Speaker 1: And welcome to the Big Podcast.
Speaker 2: It is Monday.
Speaker 1: Today is the twenty second day of September, Year of
Our Lord, twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan.
So oh a programming note. I am going to be
out in California on business for the next couple of days.
So yeah, we'll tell I'll be back on Friday. So
it's a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday no podcast, but I'll be
back on Friday. We'll pick it up from where we
left off. But in any case, let's start. Gosh, we've
got a lot today. We've got a new one hundred
thousand dollars for an H one B visa. We've got
the big announcement coming out. It's going to come out
after we record this podcast today about autism. Hopefully they
have found what the problem is so they can solve it.
Kamala Harris is getting more publicity now than she ever
got before on her new book that's dropping this week
and the big ceremony in Glendale, Arizona yesterday for Charlie Kirk.
We'll touch on that as well, But let me start
with the H one B visa. I have over the
years taken calls it hasn't been of late. I'm going
I'm going to go back maybe ten to fifteen years ago.
I had a lot of people calling whenever we would
bring up anything about the H one B visas, which
are well, they have a they were they were signed
into law by George hw Bush. So that goes back
what eighty eight to ninety two somewhere around in there,
where the tech sector was kind of coming alive. It
was a new thing, and they had people coming in
from other parts of the world. So they came up
with this visa and it currently, if you want to
get an H one B visa, a company needs to
spend the fees range and I don't know why, but
there's anywhere from two to five thousand dollars for an
H one B visa. They are put into a lottery
and companies then can put their name in for the
lottery and it's gone in minutes. So it's a lot
of people want to hire people from other parts of
the world. A lot of people from other parts of
the world want to get a job here. But I
have taken calls and numerous calls, especially from people in
the tech sector, that have said it's unfair I'm being
forced to train my replacement, and I'm losing my job.
And this replacement is coming in from overseas, and they
are going to work for a lot cheaper rate than
what they pay me. So the companies were accused of
getting people from overseas because of the fact they could
get them for cheap. The question now becomes is that
still the case. Amazon, Meta Apple are some of the
top companies that have h one BVSA people working for them.
But there's two sides to this story. One of them
is that we have done such a lousy job with
our education system in this country that we are training people,
giving them an education that doesn't allow many of them
to even qualify to be in some of these high
tech jobs. That's what it mostly is, high tech. So
the old calls, which again I haven't had the last
few years, but the old calls were there, they're basically
getting them for cheap, And now the companies are saying,
we can't. We've hired everybody we can hire that has
the qualifications in the US. We have to go around
the world to find the people that are qualified to
fill these slots. So let's start off with Jacinda Ardern
she was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I
thought it was interesting because she's talking about Yeah, New
Zealand's a small country, so of course they had to
import their talent.
Speaker 3: Look, you're right, I led a nation, albeit a small one,
but one that knows and understands well that certainly, for
New Zealand to thrive, we did rely on skilled migrants
and in our country. And you know, one of the
lessons for us certainly was when you have a skills
gap that you need to fill, where you don't have
the skills you need within your population base, we would
try and make that pathway smooth and as easy as possible.
So anyone out there who's a nurse looking for a
new lifestyle, I encourage you to look at New Zealand
because that's just one of the many areas where we're
constantly trying to check the best and brightest. And I'll
be honest in the United States has always been known
for that as well.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I get it. New Zealand, to a small country,
they had to didn't have the skills that they needed
for all of the high tech occupations that they had
in New Zealand, so they imported it, and the word
migrant right now is kind of a dirty word, even
though we allow one million in every year as new
citizens legally. But as far as skill sets do we
not have? That's the question. Do we not have the
skill sets for these high tech jobs here in the
United States? And if not, why not? Is it our
education system or do we have plenty of educated science, technology, engineering, mathematics, stem.
Are we doing a good enough job? I know we
have education for that for those areas, but are we
producing enough. China is producing engineers something like at the
rate of ten engineering graduates to R one, and that's
the question. If we bring him in here, well, will
it be secure. Howard Lutnik, the Commerce Secretary, he's all
in favor of this one hundred thousand dollars new h
one B visa that has been proposed that if you
want to come to this country, you got a company
has to pay one hundred thousand dollars in addition to
what they're paying your salary. Here's Howard Lutnik.
