Speaker 1: And hello, how are you welcome to the Big Podcast
on this Monday. Today is the eighth day of June,
year of Our Lord twenty twenty six. My name is
Tom Sullivan. And well, busy Monday. And we've uh, well
we've been in fact, on Friday, I think I got
to the point where I just said, you know, the war.
We've talked about the war till we're blue in the face.
But so we went on to other things. I don't
think we even talked about it on Friday. But today
it's back in full scope because of the fact that
over the weekend, well, Iran and an Israel were firing
at each other, and Iran was also firing. Well, let's
start with a run. On Sunday, Iran launched a barrage
of missiles at Israel. And what's weird about this is
that the President told Benjamin Nett and Yahoo not to respond.
Well he did, and I mean Israel they had to
defend themselves, so they responded with an attack and then
Iran fired back of them, and President Trump, on a
telephone call again told Benjamin Nett and Yahoo not to respond.
That was yesterday. Then today the President told Iran and
Israel to stop the shooting. That was early this morning,
and then he held a second phone call with Benjamin
Nett and Yahoo and after that Iran apparently stopped their
shooting and Lebanon reported that Israel was still striking there.
So it been anything this so called ceasefire. No, so
let's find out. Barack Ravine from Axios has lots of
good contacts and was asked kind of backwards, if we
will start with the with the latest, which is what
happened on that second phone call.
Speaker 2: So first, there were several phone calls over the last
twenty four hours between Trump and Antonio and patania and
other senior members of the Trump administration. I spoke to
President Trump earlier today and he said that doing those
twenty four hours, other than his calls with Nataniao, at
least five regional countries who are involved in the mediation
between the US and Iran called him to ask him
to stop is the Israeli strikes and resume the negotiations
on a deal. And one of the things President Trump
told Nataniao. One of the things President Trump told me
that he told Nataniao is that if he continues and
this turns into an all out war, Israel could find
itself facing Iran on its own. And Trump told me,
told NATANIAO, you should be careful because if you continue
down this road, you might find yourself alone against Iran
very soon. And I think this was one of the
messages that Trump told natania gave NATHANIAO in order to
get into at the end of the day, stand down
and stop the strikes. And from what I hear from
Israeli officials is that when President Trump spoke to NATANIAO
on Monday morning, the idea was about to launch the
most intense and massive wave of strikes against Iran since
this escalation started, and basically the idea of just wait
for the order from NATANIAO. And Trump told NATANIAO in
that call that he needs to stand down and that
the Iranians gave messages to the US that they're ready
to stop if NATANIAO stops. And after Trump told this
to the Ready Time Minister, he got the okay from him,
and basically then he put out this true social post
saying that both sides are ready for a ceasefire.
Speaker 1: Well, the part that I took away from what Barackervi
is reporting is that President Trump told Benjamin Netanyaho, you
keep shooting at Iran, and I think Lebanon as well,
you'll find yourself on your own, the President saying, well,
we'll leave and we'll leave you to fight the war
there against Iran. So it was very threatening at the
very minimum. So the President also yesterday had a sit
down interview with Turtzan Welker, who is the host of
the Meet the Press, and it started off fine, but
it went downhill. About the fact that when Kristen Walker
asked him about about rigged elections and about twenty twenty,
and he got mad, and you could see him. His
face changed, his demeanor changed, he raised his voice, and
he pulled his microphone off and left. He bagged the
interview right in the middle of it. But before he
got to that, he was asked about the fact that
he doesn't seem to want to use the military, no
matter what.
Speaker 3: It costs us very little to keep them there. I
don't consider them in danger where the best defense anyone's
ever seen were the best offense anyone's ever seen, So
I don't consider danger. I would say it would be
foolhearty to do that, because maybe we may use them
it's unlikely, but I think we'll keep them there until
such time as we have a completion.
Speaker 1: So he's willing to keep our military there, and he
said in case we need to use them, but it's unlikely.
So again he has made it very clear to the
Iranians that the chances of him using the military are
slim to now he's broadcast that to them that he
won't use the military, slim chance of that happening, so
that gives them the upper hand in the negotiations. But
he said, there is a red line.
Speaker 4: I want to know what your red line is.
Speaker 5: What would trigger you to restart military action.
Speaker 6: Would it be Iran killing more American city?
Speaker 3: Well, certainly that would be something that I wouldn't think
about very seriously. But my red line would be if
I think I wasn't going to make a deal, or
if I wasn't going to make a deal fast enough.
