ever feel like you're just drowning in news?
Like, you can't even keep up, let alone figure
out what actually matters. Yeah, it's a lot.
Well, that's exactly why we're here today. For
this deep dive, we're cutting through all the
noise and getting straight to the core of it
all. We're looking at everything that's happened
recently through two really important lenses.
The immediate political fallout, of course. But
also, what kind of signals are we getting from
economic forecasts? Exactly. So we've got a really
fascinating set of sources for this one. We're
going to be looking at some in -depth political
analysis, but we've also got the latest economic
outlook from BNY Mellon, a huge financial institution.
Having these different perspectives, like you
said, is key to figuring out the big picture.
Absolutely. So our mission today is to understand
what are the real consequences, both politically
and economically, from recent events? And what
could they mean for us in the near future? What
are the actual impacts that we should be watching
out for? Exactly. So let's jump right in. There's
this whole thing that's been dubbed Whiskey Leaks
Online. Which is pretty catchy, I gotta say.
Yeah, it's very memorable. It really is. And
this signal message scandal, I mean, it just
keeps going. Doesn't seem like it's gonna fade
away anytime soon. No, it really doesn't. Especially
with this Judge Boasberg. Oh, yeah. Remember
him from the Venezuelan deportation cases? Sure
do. Well, he's now ordered the administration
to preserve all of those messages from the group
of 18. Ooh, putting them between a rock and a
hard place. Right, because now they risk being
held in contempt of court if they don't... comply
or release information that is already causing
some serious public relations issues. Yeah, public
relations nightmare. For sure. But it is really
telling that there is significant concern across
party lines. There was this YouGov poll. Oh,
right. And a full 74 % overall. And this is important.
Even 60 % of Republicans view this as a serious
matter. So even within the GOP base, there's
a line they won't cross. It seems like Whiskey
Leaks has crossed it. This isn't just like partisan
bickering. This is a wider unease about how things
are run. It really seems that way. So while all
the legal stuff is happening, journalists are
uncovering even more layers to this whole thing.
So Willamette Week reported that Joe Kent, and
this is wild, Joe Kent, who has been nominated
to be the director of the National Counterterrorism
Center, So he's the intended person, but hasn't
gone through the full Senate confirmation. He
was part of this text chain before his nomination
was even confirmed. So that raises some very
serious legal questions about access to information,
timelines, all that kind of thing. Right, like
who had access to what information and when.
Exactly. And if we try to connect that back to
the bigger picture of governance and security,
it really brings up this need. to have proper
protocols in place. Absolutely. When you have
individuals who haven't gone through official
vetting yet, and they have access to this kind
of sensitive communication, it just creates so
much risk. Yeah. And then there's Spiegel International.
They went deep into data security around all
of this and found some wild stuff, like truly
remarkable. It turns out that a lot of the key
figures in this, we're talking Mike Waltz, national
security advisor, Tulsi Gabbard. Director of
National Intelligence, Pete Hegseth, Secretary
of Defense. Wow, big players. Had major vulnerabilities
in their personal data security. Like what? Like
their phone numbers. OK. Their personal emails.
Right. Even passwords. Wow. All revealed through
publicly available info. I mean, it really makes
you think about the judgment of the people in
these roles. It does. You know, if they can't
keep basic personal data safe, how can we expect
them to protect? sensitive government info. Yeah,
I mean, you'd think the National Security Advisor
would be a little more careful with his phone
number, you know. I don't think so. So legally
speaking, it's still not likely that AG Pam Bondi
is going to go for criminal charges. But that
PR damage, I mean, that seems unavoidable. And
remember that YouGov poll, that public concern
is showing up in the polls. It is. Walz and Hegseth,
their favorability ratings are down, and even
Trump's approval is taking a hit. And speaking
of Trump, his stance on Mike Walz has been...
