Speaker 1: And welcome to the Big Podcast. How are you welcome
to the Tuesday edition. Today's the twenty fourth day of February,
Year of Our Lord, twenty twenty six. My name is
Tom Sullivan, and we've got a fairly busy Tuesday, I
mean very busy. We've got the State of the Union
address tonight, which I'm sorry the President likes to talk long,
but he says this is going to be even longer
than usual, so brace yourself or so we got anyway
we'll go through. We got a drinking game for it,
so we can give you something to do. Surprise. Another
videotape from Savannah Guthrie was released this morning, and will
play that for you give you the latest on the
search for Nancy. Iran will probably be brought up in
the State of the Union message tonight, and the question
is are we going to do something or not? Because
the talks with Iran, they were supposed to be two
weeks down the road. Well it's been about a week
and they're having more talks between the US and Iran.
On Thursday in Geneva got General Jack Keene Mexico is
still I think this is going to just toast their
tourist business in spring break business, and nobody wants to go.
It's dangerous and people are stuck and they can't get out.
So we've got all of that to talk about today.
Let's start with Nancy again. It was a little after
nine o'clock this morning Savannah Guthrie released another video. It's
about two minutes long. Let's listen.
Speaker 2: Hi there, I'm going to say. It is day twenty
four since our mom was taken in the dark of
night from her bed, and every hour and minute and
second and every long night has been agony since then,
of worrying about her, and fearing for her, aching for her,
and most of all just missing her. Missing her. We
know that millions of you been praying. So many people
have been praying of every faith and no faith at all,
praying for her return, and we feel those prayers. Please
keep praying without ceasing. We still believe, we still believe
in a miracle. We still believe that she can come home.
Hope against hope, as my sister says, we are blowing
on the embers of hope. We also know that she
may be lost, she may already be gone, she may
have already gone home to the Lord that she loves
and is dancing in heaven with her mom and her
dad and with her beloved brother Peers, and with our daddy.
This is what is to be, then we will accept it.
But we need to know where she is. We need
her to come home. For that reason, we are offering
a family reward of up to one dollars for any
information that leads us to her recovery. All of the
information about this reward and the details is in the
caftion below. You can call the one eight hundred tip line.
You can be anonymous if you want. Someone out there
knows something that can bring her home. Somebody knows, and
we are begging you to please come forward now. So
know that we are not alone in our loss. We
know there are millions of families that have suffered with
this kind of uncertainty, and for that reason, today we
also are donating five hundred thousand dollars to the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children for their work and
helping families who are coping with loss and actively looking
for those who are lost. We are hoping that the
attention that has been given to our mom and our
family will extend to all the families light hours who
are in need and need prayers and need support. So please,
if you hear this message, if you've been waiting and
you haven't been sure, let this be your sign to
please come forward. How would you know and help us
bring our beloved mom home so that we can either
celebrate a glorious, miraculous homecoming or celebrate the beautiful, brave
and courageous and noble life that she has lived. Please
be the light in the dark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, so yet again a different tone. It almost
sounded to me like they have thrown in the towel,
but they don't want to. Offering a million up to
a million dollars and five hundred thousand two the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They are staying the
quiet part out loud about the fact that she may
be gone. So the usual law enforcement types, let me
get their reaction to all of this. Let's start with
with John.
Speaker 3: So this is things that the family has always been
prepared to do from the beginning of this ordeal for them.
This according to people who are familiar with the family's thinking,
but also talking to people familiar with the investigation, the
number of tips that were coming in the nature the
specificity of the tips coming in. Remember they were flooding
in the beginning. That has slowed down. Everybody who knew
something or thought they knew something has come forward in
that regard. But the family still believes and investigators concur
with this, that there's still someone out there, maybe more
than one, someone who actually knows knows, that has specific
information and that has reasons, whether there are personal reasons
or reasons of fear or other reasons that they haven't
come forward yet. So I think in consultation with the FBI,
with the sheriff, the family who's always been willing to
take this step financially, the decision was made it's time
to put some more behind this reward money. It's time
to see if we can coax that person out with
the kind of money that could be in someone's circumstances,
more life changing that could break that logjam about why
they're not coming forward. So that's some of what's behind this,
And I think in that context, if you look at
the additional half million dollar donation to Nick Mick or
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, that is
a nod to the fact that they understand that there
are families in positions with missing people who don't have
those resources, particularly with children in cases that don't get
this kind of attention, and that they are trying to
take a step towards helping those cases as well.
Speaker 1: Nither I am worth pointing out is if this doesn't
if the million dollars plus doesn't do it, then it's
not It's not about money. What it's about is a question.
