Speaker 1: Well, hello, hello, hello, Hello, how are you happy Wednesday
to you? Today's the thirteenth day of August, year of
Our Lord, twenty twenty five. My name is Tom Sullivan.
And we've got we got more of the fighting crime
in Washington, d C. We've got the big meeting coming
up on Friday between President Putin and President Trump. The
Epstein story. I told you yesterday that the story has
died off. Well, apparently in the polls when asking is
this the number what's the number one concern in the country,
it doesn't show up. But apparently members of Congress are
saying their phones are ringing off the hook with their
constituents calling, going there's a cover up, there's a cover up.
So we'll get into that as well. Starting with d C. This,
I think the President or somebody on his staff told him.
What I was talking about is the fact that I'm
all for fighting crime. I mean, I was in law
enforcement a while ago, but I'm all for fighting crime.
And d C has had a long history of crime,
and I mean, I think about Chicago. It's almost sad
how we we did. For a while, it just got
to be old. Was how many people were shot and
killed over the weekend in Chicago, and it's always the
South side of Chicago. It's the same area. Nobody cares
because when you go to Chicago, you don't go to
the high crime areas. It's kind of the same in Washington,
d C. You go to Washington, d C. You go
see the Capitol, you go see the governm bil, you
go to the Smithsonian. You don't go into the high
crime neighborhoods. So as a result, a lot of people
have just kind of rolled their eyes over all of this.
But the part about I think somebody must be listening
to this program is my concern isn't about fighting crime.
My concern is is this another one of those government
efforts to get a bunch of headlines, but nothing actually
ever will be accomplished by it. When I was in
law enforcement, we used to kind of snarkily joke among
ourselves about the fact, well we have job security because
crime is never going to be eliminated, and so all
this talking about eliminating crime in Washington d C. I'm sorry,
it's not going to happen. It's not even possible, sadly,
just the human condition. But people are making an effort
at it and The reason I say somebody in the
White House is listening is because I've been bringing up
the concern I have is that the law, the Home
Rule Law of nineteen seventy three, says very clearly that
the president has the authority to take control of DC
police for forty eight hours. Well, it's been forty eight hours,
and it can be extended, but they have to do
it irrelevant committees and committees from Washington, and the committees
they're gone. It's August. The Congress is out. But the
third part of this law, taking control for over thirty days,
must be passed into law. So the President spoke about
that today and listened to what he said because he's
aware of the thirty day restriction. Are you talking to
Congress about extending it or do you believe thirty days
is sufficient?
Speaker 2: Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it
without Congress, but we expect to be to Congress before
Congress very quickly. And again we think the Democrats will
not do anything to stop crime, but we think the
Republicans will do it almost unanimously. So we're going to
need a crime bill that we're going to be putting
in and it's going to pertain initially to DC. It's
almost we're going to use it as a very positive example,
and we're going to be asking for extensions on that,
long term extensions, because you can't have thirty days. Thirty
days is that's by the time you do it. We're
going to have this in good shape. And don't forget
in the border. Everyone said it would take years and
you'd have to go back to Congress. I never went
to Congress for anything. I just said close the border,
and they closed the border and that was the end
of it. I didn't go back to Congress. We're going
to do this very quickly, but we're going to want extensions.
I don't want to call national emergency. If I have to,
I will, but I think the Republicans in Congress will
approve this pretty much unanimously.
Speaker 1: So that brings up the question about how long will
the federal government continue continue to work on controlling the police,
et cetera in Washington, d C. Because he's now this
first time I've heard him address it about the thirty
day limit. Uh, Judge, Judge Janine, I want to call her,
but Janine Piro, who is the US Attorney for Washington
d C was talking about what she's up against, and
it's it's this is where I go. You can put
the police on the on the on the streets, and
the prosecutor can prosecute them. But listen to what Judge Piro,
Judge Janine Pierrot has to say about the fact that
the judges are letting them right back out the door.
There is no consequence for committing crime in DC.
