Speaker 1: And hello, Welcome one and all to the Big Podcast
on this Tuesday. Today's nineteenth, the nineteenth day of May,
Year of Our Lord, twenty twenty six. My name is
Tom Sullivan. We've got six different states having primaries today,
so there's a bunch of political chat that we can
hit plus the update on the Maybe is there ever
going to be a war? I don't know if it's
on permanent hold what's going on, But we'll talk about that.
We got a slush fund, We've got a variety of things,
but let me start with the politics of the day.
We have primaries in Kentucky. Tom Massey is the big
focus because that is the guy that Donald Trump has
vowed to take down. Well, he took down Bill Senator
Bill Cassidy in Louisiana over the weekend. They had their
primary on Saturday and he lost bat I mean, he
came in third. So with Donald Trump going after Tom Massey,
I mean a heavy, heavy, heavy concentration, that will be
one to see whether or not President Trump still has
a grip on Republican voters. The other by the way,
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Senator, he is not running, So that's
an open seat that they're having in the primary today.
In Georgia, they've got the primary for the senator and
for the governor. No, Brian Kemp, I don't know. Brian
Kemp is a fascinating guy because he has eighty five
percent voter approval after two terms as governor of Georgia.
Eighty five percent approval unheard of. Let's see who else
has got this going today. We've got Oregon, Idaho, Alabama, Pennsylvania.
So there's six states in all that are having a
primary today. So the question about the primary on on
Tom Massey is what will happen If Tom Massey wins,
what does that do to President Trump's grip on the Republican.
Speaker 2: Voter or if he loses. Well.
Speaker 1: Leanne Caldwell from Puck she waited on both of those
situations here.
Speaker 3: She is, so it will just reinforce the fact that
Donald Trump is extremely strong in Republican primary races, that
he is still the leader of the party, despite the
polls that's showing that he's not popular, especially among Democrats
and Independents and some of those key voter demographics that
he did well in twenty twenty four. But if Thomas
Massey is defeated, it will show that of Donald Trump's
grip on the party, and it will also show that
money is a huge, huge factor still even in these
primary races in rural Kentucky, which has become one of
the most expensive house primaries in the country and a
very cheap media market. So you can only imagine what
sort of advertisements and how the deluge of advertisements that
voters there are seeing. But the bigger shock will be
if Thomas Massey wins, and that will be a huge,
huge defeat for the president and a sign of big
defiance and might from this long congressman from Kentucky.
Speaker 1: Yeah, rural Kentucky is very poor and so well actually said,
they're pouring millions of dollars into the campaign to defeat
Tom Massey, and yet the media buys that. It's one
of the cheapest media markets in the nation. So who
else has got so Oh Andrew Dizadero, he's from punch Bowl.
Speaker 2: He was asked the same question.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you just hit the nail on the head.
Speaker 5: There.
Speaker 4: There are a lot of Republicans, especially as they get
past their primaries this year, who are going to feel
like they need to show some independence from the President
from this administry traation in order to win in a
general election, right, and the risk that they run in
doing that is that this is going to come back
to bite them eventually in the future. It might not
be this year, but it could be two years from now,
four years from now, six years from now, As of
course Senator Bill Cassidy learned just a few days ago
when the President essentially recruited a primary challenger just a
few months ago and ended up locking him out of
a runoff in his re election fight. Of course, Senator
Cassidy's sin in the Republican Party was being among that
small group of Republican senators back in twenty twenty one
who voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial.
Speaker 2: And that'll do it. That will absolutely do it.
Speaker 1: So this afternoon, the President he said he was going
to in Texas, which doesn't have a primary today, but
the President said he was going to endorse one of
the two Republicans running for Senate there. One of them
is the current Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the other
one is the current Senator from Texas On Cornyn. And
so the President came out just a little while ago
and said he is endorsing Ken Paxton, and well, Karl Rove,
who is from Texas, has done a lot of political
campaigns not only across the country but also in Texas.
He knows those people backwards and forwards. And he was
asked about race between Ken Paxton and John Cornyan, but
also what does he think about this race in Kentucky
with Tom Massey. Well, it shouldn't be a race. I
should not be a race.
Speaker 6: I mean, we're talking about the President of the United
States supporting someone in opposition to somebody who's consistently voting
against a big, bad, the big beautiful bill. He does something.
It's very unusual for a Democrat or Republican to vote
against the rule as it's called it. If you're the
majority party, as the Republicans are. All the Republicans vote
for the rule that's the set of the instructions on House,
a measure is brought to the floor. Very unusual for
a member to vote against a rule. He consistently votes
against the rules on big, big measures, which is unusual.
