Speaker 1: And welcome here. We are welcome on this Thursday, the
thirtieth day of July two thousand year by our twenty
twenty six monument Tom Sullivan Man.
Speaker 2: This month's going.
Speaker 1: About Rob, Well, we got one more day tomorrow. Welcome
to the Big Podcast. We have some of the usual subjects,
basically updating you today that it's been a busy day.
As far as updated, we have a run and the latest. There.
We've got Todd Blanche who wants to be the Attorney
General and has been nominated by the President. To get
the nomination approved by Congress, a couple of Republicans standing
in the way, the Democrat Socialists of America. They just
keep on they keep on coming. And Russia. Not a
lot of publicity about the fact that Russia has dipped
its toe into NATO and almost no response. So let's
start with Todd Blanche because very important position. He's been
Assistant Attorney General for some time. Prior to that, he
was the private in private practice, he was representing a
number of people, including Donald Trump in his trial some
of his trials, and before that he was with the
Southern District of New York. He was a federal prosecutor
and apparently well liked guy, and more than just liked,
also admired for his legal acumen. He's a very good lawyer,
highly regarded, and I guess when you look at his
track record, I've often thought about some of the people
like this that are highly regarded smart people. He probably
made more money in private practice for just a few
years than he did for probably a decade before that.
They don't pay a lot for the federal prosecutors and
yet a white shoe law firm in New York. He's
going to make a ton of money. But he's not
doing this for the money. He's doing it for whatever
motivates him. But money is not top of the list.
I'm sure money's somewhere on the list, but he is.
He's a good lawyer, and yet at the same time
he's a very loyal person to the president. A lot
of Democrats are going to complain and go, oh my gosh,
he's the president's lawyer. For heaven's sake, he's supposed to
be the people's lawyer. I don't know if you are just.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I can't think of an attorney general who hasn't gone yes, sir,
to the boss their president. A president appoints the attorney,
nominates the attorney general, Congress has to give advice and consent,
but they yet they work for the president. I know
they're supposed to be the people's lawyer. I know they're
not the president's personal lawyer. But most presidents that I
know about and have watched over the years basically have
them snap too to whatever it is the president wants
them to do. I mean, I guess we could go
down the list of prior attorney generals, but they all
basically act very much as if they are working for
the president. So this whole thing about John Cornyn, who
was nomin who was who was running for reelection as
Senate for the Senate from Texas and apparently also is
a very well liked senator, and Donald Trump stepped in
and said Ken Paxton, who who was the former attorney general,
well actually at the current attorney general of the state
of Texas, also a running per senator. I'm going to
I'm going to endorse Ken Paxton, And as a result,
the people of Texas, the Republicans in Texas followed the
President's advice and voted for Ken Paxton. John Cornyn is
a lame duck at this moment. He's out at the
end of this Congress, which is the end of this year.
He's he has had a long, wonderful career that basically
the rug was pulled out from underneath him by the president.
So you think he's going to like the president, of
course not. Is he going to to make trouble for
the president?
Speaker 2: Not not?
Speaker 1: Well, yes he's going to, but he's going to make
it look like he's not. But this is where he
and Tom Tillis and tell Us didn't get the pull
the rug pulled out from under him by the president.
He just kept bucking heads with the president and finally
said that's it. I'm done with this. I'm not going
to run for reelection in North Carolina. So you've got
Tom Tillis and John Cornyn who are kind of free agents.
They're out roaming on the land, out there doing what
they think is right for once, and they are asking
for Todd blanche to put in writing. What he said
in testimony before one of the committee hearings when they
asked him about two things, is the president the president.
You've you've written up this agreement where the President was
suing the IRS. Judge threw it out and said, you
can't sue yourself. There's no adverse party here. You run
the IRS, you're the chief executive officer. You can't do this.
