Speaker 1: And hello, bye, how are you welcome? Welcome, Welcome to
the Big Podcast. On this maybe I was tumbling around it.
It's Friday, the thirteenth, thirteenth day of February, Year of
Our Lord, two thousand and twenty sixth My name is
Tom Sullivan, and we got a lot to catch up
on today.
Speaker 2: We have.
Speaker 1: Goldman Sachs, top lawyer, is caught up in the Epstein files,
and I do want to talk about it because there's
nothing that she did wrong. But anybody that has their
name in the Epstein files is apparently being ostracized. We've
got the Department of Homeland Security. They are going to
lose their funding at midnight tonight. No ICE will still
keep operating, but FEMA and the Secret Service presume they're
still going to be doing their work at the White House,
but they're not going to get paid. Same with the
TSA officers at the airport. They're not going to get paid. So,
I mean, how many times has it been where these
people have not been picked up a paycheck even though
they have to go to work every day. Coast Guard
is involved in that. They're going to keep working, so
we'll keep you know, it's going to shut down. Not
only has the has I said yesterday that the Senate
left yesterday afternoon for the long weekend because Monday is
President's Day. And what I found out was no, they're
gone for eight days. They got no, they're taking all
next week. You know, just like you and me, man,
they don't work hard. So the Senate's gone. That means
DHS is definitely going to lose their funding at midnight tonight.
And we have maybe a little hint about what's going
on with the Supreme Court and tariffs, and of course
a lot of things happening in the search for Nancy Guthrie.
Let me start there, because what has happened today, especially
this afternoon, is that they believe that they have now
identified the jacket. They know about the backpack, They've got
that down, that's that Walmart jacket a backpack.
Speaker 2: But the.
Speaker 1: Jacket the guy is wearing has apparently been identified as
well by Harvey Levin and the crowd over at TMZ.
Let me play a clip of what they broadcast earlier today.
Speaker 2: You have been pouring.
Speaker 3: Over that video that the FBI released of the man
who showed up at Nancy Guthrie's door, and obviously the
moment that these images came out, we knew that the
FBI and the Sheriff's department would be looking at every
single item that this person was wearing. We identified the
backpack early on, right, almost immediately, actually, our staff was
able to figure out this was a Walmart backpack, right.
So now we've been looking at a couple of other things,
including the jacket, and we think there's a match. Yeah,
and this match is really what's really important about this match.
The backpack was one thing because it was at Walmart
and it's actually one of their best sellers, right, So
that yeah, very common thing. But what we found about
the jacket is a bit more exclusive, definitely.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So it looks like it's this arrow hex windbreaker sold
at the company to xu, and you can see that
has a similarity with the horizontal black stripe, a similarity
color and reflectiveness.
Speaker 2: Look at the zipper, the zipper.
Speaker 5: They actually sell this this windbreaker as being reflective.
Speaker 2: They say it's reflective. You see it's reflective on the kidnapper.
Speaker 5: Also, when you look at the video, it looks like
the kidnappers has a hood on that windbreaker, right, and
there was a hood.
Speaker 2: On the Arrow as well.
Speaker 5: So it looks like this is in fact the jacket.
And we have contacted authorities who are involved in this investigation.
Speaker 4: They say they are, yeah, but this is part of
the investigation that this job har.
Speaker 2: The investigation looking at this jacket. Yep.
Speaker 5: What's interesting is that, you know, Walmart is one thing
where this backpack is sold to lots and lots of people.
Speaker 2: This is more uncommon.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we did our research here and there are two
stores in Tucson that do sell this brand. We've contacted
one who said that they don't sell it currently they're
out of stock, and then the other store has not
gotten back to us, but doesn't seems.
Speaker 3: Right If someone's buying it in the two sign area
and there's only two places to choose from, that allows
the authorities to narrow down, you know, trying to nail
the suspect here, because, as we said, once they notice
they can go back and see how many of these
were sold. They can find out when then they go
look at the cameras well.
