Speaker 1: And hello, how are you. Huh it's Monday. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Big Podcast Monday. Today's twenty first day
Speaker 1: of July. Year of Our Lord, twenty twenty five. My
Speaker 1: name is Tom Sullivan. So where do you want to
Speaker 1: start today? Boys and girls. No, Epstein is still you know,
Speaker 1: it's still in the news. But that's not to start
Speaker 1: with today. We've got more on immigration and shooting of
Speaker 1: an immigration officer over the weekend in New York. We've
Speaker 1: got what else do we have got to I want
Speaker 1: to start with Tulsey Gabbard. Tolsey, you know, she's the
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence, and she now openly accuses Barack
Speaker 1: Obama of a long standing effort to overthrow Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: basically a coup, and talks about treasonous conspiracy theories. It's
Speaker 1: all about the Russian Russian Russian interference in the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. And there's no question the Russians have been
Speaker 1: interfering in our elections long before twenty sixteen. They go
Speaker 1: back long before the Internet. So there's there's literally nothing
Speaker 1: new about all of that. I saw one of the
Speaker 1: on X. I put it on my I've reposted it
Speaker 1: so it would show up, but it was from Matt Walsh,
Speaker 1: and Matt Walsh said, unpopular opinion, But I don't care
Speaker 1: about this unless they actually arrest and prosecute the culprits,
Speaker 1: including Obama, you cannot allege a treasonous conspiracy and they
Speaker 1: do nothing about it. The typical pattern by Republicans since
Speaker 1: forever is to make these kinds of claims, which I
Speaker 1: don't doubt, by the way, but to make them on
Speaker 1: Twitter and Fox News and never actually bring it to
Speaker 1: a court of law so the party is responsible, can
Speaker 1: be held accountable for their crimes. I'm tired of it.
Speaker 1: Go arrest these people and bring them to justice, then
Speaker 1: I'll care. If you won't do that, then what does
Speaker 1: any of this matter? And I thought his tweet was
Speaker 1: it was my favorite one of all the difference because
Speaker 1: a lot of reaction about all of this and what
Speaker 1: Tulsea Gabbert has said she's done, She's done a criminal
Speaker 1: referral to the Justice Department about all of this, and
Speaker 1: what Matt Walsh is saying is, well, let's let's see
Speaker 1: if the Justice Department does anything. Will Pam BONDI will
Speaker 1: the Justice Department supposed to be so political, you know,
Speaker 1: are they going to actually do something? Do they really
Speaker 1: think this is a crime. So let's start off with
Speaker 1: Pelsea Gabbard and here's what she had to say.
Speaker 2: We had a sitting president of the United States and
Speaker 2: his cabinet and leadership team, quite frankly, who were not
Speaker 2: happy with the fact that President Trump had won the election,
Speaker 2: and so they decided that they would do everything possible
Speaker 2: to try to undermine his ability to do what voters
Speaker 2: task President Trump to do.
Speaker 1: So the way in and all this, let's start with
Speaker 1: Mark Theeson, former speech writer for w.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this is really very important to get to
Speaker 3: the bottom of this because this is one of the
Speaker 3: worst political spannels of our lifetime. We were to, you know,
Speaker 3: for we spend two years and tens of millions of
Speaker 3: dollars investigating what turned out to be a conspiracy theory,
Speaker 3: which is that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal
Speaker 3: the twenty sixteen election. And it turned out it wasn't true.
Speaker 3: And there were a lot of Democrats were pushing this,
Speaker 3: a lot of people in the media were pushing it.
Speaker 3: But what was most insidious were the people in the
Speaker 3: intelligence community who would would basically were telling the American
Speaker 3: people a pernicious lie, which is you can't see it,
Speaker 3: but we've seen secret intelligence that suggests that the president
Speaker 3: was conspiring with Russia to steal the election, and it
Speaker 3: wasn't true. And you Brennan was one of the worst
Speaker 3: people involved in this. He called Trump a trader, said
Speaker 3: he had conducted, he had committed treason, that he was
Speaker 3: an agent of the of the Russian regime. And this
Speaker 3: is really bad because it calls in the question the
Speaker 3: intelligence community's credibility. And so we got to get to
Speaker 3: the bottom of who did this, who is behind it,
Speaker 3: and find out why and called them out.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of Democrats and the Intel Committee, Jim Hines,
Speaker 1: Congressman from Connecticut, is the ranking member of the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, and this is his reaction.