But before the judge threw it out, Todd Blanch wrote
up a piece that said, well, the IRS has agreed
never to audit Donald Trump or his family or his
companies in the past forevermore. And people squealed. And then
they also said, instead of the ten billion dollars that
he sued himself over, they also said, oh yeah, and
the anti weaponization bill that the President Trump wanted to
have done, and Todd Blanche drew it up, is that
one point eight billion dollars would be set aside to
pay people for government harms, mainly the Jan sixth people.
People squealed about that. Well, that brings us up to
date to where John Cornyan is saying all I want
you to do, Todd Blanche is put in writing that
the anti weaponization one point eight billion dollar deal is dead,
gone and won't happen. And the same with the agreement
for the IRS never to audit the Trump's in the past,
and Todd Blanche won't do it. And you go, well,
I know he testified before Congress, so why won't he
do it? And the more that he digs his heels
in that says I'm not going to do that. I'm
not going to put it in writing, it makes you think, Okay,
they do plan to go ahead with the anti weaponization funding,
and they also plan on getting the deal with the
IRS done. So I wandered in writing is what John
Cornyan says here.
Speaker 2: He is, it's just the thing.
Speaker 3: Use to commit to writing what he testified to under Row.
Speaker 2: And it's not a big ask. Why do you think
they're no young bessings from you? Maybe they think they.
Speaker 4: Can roll me.
Speaker 1: That was from earlier this morning, and then this afternoon
Cornyn said.
Speaker 3: This, They refuse to commit to writing what he justified
to under Row, and it's not a big ask. We're
trying to help them get this solved, but they refused
to accept ours our help.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I understand the argument that Todd Blanche has,
but any lawyer, I mean, this is law school one
oh one. If you're if you're entering into an agreement
with somebody, any lawyer worth his or her salt will
tell you get it in writing, and yet they won't
put that in writing now. Late this afternoon, Todd Blanche
did have a meeting with John Cornyn and Tom Tillis
about a forty five minute meeting. No agreement announced yet,
but it looks like the President is also toying with
the idea of just dropping the whole thing, floating the
idea of temporarily temporarily dropping the Blanche nomination. And what
he's talking about is probably trying to get it into
next year. But will the Senate be controlled by the
Republicans next year?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan was asked about this, and Jim Jordan is
he went to law school, but he's not a lawyer,
and he said, I don't understand what the problem is. Again,
what is the hangup with? Why won't they put it
in writing. Elie Honig, who is a lawyer and worked
with Todd Blanche at the Southern District of New York,
reacted to this not.
Speaker 2: Going to do it.
Speaker 1: This is much ado about, not quite nothing, but very little.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: He's already said this fun is dead.
Speaker 5: We're not moving forward with it.
Speaker 6: There is some perhaps theoretically way that someone somewhere down
the line could try to revive it, but he's already
testified under oath that it's dead. Putting it in writing
would maybe be two percent more protection. But isn't it
strange that this whole nomination when Tom Lance, with his
history of mishandling the Epstein files, of being behind overtly
political prosecutions. The big hang up is he set it
into a microphone. Now we need it in writing. If
they work this out, you know, that'll probably get him through.
But it's strange to me that that's the sticking point
of all the things to deal with with Todd lanch Oh.
Speaker 1: Granted, it's strange, no question about it. But again, any
lawyer worth his hearsault will tell you get it in writing,
and for them to not willing to do that makes
my stinkle meter go higher because it's obvious John Cornyn
doesn't trust Todd Blanche and maybe he doesn't trust the president.
He doesn't like the president, so maybe he's just being
the thorn in the president's side on purpose. But Robert Garcia,
who is a Democrat from California, thanks John Cornyn's doing
the right thing.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 7: I think Senator Cornyn as well as Senator Tillis are
both doing the right thing by pushing back, creating roadblocks,
slowing the nomination, and they and they should stick to
that position. I mean, look, when you look at the
weaponization in front on its own, I mean, you're you're
talking about paying the people that tried that tried to
overthrow an election, that attacked the capital, that were insurrectionists
against our country and constitution. And there's no guarantee that
this weaponization fund is actually dead. The reality is that
we're not sure if Trump is he's going to try
to bring it back. And so I think the push
here is right. But also in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation,
I mean, here is someone in Todd Blanche that essentially
has not released half the files, is not following the
law that the survivors himself themselves have said multiple times.