Speaker 1: Maybe In any case, hats off to the folks over
at TMZ. They've identified this as this Arrow Hex Windbreaker
and it's only sold at two stores. So this should
help them narrow maybe get down to some names of
people that have bought this particular windbreaker. The other thing
that's going on is that they have found another tape
from a ring neighborhood doorbell system in Nancy Guthrie's neighborhood.
And there is a guy who is on up porch
very much like it's not exactly the same, but it
looks very much like Nancy's adobe style porch and where
you come in and you're covered, and the ring doorbell
picked up this person and they they're now looking at
the person that is on that ring doorbell. It's offully
hard to see. He knows there's a camera there, and
he's turning his back to make sure that he's not caught.
That was the recording of this on a neighbor's ring
doorbell was eight days prior and six miles away. But oh,
it could be just a you know, your normal neighborhood
burglar going around. The guy has a goatee and he
has a mustache, and so they're looking. They're looking at
that as well. But they've thrown this wider net out
there and they've gone out two mile radius and ask
every single person that lived in that two mile radius.
To please go back. We told you this yesterday. Please
go back and check your videos, go back to January first,
and what they're looking for not only some guy walking
onto your porch, but they're looking for a car. They
are desperate to find a vehicle because with that vehicle
you should be able to find DNA and other trace evidence.
So that's it's still it's very busy. Things are picking up,
but there's also a big stink that's growing between the
Sheriff's office, the sheriff himself, and the FBI. And this
is about a glove. Now we know yesterday they found
a glove, and then last night they were talking plural
about gloves. Now we find out that the sheriff's office
had found a glove in Nancy's home when they went
in to take him inventory what was going on in
the home, they found a glove there, and that the
accusation is is that the sheriff did not let the
FBI know this critical information and instead shipped it off
to a DNA lab in Florida rather than to the
probably the most pre eminent lab in the world, which
is the FBI lab in Quantico, Virginia. So that was
the accusation. Now we're finding out that there's many gloves.
You think of the desert, Why would you wear gloves
in the desert? But any case, they've found apparently a
number of gloves around. Let's start this with Paul Morrow.
He was at a news conference about a week ago
where the sheriff was there, and he asked a question
about where are you how are you handling the DNA.
Here's here's the Q and A, and Paul commenting, we.
Speaker 6: Found submitting the DNA for genealogical investigation relatives and major
getting a relative.
Speaker 2: So many of you are I would say the DNA
aspect of this case is being handled by the Pima
County Sheriff's Department right now. How should we get to
that point? Yes, that would be an option for the
FBI to assist.
Speaker 6: So when I asked that question an Isley, I didn't
know about the glove. But what I did know is
that the sheriff had made a statement that they had
retrieved DNA from the source that was most likely donated
by the perpetrator. He said at the time that they
were putting a rush on it and expected to get
any matches between twelve to fourteen hours. When I asked
that question, it was about three days later. So my
logic was, Okay, you didn't get a one to one
match in dakodis database. Are you submitting it for the
genealogical investigation that can get you potentially to a family member,
even a far flung family member. That takes a lot
of investigative muscle, the kind of thing that the FBI
can really knowing those nuances, I purposely asked. The FBI
agent had another word, and what I was trying to
ascertain is, clearly we were already at that point, is
the FBI doing it?
Speaker 2: And then you saw the response.
Speaker 6: The FBI agent looked a little taken aback and said,
Pima County is handling it. I assume that meant he
knew at the time the glove it was already down
in Florida. And that is a potential problem here one glove.
No only find two gloves together, right, she has one
glove in the house. I assume they can see the size,
its leather. It is something that she doesn't seem to have.
This is crucial evidence and it is a little bit
strange that the impulse was not let me, get this
immediately to Quantico, get this thing tested by CODIS, and
then if it doesn't work out, we go the more
penetrative route, which might ultimately yield the kind of results
we're hoping for.
