All right, strap in, we're going deep today.
Electoral vote news, January 13th, 2025.
You ready for this?
Oh, absolutely.
It's not just the same old headlines.
We're talking Republican power struggles,
unexpected clashes even, potential legal showdowns,
the whole scene could shift, ready to be surprised.
Well, I think what's fascinating here is,
you know, we see these events maybe as isolated,
but actually they reveal a pattern.
It's like, think of cracks in a foundation.
You see one, might not be much,
but together, uh-oh.
Perfect analogy.
And speaking of cracks,
let's start with this whole Republican infighting
over the salt tax deduction,
like a high stakes poker game.
You got Representative Mike Lawler from New York
going all in to lift that Trump-era cap.
He's got to please those affluent constituents, right?
And don't forget about that potential.
Gubernatorial run in 26.
Well, and on the other side,
you've got Trump himself, he's digging in his heels,
not only worried about the deficit,
but there's a sense he's, I think,
enjoying the pressure on those blue state voters.
Right, not exactly his biggest fans.
It's almost like he's saying,
hey, you want my help, let's make a deal.
And that's where Representative Chip Roy from Texas comes in.
Stodge Fiscal Conservative, right?
He's leading the charge against lifting that cap.
So classic Republican versus Republican showdown brewing.
This isn't just about taxes anymore.
No, no, this is, I think, a microcosm
of the struggle within the party itself.
You know, think back to the Tea Party movement.
You see those echoes here,
where individual representatives leverage their position,
disrupt the establishment's agenda.
Especially in a closely divided house,
someone like Lawler can really hold a lot of sway.
Oh yeah.
And this Sarkap issue, it's a test for both sides.
Lawler needs a win to, you know,
solidify his gubernatorial ambitions.
Trump, he's got a show he can still wrangle his party.
Remember that Mar-a-Lago meeting they had?
Right.
Trump asking for a fair number.
Feels like he's testing the waters for a compromise.
But who knows how far he'll bend?
Yeah, this reminds me of his approach to the TPP back in 2016.
Campaigns against it, hints at renegotiation once in office.
Is this genuine dealmaking or just a way to, you know,
maintain that image as a tough negotiator, hard to say.
Only time will tell.
Okay, shifting gears now.
This next story is straight out of political drama.
Steve Bannon versus Elon Musk.
Never saw that one coming.
Oh wow.
Bannon's publicly labeling Musk as quote,
evil elite and he's actively trying to push him out.
Of Trump's inner circle,
we're talking some seriously inflammatory rhetoric.
Even for Bannon.
It's fascinating, almost Machiavellian.
His strategy, remember, Musk was valuable
to Trump campaign donations, tech world cred.
But now elections over, Bannon's painting him as a threat.
Even resorting to, you know,
derogatory remarks about South Africans.
It's a clear appeal to that base,
that populist sentiment, us against the elites.
And puts Trump at a tight spot, doesn't it?
Oh yeah.
He needs to choose, side with Musk,
who may not be so politically useful now,
or Bannon, who still has that sway over,
a big chunk of his base.
This kind of mirrors that tension he had.
With Jeff Sessions back in 2017,
loyalty versus political strategy, recurring theme.
And with someone as unpredictable as Trump,
who knows who he'll choose, right?
Or why?
Yeah.
Okay, hold on to your hats for this one.
This is where things get really messy.
The National Energy Council.
Trump created this new council,
chaired by Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota,
who's also his nominee for interior secretary.
But it's like they skip the plan and phase entirely.
Right out of the gate, the acronym.
NC, already used, National Economic Council.
Talk about confusion from day one.
Then there's the vague mission, no clear authority,
no budget, no staff.
And to top it off, it's supposed to report to Stephen Miller.
Who's no?
It's a hard line immigration stance, not energy policy.
It's baffling.
It's almost like a parody of a government initiative.
And just wait, he gets better.
This council is supposed to work alongside
the National Economic Council
and the National Security Council,
both of which already have a hand in energy policy
and to add even more drama to the mix.
There's this power struggle brewing
between Burgum and Chris Wright,
who is Trump's climate change denying pick
for energy secretary,
over who actually gets to lead the NEC.
