Speaker 1: And hello, Hi, how are you happy? Monday? Back to work?
We go a lot of you coming back off of
four days. Hope your Thanksgiving was spectacular. We have a
very busy Monday, no question about it. We've got the
big talks about Ukraine. We've got a shooting at a
children's birthday party in Stockton, California. Will follow up on
the the DC shooter. Luigi Maggioni is back in court
again today. And we got Black Friday sales and today
they're estimating what Cyber Monday. And I don't know if
you're buying anything or not, but a lot of people are.
So let's start with though this is probably the most
serious story of the day, war crimes. There are a
lot of people pointing fingers at the drug boats that
we are blowing out of the water with our military,
and out of that people obviously are dying. And people
are now questioning whether or not this goes back to
this September second event. This was the first hit in
where we went after a drug boat, and the accusations
are that the Secretary of War, Secretary of Defense heg
Seth Pete Hegseth gave orders to make sure that kill
everybody and went back around after they struck the boat,
they went back around, allegedly for a second time to
make sure that everybody was dead. That is a war crime.
And so that is what's being debated, and it's being
debated bipartisanally. Let's start with a Republican, Mike Turner, who
was on the Judiciary, I'm sorry, the Armed Services Committee,
and this is what he had to say in his
reaction to the accusations.
Speaker 2: Obviously, if that occurred, that would be be very serious,
and I agree that that would would be an illegal act.
This is completely outside of anything that has been discussed
with Congress, and there is an ongoing investigation.
Speaker 1: All right, So there's a Republican. Here's the Democrat. Of course,
he's also controversial because of the fact that he was
one of the six that put the tape out there
about don't obey illegal orders. And it appears that what
they were alluding to were these attacks on the Narco boats.
Here's Mike Mark Kelly.
Speaker 3: If you received that order, would you have carried it out?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: No, And I'm a guy who I have sunk two ships,
but you know, going after survivors in the water, that
is clearly not lawful.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 1: So both of those people are part of the group
that's going to lead the investigation. And again, like I said,
it's bipartisan, and it's in the House, and it's also
in the Senate. President Trump, when he was fine back
to Washington last night on Air Force one, was well,
this is how he responded to the accusation.
Speaker 5: Number one, I don't know that that happened. And Pete
said he did not want them. He didn't even know
what people were talking about. So we'll look at we'll
look into it. But no, I wouldn't have wanted that,
not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal.
It was fine, and if what two people are aunt?
But Pete said that didn't happen.
Speaker 1: Kind of hard to hear because of the aircraft noise,
but he said he wasn't aware of that happening. That
Pete haig Seth told him it did not happen. So
where do we go from here. David Urban, former West
Point guy and also speaks as a strategist for Republicans,
had this to say.
Speaker 6: No, I served the military, went to West Point. I
actually served as the Article thirty two hearing officer for
the one hundred first Airborne Division, which means it's you're
under the uniform of code military Justice. There is no
grand jury proceeding. There's an officer who sits to determine
probable cause, and I served in that role for roughly
a year hearing probable cause cases to determine whether or
not people went forward for courts martial. There's a lot
of information needs to be determined here. What the exact
order was that Pete Hegseth gave him the initial in
the first place, whether he said, you know, we want
to make sure no one's left, or did he order
a double tap here, or was it you know, what
was it thought of that the people downstream and the
chaining command thought that that was the initial order that
Pete gave way way back when was leave no survivors,
go back and kill everybody. I mean, there's a lot
there are more questions and answers at this point, as
you point out, correctly, bipartisan efforts in both the House
and Senate Wicker and Jack Reid and then and same
similarly in the House have both sent letters to the
Department of Defense saying we want more, we need more.
The President said he's gonna investigate. I have a feeling
this is not the last we're gonna hear of it.
There's gonna be as you know these instances, there's videotape,
there are there are emails, There are you know, classified
memos that go back and forth, all I feel which
are going to be turned over at some point to
get to the bottom of this. Because if in fact,
there was an order to go back and kill these
folks and you know, make sure that they weren't alive,
someone's gonna be held accountable for it.
Speaker 1: But what David Urban's talking about is I think pretty important.
