Speaker 1: And hello, Welcome, welcome, one and all with a big
podcast on this Friday. Today is the twenty seventh day
of February. You're of our Lord twenty twenty six. Man.
We got through February pretty quickly. So yeah, this is
the last business day of the month and we've got
a lot to cover. We've got the most serious topic
to keep an eye on is are we going to
war or not? And it seems like it's everybody's trying
to delay it. The talks to Ron have come to
an end without any agreement, so then the question is
what happens. And at least the President, who has gone
down to Texas today, he's done on Corpus Christy. But
he before he left the White House he did the
usual thing with the reporters and he was talking about
the fact that he's not happy about it, that he wishes,
you know, that there could have been an agreement, and
that he indicated talks will continue, which means again he
doesn't he's trying to drag things out. But at the
same time, our embassy in Tel Aviv and or is
in Jerusalem has said that they are offering any personnel
to leave basically, and we have other embassies in the
Middle East that they're getting the same message of non
essential personnel are basically pushed out. They go get out
of here, which makes you think that work could start
off any time. Iran in their talks not only were
we far apart, but in addition to that, the question
about well, if you're going to just have if you're
going to enrich uranium just enough to create energy for
your country, then we want to have inspectors come in
and inspect your facilities to make sure you're not enriching
it all the way up to where you can make
a bomb out of it. And Iron said, no way are.
We are not allowing you access to our country. No
new inspectors. So I mean, well, listen to General teen.
He has no use for the Iranian leaders. He thinks
they're just a bunch of liars.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the people who are involved in talks
always see them as positive because they continue to talk,
and not in itself as positive. But the reality is,
when you look clearly at what Iran is and what
they represent, you've got to come to the conclusion that
they're very unlikely we won't achieve anything. Why is that
because Iran does want to recover its nuclear program, no
matter what lies and pretense to putting forward in these talks.
Number Two, Iran clearly is already recovering this ballistic missile program,
and that is one of the drum beats that's beating
here in terms of what damage they could do to
Israel and also to the United States. Number Three, Iran
is already continuing to support the proxies in the region,
which means at some point they will be upgunned again
with a potential to attack Israel. Those are the things
that are truly happening. And we've already had the evidence
that Iran is willing to kill as many people as
it takes inside their country to put down any idea
of a protest or an internal regime change. That is
who we're dealing with, and what does that actually present
to us then? And historic opportunity because Iran is vulnerable
and weak, weaker than they've ever been in the forty
six year history of the regime right now today, that
gives us up an opportunity to put in place a
comprehensive joint operation with Israel to really set the conditions
for a regime change. Now, look at President Trump is
a peace president. There is no doubt about it, given
what he's done over thirteen months on resolving conflicts that
were too challenging for others to resolve, but particularly the
United Nations, which doesn't show up at all when it
comes to peace.
Speaker 3: But here's the difference.
Speaker 2: This president is willing to use force to achieve a
peaceful outcome, and I believe that is the path we
are on right now.
Speaker 1: So you can tell the General is going, this is
a perfect time. This is the most opportunity we've ever
had to get rid of this regime. It's been there
for forty six, forty seven years. But there are always
people in an administration that are saying, oh, wait a minute,
be careful, there will be casualties here. At the General's
response to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, certainly, and there usually is in any administration. There's
always folks are going to look at it and just
focus on the negative adverse consequences they and then that
leads them to what to do nothing, to take to
do nothing here and to give Ran another ten years
to impose their will on the region and continue to
destabilize it. We've been with these guys almost fifty years now.
Do we really want to do that when the vulnerability
and weakness is right in front of us, the historic
opportunity to stabilize this Middle East once and for all,
to have the abram Accords kick in, and we already
know those countries would be willing to do that. If
we get Iran off the board here, that is a
huge opportunity. To do nothing is to continue This makes
no sense. So yes, there always will people who are
going to advocate. Well, there will be casually if to
the operation. It's going to be complicated. Three, there's not
a clear definition in terms of an end state. And listen,
when you conduct even an operation with a ground force
to conduct decisive operations to change the regime as we
did in Panama in eighty nine, Haiti and ninety four,
Afghanisan in one, and Iraq and three, there's always ambiguity
in terms of what follows after that.
Speaker 1: Again, you can tell the general is just looking at
as chops thinking this is a perfect time militarily. You
know how he's going to vote.
Speaker 2: Well, I believe what our military commanders believe, and I
know what they believe, and I know what the Israelis believe.
