WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.040 Welcome to the Deep Dive. This is where we jump 00:00:02.040 --> 00:00:04.740 into complex topics using the stack of sources 00:00:04.740 --> 00:00:07.440 you send our way. And today, well, we've got 00:00:07.440 --> 00:00:09.859 a really interesting set. It covers challenges 00:00:09.859 --> 00:00:14.679 to trade policy, some strategic political maneuvering. 00:00:15.259 --> 00:00:18.359 And some remarkably pointed claims about self 00:00:18.359 --> 00:00:20.620 -enrichment. It's quite a mix. It really is. 00:00:21.039 --> 00:00:23.660 And our goal here, as always, is to cut through 00:00:23.660 --> 00:00:25.739 the noise in this material you've shared with 00:00:25.739 --> 00:00:28.679 us. Right. Pull out the absolute essential nuggets, 00:00:29.660 --> 00:00:33.460 the key insights, maybe highlight any surprising 00:00:33.460 --> 00:00:35.619 facts we find. And figure out the main questions 00:00:35.619 --> 00:00:38.380 that sort of emerge from it all. Exactly. So 00:00:38.380 --> 00:00:40.479 yeah, we're looking at some pretty significant 00:00:40.479 --> 00:00:43.600 hurdles facing proposed policies, and also a 00:00:43.600 --> 00:00:46.380 look back, a historical perspective on presidential 00:00:46.380 --> 00:00:48.759 conduct, all through the lens of this specific 00:00:48.759 --> 00:00:51.520 material. Quite a package. So where should we 00:00:51.520 --> 00:00:53.719 start, maybe with the basics, how the sources 00:00:53.719 --> 00:00:56.579 frame tariffs? Good idea. Because they make it 00:00:56.579 --> 00:00:58.859 clear, tariffs aren't just one simple thing. 00:00:58.979 --> 00:01:01.579 Right. They're not presented as a single tool. 00:01:01.850 --> 00:01:04.530 The material points out they can have very different, 00:01:04.849 --> 00:01:07.469 almost conflicting goals. Conflicting how? Well, 00:01:07.609 --> 00:01:10.069 on one hand, you have tariffs the government 00:01:10.069 --> 00:01:12.730 actually wants people to pay. OK, like for revenue. 00:01:13.030 --> 00:01:16.209 Exactly. Generating revenue, maybe gaining leverage 00:01:16.209 --> 00:01:18.670 in trade talks or trying to, you know, correct 00:01:18.670 --> 00:01:20.370 trade imbalances, that kind of thing. And the 00:01:20.370 --> 00:01:22.390 other type? That's the opposite goal, really. 00:01:22.829 --> 00:01:24.489 Tariffs the government doesn't actually intend 00:01:24.489 --> 00:01:27.189 anyone to pay. Uh -huh. So more like a punishment. 00:01:27.530 --> 00:01:31.019 Yeah. Punishing four nations for, say, environmental 00:01:31.019 --> 00:01:35.239 standards or labor practices or providing almost 00:01:35.239 --> 00:01:37.780 total protection for a specific domestic industry, 00:01:38.359 --> 00:01:41.420 like computer chips maybe, shutting imports down. 00:01:41.859 --> 00:01:44.019 Okay, so revenue versus shutdown. And this is 00:01:44.019 --> 00:01:46.859 where the material uses a great analogy, trying 00:01:46.859 --> 00:01:49.680 to do both at once, aiming for revenue and total 00:01:49.879 --> 00:01:52.120 protection. Yeah. It's like a football team trying 00:01:52.120 --> 00:01:53.680 to play with two quarterbacks calling different 00:01:53.680 --> 00:01:57.239 plays. Ah, right. Which the sources suggest means 00:01:57.239 --> 00:01:59.420 you don't really have a clear quarterback at 00:01:59.420 --> 00:02:02.620 all. Pretty much. You can't effectively regulate 00:02:02.620 --> 00:02:04.939 trade and shut it down completely simultaneously. 00:02:05.239 --> 00:02:07.819 Those goals just fundamentally clash. Makes sense. 