twenty
twenty six midterm elections. So he's right, he got you know,
sometimes I wonder about the Republicans and are they only
able to play checkers? Do they not know how to
play chess? If you change your map to get five
more Republicans, they didn't think that anybody else would do
the opposite, and California did so. I like I said,
if it stays this way, then the Democrats are going
to have a huge advantage on gaining control of the
House of Representatives after the midterm. Back to Molly Hemingwaye
talking about Republicans have not been good at this redistricting
thing for a long time.
Speaker 12: If you look only at the last year, that's a
very good argument. When you look at the last few
decades of what has happened with redistricting again, you have
Democrat controlled legislatures and Democrat majority states that have really
gone almost to the limits of what they can do.
Republicans again, just haven't done it anywhere near where they could,
even in states that they control or have supermajorities in.
So some people can argue that it was all done
by this trigger, but other people could say, unless you
have mutually assured destruction, it will just continue to be
an unfair situation for republic voters.
Speaker 2: So quick prediction on what the Supreme Court will there.
Speaker 12: They have been clear that there are multiple problems with
how this case has gone. With cases like this, including
you're not supposed to nullify a map in the middle
of an election. And Texas is right now having qualifying
rounds for the next election, so there are multiple grounds
on which they might not like this interim decision.
Speaker 1: What a mess. Huh, what a mess. So we'll keep
an eye on the courts to see how that whole
thing works out. Snap food stamps, they have been restored
since government opened its doors back up again, but not
completely brooked rawlins. Brooke Rowlins, who's the Secretary of Agriculture,
was asked today about the fact of how is everybody
getting their food stamps back up again, and she's talking
about how people have to reregister because they have found
huge fraud in the food stamp program. Here's Brook Rolin.
Speaker 13: Almost forty percent increase under Joe Biden of what was
spent in the people that entered the food stamp slash
SNAP program. One hundred and eighty six thousand dead people
are receiving Snap benefits.
Speaker 11: Half a million.
Speaker 13: People are getting paid twice. We've made hundreds of arrests.
We have a lot more to do. But this was
I think an unattended, unintended consequence of the Democrats shutting
the government down for forty three days. Is it shined
this very bright light on one of their pet programs
and now has given us a platform to completely deconstruct
the program.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a mess too. Seems like a lot of
the things that the government does is just they're not
working out all that well. Healthcare. I've been talking about
the fact that I heard the President talk about forget
giving the money to the insurance companies on healthcare, because
when the premiums are the subsidies that are supposed to
be made for the people that are on Obamacare, that
doesn't go to them, it goes to the insurance companies.
And the President suggested sending the money directly to the
people and let them buy whatever amount of insurance that
they want or figure out their own medical care on
who they want to go to. And if you're spending
money that you've been given. You're going to be much
more keen about picking people that don't rip you off anyway.
Senator Bill Cassidy is a doctor. He's the head of
the Committee on Health and Welfare in the Senate, and
he was asked about the status of the idea of
giving the money directly to the people. Here's what he
had to say.
Speaker 14: Yeah, Ryan, you know, we're having a Center Finance Committee
hearing and we'll hear about the situation. But let's elaborate
on the president's plan. We have twenty six billion dollars available,
if you will, or what Joe Biden put in as
enhanced premium tax credits. The Democrats want to send that
twenty six billion dollars back to the insurance companies. They
take twenty percent of that for profit and overhead. That's
law under Obamacare. They're allowed to take that twenty percent.
The President and I want to send one hundred percent
to patients to put into an account to spend on
the healthcare that they want, not just the healthcare that
the insurance company allows them to have. And by the way,
with this money, they can pay their deductible and their
copay Under the Democratic plan, there'll be a maybe a
seven thousand dollars deductible before you get into the insurance.
Under the Republican plan, there'll be one thousand to two
thousand dollars to pay for that health care before you
kind of start paying out a pocket for your deductible.
It works for the patient, It gives power to the patient.
I'm with the President. This is a better plan. So
we need Democrats to buy in if we're going to
get this pass. First and secondly, right you're defending given
one hundred percent of the money to the insurance company
so they can take twenty percent off for profit and
overhead versus one hundred percent to the patient, so they
can spend it on the health care they want. Now,
that should be an American message, not a Republican, not
a Democrat. It is an American message. And so I'm
hoping that Democrats are first Americans and second and secondly
their party because we need to have an American solution.
This is an American solution. So in the One Big
Beautiful Bill Working the Tax Cut for Working Families Bill,
we actually set up the legal framework then that we
would use going forward, and if it takes us like
two and a half months to get the money in
the first two months of the year. You just save
your receipts, you submit them to your account, and you
get reimbursed. And so there's actually a little bit of
a fudgeon here that can give us a little extra
time to get it done. By the way President Trump
did Operation Warp Speed, people said it could take as
much as ten years to get a vaccine for COVID.
That guy got it done in ten months. We can
get this tony than faster.
Speaker 1: So I don't expect that you would have any sympathy
for the insurance companies, but you also can't blame them.
A number of them are dropping out of even doing
any business with the ACA Affordable Care Act. People that
sign up, they don't want to sign anybody up. At
the lost four hundred million dollars this last year. Others
are also losing huge amounts of money, and they're going,
we're not going to participate. So I don't know what
kind of insurance companies are going to be left. But
it's a it's a bad product, it's a lousy product.
It's not fair to the people who have signed up
for this. They were hoping that they would solve all
their problems, and it just creates more problems. So Wall Street,
let's see, we've been having problems there lately, but not today. Nope,
optimism out there that maybe I don't know, buying another dip.
The dowo not much to talk about, but it was positive,
which is a lot to talk about. The Dow up
forty seven to close at forty six thousand and one,
thirty eight s and P up twenty four, Nasdaq up
one hundred and thirty one. The price of gold was
up seven dollars to four thousand and seventy three. Oil
went back down again, down a buck and a half,
down to fifty nine dollars now for one barrel of oil.
So that's it for today. Thank you for coming by.
We're gonna try this again tomorrow and I hope to
see you them