Speaker 4: What you saw from the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsea
Speaker 4: Gabbard was not just a lie, but a very dangerous lie,
Speaker 4: because when you start throwing around language like sedition and treason,
Speaker 4: somebody's going to get hurt.
Speaker 1: Okay, So who do you believe, you believe the Democrat,
Speaker 1: the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, or do you
Speaker 1: believe Tulci Gabbert, the Director of National Intelligence. Well back
Speaker 1: to Mark THESM for his.
Speaker 3: Reaction, So I'm sorry. John Brennan accused Donald Trump of treason.
Speaker 3: Adam Schiff accused Donald Trump of treason. Eric Swalwell said
Speaker 3: he was an agent of a foreign power. So for
Speaker 3: them to say that Tulsi Gabbert is politicizing intelligence, they
Speaker 3: weaponized intelligence against the president of the United States. And look,
Speaker 3: there's two different things that are going on here. There's
Speaker 3: the question of whether Russia tried to interfere in the
Speaker 3: twenty sixteen election, would they did, and would I would
Speaker 3: remind everyone that Donald Trump launched a cyber attack against
Speaker 3: the troll farm in Saint Petersburg responsible for that election interference.
Speaker 3: So Donald Trump actually was the one taking that more
Speaker 3: seriously than the Democrats. Donald Barack Obama didn't do that.
Speaker 3: But there's the question of whether Donald Trump conspired with
Speaker 3: Russia in that interference to help it to steal the election,
Speaker 3: which has been proven to be an absolute lie.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats pushed.
Speaker 3: That lie all the you know, Blumenthal, Warner, a Shift,
Speaker 3: Swallwell all went out and said there was evidence, secret
Speaker 3: evidence that Donald Trump had conspired with Russia, and it
Speaker 3: wasn't true, and we need to find out what the
Speaker 3: source of those lies are, what were they seeing if
Speaker 3: they did see anything in the intelligence community that turned
Speaker 3: out to be false, So we can get so we
Speaker 3: can restore the credibility of the intelligence community. Yeah, so
Speaker 3: CIA Director Ratcliff actually just put out a report on this,
Speaker 3: and what if you look at that report, the evidence
Speaker 3: for the interference, the idea that they that they were
Speaker 3: interfering the election is clear, but whether they favored Trump.
Speaker 3: A lot of that was driven by the Steele dossier.
Speaker 3: And there was a huge fight within the intelligence community
Speaker 3: about whether to include the Steele dossier, which was paid
Speaker 3: for by the Clinton campaign, which was political opposition research
Speaker 3: that turned out to be untrue, to include that in
Speaker 3: the intelligence assessment of the intelligence agencies. And it was
Speaker 3: the FBI and Brennan who were pushing to included and
Speaker 3: the intelligence professionals were saying, that doesn't it's not it
Speaker 3: shouldn't be in there. So we need to get to
Speaker 3: the bottom of that as well.
Speaker 1: So who do you believe? You got Thesian on one side,
Speaker 1: You've got all kinds of accusations, You've got Jim Hines
Speaker 1: on the other side, Matt Tayeeb, who is the independent journalist.
Speaker 1: He's the guy, one of the two that Elon must
Speaker 1: brought in to open up the files of Twitter when
Speaker 1: he bought it. So he professes to be an independent journalist.
Speaker 1: Let's see what Matt Tayeebe has to say, because he's
Speaker 1: looked into this as well.
Speaker 5: Sure.
