Speaker 1: And welcome one and all. Hi, how are you welcome
to the Big Podcast on this Thursday. Today is the
twenty sixth day of February, Year of Our Lord, twenty
twenty six, so it's two twenty six, twenty six. Numerologists
love that sort of stuff, So welcome to the podcast. So,
I mean, we've got we've got a number of things
that we'll get you up to date on the Iran talks,
what's going on with Cuba. We've we've got a law
in California about releasing child molesters. I've got it. I've
got to share with you. It's out. But let's start
with the Big I don't know. The Clintons just seemed
to attract the media. Wherever they go. The media is
in trail by in spades, and so this is an
interesting lead up. This is about the Oversight Committee has
been interviewing people regarding the Epstein files, and over the
months they brought in a lot of people and have
testified some openly, some behind closed doors. I don't like
the behind closed doors idea. So on the list they said, well,
why don't we invite because Bill Clinton is definitely in
a number of pages of the Epstein files, why don't
we invite him and also Hillary, and they got invited
and they said gee, thanks, but no thanks, and then
they said, well, no, we really want you to come,
and they said no. And then you get into the
whole question about can you make a president or former
president appear before Congress? And there have been I've seen
a lot of reports today that this is the first
time ever, No, actually Abraham Lincoln testify before Congress. I
mean there's been two or three occasions, but it's not often.
And so tomorrow is the deposition with Bill Clinton. Today
I guess it's a deposition, and today is Hillary Clinton.
And what happened was they kept saying no to the
Oversight Committee until the Oversight Committee, including a bunch of Democrats,
voted in favor of issuing a subpoena. You must come
and appear, and if you don't, then you get into
the same vote that Peter Navarro and Steve Benn got into,
get prosecuted and go to jail. So then the Oversight
Committee said, well, we'll do it behind closed doors, and
the Clintons said no, we wanted to be in public,
and the Oversight Committee said no, we wanted behind closed doors.
Now this is being taped and the transcripts will be
out fairly soon with I don't know hours or maybe days.
But the whole idea that was explained to me was
that the Republicans who run the Oversight Committee were nervous about,
especially Hillary, using the public hearings to shred Donald Trump
over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. So that's what And
you know, she's crafty enough and smart enough to figure
out a way to turn the tables and make Donald
Trump look bad in this area. So they said, okay, okay, okay,
behind closed doors, and the and the Clintons finally said yes.
Now instead of going to Washington, d C. Like most
people who get subpoena to testify before Congress, Congress came
to them. They live. They have a home in d C.
But they have a home in Chappaqua, New York. It's
actually not far from my home. Beautiful neighborhood. I've been
by the well the street that goes up to their home.
You can look up the street when you drive by,
and there's they've got secret service people out there. Yep.
You can't get up to their house. So anyway, they're
they're in this lovely neighborhood Chappaqua, New York, and the
oversight Committee, I guess they flew up to White Plains,
probably put him in a couple of buses, brought them
over to the house. And that's it's not the house. Actually,
it's a cool building. Readers Digest used to be a
big thing. They were so big that they spent a
whole bunch of money on this enormous, gorgeous, beautiful office building.
It looks like a palace sitting up on the side
of a hill in suburban Westchester, New York. That is
where the depositions will be taken today. It's called the
Quad Performing Arts Center or something like that. Now because
Readers Digest went bankrupt, and it's because they spend so
much money, probably on this building. All right, so let's
get to it. So they Congress came to them. It's
that the Reader's Digest building. But let's start off with
one of the members of the site committee. David mim
is a Congressman from southern California, a Democrat, and he's
all confused.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm a little curious as to why we call
it in the Secretary Clinton because her name's not in
the Epstein files as far as I'm aware, not in
any kind of meaningful way. Bill Clinton. I think there's
a case to be made because he is in the
Epstein files, and I don't know exactly what chera comer's
agenda is. It does look partisan, and one of the
points I've made is let's bring in everybody. Let's bring
in Bill Clinton, but let's also bring in Rfk and
Elon Musk and Howard Lutnik, and yes, Donald Trump as well,
because his name is all over the Epstein cus. But
we should be trying to seek answers from anyone whose
name is in there as a notable figure, anyone who
is potentially a co conspirator. But we're only, it appears,
going after Democrats right now, and I think that's why
a lot of folks feel like this investigation is partisan.