They believe it conduct a military operation will be highly
successful based on the resources they have. It doesn't mean
that we're casualty free. I mean Iran. You always recognize
an adversary here has opportunities. They got to vote here.
But we can conduct a very comprehensive campaign with the
Israelis to deal with what civilian and military leadership, the
entire infrastructure that props this regime up and sustains it,
ballistic missiles to be sure, drones that are in storage sites,
and any attempt for Iran to recover their nuclear operation,
and many other things as well. In a general sense,
an indicator of what a comprehensive campaign would actually look
like and the resources in the region. Two purposes, One
to help defend US spaces in the region and the
Israeli basis as well as the Israeli people, and two
to conduct a very comprehensive offensive campaign which would reduce
dramatically Iran's capability to retaliate.
Speaker 1: So general is definitely in the question is what about
everybody else? Peterberg and I have a very high regard
for this man. He knows the Middle East like the
back of his hand, and he's watching the fact that
there is a clock ticking.
Speaker 4: There's some clocks that are ticking. One is President Trump
said last Thursday that there was a ten to fifteen
day window four talks to be resolved that would put
us into this coming weekend or next week for strikes
if there isn't a resolution. And there's another clock ticking,
which is Congressman Massey and Congressman Khanna are both proposing
a resolution that would basically block the president from Iran,
a ward against Iran that could come to the floor
next week. So both of those clocks are ticking. And
I'm sure that Trump is aware that there is some
opposition in the House, including from Republicans, on this, and that,
you know, if he can do a quick strike that
in some senses is performative, you know that that this
may be the time.
Speaker 1: But it's a little off topic. But the Supreme Court
just basically said, mister President, you can't do everything. You've
got to go to Congress. They were talking about the tariffs,
the i EPA law. But there's a lot of pressure
on Congress to act like a congress that they have
a voice, and so the question is are they going
to start beating their chest and try to stop the
president from any sort of military actions against Iran, or
will the President beat them to it and attack Iran
before they get around to even trying to do something
in Congress.
Speaker 4: You know, the only person who can really answer that
is President Donald Trump. And you know, you know it's
also possible that if there was a strike, the Iranians
could then also back channel to the United States. So look,
we need to take action, but you know we're planning
action at certain places. This is what they did in June.
So they struck Alu Daid Air Force Base and Cutter
in June after the United States had attacked those of
Iranian nuclear sites. They're about one hundred American servicemen had
traumatic brain injuries of various kinds, ranging from mile too serious.
But you know, Urranians are given a head heads up
to the Americans, so you know, there's these back channels
can be productive in a certain sense. On the other hand,
you know, if there's a total breakdown in trust, as
it could be, there may be no back channel, and
you know, you risk the idea of further escalation, which
you know, going up the escalation ladder without control would
not be good.
Speaker 1: So another national security analyst to David Sander, he also
is looking at all this and he's his ears are
popped up on the news from the American embassies that
are telling their staff to evacuate.
Speaker 5: The question is how sincere at this point is this effort.
The announcement from the US Embassy in Israel and from
Ambassador Huckabee similar announcements we're seeing elsewhere in the region.
The British have told their employees in the Iran embassy
to evacuate. All suggests that military action seems to be
in the office. We don't know how quickly, we don't
know how big. I do think it was interesting the
Vice President Vance yesterday told the Washington Post that he
didn't believe that you necessarily had to get into a
prolonged conflict, that this is something that if they needed
to do, they could do more surgically. But let's remember,
this is not like removing President Maduro from Venezuela. This
is not like striking the sites that were taken out
in Iran in June. To go do this, presumably it
is not only to set back nuclear program, but to
do broader strikes, and we don't know how that would
turn out, or how the Iranians might retaliate.
Speaker 1: Well, you never know, you ever, All your battle plans
go out the door in the minute the battle starts.
But there's another little clue popped up today. That was
Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State is planning to be
in Israel on I believe it's Tuesday.
Speaker 5: That's right. The States Party has announced that he'll be
there on March two and three. That does raise the
interesting question would they start a conflict, you know, while
the Secretary is there and so who knows and his
plans could change. But you know, I think Brett struck
at just the right point here, because even if they
came to an agreement on the nuclear issue, the President
raised in his State of the Union address the missile program,
which I think he made sound more like there was
greater imminence of being able to strike the United States.
There's not for another decade or so. And of course,
the protesters Iran's supportive proxies none of those were even
taken up in Geneva yesterday. And if the administration thinks
that's caused for conflict, then they may simply go ahead.