Here's Tom Massey talking about the President getting involved.
Speaker 5: He really shouldn't have got involved in this race because
I vote within ninety percent of the time. Look, the
problem isn't that I am voting against Republicans in Washington
d C. Ten percent of the time. The problem is
in Washington d C. Ten percent of the time Republicans
up there vote against my constituents, and so I'm sticking
with my constituents, not the party is.
Speaker 2: And there's a big libertarian streak. Think about it.
Speaker 6: We not only have Massey who's a libertarian Republican, but
here's a United States Senator and the former brand Paul.
What's interesting about this district. You mentioned twenty one counties.
It's dominated by essentially three suburban counties, two of them
south of your old stomping ground at Cincinnati and one
over there near Louisville, the northeastern suburbs of and then
the rest of it is rural, and it's very rural.
So it's an odd combination of a district. But it's
been libertarian in instincts. Massy's done an interesting thing, which
is he went out and made certain that in many
counties he got like minded libertarians elected as county commissioners
and state legislators. So he's got a machine that he
has over the last twelve fourteen years, pretty well built
up and perfected. So who is this guy that Tom
Massey is running against? Oh yeah, sure, in fact, it's
that's what it's about. I suspect most people are. I
can't even pronounce gal Right's last name. It's like, Okay,
he's the not Trump guy. He's the Trump guy, and
the other guy is the not Trump guy. But you know,
there is a there is a risk to this for
the president. There are two risks. Actually, One is it
expends a lot of resources in battle battles inside the
party that could be spent in the general election. And
second of all, you know, there gets to be a
point where people say, you know, mister President, I don't
need to be with you one hundred percent of the time. Look,
there were people who voted against the Bush agenda. One
of them was an Indiana congressman who voted against the
prescription drug benefit. His name was Mike Pence. But we
would no more have thought about going after Mike Pence
on that than the man in the moon, because you're
going to need that vote another day. And we saw
this earlier this year. Tom Tillis in the Senate, for example, said, okay,
I'm not running for reelection. The President made it clear
that if I did, he wasn't going to be for me.
So I'm free, and what I'm going to do is
give him a heartburn on the issue of the Federal
Reserve chairman.
Speaker 1: So let's get to this business about cornn versus Paxson
in Texas, because Carl Rove is supporting mister Cornan and
yet the President this afternoon just endorsed Ken Paxton. But
this was after Carl made these comments.
Speaker 2: Let's listen.
Speaker 6: First of all, I want to be clear, I'm a
John Cornyn fr fan of many years standing. We're close
personal friends, and I'm for him, helping him. But so
color that, if you will, taller Eco has no chance
against Cornyn in the general action of my opinion, against Paxton,
who's got a let's say, storied and corrupt background and
it was impeached by the Texas House or representatives over it.
They will spend every moment between now November talking about
the multiple girlfriends and the favors that corrupt business people
did for got done by the Attorney general and he
turned for having done favors for him. We'll hear about
the Uber account that allows us to track how many
times he went to his mistress's apartment. We'll have the
you know, we will you know, the trust that will
from us and somebody he met in a dairy queen
that allowed him to buy eight properties from Hawaii to
Florida increases his net worth by about seven thousand percent
ball making one hundred and fifty four thousand dollars a
year as attorney general. They will spend every moment between
now and November not talking about the issues, but talking
about That's why I think he will well, first of all,
he did, but they will spend you know, in the
runoff maybe thirty or million dollars. In the general election,
you can count on the Democrats putting in two hundred
or three hundred million dollars because even if they lose
the Senate race, they know what will help pick up
congressional seats and state legislative seats that they would otherwise wink.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So Carl Mediclaire, he's a friend of John Cornyn,
and Cornyan has been there a long time. And Ken
Paxson has a very checkered history, I mean, corruption and
just bad. And yet that's the guy that the president
endorsed was Ken Paxton. This afternoon. Meantime, let's talk about
the slush fund, as they're calling it. The President yesterday
came to an agreement to he was suing the Irs
for ten billion dollars. You know, that's what he does.
He sues people for a lot of money. He loses
a lot of them, but he wins some. In this one.
I thought, wait a minute, how can the president sue
the Irs while you're still the president? Because the IRS
works for you in any case. So that made me
scratch my head. And so yesterday they made an announcement
that the president and his sons have reached an agreement
to dismiss the ten billion dollar lawsuit in return for
the Department of Justice setting up a fund to pay
monies to people that have been wronged by the federal government.
