Welcome to the deep dive. This is where we take
the information you give us and really try to
pull out the most important insights so you can
get up to speed. Exactly. And today we've got
a really interesting pairing you sent over. Yeah,
we do. We have a news commentary piece from April
15th, 2025, and also a schwa market briefing
from the exact same day. So the goal today really
is to synthesize these. They seem quite different
on the surface, but we want to see how the political
story and the economic picture from that specific
day connect. Right. What's the bigger picture?
What are the key takeaways, maybe some surprising
links between the political climate and what
was happening in the markets? It's definitely
valuable looking at them together like this.
One source is giving a very, you know, specific
viewpoint on political events, while the other
is all about the hard data from the financial
markets. So putting them side by side, hopefully
we can uncover some deeper truths about, well,
the general atmosphere back then. Okay, let's
dive right in then. The electoral vote news commentary.
It starts pretty intensely. Section 1 is titled,
Fascism Watch Part 1. the war on the citizenry.
Yeah, grim is the word they use. And it focuses
straight away on this really strange case of
Kimar Bricco Garcia. Right. This man in Maryland.
The commentary says he was, quote, accidentally
deported to El Salvador. But the really crucial
part is that a U .S. immigration judge had actually
granted him withholding of removal status way
back in 2019, which. legally speaking, should
have stopped the deportation. Exactly. That's
my understanding. It legally prevented him from
being sent back. But what jumps out immediately
from the commentary is this sort of, well, they
call it a circus -like display of buck passing.
Between Trump and the AG, Pam Bondi. Yeah. They
both basically said, look, once Garcia was in
El Salvador's hands, well, the US couldn't do
anything, even though the US sent him there,
apparently paid for his detention too, according
to the source. It seems like a key point the
commentary is making is this potential for the
administration to act first and then just claim
their hands are tied regarding the results of
their own actions. Precisely. And the commentary
really pushes this with that hypothetical, doesn't
it? Yeah, the Steve Bannon one. Like if he got
accidentally deported with the White House, just
shrug and say, oops, too bad, it seems unlikely.
And they mentioned El Salvador's President Bukele
was actually in D .C. around then meeting with
people, which strongly implies the U .S. did
have leverage if they chose to use it. Bukele's
response quoted in the piece about not having
authority and joking about smuggling Garcia back.
It just adds to this feeling of, I don't know,
almost performative denial. It really raises
the question of why then? Why did this happen?
The commentary touches on some speculation and,
you know, was Garcia a spy? Was he dead, just
lost in the shuffle? But then it pivots to what
the authors think is the more probable and frankly
more disturbing reason. And this is where it
gets really unsettling, I think, the theory they
put forward. Right. They suggest the administration
might have been deliberately testing the boundaries,
exploiting a kind of legal gray area from a Supreme
Court decision. Seeing how far they could push
things in immigration and the implication. It's
pretty chilling that they might be trying to
set things up so they could basically disappear
literally anyone. Yeah. Even someone with legal
protection. And the commentary connects this
idea to other things, like Trump saying he was
open to deporting homegrown criminals. Right.
And Bondi refusing to say if sending US citizens
to foreign prisons was legal. It paints this
picture, doesn't it? When you put the Garcia
case next to these statements. a potential pattern
of overreach. Definitely a disturbing picture.
And it keeps going. The commentary then talks
about setting up a holding area for undocumented
immigrants down on the Mexican border. And the
comparison they draw there is just stark. Yeah,
comparing it directly to the early stages of
the Nazi program, you know, rounding up political
opponents and other undesirables, that's a really
heavy comparison. It shows how alarmed the authors
were. It absolutely does. It highlights their
deep concerns. And they end that section basically
calling on the judiciary judge, Paula Sheenis,
and Chief Justice John Roberts to step in and
address what they see as serious violations.
So the takeaway seems to be that the commentary
isn't seeing these as isolated mistakes, but
as part of a bigger, potentially dangerous trend.