Speaker 1: He mentioned. Brett McGirk, also former National Security Advisor let's
last one. Let's see what he thinks is going to happen.
Speaker 6: Well, those are prudent measures that I think embassies take.
There's a process for this that if you're seeing signs
of potential conflict, you take those steps. So look, we
were at this table yesterday predicting how these talks in
Geneva would go. I think they play it out exactly
as we as we predicted. There are two maxims in diplomacy.
One is if you hear a diplomats say we agreed
on something in principle, it actually means nothing was agreed
in practice. All the statements that came out yesterday from
the Iranians and the Omani or that we agreed on
building blocks, and I would put that in that category,
that means really nothing was agreed. For nothing from the
American envoys since yesterday. I think that is also very telling.
Also in diplomas, you have to see is there a
zone of any possible agreement with SOOPA. And again here
the two sides are very far apart on the critical
issues of nuclear Richmond and sanctions. So this diplomacy seems
to be heading for a deadlock, and that opens the
window for President Trump's decision on military strikes ultimately is
his decision. He will retain that decision space until the
last moment. But I think, as David said, this seems
to be heading towards that direction. Now it's easy to
start military confrontation or strikes, it's harder, particularly in this case,
because as David said, it's not a confined mission such
as the strikes against the nuclear facilities in June or
the Maduro operation. This is potentially much more open ended
and much more dynamic. How does Iron respond and the
how do we respond to that? Does Israel get into
the conflict? So a lot of big questions here that
I think are going to unfold here quite rapping.
Speaker 1: Meantime, the President's going about business as usual. He left
the White House midday today going to Corpus Christi, Texas,
where he is going to be meeting with all three
of the candidates that are running for US Senate for
the Republican nomination. And before he left the White House,
he took a bunch of questions at you know, the
reporters lined up. They asked him, of course about Epstein
and all of that, and we'll get to that in
a minute. But he said a couple different times. He
said he doesn't like seeing Bill Clinton deposed. He says,
and he said, I like them, I don't like seeing
them deposed. So he was talking about Hillary as well,
and well, let's get in, let's get into that. Yeah,
let's just go ahead and get into the whole Epstein thing.
We'll get to the Texas business in just a minute.
But here's Hillary after she did her six and a
half hours of deposition yesterday. She is an old pro.
She came out and she looked like she was trying
to keep a smirk from coming up on her face.
But she had a look like that was fun. I
think she loves the sparring with the Republicans. I think
she just craves it, and she had kind of a
swagger to her. This is what she said after her
six and a half hours yesterday.
Speaker 7: I answered every one of their questions as fully as
I could based on what I knew, and what I
knew is what I said in my statement this morning.
I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or
communication with him. I knew Gallainne Maxwell actually as an acquaintance.
But whatever they asked me, I did my very best
to respond.
Speaker 1: And of course they're fulling up photos now of where
she's in photos with Epstein and Bill and so she tough,
and she knows exactly where to go and what to do,
and so Bill Clinton's being grilled as we speak today. Meantime,
before she was done the Hillary did get a shot
in at some of the Republicans who asked, in her opinion,
ridiculous questions.
Speaker 7: I started being asked about UFOs and a series of
questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile, bogus conspiracy
theories that was propagated on the Internet that was serving
as the basis of a member's questions to.
Speaker 1: Me, remember that that's what under the list of of
the oldies that was the most outrageous conspiracy theory. The
theory was that Hillary Clinton was running a child pedophile
sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington,
d C. It got to the point where a guy
I don't know where he was from, he wasn't from DC,
went to our nation's capital with the gun and went
to the address of the pizza parlor and opened up
his gun. Nobody got hurt, but no, he was going
to shoot the place up. The real giveaway was there
wasn't a basement, there wasn't any children to be seen,
so they actually somebody wanted to find out more about Pizzagate. Now,
I personally I think it's a valid question to ask
Hillary about UFOs. But hey, that's just me. This morning.
Everybody upright and early. They get back to chap Quah,
they're outside the building standing in the snow. We still
have a ton of snow around here, so they were cold.
But they asked the questions and James Comer, the chairman,
set up the day.
Speaker 8: In her knowledge, she said Clinton didn't didn't go to
Epstein Island, even though we read three emails from three
different witnesses that said they saw Bill Clinton on Epstein Island.
So we had all the evidence, and you know, Miss
Clinton under oath denied everything or deferred to her husband tomorrow.
Speaker 1: So I don't know. I wasn't surprised at all by
the fact that she didn't remember meeting Epstein and she
didn't remember that Bill was on the island. Nancy Mace,
there was actually quite a lengthy interview. I chopped it up.