00:02:08.219 --> 00:02:11.000 And whichever goal might be the main one, your 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:14.759 sources detail several pretty big issues these 00:02:14.759 --> 00:02:17.159 plans are hitting. OK, like what? The first one 00:02:17.159 --> 00:02:20.409 jumping out is a recent court decision. Big news, 00:02:20.590 --> 00:02:22.189 apparently. This just happened, and it's from 00:02:22.189 --> 00:02:24.389 a court most people probably haven't heard much 00:02:24.389 --> 00:02:27.009 about. That's right. The U .S. Court of International 00:02:27.009 --> 00:02:29.909 Trade. It's based in New York City. Okay. It's 00:02:29.909 --> 00:02:32.909 a specialized court, nine judges, deals specifically 00:02:32.909 --> 00:02:35.909 with, you know, civil actions on customs, international 00:02:35.909 --> 00:02:39.389 trade law, tariffs. That's their whole focus 00:02:39.389 --> 00:02:41.289 and who brought the case. It was a group of small 00:02:41.289 --> 00:02:43.689 businesses and also several state attorneys general 00:02:43.689 --> 00:02:46.770 They were challenging the legal basis for some 00:02:46.770 --> 00:02:48.949 of these terrorists. Okay, and the ruling it 00:02:48.949 --> 00:02:51.930 was unanimous from a three -judge panel And what's 00:02:51.930 --> 00:02:54.129 interesting is the mix of judges? Oh, yeah, you 00:02:54.129 --> 00:02:57.650 had Judge reef appointed by Trump Judge Rastani 00:02:57.650 --> 00:03:00.909 appointed way back by Reagan and Judge Katzman 00:03:00.909 --> 00:03:04.169 and Obama appointee Wow, that is a diverse panel 00:03:04.169 --> 00:03:06.979 legally speaking definitely And their focus, 00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:10.759 legally, was on a specific law, the International 00:03:10.759 --> 00:03:14.900 Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. IEPA, 00:03:14.939 --> 00:03:16.719 you sometimes hear it called. That's the one. 00:03:17.460 --> 00:03:20.319 And the court's conclusion, basically, was that 00:03:20.319 --> 00:03:23.199 this act does not give the president unbounded 00:03:23.199 --> 00:03:26.000 authority. Unbounded, that's the key word. Exactly. 00:03:26.340 --> 00:03:29.280 And crucially, they said whether the president's 00:03:29.280 --> 00:03:31.479 actions went beyond that authority isn't just 00:03:31.479 --> 00:03:33.560 some political question the courts have to ignore. 00:03:33.860 --> 00:03:36.729 Ah, so they can review it. They can and they 00:03:36.729 --> 00:03:40.289 did. The ruling specifically blocked imposing 00:03:40.289 --> 00:03:44.050 and invalidated orders for tariffs applied to 00:03:44.050 --> 00:03:47.569 entire nations using IEPA. Okay. Entire nations. 00:03:47.689 --> 00:03:49.509 Right. But not all tariffs. Right. Important 00:03:49.509 --> 00:03:52.050 point. It didn't affect tariffs on specific goods 00:03:52.050 --> 00:03:54.069 that were imposed under different legal authorities. 00:03:54.389 --> 00:03:57.430 Just the broad nationwide ones under IEPA. Got 00:03:57.430 --> 00:04:00.020 it. And the implications of this, according to 00:04:00.020 --> 00:04:02.099 the sources? Well, it has real consequences for 00:04:02.099 --> 00:04:04.180 the administration's plans. Those terrorists 00:04:04.180 --> 00:04:06.099 that were struck down are now in what's called 00:04:06.099 --> 00:04:09.280 abeyance. Meaning? On hold, essentially. Frozen. 00:04:09.520 --> 00:04:12.400 And the administration is appealing? Yes. Appealing 00:04:12.400 --> 00:04:14.120 to the U .S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 00:04:14.120 --> 00:04:16.699 Circuit. That court issues decisions that apply 00:04:16.699 --> 00:04:18.819 nationally. So this is likely heading higher. 