Show: On The Town Station: KNCO File: 10:30.mp3 Air date: 2026-10-30 Source: OpenAI whisper-1 · shrunk from 25.7 MB to 5.1 MB --- transcript --- Good morning, I'm Tom Fitzsimmons. On The Town, I'm going to be with ABC News today versus last weekend, besides Halloween. Yeah, there is an election going on, the midterms, and you hear at the top of the hour how many things are going on in different places and the like. What's nice about ABC, they have a program called Star Here that puts in a concise look about what's going on, especially as you head into this big weekend before elections. Don't forget to get out there and vote. You can do it today, you can do it tomorrow, but make sure you vote by Tuesday. If you've been watching the polls recently, you've probably gathered that Democrats have a very good chance at winning back the House of Representatives next Tuesday. Based on everything we're seeing, it would take a pretty large polling error across the country for Democrats not to gain the few seats they need. Your failed economy is on the ballot. The cost of living crisis is on the ballot. The Senate is less straightforward. There are lots of states in play, probably more than Republicans ever thought possible a couple years ago, but most of these are still within the margin of error, which means it's entirely possible that control of the Senate could come down to just one or two races. That's why you want to send me to the United States Senate. I'm going to be able to go in, sit down, talk to him about the things that work for Michigan. Instead of sending our money abroad to drop bombs on other people and their kids, I would rather spend our money to build our schools here for our kids. Think about Michigan, where Republican Congressman Mike Rogers finds himself in a dogfight with a Democratic former public health official named Abdul El-Sayed. The way national political figures are rushing into Michigan gives you a sense the issue could still be in doubt late into Tuesday night. Think about Alaska, where President Trump won by double digits two years ago. Well, if it's close with how spread out precincts are, counting there could well go into Wednesday morning or beyond. This week, when the New York Times reported that Democrats were allegedly actively involved in recruiting a guy with the name Dan Sullivan to potentially confuse voters over who is the current senator from Alaska, Republicans exploded. And now with days to go, forget battleground state. This is becoming a legal battlefield. Let's start the day with ABC's chief Washington correspondent, Jonathan Karl, who's on the road in Michigan right now, on the side of the road, John. We'll get to that contest in a second, but first, what do we know about these new investigations into the Alaska Senate race? Because we're talking about subpoenas and prosecutors now. Well, we have multiple investigations, Brad. You've got the Department of Justice saying that they're investigating this. We've heard that from Todd Blanche even before the explosive story in the New York Times. But now you've got also a state investigation. What it will amount to, who knows? But I think that the way you have set this up is exactly the way to look at it. The fate of the Senate, the control of the Senate may well come down to Alaska. It's highly conceivable that we are waiting for the results of that race. And if it is really close, there is going to be a legal challenge here. Now, most lawyers, most legal experts will tell you that there is no role for the Justice Department, that this is something that would be adjudicated in the state courts. The state courts of Alaska have already said that there is nothing illegal about having this other Dan Sullivan on the ballot. So I don't think it's going to be necessarily ultimately a legal challenge, but boy, it's going to be a messy one. That's my question, John. Are people confused? And are there potential legal ramifications that could stick between now and next Tuesday? Or is this more about drumming up outrage, not just in Alaska, but perhaps nationwide, like a national rallying cry for Republicans? Brad, as you know, I'm not a lawyer, but my sense and based on those that I've spoken to is this is largely about drumming up the outrage. And look, and Republicans think this is a very powerful thing for them in the closing days because it shows a deception on the part of the Democrats. And look, it does. It doesn't show anything illegal. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Are Alaskan voters genuinely concerned? I mean, I don't know. I suppose a few could be. Two Dan Sullivans. One of those Dan Sullivans on the ballot says right there, Dan Sullivan incumbent. But look, it's a messy story for the Democrats in the final days. Is it illegal? Are we going to see anybody prosecuted over this? Are we going to see results challenged? I think that's far from certain. They said they didn't do it and we caught him cold. And Mary Peltola should resign from the race. This is going to be re-adjudicated and we will have another decision come out. Mary Peltola is saying that her campaign has nothing to do with the campaign of either Dan Sullivan. It's a very interesting present tense, has nothing to do with. Oh, not not has never had anything to do with it. Right, right. And look, and it's clear that her campaign, you know, was involved in this in this effort. I mean, there's just people on her campaign. There's just based on the Times reporting, it was a specific effort on the part of the Democrats, including people at high ranks in her campaign. And so let's talk about where you are. Let's talk about Michigan, because this also seems like the other state where Republicans are really rushing in with national figures saying, hey, we could we could win this race. And unlike a lot of the battleground states, this is a place where Democrats have been in charge. Republicans could actually flip a seat. That would be a huge deal for them. How are those efforts working? Well, here's what's fascinating, is you have the