Speaker 6: So, the last major revelation that came out was that
Speaker 6: John Brennan and James Comey were the focus of criminal
Speaker 6: investigations that have been opened by the Justice Department. But
Speaker 6: these new documents that were released by Tulca, Gabbard and
Speaker 6: the Director of National Intelligence make it clear that the
Speaker 6: investigation is now aimed at the Obama White House, and
Speaker 6: in particular at Barack Obama because of decisions that were
Speaker 6: made in early December of twenty sixteen to suppress the
Speaker 6: Presidential DL briefing and go ahead and order a new
Speaker 6: intelligence community assessment that ultimately would have much more aggressive
Speaker 6: conclusions about Trump and Russia. Yeah, that's a complaint. I
Speaker 6: heard a lot over the weekend from people who have
Speaker 6: been following this, and even from former.
Speaker 1: Officials who are close to Trump. There.
Speaker 6: One of them said to me, a former high ranking
Speaker 6: Trump official said there was quote so much corruption and
Speaker 6: the last Trump presidency, that this shouldn't have been overlooked,
Speaker 6: that these documents should have come out. Absolutely, But the
Speaker 6: overall sense I get is that everyone's happy that they
Speaker 6: finally are coming out and they're looking forward to what
Speaker 6: is likely to come out this week.
Speaker 2: So it's both.
Speaker 6: The Democrats are making a lot of hey over this
Speaker 6: apples and oranges issue. That there was never any question
Speaker 6: that they didn't actually change vote tallies, but they did
Speaker 6: influence the election. Actually, there was some question about whether
Speaker 6: they had the ability to influence the election. There were
Speaker 6: quotes earlier from that from that year with the FBI
Speaker 6: saying they didn't have any evidence that they had done so,
Speaker 6: and they were uncomfortable making that statement. There were also
Speaker 6: quotes saying that they lacked evidence that Russia had the
Speaker 6: ability to out to impact the outcome of the election.
Speaker 6: So all of this would have been passed on to
Speaker 6: somebody like Michael Flynn because presidents elect entitled to receive
Speaker 6: the Presidential Daily Briefing. That's why this is important. It's
Speaker 6: not so much what the PDB did say, it's what
Speaker 6: it didn't say. It didn't say that there was a
Speaker 6: sweeping conspiracy to help Trump and if they had that,
Speaker 6: it would have been a very different political picture going forward.
Speaker 1: So now we wait and we watched to see what happened.
Speaker 1: Since Telti Gabber gave a criminal referral to the DOJ,
Speaker 1: will they actually do anything? As Matt Walsh previously said,
Speaker 1: And if they don't, I'm kind of with him. You know,
Speaker 1: it's fascinating, but you need to have you need to
Speaker 1: bring it to court. And this could mean bringing former
Speaker 1: President Barack Obama into court and flushing this out to
Speaker 1: find out just exactly what happened. As far as the
Speaker 1: election goes, I think it was clear the Russians they've
Speaker 1: always interfered with our elections. They've tried. Did they change
Speaker 1: the outcome of the vote? I don't think so. It's
Speaker 1: not that it's the question about There were meetings in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office with Barack Obama and his top people,
Speaker 1: and they were worried because Donald Trump had been elected,
Speaker 1: and they were worried about what should we share with
Speaker 1: him as far as our national intelligence. He's the elected,
Speaker 1: he's the president elect, and they were worried about should
Speaker 1: we share with him any of our national intelligence? So
Speaker 1: something was up. They did not like the results. Obviously
Speaker 1: they were hoping for Hillary and they got Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So will they bring it to court or not? Will
Speaker 1: this wind up in front of a judge? I kind
Speaker 1: of hope, so I would love to find out what
Speaker 1: this is all about in an impartial courtroom. So that's
Speaker 1: the big stinker that started off this Monday. Immigration is
Speaker 1: another big stinker because over the weekend, there was a
Speaker 1: off duty a Border Patrol officer UH and a friend.
Speaker 1: They were over by the Hudson River in area of
Speaker 1: New York City that is considered to be fairly safe,
Speaker 1: but it's it's in a park area, and it's at
Speaker 1: late at night. I forget it was before midnight or
Speaker 1: after midnight, but it was right. I think it was
Speaker 1: after midnight, but it was the middle of the night,
Speaker 1: and I'm thinking, what was he doing there with his friend?
Speaker 1: It's dangerous. I mean, you got to you can't be stupid.