Was it a burglary gone bad or was it simply
a revenge kidnapping to get back at Savannah or her
brother and sister or the family or we don't know.
But if this doesn't work, then you've got to cross
off the monetary idea, because if a million doesn't do it,
I don't know what does. James Gagliano, a homicide detective,
Here's what he said.
Speaker 4: I'm not ready to make that assessment yet that there
might have been a level of sophistication here. And look,
you know, as we're entering the fourth week of this,
I think most of the overt investigation that we've been
able to witness and our cameras have picked up and
the interviews that we've conducted has already been exhausted. I
think much more. The investigation right now is going on
behind the scenes. Law enforcement may very well have a
list of names. We know the FBI has been out
to a lot of the Tucson gun stores trying to
talk to the owners of those shops to determine if
anybody that resembled the image that we have up on
the screen there and now, really it's also digging into
that digital imagery the scenes we have up there were
these potentially two separate dates and the same individual or
could this possibly have been two different people? And lastly,
you know, across twenty five years, I've seen violence, depravity,
man's inhumanity writ large. Nothing ever prepares you, nothing ever
grizzles you enough to listen to something like Savannah Guthrie. There,
nothing ever can prepare you for that. It's heart wrenching.
And at this juncture, the family wants closure one way
or the other, whether it's a rescue or or whether
it's a recovery.
Speaker 1: What he mentioned was there's two photos from the video
that they got from the guy on the porch. One
of them shows the guy We've all seen it with
the backpack and the gloves and the mask and all
of that the other one and the gun hanging down
in the middle of the front of his pants. The
other photo that they have released is of it looks
to be the exact same guy with the exact same
mask and coat and everything else. He doesn't have the
holster or the gun, and he doesn't have the backpack on.
And now they won't confirm it, but a number of
sources has said that was a different date. So if
it was a different date, the guy without the backpack
but looks just like the guy who did have the backpack,
it may mean that he had been chasing the house
on a previous date. To John Bueller, a retired homicide detective, well,
it wouldn't surprise me if they did, judging from the
fact that they're coming out with this reward now. It
really kind of surprises me that they didn't have this
reward several weeks ago.
Speaker 5: It would have been appropriate time to do it. Of course,
I don't know what they know, so I can't make
the total call on that, But that's when you want
to get to it quick. Right now, it's a point
where everybody's starting to lean towards a recovery effort. I
get that it kind of suggests that that's where it's going.
But now that size of reward is going to strain
the loyalty to whoever is accomplished with this guy or
these guys, And it's really easy to take somebody that's
a big player in something like this and talk to
the prosecutors and turn them into a witness rather than
a co responsible to gain their cooperation to get the
extra help that you need to solve it. One of
the things that we still have to take into consideration
is the family could be getting frustrated with the pace
of the investigation the lack of information that's coming out.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 5: They might be getting more information than us, but it's
hard to know for sure. It would have been maybe
a little bit easier for everybody to deal with this
case if they would have had a joint press conference
with FBI with the locals on a daily or every
other day basis to keep everybody. That wasn't the way
they decided to handle that. There might be some good
reasons behind that, but maybe not.
Speaker 1: Back to the video slash photo of the guy with
the backpack and without the backpack and gun, let's find
out what Detective Viueler says.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that does kind of make it look like it
was on two separate occasions. The only problem down there
for anybody who hasn't been down there, is it's really
difficult to get doorbell cameras from neighbors houses to be
able to catch a view on this thing. All the
houses are set back a little bit, they've got a
limited view of the street in front of them, and
even from Nancy's front door, it's very difficult to see
the neighbors' houses because they're all obscured with all types
of plant life and things like that down there. So
I got to believe that they have already looked into that.
I know the FBI doesn't make mistakes like that. They're
going to be digging back in several days in advance
from when this thing actually happened to see what they
can dig up.
Speaker 1: So again the question about the photo of the guy
with the backpack and without the backpack, let's find out
what Gagliano has to say about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I believe if law enforcement felt that that was
information that might advance the investigation, that would be released.
And go back to my earlier point last hour, there
needs to be a singular point of information release. It
can't be done through two separate silos, and right now
we have radio silence, and the first week we had
a number of day after day after day briefings, and
then we morphed into this kind of cozy relationship that
the sheriff has with local journalists and with some of
the national journalists doing these one off interviews. The only
thing we can glean from that is what did he
say in one interview that was different from another interview.
There needs to be an interview where it's a press
conference and questions can be asked and information that we
need was their forcible entry? Do we believe at this
point in time that there were multiple perpetrators involved in this?