Speaker 1: Well, I have to remind him that a majority of
Democrats on the Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Hillary and Bill,
so they're trying. I think they're trying to be nonpartisan.
But if he doesn't know why Hillary everybody's walking around, go,
I don't see why we're inviting her. I mean, she
had nothing to do with and she has said, I've
never met the man. I have never met the man. Okay, fine,
The question is about he was a billionaire and where
did his money go. Did he go to the Clinton Foundation?
Did he go to remember all the nonprofits that the
Clinton's put together to get wealthy off of. That is
being looked into because we know that he donated some money.
It's not a lot to him. Twenty five thousand dollars
is one one transaction if you look at actually, if
you go back to Open Secrets and take a look,
Jeffrey Epstein donated a lot of money to a lot
of Democrats and to some Republicans. He was by yeah,
while he went with whoever he thought could do something
for him, mostly Democrats, but there were a lot of
Republicans as well that he donated money to. But the
donation and his involvement with the Clinton Foundation and other
Clinton nonprofits is what Hillary is there for. That's what
it's all about. So David Axelrod, former advisor to President Obama,
the Democrat guy, this is his observation.
Speaker 3: Well, look, obviously there's going to be a lot of
interest in it because this is like watching a slow
rolling neutron bomb. I mean, it's just like radiating out
globally this Epstein's story, and it's become symbolic of the
ability of wealthy elites to do as they please without
any accountability. And so it's become a huge issue. And
of course the Republicans would like to shift at ten
in Congress to uh President Clinton, any prominent Democrat uh,
and away from this president. And so I expect they're
gonna they're gonna ask some, you know, very probing questions.
Speaker 1: But uh, okay, but let's go to the chairman of
the committee, James Comer, and get his take on He
kind of held a little many news conference outside the
Reader's Digest building before they started the the hearing certain documents.
Speaker 4: Then the motion was amended by Scott Perry uh to
include subpoenas for various names. I think there were eight
names originally, including Bill and Hillary Clinton. Everyone that was
included in that subpoena has already either been interviewed by
the Oversight Committee or sent in a statement that they
had never met Epstein and had no no knowledge of
the investigation except the Clintons. We worked for six months
to get the Clintons to come in, and then they
acted like they were going to come in, and then
they didn't show up, and obviously we moved to hold
the Clintons in contempt. And I think one thing that
surprised the Clintons they assumed the Democrats on the committee
would vote in a partisan manner and not vote to
hold the Clintons in contempt. And what they learned was
a majority of the Democrats on the committee either voted
to hold the Clinton's in contempt or voted present. And
I think that's a statement that this investigation is serious.
It is a bipartisan investigation. The American people have a
lot of questions. To my knowledge, the Clintons haven't answered
very many, if any, questions about their knowledge or involvement
with Epstein and Maxwell. Again, no one's accusing at this
moment the Clintons of any wrongdoing. They're going to have
due process. But we have a lot of questions, and
the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to
understand many things about Epstein. How did he accumulate so
much wealth, how was he able to surround himself with
some of the most powerful men in the world. Was
he an asset for our government or any other government.
These are the questions that we're going to ask over
the next two days, and hopefully we'll be able to
get some answers. And as always, we're going to release
the transcripts. We're going to release the video as soon
as everyone has approved it the normal process and a
deposition as the attorneys would have the opportunity to review
the transcript or review the video to make sure that
there are no heirrors. And this is going to be
a long video because this is going to be a
long deposition. Today will be a long deposition, I would assume,
and tomorrow will be an even longer deposition. Every member
of the Oversight Committee is going to have questions for
the Clintons as well as our trained staff that do
nothing but deposition. After our hour of questioning, we're going
to send a couple of members of the Oversight Committee
out to be able to give you an update of
what's going on and answer some questions. So with Dad
will answer a question or two, and then we'll go
back to color.
Speaker 5: Are you concerned that there has been a cover sell you?
What use of a minor my President Trump that I'm
missing FBI records.
Speaker 4: Now we're looking into the accusation by the NPR. Uh,
we don't know that the answer to that, we know
what the administration says. We're still looking to to uh
get a definitive answer on that. But look, let's let's
just be realistic here. If you go by a lot
of what the Democrats have said, you had Jasmine Crockett
accused Lee's elden have taken donations from Jeffrey Epstein. It
was the wrong Jeffrey Epstein. We've had ro Cotta sit
on the floor and name names of people that were
he thought were involved in Epstein that weren't even involved. So, uh,
you know, sometimes the Democrats on the committee are to bests.