Speaker 1: So these two guys stop and they tried to rob
Speaker 1: the Border patrol guy and guns came out and the
Speaker 1: Border Patrol officer was shot right in the face. He's alive,
Speaker 1: but now the investigation is to who were the robbers. Well,
Speaker 1: they've picked up both of them, and both of them
Speaker 1: are illegals, and both of them have been deported numerous
Speaker 1: times before. Let's pick this up with Christy Nome, who
Speaker 1: came to New York City today to basically hold a
Speaker 1: news conference talking about this.
Speaker 7: My hope is that this would wake up these individuals
Speaker 7: and they would recognize that they can't keep letting these
Speaker 7: dangerous criminals go free. They can't continue to let these
Speaker 7: individuals be brought in for crimes they're committing against the
Speaker 7: public and then releasing them right back onto the streets
Speaker 7: with no consequences whatsoever.
Speaker 1: So the figure is now being pointed at sanctuary cities,
Speaker 1: sanctuary city rules New York City in particular, because of
Speaker 1: the fact that they have no cash bail. People get
Speaker 1: arrested and they get turned around and sent right back
Speaker 1: out of the jail. I mean it's instant, and so
Speaker 1: these people know there are no consequences and they go
Speaker 1: back out and they commit more crimes. So this particular
Speaker 1: crime is who knows how many other crimes these two
Speaker 1: guys have committed the past. Here's Tom Holmans, who also
Speaker 1: came to New York for the news conference today.
Speaker 5: Sanctuary cities are now our priority who's going to flood
Speaker 5: his own You don't want to let us in the
Speaker 5: jail to arrest a bad guy in the safety and
Speaker 5: security of a jail. You want to release them into
Speaker 5: the street where he makes it unsafe for the community,
Speaker 5: makes it unsafe for the officer, makes it unsafe for
Speaker 5: the ailing.
Speaker 1: That is the baffling part about all of these sanctuary
Speaker 1: city rules is that it would be much safer for
Speaker 1: ICE to come over to the jail and take custody
Speaker 1: of somebody that's in a local jail in whatever city
Speaker 1: it might be, transfer the person into the custody of
Speaker 1: ICE and let ICE bring them to a deportation center
Speaker 1: and send them out of the country. But no, they
Speaker 1: turn them back onto the streets, and then the police
Speaker 1: have to get chase him back down again. Ice has
Speaker 1: to chase him back down. Then you get all the
Speaker 1: people rioting about it. By the way, the whole the
Speaker 1: whole h polling about Donald Trump and his efforts to
Speaker 1: deport people. It's turning sour on him. It literally is
Speaker 1: going south. People are look at it's not a pretty
Speaker 1: job to go out and arrest these people. And then
Speaker 1: you get them fighting the police and fighting Ice and
Speaker 1: people look at that and go, oh, yeah, I want
Speaker 1: to deport people that are not supposed to be here,
Speaker 1: but oh, that seems awfully harsh. It is a harsh job.
Speaker 1: But people are starting to look at it and go,
Speaker 1: I don't know about this. I don't like it. This
Speaker 1: is where Donald Trump was by far the number one
Speaker 1: reason why he was elected. But once the people see
Speaker 1: the actual sausage being made, they don't like it. Okay,
Speaker 1: so they may not like it to these numbers. This
Speaker 1: is a I see the source of this poll to
Speaker 1: see an end. Poll says Trump immigration policies increase ICE
Speaker 1: budget by billions of dollars. Fifty three percent oppose that,
Speaker 1: try to end birthrights citizenship fifty nine percent oppose that,
Speaker 1: build new detention centers fifty seven percent oppose that, and
Speaker 1: detain undocumented immigrants with no criminal record fifty nine percent
Speaker 1: oppose that. So people are going, well, well, what about
Speaker 1: these nice people wanted Maria and they just came here
Speaker 1: for a better life. They're here illegally and they are
Speaker 1: being picked up and being deported, and people are going,
Speaker 1: I don't know about that, So I can you can
Speaker 1: see it in all the polling. It's all starting to shift.