Speaker 4: They're one hundred thousand dollars per year. So the whole
idea is no more of these big tech companies or
other big companies train foreign workers. They have to pay
the government one hundred thousand dollars, then they have to
pay the employee. So it's just not economic. If you're
going to train somebody, you're going to train one of
the recent graduates from one of the great universities across
our land. Train Americans. Stop bringing in people to take
our jobs. That's the policy here. One hundred thousand dollars
a year for h one B visas. And all of
the big companies are on board. We've spoken to them
about the Gold Card loves. They love it, they really
love it.
Speaker 5: They need it.
Speaker 4: Renewals first times, the company needs to decide do they
want Is that person valuable enough to have one hundred
thousand dollars a year payment to the government, or they
should head home and they should go higher an American.
The whole idea it's annual and it's for total. It
can be a total of six years, so one hundred
thousand dollars a year. So either the person is very
valuable to the company and America, or they're going to
depart and the company's going to hire an American. And
that's the point of immigration. Hire Americans and make sure
that people coming in are the top top people. Stop
the nonsense of letting people just come into this country
on these visas that we're given away for free. President
is crystal clear, valuable people only for America. Stop the nonsense.
Speaker 1: So I don't know the answer. If any of you
are involved in in hiring for high tech engineers for
tech companies in this country, I would love to get
an email or a phone call from you phone numbers
eight five five two nine five sixty six hundred eight
eighty five five two nine five sixty six hundred emails
on my website at Tom Sullivan dot com. If there's
a shortage we can't hire enough to fill the engineering
slots in high tech companies, then I would well listen
to Kevin O'Leary. Kevin O'Leary has a completely opposite view
of how to handle the the the high tech people
that we need in this country.
Speaker 5: Now here's the problem with this whole thing.
Speaker 6: We don't train enough engineers in this country. China is
kicking our ass in the space design engineers, electronic engineers, coders.
This policy is not great for innovation and so my
operating companies we can afford this.
Speaker 5: It's an added cost.
Speaker 6: But if you're a startup, as Apple was, as Oracle was,
as Google wasn't in a garage you and you're trying
to get engineers right now, particularly in AI, we hire.
Speaker 5: We've hired every frigging engineer in the country already.
Speaker 6: They all have jobs, and that's why we have to
bring them from other countries. My attitude is, and what
made America great in the first place was immigration policy
was to bring the best and the brightest here. They
got married to raised families, They created companies, They created
millions of jobs. I mean, think about what Apple did,
Think about what Google did, Think about what Oraple did.
They were startups. They couldn't afford one hundred grand an engineer.
This policy should be fine tuned for the areas where
it's applicable, not to scare away tech guys from coming
into this country. We're competing with the Chinese, We're competing
with the Indians. Now those people are going to stay
in those countries. My attitude is, if you can get
an India or Chinese, a Pakistani engineer over here, get
them an MIT, get them in any college, and then
they prove and you do a background check that they
want to stay here. Give them a passport, give their
families a passport, Let them create a job in America.
Give them one hundred grand. Reverse this whole thing. Pay
them to come here and stay here. This is going
to push away innovation long term.
Speaker 5: Don't love.
Speaker 6: I'm gonna read all the policy this one I don't like.
This one is going to hurt innovation in America.
Speaker 1: So you get his idea. He's going, look at the
smartest and the brightest in the world. We should we
should figure out a way to get them here and
let them set up their home here, get married here,
have children here, contribute to their communities, but contribute to
our tech revolution. And what it does is it keeps
them from contributing to another nation's tech revolution. So if
they're the best, in the brightest, you can have it.
You can put it into a contract where if they
don't stay a certain number of years, you can claw
the money back. There's all kinds of different ways. But
what I don't know is do we have a shortage
or not. Are high tech companies trying to go cheap
or are they truly hurting for more high tech engineers
that they can't find because of our lousy education system
in this country. If you know the answer, send me
an email or give me a call. Beyond tech, Let's
look at the latest Harry Inton poll. He's an interesting cat.