It's like going back to the early days
of Trump's first term, remember?
All that chaos and infighting.
Within the administration,
it feels like a repeat performance, only this time.
It's happening before he's even back in office.
And what makes it even more concerning
is that it's not just incompetence.
It seems deliberate, like Trump thrives
on this kind of chaos.
He wants people vying for his attention.
For control, it's a power play, pure and simple.
Raises the question, is this about effective governance?
Or is it about maintaining this?
Constant state of uncertainty.
Keep everyone off balance.
Exactly if no one knows what's coming next.
How can they prepare, let alone govern effectively?
It's like trying to build a house on shift and sand.
And that brings us to something
that's really resonating with.
A lot of Republican lawmakers,
that anxiety surrounding Trump's flip-flopping on issues.
This isn't new.
We saw it with immigration, healthcare,
even recently, TikTok, marijuana.
And you guess it, the salt deduction.
One senior Republican put it perfectly.
The puppies who've not been around him
are in a state of glow.
The senior members are in intestinal knots,
waiting to see what happens.
Because you don't know what he's going to do.
It's like walking on eggshells.
One wrong step.
And you're on the receiving end of a Trump tweet storm.
And that's what's really concerning here.
How can anyone in Congress effectively support
his agenda if they're constantly worried about
being thrown under the bus?
Creates a climate of fear and mistrust.
Hardly conducive to effective governance.
Imagine trying to build consensus on a bill
when you're not even sure if the president
will support it in the long run.
It's a recipe for legislative gridlock.
And it makes you wonder if this is part of Trump's strategy.
Does he even want a functional Congress?
Or does he prefer to rule by executive order and decree?
It's a valid question.
And speaking of consequences, let's talk about Jack Smith.
The special counsel who is investigating Trump
decided to resign before Trump could fire him.
Which, you know, marks the end
of a pretty tumultuous chapter
in this ongoing legal saga surrounding the former president.
Smith was leading two major cases against Trump.
One related to the January 6th coup attempt.
The other focused on those classified documents.
Found at Mar-a-Lago.
But he was facing some major hurdles, wasn't he?
Oh, absolutely.
The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity
really limited his ability to prosecute Trump
for actions taken while in office.
And then you had Judge Aileen Cannon,
a Trump appointee who made that controversial ruling,
declaring the special counsel law unconstitutional.
Which, you know, really threw a wrench into the documents case.
So even with all of that working against him,
Smith still managed to uncover
a lot of evidence of wrongdoing by Trump.
Now that he's gone, it makes you wonder,
if Trump will try to get revenge.
Through his new attorney general, Pam Bondi,
could this backfire and expose even more dirt on Trump?
It's definitely a wild card.
I think it speaks to that larger issue of accountability.
Can someone like Trump, with all his wealth and influence,
truly be held responsible for his actions?
Or will he always find a way to escape consequences?
It's a question that's been hanging over
his entire career, right?
And it's not going away anytime soon.
But let's take a step back from the legal drama,
for a moment.
And look at what the Washington Post has to say
about Trump's cabinet picks.
It's interesting, because they didn't endorse
anyone in the presidential race,
yet they've come out swinging against
some of these nominees.
Interesting.
Yeah, they've basically declared two picks unacceptable.
Pete Hegseth for defense,
and Robert Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services.
And let's be honest, their reasoning is pretty solid.
With Hegseth, there are concerns about
his temperament, his past conduct,
his support for pardoning,
accused war criminals,
and Kennedy Jr. well,
his anti-vaccine views are especially alarming.
Considering the ongoing threat of bird flu,
they didn't outright reject everyone though.
They gave lukewarm endorsements
to Linda McMahon for education,
and Kristi Noem for Homeland Security.
But even then, they questioned their relevant experience,
and they flat out rejected two cabinet level appointments.
Russell Vought for OMB, citing potential violation of
the Empowerment Control Act,
and Tulsi Gabbard for DNI,
due to her perceived closeness to US adversaries.
It shows that even without endorsing a candidate,
the post is willing to take a stand,
and inform the public about the potential risks
of certain appointments.
It's a reminder that the media plays a vital role,
holding those in power accountable,
regardless of their political affiliation.
Absolutely, and it's especially important, I think.