Speaker 6: What about the.
Speaker 7: Idea though that I understand you. You said that this
is different with some of the members or some of
the peoples who were subpoena if he didn't have his
direct content. But some folks have said it seems like
you're the Clintons are basically on trial here versus people
who know more about the you know, what was going
on as Maxwell, what was going on it was Epstein,
and that this is really kind of dragging them through
the mud.
Speaker 1: When there are other ways.
Speaker 4: So let's let's address that, Chad. The Democrats voted to
subpoena the Clintons. The Democrats voted with the Republicans to
hold the Clintons in contempt. So the Democrats have just
as many questions for the Clintons as the Republicans. So
this isn't a partisan witch. This was a motion, a
bipartisan motion supported by the Democrats to bring the Clintons in.
So I don't think it to any type of being
unfair in any way to the Clintons. They never answered questions,
unlike President Trump, forgets questioned every day just about every
one of you about his knowledge or involved with Epstein.
To my knowledge, the Clintons haven't answered very many questions.
Speaker 8: Question for ahead start a bipartisanship, would you then ask
the Commerce Secretary Howard Lunn if you come has to
buy it seems like you have something from.
Speaker 4: That's very possible. And I think there, you know, I
think it's a good possibility that his name will arise
in some questioning today.
Speaker 9: It will be on my list and nine credit off
for Hillary asked about Howard Lutnik today And.
Speaker 4: So guys watching, we're asking again. Uh, And I want
to remind everyone we've already brought in Alex Acosta and
Bill Barr for deposition. That's two Republicans in the in
the Trump administration. So this isn't just about Democrats. This
is about anyone that has any knowledge of Epstein the investigation.
I think we all agree the government failed. The government
failed the victims, and what our role is. We can't
we can't prosecute anyone, but what we have been doing
is getting transparencies of American people. We subpoenaed the estate
that had nothing to do with the dischart for tw
we subpoenaed the documents for the estate. That's what the
victims asked us to do. And what you're seeing is
there is accountability finally happening. You've seen at least a
dozen very powerful people, men and women who have already resigned,
many in disgrace, from their board positions. So we're seeing accountability,
but we have a desire to see a lot more accountability.
We want to get the answers and hopefully the next
two days will be a step in the right direction
of our.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, they are politicians, so none of us
believe the fact that they won't be political, but it
should be a political it should be not it should
be bipartisan. Actual Rod was talking about this is like
a neutron bomb that's rolling out there across the world.
It really is. It's one of those where the people
that are in well, when we look, I got a
little short list here, so some of the people. Larry Summers,
former Treasury secretary, former president of Harvard. He's been teaching
at Harvard and he has said he's resigning at the
end of the semester. Peter Mandelsson, the UK ambassador to
the United States. His emails were weird. He would sign
off on emails to and in the language about how
much he loved Jeffrey Epstein and love you and XO
XO and very gay of him. Maybe he's a gay man.
I don't know. I didn't know that well. Epstein may
have gone both ways. We don't know. Thomas Pritzker, who
is the brother of the governor of Illinois. He's stepped
down as the head of the Hyatt Corporation. Brad Karp.
One of the biggest most powerful white shoe law firms
in New York is Paul Weiss. Brad carp was the
lead partner. He stepped down from that. Casey Wasserman a
huge Hollywood agent. He has put his agency up for
sale and has resigned. Doctor Peter Attia was just signed
on to be a medical contributor for CBS. He resigned.
Steve Bannon is on the list. I mean, these are
big names. But you heard in the question about the
fifty three pages that are missing and about a young
woman who accused Donald Trump of abusing her, and that's
all missing. So that's also kind of out in the
weeds to be to be discovered. Here's Hillary a couple
of days ago being interviewed about going in to do
this deposition today.
Speaker 9: I think everybody should testify who was asked. I just
wanted to be fair. I want everybody treated the same way.
That's not true for my husband and me, because other
witnesses were asked to testify, they gave written statements under oath.
We offered that they want to pull us. Why did
they want to pull us into this to divert attention
from President Trump?