Speaker 1: We'll see how long the public really does turn on
Speaker 1: this immigration issue. Ben Dominich, who was the founder of
Speaker 1: the Federalists, he had this reaction to what he's watching
Speaker 1: as the public is starting to get the heavy GBS
Speaker 1: about immigration enforcement.
Speaker 8: It really does, and unfortunately, I think that it's events
Speaker 8: like this that illustrate for us the terrible consequences of
Speaker 8: the decisions that have been made by blue state and
Speaker 8: blue city politicians across this country repeatedly when it comes
Speaker 8: to allowing this type of criminal element to run rampant
Speaker 8: throughout our cities in ways that don't just endanger the people.
Speaker 8: They don't just endanger the folks who are just trying
Speaker 8: to go about their daily business, endangers everything about our
Speaker 8: structure and our way of life. I think that this
Speaker 8: is something that is truly almost an act of terror
Speaker 8: against community, against neighborhood, against belief that you can walk
Speaker 8: along our city streets and neighborhoods without being threatened by
Speaker 8: people who should not even be here in the first place,
Speaker 8: people who are capable of incredible criminal acts. Look, I
Speaker 8: read with disgust this story about the horrible person who
Speaker 8: apparently you put this woman in a bleach barrel for
Speaker 8: two months. I mean, these are not the kind of
Speaker 8: people who we want in our neighborhoods. And so to
Speaker 8: have to accept this Democratic fiction that everyone who is
Speaker 8: here illegally is somehow just some migrant worker trying to
Speaker 8: make their way and have their find their way within
Speaker 8: the American dream, and that kind of thing, it's absolute
Speaker 8: bs and we shouldn't accept it. These are not people
Speaker 8: who should be here. We should be finding them, we
Speaker 8: should be rounding them up, and we should be deporting
Speaker 8: them as quickly as possible. And frankly, I think that
Speaker 8: the key reason that Donald Trump is the president of
Speaker 8: the United States today is because he understood this during
Speaker 8: the four year period where we saw the rampant illegal
Speaker 8: nature of the border under Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: No question about it, it was clearly the number one
Speaker 1: issue that led Trump voters to vote for Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: Back to Ben, I just think that this is a
Speaker 8: situation where the Democratic Party needs to understand if they
Speaker 8: want to be a majority party, if they want to
Speaker 8: be some party that appeals to the middle of America,
Speaker 8: they're not going to be able to be a party
Speaker 8: that includes the likes of Zoron Lundani. They're going to
Speaker 8: be the kind of party that says that is something
Speaker 8: that does not exist within our ranks, and it's not
Speaker 8: something we're going to accept. It's certainly not something we're
Speaker 8: going to endorse. And as long as they understand, as
Speaker 8: long as they do not understand that they are going
Speaker 8: to be a minority party in this country because the
Speaker 8: American people are going to reject it as the nonsense
Speaker 8: that it is.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how this fits right here, but we'll
Speaker 1: put it in here. Hunter Biden was giving an interview
Speaker 1: with a three hour interview apparently on some place I
Speaker 1: don't know, YouTube or somewhere, but he's talking about immigrants,
Speaker 1: and if you listen to what he has to say,
Speaker 1: we have to bleep out. The guy has the potty
Speaker 1: mouth of the century. Apparently he's weared like a banshee. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Regardless of that, he's talking about immigrants as if they
Speaker 1: are all basically servants, and that he he doesn't have
Speaker 1: any respect for an immigrant, He doesn't have any respect
Speaker 1: for people from other countries that there are that they
Speaker 1: can do anything other than basically mow your lawn and
Speaker 1: clean your clothes. Listen to what Hunter Biden had to say, people.
Speaker 9: Are really upset about illegal immigration. You how do you
Speaker 9: think your hotel room gets cleaned? How do you think
Speaker 9: you've got food on your table? Who do you think
Speaker 9: washes your dishes? White men in America are forty five
Speaker 9: more times likely to commit a violent crime than an immigrant.
Speaker 9: If I became president in two years from now or
Speaker 9: four years from now or three years from now, I
Speaker 9: would pick up the phone and call President al Salvador
Speaker 9: and say, you either send them back or I'm going
Speaker 9: to invain.