At a time when trust in institutions is eroding,
people need reliable sources of information
to make informed decisions.
And speaking of shifting landscapes,
let's dive into how the 2024 election results
have actually shifted the house map
in favor of Republicans.
And here's the kicker, it's not even due to gerrymandering.
The increased support for Trump,
among black, Latino, and young voters,
has fundamentally changed the political calculus.
Adam Kincaid, who heads the National Republican
Redistricting Trust, put it pretty bluntly,
the battleground map is expanding
in favor of Republicans.
What we're seeing is fewer Republican representatives,
in districts won by the Democrat, in the presidential race,
which makes it a lot harder for Democrats
to regain control of the house in 2026.
It's a fascinating development, that challenges, you know,
the conventional wisdom about demographic trends
and voting patterns, and it's not just theoretical.
Districts like New Jersey's ninth and California's 25th,
which used to lean Democratic, flipped and went for Trump.
It makes you wonder if this is a lasting realignment,
or just a temporary blip.
It's too early to say for sure,
but it's definitely something to watch closely.
If these trends continue, it could have a profound impact
on the political landscape for years to come.
And speaking of things with-
Law of reaching consequences.
Let's turn our attention to the Supreme Court.
And the fate of TikTok.
This is a huge case with implications for,
free speech, national security,
and the future of social media.
The court heard arguments on the law requiring,
bite dance, TikTok's Chinese owner,
to sell the app to a U.S. company,
or face a complete ban.
And from what we're hearing,
the justices were pretty skeptical of,
bite dance is first amendment arguments.
Yeah, their focus seemed to be on,
the potential for data breaches,
and the Chinese government's influence.
It highlights, I think, a growing awareness,
of the power these platforms have,
and the need for more oversight.
And then there's the whole issue of potential buyers,
you know, Walmart, Microsoft, Oracle,
Frank McCourt's consortium, they're all circling.
But the real sticking point seems to be,
the algorithm, the Chinese government doesn't wanna,
included in any sale.
And some argue that it's the algorithm,
not the user base that makes TikTok so valuable.
So you gotta stand off here, do you think?
Trump might try to leverage this situation,
maybe extend the deadline for a sale.
In exchange for, I don't know,
some kind of payment from bite dance,
honestly, it wouldn't surprise me,
this whole situation feels like it was.
Taylor made for his deal making style.
But it also raises a bigger question, I think.
How much control should governments have,
over social media platforms,
especially those owned by foreign companies?
It's a debate that's only going intensify,
in the years to come.
And as we're seeing, it's not just a theoretical debate,
it has real world consequences,
for millions of users who rely on these platforms.
And on that note, let's end this part of our deep dive,
with Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have a knack
for finding himself in, legal hot water.
He managed to achieve a rather dubious distinction,
being held in contempt of court,
in both New York and Washington DC within the same week.
The New York case stems from his refusal
to disclose assets related to that $148 million
defamation judgment he owes.
To Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss,
the two Georgia election workers,
he falsely accused of voter fraud.
And in DC, it's about his.
Continued false statements about them,
even after the jury verdict,
the judges aren't happy to say the least.
No, they're clearly frustrated with his, you know,
blatant disregard for the legal process.
And it raises an important question,
can someone like Giuliani,
with his connections in history,
actually evade consequences for his actions?
Or will he finally face the full weight of the law?
It's a question that gets to.
The heart of our justice system, is it truly blind?
Or do the rich and powerful get to?
Play by different rules.
We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.
But for now, we're gonna take a quick break
and come back with even more insights
and analysis from this day in 2025.
Stay tuned.
Welcome back, we just navigated a political landscape,
wow, full of internal struggles, unexpected conflicts,
and even potential legal showdowns.
It seems the new year has kicked off
with some serious political drama.
Keeping us on our toes, that's for sure.
And it strikes me that a sense of unpredictability
is a common thread running through so many of these stories.
It's like everyone's trying to figure out the rules
of the game while the game itself keeps changing.
Exactly, and that's why staying informed, you know,
being able to critically assess the information
is so crucial.
We can get swept up in those headlines,
but gotta look deeper, understand those forces at play, right?
Right, let's dive back into electoral vote news,
January 13th, 2025.