He is taking a look at whether or who do
you trust in the political world. Do you trust the
Democrats or do you trust the Republicans. President Trump's approval
ratings have been dropping, I mean quite a bit. But
how are the Republicans doing as a whole versus the Democrats.
Listen to what Harry Inton has to say? Yo, what
are we seeing?
Speaker 5: You know, Donald Trump being underwater Democrats and all this
guarantees us we're gonna fly high in the midterms. Let
me tell you this guarantees you nothing. Nothing because at
this particular point, that Democrats are the New Orleans Saints
and political parties. What are we talking about? Trust the
Dens or GOP?
Speaker 7: More?
Speaker 5: On the economy? Who leads on the economy? Republicans by
seven Immigration, Republicans by thirteen? How about crime? A big
issue for Donald Trump? And the Republicans? Look at that
lead by twenty two points. So the bottom line is this,
at this particular point, the ball may be on the ground,
but the Democrats have not picked up the ball. I'm
running with it. If anything, at this particular point, it's
the Republicans who are running with the ball on the
top issues the economy, immigration, and crime. Yeah, let's compare
it back to twenty twenty two. I think this kind
of gives away the game right here. Okay, the GOP
is more trusted than the Dems. On the economy, it
was twelve points in twenty twenty two, slight slight decline
in that lead, but still seven points. Have an immigration,
it was Republicans by three back in twenty twenty two.
Look at this, the Republican lead's actually gone up by
ten points. What are you doing, Democrats? My goodness, gracious.
And on crime, the Republicans are up by thirteen and
now they're up by twenty two, the lead again expanding
by nearly double ditches. So whatever Democrats are doing, it
ain't working, Kate, it ain't working. Republicans have the lead
on all three yearas.
Speaker 8: What's the reason that you were finding so far that's
driving them?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, look, it's all about the center of
the electorate, right, you win within the dependance, you win overall.
And what do we see right here among independents Republicans
still have a point lead on the economy. They got
a ten point lead on immigration, they got a twenty
one point lead on crime. The bottom line is, when
you look at these numbers, Democrats should call their offices
because at this particular point, even if Republicans, even if
the public doesn't like Madonald Trump is doing, they ain't
necessarily liking what Democrats are doing. And it ain't just
a referendum on one party. You actually have to go
out and beat that party. At this particular point, Democrats
are not able to beat Republicans. They these are numbers
from September of twenty twenty five. We still find that
the Republicans leading on all three of these issues, and
of course this economy will be the key. If Democrats
are going to win, they're going to have to likely
win on the economy. At this particular point, among independence,
you see that one point lead for Republicans, and overall,
at least according to the Washington Post, they held a
seven point lead on the economy overall as well.
Speaker 1: So even if the president's approval ratings are down, publican
party is not. And I'm not sure if it's because
the Republicans are doing a great job, or whether it
is the Democrats are doing such a terrible job, but
the Republicans are way ahead as a group. By the way,
we are just getting word that Jimmy Kimmel. Disney has
announced that Jimmy Kimmel is going to be back on
the air tomorrow night, Tuesday, the twenty third, So I
guess the indefinite suspension last what was he off Thursday
night and Friday night tonight and then he'll be back
on tomorrow. That doesn't sound like an indefinite suspension, by
the way. We'll see how that works out because again
his ratings. I looked at the ratings. His ratings are terrible.
They're absolutely terrible. He's the worst of the late night shows. So, okay, ABC,
this is becoming a political football. It's not based on
solid television management where you take a show and you
put it on because it's got good ratings, or you
take it off because it doesn't. So Kimmel apparently is
going to be back on, and I don't know, maybe
this is ABC standing up or Disney standing up to
the White House. Especially Brendan Carr, the head of the FCC,
speaking of that, there was I think it was Friday.
They there was a shooting at the ABC affiliate in Sacramento.