Republicans really on the defensive in some of the deepest red states in the country, now South Carolina, Kansas, Ohio, Iowa. I mean, maybe even Mississippi, where it seems closer than expected. And the two states where the Republicans see some real hope, I mean, not that they've written off those other ones, but where they really think that they're on the offensive are Maine, which voted for Kamala Harris and Michigan, which is a true battleground state and not not read by it by any means. So, yes, Republicans think they really have a chance to not just stop the bleeding, but pick up a seat, making it that much harder for the Democrats to take control of the Senate. But is the cell like, hey, vote for Mike Rogers? Or is it about Abdul Sayed, who's a progressive and also Muslim, which seems like it's become a talking point among some of these GOP surrogates like in and of itself? Yes, yes. I just interviewed Mike Rogers here in Kalamazoo. Just days left. What's the closing argument? Well, you know, the good news is we have solutions for the biggest problems here. And I asked him, people are voting for you. How much of the vote for you is a vote for Mike Rogers and how much of it is a vote against Abdul Sayed? Well, I think every vote for Mike Rogers is a vote for Mike Rogers. But he acknowledged that there's a lot he's getting a lot of support from disaffected Democrats, especially in the Jewish community. Some some in the African-American community in Detroit who are not sold on El Sayed or think he's, you know, too far, too extreme. So look, if you listen, if you look at his campaign ads, there are some positive ads he's running, but the bulk of the ads are really harshly negative on Abdul El Sayed. And you certainly hear that when you hear, you know, the big national figures that are coming here to support him, especially Donald Trump. I'm here to keep a jihadist Muslim Brotherhood member from becoming a United States senator. He doesn't talk much about how great Mike Rogers is. He talks about, you know, he basically says El Sayed is a is a jihadist. This is a word he's used. You know, so it's been a really. And by the way, he's not. There's no way of this at all. But but but this is this is what the campaign is saying. All right. John, Carl, literally on the campaign trail right now in Michigan. Thank you so much, John. Thanks, Brad. Remember when you could work in the yard all day and actually move the next morning? Yeah. Good times. These days I recommend a hot tub from Sierra Timberline. Warm water therapy can help soothe pulled muscles, achy backs and sore joints. And frankly, sitting in a hot tub beats complaining about them morning or night. Soak. Relax. Feel better. Repeat. Sierra Timberline in the home center, Idaho, Maryland Road in Grass Valley. In the Trump administration, in any White House administration, really, there are often leaks to the press. Now, some of these are authorized leaks. A lot of times when you hear someone say White House sources tell us the president will be traveling to France or whatever, that is technically a leak. Right. Someone is asked not to be named for whatever reason. But usually it's because their boss told them to tell the press. Then there are unauthorized leaks. That's information the White House did not necessarily want going public. The point being, whenever you hear government officials sounding outraged about leakers, keep in mind they might be using these tactics to suit themselves all the time. What does get trickier, though, are leaks about national security. We have to find that leaker because that's a sick person. Probably didn't realize the extent of how bad it was. I can't imagine the administration is not going to tolerate leaks, especially from within the national security apparatus of the United States government. Now, theoretically, you're talking about details that might be secret to keep people safe. Again, sometimes there are good reasons to make those details public. Officials will sometimes claim they're dangerous when they're not. But when these are truly unauthorized, that's when the White House grows even more furious about breaking the chain of command. This week, a decorated Army general has been pushed into retirement for allegedly leaking details to the media. ABC senior Pentagon reporter Louie Martinez is with us. Louie, what happened here? Well, Brad, we're talking actually about Texas firing this officer who is Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia. He's, as you said, a decorated veteran from multiple conflicts in the Middle East over the last 20 years. And here he was, what's known in the Pentagon as the J5. Now, that's the office inside the Joint Staff that is responsible for strategy, plans, and policy. It's one of the two highly visible directorates inside the Joint Staff, the other one being the Directorate for Operations. So this is a very highly responsible role. This is a very senior position. But we should make clear that even though the title says this is not the individual who is planning the war against Iran. What this general does is essentially he coordinates policy and he coordinates strategic planning through the Joint Staff, and then that gets filtered down through the force. But again, we're talking about an individual who's highly respected. And so then we found out this very surprising news from a senior Pentagon official that he had been fired directly by Secretary Hexeth because an inquiry had determined that he had failed three polygraph tests and that he was determined to have been a leaker of classified security information to various media outlets. Even going so far as to say that he was meeting with reporters outside of the Pentagon, given their new escort rules for press. So that's the gist of what's happened. Even more troubling for General Sylvia is that we are hearing from this Pentagon official that what's going to happen is that his case and the investigation is going to be transferred to the Justice Department for potential follow-up. So that's going to be