We left off discussing Rudy Giuliani's legal woes.
It's striking to me how his actions highlight a question
that seems to keep popping up, accountability.
Can someone with his connections, his history,
really face consequences for his actions?
It's the crucial question, right,
for any functioning democracy.
If there's a sense that the rules don't apply equally,
it erodes trust in the entire system.
And Giuliani's case is a fascinating,
I think microcosm of that larger issue.
And on the subject of accountability,
let's turn to the Supreme Court
and that potential TikTok ban.
This case has the potential, as we said,
to reshape the whole social media landscape.
What stood out to you about the arguments presented?
I think the justice's skepticism
toward Bite Dance's First Amendment arguments
was pretty telling.
They seemed far more concerned about data security
and the potential, of course,
for Chinese government influence.
Could signal a shift in how the court views these tech giants?
Greater regulation?
Possibly.
And let's talk about the practical side of things.
If the court does uphold the ban,
how would they actually go about removing TikTok
from circulation?
It would be a multi-pronged effort.
First, app stores would block any new downloads and updates.
Then you'd have telecom companies blocking access
to the TikTok website.
And over time, without updates,
the app would become incompatible
with those newer operating systems.
It'd be like a slow strangulation, essentially.
So even if people already have the app on their phones,
they might not be able to use it for long.
That's a huge deal for millions of users.
What did you find most surprising
about this whole TikTok saga?
I was surprised by the focus on the algorithm
and the Chinese government's opposition
to including it in any sale.
Underscore is the algorithm's power.
You know, it's not just about the user base.
It's the tech that drives engagement shapes behavior.
It's like the algorithm itself
has become a bargaining chip
in this geopolitical chess match.
And speaking of shifting power dynamics,
let's revisit how the 2024 election
has actually shifted that house map
in favor of Republicans.
Not gerrymandering, but changes in voter behavior,
which is far more significant, I think.
Definitely challenges a lot of assumptions
about demographic trends and voting patterns,
seeing increased support for Trump
among black, Latino, and young voters,
which has led to districts
that were once considered safe,
democratic seats flipping to the Republican side.
And the source specifically mentions districts
like New Jersey's ninth in California's 25th,
as you said, prime examples.
Do you think this is a sign of a broader realignment
or more of a temporary phenomenon?
It's hard to say for sure at this point too early,
but it is a trend worth watching very closely.
If these waiting patterns persist,
it could reshape the political landscape for years to come,
highlights the importance of understanding,
you know, the motivations and concerns of voters,
especially those who might be shifting their allegiances.
It's a reminder that political parties
can't afford to take any voter block for granted.
They need to adapt, evolve to meet those changing needs,
aspirations of the electorate.
Speaking of adapting, let's talk about that growing sense
of anxiety among Republican lawmakers
about Trump's tendency to, well, flip-flop on issues.
It's not exactly a new phenomenon, is it?
But it does seem to be amplified
now that he's back in the White House.
Well, it creates a climate of uncertainty, of mistrust,
which, as we've said,
isn't conducive to effective governance.
If lawmakers are constantly worried
about being contradicted or thrown under the bus,
how can they effectively support his agenda?
The source quotes one senior Republican saying,
the puppies who've not been around him
are in a state of glow.
The senior members are in intestinal knots
waiting to see what happens,
because you don't know what he's gonna do.
Pretty vivid picture, right?
Speaks to the, I think, unique challenge
of working with someone as unpredictable as Trump.
Policies that seem set in stone one day
can be completely reversed the next.
That constant state of flux
can paralyze legislative action,
makes it really difficult to build lasting consensus.
Makes you wonder if it's a deliberate tactic, right?
Does he thrive on this chaos,
or is it just a byproduct of his impulsive nature?
Either way, it's creating a significant obstacle
to effective governance.
And speaking of obstacles,
let's revisit the Washington Post's decision
to weigh in on Trump's cabinet nominees.
Didn't endorse in the presidential race,
yet they took a pretty strong stance
against some of these picks.
Interesting choice, I thought.
It's almost as if they're saying,
we may not have picked a side in the election,
but we still have a responsibility to inform the public
about the potential dangers of these appointments.