So the left is apoplectic because they're going, oh, they're
going to pay the people that storm the Capitol on
jan six, And there will be some of those that will,
I'm sure put in claims and get paid, but it's
all very secretive. It's going to be a five person panel.
The Attorney General is going to set up the panel.
President can fire or any member on that panel at
any time, we won't know who they pay or how
much they pay, So they're calling it a slush fund. Well,
Tom Dupree is a longtime former federal prosecutor, and he
was asked, does this thing pass your spell test?
Speaker 2: Well, I have serious concerns.
Speaker 7: For one thing, The Judgment Fund is really used for
what its name is, to pay judgments that are entered
against the United States. That involves cases where a judge
or a jury has said the United States is liable
and the United States then pays the money out of
the judgment fund. This is an atypical, I would say,
unprecedented use of the judgment Fund, and that it's not
being used to compensate people who actually hold judgments against
the United States. Rather, it's a way, as the Attorney
General explained, to basically make whole people that they think
were wrongfully treated during the Buying administration. But yes, I
have concerns both about the purpose of this using taxpayer money,
a lot of tax money to pay people who may
not be deserving of getting this amount of money. And
number two, I also have concerned about the procedures. Is
there going to be any guardrail? Is there going to
be transparency. Are we going to know who is getting
paid money out of this fund? These are all questions
that I hope will be answered in the days ahead.
Speaker 1: The guess is that basically the magacrat will get a
lot of the payouts, and especially those that were Jan
six and were prosecuted, Some paid fines, some went to jail,
so they'll probably all line up and say pay me money.
But a lot of it also is people who fought
back against the claim that President Trump said that the
twenty twenty election was stolen.
Speaker 7: Well, look, I mean, I think we're going to be
litigating the twenty twenty election for years, if not decades
to come. I think that people who are looking into it,
at least in some cases, they are not going to
be satisfied unless and until they actually find evidence so far,
which we haven't seen, but until they find evidence that
supports their claim that it's been rigged. But look, I
kind of stand where former Attorney General Barr was when
he had the DOJ team again in the prior Trump administration,
look into this and did not find any evidence of fraud,
at least fraud and significant enough amounts that would change
the outcome of the election.
Speaker 5: We've had lots of people looking into this.
Speaker 7: We've had people ranging from Mike Rudy Giuliani, to Mike
Lindell to others. No one has been able to find
actual evidence showing up there was sufficient fraud to change
the outcome of the election. But it doesn't look like
that's going to necessarily stop people from continuing to raise
questions and continuing to plow this ground looking backward when
ideally Republicans will be looking forward.
Speaker 1: So we mentioned two names that I suspect will be
first and second in line for money from this slush fund.
One is Rudy Giuliani, who has lost all kinds of
legal battles and is broke, he says. And the other
one is the my pillow guy, Mike Lindell, who also
has filed for bankruptcy and he's broke. So I would
imagine that a lot of that money they're going to
be in line for to try and help with their
current financial problems. The President was asked about is this
a slush fund? This is what he said, Well.
Speaker 8: It's been very well received. I have to tell you
I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in
the whole creation of it and the negotiation. But this
is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated as
anti weaponization. They've been weaponized, they've been in some cases
imprisoned wrongly, they paid legal fees that they didn't have,
they've gone bankrupt, their lives have been destroyed.
Speaker 1: Again, that sounds like Rudy and my pillow, guys, So
we'll see how this goes. I suspect Tom Duprie is
right that this will be litigated. There will be lawsuits
against it about lack of transparency and separation of powers
and everything else that goes into the questions for this.
Speaking of trials, the guy that is on trial for
killing Charlie Kirk back in court again today. They're trying
to figure out before they even get to the trial,
all the motions. Here's Josh Ritter, a big defense lawyer.
Speaker 9: So your question, when we put a bow on it, it
looks like never. The last time we were in court,
he made a ruling on the blanket request to have
no cameras in court room and said that ytes, He's
going to allow cameras. Now the defense has decided to
take a piecemeal and say Okay, well, how about in
this hearing, and we're talking about the preliminary hearing here
that should take place in July. They're asking for certain
portions of that hearing to not be on camera. The
reason for it is not entirely clear. They're saying that
there are some sensitive elements of evidence that might be presented. Really,
what it comes down to is that they feel that
there are portions of the testimony that may come out
at the prelimb that could be damaging to their that
may not be their argument is may not be admissible
at the trial, and they don't want that coming out.