He should not be confirmed. He dismissed the survivors that
hastily had arranged meeting that he just had and of
course put their lives in danger by releasing their personal information.
And so the list goes on and on, weaponization of government,
the Epstein cover up that's happening at the White House
and the DOJ, and let's remember that Pam Bondi herself
is the one that put the Epstein investigation clearly on
Todd Blanche and all of its failures. And so I
hope that the Senators stand strong. Quite frankly, more of
them should be doing the right thing. But hopefully John
Cornyn and Tom Tillis decide to vote no or at
least slow this nomination and hopefully end it.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, the Democrats are a lockstep in opposing Todd
Blanche to be the Attorney General. But the Democrats, okay,
they don't want them. But the Republicans, this committee needs
John Cornyn's vote otherwise it's deadly. If he doesn't vote yes,
then this nomination fails. It literally would be. The Republicans
have a one seat majority in Judiciary Committee, and if
Cornyn says no, then it will be a deadlocked tied
at I believe, twelve to twelve. And if that's the case,
Todd Blanch isn't the Attorney general. Here's the President this afternoon,
also reiterating he wants them to be the AG.
Speaker 8: Well, all, like I say, is Todd Lanch is outstanding,
and I thought he's I thought it was pretty routine
because he's so good.
Speaker 2: He just wouldn't find a better person. So I don't know.
Speaker 8: Maybe John Cornyon is upset with me because I didn't
endorse him.
Speaker 1: You think that's exactly what it is. Cornyan is mad
at Trump. I get it. Trump gets it. And the
President was warned, if you don't endorse Cornan, you're gonna
need him in a bunch of boats between the end
of the now and the end of the year. And
here it is, so talk to tj Araghi. He is
a big Republican campaign guy. Here's his view. Well, it
surely didn't help.
Speaker 9: And I think a lot of us saw this coming
from a mile away, and we're saying that when he
was in his decision making process, it's not good to
have free agents running around willing to buck the president
and the party as a whole to drive home a
point in this case, the Anti Weaponization Fund, Epstein, Victims,
the Irs, Settlement, etc. It's a tough lesson the president's
learning right now in real time. These are really important issues.
I agree with Senator Cornyn that the slush fund is
a bad idea. I agree that we need to do
more to prosecute the crimes of those in the Epstein files,
and I think the IRS settlement's a bad look. But
it's a shame too, because Todd Blanche is qualified for
the role. You heard Tom Tillis say he's negotiating good faith.
He knows the nuts and bolts of the DOJ. But
he's in a really tough spot with the White Houses.
As you just heard that, they don't know who's really
calling the shots. This would be a tough position for
any AG nominee to be in right now. And we'll
see if they can hammer out a deal in the
coming weeks.
Speaker 1: And add to it that Dodd Blanche really, really, really really.
Speaker 2: Wants his job.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of the people in Washington, the DSA, the
Democrat Socialists of America, they're out there. But the number
one nutburger in all of this is the mayor of
New York City, ma'am, Donnie, I'm telling you, this guy
is off his rocker. And so he is out wanting
to raise taxes on people that are have a property
worth five million dollars or more, and he's trying to
figure out whether or not they're residents of New York
City or whether they keep an apartment here, just so
that they're wealthy people only come to New York a lot,
and they don't want to get a hotel room, and
so they have their own pities here. It's a small
apartment that you keep so that all your stuff is
here when you visit New York or when you're working
in New York. So that's that's what he's looking at,
is he wants to go after them, and he wants
to tax the rich and the rich, I mean especially
somebody that only comes in once in a while, isn't
using government services, and they're paying a lot of money
to the City of New York. So I would think
that you would be happy to have a whole bunch
of those people. They don't use the services and they
pay a lot of taxes. But he wants to increase
their taxes, put a premium on them. And he came
out and said it is for anybody who has an
apartment worth more than a five million dollars more. I
know that sounds like a lot in most of America,
but a five million dollar apartment in New York.