And they didn't hold back,
declaring Pete Hegzet for defense,
and Robert Kennedy Jr. for health and human services
is completely unacceptable.
And they had their reasons.
With Hegzet, they cited those concerns
about his temperament, past conduct,
his support for pardoning war criminals.
And with Kennedy Jr.,
it was those anti-vaccine views
that raised the biggest red flags, of course,
especially with the ongoing threat of bird flu.
They did express some reservations too
about Linda McMahon, nominated for education,
and Kristi Noem, tapped for Homeland Security,
but not outright rejections.
Underscore is the importance of a free and independent press
in holding those in power accountable.
Even if they haven't taken a partisan stance,
it's about informing the public,
ensuring that qualified individuals
are appointed to these critical positions.
It's also a reminder, I think,
that the meaty landscape is evolving.
The post's decision to take a stand on cabinet picks,
even without endorsing the presidential race,
suggests a shift in how they view their role
in the political process.
And speaking of shifting dynamics,
let's circle back to that Republican tug of war
over the salt tax deduction.
The classic example of how internal divisions
within a party can really derail a president's agenda.
The salt deduction, which allows taxpayers
to deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxes,
was capped at $10,000 under the 2017 Trump tax cuts.
And it's become a major point of contention, of course,
between moderate Republicans representing
those affluent districts and fiscal conservatives
who were worried about the deficit.
It's like watching a game of political chicken, really,
with Representative Mike Lawler,
who's pushing to lift the cap,
holding a lot of cards,
needs a win for his constituents,
and of course, for his gubernatorial ambitions,
while Trump's trying to appease both him
and the deficit hawks.
That Mar-a-Lago meeting between Lawler,
those other, was it, salty Republicans,
and Trump was fascinating, no deal was reached,
but Trump's subsequent call for a fair number
suggests he's at least open to negotiation.
Puts his deal-making skills to the test, doesn't it?
Can he find a solution that satisfies both sides,
or will this issue become another source
of gridlock and infighting within the Republican Party?
It highlights the challenge of governing
in a polarized political environment,
finding common ground, building consensus.
It's become increasingly difficult,
even within a single party.
And then there's that other headscratcher,
the creation of the National Energy Council.
The NEC, as it's been dubbed,
is already facing a mountain of problems.
First, the acronym's already taken,
National Economic Council.
Then there's the vague mission, no clear authority,
budget, staff.
To top it all off, it's supposed to report to Stephen Miller.
Immigration, not energy policy.
It's baffling.
Almost as if the administration didn't think
through the logistics or the potential for conflict.
And there's that power struggle brewing, of course,
between Governor Doug Burdom, who's supposed to chair
the NEC, and Chris Wright,
the nominee for energy secretary.
Recipe for chaos and dysfunction.
And you have to wonder, is this a case of incompetence?
Or a deliberate attempt to create
that sense of constant turmoil?
Is it about effective governance?
Or about maintaining that state of uncertainty
to keep everyone off balance?
That question seems to continue to swirl
around Trump's leadership style, doesn't it?
Does he thrive on this chaos?
Or is it simply a byproduct
of his impulsive decision-making?
It's a pattern we've seen before.
Big announcements, followed by confusion,
infighting, and ultimately very little concrete action.
Frustrating for anyone hoping for a more stable
and effective government, I think.
And speaking of frustration,
let's end this part of our deep dive
by circling back to Rudy Giuliani.
Can't seem to stay out of legal trouble.
Being held in contempt of court
and two jurisdictions within a week,
it's quite a feat, even for him.
The New York case stems from his failure to disclose assets
related to that massive defamation judgment
he owes to Ruby Freeman and Che Moss.
And in DC, the issue is continuing
to spread those falsehoods about them.
Judges are clearly running out of patience.
Raises a fundamental question about accountability.
Can someone in Giuliani's position,
with all his connections, his history,
can he truly face consequences for his actions?
It's a question that goes to the heart of our justice system
and our democracy as a whole, really.
And with that, we'll wrap up this part of our deep dive.
Stay tuned as we explore even more news
from this day in 2025 in our final segment.
Welcome back, folks, to our deep dive
into this whirlwind of news, 2025, January 13th.