So we're having very good negotiations with the people that
are leading the country.
Speaker 1: Now, and speaking about the president's attitude regarding the people
that are leading the country of Iran, he was asked,
do you want to meet with the Ayatolla?
Speaker 7: Is this younger comedye any better for the United States
than his father was.
Speaker 3: Younger, I think, more rational. Injured, it's pretty badly injured,
So there's a certain bravery there. A lot of people
if they were injured that badly, they wouldn't be talking about,
you know, how we're doing with the United States, said
that other things on their mind. So there's a certain
bravery there. But he is very seriously injured.
Speaker 1: Okay, so he repeats that the Iatola twice, he said
to her he's very seriously injured, but but honored him.
So he's a brave guy. Younger, he's more rational, and well,
let's weigh in. Kate T. McFarland was a deputy National
Security advisor in Trump one point zero. Let's see what
she says about the fact of no military.
Speaker 8: Ultimately, yes, because what's happening is, as you very rightly
pointed out, Iran is fractured. The leadership is fractured. They
have the moderists and the so called pragmatist moderists, and
then the crazies. It's really just they have the crazies
and then they have the craziers, and the craziers are
the I ERGC. So every time the moderates seem to
come up with some kind of an agreement of ceasefire, agreement,
of potential peace plan. It's the extremist, it's the IERGYC,
the sabotage is it doing all the attacks that you've
just outlined. So what's the end solution? Can you trust them?
Absolutely not. Even if you've got an agreement with Iran,
the extremists, the h I ERGC would probably sabotage it.
Speaker 1: So what do you need to do?
Speaker 8: You need to prevent their ability to break the agreement.
You can't not just just verify, not just make sure
they're doing it, but to have an absolute ability to
stop them from breaking the agreement. How do you do that?
I think you're right. You ultimately have to go in
and finish the military targets, not the energy targets, not
the other things, but the military targets.
Speaker 1: Okay, there's another national security expert that says, we have
to use the military to go in to fineaf this otherwise,
And you can't, no matter what the agreement is, and
no matter what the subject matter the agreement is, you
can't trust the people that are running round. So let's
check in with Alex Plitzus. He is also national security consultant.
See what he says.
Speaker 9: I think the Oramians have made clear through the negotiations
they were looking for the US to begin withdrawing some
of the forces, withdrawing some of the naval forces from
the blockade as part of the negotiations. So if the
President began moving those forces one, it would seem from
an opics perspective, it could be sort of giving into
that a little bit without getting anything in return, but
from a more practical perspective, without having the forces there
necessary to conduct any offensive actions. To the President choose to,
it's a practical matter of that. That's how we got
into this in the first place. When help was on
the way, when the protests were ongoing, and you know,
tens of thousands of Broughtians were alleged to be slaughtered
in the streets, the national security strategy reprioritized the Western
Hemisphere and the Pacific, and we didn't have a carrier
battle group for a sustained period of time in the
region for the first time in nearly half a century.
And so there was a clear problem in not being
able to back up those words the President is not
going to allow that situation happened again, should you need
to take action?
Speaker 1: Okay, so the President already said no, that is highly
unlikely that I'm going to use the military again. But
he's not going to send them home. He's going to
lead them right there in the region, which I think
is excellent. With all of a sudden this increased activity,
What does General Jack Kane think currently?
Speaker 10: When the Iranians fired eleven ballistic missiles in Israel, that
was a development since the April eighth general cease fire,
and certainly from Israel's perspective, any one of those missiles,
if a penetrated, could kill hundreds of people. So there's
no way that they can accept something like that, and
they obviously retaliated in kind. But when you draw back
from this, we went to a general ceasefire on April
the eighth, and who has been violating that ceasefire? You've
been reporting on it. Iran began, but violations right there
in the straits of a moves, fast boats, drones, interfering
with traffic. We have defeated every single one of those.
And then on April seventeenth, specific ceasefire between Hesbela and
Israel in Lebanon. And who has been violating that ceasefire,
Iran over two thousand rockets and drones fired into northern
Israel towns and villages, evacuated, over three hundred people wounded
as a result of that. I've read the terms of
the April seventeenth agreement. It's specified in the terms that
Israel both sides can exercise offensive capability only when an
attack is planned, it's eminent, or it's in execution. And
what Israel has been doing those attacks have been in execution,
and they've been eminent, and they've been firing back out
of them from a defensive position, and then they couldn't
stop them, so they said, we do have the authority
attack because they're planning them. Where are they planning it?