Speaker 3: The truth is that I just, you know, kind of
on a whim, just said, let me see the number
of homicides of teens last year in d C and
this year in DC. You're looking at the twenty twenty
four kids who were shot and killed with firearms. In
twenty twenty four, there were twenty nine of them. Okay,
every one of them is an African American minority community.
This is a community that's being victimized by violent crime.
Now in twenty twenty five, we've got sixteen, again under
the age of nineteen, who have been shot and killed
as a result of a firearm. So totally we've got
forty five African American kids who've been killed. And the
crucial point right now is that the clearance rate is
thirty percent what does that mean. That means that they've
only saw thirty percent of the homicides of these teens
in the last year and seven months. That means it's
seventy percent of the murders that were committed with guns
against teens in the minority community. Of those, seventy percent
of the murderers are walking around free. We don't know
who they are because the cases have not been solved.
And therein lies the problem. Young criminals in DC have
been emboldened to commit crimes because they believe that they're
not accountable.
Speaker 4: And why do they believe that?
Speaker 3: Because they are.
Speaker 4: Not accountable, We've got a DC.
Speaker 3: Counsel that has passed laws that make it almost impossible
for me, as both federal prosecutor and kind of quasi
local prosecutor, to be able to incarcerate these kids. I
can't even prosecute a teen who's seventeen, eighteen, nineteen years old,
forget the fourteen fifteen year olds who shoot someone with
a gun. If you shoot someone with a gun in
DC and you're up to nineteen years of age, I
can't even indicte you.
Speaker 1: So what Janae Piau wants to do is she wants
the DC Council to re oak or repeal three laws
that are on the books. One is the Youth Rehabilitation Act,
the second one is the Incarceration Reduction Amendment, and the
third one is the Second Chance Amendment Act. And basically
these are all acts to essentially hide forever the record
of a juvenile who commits adult crimes. So what will
this do? What difference will it make in fighting crime
in Washington, DC? And will the Council even give it
a time of day?
Speaker 3: Well, what it would do is it would make people accountable,
number one. And we're also looking to lower the age
of criminals. What's happening is even if you shoot someone
with a gun, someone with a gun, you go to
family court, where the purpose is rehabilitation, you get to
go to an ice cream social and you get to
go to yoga classes. That's nonsense, and that's not what
we need in the nation's capital, and that's not why
the President put me here. The President wants to make
the capital safe and beautiful, and that's exactly what we're
going to do. And the only way to do that
is to change the laws that have protected young children
who are committing adult crimes, and all of these statutes
that they've passed don't allow me to incarcerate. They allow
the removal or the erasure of convictions. How fair is
that to a parent who wants to find out whether
or not a nanys is someone who's been convicted of
a prior assault. How fair is that to an employer
who doesn't get to understand or know who he is hiring.
Everything about the DC Council and the laws that they've
passed are liberal, they're defense leaning, and they're not in
favor of the citizens of DC. And that's what President
Trump is fighting, and that's what we're going to change.
We're going to change the laws. We're going to lower
the age of criminal responsibility. We've seen too much of it.
We've seen homicides against young people. We've seen assaults in
areas where just a couple of days ago, a kid
gets a fracture nos and gets a severe concussion. By
twelve and thirteen year olds trying to steal a car.
Why because they've been allowed to do it not anymore.
If we have our way, we will be able to
make DC safe again.
Speaker 4: And the President's going to do it.
Speaker 3: And we've got this last night there were seven hundred
federal and local cops on the streets. And this is
what the community wants. They want to be able to
be safe. They want to come to the nation's capital
and look at the fabulous museums and the monuments that.
Speaker 1: We have here.
Speaker 3: And last night there were forty three arrests and we
sive seven handguns. And every night it's something else. But
this is a message that we're not going to tolerate
crime as if that's just the way things go. And
I'm tired of hearing the crime is down. It's not
down for people who are suffering from crime.
Speaker 1: Okay, so she said there were forty three arrest last
night and seven hand guns picked up. But back to
her previous comment was so the juvenile goes before a
judge and the judge says, now, be a good kid,
go to the ice cream social and don't do that again.