00:04:19.240 --> 00:04:21.800 Supreme Court, maybe. The materials suggest that's 00:04:21.800 --> 00:04:24.279 almost certain, eventually. But these sources 00:04:24.279 --> 00:04:27.490 you sent... They argue the appeal faces a real 00:04:27.490 --> 00:04:30.449 uphill battle, a weak legal basis, they say. 00:04:30.720 --> 00:04:34.399 Why weak? Well, the material points out the federal 00:04:34.399 --> 00:04:36.779 circuit panel hearing these appeals includes 00:04:36.779 --> 00:04:39.680 Democratic appointees often wary of broad executive 00:04:39.680 --> 00:04:42.680 power and Republican appointees who tend to favor 00:04:42.680 --> 00:04:46.220 free trade principles. And critically, none of 00:04:46.220 --> 00:04:48.300 the judges on this specific circuit that handles 00:04:48.300 --> 00:04:51.120 trade appeals are Trump appointees. Interesting. 00:04:51.300 --> 00:04:53.540 So finding another legal basis might also be 00:04:53.540 --> 00:04:55.879 tough. The source suggests it's unlikely to be 00:04:55.879 --> 00:04:59.589 any stronger. So. What this court challenge really 00:04:59.589 --> 00:05:02.170 means for the tariff goals? Well, it creates 00:05:02.170 --> 00:05:05.589 months, maybe years, of serious legal uncertainty. 00:05:05.730 --> 00:05:08.389 Okay, uncertainty. And that directly undermines 00:05:08.389 --> 00:05:10.709 the goal of collecting revenue from these particular 00:05:10.709 --> 00:05:12.610 tariffs, at least for the foreseeable future. 00:05:12.670 --> 00:05:16.069 Right. Plus, it significantly weakens the president's 00:05:16.069 --> 00:05:18.829 position in trade negotiations. Other countries 00:05:18.829 --> 00:05:21.069 know the legal footing for these tariffs is shaky. 00:05:21.509 --> 00:05:23.310 And the White House reaction mentioned in the 00:05:23.310 --> 00:05:25.730 material. Pretty direct. They're quoted saying 00:05:25.730 --> 00:05:29.230 it is not for unelected judges to decide how 00:05:29.230 --> 00:05:31.970 to properly address a national emergency. So 00:05:31.970 --> 00:05:35.490 a direct pushback against the court's role. Absolutely. 00:05:35.629 --> 00:05:38.310 A challenge to judicial review itself. So you've 00:05:38.310 --> 00:05:40.689 got legal challenges causing major uncertainty, 00:05:40.709 --> 00:05:42.790 but that's not the only problem highlighted. 00:05:42.930 --> 00:05:46.050 OK, what else? The sources also dig into a significant 00:05:46.050 --> 00:05:48.949 tariff loophole, something called the first sale 00:05:48.949 --> 00:05:51.899 rule. First Sale Rule. The material says Congress 00:05:51.899 --> 00:05:56.000 set this up way back in 1988. That's right. It's 00:05:56.000 --> 00:05:58.079 a bit weird how it works. Tariffs are applied 00:05:58.079 --> 00:06:00.160 based on the price of the first sale in the supply 00:06:00.160 --> 00:06:02.399 chain. Not the final price when it gets imported. 00:06:02.779 --> 00:06:05.060 No. Not the final import price. The first sale. 00:06:05.209 --> 00:06:07.949 The Nike shoe example from the source helps here, 00:06:07.990 --> 00:06:10.149 I think. It does. So if a shoe is made in a factory 00:06:10.149 --> 00:06:14.329 for $10, then sold to a middleman for, say, $20, 00:06:14.970 --> 00:06:18.189 then sold again to Nike USA for $50, and then 00:06:18.189 --> 00:06:21.490 it sells in a US store for $200. Right. The tariff, 00:06:21.529 --> 00:06:23.529 that percentage, is only applied to that original 00:06:23.529 --> 00:06:27.050 $10 factory price. Wow. OK. Not the $50 import 00:06:27.050 --> 00:06:30.009 price. Exactly. Now, there are some rules to 00:06:30.009 --> 00:06:32.459 prevent really obvious abuse, like the parties 00:06:32.459 --> 00:06:34.160 have to be independent companies, stuff like 00:06:34.160 --> 00:06:39.759 that. But the loophole itself, it's there. And 00:06:39.759 --> 00:06:42.120 the sources say it's widely used by businesses. 