From Southern Bay Route operational headquarters. They attack Southern Bay
Route operational headquarters as a result of that, which is
permissible in the terms of the agreement, and as a
result of that, Iran fired those eleven ballistic missiles.
Speaker 1: Can you blame Israel? I mean, could you imagine if
somebody was firing a couple of thousand rockets into US
cities and towns and we did nothing, of course we
would retaliate. That's what Israel did, and then the President said,
don't do.
Speaker 10: That nowhere in the middle frankly, but on the meeting,
I think I agree with you. It's for re mode.
And obviously I think he's significantly injured, and we've been
told disfigured whether there would be a meeting or not,
I think is unlikely. But the real issue is is
a ron sincere about making a deal? I mean, we
have our negotiating team in talking to them, they convince
on negotiating team that there is sincerity there. But it
seems like every time we get close, no deal. And
why is that? Because? I think the people really in
charge don't want a deal, or they want a deal
that are terms that are completely unacceptable to the president
and they know what those terms are. So I think
the strategy the Iranians are playing out right before our
eyes drag this out as much as possible.
Speaker 1: But the General has made it very clear on a
number of interviews where he's talked about the fact that
they he wants to go back and finish the military
mission and the President doesn't want to clearly, So what
if he got his way, what if the military mission
was given the green light?
Speaker 10: Yeah, Well, what's dis counted here is in going back
to our military operation. There's two fears out there that
are prevalent in the Gulf community, and one is is
that we go back to military operations. They're gonna be
Iranians will hit the gore oil and gas infrastructure in
the Middle East, and they likely will. However, one we
can help defend that. We're defending Israel because they asked
us to. If they want us to defend that, we can.
We can put a plan together to thicken that defense.
That's number one. Offensively. We've been watching these guys for
eight weeks now. What have they been doing. They've been
excavating the tunnel systems that we've rubbled so they couldn't
get missiles out of there. What are they doing. They're
taking the missiles and the launchers out and they're taking
them someplace. Are we watching that? You bet you. If
we go back to military opera, what are we going
to hit? We're going to hit a lot of things,
but we're going after all of those missiles and those launchers.
Speaker 1: Well, he wants to go after all the military targets,
but he's he was reminded in this interview today that
the President doesn't want to use the military.
Speaker 10: Think that's where he is now, as long as he
believes there's some aspiration here for some kind of a
realistic deal to meet his objectives. I think once that
is over, the alternative then is returned to military. Remember
we had the estimate is ten to fourteen days. We
stopped on April of the eighth, This would have been
over at the end of April. Offensive operations, defensive operations.
We would be defending the straits of a moves to
keep it open and likely at this point passing some
of that responsibility to allies and partners. That's the track
we would have been on, and we're on the we're
on the negotiation track, and I think it's likely coming
to it.
Speaker 1: And the General wanted the president to go back to
military actions and let the military do their job. But
the way it's like you said, right now, that's not
where the president is, and the president, I don't know
if you if you think it would be smart to
go ahead and start military actions again and target the regime,
take the regime leaders out. Like Katie McFarlane said, you
can make whatever agreement you want with these people. They're
not going to they're not going to live by it.
They will not abide by it. That's what's going on
with the war still back and forth. So California is
nothing's changed there in a week. A week tomorrow will
be one week since election day. They're still counting the ballots.
In the governor's race, Jabier Basserra has moved into first
place in the second place is Steve Hillton, and third
place is Tom Steyer. On the Los Angeles mayor's race,
Karen bass is still number one, but number two is
now Nythia Ramen. She's moved into second place ahead of
Spencer Pratt. And it was because of a big surge
in the last twenty four hours for Nythia Roman. So
this is President Trump also in that interview with Meet
the Press, and I told you got all upset when
she started asking about rigged elections, and he thinks California's
election is rigged.
Speaker 11: Two.
Speaker 3: Oh, it's looking.
Speaker 1: Look at what's happening about California. It's California. It's now.
They're not there dropping fast because it's a rigged election.
Speaker 11: Let me tell you, it's four days and they aren't
even close to coming up. That's how they can't know
why they're doing well because they're cheating.
Speaker 1: On the election.
Speaker 10: What do you evidence to SUP I have.
Speaker 11: To do is look, well, I have to do us
that's not listen and I listen to people and let's
see what happens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he's going down the rigged format again and
it first of all Los Angeles. You know how the
registrar in Los Angeles fifteen percent of LA residents are Republican.