Speaker 2: You know, here's the way it'll go.
Speaker 6: It depends on how much of a sample that they had,
and I really really hope that in Florida, and I'm
sure they're very cognizant of it. This is nothing against
the Florida lab. There is a lab that does the
IgG to kind of neeological investigation I'm talking about. There's
only a couple in the country. The main one is
an op um. It's Golden Texas. People may know that
one because it was used in Coburger and the Rachel
Morin case. So this lab in Florida tests it. I
hope they preserve enough of the sample so that the
FEDS can do what they need to do. Ultimately, you're
going to have to ping it against databases that, as
they said, will get you to a family and that's
where the real investigative work starts. The FBI can throw
their AI at it and rather than taking weeks and
weeks of chasing down family leads that may lead you nowhere,
because you don't get one person, you get a group
of people. You got to figure out which one might
be related. That's where the FBI's power, investigative technical might
is really really crucial, and that is where I hope
they're going here.
Speaker 2: The problem mains leads the following.
Speaker 6: If a relative is not in the databases, and these
are the commercial databases we've all heard of, ancestry and alities,
the problem is if they're not in it, then it's
a blind alley. And we're only a mile from the
Mexican border. If in fact this goes into that country,
and you know, it's a smaller chance that you're going
to get a hit on the kind of thing I'm
talking about.
Speaker 1: So Paul's talking about the fact that they would send
it off then to a genealogical DNA outfit.
Speaker 6: You know, here's the way it'll go. It depends on
how much of a sample that they had. And I
really really hope that in Florida, and I'm sure they're
very cognizant of it. This is nothing against the Florida Lab.
There is a lab that does the IgG the kind
of genealogical investigation I'm talking about there's only a couple
in the country. The main one is an oth um.
It's Golden Texas. People may know that one because it
was used in Coburger and the Rachel Morin case. So
this lab in Florida tests it. I hope they preserve
enough of the sample so that the FEDS can do
what they need to do. Ultimately, you're going to have
to ping it against databases that, as they said, will
get you to a family. And that's where the real
investigative work starts. The FBI can throw their AI at
it and rather than taking weeks and weeks of chasing
down family leads that may you nowhere because you don't
get one person, you get a group of people. You
got to figure out which one might be related. That's
where the FBI's power, investigative technical might is really really crucial,
and that is where I hope they're going here.
Speaker 2: The problem mains leads the following.
Speaker 6: If a relative is not in the databases, and these
are the commercial databases we've all heard of, ancestry and olities,
the problem is that they're not in it. And it's
a blind alley and we're only a mile from the
Mexican border. And if in fact this goes into that country,
you know, it's all smaller chance that you're going to
get a hit on the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: So this has created somewhat of a mess. It's not
so much that the lab in Florida can They've been
used before by the sheriff, and I'm sure they do
a fine job. But the problem you have is explained
by Darren portch Or, former lieutenant with the NYPD, about
now you have part of the DNA testing coming from Quantico, Virginia,
the FBI lab, part of it coming from the Florida
DNA facility, and the defense lawyers if they catch this
guy and he's on trial, we'll have a field day
with this.
Speaker 2: Here's Darren Borger.
Speaker 7: When I first heard the initial gun was recovered on
a glove was recovered on the side of the highway.
The first thing, I thought that this could more than
likely be a perpetrator that got rid of a glove,
as opposed to it being a landscape and employee that
actually lost some gloves while they were on the side
of the highway. The second piece, as we move forward,
we now had a glove that was recovered inside of
Nancy Guthrie's home. We had these two gloves sent to
different labs. The FBI lab is who confiscated the glove
that was found on the side of the highway and
they're doing an analysis for DNA at their lab in Quantico.
We have the sheriff that confiscated the glove inside of
Nancy's residence and sent it to a lab in Florida.