00:06:42.660 --> 00:06:46.019 And why is this first sale rule a problem for 00:06:46.019 --> 00:06:49.040 the tariff goals? Well, two main reasons. First, 00:06:49.259 --> 00:06:51.399 it directly cuts down the amount of revenue the 00:06:51.399 --> 00:06:54.459 government collects. Applying the tariff to $10 00:06:54.459 --> 00:06:57.240 brings in way less than applying it to $50. Makes 00:06:57.240 --> 00:06:59.879 sense. And the second reason... It significantly 00:06:59.879 --> 00:07:02.160 waters down the protection for domestic industries. 00:07:02.839 --> 00:07:05.699 The effective tariff rate ends up being much, 00:07:05.699 --> 00:07:07.600 much lower than the headline number suggests. 00:07:07.879 --> 00:07:09.899 Because it's hitting that lower initial price. 00:07:10.180 --> 00:07:12.600 Precisely. And another point the sources make. 00:07:13.160 --> 00:07:15.839 This loophole exists for... goods coming into 00:07:15.839 --> 00:07:18.579 the U .S. under our laws. It probably isn't available 00:07:18.579 --> 00:07:20.920 for U .S. companies exporting their stuff and 00:07:20.920 --> 00:07:22.639 facing tariffs from other countries. So it's 00:07:22.639 --> 00:07:25.259 a one way street, potentially? Could be. And 00:07:25.259 --> 00:07:28.180 changing this rule, Congress could do it, theoretically. 00:07:28.939 --> 00:07:31.180 But the material suggests it would almost certainly 00:07:31.180 --> 00:07:34.040 face a filibuster in the Senate. 60 votes needed. 00:07:34.480 --> 00:07:37.319 Unless it got tucked into a bigger bill, like 00:07:37.319 --> 00:07:39.639 that big, beautiful bill mentioned elsewhere. 00:07:39.860 --> 00:07:42.310 Maybe. If it could survive the whole reconciliation 00:07:42.310 --> 00:07:44.589 process, the birdbath review. Right, where they 00:07:44.589 --> 00:07:47.649 strip out unrelated stuff. Exactly. But the sources 00:07:47.649 --> 00:07:51.329 emphasize, businesses are really, really good 00:07:51.329 --> 00:07:54.129 at navigating these existing rules. They know 00:07:54.129 --> 00:07:56.949 how to work the system. OK, so legal uncertainty 00:07:56.949 --> 00:07:59.750 check. Structural loopholes check. What else? 00:07:59.949 --> 00:08:02.149 Then there's how the markets themselves are actually 00:08:02.149 --> 00:08:05.649 reacting. Yeah, the sources describe a pretty 00:08:05.649 --> 00:08:09.139 clear pattern here. A very clear dynamic. Stock 00:08:09.139 --> 00:08:12.060 and bond markets tend to drop, almost predictably, 00:08:12.339 --> 00:08:15.000 whenever new tariffs get announced. They bounce 00:08:15.000 --> 00:08:16.939 back when those tariffs get delayed or rolled 00:08:16.939 --> 00:08:19.779 back. And this pattern even has a name, according 00:08:19.779 --> 00:08:21.680 to the sources. This is kind of a blunt one. 00:08:21.980 --> 00:08:25.079 The taco trade. Taco. What does that stand for? 00:08:25.240 --> 00:08:27.699 The material explains it's Trump always chickens 00:08:27.699 --> 00:08:30.959 out. Oof. That's direct. Reportedly coined by 00:08:30.959 --> 00:08:33.220 Robert Armstrong, a columnist at the Financial 00:08:33.220 --> 00:08:35.799 Times. And the sources mention an economist, 00:08:36.159 --> 00:08:38.149 Justin Wolfers. Yeah, from the University of 00:08:38.149 --> 00:08:40.330 Michigan. He apparently pointed out that there 00:08:40.330 --> 00:08:43.549 wasn't a similar pattern, no Baco trade for Biden 00:08:43.549 --> 00:08:47.370 or Caico trade for Clinton. So this market reaction 00:08:47.370 --> 00:08:49.570 seems unique to this situation, according to 