That's it. It's very much like New York. No Republicans
going to get elected in New York, not recently anyway.
So it's same and intact worse in Los Angeles. As
far as California is concerned, they registered voters are a
twenty five percent Republican in the state of California, twenty
six percent for Independence, and forty five percent for Democrats.
So it's an uphill battled for Republicans to get elected
in the state of California. Dean Logan, who is the
registrar of voters in Los Angeles, well, I brought that.
I brought this up on Friday or Thursday of last week.
The longer this drags out and they seem to think
it's fine, but it's not fine, because everybody's done their
election results by far in the first day, with very
few exceptions. The problem with it sitting out there like this,
We've got mail in ballots and there's all kinds of
opportunities to cheat. There's stories about the fact that there
were people down on skid Row getting a bunch of
people down there to sign up their names and then
somebody would fill in the ballot for them, all like
all the shenanigans that go on. And when you don't
have an immediate result, and you can still recognize ballots
coming in postmarked last Tuesday but still coming in today,
they're still counted, and so that brings up the suspicion
and conspiracy thoughts about the fact that somebody is playing
games with the ballot. So the president is suspicious of it.
He's not alone, but Dean Logan, the guy who's in
charge of voting in Los Angeles, this is what he
had to say.
Speaker 12: Yeah, Unfortunately, I can't really explain it because I don't
understand it myself, other than to say that I think
the kind of political narrative that we've seen really dating
back to twenty twenty and going forward, is that if
you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, you
start taking a tax, you know, making attacks towards the process.
What I can tell you is that the process that
is happening in California and here in Los Angeles County
is the way elections are structured in California. And I
get that it's frustrating, but that structure is designed to
make sure that voters have multiple options, multiple opportunities for
how and when where to cast their ballots. And in
this election, a lot of those voters did that leading
right up until the final hours of voting on election day,
and we need to make sure that all.
Speaker 1: Of those ballid votes are counted and counted properly. What
he doesn't seem to understand, and what the people who
came up with these rules in California don't seem to understand,
is it creates questions about voter integrity. And that is
critical because if you start losing voter thinking that the
vote is rigged, that the integrity is not there, then
people are going to stop voting. You're going to lose
the voting system in this nation if you don't make
it so that people think the results are legit. Steve Hilton,
who is in second place, was talking today.
Speaker 13: The most important thing is that actually we're very confident
now that we'll be in the top two. There's not
really any realistic possibility for the billionaire climate fanatic. Time
started to catch up. That means that in November, Californians
will have a real choice another four years of this
insanity that's given us the highest cost of living in
the country and all the other problems we see, or
a new direction towards common sense, lower taxes, cutting the
bloat in our government.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm offering. Yeah, but you still and so
if it's rigged, and how did Steve Hilton get to
be at least in second place? But it's still it
raises questions. And the more President Trump talks about an
election is rigged, more and more people are going to
think elections are not legit. Josh crash Hour weighs in
on his view about California.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and look, he has a really strong message to
run on given the record and the history of California
governmental incompetence, and boy it takes. We're going to be
well over a week now starting tomorrow in counting votes.
We're probably not going to have a call for another
week or two. I mean, this is about government. The
message that Hilton is talking about is about government and
effectiveness and inefficiency in California. And it's going to be
potent against Tavier Paserra, who was basted by Democrats when
he served in the Biden administration as HHS secretary. But
as far as the vote COUM goes, look, Hilton has
a four point lead about over Tom Seyer, even if
the Demo. Even if that margin narrows, everyone I've talked
to suggests that Hilton is in very strong position to
hold into that second place spot and face.
Speaker 1: Even if Hilton does stay in that second place, He's
got a big heavy rock to push uphill in California,
being a Republican. Kevin Kylie is a congressman. I told
you about him before. He's a congressman that was a Republican,
and they redrew the map to make his district very
favorable to Democrats and to make it almost impossible for
a Republican to get elected. So he said, okay, I'll
change my party. I'll become an independent and I'll run
as an independent. And people were in and voted, and
I went Oh look, I'll vote for the independent guy.
So he's ahead in his race, and it's not because
of anything other than he took the Republican name off
of his ballot. He's still a Republican, but it shows
as an independent. Here's Kevin Kylitt.
Speaker 14: That is the thing that I think is fair to criticize,
And in fact, the Washington Post did an editorial saying
this super slow vote counting undermine's faith in democracy. The
New York Times did this editorial saying, what's going on?
This is like something out of the pre Telegraph era.