Some car drove by and fired three bullets into the
windows that make up the lobby, and there were people
in the lobby. Thankfully, nobody got hurt. So that night
the Sacramento police arrested they'd found the guy, arrested him,
booked him, and the next morning he was out on bail. Yeah,
he poked a bail. He was out on the street.
The guy who was had just shot indiscriminately into a
lobby of a television station. So I don't know who
came up with this, but the FBI swooped in and
arrested the guy three hours after he got out on
bail and arrested him on federal charges involving telecommunications interference,
some sort of reach of the federal law. But though
he's locked up and he's not out on bail at
least the last that I checked. But it goes again,
it's California. They let dangerous people out on bail. Well,
he had to pay some bail. It wasn't cashless, but
the idea that they let him out, so good for
the FBI. Thank you Feds for jumping in on that
and speaking of later, a big, big announcement coming later
today after we're done with the taping of this program
about autism, and the hint is that they have found
the link to autism. It's I think it's dangerous to
say that you found the link unless you really have.
And apparently the doctors are very much in disagreement over
all of this. So what are we supposed to do
that we're not medical professionals, and the medical professionals are
disagreeing in all of this. Meg Carrell does medical reporting.
She's always very straightforward, very good on her facts. Let's
listen to what she has to say about it.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Sarah, So what we're expecting, and this is sort
of came out a couple of weeks ago and then
was reiterated in reports yesterday, is that the Trump administration
may warn against using Thailand all during pregnancy, except perhaps
in the case of very high fever because of a
potential link to autism. They also may talk about an
improved drug called luc o Warren as a potential treatment
for children with autism. We note that the Department of
Health and Human Services has called any of these reports
speculative until they make this announcement. But this has also
been an issue that has been studied for more than
a decade, and we should know. Tailanol also is very
widely used during pregnancy. More than half of pregnant women
worldwide have reported using thailanol during pregnancy, so this is
a widely used drug, and there's a lot of concern,
not just as you pointed out, the idea that linking
this as an answer to autism definitively could be reckless
according to the ACOG president, but also that this will
strike fear in pregnant women and perhaps stop them from
using an important medication when there aren't a lot of
other options, and fever during pregnancy can be dangerous.
Speaker 3: So from the reports.
Speaker 9: We've seen, it does not appear that this is necessarily
based on any new research. There have been many studies
about this over the last decade or so, including one
analysis of previous studies that just came out about a
month ago that looked about at forty six studies of
the use of tailan al during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders,
and essentially that analysis concluded that there is evidence consistent
with an association between exposure to a seat of minifit
during pregnancy and offspring with neurodevelopmental disorders including autism, spectrum
disorder and ADHD. But they said observational limitations preclude definitive causation. So,
as you were talking about with the ACOG president, somebody
could get a fever during pregnancy or have pain during pregnancy,
use tailanl to treat that pain, subsequently have a baby
who later is diagnosed with autism. Does that mean that
the tailanyl caused the autism or whatever caused the fever,
or perhaps the pain was related to the autism diagnosis.
So these questions are as yet unanswered. We should also
note that the maker of tilanol is disputing any link
between these two things.
Speaker 1: So let's go to the doctor and the house doctor
Scott got Lab, former FDA commissioner, and see what he
says about it.
Speaker 10: Well, this has been extensively study. There was a study
in job in twenty twenty four with two point four
eight million siblings showed no correlation. There's been some smallest
studies suggesting that they could be a correlation, again for
worthy of further study, but there is no clear evidence
that it causes autism.
Speaker 5: For women who take it during pregnancy.
Speaker 1: Okay, so he says there's no clear answer yet. Doctor
Peter Hotez does immunology in vaccines out of Texas and
this is his take on it.
Speaker 11: Well, first of all, we have with the Press secretary
saying go in with an open mind. So the hope
is that there's not going to double down about to
see the minifit and tile and all or full inic acid.
We know there's about one hundred genes involved in autism.
Autism has a genetic basis. We did hold genomic sequencing
on my daughter Rachel and my wife Anna, and I
found Rachel's autism gene there involved in early fetal brain development.
These are events that happen on early in pregnancy, and
so it doesn't mean that there's no environmental effects. But
I think most of the so called rise in autism
is due to how we've dramatically changed our Diego gnostic
criteria over the years. We don't longer call it autism.