interesting to see if any charges do result from this. It's possible that maybe nothing results from this. But what we do know is that the Pentagon under Secretary Hexeth has really taken leaks seriously. When someone leaks something, they do it with an agenda. And when you leak a portion of an intelligence assessment, but just a little portion, just a little portion that makes it seem like maybe the strike wasn't effective, then you start a new cycle. We knew that over the summer, maybe dozens of officers and the joint staff were submitted to these polygraph tests because they were trying to get at who was leaking information about the munitions. Remember, we were talking about the shortfall of munitions, the air defense systems, the Patriots and the Thads. I was going to say what sort of information has the White House been frustrated about getting out there? So the idea that we're running low on munitions is one of them. This is really one of the key issues that has really been bugging Secretary Hexeth, which is the issue that the United States munitions stockpiles have been depleted. Now, we actually have a report from the Pentagon Inspector General saying that, yes, there has been a shortfall of weapons as a result of the expense of these weapons being used against Iran and defending against incoming missiles and drones. But still, Hexeth has been very determined and he wanted to kill this narrative, which is born in fact, and we're told by a senior Pentagon official that some of the information that Lieutenant General Sylvia has alleged to have leaked included details about the war in Iran, about Russia and Ukraine and other things, and when you look at those two factors, those two conflicts, it's safe to assume that what we're talking about are air defense systems. President Trump was asked about this and he kept referring to General Sylvia as she. I don't know if that's because maybe Sylvia is a last name, but you could tell like the White House does sound like they're planning on throwing the book at him. She's got problems. She's going to have big problems. She did. We're very much looking for leakers and she's going to have big problems, long term problems. But in that last answer, Louis, I mean, you said it yourself, like some of these things are facts. They're just getting out into the public. The White House didn't want them there. Is that because of the narrative? Like you said, they're frustrated by sort of the political implications or like the way they look or are there real national security risks to some of this information getting out there? I think it's about national security because the numbers of THAAD missiles, the number of Patriot missiles that are in the stockpile, that is classified, Brad, and so there is some justification in trying to figure out where these leaks are coming from. But at the same time, it is a fact that those numbers have been depleted because they've been expended to protect American troops in the region. That's a reality. But I think the concern was that this narrative that the United States didn't have enough to defend itself or potentially for future use against another conflict and I think when we talk about another conflict, it's always about, okay, how many weapons can we keep in store in case we ever have to go into a conflict with China? I think that's really the concern. Right. Like that's what you don't want, is China going like, maybe now is the time to attack Taiwan. It's not like the US would get. You don't want that happening. That's exactly right. And I think that's been part of the concern from Hexeth and his team. But again, the reality is that when you have a war, you're going to be using up weapons and when you use up weapons, that means that certain stockpiles are going to be depleted and it turns out that these Patriot and THAAD missiles are some of the most important ones that you need given that this has really become like a long distance war. Right. Although also tough to imagine other countries aren't already aware of the munitions situation. Like they're not waiting for reporters to tell them that. But still, no response from General Sylvia yet. The Trump administration's insistent that all this will be borne out. Louie Martinez covering the Pentagon. Thanks. Thanks, Fred. Hi there. This is Mimi Simmons, your hometown realtor, along with my wonderful team. We are so excited to welcome Johnny Houlihan back to Nevada County. Johnny, your music beautifully captures the spirit of our community, weaving your childhood memories and the places we love into your songs. Thank you for sharing your incredible talent, your music and your heart with the world. From one local to another. Welcome home, Johnny. I know you'll be embraced by the warmth and spirit that makes our community so special. You can catch Johnny's performance on November 11th at the Miner's Foundry in Nevada City. But hurry, as tickets are almost sold out. Go to knco.com for your tickets. From all of us at Team Simmons, thank you, Johnny, for coming home to perform for us. The food delivery market in this country is estimated to be worth up to $100 billion. I'm not even talking about the restaurant business itself or the grocery market. I'm talking just about food delivery, getting a meal sent to your home or office does almost as much business here as the entire country of Samoa. The biggest of these growing companies is DoorDash. And yesterday, DoorDash offered to buy Instacart, the delivery service usually tailored to grocery stores, for $17 billion. But this also comes amid questions about what exactly companies like these plan to charge you for a variety of services. Let's bring in ABC's Elizabeth Schultz, who covers business and economics. Elizabeth, tell me about this deal. Yeah, kind of a blockbuster deal, Brad, when it comes to two major players in the food delivery space. So DoorDash says it will buy Instacart in a deal worth $17 billion. And DoorDash, in announcing this, said that this is a move to try to bring consumers more stores to choose from. They