Were those two separate dates, And I'm telling you right
now that the Operational Technology Division will be able to
mine that. They'll data mind that from the video imagery,
so they do know that whether or not they choose
to release it, that's anybody's guests.
Speaker 1: So both these guys are critical of the way that
the investigators are handling the public information side of this,
and most police departments have a public information officer so
that all of the coordination of the message and the
efforts that they want to try to get out are
done together. But this is very haphazard. It's done kind
of hit and miss. So the Sheriff's getting a lot
of grief about all that. But I do believe that
the real key here is they're working on the fore end,
behind the scenes, and that could take days, weeks, months.
But in the meantime, will somebody come forward and say,
I know where your mother is? Is she being held
or is she buried somewhere? We'll they'll never find her
unless she gets somebody to come forward. There's another group
that has shown up, seems a little late, but they
are highly regarded, the Cajun Navy. The Cajun Navy is there.
They work on all kinds of things, missing people and
so forth. And they are talking about the fact that
they have drones with special technology. In other words, they
might be going out and searching for the signal from
the pacemaker, but they've got tools and equipment that are
fairly unique to the Cajun Navy. So they're there offering
their services to the investigation. So on to the fact
that tonight is the State of the Union message, President
giving his address nine o'clock Eastern time, it's going to
go long, the White House says, and well, here's Harry
Enton talking about the fact that Donald Trump already holds
the record for the longest State of the Union message.
Speaker 7: Haya's longest speech in American history. You know, I'm going
to paraphrase my cousin Vinny. When I heard that Trump
was going to give a long speech. What a freaking
surprise that was, because why, I mean, just take a look.
I mean, hello, President dresses to Congress. The term average,
the average for presidents since nineteen hundred and sixty four
fifty four minutes. Donald Trump over the course of his
two presidencies. Look at this, eighty minutes. He goes, on
average more than twenty six minutes, more than twenty five
minutes longer than the average president. So when he says, oh,
it's going to be a long loan, well that fits
with history.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he mentioned the length of times since nineteen sixty four.
The reason he went sixty four was Lyndon Johnson was
the president and it was the first delivered in primetime
television prior to nineteen sixty four. No, these were, in fact,
for many, many decades. They were a piece of paper
that was sent over to the Congress from the President
about the State of the Union. But the first primetime
television was Lyndon Johnson in nineteen well, it was the
beginning of nineteen sixty five, and Lyndon Johnson thought maybe
that would draw a big television crowd for his ego,
and it did, and they've been doing it ever since.
Speaker 8: Back to Harry Daughter.
Speaker 7: He's telegraphing exactly what's been happening in the past, because
why don't we just take a look here, Hello, President
dresses to Congress. The average speech fifty five minutes. Look
at this one. The last one was more than an
hour and a half, blue past the previous record belonging
to William Jefferson Clinton.
Speaker 3: Look at this ninety nine minutes.
Speaker 7: He went ninety nine minutes last year, which wasn't technically
a State of the Union address, by the way, but
it was still an address to a joint session of Congress.
So we'll see if he's able to break the record
for any address to a joint session of Congress that
he himself set a year ago. Donald Trump's likes top
breaks records, and when it comes to making us listen
to him for a longer period of time. He does
a very good job of breaking those records.
Speaker 1: Don't brace yourself, it's gonna be If it starts at
nine and the record over an hour and a half, Sonna,
it's gonna be late. So to keep you occupied, we
have a couple of drinking games. The first one, this
is from the Jersey Coast Emergency News Post, says, take
one sip when he says tremendous, he mentions the economy,
Iran or Israel. Take a sip. He talks about his
ratings or crowd sized. Take a sip. He says believe me.
Take a sip. He repeats a phrase for emphasis. Take
a sip, Take take two SIPs. If he gives someone
a nickname, or he mentions fake news, or he references
a past election, or he gestures with both hands while
making a point, Take a big sip. If he says
something that immediately trends on social media, the crowd starts
chanting for excessively long periods, or he goes off script
by telling a long story. Well, there's some that's from
the Jersey Coast Emergency News Post. Here's a Bengo card
about the state of the Union. Now let's see what's
on the card here. At the top of the card
is claims the twenty twenty election was stolen, claims he
ended x number of wars Bash's scotis Supreme Court mentions.