Speaker 1: Did I hear him say that when he becomes president
Speaker 1: two years or three years or four years from now?
Speaker 1: Does he think he's going to be president? I think
Speaker 1: he does. He's not really representing the Biden family all
Speaker 1: that well, never has, and the Demo are having in
Speaker 1: trouble also trying to get some warmth from the American public.
Speaker 1: There was a bit it's been one year from today
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden stepped down and said, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to run again. He finally came to that conclusion
Speaker 1: on July twenty first, twenty twenty four, and so it's
Speaker 1: been one year and the question is what are the
Speaker 1: Democrats going to do about getting another leader. Well, Caroline
Speaker 1: Downey is a writer for National Reviews, so she hangs
Speaker 1: out on the right side of the aisle. Julian Epstein,
Speaker 1: I've always admired him. He's a big he represents Democrats,
Speaker 1: he always has. He always has a spin to the left.
Speaker 1: But even that he kind of surprised me. So here's
Speaker 1: Caroline Downey and Julian Epstein on where the Democrats are
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five, one year after Joe stepped down. Yeah.
Speaker 10: Well, Amy Klobashar is right that despite the party's abysmal polling,
Speaker 10: there's a lot of Democrats enthusiasm heading into the midterms,
Speaker 10: when Democrats may very well show up with Gusto to
Speaker 10: counter Trump. But what might undercut that, Harris, is the
Speaker 10: fact that the Democratic coalition is being torn apart by
Speaker 10: horses galloping in different directions. They lost the working class
Speaker 10: and many members of the minority community because they were
Speaker 10: pushing cultural Marxism. But then there's another part of their coalition,
Speaker 10: the youth, and they lost a lot of them because
Speaker 10: they weren't woke enough. So the Democrats are between a
Speaker 10: rock and a hard place. That David hog Saga was
Speaker 10: a microcosm of this issue, and that's why twenty twenty
Speaker 10: six may not be a total wipeout for the Republican Party,
Speaker 10: because there is this battle between the mom donni voters,
Speaker 10: the activist class that increasingly calls the shots, and those
Speaker 10: that they lost, the disillusioned ex Democrats, the working class
Speaker 10: that fled to Trump.
Speaker 11: Well, Caroline Downy with some Forariz.
Speaker 12: Don't think things look very good for the Democrats right now,
Speaker 12: and I don't think they will until you have a
Speaker 12: Sister Soldier moment where you move back to the political center.
Speaker 12: I think the story for the Democrats in twenty twenty
Speaker 12: four is that they lied to the public about the
Speaker 12: condition of President Biden. I think the story of twenty
Speaker 12: twenty five is that they're lying to themselves. The numbers
Speaker 12: that you put up earlier in the segment, Harris are
Speaker 12: record low numbers for any major political party. I haven't
Speaker 12: seen numbers that low ever for any political party.
Speaker 1: And what the.
Speaker 12: Democrats don't seem to be admitting to themselves is that
Speaker 12: the public doesn't like their tactics. They don't like the obstructionism,
Speaker 12: they don't like the constant negativity, they don't like the
Speaker 12: anger the cringe street protests. There's nothing about the Democratic
Speaker 12: Party that people can identify today that is positive, that
Speaker 12: it's constructive, that it's building anything. That's the first point.
Speaker 12: The second point is the public doesn't like what the
Speaker 12: product that the Democrats are selling. They don't like an
Speaker 12: expanded welfare state. Most voters are very suspicious of larger government,
Speaker 12: notwithstanding what's happening in New York. Most voters don't like
Speaker 12: identity politics. But this is the language. This is the
Speaker 12: vocabulary of the contemporary Democratic Party, and it's not a language,
Speaker 12: it's not a program, it's not a set of tactics
Speaker 12: that you can take out to the larger public. So
Speaker 12: while the Democrats may have a better situation in twenty
Speaker 12: twenty six and twenty four only because you have lower
Speaker 12: voter participation, the fundamental problem of the Democratic Party is
Speaker 12: one of denialism. They're denying what's causing them so much problems.