So I do agree. California needs to get attacked together.
And pretty much every other state in the country, whether
it's a red state or a blue state, they have
most of their results tabulate on an election night.
Speaker 1: There's no reason we can't do that in California. It
should be able to get their vote together. But you
heard the Dean Logan saying, no, we want to make
sure everybody has a chance to vote. That was very important,
the accessibility. But the Washington Post and the New York
Times saying it's reducing the public's faith in the integrity
of elections. Here's Kevin Well.
Speaker 14: Here's the thing is California actually has some of the
worst access in participation as well. When you look at
the Election Performance Index, which is in a non partisan rating,
California ranks forty first along those metrics of access and
participation and transparency. So not only do we get our results,
you know, a month after the election, we also don't
do well by these other measures. So this isn't brain surgery.
You don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can just
look at basically any other state of the country. Look
at Massachusetts, look at Colorado. They have all kinds of
voter protections, and they also manage toccount votes in a
timely way. I think the bigger issue in California is
just basic government performance, and you do see that, And
I think it's a function of why I religned so
long at the DMV. Why don't people get their unemployment
checks in a timely manner. It's just a basic issue
of government performance that really transcends partisanship or anything else.
Speaker 1: So true, try to do business with the government in California, Yeah,
you're going to be bald, you'll all your hair out.
They drive people crazy out there because they are so inefficient.
And speaking of elections. So we've got one tomorrow in Maine.
This is the one that Graham Platner is going to
be on the ticket to run for the Democrat nomination
for Senate. The only opposition he has is Janet Mills,
who's the governor, and she dropped out, but her name
is still on the ballot. So it's pretty much it'd
be a shock if Graham Platner doesn't win tomorrow in Maine.
But Ram Emmanuel, who is one of the Democrats that's
flirting with running for president, he was asked about this
and well, this is Ram Emanuel's response about Graham Plattner.
Speaker 7: Yeah, well, here's the thing. First, the main voters are
going to decide yes. Second, it's really ultimately it's not
what national Democrats have to say. It's his veracity. And
I think one of the things that's troubling, whether it's
about this case and I happen to think his private
stuff is for him and his wife to figure out.
That's not for anybody else to comment. But he said
one thing about the Nazi tattoo on his chest, and
it turned out that wasn't accurate. Other things about the
past that aren't accurate, So veracity to me is a
big issue, and that's a big concern, and I think
that's what's going to the main voters are going to
have to decide that they're pretty good at making a
judge of character. But this is going to be important
from a national perspective, and then that's where you separate
from the local. This is an essential race if you
want to think about not just taking control of the Senate,
but if there's a Supreme Court decision next up, you
want to have a democratic Senate.
Speaker 1: I agree that Rom's right on the point. The key
about the control of the Senate is they're the ones
who advise and consent on Supreme Court nominees and every
other kind of nominee is out there, so you if
you are a Republican president, you want a Republican Senate.
And speaking of nominees, the President this afternoon did formally
nominated Blanche to be the attorney general, not the acting
but to make him the attorney general. So that will
have to go through the US Senate. So it is
it is critical. And what Rom's I kind of like
his answer because he's saying, look at this business about
sexting other women and doing all of that and his
bad behavior and his drinking, and that's between he and
his wife. But what bothers ram about him is that
he doesn't tell the truth, his veracity. It's another way
of saying he lies. Mike Quigley another Democrat, he represents,
congressman from Illinois from Chicago area. He doesn't like Graham
Platner either.
Speaker 6: You know he is and I've been part of the
impeachment investigation in the Russian investigation, talked about the problems
I've had with President Trump now into my second term
with him. We have to try to be consistent here
and for all the reasons we have problems with many
of our Republicans, especially this president. We can't just turn
our minds and say no, it's different with this guy
just because he's got a D next to his name.
So that's just my opinion. If they're a way to
replace him on the ballot, I'd be all for it.
But as Rom said, at this point, I guess it's
up to the voters in Maine.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 1: So it's up to the voter's main But you can
tell it was clear he doesn't like him, does not
like him at all. Alex Sites Waald. He's the guy
we found last week. He has a newspaper in Maine,
the Mid Coast Review or something along those lines, and
this is his last minute thoughts about Graham Plattner.