Speaker 2: City is.
Speaker 1: Below average.
Speaker 4: It just is.
Speaker 1: I mean, they have apartments here that are twenty million,
thirty million, seventy million, dollars. So a five million dollar apartment,
I'm sure it's nice, but it doesn't. It's not special.
It's not something with gold all over it. And so
then today we find out from the New York Post
that also when you read the requirement of the extra
tax that he wants to delay on these people, he's
starting with one million dollar condos or five million dollar apartments. Well,
a one million dollar condo is not even close to average.
So he's going to try to tax a lot of
people that are not wealthy. And that's usually the way
this whole socialist thing works. They start off with because
it's so popular as tax the rich. But you find
out that the people that have one million dollar condos,
maybe they bought it for two hundred thousand dollars ten
years ago and now it's a million one and he's
going to tax them. They're not rich, they're go to
work people. Here's here's rama Manuel talking about raw. Oh,
this is the war between the establishment Democrats, Rama Manuel
and the DSA.
Speaker 10: You chant a river to the sea, and that means
it will never be a Jewish home land for Jews
who had faced the Holkost and I said, I want
you to hear this over my dead body.
Speaker 2: Apparently.
Speaker 1: He says they're roma manual says that's what Mom Downey
told him in a private meeting. Josh Rubin, who is
a big political guy. He was in the Obama administration.
He was also in the Biden administration. He was on
the National Security Council, He worked in the State Department,
big powerful Democrat. Obviously he doesn't like the Democrat socialist
anymore than rama Manuel. This is serious stuff.
Speaker 11: And as an American Jewish person individual, as well as
some of who's worked in American Jewish politics, I view
this as very dangerous talk coming out of the Mayor's office.
He is trying to divide and conquer the Jewish community.
He is attacking Jewish institutions consistently, calling them monsters, ending
New York support for the internationally recognized definition of anti Semitism,
targeting the Prime Minister of Israel consistently, even though he
has literally no responsibility for international affairs. And so if
you ask Jewish New Yorkers if they're safer today than
a year ago, they're going to tell you resoundingly no.
Hate crimes have spiked over fifty percent of hate crimes
in New York are against Jews, yet Jews are only
temper of the population, and this just can't stand either.
And I think what the mayor is doing is setting
a tone for other and both connecteds oughts here other
DSA candidates across the board who make anti Israel arguments
as the core of their political identity, and that is
dangerous to American Jews here in the United States.
Speaker 1: Well, what the mayor has has done, he's doing a
bunch of different things. He's trying to go after the
Jewish population in New York City, and it's large, it's
about ten percent of the city. But he also has
published The Mayor of New York has published a searchable
database of big apple properties that will fall under the
state's new Pieta tear attacks, effectively dosing thousands of New Yorkers.
The city's Department of Finance uploaded the list, which again
is supposed to start with five million dollars and above properties,
but instead covers properties in the five boroughs worth north
of one million dollars. I guess he thinks that getting
rid of these people by taxing him to basically make
them leave the city, that that's going to have somehow
make things cheaper for people that don't have one or
five million dollar properties. I've often I don't understand that
logic that somehow tearing down a rich person will make
me better off. I've never understood that, but maybe you
can explain it to me. So he's published everybody's name
on the tax rolls, and that will also lead it searchable.
It will lead to people that will go and protest,
maybe or more harm them in some way. It's very
dangerous to do. Ryan Brenberg from over at Fox Business
had this reaction.