A systematic push, potentially. OK, let's shift
gears slightly to their part two, the war on
the media. Still under the fascism watch heading.
Right. Another piece of the playbook, according
to the commentary, going after critical media.
And here the focus is squarely on CBS, particularly
60 minutes. And the attacks described sound incredibly
direct. Trump wasn't just criticizing, the commentary
says he was repeatedly calling for CBS to actually
lose its broadcast license. Yeah, and they include
parts of his social media posts, which really
gives you the flavor of it, his specific complaints,
and just the anger behind it. Absolutely. He's
talking about alleged fraud in a 60 minutes interview
with Kamala Harris about the 2024 election. He's
mad about Ukraine coverage, even Greenland coverage.
Greenland, right. Let me just read a bit of that
quote they included. Almost every week, 60 minutes.
mentions the name Trump in a derogatory and defamatory
way. They are not a news show, but a dishonest
political operative simply disguised as news
and must be responsible. They should lose their
license. The personal nature of it is really
striking. It feels like a key insight here is
just how willing the administration was, according
to the source, to use its platform to try and
delegitimize media outlets it didn't like. To
punish them. Yeah. But the commentary also makes
a really important practical point. About the
license. Exactly. How much leverage does threatening
the broadcast license actually give them anymore?
Most people watch via cable or streaming now,
which that license doesn't cover. Good point.
And they mention the NFL factor, too. Right.
Taking Sunday AFC games away from millions of
fans. Probably not a politically winning move.
So the rhetoric is loud, but the actual power
might be less than it seems. That's an interesting
insight. Then there's that little side note about
the Paramount Skydance merger potentially involving
Trump and the David Ellison connection. Laurie
Ellison's son. As another little layer of complexity
maybe. It does suggest potential friction points,
even within generally aligned circles. And the
commentary also brings up the Associated Press
still being blocked from the White House, even
after a court said they shouldn't be excluded
if others were let in. Yeah, that seems to underline
the commentary's point about the administration
expecting the media and maybe even the courts
to just fall in line. It suggests a disregard
for the traditional checks and balances, the
role of a free press, the independence of the
judiciary. That's the core takeaway they seem
to be driving at. And they make that interesting
point, too, about the potential long term consequence
if you ignore court rulings now. You might undermine
the whole system you might need later, right?
Kind of shooting yourself in the foot regarding
the rule of law. Exactly. It erodes that fundamental
acceptance that court orders matter. OK, so moving
on to Fascism Watch. Part three, the war on universities.
Right. Another source of perceived wrong think
that the administration was targeting, according
to this commentary. And they focus specifically
on Harvard. Framing it as a potential Joseph
Welch moment, you know, that point where someone
with credibility finally says, have you no sense
of decency, sir? Drawing a line. And Harvard,
as the commentary notes, is a pretty significant
target. It's prestige, the powerful alumni network
Obama, Bloomberg mentioned. Huge endowment, major
legal firepower. Right. All things that could
potentially allow it to push back against pressure
from the administration. So a confrontation with
Harvard would be, well, a big deal. And the commentary
pulls no punches describing this reported five
page letter sent to Harvard, calls it a fascist
wet dream. Strong language. But then they list
some of the alleged demands. Well, you can see
why they use that phrase. It's quite something
if this description is accurate. They reportedly
wanted Harvard to reduce the power of anyone
involved in wrong think, OK, but also eliminate
DEI programs entirely. Which is one thing, but
then. Then the flip side. Mandating that 50 %
half. of the student body, the faculty, every
single academic unit, had to be Magier Republicans.
In the name of ideological diversity, overseen
by administration -approved commissars. Let me
just read that quote again, because it's just,
at the same time, making a point to populate
the student body, the faculty, and every academic
unit with 50 % Magier Republicans in the name
of ideological diversity. The audacity of trying
to dictate the political makeup of a private
university like that. It's just staggering. It
feels like blatant interference. And the list
goes on, according to the commentary, big cuts
to foreign student admissions. Reforming specific
schools and programs, the Divinity School, education,
public health, the med school, programs focused
on religion, human rights, Middle Eastern studies.