Nothing happens, There are no consequences. And it's the city
council in Washington and the laws that they have made.
So the people elect the city council. I mean, this
is a head scratch of me. I've seen the same
thing in San Francisco. I've seen the same thing in Chicago.
People vote for their local lawmakers, and there's crime the
lower and people are losing their lives and nobody will
change anything. And I have to remind you what Harriet
and told us yesterday. Washington d C is solidly blue.
Six percent of the people that voted in Washington, d
C voted for Donald Trump. Ninety four percent voted for Democrats.
They don't like Republicans, they don't like Donald Trump. They
may not like the crime in their neighborhoods, but it's
a head scratcher to me. When are they going to
wake up and vote for somebody else who is anti
crime that will change the laws. Because Janine Piro can
prosecute all day long until the cows come home, but
the judges are still going to let them lose. I
wish them well, I wish I wish the people of
d C well, But I also wish the President and
Janeine Pirou well. But they're up against having to change
the city council. Maybe they can do that in DC
because it's federal property, but are and the President's talking
about maybe other cities, Baltimore, Oakland, that's not going to
be possible. The people have elected their local legislators, and
I'm a long believer in the people's vote counts. We'll
see what happens. And speaking of we'll see what happens.
Friday coming up quickly, and the President and President Putin
are going to be meeting in Alaska on Friday. I
don't know if I'm expecting anything. I know it's more
than a photo op, but I'm I'm not sure what's
going to happen, if anything. In fact, the President was
even talking today about the fact that there will be
probably a second meeting is going to be required, so
this is, I guess, a size each other up meeting.
Today the President had a virtual meeting with European leaders
that are very concerned about what is going to be
the agreement. They want to be part of the agreement.
Of course, President Zelensky of Ukraine wants to be part
of the agreement. But Zelensky's not going to be there.
The European Union is not going to be at the meeting,
NATO's not going to be at the meeting, so they're
all worried about the fact that the President might go
soft on European requirements in NATO requirements here's David Sangert
kind of referring to all of that today.
Speaker 5: Well, the best case scenario I could imagine would be
that President Trump comes to an agreement with the European
allies about what his red lines are, what he will not,
what he would not allow the Russians to get. But
the fact of the matter is that the Europeans and
President Trump have been talking in very different terms about
these discussions. The President keeps discussing land swaps, which suggests
that the Russians may even get some territory that right
now they are not occupying militarily. When you listen to
the Europeans, they talk about security guarantees, about making sure
that the flow of arms to Ukraine continues no matter what,
and that's of course something that Putin wants to limit.
Quite directly. They talk about making sure that the President
doesn't commit NATO to pulling back from current positions in
Eastern Europe. So they're worried that, of course Putin will
use the moment to take a pause, use the ceasefire
to rebuild, and then continue to try to attack the
rest of Ukraine at some point in the future.
Speaker 1: See that's the part that I'm going so Putin might
go sure, okay, I'll go along with all of that.
When he knows that when he gets back to Moscow
he's just going to continue the war. He may just
just lie through his teeth, and that's his reputation, is
that he lies through his teeth. But the European leaders
and Zelenski and NATO, this was a virtual medium. What
they're they agreed to was amongst themselves was where this
meeting you should go on Friday is simply one place.
Just get a cease fire. After the ceasefire, they can
work out the rest of the details. And Kurt Folker
yesterday was telling us that they if it just stalemates,
if you can stalemate it for years, then that's a positive.
So they're looking for just simply a ceasefire. General Phillip Breedlove,
former commander of that part of the world for the
US Army, he has these thoughts about how dealing with
Vladimir Putin's going to go.
Speaker 6: And I would say, if anyone tells you they know
what President Trump is going to do, you should just
stop the term the broadcast.
Speaker 4: He'll make his own mind up.
Speaker 6: I do believe that President Trump sees this as a
preliminary sort of meeting. We in the West and we
in the United States in the past have agreed that
nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. So I believe that anything
that is going to be durable and lasting is going
to have to take Ukraine's a part and approval in
the process. This has been his aim for nearly twenty years.