Well, let's just say evolving. Evolving. He went
from defending Waltz to, oh, yeah, I always had
my doubts about Mike. So it sounds like there's
a real effort in the West Wing to push Waltz
out. Really? And here's something really interesting.
Jeffrey Goldberg's phone number was on Waltz's
phone. Now, remember Trump. hates Goldberg, especially
after all that reporting on the war dead. Right.
So that little detail could be a huge factor
in Wallace's downfall. Trump could see that as
a total betrayal. Yeah, it's like the fact that
it was that name is almost more important than
the carelessness itself. It seems like it. So
switching gears a bit, but still in the realm
of unexpected political moves, we have Elise
Stefanik's nomination for UN ambassador. Yeah.
Suddenly withdrawn. Now, this has got to be a
big setback for Stefanic. Yeah. I mean, that
UN role would have raised her profile significantly.
It would have. Given her some serious foreign
policy experience. I think a lot of people saw
it as a stepping stone to even bigger things.
And to lose out on that, especially after giving
up her House leadership position, it leaves her
in a really tough spot. So what happened? Well,
some analysis points to the upcoming special
elections in Florida. Right. Right. That poll
in FL 06 showing Randy Fine in a much tighter
race than expected, even in a district that's
historically Republican, I mean, that has to
be setting off some alarm bells. Yeah, because
if we connect that to the fact that the Republican
majority in the House is already razor thin,
any loss is a big problem. Right. And then on
top of that, what if Republican voters see a
close call or an actual loss as a result of supporting
Trumpism? Oh, interesting. Then you might see
more moderate GOP members in those swing districts.
distance themselves from Trump, even vote against
the party line. Yeah. And then you have the recent
loss in that R -plus -15 state Senate district
in Pennsylvania. It really shows that no seat
is safe right now. No seat is safe at all. And
Stefanik's own district, NY -21, is R -plus -8.
Right. If she left for the UN and that seat flipped,
we could end up with an evenly split house. So
that scenario, maybe not the most likely outcome,
but it's a big enough risk that the administration
can't ignore it. Yeah. So Stefanik, despite all
her loyalty to the former president, is just
another example of political expediency. Wow.
So let's move on to what some are calling a war
on federal employees. War on federal employees.
Yeah, it looks like there's a longer term strategy
here. And it seems to be driven by people like
Musk and Trump. OK. And they want to shrink the
federal workforce. By a lot. And the tactic might
not actually be to win the legal battles that
are inevitably going to come up when they try
to do this. Oh, interesting. Instead, the goal
might be to make it so hard and so costly to
fight back against job losses that people will
just give up and quit. Ah, clever. So even if
the courts later on side with the employees and
order them to get their jobs back, the damage
is already done. Exactly. The disruption, the
uncertainty. It's already achieved the goal of
cutting the workforce. That's pretty devious.
Right. We're already seeing some of this happening.
Oh, really? HHS under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced
plans to get rid of 10 ,000 jobs. 10 ,000. 10
,000. That's a lot. It is. But what's interesting
is that the commentary we're seeing suggests
that this is more about PR and trying to weaken
the agency's ability to do its job. It's not
about actual reform. So it's different from how
real reform usually happens, which is more phased.
You know, they follow the existing legal frameworks
and they usually rely more on natural attrition,
like retirements and resignations, not mass firings.
Yeah. The scale and the suddenness of these cuts
make it seem like there's something else going
on here, something more political. I see. And
then there's Trump's executive order. This one
is targeting federal employee unions and it's
going after their ability to do collective bargaining.
Wow. Now the whole basis of this order rests
on what they're calling a novel interpretation
of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 1978.
1978. That's a while ago. It is. So what was
that act about? It was supposed to establish
merit -based hiring and provide certain protections
for federal employees. Okay. But this new interpretation
basically claims that any kind of union activity
automatically interferes with how the government
works. So it's a very broad stroke. Very broad
and very aggressive. It wants to really cripple
the power of federal employee unions. And it's
interesting. The analysis raises the question
of whether union leaders who supported Trump
before, like the head of the Teamsters, will
they wake up to this attack on their members'
rights? That's a good question. A very good question.