The law school's human rights clinic. It seems
like a really targeted list of places likely
to produce critical fodder research. Designed
to enforce conformity, it seems. And then immediate
crackdowns on student protests by campus police.
And that weirdly specific ban on surgical masks.
What's that even about? Besides maybe discouraging
protests. Yes. And then this deadline. Full compliance
by June 30th, plus quarterly reports to the administration.
It really does feel like an attempt at total
control. The commentary floats a really interesting
idea here, though. About Harvard's strategy.
Yeah. That maybe Harvard, being run by, quote,
really shrewd sobs, actually wanted these demands
in writing, played along just enough to get documented
proof for lawsuits. That actually makes a lot
of sense, doesn't it? Strategically. Right. Get
the crazy demands on paper. Because the commentary
argues complying would be disastrous for Harvard
anyway. Losing donations, faculty, students.
Maybe fighting back is actually the smarter move
economically and reputationally. Right. Stand
firm, protect your integrity, and maybe inspire
other universities to that whole Joseph Welch
idea again. Okay, one last Fascism Watch section,
part four. Generalissimo Donald Trump is still
alive. This one shifts focus a bit to that tendency
of, well, authoritarian style leaders to really
emphasize their strength, their health, their
vitality. Which leads right into the commentary's
take on the latest annual health report for Trump
that had just come out. And they immediately
jump on the reported height and weight. Six foot
three. 224 pounds. Yeah. The commentary just
doesn't buy it. They point to photos next to
Obama and Trudeau, who are listed as shorter,
and basically say, Trump's six foot one, tops.
And they question the weight, too. Maybe if they
don't count his legs is the quote, I think. A
bit snarky, but it highlights their skepticism
about official info clashing with what people
can see. They mentioned the online memes comparing
him to NFL players. And then the more realistic.
Andre the giant comparison. Yeah, but the real
focus is on that summary passage in the report
Right the part that includes frequent victories
in golf events as proof of excellent cognitive
and physical health. Let me read that bit President
Trump remains in excellent health his active
lifestyle continues to contribute significantly
to his well -being President Trump stays include
participation in multiple meetings public appearances
press availability and frequent victories in
golf events The commentary basically calls this
bregadot shoe. You know, is playing golf a few
times a week really an active lifestyle in this
context? And does winning at your own golf course
mean anything about your health? It feels less
like a medical assessment and more like, well...
PR projecting vigor. Exactly. So the commentary
concludes it's either another case of a physician
as folklorist just telling stories or the White
House edited it heavily. Either way, they argue
it damages the report's credibility. The takeaway
seems to be an erosion of trust when official
statements seem kind of unbelievable or self
-serving. It fits that theme of a carefully managed,
maybe misleading public image they were exploring
earlier. OK. Now let's completely change gears
and look at the other document from that same
day, April 15th, 2025, the Schwab Market Report,
Trump -era instability and market volatility.
Right. A totally different lens, finance, economics,
but looking at the same general time frame and
climate. And what's striking right away is how
this report, using market language, seems to
echo the instability vibes from the news commentary.
It really does. It talks about the wild ride
markets we're on, and it explicitly links the
volatility to chaotic, tariff -related news.
So Schwerob is drawing a direct line from political
actions, specifically trade policy, to market
reactions. That's a key insight. And they put
a number on it. They estimated the U .S. weighted
average tariff rate was nearly 25 percent by
then. Which, as they point out, is the highest
in over 100 years. That's a huge policy -driven
disruption to the economy. Huge. The report also
mentions this idea of a Trump put suggesting
maybe the administration was quicker to react
to weakness in the bond market than the stock
market interesting implying maybe they were more
sensitive to certain kinds of economic signals
perhaps ones with bigger political fallout potential
that could be an insight there but Schwab says
the underlying driver for all the market swings
was just sheer policy uncertainty yeah tears
are on then they're off then they're partly on
but with exceptions. Every time that happens,
the market has to rapidly recalculate expectations
for growth, for inflation. Rapid policy changes
mean rapid changes in bond yields, stock prices.