Go to the next step. They are going to find
out what happened. They are going to find out who
gave if there were orders given to go back and
make sure to kill everyone. If those orders were given,
who gave them? Was it somebody down this downstream, some
lieutenant commander, was it up some admiral? Was it all
the way up to Pete Hegseth. We will find out
and whoever gave those orders. And we'll play a couple
of clips here. The lawyers are all going this thing
is totally illegal to do something like that. We don't
know if that happened. But we will find out if
it did, and we'll find out who. If it turns
out to be some low level commander on the scene,
then they're going to be court martial. If it goes
up to Pete Haig Seth, now you've got a whole
bunch of can of worms with that. If it goes
to the President I, you know, there's gonna that's just
gonna be a big can of worms. So we'll find out,
and there's no reason to prejudge what happened. We will
find out what exactly happened. Back to David Urban talking
about we follow rules in our military. We don't do rambo.
We are a professional military and the world looks up
to us because of that. Here's David.
Speaker 6: We have rules, right, there are rules of war, right,
there are rules. That's why the America is better than
every other country in the world is because we follow
the rules. We play by the rules. The rules may
not be you know, played by by our enemies and
by others, but we play by the rules because that's
what that's what Americans do. There are rules of warfare.
There's a Geneva Convention. There are all kinds of things
that govern how we conduct combat and what we do. Listen,
I would say this harken back to when President Barack
Obama was in office and there was a drone strike
and President Obama killed a US citizen in Yemen. He
had converted to be, you know, Taliban. He was, he
was radicalized, but he was a US citizen. He was
taken down by a drone strike. President Obama did and
there wasn't this this amount of outrage. So I'm a
little bit curious and suspect by that. I think everything
you know Trump does as bad, and everything you know
that he does is bad, bad, bad, But there there
there is some precedent for this in a bad way.
Speaker 1: There was a there was a minor outrage about the
fact that President Obama had killed his citizen, but everybody
looked the other way because the guy he killed, Alwaukee,
was has had converted and was a Taliban official and
was recruiting for the Taliban. So it was like, Okay,
back to the rules and back to this is going
to be found. People are going to find out exactly
what's going on. Angus King, the senator from the Independent
senator from Maine, said, oh, yeah, this is simply a
matter of not politics. It's a matter of facts. It's
all about the facts. Law is clear. If the facts
are as have been alleged that there was a second strike,
specifically to kill the survivors in the war in the water,
that's a stone cold war crime.
Speaker 3: It's also murder. So the real question is who gave
which orders? When were they given? And that's what we're
going to get to the bottom of in the Congress.
As you point out, a bipartisan interest in this. Roger Wicker,
or the chair of the Armed Services Committee, has said
we're going to dig into this. So it's really a
factual question. The law is totally clear. I think we're
going to see some interviews of people up and down
the chain of command. The question is what ordered did
this Secretary of Defense give?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 3: And what how is that executed? And it's we're going
to be talking to people, as I say, all the
way up up to the top of the chain of
command and down to the people that actually triggered that attack.
So it's a it's a very serious matter.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: And ironically this comes at this moment where we've just
been through this hysteria at the at the Pentagon about
Mark Kelly and others advising soldiers that they should not
follow illegal orders. And here's an example of of just
what the concern was that that provoked that video. Well,
at that point, it's not really up to the Congress,
it would be up to the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
it would be up to the military chain of command
themselves they they enforced these laws. Conceivably, it could be
a criminal case in the in the American court system,
but I would think that this would be handled. And again,
one of the problems here is that one of the
very first things this administration did I'm talking about within
the first couple of weeks was fire the senior judge
Advocate General, that the senior lawyers in the Defense Department.
They then illegally fired the Inspector General, which is supposed
to oversee the activities of the department, and then they
transferred six hundred JAG officers out of the Pentagon to
do immigration judge cases. So they have really diminished the
capacity for the Defense Department to take cognizance of what
the law is in these cases. And that's that's what's
really concerning. Beyond this particular case, when you take those
series of steps and follow the breadcrumbs. It sounds like
illegal orders might be in the offing.
Speaker 1: Well, obviously he's jumping way ahead. He says, we're going
to go to the fact, but he's already figured out
that illegal orders were in the other I don't know
if there were illegal order. Did they come from the President,
Did they come from the Secretary of Defense, Did they
come from a local commander. Did they come from people
actually manning the guns that shot the Boat's the boat
out of the water. We'll find out. I always like
to check with General Jack Keene on all things military.
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's pretty evident the president definitely wants
a regime change there, and he's offering madority opportunity to
voluntarily do it, or he's likely to take some action.