Nicki Minaj hints at refund checks mentions, Greenland hints at
war with Iran, says the phrase fake news mentions. Joe
Biden claims Epstein is a hoax. It goes on and
on the bottom line is he is going to talk
about Iran? We think to the purpose of it is
apparently he wants to focus on the economy. Here's the
problem he's got. The polling is pretty much along the
same line, and the polling is not favorable. He's got
about forty approval on the economy from Washington Post and
Fox News. Many others are down in the thirty percent
approval range. This is his opportunity to try to sell
his message. Problem is not that many people actually tune in.
It's going to be thirty million people, which is a
big TV audience. But when you talk about the voters
out there, well, back to Harriet.
Speaker 7: We know some Democrats are not even to show up
for this.
Speaker 3: In person who typically watches the State of dunity to speeches.
Speaker 7: Yeah, for Democrats, sometimes less is more when it comes
to President Trump, but for Republicans sometimes more is more.
And those are the people who actually tune in to
watch these speeches. It's the partisan crowd. He's not actually
going after independence. He's talking to his space. And we
can see that from last year. Right, Okay, share in
twenty twenty five who identified as GOP look at this
watch Trump Trump' speech to Congress. Forty eight percent of
those were Republicans compared to just thirty two percent of
Americans overall. So what you're dealing with is an audience.
You're speaking to the home crowd, and the home crowd
loves to hear Donald Trump talk, and that is probably
what he'll be doing tonight is talking to a crowd
and go on for a very very long period of time.
Speaker 1: Okay, So a bunch of Democrats are not going to go.
The number has been tallied up by some of the
media about thirty six Democrats are not going to be
in attendance. They're apparently going to have some rally on
the on the Capitol Wall of some kind. John Fetterman
thinks that is wrong.
Speaker 9: I do hope all the other Democrats that choose to
come that we don't do the same kinds of things
that happened at the last year. He was really undignified.
I'm always going to pick country over party.
Speaker 1: There's another guy commenting about it that's starting to put
his toe in the political water. He's a big, big,
big name in the world of sports broadcasting, stephen A. Smith.
Speaker 10: So I'm talking about walking out in the middle of
this speech. Others are talking about boycotting it altogether and
essentially finding something else to do. I'm here to tell
you that neither is acceptable at some point in Tom,
Ladies and Gentlemen, has got to be an adultin. If
you're going to act as juvenile, as petulant, as petty
as you accuse the President of the United States to be,
how are you ever going to hold a high moral ground,
at least high enough to judge him accordingly. This is
the kind of stuff that ticks me off.
Speaker 8: So that's Stephen A.
Speaker 1: And he's starting to sound more political more than sports.
Brett bear Over at Fox as this observation, I think.
Speaker 11: There's going to be a focus on the economy. Who
think that there's going to be a real significant part
of this speech that deals with what they see, what
they passed with the big beautiful bill, what people they
believe the administration believes, are starting to feel and will
feel as the year progresses. That consumer confidence number is
a good sign as you head into this speech, because
it was low and there are people that are bling
pain from this economy there and you see that in
polls all up and down. The President is going to
spend a lot of time on the economy, but he
has a full plate of issues to deal with, iron
the fallout from Venezuela. He will react, react to the
Supreme Court and the tariffs, and you wonder how that's
going to go with the Supreme Court justices, several of
them in the front row listening to the speech. So
it'll be fascinating to see, expect these stories weaving in
all of these elements with real people as examples, because
the President has done that before and he will do
it again.
Speaker 1: So the hockey team US hockey team that just won
the gold medal, the men's the women were invited and
said no, thank you, but the men's team said yes,
we will be there. Because of the storm in New York,
their flight from Italy had to be diverted from New
York to They landed in Miami yesterday and today apparently
the President set sent a plane to Miami to fly
them up to a joint base Andrews. So a large
number of them will be at the State of the
Union tonight. Everybody's all thrilled about the win and about
the patriotism being exhibited by the hockey team members. Some
of them will be missing because they're playing for professional
league teams and they have games tomorrow. So so as
far as the walkout goes, apparently, no, we've had disruptions,
but not a walkout.
Speaker 11: No, we haven't seen this before as far as a
missing the speech a walkout. You know, I had Adrian
Eldrod on Special Report last night Democratic Strategists, and she said,
whatever happened, you have to be respectful because they didn't
see any benefit from last year some of those uprisings
during the speech. And but you know, if there's a
big void as far as people there on the Democratic side,
that's also a sign of respect. So I'll see what
the fallout is. But they're going to have their own
event on the National Mall as a protest to President
Trump's policies Iran probably will come up, but the negotiations,
like I said, are starting to again.
Speaker 1: The next round is on Thursday, so maybe the President
will keep his powder dry. But let's check in with
General Jack Keene on his view of what's going on
with I wrong.