00:08:49.570 --> 00:08:51.429 the sources. That's how it's presented. Yes. 00:08:51.509 --> 00:08:52.950 OK, so the market reacts this way. They call 00:08:52.950 --> 00:08:55.690 it the taco trade. Why is that actually a problem 00:08:55.690 --> 00:08:59.210 for the policy goals? The sources point to two 00:08:59.210 --> 00:09:02.090 main issues here. One is substantive, the other 00:09:02.090 --> 00:09:04.210 political. Let's start with the substantive one. 00:09:04.389 --> 00:09:08.559 The core problem is this. achieving big goals 00:09:08.559 --> 00:09:11.980 like reshoring major manufacturing, bringing 00:09:11.980 --> 00:09:15.360 these jobs back. Yeah. That takes massive long 00:09:15.360 --> 00:09:18.100 -term business investment. We're talking tens, 00:09:18.179 --> 00:09:20.340 maybe hundreds of billions of dollars spent over 00:09:20.340 --> 00:09:22.059 decades. Right. That's not something companies 00:09:22.059 --> 00:09:24.700 decide overnight. Absolutely not. And for that 00:09:24.700 --> 00:09:27.700 kind of huge long -term bet, businesses need 00:09:27.700 --> 00:09:30.519 certainty. They need confidence that the tariff 00:09:30.519 --> 00:09:33.899 policy is stable, predictable. And going to last 00:09:33.899 --> 00:09:37.470 beyond just one presidency. Exactly. And the 00:09:37.470 --> 00:09:40.590 material suggests that executive actions or policy 00:09:40.590 --> 00:09:43.730 announced on social media, well, this is not 00:09:43.730 --> 00:09:45.990 going to cut it. It won't provide that necessary 00:09:45.990 --> 00:09:48.450 long -term confidence. The sources also mentions 00:09:48.450 --> 00:09:50.970 lack of broad support in Congress. Right. No 00:09:50.970 --> 00:09:53.669 strong bipartisan agreement or even unified Republican 00:09:53.669 --> 00:09:56.429 backing for really long -term protectionism. 00:09:57.129 --> 00:10:00.190 So if businesses see these tariff announcements 00:10:00.190 --> 00:10:04.690 as, quote, a mirage, as one source puts it. Then 00:10:04.690 --> 00:10:06.769 that huge investment just isn't going to happen. 00:10:06.889 --> 00:10:09.190 It's impossible under those conditions, the sources 00:10:09.190 --> 00:10:11.070 argue. Okay, that's the substantive problem. 00:10:11.149 --> 00:10:13.789 What about the political one? It's simpler, really. 00:10:13.970 --> 00:10:16.409 The sources say the president really dislikes 00:10:16.409 --> 00:10:19.110 being mocked. And taco trade? Does exactly that. 00:10:19.470 --> 00:10:21.889 It paints him as inconsistent, maybe even cowardly, 00:10:21.909 --> 00:10:24.950 on trade policy. Is there a quote about his reaction? 00:10:25.330 --> 00:10:27.769 There is. The material includes his response 00:10:27.769 --> 00:10:30.129 when asked directly about the taco trade. That's 00:10:30.129 --> 00:10:32.049 a nasty question. To me, that's the nastiest 00:10:32.049 --> 00:10:34.250 question. Wow. So it definitely touched a nerve. 00:10:34.789 --> 00:10:37.210 Seems like it. That quote really captures the 00:10:37.210 --> 00:10:39.250 reported political sensitivity to this market 00:10:39.250 --> 00:10:42.590 label. OK, so add all that up. Legal issues, 00:10:42.990 --> 00:10:46.580 loopholes, market reactions. And then there's 00:10:46.580 --> 00:10:48.940 how companies themselves are dealing with tariff 00:10:48.940 --> 00:10:51.720 costs. Right. Another layer. What's happening, 00:10:52.039 --> 00:10:54.620 according to the sources, is many companies are 00:10:54.620 --> 00:10:57.320 just raising their prices to cover those extra 00:10:57.320 --> 00:11:00.620 costs. And they're telling customers why. Explicitly. 00:11:00.620 --> 00:11:03.440 Being very clear, prices are up because of tariffs. 