It's again this preoccupation with the media coverage of the
case and the outside perception of the case, and they're
saying that that has to do with preserving a potential
jury pool. But it does at this point sound like
they're far more concerned about the perception of their client
outside of the courthouse than inside of the courthouse.
Speaker 1: I don't know of anything that could be more sensitive
than watching Charlie Kirk get shot. I mean, I think
a lot of millions, tens of hundreds of millions of
people saw the bullet hit Charlie Kirk, and if you
didn't see it live, you can go on YouTube and
watch it again and again and again. So they're concerned
about sensitive things coming into the trial. So the judge
is being super careful because he knows that there's going
to be an appeal no matter how this case turns out.
But I think they've got him sixteen ways from Friday.
But what will a judge do. Well, back to Josh River, I.
Speaker 9: Think he's probably going to split the baby to some extent.
There are some things that we probably won't get on camera.
There is some video evidence that we understand. He's going
to be presented, perhaps of the shooting itself, and it's
understandable that a lot of that would not be released
to the public. But he may acquiesce and give in
and allow that certain portions where there's perhaps hearsay elements
at play, are perhaps a ripe arguments for foundation that
those pieces of evidence might not come in at trial.
He may exclude those portions from the hearing.
Speaker 1: They seem to be coddling him. I don't know how
he's been treated in prison in the jail, but I
hope they're not coddling him.
Speaker 9: No, we understand that he is under some sort of
protective custody, you know, obviously as a high profile inmate.
I don't think he's getting any kind of special treatment
other than he may be kept away from other inmates.
But we do know that whenever he's brought into court
here there is a caravan vehicles and armed personnel coming
in with him.
Speaker 1: It sounds to me like he's getting special treatment. I
don't think you should.
Speaker 2: No, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 9: It's kind of ironic that they're so concerned about the
public perception when this crime was committed for its public
impact itself. It was committed in a public place in
front of hundreds of people to send a message, and
now they're saying, well, we want to pull back on
all of that. I think the other thing to draw
attention to is that their real quarrel is with the
media coverage, not with the cameras in the courtroom. They
haven't really made an argument that is explained to the
judge why the cameras are the problem when their gripe.
Their complaints really seem to be with how they feel
certain members of the media are covering their client. So
they're going to pull in, first of all, hundreds of jurors. Likely,
they're going to go through an extensive do your process.
They're going to hand out jury questionnaires, try to weed
out as many people as possible. The point isn't to
find people who have never heard of them, but people
who may have heard of it but haven't made up
their minds. And I'll say two, having worked on high
profile cases, you'd be surprised how many people you get
into a courthouse, you know, that are responding to a
jury summons. And you think this is a case that
everybody in the world has heard about, and there's some
folks that just don't follow it. They're too concerned with
their own kids, little league team, or what's going on
on reality TV that they just don't know much about
the types of stories that you and I may follow
it closely.
Speaker 1: Well, the hype on this is going to continue, and
like you said, it's not they got a hearing or
something in July, but the trial.
Speaker 2: I don't believe starts until fall.
Speaker 1: And since we're talking about shootings, the shooting yesterday happened
just before we finished recording the podcast yesterday. It was
a shooting in San Diego at the Islamic Center, which
is apparently a very very large facility, and not only
do they have a mosque, but they also apparently have
a school of some kind, because they led all kinds
of children out of the facility after the shooting was over.
But the story itself, the San Diego Police Chief was
going down the timeline of how the mother these two
teenage boys who shot and killed three people at the
Islamic Center, they're underage. They one of them got a
bunch of guns from the house and took his mother's car,
and apparently the mother called the police and said, my
son is missing, so are the guns, so is my car,
and he's been talking about suicide. So the police put
out for all of their license plate readers to look
for this car, and they had a bunch of hits
on it, and they kept moving it. Finally they found
it over the It showed up over at the Islamic
Center and they started arriving at the Islamic Center just
as the gunshots went off, just as the killing began.
But the fact that the mother called and they have
license plate readers that in the size of a city
of San Diego, they were able to locate that car,
not in time, but very very close to it, and
James Gagliano, retired FBI guy, just talking about how this
kind of shooting is becoming more common.
Speaker 10: They did everything right, and obviously it was a grim
scene yesterday and we're still kind of piecing things together.