You know, presidents at post World War two certainly have
been very involved in our western hemisphere and taking real
interest in the security implications that take place there coming
from knocko trafficking, human trafficking, and just human rights abuses,
et cetera. To be quite direct and specific about it.
In nineteen eighty nine, George H. W. Bush directed a
regime change in Panama Noriega, who was running the country
as a result of a fraudulent election. Pretty similar and
also he was indicted by federal courts for criminal drug
trafficking and human trafficking the year before. In the United States.
We also wanted to protect US citizens, some thirty five
thousand that were there. We put scores of troops in
there to make that. Regime change has done quite successfully.
In nineteen ninety four, President Clinton directed of regime change
in Haiti, were a military dictatorship had taken over from
a duly democratically elected president Aristet, and the mission was
to return Ariste to power and let him run the country.
The second thing was is that there was significant mass
migrations taken place to the United States because of the
horrific human rights abuses that were taking place as a
result of the military dictatorship. I give our view as
those examples because this president here also neither president had
authorization for the Congress to do either one of those
regime changes. There is limited discussion with the Congress prior
to it, certainly, and considerably more discussion with it once
the attacks began, but authorization did not take place. Certainly,
collaboration was taking place at the time so we're on
a path. I think it's quite similar here, and the
president has a lot of options. He can do limited
attacks to get his attention further. He can continue to
demonstrate the status quo, which he's doing right now with
military power in the region and issuing threats, or he
can do something more significant, as our previous presidents did well.
I think whenever the United States is exercising its power
and influence, all of our adversaries clearly pay attention. Most
graphically was when the United States is delivered a decisive
blow supporting Israel's attack on Iran and pushed Iran back
to it in a position we haven't seen for forty
four years. Weakened that regime. Certainly, President She's paying attention
to that because and so is Putin. They all got
aggressive in the intervening years between Trump Born and Trump too.
There's no disputing the fact he invaded Ukraine. Putin did
because he thought he was going to get away with it,
and he thought the signals were very clear after the
Afghanistan debacle that the United States didn't have much stomach
for this, and President She became considerably more aggressive in
imposing his will on the region and stating time and
time again, I want to replace the United States as the.
Speaker 3: World's global power.
Speaker 7: This is sort of the mess that the president inherited
here and is trying to deal with it. And the
same thing dealing with Maduro. This is a criminal who's
shielding his criminal activity by his presidential political power, and
you've got to see him for what it is and
what its impact is on the United States. We have
a president for the first time in multiple presidents, Republican
and Democrat about it, who's really taking the narco traffic,
gain fence and al and obviously cocaine and the rest
of the drugs as a poison that is impacting American
citizens And we've got to take a strategic look at
how we do it stop it not just this country
and also involves China. And that is to be applauded.
We can argue over the means, for sure. This is
the first president that's taken a holistic approach to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So President Trump's enemies, you want to call them that,
opposition whatever you like. They do not want President Trump
to go further than these narco drug boats and go
ahead and do regime change. They're afraid of that, and
they don't want they're trying to stop him right where
he is. But back to the Narco boats in the
water and this story that's out about the fact that
there was an order to kill everybody. Jonathan Turley brings
the legal case to the table. Well, this is highly contextual.
As you might imagine, the law of war deals with
a situation that is the example of the fog of war, right,
I mean, the fog of war has a certain fluidity
to it. Decisions are made very quickly. Some of those
decisions might be mistakes. What is clear is that you
cannot issue a strike on survivors of a wreck just
to kill the survivors. That is against the laws of war.
It's against federal law, which has been incorporated by the
Senate through treaties. So those points are very clear. The
question that is not clear is what happened here. Now,
what was just suggested by the White House was that
the second strike was meant to fully destroy the vessel. Now,
that can be done within the rules of or the
laws of war. That is obviously, in World War Two
and other conflicts, a coup de gras torpedo or shell
was used to bring a.
Speaker 8: Ship finally to rest, So there's no question about that.
It's a question of the motivation. So it's not uncommon
for finishing shots to occur if the boat itself was
not fully destroyed. Now, the argument of critics here is
that this is not a battleship, this is not a destroyer,
it's not even a cruiser. It's a small boat hit
with a large monition, and that it was largely destroyed.
And so the question is was this to kill the
survivors or truly to destroy the rest of that ship.
You know, there's already been talk about a congressional investigation.
The key here is going to be what the admiral
had intended here, whether if he was intending to take
out the remainder of the boat, it likely is within
the laws of war. These are very difficult decisions to
sort of walk back in time, but it'll depend a
lot upon that videotape what orders were given. The secretor
here has denied the allegation that he gave an order
to kill any survivors, and so that is now clear
on the record and contradicts the original media report.