00:11:03.799 --> 00:11:06.379 Which companies are mentioned? The sources list 00:11:06.379 --> 00:11:10.019 several big names. Walmart, Mattel, Best Buy, 00:11:10.399 --> 00:11:15.440 Ford, Subaru, Procter & Gamble, Adidas. Lots 00:11:15.440 --> 00:11:17.379 of household names. And why is that a problem 00:11:17.379 --> 00:11:19.320 for the administration? Well, according to the 00:11:19.320 --> 00:11:21.700 material, it seems to run counter to the president's 00:11:21.700 --> 00:11:24.059 apparent expectations. Meaning? The sources suggest 00:11:24.059 --> 00:11:25.879 he might have thought companies would just absorb 00:11:25.879 --> 00:11:28.240 the cost. Unlikely for many businesses. Exactly. 00:11:28.490 --> 00:11:30.889 or at least maybe not publicly blame the tariffs 00:11:30.889 --> 00:11:32.769 for price hikes. But the sources explain why 00:11:32.769 --> 00:11:35.970 they can't just absorb it, right? Right. Most 00:11:35.970 --> 00:11:38.289 companies, especially big retailers, operate 00:11:38.289 --> 00:11:41.610 on really thin profit margins. They simply cannot 00:11:41.610 --> 00:11:44.309 eat significant cost increases like 10 percent, 00:11:44.409 --> 00:11:47.509 sometimes even 40 percent on certain goods without 00:11:47.509 --> 00:11:49.649 facing serious financial trouble. And there's 00:11:49.649 --> 00:11:51.889 a legal angle, too, for public companies. Yes, 00:11:52.029 --> 00:11:54.330 CEOs have a legal duty to act in the best interests 00:11:54.330 --> 00:11:56.779 of the business. of the shareholders. So just 00:11:56.779 --> 00:11:59.480 taking big losses for political reasons is very 00:11:59.480 --> 00:12:02.299 difficult. Yeah. Maybe impossible legally and 00:12:02.299 --> 00:12:04.320 financially. They can't just take a PR hit like 00:12:04.320 --> 00:12:07.200 that. There is also a point about companies maybe 00:12:07.200 --> 00:12:09.899 using tariffs as an excuse. Yeah. An interesting 00:12:09.899 --> 00:12:12.600 observation in the sources that maybe some companies 00:12:12.600 --> 00:12:16.299 use the tariffs as cover to raise prices even 00:12:16.299 --> 00:12:18.519 more than the tariff actually cost them. OK. 00:12:18.720 --> 00:12:21.039 So opportunistic pricing. Potentially. Could 00:12:21.039 --> 00:12:23.500 be. So the end result, the sources argue, is 00:12:23.500 --> 00:12:25.580 the president gets blamed for rising prices. 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:28.539 Some of which might be directly his administration's 00:12:28.539 --> 00:12:31.120 doing because of tariffs. And some might only 00:12:31.120 --> 00:12:33.720 be partially related or even just companies taking 00:12:33.720 --> 00:12:35.340 advantage of pointing the finger at tariffs. 00:12:36.200 --> 00:12:38.179 Either way, it puts them in a tough spot politically 00:12:38.179 --> 00:12:41.840 on inflation. OK. So summing up this part. The 00:12:41.840 --> 00:12:45.019 material suggests the tariff policy, whatever 00:12:45.019 --> 00:12:47.639 the goal is supposed to be, is hitting roadblocks 00:12:47.639 --> 00:12:50.860 from the courts, from existing laws, from market 00:12:50.860 --> 00:12:54.379 psychology, and from basic business realities. 00:12:54.840 --> 00:12:57.320 Exactly. It's not just one thing, but multiple 00:12:57.320 --> 00:13:01.100 layers, creating uncertainty and, well, potentially 00:13:01.100 --> 00:13:02.980 undermining the whole policy's effectiveness. 00:13:03.340 --> 00:13:05.559 All right. Let's shift gears a bit. Based on 00:13:05.559 --> 00:13:07.879 your sources, there's also some recent personnel 00:13:07.879 --> 00:13:10.320 news relating to the administration. That's right. 