Speaker 15: Yeah, and I mean, that's obviously the big question head
of Tuesdays, since we already know that Platner's basically got
a lock on the nomination, although it'll be interesting to
see how many votes are cast for Janet Mills and
other candidates as a sort of protest against him. But
this is a democratic state. It hasn't voted for a
Republican president since George hw Bush, though it keeps re
electing Susan Collins because she has this unique ability to
get cross party ticket splitting support. In twenty twenty, there
were something like fifty seven thousand people who voted for
Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, and then
Susan Collins further down the ticket, and she could have
done it, by my analysis, with as few as twenty
two thousand votes. So all Grand Platner really needs to
do is keep every Democrat in the state behind him
the Democratic nominee. These allegations obviously make it harder for that,
although I agree with Kevin that I think the momentum
has maybe started to shift back in his direction among supporters.
But still we're talking about a fraction of a percent
of voters here who can make all the difference in November.
And it's not the white working class men that we
talk about a lot in other places, and that Platner's
campaign has been held up as a way to potentially
win over those voters. The swing voters in Maine who
have voted for Collins in the past are really older,
educated women on the coast, and those are the ones
who I think Platner is going to have the hardest
time bringing back into the fold. So the focus is
going to be from here to November. And meanwhile, Susan
Collins is running a campaign almost entirely focused on the
money she's brought back for the state as the chair
of the Appropriations Committee, not at all about politics. She
barely talks about being a Republican. She just talks about
being a senator from Maine. And I think that's going
to be her argument. You know, stick with the devil.
You know you might not love me, but I bring
back the money. You can trust me. This guy is
too risky, right.
Speaker 1: So that's going to be the argument in November. But
tomorrow Maine is going to vote and probably Platner will win.
Tonight in New York City at Madison Square Garden is
Game three of the NBA Finals. It is San Antonio
Spurs versus the New York Nicks. And it's been a
long time back in the seventies was the last time
that the Knixt won an MBA championship. And the President
is coming to the game, so it's oh man. Madison
Square Garden is right in the heart of midtown Manhattan,
and now because of the President coming to the game,
people are all upset because they were going to have
a big watch party outside the garden because two reasons. One,
the tickets are all sold out and secondly, the tickets
are super expensive, I mean major expense. You can get
a front row seat for one hundred, one hundred and
four thousand I think it is for a ticket one
one ticket. So there's a lot of people that were
planning to cheer on the New York Knicks outside the
garden tonight and that's not going to happen. Here's Jessica Tish,
the Commissioner of the NYPD.
Speaker 4: Square Garden, as you know by now. Because of that
visit and in coordination with the United States Secret Service,
there will unfortunately be no watch party outside of Madison
Square Garden for Game three of the Finals, and no
access to the immediate vicinity of MSG without an authorized
reason to be there. However, the mayor will be hosting
a watch party nearby at Brian Park, and MSG will
be hosting two watch parties, one at Woman Rink in
Central Park and one at Brooklyn Bowl. We do expect
watch parties to resume outside of the garden for Game four.
Here is some information about what to expect security wise
for tonight's game tonight.
Speaker 1: And then she went on with the Valva street closures
and all the local information that people need. But as
far as the watch parties, they're nowhere near. I mean,
the closest one, Bryant Park is up at forty second Street,
the gardens at thirty third Street, so it's it blocks away.
But they're going to have a perimeter around Madison Square
Garden that's five blocks in all directions, so you can't
get near it unless there's lots of office buildings in there.
You can prove that you have a business meeting or
you work in one of those buildings. So it's kind
of a goofy security thing. But the president's going to
be at the game. And it's one thing if he
goes to a football game and they have a you know,
an owner's box that he can go sit in, that's
well secured. But in this case, I don't know what
they're going to do with him. I presume he's going
to get front road treatment at the same time the
mayor is going. But the last time the mayor went
to one of the games leading up to the playoffs,
he was up in the nosebleed seats somewhere. And that's well,
that's him. He's the Democrat, socialist. He wants to be
a man of the people. But we'll see what happened.
Maybe the mayor and the president will sit together, since
they're all of a sudden buddies on some things. As
far as Walsbridge concern, a mixed bag. Today, the Dow,
after getting trounced on Friday, finished down eighty eighty. Seems
like chicken feed. Compared to what happened on Friday, down eighty.
The Dow at fifty thousand and seven eighty six SMP,
up twenty one Nazdak after getting clobbered on Friday, up
two hundred and twenty points today, the price of gold
dropping fifteen dollars to forty three forty nine, and oil
went up just about a dollar ninety one dollars and
some change for a barrel of West Texas Intermediate. So
that's it for today. Thank you for coming by. We
will be back again tomorrow. I hope to see you
then