Speaker 1: So this story will not go away until they come
to an answer about just exactly who said what and
when and what kind of orders were issued. And speaking
of war, Mark Rubio was meeting with Ukrainian officials. They
were in Florida over the weekend, and he said this
this morning.
Speaker 9: I think additional progress was made and we continue to
be realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic, particularly
given the fact that as we've made progress. I think
there's a shared vision here that this is not just
about ending the war, which is very important. It is
about securing Ukraine's future, a future that we hope will
be more prosperous than it's ever been.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. They keep saying we're closed, We're closed,
so oh boy, we're close, and every time they come
up with something, Putin basically is playing this dollgame. Putin
I think is playing them like a fiddle. But Ukraine
has more problems because the top negotiator, one of the
top people in the Ukrainian government, was basically booted out
of the government because of corruption. Ukraine has a long
history of corruption, and so here you have one of
the top people in Zelensky's government and the head negotiator
on ending the war basically said yep, I've been taking
money unto the table. So Brett Zadler with the Heritage Foundation,
former Secret Service guy, reacted to this latest talks.
Speaker 10: We've heard this broken record from Moscow before that Putin
is ready to enter into serious negotiations only to be
strung along. So what's clear is there has to be
real tangible changes on the battle field before anything deal
is struck or before anything is given up on the
US and Ukrainian side. And I think, sadly, it's going
to still take more real pressure and cost on the
battlefield as well as the pocketbook to get on Putin
to change his tack, and I mean secondary sanctions that
really bite on Chinese entities or supplying materials, as well
as finances to Moscow, India's continued purchase of Russia. There
needs to be an alternative provided, preferably American energy, and
of course weapons on the battlefield that will actually cause
Putin to pause, like long range strike weapons like tomahawks.
Speaker 1: So that's nice, but that's been ruled out. So again,
I don't know what's going to happen other than the
fact that Putin is going to dig in as deep
as he can possibly dig in. So don't expect any
big breakthrough in the Ukraine Russian War shootings. Let's start
with the latest. Over the weekend in Stockton, California, there
was a birthday party, a child's birthday party. There was
about one hundred to one hundred and fifty people at
an event hall, and more than one shooter came to
the birthday party and just opened up on the people.
Four people are dead, three of them children. Eleven of
them are wounded. Jonathan Wackrow weighs in, well.
Speaker 11: First of all, this is a nightmare ye, I mean
a nightmare scene for law enforcement on the initial call.
But when you think about, you know, what had happened here?
To me, this is really a grievance driven act of
you know, targeted violence. And the reason why I say
that authorities are saying it is you really have to
look at the attack dynamics. You think about the time
of day, right, it was the end of the day
on a Saturday. The location specifically is this this this
child's birthday party where a gathering of family and friends
are together exactly so this is not a spontaneous active
of violence. This is absolutely targeted. And when I say
target is probably looking for somebody or individuals very specifically.
And again we go back to the investigators are going
to go back to the attack dynamics. They're going to
look at a shooter walked into a room full of
young children basically at their birthday party and started firing.
What does that signal? And really, from a behavioral threat standpoint,
what that signals is this intentionality looking for somebody where
nothing else matters except finding that target. And when you
get to this level of really emotional fixation of looking
for a target, what ends up happening is you get
this cognitive disconnect by the shooter where they're shooting looking
specifically for this target. They don't care if they're shooting children.
And look at the victims here, the ones that have
passed away and the others that are injured right now
that didn't matter in this case. Then you look at
other factors that investigators looking at. Is really this dual
location of shooting inside and outside. And the reason why
they believe that is because they've found shellcasings. So shellcasings
from two different weapons indicating two different shooters at different locations.
So what does this all mean again, It's that intentionality,
that focus of looking for somebody. They may have found
somebody and they went outside or tried to get away
and the shooting continued. So a real mess for investigators
to try to unpack, but not uncommon in this area.
Gang violence is significantly high in Stockton, California. It has
one of the largest or highest crime rates towards violent
crime per capita, and that's all driven by this gang violence.
So investigators have to act quickly because if this is
a tied to gang violence, that there's no retaliation.
Speaker 1: Well, he was being rather academic in his analysis about this.