Speaker 6: Well, first of all, on the sites that we certainly destroyed,
what Iran has been doing is tempting to assess how
much damage can they recover that site? Is it really
worth the effort? Also publicly reported, we know they're looking
at another site that we did not hit. It was
not a nuclear site, so they can actually develop new
capability at that site. We're tracking all of this. The
Israelis are tracking it, and we're tracking it, and believe me,
we're not going to let them get too far advanced
any place without having to either one they voluntarily stop
work through negotiations and greet a substantive deal or too
that it would be on the target list in addition
to a very comprehensive target list. If we do conduct
a military operation, which I do think we will, well,
I don't know what the basis for that is, but yeah,
certainly if that's the case, that there still would be
months away getting actually to weapons great as ninety percent.
To go from anything north of twenty to ninety doesn't
take that much time. But listen to what the absurdity
of all this. They sit across from one negotiators and say,
we are not building a nuclear weapon. So the enrich
uranium you need just for civil nuclear powers three to
five percent, and they are way beyond that, and they
have sites buried underneath the ground. But yet they lie
and lie. So why would we ever agreed to deal
with these people when we know they're lying to us
right now. They've lied to us for last forty six years,
and they will continue to lie and cheat. In my judgment,
we should do nothing to extend the life of this
regime when we have an historic opportunity right now, given
it so weak and fragile, to finally set the conditions
for a regime collapse. We have never been in this
position in forty six years, and the only reason we're
in this position because of Netniao and Trump the Twelve
Day War and what they did to weaken ran not
just militarily but psychologically politically, and as we all know,
they've already in a tank economically. This is a fragile,
vulnerable nation that does have some retaliation capability. I'm not
dismissive of that, and that's why we're putting resources in
the region to protect our bases and to protect Israel.
But the historic opportunity is here. It is right in
front of us, and that's why I think it's to
prefer option. If we get this regime to collapse and
we start working with another regime like we're doing in Venezuela,
people that we can bend to our will, we have
the opportunity for peace and stability that could be enduring
for decades to come. We have not seen that in
the last forty six years. That is what is in
front of us. Yeah, I think the history is clear.
Whatever Iron says or whatever Ron pretends to do is
not real.
Speaker 3: They will cheat.
Speaker 6: And even the nuclear weapons threat, that's not even a
good deal in itself. What about the ballistic missiles. That's
what they've been recovering since the June War. That's what's
got Israel so concerned. That's why we have so many
assets in the region to protect our own basis from
that we have, they would have to agree to limit
the range of those nuclear weapons, excuse me, ballistic missiles
three three hundred kilometers and so they couldn't hit Israel
and also limit the numbers of those, and they would
have to stop supporting the proxies. After all, they've been
destabilizing the region for multiple decades by supporting the proxies.
The whole October seventh is all about Iran fueling Hamas
and Hezbollah to try to destroy the state of Israel.
Where is our memory? That was just two years ago.
So they haven't changed their stripes. And yes, they are idealogues,
theological idealogues, and it would be much better to remove
them and work with nationalists. They may be hardcore that
you can bend to our will and that is a
much better option.
Speaker 1: So General Keiths all worked I mean more worked out
than I've ever heard him. He's chomping a the bit
to go after Iran. David Sanger, national security guy, he is.
He was asked about what the President is going to
talk about tonight regarding it roll.
Speaker 8: My guess is that the President will say something along
the lines this is a last chance for Iran, but
it's also a really critical moment for the president to
make a decision here He has put this huge force
in the Gulf. It's really hard after you put that
much combat power, more than we have seen at any
time since the run up to the invasion of Iraq
was at twenty two to twenty three years ago, to
make that sort of go away. And so he would
have to come up with some kind of an agreement
that he could sell as much stronger than what President
Obama got ten years ago during the Iran negotiations. That's
going to be tough. And while there are some proposals around,
it certainly doesn't sound like they're very close at this point.
Speaker 1: Well, I'll watch it tonight so you don't have to,
And no, I don't think I can't do the work
and also participate in the drinking contest. However, we'll give
you the rundown tomorrow. Wall Street today reversed all the
losses from yesterday. The Dow up three hundred seventy, the
forty nine thousand and one seventy four, SMP up fifty two,
NAZDAC up two hundred and thirty six. The price of
gold fell sixty two dollars down to five thousand and
one sixty three, and oil down twenty cents. Still in
the sixty six dollars range for a barrel of oil.
So that's it for today. Have yourself a wonderful rest
of your day. I'll be back tomorrow and I hope
to see you then