Look as far as a hate crime, I mean, the
two decedents will not face charges, they're obviously dead in
this instance, but trying to understand motivations. And again here's
something else. Seventeen and eighteen years old. This has become
an epidemic of gen Z shooters, whether it's the assassination
culture we saw in Butler, Pennsylvania or in Utah with
Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 2: And now these two young men.
Speaker 10: Most important thing now that the initial interdiction is done,
did anyone direct them to do these things? Provide material support?
Was anybody else involved in the conspiracy? But again it
goes back to these type of motivations. You take a grievance,
you apply an ideology to it, and then your own
sense of moral absolutism. And in this instance, Christians, Jews,
and Muslims are being targeted across the globe, mostly in
Asia and in African parts of the Middle East. But
the FBIS tracked these numbers in the last decade, a
doubling of hate crime incidents in the United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a different type of mass shooter today, no
question about it. Remember it wasn't that long ago. They
were ISIS inspired, or they had trained over in the
Middle East and they were something to do with ISIS
or al Qaeda or one of those. These guys are
a couple of teenagers and the guy who shot Charlie
Kirk a young guy.
Speaker 2: Going to college. I mean, this is.
Speaker 1: It's not the same kind of mass shooting that we
saw just a few years ago.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk.
Speaker 1: About war, because the war is been longer on a
ceasefire than actual military conflict.
Speaker 2: General Jack Cheen.
Speaker 1: He is sounding very frustrated, but he's politically savvy. He
didn't get to be a four star general by not
understanding how to be politically savvy. And he but listen
to him talk. He is frustrated, he is anxious. He
knows that the people that are running Tehran, running Iran
are bad people and trying to negotiate with them is
a waste of time, according to him. So he was
asked about yesterday's delay by the President again, what was
the general reaction.
Speaker 11: Yeah, well I saw they were surprised by that. To
be frank, the reality is the Gulf States, they do
have the capability to defend themselves and that's been going
on remarkably well. When you take a look at the
number of attacks and what the damage has done. Not
suggesting there hasn't been some damage, but to give me
an example of it, the UAE alone has nineteen patriot
batteries and iron dome batteries from Israel to defend itself.
Speaker 2: Really quite staggering.
Speaker 11: And also what would happen here and they're not giving
any credit to we return to military operations. I'm somewhat
aware of what's going to take place here and it's
very comprehensive. We've had six weeks of gathering intelligence on
targeting and we have a much better feel for what
to do and how to do it going forward, and
certainly the ability for Aron to do damage against these
states would be reduced dramatically, and taking into consideration that
they would likely be some of the first targets. I'm
not suggesting there won't be rounds and missiles and drones
fired at then there will be. And the other thing.
Speaker 2: Is, we have a huge leverage here.
Speaker 11: I mean, we can tell the Iranians, if you're going
to fire on our allies and partners oil and gas infrastructure,
we are going to systematically dismantle. That means destroy the
oil export capability that you have on carg Island, as
well as all of your other oil and gas energy
export capability you have on your mainland. You will suffer
a devastating price for that level of attack. That is
real leverage in my book. So, yes, we're going to negotiations.
I understand that. And the backstop for that is President Trump.
He's not going to take a bad deal. And that's
the reality of it. Even a deal has its limitations
in dealing with this regime, and we've got to put
it on the table. And by that, I mean if
you're going to make a deal with them, they're going
to want some finance relief, and that means of the
one hundred billion dollars of frozen assets, likely not only one,
some of it condition based. They're going to want relief
of sanctions, not only one, some of that condition based.
But what does that actually do that extends the life
of this regime. That means We're going to have these
guys for years to come. Another administration will have to
deal with it. That's limitation one. I don't think that's
where we started. We started we're going to take this
regime down and weaken it so significantly that they would
be vulnerable to the resistance of their own people. We
weren't going to make the regime change ourselves, but kind
of put them on a path. The second limitation is,
and we know this from forty seven years of history,
and that is whatever they agree to, they will likely
cheat and reverse it then likely in another administration who
would be burden with that recovering ballistic missile program, trying
to recover that nuclear program, funneling money secretly to the proxies,
burdening Israel's defense, dealing with Hamas, the Huthis and Hesbalah.
All of that will eventually come back by extending the
life of the regime. A deal to me is a
near term kind of pacifier in a sense, and the
long term implications of it are pretty serious.
Speaker 1: I don't know why people can't see that if we
do a deal with his regime and regime stays in power,
that they will continue to try and attack Israel, attack US.
I don't know six months from now, five years from now,
but the next administration will have to deal with it.
You've got to remove this regime. So Admiral Cooper, the
head of Sencom, was testifying before the Senate and this
is what he said today.