We'll play the pieces of it. Nancy Mace is on
the Oversight Committee, and she is very aggressive about sexual
harassment sexual attacks against women, especially those that are in
members of Congress. So she has a history where she
was I believe, attacked and raped, and so it's a
sensitive point for her. Here's a little bit of what
Nancy Mace had to say.
Speaker 3: Well, there were statements that have been made.
Speaker 9: I have to be careful about what I say because
the transcript is not public yet, neither is the video
from the interview. But statements have been made, I believe,
publicly about President Trump and why he should be called in.
And I think it's fair to ask questions about the
standard of the types of people who they are and
why they should be called in for.
Speaker 3: The Oversight Committee.
Speaker 9: And I was making a comparison based on certain statements
made yesterday and making that clear that everybody should be
treated equally and in the same standard apply to her husband.
Speaker 3: That was the line of questioning I was going for.
Speaker 1: She was asked about, well, if you can bring in
former President Bill Clinton, are you going to call Donald Trump?
And since you brought in Hill, what about the current
first Lady Millennia.
Speaker 9: I don't believe so, and I don't believe that President
Trump because should be called before the Oversight Committee. He
has answered questions, and the victims that I've spoken to
actually exonerated President Trump. And so the victims I've spoken
to and their family members have not exonerated people like
former President Bill Clinton who's denied being on the island.
Speaker 3: But I will bring.
Speaker 9: Out some documents today that show that Jeffrey Epstein was
directing victims and or witnesses to.
Speaker 3: Deny he ever was at the island.
Speaker 9: And I think this is going to be There are
going to be a lot of people that need to
come before the Oversight Committee today. This morning I said
that Howard Lutnik needs to come before the Oversight Committee.
He should answer questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
I think these are all things that are on the table,
Republican and democratic like not Milania, not President Trump, because
of the information I've gathered talking to victims. I'm focused
on getting justice for the victims, getting the facts right,
and ensuring that the truth eventually comes out.
Speaker 1: Then what about the fifty three pages of missing documents?
What do you want to know about that?
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 9: And I actually wrote a letter to the DOJ I've
written a letter to the CIA and to the Southern
District of New York about missing documents. My understanding is
the DOJ responded, I believe yesterday that those other documents
were duplicates.
Speaker 3: Potentially, I'd like to know if that is the truth.
Speaker 9: And then the other thing is that my understanding is
after that interview, or a series of interviews, the FBI
deemed the witness or excuse me, the alleged victim not credible.
I do not believe she received a settlement from the
Epstein estate either. I've warned the media that twenty nineteen
and later some of the claims in there are crazy
and wild and insane. I'm even in the files after
twenty nineteen, which is just oddly bizarre. But we've got
to be careful, and we don't want to mention names
on the floor, for example, that aren't.
Speaker 3: Real individuals involved, you know.
Speaker 9: But I want to take everything seriously, and I'm not
looking at this through a partisan lens.
Speaker 3: And when you see me come out with.
Speaker 9: A lot of people that need to be interviewed by oversight,
You're going to see Republicans and Democrats alike. You're even
going to see women who I believe were selling other
women to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: Well, Nancy Base is not going to run for Congress.
She's running for governor of South Carolina. We'll see how
she does in that race. Jason Shavitz, former congressman, Fox
News contributor, standing outside the meeting room inside or outside
the building in Chappaquah in the snow, had this to say.
Speaker 10: Well, look at sexual predators, just human trafficking, particularly of miners.
It's a big issue. It's a big, broad issue. And
you had one of the most notorious pedophiles out there
using influence, creating proximity to powerful people. And we got
to make sure in this country that we tackle that.
There are a lot of victims here. And to get
to the bottom of that, you've got to understand who
is doing what and how and how is that influence peddled.
And you know, unfortunately the Clintons seem to have great
proximity to this predator.
Speaker 1: Then you get into the legal weeds a little bit.
Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor, wanted to make sure that
there's a difference between state and federal laws regarding all
the things that Epstein was up to I.
Speaker 11: Think this has always been one of the major problems
in mis understandings with this. There are a lot of
you know, truly disgusting, heinous crimes involved in these you know,
people who were in Epstein's orbit, Epstein himself. But I
think what people need to understand about federal law as
opposed to state law, and you'll understand this. Of course,
having sexual relations with a prohibited person, whether it's a
minor or other context, is not necessarily a prosecutable federal violation.