And they point to something particularly worrying
they saw. The divergence, yeah. Between the US
dollar falling sharply while interest rates were
rising sharply. Which is usually not what happens,
right? A strong economy often has a strong dollar
and rising rates. Exactly. So this divergence,
Schwab suggests, might indicate foreign investors
selling U .S. assets and maybe, more worryingly,
a potential loss of confidence in the United
States as a perceived safe haven. That's not
good for the world's reserve currency, as they
say. A serious warning sign about international
trust in the U .S. economy. Definitely a key
point. They also noted big spikes in volatility
measures, the VIX for stocks, the movie index
for bonds, and that bond volatility wasn't really
settling down. And the stock market itself. The
S &P 500 had almost hit bear market territory,
then had this huge one -day jump. Right, and
they make the point that big single -day surges
like that are often more typical during bear
markets, not necessarily signs of a healthy recovery.
Another technical thing they mentioned was this
parabolic increase in intra -index correlation.
What does that mean, basically? It means most
stocks within an index, like the S &P 500, We're
just moving together up or down driven by the
big picture, the policy news. It makes it really
hard for investors to pick individual winners
or losers based on company fundamentals because
everything's getting swept along. So traditional
stock picking gets much harder. Very difficult.
They also talked about a washout in market breath,
meaning the selling pressure was really widespread,
not just isolated pockets. And they felt the
market needed some kind of clear positive catalyst
to really turn around. And sector -wise. Defensive
sectors were doing better, consumer staples,
utilities, health care, the stuff people need
regardless of the economy. Growth areas were
lagging. Makes sense in an uncertain environment.
And because the uncertainty was so extreme, Schwab
did something pretty unusual. neutralized all
their sector ratings to market perform, basically
saying, we don't have enough conviction to recommend
overweighting any sector right now. Wow. And
they compared that move to? To the peak of the
COVID -19 pandemic uncertainty. So that really
tells you how unstable they perceive the situation
to be in April 2025, driven by policy this time.
So what were they recommending for investors
then? A factor -based approach. Focusing on quality
companies with low volatility, low beta, meaning
they move less dramatically than the overall
market, and high interest coverage, meaning they
can easily pay their debts. Basically, play defense,
hunker down. And they explicitly blame the economic
conditions on. Man -made supply shocks resulting
directly from government policy, not your typical
economic cycle stuff. They're pointing the finger
squarely at the tariff policies and the resulting
uncertainty. And a final caution not to read
too much into any single day's market moves.
Yeah, warning that technical factors like forced
selling from leveraged traders could be driving
short -term noise. The big picture, though, from
Schwab. Significant market disruption, instability
directly linked to administration policies, especially
on trade. So... Thinking about this for you,
our listener. Putting these two documents side
by side, the news commentary and the market report
from the same day, April 15, 2025. It really
gives a much richer picture, doesn't it? And
maybe a more unsettling one. It really does.
You have the electoral vote news source sounding
these loud alarms about democratic norms potentially
eroding authoritarian tendencies. And then you
have the Schwab report. providing the hard economic
data showing major instability, declining investor
confidence. And Schwab is explicitly linking
that to the kinds of policies the other sources
critiquing. The alignment is pretty stark. It
really connects the political actions to tangible
economic anxiety. So thinking about that day,
April 15th, 2025. What questions does this deep
dive raise for you personally? About the country's
direction, its stability long -term. Yeah, what
are the connections you see now between those
political moves described in the commentary and
the economic turbulence laid out by Schwab? As
always, this is really just scratching the surface.
We hope it gives you a solid foundation and maybe
sparks some further thought or exploration on
your own. Absolutely. There's always more to
dig into.