The point of contention with that would be this, if
you look to match the DNA, you're now going to
have to have two different labs communicate with one another,
which can be problematic. But when we move further away
from that, when we engage a criminal prosecution, you're going
to have a defense attorney that's going to want to
ensure that the levels are one as it relates to
DNA between both labs. And if you have something that's off,
that's when the d that's when the defense attorney is
going to look to strike it down and have both
labs and in essence not have the ability to present
this information in court.
Speaker 1: Oh you can tell this isn't going well. I mean,
if you if the if the defensive wayer gets to
throw out the DNA and you've got a grainy video.
It's already looking bad. So, uh, the sheriff has not
been talking to the media, will not do news conferences.
He's gone radio silent. But Fox picked up the phone
and called his office and got him on the phone
and asked him about the glove fiasco.
Speaker 2: We never took the glove out of that house. We
have DNA from various sources in the house that when
processed the.
Speaker 8: Scene that there was a chance to recovered d Today
that has proven to be the case that our labs
would point back to us.
Speaker 2: But we have no glove. We never had a glove
in the house. We ever soound glove on that copper.
Speaker 1: Well, now the sheriff says, we never saw a glove
in the house. So this is I went back and
looked at where the original reporting was on this, and
it was Reuters, very legitimate news service, and they're saying, yeah,
that there was a glove in the house and the
sheriff had the glove. And so at this point, I
believe who you want to believe, but it is already
a mess. I mean, bottom line is they're trying to
find Nancy gut Thrie and they're trying to find the abductor,
and this isn't helping. Harry Mangus is a data expert.
Speaker 8: Soon thirty days as it is nothing for these companies,
the Nest Googles that have a lot of these ring
they're going to keep more than that because it's not
just a matter of people paying for subscriptions. You know
a lot of people have misinformation where they believe if
you're not paying for the subscription, the companies not collecting
the data and keeping the data.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that was about the keeping of the data
off of your ring camera or your other types of
ring doorbills that they have out there. But then you
get into the problem of as Paul Morrow and others
have said earlier, was once you find out, for example,
the backpack that they know that it was a Walmart product,
but there's a seventeen Walmarts in Tucson, and who knows
how many thousands and thousands of customers have bought that
backpack because it is their best selling backpack. It's an
eleven dollars backpack. So the guy who had that backpack
on him the Granny video did not go out and
spend a fortune on his big abduction outfit, and the
backpack was full, and they're thinking it was full of
things like zip ties and rope and other things to
accomplish his abduction. But meantime, Paul Mora went back and
checked with these department with Walmart, and apparently they don't
have a standard policy of keeping. For example, if you
bought the backpack with a credit card, they will be
able to find you. But if you paid cash, they'll
know that the time and date and register where you
bought it. So then they theoretically will go get video
security video of the store and Bengal they'll find you.
But that's not necessarily the case. Here's Paul morrow Well.
Speaker 6: I would agree that right now that is the salient
thing that they're concentrating on because it did provide the
best and hardest information that they have. Right now, I
would be pulling very hard at the backpack. It's hard
to tell if it's new or not, but the fact
that it's only sold by Walmart is a significant development.
Speaker 2: Now. I looked into this a little bit and have
some contacts.
Speaker 6: The Walmart stores around the country have differing protocols for
how long they retain security footage. I mentioned that because
if a credit card was not used. If a credit
card was used, then you got a real purchase history
you can go into, and that's a great pointer. If
it was not used, you're down to video of the purchase.
The stores keep them that the images maybe thirty sixty ninety,
one hundred and twenty, it varies by store. Looks like
the outer limit is about one hundred and twenty days.