So let's talk about another area where we're
seeing what's being called a war on women. Oh,
no. Specifically when it comes to abortion rights.
Right. And there are some really worrying things
happening. Like what? Like what's going on in
Texas with AG Ken Paxton? Yeah, what's he doing?
He's trying to punish an OBGYN who's not even
in Texas. Oh, wow. For providing abortion pills.
What? And legally it's questionable whether Texas
law even applies to actions taken in another
state. Yeah, that seems a little shaky. Right.
But Paxton managed to get a judgment from a Texas
court, and now he's trying to enforce it in New
York. And are they going for it? No. New York
is refusing to comply, which they should. This
seems more about making a political statement
than any real legal action. It really does. And
then there's Georgia. They're thinking about
a near total abortion ban. A near total ban.
Yeah. And the analysis really emphasizes the
negative impact these kinds of laws have on maternal
health. Like, doctors may hesitate to do what
they need to do even if the mother's life is
in danger. Because they're afraid of getting
in trouble. Exactly. Yeah. But the most shocking
story is this case in Georgia. This woman was
arrested after she had a miscarriage. Oh my gosh.
And the coroner's report confirmed it was natural
and that the fetus was not viable. But they still
arrested her. What? They charged her with concealing
the death of another person and abandonment of
a dead body. That's awful. And she's still being
detained. It's really disturbing. It shows this
dangerous trend of how miscarriages are being
viewed and how they're being criminalized. I
mean, the commentary makes a really good point
here. Even people who oppose abortion, most of
them believe in exceptions for rape, incest,
or when the mother's life is in danger. Yeah,
that's pretty standard. They don't want to imprison
women who've gone through a miscarriage. It's
tragic. These cases suggest that there's a much
more extreme, even inhumane agenda at play. Absolutely.
And it forces us to think about whether what
the anti -choice movement says it wants actually
matches up with what's actually happening because
of their policies. Because when you have policies
that criminalize doctors, put women's health
at risk, and threaten to jail women who have
miscarriages, I mean that's a war on women. It
is. Now let's switch gears again and talk about
the power of visuals. Okay. Seeing is believing.
Right. And we're seeing some strong video evidence
that's really shaping how people view things.
Like what? Like the administration's approach
to immigration. OK. So DHS Secretary Kristi Noem,
she went on this trip to El Salvador and it was
all filmed. And she's using these deported Venezuelans
as a backdrop while she's criticizing immigrants.
Wow. Now the administration labeled these people
as gang members. Right. But there's often not
much proof to back that up. And there have already
been legal challenges to these. So to use them
as props this way, especially if they can be
considered prisoners of war under the Geneva
Conventions because of that making war justification
they use for the deportation. Right. It raises
serious ethical and maybe even legal questions.
It really does. And then we're seeing this increasing
trend of targeting Muslim grad students. What
do you mean? We've seen the arrest of this Iranian
national visas revoked for hundreds of others.
Wow. But it's the footage of Ramesa Ozturk's
arrest in Boston that's really sparked outrage.
What happened? So they arrested her for, get
this, allegedly glorifying and supporting terrorists
based on an op -ed she co -authored in her college
newspaper. OK. And the op -ed was pro -Palestine.
Oh, wow. And you see the video. She's arrested
by multiple plainclothes individuals. Oh, that's
got to be terrifying. It is. I mean, people immediately
thought it was a kidnapping. I bet. And the analysis
here connects these arrests directly to an attempt
to shut down dissent on college campuses. It
reminds us of how student protests have affected
administrations in the past. Yeah, but like the
commentary said, this kind of heavy -handed approach
can actually backfire. How so? Well, it can lead
to even bigger and louder protests once people
see what's happening. And we're already seeing
that in Boston. That's true. Whether this strategy
of silencing free speech will actually work in
the long run, that's debatable. Right, because
as the commentary suggests, these actions can
lead to more anger. The dissent spreads wider.
