Speaker 1: And hello, Welcome one and all to the Big Podcast
on this Thursday. Today is the sixteenth day of July,
Year of Our Lord, twenty twenty six. My name is
Tom Sullivan. And well, I know you're sitting on pins
and needles because the Big, the Big presidential address to
the nation tonight. I believe it's eight o'clock Eastern time.
I can hardly wait because the President said that there
was there's going to be a big surprise, a really
big news, he said in tonight's address. What I I'm sorry,
that's the That's the oldest trick in promotion of a
television program. It's been around forever. We're going to have
a really big surprise. Don't miss it. Tune in. So
I don't know what you're gonna do. I mean, it's
I'm going to because I well, not only because I
need to know why I can talk about it tomorrow,
but I'm genuinely curious what he's going to talk about.
The thing people are talking about is it's it's going
to be about the twenty twenty election. I would hope
that he would also since he would address some other
issues in the country, like the like the war.
Speaker 2: But I I'm I guess I'm looking at this in
the twenty twenty is starting to drive me nuts.
Speaker 1: Listen, I for a long time have disagreed with a
number of you. All of you agree with me, A
bunch of you don't, and that's fine with me that
you have a different opinion about the twenty twenty election.
I would think by now if there was like some
solid evidence that they could present, and they never do.
Mike Lindell, my pillow guy, kept saying it had evidence,
but he never presented it. Rudy Giuliani ran around the
country going to all kinds of court rooms, over sixty
court rooms, and they all for various reasons. He either
didn't have the jurisdictionary, didn't have something, but it did work.
And he's supposed to be I was supposed to be
a very bright lawyer. So listen, I have maybe the
same opinion as you or different. I don't think it
was stolen. I'm open to show me that it was.
Show me the proof, but I'm not I can accept
you that. If you believe that it was rigged, okay,
that's okay with me too. I'm not going to try
and change your beliefs. I've never, in the history of
my broadcasting career, have ever tried to change your mind.
I've presented my views. I presented various views, trying to
basically lay out so that you can think about it
from more than one angle. So there's also this game.
I mentioned it briefly yesterday, but I'll play it again
for you here. John Asoff, who is one of the
senators from Georgia. He's really a cocky sop. He really
thinks that he's one of the He's that guy in
every group that thinks that they are no at all,
they know more than everybody else, and he's gonna lord
it over you. I mean, you might think you know
more than everybody else, but I don't know about you.
Don't want to lord it over everybody. But there's Jake Clayton,
who is he was being He was a testimony yesterday.
He's up for Director of Office of National Intelligence. And
Jake Clayton is considered to be a really good guy.
He ran the SEC he was he's the US Attorney
for the Southern District of New York. He's he's been
around and he knows what he's doing. He's smart, and
so listen to this. Here's here's John Osoff lording it
over him about playing that game, and and you'll hear
Jake Clayton say, I'm not. I'm not playing that game
with you.
Speaker 3: Who won the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 4: You know what I'm not. I'm not gonna do this
with you.
Speaker 3: Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question?
To have to indulge the president's delusions? We know, you
know everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to
that question. Why can you not give it?
Speaker 4: I think I gave you the answer.
Speaker 1: And to us Off, it's like, isn't it humiliating to
act so cocky when we all know what's going on?
Jay Clayton is wants to have the job as the
Director of National Intelligence, and because of that, the guy
who's nominated for that job believes that he did win
in twenty twenty. So I don't know about you. The
last time I check. I think I learned this in
my very first job when I was a kid. You
don't go against the boss. If the boss thinks the
sky is green and somebody asks you, what color do
you think this guy is? You can say green? What's wrong?
With these with the senator, I mean you what you
want to really know if you're about the Director of
National Intelligence is what are his qualifications? What's his background?
What does he how does he plan to operate the
Director's Office of National Intelligence? Those are the questions, But
instead Ossoff uses his time who won the who won
the twenty election? So, I mean, I'm fine with if
you don't. If you think it was rigged, great I don't,
but it's okay if you do. What a what a
cocky SB he is? He just bothers the heck oademy.