So if it is relatively new, especially if it was
bought in the Tucson area, you have a terrific piece
of evidence there where you might get a look at
his face. I'm sure that they're pulling very hard at
that now that they've identified that backpack. I think what
it comes down to really is that they don't have
any particular group of people in mind two or three
that they really are focusing on. But even if you do,
you do want to make sure that you don't get
tunnel vision. You want to pursue everything, and with these
ring and nest type cameras, the truth of the matter
is that most people don't look at them unless they
have to, even if you have a subscription. So if
you're getting that kind of footage, it's sitting in your computer,
or it's in the cloud and you can look at
it really generally in the cloud, people may not even realize.
And I go back to the Brian Coberger case where
a woman in a gas station decided, when she heard
the story about the white car to just pull up
the video from a couple of nights before, just to
see on the off chance if it had not been overwritten,
and fortuitously it had not been, and that ended up
being a key piece of evidence. So I think what
they're asking for is people go back, look on your
ring cameras if you see somebody trying to get into
your backyard, because maybe this is not the first time
this guy did something like this. He attempted it, but
this is the first time he actually got into a house.
The doors here, by the way, I should mention the
front doors in these low houses, these low adobate type
houses are like heavy oak that these big thick doors.
I don't know how he would have got in that
front door. My gut tells me he did what he
did at the front door and then went around back
because there were apparently sliding doors. So if he had
done that someplace else, you hopefully could have picked.
Speaker 1: It up, so the investigator work continues and hope they
are able to come to finding her and the culprit
as quick as possible. I told you a Department of
Homeland Security shuts down tonight at midnight because of a
lack of funding. Katie bred who is a Republican senator,
was on the floor earlier today, not happy.
Speaker 9: A TSA agent is going to go without a paycheck?
Speaker 2: Why so that you can posture politically. I'm over it.
Speaker 7: Everybody on that side of the aisle knows that ICE
and CBP will continue to be funded.
Speaker 2: They're going to continue to enforce the law just as
they should.
Speaker 1: But on the other side of the aisle, a Senator
Jan Sheneen. She is a Democrat, and she is you
can tell that she's trying to make the argument about this,
but she's doing. What she's focused on is ICE and
ICE's behavior or lack thereof. The problem with that is
ICE has been funded, So I don't It's fascinating to
watch the disconnect because Jane Chennin is absolutely focused on ICE.
But they're going to do they're funded till twenty twenty nine.
Speaker 9: Listen to what she said, Well, it's not the Democrats
it's the Republicans unwillingness to negotiate with us that's the problem.
And look, it's in their interest to address the excesses
that ICE has been showing all Americans. All you have
to do is turn on the television at night and
see the horrific pictures of masks people arresting and detaining
American citizens and putting putting them into tention centers that
have been described as concentration camps. So I don't think
that's in Republicans' interest long term to do that. They
need to come to the table. They need to work
with us to get this.
Speaker 1: Done, to get what done. They already found. The Democrats
and Republicans came to an agreement by passing the Big
Beautiful Bill last July July of twenty twenty five, and
that was for the funding for ICE. So she's going,
you need to come negotiate with us, and we need
to have you come and not we need you to
help us get this done, get what done. They've already
got it done. It was last July. What's going to
be affected is not what they have a beef about.
Their beef is about Ice. So they're going to have
to wait until they can get a new budget put
together and change the budget for ice. But they don't
have to come forward with any it's already been done.
And the Democrats were part of that whole process of
passing the Big Beauty and speaking of ice, even though
yesterday we had the hamas by Tom Holman where they
are drawing down ice back to their one hundred and
fifty standard ice personnel in the Minneapolis Saint Paul office.
So that's underway. And so now you've got Governor Waltz
coming forward and listen, he's still he's a he's just
a negative guy. Listened to him.
Speaker 10: Over the past six weeks, the state of Minnesota and
the people of this great state have endured an unprecedented
federal invasion in all aspects of life. The trauma that's
been inflicted, certainly across an immigrant community, but to every
single Minnesotan is unlike anything we've witnessed. We've said, and
that this surge of untrained, aggressive federal agents are going
to leave Minnesota.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: The thing has been done, the deal has been agreed upon.