He wants to deal with the American president over the
top of Europe and certainly over the top of Ukraine.
He desperately needs to be seen as a world leader
at that small table, unencumbered by the Europeans or Ukraine.
And I think that we should be very, very careful
not to legitimize the fact that Putin can cut a
deal about Europe and Ukraine without Europe and Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, also weighed in on this.
He's met with Putin in the past and he doesn't
trust him one inch.
Speaker 7: Importantly, what's going to happen in forty hours with President
Trump is going to have the advantage of the leverage
that he has as a result of all the things
he's done, not only in the last six months, but
in his first term.
Speaker 1: Too.
Speaker 7: Vladimir Putin understands that pressure will be continued to ratchet
on him. The cost will begin to exceed the benefits
in the same way the president to turn him.
Speaker 4: In the first term.
Speaker 7: I'm confident the President Trump will deliver a message to
Putin saying, look, you've got to wrap this up. You've
got to get to a ceasefire. There are lots of
complex issues about security arrangements in the postwar aftermap, but
we got to get this ceasefire done.
Speaker 4: We'll see. I think they'll make some progress, and I
don't think Vladimir Putin wi stiff Donald Trump on Friday.
This is the history of conflict of war, right.
Speaker 7: We know this, We've seen this so many times. In
the end, the reason you have conversations like the one
on Friday is because you have to.
Speaker 4: Negotiate a solution or get total defeat.
Speaker 7: There is no evidence that either side can defeat the
other in that sense of the totality, that Putin can
get to Kiev, or that Ukraine can get all of
their land back, and so there will be a negotiative solution.
There'll be a compromise. Neither of them has seen it
in their best interest to do so. Today, President Trump
is beginning to set the conditions I think deliver that
ceasefire and deliver a good outcome from Erica. I've spent
a fair amount of time with President Putin. He is
an evil guy. He's a bad actor. You can't believe
a darned thing he says, and so it's about actions,
not words. But I think Putin also knows his economy
is beginning to really struggle because of it In Trump
and the sanctions.
Speaker 4: He's put in place.
Speaker 7: This will create the leverage needed to get where President
Trump wants to get. I remember being in annoy with
President Trump when we met with Trman Kim. In two minutes,
we knew that we weren't going to get there. I'm
confident President Trump, whether it's two minutes or five, President
Trump will walk away pretty clearly understanding Putin's red lines.
Speaker 8: He seems.
Speaker 1: He seems about as positive as you can get that
President Trump is going to go into this meeting with
the leverage that he needs. And like you said, President
Trump said that he'll know in two minutes whether or
not Putin's going to actually agree to anything. And I
believe all of that. What I worry about is that
putin lies like a sieve, and I truly believe that
he will say okay, okay, Kale'll agree to all these
things and then wait for the dust to settle and
go right back to attacking Ukraine again. He wants to
get that property more than anything. All Right. One story
that we told you was it yesterday or day before
the poony was out the Harry Entine poll about the
fact that nobody cares about the Epstein story. Ady wore,
it's died. It has just died on the vine. But
the way the poling was done was they asked people
what's the number one issue facing America and the answer
was inflation. And Epstein wasn't the number one concern for America.
But members of Congress are reporting over and over again
that the number one reason why people are calling their
offices is because of the fact that they still think
there is an Epstein cover up. Alex Acosta was the
US attorney in Miami that gave a sweetheart deal to
Epstein back in what was the early two thousands. Ali Honig,
former US prosecutor, said he got this. He's got a
take on Alexander Acosta that shall we say is not positive.
Speaker 9: And my view, Alex Acosta is one of the true
villains in this case, and if Congress is serious about
getting the truth and accountability, he should be first on
their witness list. So Acosta, as you said, was the
US attorney chief federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida,
which includes Miami. The local police, along with his prosecutors
in the FBI, put together a case they bring to
him with three dozen identified child victims. Prosecutor based on
that drafts a sixty six to zero count indictment, federal
indictment which would have included sex trafficking charges which would
have had Epstein, if convicted, locked up for a minimum
of ten years and probably closer to the maximum of life.