Speaker 2: Address in your family's name.
Speaker 1: Well, now a hassle.
Speaker 12: You're guilty until proven innocent number one, that's what he's saying.
But number two, you can't. Ken Griffin can fight. The
guy's got resources. If you're just the average middle class
guy who's on this list, you're going to fight city Hall,
You're going to fight the blob of the bureaucracy.
Speaker 2: You're not going to be able to do that.
Speaker 12: Mamdannie has always said he wants to decommodify housing.
Speaker 2: What does that mean?
Speaker 12: A commodity is something you trade on the market. This
isn't just about taxing property, it's removing it from the
private sphere. He wants it to be a government thing.
And this is a step, and he's put everybody unnoticed.
You're rich out of towner, or you're in town and
you own a home, I'm coming after you. Folks take
them seriously when they say these things. He is right
on one thing.
Speaker 2: He's being clear. That's what he wants to do.
Speaker 1: Again, the mayor is confused, but again he wanted to
drive home his point about the fact that he has
published the list of every homeowner. It's a searchable database
that has the property worth one million dollars in condos
or five million dollars in apartments.
Speaker 2: Here's the mayor.
Speaker 4: I think we're always going to do everything that we
can to ensure that we're communicating clear leader New Yorkers,
and I think that what we've found thus far is
when it comes to these letters being sent out, it
is anyone that the city believes may be subject to
the searcharge for putting in the time now to ensure
that come next year, this tax is only levied on
those who are non primary residences that are worth more
than five million dollars.
Speaker 1: He leaves off some of the more salient points, so
it's it's a Democrat Socialist of America leader Zoron Mom, Donnie,
and that's what he wants to do. All right, let's
move on the economy. Speaking of rich people, in the
month of June, we got the Fed's favorite inflation index.
It's called the PCE, the Personal Consumption Expenditure Index. It's
things you buy, personal consumption. Anyway, it cooled off. In
the month of May, it was at four point one percent.
In the month of June, it dropped down to three
point seven percent. It cooled off, and the reason why
it cooled off is you don't have to be an
economist to understand this. Remember what happened in June. Energy prices.
There was a pause in the war, and energy prices
came down, gas prices, oil prices, all of that came down.
It was temporary. We're back to shooting at them again
and prices are going back up again. But in the
month of June we got a little break. So enjoy
your three point seven percent inflation in the month of June.
But it's probably going to be much higher than that
when we come back around for the month of July.
The Growth of the Economy also was released today, GDP.
They take three looks every quarter. One month after the
end of a quarter, they published their first look, then
a month later the second look, and then three months
later it's almost into the next quarter, they published the
final print. Well, they finally got as the final print
for the first quarter of twenty twenty six, and they
show that the economy grew two point one percent. That's
pretty weak.
Speaker 2: That is not.
Speaker 1: Two point one percent growth is not enough to create jobs.
Let me put it that way. It's kind of the
standard economic line that they draw is three percent or more. So, again,
the first quarter of this year, growth of two point
one percent pretty weak. Now we're looking at the second quarter.
We're getting the numbers from April, May and June, and
we're showing that that number dropped even slower. We had
a growth rate of one point five percent. That's still no,
we're not in a recession, but we're down getting close
to the point where you can't really tell the difference.
So one point five percent is the growth that we've
had in the second quarter of the year. That's not
much to write home about. That's for sure. Spending money.
Elon Musk has said that he's going to open up
his wallet and spend some money on Republicans in the
campaigns that are going on right now for the midterms.
He says his budget will be between one hundred and
one hundred and twenty million dollars. He's committed that amount
of money. He wants to mobilize conservative low propensity voters.
You conservatives that rarely turn out. You're a big conservative,
but you just don't get off the couch to go vote,
especially during non presidential election years. So he's going to
try to get you moving and get you to vote somehow.