So you can find a lot of evidence about truly
heinous behavior and not be able to prosecute it in
federal court. For example, having sex with an underaged minor
is a state crime. What federal prosecution is interested in
mainly the business of sex trafficking, and particularly the business
of sex trafficking bringing people across state lines with respect
to minors. So you can find a lot of activity
that's very disturbing, but that won't necessarily mean it's prosecutable
in federal court.
Speaker 1: So they're doing their growing up der Schlickmeister as we speak.
We'll find out later. I'm sure Bill and Hillary are
going to be sitting around this evening comparing notes about
how that whole thing went. And speaking of sex crimes,
I told you yesterday about a prisoner in California who
was released because of the fact that he was considered
an elderly convict. And for the life of his name
is David Funston. He's sixty four and he was paroled.
And everybody's pointing and saying at California who wrote the law.
That the law was that you can get you they
can release people when they get to be elderly, because
some little old man isn't going to go out there
and hurt somebody. That was the theory. But the problem
was they put the age at sixty something and then
they changed it to fifty fifty. That you can be
released under the elderly prisoner rules when you're fifty years
of age or older. Oh, and that you've served twenty years.
And I'm thinking this guy was convicted. He had sixteen
counts against him, convicted. They brought just three cases. They
had many, many more. Three cases forward where he brutally
sexually assaulted two little girls and a boy three different
instances and was put in jail for twenty five to
life and consecutively. So in other words, three life terms
if you will, and they'll let him out because he
was over fifty. And so everybody started screaming about it,
and they pointed the finger at who signed this law. Well,
Gavin Newsom signed the law. So Newsom is doing all
kinds of backflips trying to say the pro board is independent,
I had anything to do with this. So they're all
scramming because he wants to be president and now he's
got this on his back about the fact that he's
signed a law that says, if you're fifty and you've
served twenty years in California, that you'll get released because
you're elderly. I don't think a lot of people think
fifty is elderly, so hold on. So I got a
nice e mail today from somebody who wants to remain
anonymous about basically sent me something from the Plaster County
District Attorney's office. This is in northern California County and
out of Rosevild, California, And the notice from the district
attorney today says the District Attorney's office had filed charges
against David Allen Funston, aged sixty four, for loud, delascivious
acts upon a child. A no bail warrant was issued
and the defendant is now in custody in the Plaster
County Jail. The charges stem from the sexual assault of
a young child in Roseville, California, nineteen ninety six. At
the time of the original investigation and prosecution, the defendant
had been convicted in Sacramento County and sentenced to three
life terms in prison for his crimes. And the interest
of justice, and because these life sentences insured the defendant
would be removed from society, the Plaster County District Attorney
did not pursue a separate prosecution at that time. They
go on to say, however, due to recent developments under
California's elder parole program, the defendant has been released. So
in the interest of justice, Plaster County DA has refiled
the nineteen ninety six charges. They never prosecuted him for
this one particular charge at worry molested a young child
in nineteen ninety six, so there after him again got
a no bail warrant on him. So he's back in jail,
Thank goodness. Anne Marie Schubert was the DA who prosecuted
him originally.
Speaker 12: I think this decision rests completely upon Gavin Newsom and
our legislature and that parole board that he actually appointed,
because it's Gavin Newsom that signed the law that's allowing
him to be released and without having any exclusion for
serial sex effect. I mean, who in their right mind,
any rational person thinks that a man that is kidnapped
seven little kids under the age of seven, done horrific
things to them, that fantasizes about children and still continues
to fantasize about them. Who thinks that this is a
good idea to let this man out when he earned
a sentence of three life terms.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the justice system in California. It's such a
messed up state. Donna Ratuno is a criminal defense lawyer.
This is her thought.
Speaker 13: Well, he should absolutely stay locked up now that there
is a new warrant, now that they are bringing back charges.
So in terms of the history of this at the
time he received these three life sentences, which side note,
if you get a life sentence, you should never be
eligible for parole. Your state needs to reevaluate life should
mean life period. There's a lot of states like where
I live in Illinois, where if you get life that
means life. There are crimes that are one hundred percent crimes,
and if you get thirty years, you're getting thirty years.
Speaker 3: That's how it works.
Speaker 13: So here life should mean life, especially three times over.