With all of that evidence, Acosta decides to give Jeffrey
Epstein a non prosecution agreement, meaning you don't have to
plead to anything federal. You just have to plead to
these minor state charges. As you said, Epstein ends up
doing thirteen months. During that time, he's spending twelve hours
a day on work release scare quotes here because he's
at his attorney's office. Something called the Florida Science Foundation,
which by the way, did not advance any science and
was disbanded as soon as his sentence was done. It's
an injustice OPR. There was an ethics review by DOJ
done years later that said, well, he should have handled
things better.
Speaker 4: It's a softball report.
Speaker 9: But another thing that Acosta has to answer for he
mistreated victims. That report by OPR by the Justice Department
found that Acosta in his office affirmatively misled tied to
the victims.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because deal exactly right.
Speaker 9: The ink was already dry on this sweetheart deal that
they had given Epstein, and a Costa's office reaches out
to these child.
Speaker 4: Victims and says things are still pending.
Speaker 9: Please be patient, I mean, and later that report found
that that wast affirmatively misleading. One other detail about that
deal that Epstein got. Part of that deal that's truly
outrageous is a Costa said, not only are you, Jeffrey Epstein,
going to get this pass, we also promise that your
co conspirators will never be prosecuted. And guess what's happening
with that now? That is the hook that Glaine Maxwell
is using to challenge her conviction. She's trying to get
the Supreme Court to take that right now. So again
that's on a Costa. He has serious questions to answer.
Speaker 1: Told Jig wasn't a fan of alex Acosta. He is unhappy,
to say the least, want well. The back in Washington,
the effort to get a Costa to come before Congress
and testify is being led by a Republican Congresswoman, Annapauline
and Luna, Republican from Florida. And she is pushing for
a cost to come before the House and testify. And
the question is will the Republicans in the House push
for him to come like she wants them to do.
Speaker 9: Congress is serious about getting answers. They need to ask
some questions of Alexander Acosta. Yeah, if you look at
the people who have been subpoena there's about a dozen
former attorneys general, President, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, directors.
Speaker 4: Of the FBI.
Speaker 9: Those folks, if you look at individuals on that list,
have a fraction of a fraction, if anything, of the
relevant knowledge that Alexander Acosta has. I'll give you two examples.
If you look at the letter that the House sent
to Hillary Clinton. One of the reasons it says they
need to talk to her. Is because she hired Jeffrey
Epstein's nephew to work on her campaign and then in
the state Department.
Speaker 4: That's a reason for a subpoena.
Speaker 9: If you look at the subpoena to Jim Comey, the
former FBI director, there's no reason given Jim Comy wasn't
even director of FBI during the first, first, or second
Epstein investigations.
Speaker 4: He was the FBI director in between.
Speaker 9: So compare what those people might have that's relevant knowledge
to Alexander Acosta, the guy who gave the case away
to Epstein in the first place. Anyone can try to
fight a subpoena. They can argue they don't have any
relevant testimony. But I don't really see a way out
for him. I mean, there's not any type of privilege
that he could invokee there's no executive privilege. I don't
think he'd have a Fifth Amendment privilege. I don't think
he did anything criminal, So he could try to negotiate
for a more limited subpoena. But the fact of the
matter is, if Congress wants to get Alexander Acosta's testimony,
they almost certainly can. It's just a question of whether
they have the political will to issue him a subpoena
and then to enforce it.
Speaker 1: So it's really not a political thing. It's not a
Republican thing or a Democrat thing, and so two people
that speak for Republican and Democrat parties indirectly. Scott Jennings
was asked about what his thought was was about getting
Alex's Acosta in and getting to the bottom of this
whole question about Epstein.
Speaker 4: I mean they might bring them in.