He and Tom Holman sat down. Tom Holman yesterday said
good things about Walt about Well, he was very cooperative
and he understood and we were able to even though
we don't agree on everything, we were able to come
to a solution for this. None of that, this was
all still going off. The federal government is bad. Ice
is bad, and nothing nice about Hey, thanks for Tom
Holman to come here so we can get our community back.
I mean, I understand that ICE had some pretty bad,
pretty bad procedures, but that's under the bridge. Man. From
here on out, you try to try to mend the wounds,
don't you. Chad Wolf, former of DHS director, said this.
Speaker 11: Well, it is a draw down, but I suspect that
they'll continue to draw down as the target list of
those criminal aliens as they continue to pick up those individuals.
You know, they through the surge, they've arrested four thousand
criminal illegal aliens. So that is a significant amount of
individuals they've taken off of the streets of Minneapolis. And
so as that target list starts to shrink more and more,
you'll be able to draw down more and more of
those DHS assets there in mine app well, I think
it's you know, Tom's unique. He's got very operational experience.
So he's able to talk to those law enforcement officers
in a different way than others that DHS had, and
I think he had the obviously the support of the
President to take that operation in a different direction. But
I think it's remarkable if you know, when you hear
Tom Homan talk and he gives praise to the locals,
he's trying to de escalate it. It's very different than
when you hear the governor and the mayor continue to
talk as late as yesterday, where they continue to throw
irresponsible and dangerous rhetoric out of their mouths. And again,
that's what you're going to if you're going to continue
to see that in sanctuary cities, then they continue to
invite this k in this violence.
Speaker 1: They say they deplore yep that's true. So Jeffrey Epstein,
this is going to go on for a very long time,
and they still have a lot of files to still
go through. But the latest stink happened at Goldman Sachs.
How did Goldman Sachs get involved in this, Well, they're
the top of their legal office, the Golden Goldman Sachs
top lawyer. Her name is Katherine Rumler and she resigned
last night after her name appeared in the Epstein file
documents that have been released. No, she wasn't a victim. No,
she wasn't involved with Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes. She
is a lawyer, and at the time she was a
much younger lawyer, but she was representing him on a
number of legal matters. And of the Doctor Humans that
were released spanning several several years, there were emails from
Kathy Rummler, who referred to Jeffrey Epstein's uncle Jeffrey, and
she thanked him for a lovely and thoughtful gift and
boots and a handbag and a watch, and it went
on and on and on about how she was very
friendly with her client, which most lawyers are try to
be nice to their clients, especially if they're a big client.
So she has been praised as an extraordinary lawyer, very good.
And you don't get to be the top lawyer of
a fleet of lawyers at Goldman Sacks unless you are very,
very good. So today David Solomon, who's the head of
Goldman Sachs, was being interviewed on other things and the
question came up Andrew Ross Sorkin asked him about what's
up with the head of your law department resigning.
Speaker 12: So sure, Andrew, you know Kathy, Kathy has been for
the last six years an extraordinary general counsel with deep,
deep expertise. She is a tremendous human being. The leadership
of the firm has loved working with her and has
truly appreciated the role that she's played in the leadership
of Golden Sachs over the last six years. She called
me yesterday afternoon and told me that the you know,
the press coverage of the works that she had done
previously and of this whole situation had just gotten to
a level of noise and distraction that she thought it
was distracting the firm, it was putting her in a
position where it was hard for her to execute on
her job and her responsibilities, and she just thought it
was time to step away.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, you saw our statement and her statement.
Speaker 12: I reluctantly accepted her her resignation, but I respect her decision,
and she and the firm are looking forward.
Speaker 13: When you when you've watched all this plan, and I
think the reason I'm asking about it is because I
think there's also a lot of other leaders around the
world companies that have people who have either been named
in these files or have had you know, some kind
of contact or touch point to this Epstein situation, some
of them to think I should stand by these individuals
who are not involved in wrongdoing per se, but we're
engaged in some other way or connected to to Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: And I just was curious if you.