It could reach a breaking point. It could. And
the video evidence in Osterk's case has really
galvanized people. It sparked a huge public response.
It has. So let's move on to what the analysis
calls schadenfreude. Schadenfreude. Yep. focusing
on Vice President J .D. Vance. Oh, Vance? Remember
his photo op in Greenland? Oh, yeah. Didn't exactly
go to plan? No, it did not. The Greenlanders
were actually open to meeting with his wife at
first. Oh, really? But then as soon as... Vance
was added to the itinerary. They withdrew all
the invitations. Wow. They saw it as a propaganda
stunt. Ouch. They felt like it was about promoting
the idea that Greenland wants to join the US,
not about building any real connection. Yeah,
about a good look. Not at all. And this ties
into a larger skepticism about Vance taking over
the so -called Meggie throne. So people don't
see him as the heir apparent. Not really. And
the analysis outlines three reasons why. OK,
I'm listening. First, there's this perception
of him being weird. Weird? Yeah. And whether
that image fits with what Trump wants in a successor.
Right. Then there's the fact that Vance has shown
some independent thinking. Remember his involvement
in the signal chat? Yeah, yeah. And then there's
this interesting point. As a vice president,
he's basically unfireable. He is. So there's
that lack of leverage. Yeah. Especially when
you think about how the former president likes
to operate. Yeah, good point. And then there's
a comparison to Mike Pence's time as VP. OK,
I see where you're going with this. Vance is
already getting assigned these kind of embarrassing
tasks like the Greenland trip. It's like they're
sidelining him. It seems that way. So to finish
up, let's talk about something the analysis calls
Freud and Freud. This time, it's about the Unification
Church of Japan. The Unification Church. Yeah.
And there have been some interesting developments.
Ro, tell me in. So it's been almost three years
since Shinzo Abe was assassinated. And the assassin
explicitly stated that he do it because of the
unification church. Right. He said they were
financially exploiting his family and that they
had deep ties to the LDP, the Liberal Democratic
Party, which is the ruling party. Right. Right.
I remember this. So what's crazy is that the
Japanese government actually investigated these
claims. Wow. They took it seriously. They did.
And they found out it was all true. No way. Yeah.
So the government took legal action against the
Unification Church. Good for them. And they won
in court. So now the church is going to lose
its tax exempt status, and they have to give
back all the money they got through these shady
practices. So justice was served. It seems like
it. And it's important to note that this isn't
the first time the Japanese government has had
to step in and deal with a religious group that
was abusing its power and exploiting people.
Oh, really? The analysis mentions two other times
where they had to do something similar. And it's
worth remembering that the Unification Church
has a history of getting close to Republican
presidents in the U .S. Interesting. With the
exception of Gerald Ford, of course. So as we
wrap up this deep dive, it's really clear that
all of these political things happening aren't
happening in a vacuum. They're totally tied to
the bigger economic picture. And the policies
being made are creating a lot of uncertainty
about the future. What's really fascinating to
me is how disconnected it all seems. We have
these political actions like increasing tariffs,
going after federal employees, cracking down
on abortion rights. But then you look at the
economic forecasts. A lot of them are predicting
slower economic growth, higher inflation. Which
are a direct result of those policies. Exactly.
So it makes you wonder about the long -term consequences
of all these interconnected trends. It really
does. I mean, we're seeing norms being eroded,
the real effects of trade policies, the political
landscape shifting. Yeah. It makes you wonder
what... expected things might happen because
of all of this. It really does. What's going
to come out of this mess that we haven't even
thought of yet? Yeah, it's definitely something
we all need to keep in mind as we figure out
how to navigate the days ahead. Absolutely. Thanks
for joining us on this deep dive. We'll see you
next time. See you next time.