Speaker 10: This is not complicated.
Speaker 1: It took forever for them to finally agree to cooperate
with this committee, and so far, what we're hearing, is
that Hillary is doing exactly as people thought she would do.
She's going, I don't know the man, I never met
the man. I don't know what you're talking about. And oh,
by the way, if you want to know something, why
don't you get Donald Trump in here? So that's exactly
what people thought she would do. Jason Shavit's the former congressman.
He's been doing a contributor role for Fox. He went
out and did the reporter role. He's out at the
Reader's Digest building in Chappaqua. This is what he had
to say. This is just before the hearing got underway.
Speaker 6: Well, they live close by. They're about to show up
and they'll essentially be in a conference room. The Clinton's
had the opportunity to testify in an open hearing in Washington.
Speaker 8: D C.
Speaker 6: They refuse to do so. So James Comber did the
right thing, issued a subpoena. The was bipartisan in its vote,
and now they get to do it the hard way,
which is a transcribed interview, which means they go for
an hour, take a quick break than the other side.
Democrats will go for an hour, and they'll toggle back
and forth for an untold number of hours time we
actually get to ask questions unimpeded for an hour of
Hillary Clinton. That's unprecedented. Even you know Trey Goudy in
the Select Committee on ben Goza, they didn't get to
do that. This is a different format and it's much
more difficult. Yeah, Hillary Clinton's deposition is going to be
very different than Bill Clinton's. Bill Clinton's going to be
about the island and the sex trafficking and what was
his personal involvement and explain these photos. Hillary Clinton's going
to be about the Clinton Foundation, to be about the
Clinton Initiative, about the flow of money and how the money,
what kind of influence and influence peddling, because people like
at Jeffrey Epstein snuggle up to these politicians. The question
then is what influence did the Clintons use?
Speaker 1: And Yeah, so they've they're at loggerheads and I think
Hillary she's tough, she's aggressive. The committee is going to
go after her, So it's it's going to be a Donnybrook.
I think if the hearing with her tomorrow, Bill Clinton,
he'll be a good old boy, aw shucks. But they're
going to be asking all the salacious stuff about the
sex stories, was he involved with the young women? On
and on and on, and speaking of salacious sex oriented stories,
Congressman Tony Gonzalez is up for the primary in Texas.
He has the San Antonios down to the order and
along the Mexican border, a long stretch, and he is
in a competitive position for the primary next Tuesday in Texas. Well.
The guy who he's running against is being accused of
rolling out a story that he had an affair with
one of his staffers and that the staffer committed suicide.
And everybody's pointing the finger back to Tony Gonzalez and
he says, I did not have an affair with her. No,
I'm not going to resign, and others are going, but
you have to resign. You've been accused of this terrible thing.
It's very bad and the text messages that have been
published are really really ugly, but he is standing his ground.
The only thing that makes me stop and think about
is this a true story or not? Is that election
day is next Tuesday. An early election is on right now,
so we'll find out more about a Congressman Tony Gonzales
and his problems that he has. There's one more that
has to do with not salacious but about sex crimes.
And it is a child molester out of California, out
of Sacramentom, my own old stomping grounds guide by the
name of David Funston. He's sixty four years old. He
is being paroled because of the fact that he is
an elderly, an elderly inmate and yet sixty four because
California Governor Knewsom signed the law that if you are
fifty or above, you are eligible for elderly release. They're
trying to get rid of the people in prisons in California.
They've been doing this now for quite some time. So
this guy, this David Funston, has been convicted of kidnapping
and child molestation sixteen counts. He also was sentenced to
three consecutive terms of twenty five years to life. And
that is why I am for the death penalty, because
the judges hand out these twenty five years to life
sentences consecutive, three of them, and he's been paroled because
he's over fifty. And he even says, I've been working on,
working on, working on trying to control my desires. Well,
if you're in a prison, there are no children around
you in a prison, so I'm sure he's been successful,
but they're going to let him out. This is the
sheriff of Sacramento County talking about His name is Jim Cooper.