We call it autism spectrum disorder, and we've been so
much more inclusive. And by the way, it's about to
go up again because we're getting better at diagnosing autism
and girls and women. Now, there is a potential environmental
link to this, but it's all due to exposure early
fetal brain development early out of pregnancy. The best known
example is if you're pregnant and not aware of it
in taking an anti seizure medicine called depicote also known
as valproic acid. It interacts with autism genes and has
been shown to give rise within firing increased frequency to
an autism phenotype. That one looks pretty strong, although it's
fairly rare. The acetam in if intil and all connection
is much weaker. From what I can see. There was
a very large study of two million children and adults
done in Sweden by the renowned Kralinsk Institute last year,
published in twenty twenty four showing absolutely no link between
a seed of minifin and the paper that the White
House has been citing. A systematic reviews shows some studies
show a possible link, others don't. So I don't really
quite understand what they're looking at while they're doubling down
on a set of minifin, and I'm hoping that they
backpedal from that somewhere.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The maker of Tailer and All, which the main
ingredient is a set of intemen. They're saying there's nothing wrong,
but her doctor hotests say there's one hundred different genes
that are somehow involved in autism. So obviously the sorting
and figuring that all out. But in the meantime, Wall
Street's reacting negatively to the company that makes Tyler All
because there's going to be a lot of pregnant women
that are going to try to skip taking Tiler and
All even though they say they can't really they can't
call there's no causation. There's a link, but no causation. Well,
I can imagine a lot of pregnant ladies are just
going to say, I'm not going to buy it. Meantime,
I'm sure kylan All will do just fine with other
aches and paigns, but for pregnant women, that's what they're
trying to look at and try to create some causation.
It sounds much more complicated to me as a layman
than just one product. And Kamala Harris has got the
new book that she's coming one hundred and seven days.
It's the length of her campaign, shortest presidential campaign ever,
and the book is coming out this week. And she's
getting more publicity of this book then she got when
she was running for president. A bunch of Democrats are
all upset about all of this. Let's start with Governor
Shapiro out of Pennsylvania, who looked like he was going
to be her pick to be her vice presidential running mate,
and then she switched to Tim Walls. Here's Governor Shapiro.
Speaker 12: I haven't read the former vice president's book, and she's
going to have to. She's going to have to answer
to how she was in the room and yet never
said anything publicly.
Speaker 1: Well, he wasn't being too critical, but she's burning bridges
with Democrats, and the Democrats are furious. Mark penn longtime
Democrat strategist and polster, he shaking his head over it.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I wouldn't expect one hundred thousand people at this
book to her. Look, she had an incredible opportunity that
no one ever gets, which is to run as a
Democratic standard bearer without a primary, with a billion, billion
and a half dollars behind you, and she should have
been internally grateful for that opportunity and looking forward to
where America should go next. So look, I didn't find
the things that she said, particularly a caustic I mean
they were realistic some of the things. You know, some
people's other rivals really didn't like that she got no
primary and didn't support her at first, and Joe Biden
did make a decision here that was wrong. So I
agree with Excera, there's no political strategy here. I think
she's sort of trying to tell some of it like
it is. But maybe that wasn't really the best idea
if she wanted to continue to have a well, look,
I think she thinks she's got a base in California.
Maybe she'll be able to maneuver and build off that
base and build herself back there. I think the idea
that she'd go into a national campaign, you know, we'll
run again for president or have that opportunity, I don't
think that's anywhere in the court. So realistically, what's her
point or what's her game. It's either something in California
or you know, next administration getting a you know, does
she want to go in after vice president? So I
don't think she has yet a clear strategy. It doesn't
It doesn't surprise me. But also, you had a lot
of prickly Democrats here who never really liked that she
got the chance on the first play.
Speaker 1: So if Kamala Harra doesn't have a future in the
Democrat Party, what about AOC. She's making noises about either
running for the Senate or for president.