So anyway, the President's going to give this piece tonight.
And I mean this is also something quite honestly that
I think is hilarious in all of this. The networks
do not have to give him the time. It's valuable time.
The networks make a boatload of money from the commercials
that would normally play during that time that they've got
to give up. So they're going to lose a bunch
of a bunch of revenue. And in the past there
have been a number of presidents have asked the networks
for time and the networks have said, no, we're not
going to do that. And so The other thing is,
why do we need three or four or five networks
carrying the exact same speech. One's good enough for me.
I mean, it's not like there's going to be anything different.
So why don't the networks just say, you know, we
don't want to go there on this twenty twenty election thing, sir,
So you know what, we're going to play reruns of
Barney Fife. I don't do something. The reason they're not
going to do that is because as much as Donald
Trump talks about how he hates the media, and the
media acts like they hate Donald Trump, they both need
each other. It's really a symbiotic relationship. Their networks. Well,
they're not gonna If Donald Trump's going to give an
address to the nation, you darn well better believe they're
going to take it. So it's it's it's ridiculous the
whole thing around. All Right, Let's let's talk about Iran,
because I'm still griping about the president that wants to
negotiate with them, and I'm thinking why why they are
not trustworthy? Would you sit down and negotiate with somebody
that has a proven record of over and over and
over completely line cheating steely whatever they got to do.
So why are you wasting your time trying to negotiate?
Here's the president.
Speaker 4: I wanted to ask you, mister President, about Iran, and
on I ran, you came to the conclusion that you
couldn't negotiate with the IRGC. Does that mean that you
might wipe them out like you did? Isis? Yeah, it does.
We will see what's happening. We received a call just
as I was coming here. They want to meet. They
always want to meet.
Speaker 5: But you know, they should have been done by other
presidents for many years, for forty seven years, but really
a lot longer than that, and it wasn't And I
never understood why, but now I do, because if you're
not going to do it the way I'm doing it,
you're never going to make a deal with them.
Speaker 1: Ah geez. He was doing so well and then at
the very end says, if you don't do it like
the way I do it, you're never going to make
a deal with him. You're not going to get a
deal with them. Excuse me, mister President. The answer is
you're not going to never. Even if you get something
on paper, it's not going to last. They will violate it.
There's another one with the president from last night.
Speaker 5: The Islamic Republic of Iran is not happy right now.
Speaker 6: It should have been done forty seven years ago, and
we they want to settle so badly. They don't like
what we're doing, and they do want to settle. We'll
find out whether or not we settle with them, or
we just finish it off.
Speaker 1: Oh that was much better, or we just finish it off.
We'll find out whether we settle with them or we
just finish it off. You're not going to settle with them,
so why don't you just go ahead and stick with
that thought, stick with it just for a while. You'll
just finish them off. I'm not talking about killing the people,
talking about going in and getting the IRGC, arresting those people,
arresting the people that are in charge of the country,
just like we did in World War Two. I don't know,
it seems like that's if you If you don't work,
you're just kicking the can down the road. And we're
going to have a problem with Iran next year, the
next five years from now, ten years from now that
are going to get the nuke bomb with this regime
in charge, and they're going to use it. So he's
still kind of beaten around the bush, but maybe he's
getting closer. I wish he would focus on just finishing
the job. Rebecca Hinrich from the Hudson Institute always has
good analysis.
Speaker 7: Well, the United States does control the Strait of Hormuse.
It's just that the Iranians are able to terrorize the
strait and prevent some shipping to go through because of
insurance rates, all the things that we know that makes
shipping companies nervous to go through. However, the Iranians understand
that by their shooting into the Strait of Hormuse, this
is a paradox for them because it's making the Arab
States create other land routes so that the Strait of
Hormuse's value diminishes over time. So we should expect the
Iranians to continue to try to inflict as much pain
over the Strait while they can in the short term,
as long as the United States continues to degrade Iran's
coastal capabilities. Now as you see President Trump's initiating strikes
deeper into Iranian territory, taking out their industry, their ability
to produce these weapons, the United States still has the
leverage and time is on our side.