Speaker 5: It doesn't make any sense at all. Think about this
retirement age for Social Security at sixty two, most people
working in their sixties and seventies, and why is he
being remanious. It's what is a moral compass for the
parole board and allowing this. I've heard the same import
they did the fancy did. These kids ages three to
eight are horrific. It can never be undone. It's called
playing the game. You're in prison. You have nothing else
to do other than convincing we've changed. I want to
read you some exerts in the re court. This is
a victim's testimony. Her statement. She's three years old. She
was abducted in front of her aunt's house, triggered at
his house where he'd bathed there. It took her clothes off,
We're going to assaulted her, put a nice of her
throat and told her she told anyone, he would kill her.
He had barbarie dolls and toys in the house, dropped
off back of the house, told her again. If you
tony one, I'll kill you. Another seven year old girl,
he took fifty miles away, sectually assaulted her in the car.
When she refused to advances, he punched her in the face,
threw her out of the car with no shoes on,
hipping miles away. A seven year old girl. The four
year old boy, same thing in the bushes, secially assaulted him,
gave him toys, and then let him go. Yeah, four
year old boy picked him out of a footo line
of thirty years ago. This man's a monster. He should
not be allowed out shot.
Speaker 1: Molesters many times have openly admitted that they cannot change
and they will not change. That is their sexual desire children.
And so they're letting this guy out. They let him
out because of the fact he's over fifty fifty. So
back to the sheriff and whether he thinks anything can
be done to change this outrageously dangerous rule.
Speaker 5: There's something going on right now. There's a couple of
bills in the legislature. I think because of the public
outcry and outrace that's going on, I think you may
see some moving in the legislature. It's an election year
and I'm down in southern californ of my fifty seven
other sheriff and we're all up set about. We're all angry.
It has to change. We have to put victims first
as stop putting the suspects in front.
Speaker 1: Well, the sheriff is a former member of the California
Legislature and he should know better. He should know they're
not going to crack down on something like that. They
want to empty their prisons out. So that's sad story
out of California. On that one, I mentioned that the
Texas primary is next Tuesday. On the Democrat side, there
are two people that are running. One is a guy
by the name of James Tallarico. You may have heard
about him. There was a big stink on Stephen Colbert's
show where he made he basically threw it back in
CBS's face. CBS said, you can't have a candidate on
in the middle of a campaign, and Stephen Colbert threw
a temper tantrum. But that was Tallerco who was on
the show, and he was running behind his opposition, Jasmine Crockett. Yes,
she's running for the Senate seat from Texas. She's a congresswoman.
She wants to move up to the Senate. He has
far outraised her seventeen million compared to her four million,
a lot of it coming from Stephen Colbert's show. On
the Republican side, you've got three Republicans, John Cornyn, Wesley Hunt,
and Ken Paxton. John Cornyn is the incumbent. Ken Paxton
is the Attorney General of Texas. Karl Rowe knows his
Texas politics and one of the big observations is that
Democrats have turned out more people, more Democrats voting in
Texas politics than Republicans. It's up to red state. So
what about that, Karl.
Speaker 7: That's right.
Speaker 10: But look, first of all, that happens. It happened in
twenty twenty, it happened in two thousand and eight, happened
in two thousand and four because the presidential primaries there
was more activity in the Democratic side than the Republican side.
Last time it happened in a midterm was two thousand
and two. Nine hundred and fifty four thousand people voted
in the Democratic primary, six hundred and fourteen thousand voted
in the Republican primary. At in the fall, John Cornyn
beat the mayor of Dallas, Ron Kirk fifty five forty
three for that or know well, no, no, this is
the Republicans. And again it's all over the board. Cornin
thirty four, Paston, thirty six, Hunt, twenty six. In an
early poll by the University of Texas, Peak insites thirty
one Paxton thirty nine, Cornyn twenty five Hunt in early February.
In later February thirty six packs In thirty six, corn
In fourteen. So that if people are at fifty percent.
Speaker 1: It's really narrow, so there probably will be a runoff
if nobody gets more than fifty percent. But Carl has
no use for Ken Paxton the attorney general. Listen, it
could be.
Speaker 10: First of all, full disclosure, I'm a personal friend of
in a long time patriot of John Cornyn. We have
an attorney general of former Ken Paxton, who was impeached
by the Texas House for basically selling his office to
a corrupt business guy who's in jail, who hired his
girlfriend in a no you know, no need to show
up job. But if Paxston is the nominee, the Democrats
will spend one hundred or two hundred million dollars because
they know that he is a damaged candidate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't understand. Ken Paxton is so damaged. His wife,
I believe was a member of the Texas Legislature and
anyway he was cheating on her. That became part of
the recall effort. And anyway, the people voted for Ken
Paxton to keep him as the attorney general, and now
he's neck and neck with John Corny, who's been centered
from Texas for a very long time. Iran talks they
took place today. There is a reporter in Geneva who
kind of goes over what happened today.