Speaker 12: Ron deliberately targeted civilians in the Middle East at least
a thousand times.
Speaker 1: Was there any rhyme or reason that you saw behind
what Iran was doing and who they were targeting?
Speaker 2: Was there any purpose behind that or was just indiscriminate?
Speaker 12: I see, I think you saw a terror regime executing
terror like attacks leading up to their building more than
a thousand times. The only rhyme or reason the consistency
was against innocent civilians.
Speaker 1: Like you said, the people that run Iran, the regime,
they're terrorists, they're evil people.
Speaker 11: Back to the general, well, I'm really surprised by the
UAE because they have such significant capability and they've been
fighting back with air strikes. They don't advertise it, but
they've been fighting back and quite effective with it. I'm
not in those discussions and not privy to what took
place there, but I think in the file and analysis,
I mean, what we're discussing here is breaking the will
of your opponent in Iran is the Gulf States. Because
they want that pressure put on the administration to stop
the war, they got to cease fire out of it,
and now they're extending the ceasefire some six weeks and
they're absolutely convinced if they string us out closer to
the midterms and oil prices continue to rise as a
result of it, that the President may just wash his
hands and the whole thing and declare victory. That's kind
of what their objective is here, and I understand that objective,
and I think we have to see it for what
it really is. War is fundamentally breaking will here, and
they want to break our will, and they use it
public support as the vehicle to achieve that. Our adversaries,
because we're open democracy, while we're always at war with
their militaries, are also always trying to break the will
of the American people's support for that war. And that's
the reality of the Iranians. There's certainly no exception to that,
and that is being played out right before our eyes,
the same thing, breaking the will of our allies and
partners to do what but pressure on administration to back down.
That is why war is always a test of wills.
I think the preferred option is the return to the
comprehensive military task ahead and make this regime so vulnerable
that we put it on a pathway to its eventual collapse,
and get something else in there to deal with going forward,
as opposed to these thugs and killekers and tyrannical leaders
that we've been dealing with for in now our fifth
decade with them.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you could hear it, but Jack Kean,
General Kean is enormously frustrated. He knows they can go
in there. If you look at YouTube and pull up.
When we went and took over Japan, sent we kept
General McCarter, kept the emperor in place, but arrested all
the military leaders of Japan. He left the emperor because
without him the public would have been it would have
been very hard after the war to get the public support.
But the emperor stayed, but all the military people were arrested.
And in Germany we arrested those top military people.
Speaker 2: Most of them went to their death on a noose.
They fiery squad or hanging.
Speaker 1: We went in and arrested the terrible, the evil leaders
of these enemies.
Speaker 2: I don't know why.
Speaker 1: I would hope that the military has a plan on
how to do that, but so far they're being held back.
So at the same hearing that Admiral Cooper was at today,
they also Chris Wright, the Energy Secretary, was asked by
Senator Blumenthal about how far away is Iran from a
nuke bomb?
Speaker 13: How close does that degree of enrichment enable Uranians to
develop a nuclear weapon? What amount of time would it
take to do it?
Speaker 2: Frighteningly close?
Speaker 5: Yeah, they are weeks a small number of weeks away
to enrich that to weapons grade uranium.
Speaker 1: That's what we keep hearing. So I don't know what
we're waiting for. Here's the president today, he was giving
a tour of the construction site of his ball room,
and the media was more interested in asking about the war.
Speaker 14: Well, I mean, I'm saying two or three days, maybe Friday, Saturday,
Sunday something maybe early so next week, a limited period
of time, because we can't let them have a weapon.
If they had a nuclear weapon, they would shock through Israel.
They would blow it up, and they would blow it
up fast, but they'd blow it up that was at.
Speaker 1: The tour of the construction site for his ballroom, and
he had all the architectural drawings and everything else. But
the media wasn't interested in the ballroom. They were interested
in what's going on with Iran in the war. So
Wall Street today doing a little bit of pullback.
Speaker 2: A lot of.
Speaker 1: Overbuying has been going on. The market's been aut a
tear so today she sold off the Dow down three
hundred and twenty two to forty nine thousand and three
sixty three, the SMP down forty nine, the Nasdaq down
two hundred and twenty. Price of gold fell seventy one
dollars now at four thousand and four eighty seven, and
oil basically unchanged one hundred nine dollars for one barrel
of West Texas Intermediate. So that's it for today. Thank
you for coming by. We will be back tomorrow. I
do hope to see you then. I do hope to
see you then