Speaker 1: I think she's right. I think we do have the leverage.
It's just a matter of are we going to use it.
Last night, by the way, there was one ship that
we fired upon because they would not stop. Many many
warnings for them not to go through the blockade. They
tried to anyway. Apparently the way it was described is
we put a rocket right down the smokestack of the
ship and that stopped it right in its tracks. By
the way, it was heading to carg Island. I don't
know whether to presume load up more oil. They didn't
make it. Meantime, Iran fired eight missiles at Jordan and
apparently they were all intercepted. But again, this is what
they're going to do. And where are they getting their
missiles from from some secret stories, so we don't know
about or we haven't attacked yet, so they still have
offensive capability.
Speaker 7: Back to Rebecca, and I was encouraged to hear President
Trump talk this way. He also remember the memorandum of
understanding we talked about. It only lasted three weeks. And
when President Trump described the failure of the MLU, he said, look,
this was a test and it was a generous test.
The United States lifted the blockade, waived sanctions on oil,
so the Iranians had all of this right up front,
and they still shot missiles into six different American allied
countries and fired at American Navy ships. And according to
US Central Command, they have killed or wounded almost a
dozen innocent civilians as they tried to traverse the Strait.
So President Trump is making it very clear that he
understands that the IRGC cannot be negotiated with. And remember
we just saw the funeral procession of the Supreme Leader
in which the iron GC threatened assassination against President Trump.
And so President Trump is clear that they cannot be
negotiated with, but he can still have punishing military consequences
against them.
Speaker 1: Well. I like Rebecca. I think her analysis is very solid,
but she seems to be duped by the fact that
she thinks that the President is talking tough, but he
keeps flipping back and forth. So I'm fine for the
talking tough part. Meantime, we have another obvious problem with
an obvious solution. Do you hear about the Air Force one? Yeah,
we talked about him. Last week. President was in Turkey
for the NATO meeting. He flew there on the big
Shawnee new golden Katari seven forty seven and well yet repainted.
And they did apparently a bunch of they hurried up
and did a bunch of stuff over the last six
months or whatever it took from the time it was gifted.
But when it was time to leave Turkey, the President
got on the old blue and white Jackie Kennedy Livery
seven forty seven Air Force one and flew out of
Ankara back home. But they stopped in England, and when
they landed, they got off the old seven forty seven
and got on the brand new shiny Qatari Golden seven
forty seven, and and all of us, I mean, you
don't have to be that bright to look and go, hey,
what's up with this? Why is he flying the old
plane out? Well, it was obvious. There's the old plane
has all the defensive mechanisms on it. And I don't
know what other tricks they have up their sleeve. But
the reason Boeing hasn't delivered the new seven forty seven
is because of the fact they're loading up the new
ones take time to put in all the security apparatus
for the new seven forty sevens that will be arriving
apparently in about a year and a half. So the
Qatari plane, they put something in there, but they didn't
get everything that they wanted, and the Secret Service made
it clear to the President, you can't fly that thing.
We're right next to Iran. You know, maybe we should
take the old blue and white plane and it'll be
a lot safer. So that was The New York Times
wrote an article about it, but it was it was
reporting the obvious the plane. The President got off the
shiny new plane and got on the old plane, but
then did a switcheroo in England. Don't you think all
of us would figure out hmm, the new plane must
not be as secure as the old plane. Well, New
York Times did the story I talked about at the time.
But now they're having a big investigation in the White
House about who leaked the fact that the new shiny
seven forty seven wasn't a secure as the old one.
And I'm thinking, hello, anybody with any kind of vision
could see that. That is, you could see why it happened.
But a big investigation is underway and as a result, Well,
let's get Ellie honeg in here. He's former federal prosecutor
talking about they can they do this? And they're going
after the New York Times reporters as well to get
how did you find out that this plane wasn't a
secure Well, I think it's because they have vision.