Speaker 13: Well, look, if anybody bothers to read the Democratic Socialist
website and the various things that they stand for, I mean,
between the appropriation and property, the legalization of drugs, prostitution,
I mean, you know, it's an incredible set of policies
here behind the smiles of AOC, you know, and the
mayoral candidate. Look at AOC. She has a really strong
gen Z audience. She certainly accumulated a lot of power
within the Democratic Party, you know, does that go anywhere?
The question is, is a Democratic Party going to go
back to nineteen seventy two and eighty four where they
reduce themselves to one state or are they going to
come in here and save the party from becoming a
Democratic socialist party. That's the big question.
Speaker 1: So I'm putting that on my reading list to look
up the Democrat Socialist website and see what their party
is all about, what they're for, what they're against. Nobody's
done that. The only one that anybody had even heard
was a Democrat, socialist was Bernie Sanders, but now AOC
and this guy running for mayor of New York. So
maybe we ought to go check are they what are
they for? Stephen A. Smith, the sports guy, even he's
weighed on Kamala Harris and what she's doing with her book.
Speaker 14: Who cares what she has to say at this particular moment,
the time when you had an opportunity, as the Democratic
nominee for the presidency of the United States of America
to address so many different issues, and instead what you
did was go into protective mode. You wanted to show
your loyalty or what have you, and then you lose
the election. I don't think that she's going to have
any support from the Democratic Party. I can tell you
that much.
Speaker 1: All right, So let's go to a Democrat strategist, Al Motore.
It's been a long time Democrat guy running campaigns. This
is his take on Kamala's book and what she's doing.
Speaker 15: I'm not sure what she's doing here other than perhaps
making some money with a book. There's not much credibility
in the pages, as I've seen the expert excerpts, and
as Stephen A. Smith points out when you tell the
American people in June of twenty twenty four that President
Biden is just fine, and then in an interview when
you're the nominee, you tell the American people that you
wouldn't have done a single thing differently, but then you
print a book months later that says we were all
reckless and we should have done something differently on the
number one issue, which was whether the president could function.
Speaker 12: That's not credible.
Speaker 15: I mean, you can't run for president and tell voters
don't worry, everything is going to be fine. Prices will
eventually come down because what we did is going to
work eventually. When people are struggling with affordability issues, that's
not a winning issue. And let's not forget that. In
my party, President Obama was named the deporter in chief
and all of a sudden, we lost an interest in
stifling imtegration. So it's again, we didn't have credibility then,
and until we have a better message, we're not going
to have credibility now.
Speaker 1: I've got a lot of Kevin Oldory for some reason.
Today he was doing a lot of interviews and he's
got the classic businessman take on Kamala Harris's book.
Speaker 6: Let's talk about the business of launching a book. If
you want to get a hit, you need to sell
a minimum of twenty five thousand copies to get that
coveted slot New York Times Nonfiction number one. Okay, what
we're doing right now is practically guaranteeing she's going to
get that. She's brilliant with this strategy of getting on
the news hours before the book drops. If you're the publisher,
you're loving this now. A lot of these books are
purchased as gifts, a lot of them are purchaser never read.
Speaker 5: But it doesn't matter. You want to drop a book.
Speaker 6: You want controversy, you want argument, you want people saying,
what's in this book that's causing all this kafuffle. I'm
going to go buy one, and that's exactly what's going
on here. And I got to hand it to her.
You know, political books about previous elections, boringo, but not
this one. This one is is absolutely nailing it from
the publisher's point of view. And I've published a few
books in my time, I wish I could have this
kind of controversy.
Speaker 1: And finally, over the weekend yesterday to be precise was
the memorial service for Charlie Kirk at Glendale, Arizona, and
I thought it was some interesting observations that came out
of it from Trey Goudi and Pam Bondi. Let's start
with Trey and how he thinks the local prosecutors in
Utah are handling the case to date.
Speaker 2: Well, he's trying to do three things, at least three
things here. Number One, death is different, though, I mean,
you have to be meticulous, if not perfect, in a
capital case. So every conceivable question that a jury may
have Cash and the prosecutors are now trying to answer.
I mean everything in a death penalty case is different.