Speaker 13: Could just talk to us about how you've thought about it,
especially over these past couple of weeks, because as I said,
it sounds like you were standing by her and she
was the one who decided it was too much. I
don't know where the line of too much is and
how as a business leader you say to yourself there's
a line that's too much, too much, and that the distraction,
even if it's right or wrong, is too much.
Speaker 12: Well, you know, Andrew, I think one of the things
that's lost in the media coverage is, you know, John
Walder to myself as leaders of the firm, with the
rest of the broad management team, you know, we've worked
very closely with Kathy over the last six years. The
management team's worked very very closely with her. We know
her as a professional and we know her as a
human being. And I think that's lost sometimes in some
of the dialogue and some of the media.
Speaker 2: Reporting around all this.
Speaker 12: I'm disappointed that it got to this, but I respect
her decision and we're moving on.
Speaker 1: I've seen people that have had their names spread in
the news and good bad are indifferent. This woman did
nothing wrong. She was a lawyer. She represented Jeffrey Epstein
on some legal matters years before she was at Goldman Sachs.
But her name came out in the files and it
tore her a part, to the point where she thought
that her name therefore reflected poorly on Goldman Sachs. So
she resigned as the chief lawyer. I mean, that's a
cushy job for a lawyer anyway. There's a lot of
names like that that if somebody had that just did
business with. Howard Lutnik is getting all kinds of grief
because he bought a house next door to Jeffrey Epstein's
house in Manhattan, and he went over to say hi
to the neighbor and met him, and he and his
wife and his family went to Epstein. He was invited
to go to Epstein's island. He was already down there
on vacation in the Caribbean somewhere, so he his wife
and his four children went over and had lunch with
Jeffrey Epstein on Epstein Island and then went back to
continue their vacation wherever they were staying. What's wrong with that?
I mean maybe if, of course, if he knew that
he was a child lessoner, but I don't believe he did,
and he was with his wife and children. It's not
like any sort of funny business was going on. So
I guess the word Epstein now is is such a
bad omen over anybody who knew him, saw him, said
hello to him, or live next door to him. So
that's the latest on the latest victim who had nothing
to do with the criminal part out of the top
lawyer at Goldman Sachs speaking of Wall Street, Well, we
had a very turbulent week, and it's all over the
fears about AI and about who is being left in
the dust, and who has spent too much on data
centers and what kind of return on the investment are
they going to get. All of those worries about AI
led to the wild swings that we've had all week,
So I'm kind of surprised, but I'm glad to see that.
Today was kind of a well, it was a much
tamer day. And this is on a Friday, on the
cusp of a three day weekend. Yeah, the markets are
closed on Monday for President's Day. On top of that,
we got are finally delayed, but we got it. The
consumer price end for the month of January came out
today and inflation CPI two point four percent. That is lower.
That is what we want, less inflation. It was expected
to be two point five. It came in at two
point four. Stock market did not respond. There was zilch
when it came to a response. The bond market went
up a little bit, but not a lot. That wasn't
much reaction. I was looking at what made up the
two point four and I know people talk about grocery prices. Well,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, five of the
six major grocery store food groups increased in the month
of January. The thing that helped was gasoline prices went
down two and a half percent in the month of January,
natural gas up one percent, So food prices up, gas
prices down. Wall Street just shrugged and finished with the
Dow going up forty eight to forty nine thousand, five
hundred SMP up three, Nasdaq down fifty, price of gold
went up one hundred and seven dollars to five thousand
and fifty five, and oil flat unchanged just under sixty
three dollars for a barrel of oil. So that's it
for today. It's going to be a long weekend end again.
Happy Valentine's Day to everybody. On Tomorrow, Cupid comes around,
and then Monday we will be back here, even though
it is President's Day. I hope, hope you have a
wonderful Valentine's Day and we'll see you on Monday