00:13:10.399 --> 00:13:13.100 Two key things highlighted. First, the departure 00:13:13.100 --> 00:13:15.740 of Elon Musk. OK. He announced he'd reached the 00:13:15.740 --> 00:13:17.779 statutory limit for serving as a special government 00:13:17.779 --> 00:13:21.200 employee in SGE and was stepping down from his 00:13:21.200 --> 00:13:23.200 advisory roles. But the sources suggest there 00:13:23.200 --> 00:13:25.419 might be more to it. Yeah. They mentioned a few 00:13:25.419 --> 00:13:27.320 potential underlying reasons floating around. 00:13:27.480 --> 00:13:29.100 Maybe the president was getting tired of sharing 00:13:29.100 --> 00:13:31.480 the spotlight or perhaps getting some negative 00:13:31.480 --> 00:13:35.190 feedback from Musk's specific initiatives. DOGE, 00:13:35.830 --> 00:13:38.250 that cryptocurrency, is mentioned as something 00:13:38.250 --> 00:13:41.230 that drew some blowback. And from Musk's perspective. 00:13:41.690 --> 00:13:43.870 Maybe wanting to get back, focus on his own companies, 00:13:44.009 --> 00:13:46.350 maybe feeling a bit, you know, disillusioned 00:13:46.350 --> 00:13:48.429 with how government works. Or underappreciated. 00:13:48.590 --> 00:13:51.210 Or feeling unappreciated, yeah. The material 00:13:51.210 --> 00:13:54.370 also notes Musk recently criticized that big 00:13:54.370 --> 00:13:57.370 budget bill, saying it contradicted the administration's 00:13:57.370 --> 00:14:00.470 stated goals. So some friction there, perhaps. 00:14:00.710 --> 00:14:03.350 OK, so Musk is out. What's the other personnel 00:14:03.350 --> 00:14:06.179 item? Contrasting with that departure, the sources 00:14:06.179 --> 00:14:09.460 highlight a significant nomination. Emile Boeuf. 00:14:10.080 --> 00:14:12.840 Emile Boeuf, nominated for a judgeship. Yes, 00:14:12.980 --> 00:14:15.320 on the U .S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 00:14:15.799 --> 00:14:18.200 That court covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 00:14:18.200 --> 00:14:20.779 Delaware. And his background? Georgetown law 00:14:20.779 --> 00:14:23.179 grad. Former assistant U .S. attorney in the 00:14:23.179 --> 00:14:26.100 Southern District of New York, SDNY. He was co 00:14:26.100 --> 00:14:28.399 -chief of the Terrorism and International Narcotics 00:14:28.399 --> 00:14:31.480 Unit there. Okay. And... The sources note he 00:14:31.480 --> 00:14:33.860 also previously served as a personal attorney 00:14:33.860 --> 00:14:36.679 for the president, specifically involved in work 00:14:36.679 --> 00:14:39.259 related to the case against Eric Adams. A personal 00:14:39.259 --> 00:14:41.580 attorney nominated to a federal appeals court? 00:14:42.039 --> 00:14:43.980 The sources offer an interpretation of the motive 00:14:43.980 --> 00:14:47.120 here. They do. A pretty clear one. They suggest 00:14:47.120 --> 00:14:49.259 it's about getting a judge onto that specific 00:14:49.259 --> 00:14:52.419 court, who might be particularly receptive to 00:14:52.419 --> 00:14:54.620 the administration's viewpoint. On what kinds 00:14:54.620 --> 00:14:57.460 of issues? Especially on immigration cases, which 00:14:57.460 --> 00:14:59.950 often go through that third circuit. The Mahmoud 00:14:59.950 --> 00:15:02.610 Khalil case is mentioned as an example of the 00:15:02.610 --> 00:15:04.429 kind of sensitive immigration case they might 00:15:04.429 --> 00:15:07.389 be thinking about. One source uses some pretty 00:15:07.389 --> 00:15:10.690 strong language to describe this. It does. It 00:15:10.690 --> 00:15:14.429 describes the potential goal as seeking an, and 00:15:14.429 --> 00:15:17.529 this is a quote, Aileen Cannon style lapdog. 