Speaker 8: There is no blanket across the board privilege for communications
between reporters and their sources. And we know that because
that direct question was raised a long time ago nineteen
seventy two to the US Supreme Court, which ruled back
then five to four there is no privilege for those
communications the way there would be, for example, between an
attorney and a client, or in some instances a doctor
and a patient. That said, it is not open season
for DOJ and the FBI to subpoena reporters. There are cases,
and there's DJ's own internal guidance that says that kind
of subpoena should be an extraordinary measure. That's a quote
used as a quote last resort only if necessary for
an urgent national security measure. And so I would expect
this case with the New York Times to go to court,
and I think they're going to litigate whether those criteria
have been met.
Speaker 1: Okay, so the White House is going after the New
York Times and want of the reporters to tell them
how they found out that the new plane wasn't as
secure as the old plane. So now now they've turned
they're not only doing that, but they're also asking everybody
at the White House to turn in their phones to
find out who called the New York Times to tell them, Hey,
the new Shinee jet wasn't a secure Well, that's a
different story according to Eli.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the law is very different.
Speaker 8: So when you are given an official government cell phone,
you are told at that point this is government property
and your communications on this are essentially government property as well.
So there's really no legal protection. There's no way some
White House staffer can go to a court and say
the White House can't take my government phone. And I
should note this again, there's First Amendment concerns and White
Houses ought to be cognizant of that. They ought to
be careful when they seek phones and go through communications.
There's privacy interest, but there's very little legally that can
prevent that. And this has been done by prior administrations,
collecting those phones internally and seeing what's on them. So yes,
does it is there some tension there with the First Amendment. Yes,
but there's a different legal regime.
Speaker 1: And just as a reminder, even if you don't work
for the White House, even if you don't fly around
on Air Force one, if you have a job and
the company gives you a phone, that phone is THEIRS,
and whatever you say or any of the messages on
your phone is theirs. They're not yours. Can they tap
into your conversations? Absolutely they can. I don't know. Do
you have a phone on your desk? Some people still do.
That's THEIRS too. The computer that you type messages on
at the office their computer. Some people get confused about
that and get all upset when they are caught doing
something untoward and get fired for it. So oh, and
there's another big investigation going on. This one. This one
is getting more interesting. It's about online betting and all
of these prediction markets and you can predict whether or
not all kinds of crazy little things. And apparently one
of the things you can put you can bet on
is what do you think the president is going to
say or man in his speech tonight. Well, there is
a person who runs the teleprompter for the president travels
with the president, goes on the road with him. When
the President gives a speech in Iowa or Nebraska or California,
he's there with the teleprompter, so he gets to see
the speech that the president's going to give and guess
what he has been alleged to have been doing betting
on will the President mention this 're mentioned that, well,
apparently he's made ninety thousand dollars in the last few
months betting on what the President would mention in his
speech because he had he's the teleprompter operator, he has
the speech. So they said that tonight there will be Yeah,
the teleprompter operator has been put on leave. I don't
know if it's paid or not. But tonight they're going
to have a different teleprompter operator. So now we can
bet on whether the teleprompter will go backwards or make
mistakes and foul the president up. So that's I know,
there's all kinds of things the speech tonight.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 1: The Democrats that they're so uptight, they are so uptight,
Dick Durbin's all upset about everything there there there are
just I saw one of the congresswomen a Democrats just
has her her forehead in a in a big furrow.
She's so worried about about Donald Trump and and everything
he's doing. Uh, Socialists of America, the Democrats Socialist America,
they're doing pretty well. They're wanting some elections. They're doing
it mostly with small turnouts. But this isn't necessarily the
Democrat Socialist of America. This is the Democrat party that
are turning their backs on our only friend in the
Middle East, that would be Israel. They don't like Netanyahu,
they don't they Then they do this, they say, well,
we understand with the October seventh massacre, how Israel could.