The way he's going to do it, He's going to
fund heavy door to door canvassing, digital ads, and direct
mail campaigns. He is focusing on Senate and House races
in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio. He's also as
secondary list of North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Federal Election
Commission shows that he previously gave five million dollars each
to the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund.
So Elon has his wallet open for the Republicans. Okay,
let's get to let's get to the war. By the
by the way, I got an email from Eaglestorm. He says,
I know I'm not a producer, but let me know
when the Iran Marathon is over. I sent him a note,
I says, geez, Eaglestorm, I've been putting iron at the
end of the podcast and not even leading with it lately.
But he's he always likes to be a producer, and
now he's saying, I know I'm not a producer, Eagle Storm.
I always appreciate your emails. Oh by the way, in
a fan also sent me an email and said said,
I wouldn't go to sleep on the Democrat Socialist. I
know there's a lot of people just poop pooing the
Democrat Socialists, But as I observe this, what's most interesting
to me are all the naysayers, many from the Democrat Party.
But you know what a lot of this reminds me of.
I'll give you a second to think about it. This
reminds me of when Donald Trump ran for president in
twenty sixteen. Never remember, everybody said he the crazy, outlandish
things that he says, and people didn't know what to
make of it. I remember he says, people were saying
he doesn't have a chance. But what I remember most
were the people, the leaders of the Republican Party seeing
him as a joke and dismissing him, and more or more,
he just kept gathering steam. But I guess my point
is that at the time, the little guy felt like
they were getting screwed, and Donald Trump was the only
one that seemed to be listening to them and talking
about things they were interested in. So a lot of
people were willing to overlook a lot of his serious
flaws and give him a chance. I think I think
a great deal of this is going on now with
the Democrat socialists. Now, over time, as people learn more
about them, they may reject them, but right now they
are gathering steam because they were talking about things that
other politicians are ignoring, jobs, living wage, housing, childcare, that
appeals to the little guy. And there may be people
that are so fed up they are willing to give
them a chance the way they gave Donald Trump a chance. Well,
in a fan guess what CNN's out with there, But
we gave you the big rundown on the Fox pole
last week. And it's a lot of things that are
interesting in this poll. But what I found interesting out
of all of it was they asked the question about
who do you think would be better? Democrats are Republicans,
and they're both tied just one point apart from each
other on basically, we don't like either one of them,
and that's Democrats, Republicans and independents. So more than half
of Americans say the country's best days are already behind us.
Disengaged voters are the key to winning future elections. As
far as approval goes, Donald Trump's down to thirty seven percent,
sixty one percent disapprove. But I think the bottom line
here is there that's just all nice about who do
you like better? Democrats? It doesn't you put the labels
on them. Never really works. You've got to put a
name on it. But right now they are saying Democrats
and Republicans, we don't like either one of them, according
to the latest CNN polls. Just for you, Eaglestorm, here's
the war update. Brett McGirk always an interesting cat, and
he was asked about this latest round of going back
and forth at each other.
Speaker 13: Kate, I think we've learned a few things really for
the last month, but this week just reinforces it that Iran,
whoever's in charge in Iran and I assume it's the
Revolutionary Guards Akmed Fahiti, who's a new leader of the Guards.
They do not want to deal with the United States
unless it is entirely on their terms.
Speaker 2: So what happened.
Speaker 13: We had the MoU a month ago. Iran honestly got
massive sanctions relief, even beyond what was in the Obama
era JCPOA, and they didn't like how some things were going,
and they attacked two commercial ships and that kicked off
a new round of fighting. Earlier this week, when I
was on with you Kate on Monday morning, we were
talking about a tactical pause because both sides said, let's
stop the strike, see if diplomacy can move. There's talks
going on in Oman. And what did Iran do. They
launched a missile at a US facility in Jordan, a
missile attack, and now we have these attacks in Egypt.
That tells me that the Iranians who are in charge
and have the power, they don't want to deal less
solely on their terms. It reminds me of a hostage negotiation.