Essentially it was a gang and he's right about Stockton,
California is heavy gang presence, heavy gang violence. Gangs have
their own rules of the road. They don't obviously don't
follow the law, but they've got their own rules of
the road. And he's right. They've got to find these
people as fast as they can because there's going to
be retaliation. They're going to go back and shoot up
the families of the other gang, and so innocent people
were killed, Innocent people were shot, and they're going to
be more innocent people getting shot if they don't find
these people very very quickly. But again, they have a
long history of lots of gangs in Stockton, California. Let's
get up to date on the DC shooting. We know
that the young woman who was shot died on was
it Thursday with a Thanksgiving day or the day after.
The other soldier is critical and they said today still
in grave condition. And grave to me is code for
he's not probably not going to make it. He's very
close to not making it. So they started looking at
the guy who did the shooting and the fact that
he got here from that refugee status from Afghanistan. And
what's troubling to me about this is at the time
that I know the Biden administration completely botched that whole
removal from Afghanistan. But you remember what was going on.
You got to place yourself back to twenty twenty one,
and what we were concerned about was don't leave the
people behind that worked with the Americans to help them
fight the war in Afghanistan. You don't leave them behind.
They were loyal to us. So that was the mode,
and that was the mood of the country about these
people helped our soldiers. We need to help them. So
we piled eighty six thousand of them on a string
of c seventeens and flew them out of Afghanistan. Most
of them went to Doha where there was an initial
review of who they were, and then they put him
on planes to the United States. And this guy winds
up in Bellingham, Washington, way up at the tippy top
corner of our country. So Christy Nome was talking about
this on one of the Sunday shows over the weekend,
and listen to what she has to say, because I
think she kind of stuck her foot in her mouth.
Speaker 4: We believe he was radicalized since he's been here in
this country. We do believe it was through connections in
his home community and state. And we're going to continue
to talk to those who interacted with him, who were
his family members, talked to them. So far, we've had
some participation, but anyone who has the information on this
needs to know that we will be coming after you
and we will bring you to justice.
Speaker 1: So what she admitted there is everybody in the Trump
administration is I understand why, but they're saying this is
Biden's fault. Biden's fault, Biden's fault. No, Biden wanted to
leave everybody behind there. There were a lot of people
in our country that bring the people that helped our
soldiers get him out of out of there so the
Taliban doesn't kill them. If he was radicalized, as she says,
while he was here, then why did the Trump administration
approve his asylum application in April of this year. It
wasn't the Biden administration that approved the asylum. That Biden
administration approved him getting on a plane, and then they
gave a cursory review. But I mean, what kind of
review can you do with somebody that's from Afghanistan. They
don't have records. A week in review and the Trump
administration approved his asylum just a few months ago. So
here is Tom Cotton on his reaction to it.
Speaker 12: I think clearly vetting standards for every person who's been
admitted in the country, especially from countries of concern like Afghanistan,
need to be revisited. When our military and our CEA
goes around the world, they work with unsavory characters. It's
a necessary part of the job, and they engage in
some vetting of those characters. But it's very different from
the standards that we would apply to vet someone to
come to this country to live in our communities, to
have a family and to ultimately become American citizens. And
that's what the Biden administration got so wrong. First off,
they just allowed Afghanistan to collapse, even though the warning
signs were there in twenty twenty one. And then they
rushed thousands and thousands of Afghan nationals into our country
without applying those heightened standards. That's one reason I fought
for years against the Biden administration effort to give immediate
paths to citizenship to all of these people. And as
you just hurt, Secretary Nomes say, the administration is going
to go back and revisit all of these cases to
make sure that we don't have more such heinous attacks
like the one that we saw last week in watching.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I agree they should go back and review
every single one of them. But this is also so
this guy, she's Christy Nomes says he was radicalized while
he was here. I don't know if he was radicalized.
This is a guy who grew up as a child
all the way through his adulthood into his early adulthood
in a war torn country and all he knows is
killing and wars. And how many times did we see
stories about the fact that we had Afghans that were
helping our military and would be armed and would turn
around and shoot and kill soldiers in the field in Afghanistan.
So what makes them tick. It's a different it's a
different world, it's a different culture. And I have often
remarked when we do these refugee stories, I think we're
doing I think our country has a desire to want
everybody to be like us, like we live in our country.
They want the whole world to live like we do.
They think they would want to live like we do.