Of course, we understand that they would respond, but we
don't like the way they responded. We don't like how
aggressive they were in Gaza. And we all, i think,
learned many many years ago that Hamas hides in residential
buildings and in schools and in hospitals on purpose so
that they won't get shot at. But Israel shot at
them anyway. So they had a big vote in Congress
about anti Israel, about absolutely not funding any money for Israel.
Greg Sezar, who was a Democrat from Texas, is all proud.
Speaker 9: Two years ago, thirty seven House Democrats voted for a
measure to not send billions of dollars to Israeli military. Today,
over one hundred House Democrats voted for a measure to
block billions of dollars and weapons to not in Yahoo.
Speaker 4: That is enormous progress.
Speaker 1: Well, that's for sure. The numbers have gone way up
as far as the number of Democrats that have turned
their back on Israel. Israel is truly our only friend
because they're the only democracy in the Middle East. But
I looked up as far as foreign aid and what
we do with foreign aight, and I know it drives
a lot of people crazy, but if you look it up,
the US provides foreign A to over one hundred and
fifty countries worldwide. The top recipient Ukraine, that's because of
the war. But number two, and they've been up at
the top or near the top for a long time,
is Israel. Both of those countries received several billions of
dollars every year. Also, other major recipients are Jordan and Egypt,
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo that's number one,
two and three. So the reason why is strategic alliances,
humanitarian crises, global health. There's a lot of things along
those lines. So I don't like the Foreign aid either,
but we have been glued at the hip to Israel.
And there's a lot of Democrats now that are saying
I don't like it, especially elected Democrat and especially as
the DSA comes along. They're out and out anti Semites.
They truly are. Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State,
said this.
Speaker 10: You know, it's always been out there, Layton, this is
anti Semitic. When you hear him say, Natean, yeah, you
can frankly substitute jew for that. That's what he means
when he says that these are a group of people,
and now broadly inside the Democrat Party. In fact, it's difficult,
save for maybe Senator Fetterman, it is difficult to find
a Democrat who will say, hey, these are great partners.
Speaker 4: These are our trusted friends.
Speaker 10: The Israelis have saved countless American lives, including alerting us
to applaud against our president within the past few weeks.
These are amazing security, economic, and diplomatic partners for us.
And to watch the Democrat Party walk away from this
in such a deep way, it's appalling to me. It's
a little bit surprising that it's happened so quickly, and
I think the cooler heads inside the Democrat Party need
to retake this fundamental understanding about who our friends are
and that the Iranians are adversary and the nation of
Israel is our partner and.
Speaker 1: Friend in many many ways national security very much. In fact,
he talked about tipping off the Secret Service, the fact
that the back to the Air Force one, the fact
that didn't take that Air Force the Shawne New Qatari
gifted plane was because of the fact that Israel had
gotten a tip that there was going to be an
attack on that plane. So, I mean, we are friends.
We may not always see things like your friends do.
You agree with them always all the time and everything
they do know, But when push comes to show, you
stand up for your friends.
Speaker 10: Back to Mike Pompeo, yes, I think it may we
may have already crossed that rubicon. So I think the
moderates are running for the hills and trying to hide
under this DSA umbrella. They find it very difficult to
go back to their districts or their states and articulate
the vision for American national security that includes our partners
in Israel. They need to they need to get there,
act together. Common sense needs to be restored to their party.
This is very dangerous. The anti semitism that we saw
on campuses is directly connected to the political power we
need now see the DSA gaining and the reasoned Americans
who understand the things that are in our country's best
interest need to make sure that the folks that run
the DSA are never in charge in the United States.
I hope they're not in charge inside the Democratic Party.
I pray that they don't gain power for our country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you see people look at Bernie and they say, well,
Bernie's he's a nice old man. I don't agree with him,
but he's a nice man. They have intentions of literally
overthrowing this country. I looked up some of the things
that they are for, and it's rather shocking when you
look at their platform. This is they've got. They've got
the closed fist, which is right out of Karl Marx.