I've done hostage negotiations with Iran before, and the dynamic
there is basically they say we have what you want
we have what is valuable to you, and if you
want it back, you have to meet our price. That's
what makes a hostage negotiations so pernicious and so difficult.
And they are treating the straight of her moves as
the hostage. So basically they're saying what the price is,
and they're telling President Trump, you meet it or this
is just going to continue. And that means we have
three very difficult options. One is you can concede to
Iran's terms and basically concede sovereignty over the straight of
her moves. I don't see the United States doing that.
I don't see President Trump doing that. Second, you can
just endure a kind of low level every now and
then there's tit for tat strikes, you try to have
back channel talks, you keep the blockade in place. That's
going to increase pressure on Iran but also pressure on
the global economy. Or you can escalate, and I think
Sentcom is presenting options that would have a kind of
a new set of targets presumably that would escalate the
war put more pressure on Iran to try to get
them back to the negotiating table with reasonable terms. But
Iran has cards there too, as they're showing they can
respond asymmetrically. That's what the Egypt strikes are about, and
that's what the strikes against Saudi Arabia, which also happened,
are about.
Speaker 1: So three options. The third one he seems to be
leaning towards, which is military. Tom Cotton, also the head
of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, feels the same way.
Speaker 5: Of course, they are everyone in Iran. Iran's government is
a revolutionary terrorist fanatic. They may play this game where
the English speaking diplomats who wear suits say that they
had no idea and they're sorry that they rogue factions
killed Americans, but it's all one single government and Iran.
The President was right to strike back against Iran. I
think we need to continue to hit them hard. We
need to keep the embargo in place, which is devastating
their economy. We need to keep the straight open to
keep costs down for our Kansas and all Americans. But
I'm always been very skeptical that we'll find anyone in
Ran that wants a deal and has the power to
make a deal.
Speaker 1: Well, you heard Senator Cotton talking about the fact that
they apologize. Here's the president who said what but what
but but they apologized here he is.
Speaker 2: They already apologized, But you know, we got to smack
them a little bit.
Speaker 1: I mean, the first to get back when they strike.
Speaker 2: Well, I always hit back pretty much.
Speaker 1: Again, I'm listening for and I don't hear it the
warrior men mentality. It will smack him a little bit.
And yesterday he said, well, it's our turn, as if
this is some sort of game, and now it's our
turn to go to bad. He was also asked about
the fact he says, hey, by the way, Reuters and
others are reporting that China is supplying four hundred missile
launchers to Iran China, and the President said, I would
be very disappointed if China is doing that, because I
talked to President She and he said that it gave
me strong assurances that he would not get involved. So
she's coming to Washington in September. But the President doesn't
believe what Russia's doing. He said, I'm going to ask
Putin about it. Now. They point out that China is
involved in providing missile launchers, and President says, I'd be
very disappointed. I'm struck by the naivete of the president
when it comes to making war. In addition to talking
about run and over there, there have been apparently a
number of water companies in Minnesota that have been hit
with cyber attacks. Their water systems have been attacked and
been shut down. Obviously they're scrambling to get them back
up again. But again, Iran is bringing their cyber attacks
to Minnesota. They're starting there. You might see something like
that near you soon. Meantime, Wall Street, of which was
decimated yesterday dan well over a thousand points, decided today
that they overdid it. So back up we went. Not
a thousand, but we went up six hundred and thirteen
points on the Dow to fifty two thousand and two
to oh eight, the S and P up one hundred
and twenty one, the Nasdaq up six hundred and seventy nine,
So everybody's feeling good today. Gold even went up huge,
up one hundred and twenty six dollars to four thousand
and one sixty two, and oil down fifty cents. It's
at eighty four dollars for one barrel of West Texas
intermediate crude. So that's it for today. Thank you for
coming by. We will be back tomorrow, I hope to
see you there,