The standard of proof may be the same, but in reality,
if you're going to put someone to death, the case
needs to be per The second thing he's trying to
do is even I I think I'm a rational person,
I struggle with whether or not anyone knew that he
was planning on doing this before he did it. So
Cash is also investigating people who may have aided and
embedded or accomplices. And the third thing he's trying to do,
which I don't think he's going to be able to,
is tap down the conspiracies that are out there. Almost
every major assassination we've had in our history, Bill, there's
still someone out there who thinks some conspiracy. I mean,
in fact, there are people who think the Earth is flat.
So he's going to have a hard time convincing everyone
that this investigation was fulsome but that's what he's trying
to do.
Speaker 1: What is referring to is cash. Pttel, the FBI director,
put out some tweets earlier today saying we are meticulously
investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the
shot was taken, the possibility of accomplices, the text message
confession and related conversations, discord chats, the angle of the
shot and bullet impact, how the weapon was transported, hand
gestures observed as possible signals near Charlie at the time
of his assassination, and visitors to the alleged shooter's residence
in the hours and days leading up to September tenth,
twenty twenty five. Yeah, a lot of people have been
investigating after Charlie was shot, and the question is what
was going on beforehand? And yeah, there are already I've
seen the conspiracies about there was somebody behind him, one
of his security team that moved his arm, and somebody
said that was a signal. So, and Trey's right, there
will always be conspiracies whenever you have something like a
political assassination. Pam Bondi was asked about it as well.
Speaker 8: So are US attorney in Utah is working hand in
hand with the district attorney out there. The district attorney
has indicted for first degree murder and other charges. They
are seeking the death penalty, and the firing squad is
still on the table in the state of Utah, among
other things. So it's indicted in the state and we're
working hand in hand to decide when and if we
will indict federally as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean what Pam's point is, this is a
state murder investigation. It is a Utah murder investigation. The
FBI is assisting like they do in lots of other jurisdictions,
but ultimately it'll be a Utah state prosecutor standing in
front of a Utah jerry what she means. Look, there
are examples like Dylan Roof where the FEDS did take
over the case and they're the ones that put him
on death row. But the jurisdiction for murder almost always
lies in state court, which is why the FBI and
the US Attorney are helping that they're not the lead agency.
Speaker 1: I know I'm getting ahead of myself, but don't you
find there's a bunch of karma involved here if this
guy is convicted and sentenced to death by the firing squad,
just saying I think the moment. It was a long
service in Glendale yesterday. I think it was almost five
hours long. But the one part that if you missed it,
that I want to play for you is Erica Kirk,
the widow, as she got up and gave a very
moving speech, of course in tears. But here's the money quote.
Speaker 2: Of the day.
Speaker 16: On the Cross, our saviors said, Father, forgive them for
they not know what they do.
Speaker 7: That man, that young man, I forgive him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very powerful and so you can't help it. Stop
and think if somebody killed your loved one, could you
forgive that person? And from a religious standpoint, and that
is what Jesus said on the Cross, they know not
what they do. I forgive them something to that effect,
depending upon your Bible verse. But that doesn't absolve the
state holding the shooter responsible, and so she may forgive
the shooter in her heart, in her religious thoughts, but
the state of Arizona is well. He gets a trial
and they'll be up to the jury to decide whether
they forgive him or not. All right, Like I said,
we've got a programming note. I'll be gone Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.
I'm out on the West coast giving a speech out
there Wednesday, looking forward to it. So i'll be back.
I've got travel Day Tuesday, the travel Day on Thursday,
and be back with you guys and gals on Friday.
In the meantime, here's what Wall Street did today. Actually
not much, but the daw was positive. All overall, market
was positive, especially gold. Let's start with the Dow where
we always do. The Dow up sixty six points to
forty six thousand and three eighty one, SMP up twenty nine,
nazdack up one hundred and fifty seven. The price of
gold up seventy four dollars today to thirty seven point eighty.
The only thing with the red arrow was the price
of oil, and it was only down about four cents
to sixty two dollars and some change for a barrel
of oil. Thank you for coming by today. We'll be
back on Friday. I hope to see you then