say there will be opportunities for businesses to get into a bigger network, basically combining these two forces. DoorDash, you typically think of restaurants. Instacart, you typically think of groceries. Instacart lets you choose your bananas. You get them just how you like. This will mean one combined membership. But I think the bigger picture here, too, Brad, is that this is a move that shows how much there has been consolidation in this space. We've already seen DoorDash kind of expand outside of restaurants with retailers. They see this as it's a really tough business to just do restaurant delivery. Margins are really tight. They want to expand out of that. They want to be like in the shipping gig, not just the food shipping gig. There's more opportunity and more ways to make money when you've got kind of delivery opportunities outside of just food and restaurants. And frankly, this is an attempt to try to compete with the biggest players in that delivery space, which are Amazon and Walmart. But this is the thing, Elizabeth. The way that Amazon and Walmart seem to be so good at their jobs is they also know so, so much about what consumers are going to want. That's why Amazon seems to have everything in their warehouse that I'm ready to buy, and that's why it's there within a few hours or something. Yesterday, the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, put out a notice saying they've given word to several companies that they're sort of probing the idea of personalized pricing. And they specifically mentioned both of these companies. So are these companies just going to start charging us whatever they think I'll pay based on my history? Right. So this is a huge topic that we have seen kind of bubbling up, this idea of our companies using technology and even AI to charge you a different price than somebody else if you're buying the same thing at the exact same time. And what the FTC is saying, it's going to look into this idea of personalized pricing. It issued these orders to Delta, United, JetBlue, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, Instacart, Target, and Walmart. So a huge array of very well-known consumer companies there to look into whether they are using factors like, they say, your participation in a loyalty program or your personal data to charge different prices. Immediately, we are hearing from the companies that this is not something they do. Walmart had already been out there saying that it prices the product, not the person. All of the airlines, the lobbying group for the airlines said that they comply with federal laws. They do not engage in these pricing practices. Instacart also put out a statement saying that it does not engage in surveillance pricing. What this underscores are concerns that as more people are buying everything in apps, and sometimes now as these apps are merging, Brad, in one super app, the idea is that those companies have so much of your personal information and that personal data is currency. I don't know what anyone else is paying because I'm buying it on my phone or whatever. It's not a price tag on the shelf. Getting to the bottom of how this technology is used, the FTC says it wants to look into that. Companies are, of course, denying that they're doing this in the first place. I do also wonder if this kind of tells us anything about where the broader economy is heading because we keep talking about how everything costs too much, but apparently we're all happy to pay a premium for stuff to get to us. That's why DoorDash is doing so well. Is that why I looked up yesterday and saw that the national economy is actually growing at a pretty solid clip, Elizabeth? Why are these numbers doing so well when everyone's talking about how terrible the economy is? Look, people are spending, Brad, and it has been this paradox that we've seen, frankly, for years now that even though people say their finances are terrible, they're really gloomy about the economy and their own financial situation. They are still spending. Prices are getting out of control. I go to the grocery store and I have to pick and choose what I want. I can't get everything. Part of what this is is that when you look at this report card of the economy that came out yesterday, GDP, it's that people are paying higher prices, so that boosts spending numbers. When you're paying more, that shows up in dollars being spent in the economy. That boosts consumption. It looks good for an economist to be like, yeah, more money out there, cool. More money is sloshing around in the economy, but also part of that is because prices are higher. Something needs to change. Just gas at the price it is. You walk in a grocery, you're trying to take care of your family. One notable data point that we got in addition to just the overall strong consumer spending numbers is that people are also dipping into their savings more, Brad, which shows that part of how people are affording these higher prices is by saving less money. That's okay to a point. You can only dip into your savings so much, and if your income isn't keeping up, it's harder to absorb those higher prices. The other part of why the economy is doing so well, and it's hard to explain how important this is, is AI. We talk about it a lot, but this data puts it into perspective, Brad. Half of all of the growth in the economy for the most recent quarter was business investment, and what that means is spending on AI, data centers, the build out of whatever the infrastructure is needed to power cloud and AI computing, that is showing up very clearly in the data, and that is giving a boost to the broader economic picture. That's a good thing. When you've got company spending in the economy, you want to see businesses investing. Of course, the concern is this is so much money that's being invested. Is that an investment that's ultimately going to pay off? Wish I had the answer to that. I'd be probably a lot richer than I am right now. It's a big debate about a bubble on Wall Street that is not mine to... --- end of transcript ---