But that being said, when he received those life sentences,
there were other cases that were dismissed as part of
that resolution. So now the government said, Okay, I think
you're getting out, we are going to resurrect these cases
that you never stood trial for, or you never pled to,
or you never answered for. So that's what's happening, and
that's why we now have these cases. He will not
be released because on that new charge, he will be
held and should be held, and now that case will
be litigated, and most likely, depending on what those charges are,
he will be looking at significant time and will not
come out. The other thing a lot of states have
that I've not heard about here is something called sexually
violent Person's laws. So even if you have a parole
availability to you, they have these special hearings under the
SVP or Sexually Violent Persons Standard or statues, and they
then can hold you because you're not passing these evaluations.
They're coming out and telling us he's still having fantasies
about young children, and we're talking about releasing him.
Speaker 3: This is crazy, and so this.
Speaker 13: Other charge being resurrected will keep him in.
Speaker 1: Paul Morrow even has some thoughts about this crazy story
out of California.
Speaker 14: First of all, he's not getting out all right. You
can only imagine the bat signal that went up from
the governor's office when they realized what they were getting
into here. He's getting out. Oh, I'm against this because
I want to run for president. Well, you appointed the proboard,
all right, give me my options fast.
Speaker 3: What do we do.
Speaker 14: Well, we can charge him over here under the same
state charges. Because in the original case it wasn't a
plea deal. They just dropped the charge. They didn't go
any further because he had three life sentences. They said,
in the interest of justice, why waste the time and
no money? And that does happen. Well, thank god, they
said to themselves, we can resurrect the case over here.
Speaker 4: So that's what they did.
Speaker 14: Number Two, they're never going to let him out pending
the new case, because California does have a version of
the danger standard, and so the judge has a safe
harbor to say, well, I'm not going to let this
guy out pending this next case. He's getting charged in
a new case. Okay, we're going to keep them in,
but I want to expand the playing field a little bit.
It's a recent New York Times op ed pedophilia a disorder,
not a crime.
Speaker 11: Oh all right, that's what I look it up.
Speaker 14: This is relatively recently a pedophilia a disorder, not a crime.
This is where this stuff leads. Okay, this is the
continuum from the criminal justice reforms that will put in
place entirely by the defense bar. And then everybody on
the far left progressive side of things are trying to
elbow each other out of the way to out virtue
signal each other forgetting the kids here, because they all
want to show how much better they are, and they
are competing for ng O money. Let's be frank, And
that's where this leads. Check yourselves, because this is where
it leads. Bill Malusian's X feed is a must read.
He pins out who the people who have been putting
this stuff in place, that lowered it from I think
sixty or sixty five down to fifty.
Speaker 3: He names them.
Speaker 14: That's what you got to do. You gotta name and
shame these people because they're shameless.
Speaker 1: So I mentioned the presidents in Texas and he's down there.
The big primary, it's early voting ends today, but the
primary for in person voting is on Tuesday. It's not
only Texas, there's four or five other states too that
have a primary on Tuesday. But it's getting interesting because
you've got three Republicans running for the Republican nomination and
two Democrats running for the Democrat nomination. And we'll wait
till Tuesday to see how the voters of Texas decide.
The Democrats are all excited. They think they have an
opportunity to win some big blue seats in red Texas.
We'll give the people a chance there to do that. Also,
Warner Brothers Discovery Netflix through in the town. Netflix said
the deal is no longer financially attractive. So that means
Paramount is the new owner of Warner Brothers Discovery. So
I'm not I'm so sure. Look at good luck to them.
I just don't know about buying a whole bunch of
television stations. But Warner Brothers also has a lot of film,
big film library, so they think it makes sense for them. Oh,
there's a lady that has three or four times. I
think it's the fourth time. She's a stowaway. She works
her way into walking onto an airplane going to Europe,
and they caught her this time on a flight to Europe.
She was in the air in the plane. She's done
that before. They have to take her and send her back.
But it makes you wonder. I mean, part of it
is kind of funny, except for it's dead serious that
how's that security at the airport going when this little
lady can four times now she's been able to get
past security, no ticket, never checks in with TSA, never
checks in with a with a person at the gate,
just walks into the airport and gets on a plane.
We've just done it again Wall Street today, the roner
Kosha continues. We've been up, down, up down. Today was
down down five hundred twenty one, the Dow at forty
eight and nine seventy seven, SMP down thirty, nasdack down
two hundred and ten. Gold was up eighty seven dollars
at five thousand and two eighty one, and oil. There
you go, it's starting to move a little bit more again.
Everybody's working at the weekend. Will there be military action
in Iran over the weekend. So oil up two bucks.
It's at sixty seven dollars and some change. So that's
it for today. Have yourself a wonderful weekend. We'll be
back on Monday. I hope to see you then