Maybe not. Maybe if you grew up in the deserts
of Afghanistan and all of a sudden they pick you
up and set you down in Bellingham, Washington, you've got
to be your head's got to be spinning going what
is this? I don't recognize anything about this, and become
you want to call it mentally wacky or what. I
don't know, but I'd reverse the story. How would you
like it if somebody picked you up and dropped you
in the desert of Afghanistan and said, here you go,
and we're not in a war zone. Here you go,
enjoy your life in Afghanistan. Go buy yourself a camel
and a mud hut, and that's your future life. I
think you would go wacky. I think I would. That's
the problem with the refugee programs that we have always done.
We want to pick them up from some far away
country and move them to some town in the United
States and expect them to be just fine, because we're fine.
I mean, this is a wonderful lifestyle. But you're literally
taking them out of everything they've ever known and put
them in a culture of which they know nothing. And
so did this guy start to lose his mind? They
said he was having trouble financially. I don't know if
he knew how to get a job. Would you know
how to get a job in the desert of Afghanistan?
Would you be able to support your family? This guy
was having trouble that led to stress. Not making excuses
for what he did, But the idea behind these refugee
programs I think is a disaster. If you were picked
up out of Syria, move them to a country near Syria,
move them to a place where they are not completely
turned upside down, where they might be able to adjust,
so it doesn't No, I'm not making any any excuses
for what he did. I'm just telling you that the
way we handle refugees, I'm surprised one of the cuts
we had on Friday there was I'm surprised this hasn't
happened already. I hope it doesn't happen again. But I suspect,
and that's why I'm glad they're going to go through
everybody and take a look at them again, because I
suspect there's a number of those people that are not
doing well in this country and may lead to mental
stresses that could lead to violence. Meantime, Andy McCarthy was
asked about this from the legal standpoint.
Speaker 13: Well, we'll obviously see more charges depending on what happens
to the to the other soldier who was wounded. I
think the indictment will come sometime in the coming weeks,
and I expect we'll see many more charges. There's no
indication that I've seen so far is Shaw that other
people are involved in this. I don't buy this whole
you know, radicalization. Once he got here, I must say,
I have been following this closely since I prosecuted terrorists,
and then inineteen nineties when they say, you know, he
was fully vetted, I have to ask vetted with what
you know. We've spent like twenty years basically eviscerating the
ability of the United States government to vet people by
taking ideology off the table, taking concepts like jihad off
the table. I don't know what they mean when they
say he was fully vetted when he got here, So
he must have been radicalized once he got here, because
I don't know how we vet people.
Speaker 1: Andy hit the nail on the head. I don't know
how we vet people from other parts of the world
as well. So we need to go back and re
examine all of the refugees that came to this country.
I would imagine they would be happy to go back
to some country in that part of the world that
would be familiar to them. All Right, last week was
two weeks ago. All of a sudden, the President went
over to Walter Reid Hospital, and then the news leaked
out last week that he had an MRI, and everybody, well,
what's the matter with the president, what's the matter with
the president? Well, Caroline Levitt came out today and had
the results from the MRI, and what was all about.
Speaker 14: As part of President Trump's comprehensive Executive Physical Advanced imaging
was performed because men and his age group benefit from
a thorough evaluation of cardiovascular and abdominal health. The purpose
of this imaging is preventative to identify any issues early,
confirm overall health, and ensure the president maintains long term
vitality and function. President Trump's cardiovascular imaging was perfectly normal.
No evidence of arterial narrowing, impairing blood flow, or abnormalities
in the heart or major vessels. The heart chambers are
normal in size, the vessel walls appear smooth and healthy,
and there are no signs of inflammation or clotting. Overall,
his cardiovascular system shows excellent health. His abdominal imaging is
also perfectly normal. All major organs appear very healthy and
well profused. Everything evaluated is functioning within normal limits with
no acute or chronic concerns. In summary, this level of
detailed assessment is standard for an executive physical at President
Trump's age and confirms that he remains in excellent overall health.
Speaker 1: So there you go. MRI was his heart and his
abdomen and they found everything was normal. So good for
good for the president, and good health. It sounds like
so Wallstreek today yeah. Well, now we're not going to
skip what we should. But December started off with selling
the Dow Jones Industrials down four hundred and twenty seven
to forty seven eighty nine, SMP down thirty six, NASDACK
down eighty nine, Gold went up fifteen dollars to four thousand,
two hundred and seventy and oil up a dollar up
to fifty nine. Now for one barrel of oil, that's
it for today. Thank you for coming by. We'll be
back again tomorrow. Hope to see you then,