We've covered so much, political maneuvering,
legal battles, the future of social media,
it's almost too much.
Yeah, it's been a day of twists and turns, that's for sure.
Amidst all the chaos, though,
there are these recurring themes, right?
Things that keep popping up.
Absolutely, and one that keeps coming back to mind
is that question of accountability.
Can those in power, people like Rudy Giuliani,
truly be held responsible for their actions?
Right, being held in contempt of court,
not once, but twice in one week.
That's a pretty serious development.
What are the potential consequences for him, do you think?
Well, I mean, beyond the immediate legal stuff,
fines or even jail time,
there's the long-term damage to his reputation.
You gotta remember, this is the guy
who was once America's mayor after 9-11.
Now he's facing accusations of undermining,
well, the foundations of our democracy.
It's a stark reminder that actions have consequences.
No matter your position, your past accomplishments.
It's a fall from grace, hard to ignore.
Speaking of things with far-reaching consequences, though,
let's circle back to that potential TikTok ban.
If the Supreme Court does uphold it, what happens then?
How would they actually go about removing the app?
It would be a multi-pronged approach, I think.
First, Apple and Google would have to remove TikTok
from their app stores, no more downloads, no updates.
Then telecom companies would be required
to block access to the website, and without updates,
eventually the app would become incompatible
with newer versions of iOS and Android, essentially useless.
Wow, so even if people already have it,
they might not be able to use it for long.
It's a scenario with a lot of questions.
What surprised you most about this whole TikTok thing?
I was struck by the justices' focus on, you know,
the potential for data breaches,
and the Chinese government's influence over the app
suggests a growing awareness of the power
these platforms have, not just in terms of entertainment,
but in shaping public opinion,
potentially even interfering with elections.
It's a wake-up call, isn't it?
About the need for greater oversight,
regulation of these tech giants,
especially when it comes to data security
and foreign influence, and speaking of foreign influence,
let's shift gears back to that Republican infighting
over the salt tax detection, classic example,
of how internal divisions can just derail
a president's agenda.
Representative Mike Lawler's push to lift the cap.
It's really a fascinating case study, you know?
He's caught between the needs of his constituents,
those affluent voters who are feeling the pinch of that cap,
and Trump's desire to hold firm.
For budgetary reasons, sure,
but also as a way to exert pressure on those blue states.
The Mar-a-Lago meeting, remember, with Lawler and those,
salty Republicans, plus Trump's call for a fair number,
suggests he's at least open to negotiation.
But who knows how this will actually play out?
It's a good reminder that even within a single party,
there can be those deep divisions,
competing interests that make it, well,
incredibly difficult to achieve anything.
Yeah, speaks to the challenges of governing
in such a polarized environment.
Compromise, consensus building, increasingly difficult.
And then there's that headscratcher,
the creation of the National Energy Council,
already facing a mountain of problems.
The acronym, the Vade Mission, lack of clear leadership.
It's almost comical.
Right, raises serious concerns about, you know,
the administration's competence,
their ability to implement policies effectively,
lack of planning, foresight is baffling,
and the potential for conflict dysfunction very high.
Makes you wonder if it's all intentional, right?
A deliberate attempt to create chaos, so division.
Or is it just incompetence, poor decision making?
I guess only time will tell.
One thing's for sure, we're in for a wild ride.
The political landscape, it's shifting fast.
The stakes are incredibly high.
So we've covered a lot of ground, Republican in fighting,
unexpected alliances, legal battles,
the future of social media.
Quite a deep dive into a remarkable day.
What would you say is the biggest takeaway for our listeners?
I think the key takeaway is this,
we're living in a time of unprecedented uncertainty,
rapid change.
The old rules, they don't apply anymore,
the stakes are higher than ever.
So it's crucial to stay informed, think critically,
and be prepared to adapt.
That is excellent advice.
We've given you a lot to consider today.
But remember, this is just a snapshot
of one day, January 13th, 2025.
Imagine how these stories will unfold,
how it will connect in unexpected ways down the line.
It's a political thriller in real time,
and we're all part of the audience.
Well said.
Thanks for joining us on this deep dive.
We'll be back soon with more insights and analysis.
Until then, stay curious, be informed, and stay engaged.