Speaker 10: They're bringing in all kinds of other people, So fine
with me if they do, and fine with me if
they find out things that lead to information gathering that
puts other people in jail, if they need to go
to jail, I don't have any problem with them following
the facts where they go here. I mean, the polling
on this, this is a political analysis, is pretty clear
nobody cares. This is like the least important thing to
the American people, and that includes Republicans too.
Speaker 4: But if they want to continue to do their working.
Speaker 1: Scott's right again, I remind you what I said earlier
that the polling on this was what is the number
one issue facing our country? Epstein is nowhere near the
number one issue of number one issue facing our country.
But again members of Congress are saying their phones are
ringing off the hook, and the number one reason why
people are calling is because they still smell a cover up.
And it's not about a Republican or a Democrat. It's
about there were people molesting children, young ladies, girls, underage girls.
People want to see that kind of person locked up.
Speaker 10: There have been questions about this, and so if you
want to talk to folks, I don't know why anybody
would be mad about that. But at the same time,
I think we shouldn't mistake this for something other than
a Washington story, because out in the country this is
not a big deal for the American people.
Speaker 1: I just disagree. I mean, this is about the elites
that were harming underage girls. And if you ever want
to lock up anybody or at least bring people to justice,
it's people that committed those kinds of crimes and they
need to get to the bottom of it because it
still smells like somebody is covering up. Here's a David
Axrod on his view.
Speaker 11: I can't speak to why Democrats haven't spoken to this before,
but this thing does say I agree with Scott by
the way. I think people are worried that their costs
are going up, the job market is tightening, and kinds
of other things. But this thing stinks and it gets
more and more smelly as time goes on. If if Acosta,
who knows, as Ellie described so much about the genesis
of all of this, is not called, I think that's
just going to accelerate the suspicion that there's a cover
up going on. So you know, now Luna has opened
up this possibility, people are going to wonder why it
didn't happen.
Speaker 1: So bottom line is is the Eptein story may not
be the top story out there be the most biggest
concern on the people's mind, but it's still alive and
people are still smelling a cover up of some kind.
The shooting on Friday at Emory University in Georgia, a
little more came out on that today. The father of
the man that did the shooting killed the police officer
and shot five hundred times at the CDC building, breaking
over two hundred windows, so bullets were flying into that building.
The father had called the local police they're worried about
his son, and then the pad of the Georgia Bureau
of Investigation has a couple of comments. Let's listen.
Speaker 12: It's been involved with last summer with some problems that
we had with my adult son, and I'm very worried
that he might have been involved in this shooting.
Speaker 8: Today, a search wart executed at the residence of the
shooter revealed written documentation that expressed the shooter's discontent with
the COVID nineteen vaccinations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was his motive, was that he had some
concern over the COVID nineteen vacs. And so as a result,
a police officer is dead. This young man had no
prior arrest of any kind. It reminds me of the
shooting the week before here in New York where the
guy shot up first of all, killed a police officer
and then killed innocent people in the lobby of the
building the houses the NFL because he thought that he
was suffering from CTE that he got from playing high
school football. So I and again another police officer shot,
innocence died. In Georgia, a police officer shot. But both
of these people. I mean, whatever you think about the
COVID nineteen vaccine and whatever you think, God bless you,
good for you. We all have the right to judge
whether we liked the vaccine or not like the vaccine.
None of them, I mean, other than your I'm sure
a specialist in that area. We really don't. We have
to rely upon experts. So it's two weeks in a
row where people had a belief in their head that
there was something that they needed to deal with a grievance.
A police officer winds up dead in both places, plus
some other people. I mean, I can't imagine how many
people are wandering around with crazy thoughts in their heads.
All right, that's it for today. Let's look at Wall Street,
because let's look at the market here, Dad Jones Industrials
doing great. Continues to keep the run going up four
hundred and sixty three today to forty four thousand, nine
twenty two Yes and p up twenty new record. Nazdak
up thirty one, Gold up eight dollars to thirty four
oh seven. In the price of oil down forty three
cents at sixty two dollars, had some change for one
barrel of oil. Thank you for coming by today. We're
going to try this again tomorrow. Hope to see you then.
Thanks for coming by