Workers deserve more. A day without capitalism, take off from
work without capitalism. It might not feel as badly needed
as it does now. You enjoy your work, it's interesting
your work as much or as you're able to, but
no more than you want to you control your own
labor and see it going to good use. It's not
just a job to pay bills. Oh, speaking of bills,
and this is from their platform. You have no debt,
have you don't need health insurance. You don't even have
to pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable
housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, transportation,
all nonprofit. They are for common goods and utilities. So
what do you do on your day off? Maybe you
take your walk, your kids to school, run errands, go
to a doctor's appointment. Oh, maybe the doctor is not
working that day. Anyway, They go on about how this
sunny idea that workers deserve more, and that's the word
in the English language. It drives me crazy. Is deserved.
None of us deserve a thing. You earn what you have,
you earn. I don't care if it's a dollar bill,
or you earn respect or whatever it is. Nobody is
deserves anything. You earn what you get. We look here,
I've got a little list of some of the things
that they want to eliminate. Amnesty for immigrants. Yeah, let's
do that. Defund the Department of war and all deportations,
eliminate cash bail that's worked out real well, establish a
wealth tax, message of a new green deal, eliminate the
US Senate. Congress will choose the executives and the judiciary.
And yeah, those are some of the highlights from the
DSA and what it is that they want to do.
So with that, we check in with AOC. And you
might think, AOC, I know she's a lefty. I know
she's a Democrat. I know she's further to the left
than the moderate Democrats. She's not that bad, is she.
So here's a reporter asking her a couple of simple
questions and she could not answer them.
Speaker 3: The DSA coacher suggested that part of the platform may
be abolishing the Senate.
Speaker 4: What are your reviews there?
Speaker 1: I mean again, I'm not running.
Speaker 11: For any any larger office presently. That is, of course
a constitutional question, and I think that that's a constitutional question.
Speaker 4: Do you support the Senate right though? Pardon? Do you
support the institution of the Senate itself?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 4: Part of the content.
Speaker 1: We've all got our complaints.
Speaker 11: I don't support the filibuster. I don't support elements of
this institution that we know, you know, we're founded on
on uh.
Speaker 1: On Jim Crow. She never answered the question do you
support having a US Senate? Well, I'm not running right now,
and of this, I don't know about this. You support
the idea of this that I don't. I don't know.
You know, we have our complaints and you know, you
go back to Jim Crow. John Fetterman weighed in.
Speaker 12: My long term concern has been with with the Democratic Party,
as I am a member of that is that our
party is going to back away and turn their back
to Israel. Car party ever becomes and just make it
official as the anti Israel Party. You know, that's when
I would leave because that's been a moral clarity for me.
Speaker 1: It seems obvious that's what they are. They're the anti
Israel Party. Here's a little montage of some of the
people that are the leaders of the DSA. Democratic Socialists
of America.
Speaker 4: Well, let's start with abolishing the Senate. We don't think
that's extreme.
Speaker 11: Abolish the Senate, abolished the Supreme Court, and these ideas
like they sound so radical, but they're not that radical.
Speaker 4: They're radical in the sense of being really cool.
Speaker 7: It might we might not have a president to call
it the head han sho of whatever.
Speaker 3: Every president since the founding of the country has been
super evil.
Speaker 1: But you heard that right. They want to get rid
of the Senate, they want to get rid of the
Supreme Court, they want to get rid of the president,
a president, the president c they have a head honcho
ha ha, she said of something. They don't. No, they
sound little dense upstairs. Let me just put it that way.
But that's what's going on. And hopefully it's really not growing,
but it certainly has picked up some wins along the road.
We'll see whether or not that stays with the Democrats
or not. Wall Street. Today, let's talk about good old
capitalist money. Dow Jones Industrials down one hundred and five
to fifty two thousand and five point fifty two. I'm
sure the Democratic socialists are cheering. Good. The rich people
lost a little money today. Sip down thirty eight nas,
back down three hundred and eighty seven, Gold down seventy
two dollars, back below four thousand, now at three thousand
and nine to seventy nine, and oil essentially unchanged right
at eighty dollars for one barrel of oil. That's it
for today. Thank you for coming by. We'll be back
again tomorrow and I hope to see you then.