Speaker 11: Yeah, you both have done a yeoman's work on the
Speaker 11: forensics and all of this, But if you're comparing twenty
Speaker 11: six to twenty vishes now the DNC is working to
Speaker 11: run or whether Kamala Harris has being like eating at
Speaker 11: a this.
Speaker 10: Doesn't look like an autopsy, Harris, so much as a
Speaker 10: fig leaf designed to cover cracks in the party. And
Speaker 10: in that sense, I actually think that making Biden the
Speaker 10: central story would not have helped all that much. We
Speaker 10: don't need an autopsy to tell us whether Biden should
Speaker 10: have run or not. Everybody knows the answer to that.
Speaker 10: That's pretty obvious. And actually I think it would have
Speaker 10: given the elites in the Democratic Party apparatus cover not
Speaker 10: to investigate the underlying causes of their loss, which is
Speaker 10: their extreme policies. And I also want to say that
Speaker 10: historically speaking, autopsies don't always hold a lot of water.
Speaker 10: In twenty twelve, after Mitt Romney lost, the GOP put
Speaker 10: out a similar report saying that the party should really
Speaker 10: go soft on immigration and forget about the working class
Speaker 10: and be more inclusive. In twenty sixteen, Trump won after
Speaker 10: he ignored most of the conclusions in that report. Another
Speaker 10: word of caution.
Speaker 11: Yeah, well, the betting website poly Market posteds in at
Speaker 11: six percent for the Republican this and I know the
Speaker 11: tired refrain of it's too far out, but is it really?
Speaker 11: Because you've got Trump coming off the ticket, and he's
Speaker 11: had a lot of victories lately. What does that look
Speaker 11: going forward? Don't you want to have somebody at least
Speaker 11: in mind.
Speaker 12: If you're asking me, Harris, I think the Republicans have
Speaker 12: a deep bench. I think jdve answers no question, he's
Speaker 12: a compelling candidate. He is shown broaduct deal. I think
Speaker 12: same with Marco Rubio. I don't think that's the case
Speaker 12: with the Democrats. And I don't mean to keep dumping
Speaker 12: on Democrats, but Gavin Newsom has been drenched in wokeness
Speaker 12: and he's only trying to reinvent himself now, but he
Speaker 12: seems very inauthentic when he is attempting to do that.
Speaker 12: Cortes aoc she has a lot of enthusiastic support from
Speaker 12: a very very narrow segment of maybe five to ten
Speaker 12: percent of voters. There is no candidate that has emerged
Speaker 12: that has sort of the capability, the capacity of somebody
Speaker 12: like Bill Clinton who can unify the party but steer
Speaker 12: the party to the center and appeal to the common
Speaker 12: sense instincts of American voters. So I think the Democratic
Speaker 12: Party is again is in denial right now.
Speaker 1: So to review. The Director of National Intelligence says a
Speaker 1: criminal referral for the Obama White House and specifically Barack
Speaker 1: Obama on whether or not they tried to form a
Speaker 1: coup to overthrow the elected president. In twenty sixteen, we
Speaker 1: have the immigration issue is not getting better, and the
Speaker 1: focuses on the sanctuary cities, and Tom Homan is focusing
Speaker 1: on the sanctuary cities, and the sanctuary cities are fighting
Speaker 1: back as hard as they can. The Democrats trying to
Speaker 1: figure out, one year after Joe stepped down, what they
Speaker 1: want to do from here. They're still looking around Wall
Speaker 1: Street today, not a lot of move but the Dow
Speaker 1: down nineteen to close forty four three twenty three, rest
Speaker 1: of the market up s and P up eight, Natdack
Speaker 1: up seventy eight, the price of gold up fifty two
Speaker 1: dollars back above thirty four hundred and thirty four to ten,
Speaker 1: and oil fell just twenty five cents sixty seven dollars
Speaker 1: for one barrel of oil. So that's what we got
Speaker 1: for you today. Thank you for coming by on this Monday.
Speaker 1: Hope to see well, we're going to try it again tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Hope to see them