Speaker 11: Talks went on for about I would say, about three
hours earlier this morning here in Geneva, we saw the
American convoy which presumably had Steve Whitcoff and Jared Kushner,
and it leave here about forty five minutes ago. From
what we're learning from the Omanis who are mediating these talks,
they say that there's a break in the talks. There's
going to be consultations that both sides are going to do,
and then they're going to come back here later today
to continue their negotiations. Of course, we know that Steve
Whitcoff and Jared Kushner in the meantime, we'll also be
speaking to the Ukrainians about trying to stop the war
in Ukraine. But will then return to these high stakes
talks here about the conflict with Iran. And first of all,
about that new right in the Wall Street Journal that
certainly is something that we've heard before that apparently the
US does want the Iranians to shutter their three main
nuclear sides, FORDO, Natans at Isfahan. But at the same time,
the big question is going to be what about Iran's
nuclear enrichment capabilities. The Iranians say they have an inherent
right to enrich uranium. The US says they want them
to stop altogether. The big question here is going to
be whether or not the two sides you're going to
be able to find some sort of compromise where both
sides can say face and both sides say that this
is what President Trump has called an equitable deal. The Iranians,
for their parts, say that they also want sanctions relief
on a major scale if they are going to go
into any deal with the United States. They say, all
of this needs to have some benefits for them as well.
And of course, all this playing out as we very
well know, as the military situation in the Middle East
continues to escalate, obviously more US forces arriving in that region,
and the Iranians saying that if they are attacked, they
are going to strike back in a massive way. There
was one senior Iranian official earlier today and he said, quote,
he hopes that we will prevail.
Speaker 1: Well. Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State, has this to
say about it.
Speaker 12: Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly
short range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and
our bas and they also possess naval assets that threaten
shipping and try to threaten the US Navy. And beyond
just a nuclear program, they possess these conventional weapons that
are solely designed to attack America and attack Americans if
they choose to do so.
Speaker 6: These things have to be addressed.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like they are not really making any progress.
They're trying to act like they are, but they don't
want to give up their enrichment, of their nuclear enrichment,
i should say, and the US wants them to completely stop.
So there's a huge gap there. And the other thing
about Iran is that they always are stretching out the negotiations,
buy more time, playing the clock to try to get
more time before they have to either fish or cut bait.
Here's Rebecca Heinrich from the Hudson Institute who kind of
refers to that being part of their style.
Speaker 8: It's going to be up to the Iranians, and I
think the Secretarubio. President Trump has said diplomacy is still
our first choice, but the Iran regime essentially has They've
been given an ultimatum. You have to stop your ballistic
missile development, which ranges American troops in the region in
our allies. You have to get rid of your nuclear program,
which so far the Iranians insist on that being off limits.
They're not going to talk about totally getting rid of Enrichmond,
and they're building out this Pickaxe Mountain. There's still some
development there going on, even after the United States took
out their facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer. And the other
thing Secretarubio has pointed out is there's still funding proxies
in the region which put at risk our allies. So
clearly the administration wants the Iran regime to lay down
its arms, choose a different path and so far the
Iranians are not willing to do that.
Speaker 1: So now we wait to see what the next step
is on this because they seemed to again, like I said,
they seem to be at loggerheads. You want to check
in on Wall Street see what they did today. It
was a roller coaster as far as the Dow was concerned.
Started off a little higher, then took a big dip,
came back, rallied back to break even, then went way
down again, then rallied back to basically a little better
than break even, but not much. At the closing bell,
the dow finished when all that roller coaster was over
with up seventeen, the Dow at forty nine thousand and
four ninety nine. The S and P went down thirty seven,
the NASDAK down two hundred seventy three, the price of
goal down sixteen dollars to five thousand, two hundred and eight,
and oil just is on hold. It was up a
few pennies at just more than a little more than
sixty five dollars for one barrel of oil. So that's
it for today. Thank you for coming by. We will
be back again tomorrow. I hope to see you. That
it