00:15:17.950 --> 00:15:20.090 Referencing the judge in Florida. Right. Who's 00:15:20.090 --> 00:15:23.009 faced criticism for rulings seen as highly favorable 00:15:23.009 --> 00:15:25.840 to the former president. The source suggests 00:15:25.840 --> 00:15:28.299 seeking someone similar who'd be a hardliner 00:15:28.299 --> 00:15:31.019 on immigration and where maybe past loyalties 00:15:31.019 --> 00:15:33.120 wouldn't be seen as a problem. The sources also 00:15:33.120 --> 00:15:36.299 draw a historical parallel. Yes. To George W. 00:15:36.340 --> 00:15:38.360 Bush's nomination of his own personal lawyer, 00:15:38.620 --> 00:15:41.419 Harriet Mears, to the Supreme Court back in 2005. 00:15:41.620 --> 00:15:44.019 That one failed, didn't it? It did. It was withdrawn 00:15:44.019 --> 00:15:46.279 largely due to opposition from conservatives, 00:15:46.600 --> 00:15:48.519 Republicans in the Senate, who felt she wasn't 00:15:48.519 --> 00:15:51.000 qualified or sufficiently conservative. And that 00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:53.460 raises the question the material poses. Exactly. 00:15:53.919 --> 00:15:56.539 How will the current Senate, with 53 Republicans, 00:15:57.139 --> 00:16:00.070 handle this above nomination? especially given 00:16:00.070 --> 00:16:02.269 the strong interpretation offered by the sources 00:16:02.269 --> 00:16:05.190 about the potential motive. How does it compare 00:16:05.190 --> 00:16:07.850 to the 55 Republican Senate that pushed back 00:16:07.850 --> 00:16:10.929 against Mears in 05? A real test of Senate dynamics, 00:16:11.149 --> 00:16:13.049 then? According to the sources, yes. And speaking 00:16:13.049 --> 00:16:16.029 of Senate dynamics, the sources also get into 00:16:16.029 --> 00:16:19.769 some fascinating, maybe slightly wonky details 00:16:19.769 --> 00:16:22.669 about Senate rules and the legislative process. 00:16:22.870 --> 00:16:25.250 Yeah, this part is interesting. The context is 00:16:25.250 --> 00:16:28.049 Senate Republicans using their 53 -vote majority 00:16:28.110 --> 00:16:31.710 to potentially pass a really big bill. The sources 00:16:31.710 --> 00:16:34.330 call it the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Catchy 00:16:34.330 --> 00:16:36.590 name. Using budget reconciliation rules. That 00:16:36.590 --> 00:16:39.149 avoids the usual 60 vote filibuster requirement. 00:16:39.250 --> 00:16:41.309 But reconciliation has strict rules, right? The 00:16:41.309 --> 00:16:43.870 Byrd Rule. Exactly. The Byrd Rule basically says 00:16:43.870 --> 00:16:46.370 anything in a reconciliation bill has to be related 00:16:46.370 --> 00:16:48.730 to federal spending, either revenue coming in 00:16:48.730 --> 00:16:51.389 or money going out. So no unrelated policy changes. 00:16:51.909 --> 00:16:54.490 Supposedly not. Those non -germane provisions 00:16:54.490 --> 00:16:57.039 are meant to be stripped out. during a review 00:16:57.039 --> 00:17:00.120 process called the birdbath. The Senate parliamentarian 00:17:00.120 --> 00:17:02.519 oversees that. The sources mentioned the minimum 00:17:02.519 --> 00:17:05.119 wage hike in 2021 as an example. Right. That 00:17:05.119 --> 00:17:07.700 was ruled non -germane. Couldn't be in the reconciliation 00:17:07.700 --> 00:17:09.940 bill. Okay. And the sources also mentioned the 00:17:09.940 --> 00:17:12.579 Congressional Review Act, the CRA, another majority 00:17:12.579 --> 00:17:15.220 vote tool. Yes. Used to overturn executive branch 00:17:15.220 --> 00:17:18.519 regulations. And this is where Senator John Thune's 00:17:18.519 --> 00:17:20.900 maneuver comes in, as detailed in your sources. 00:17:21.420 --> 00:17:23.599 It's a bit complex. Let's try. What did he do? 00:17:23.819 --> 00:17:26.799 OK, so the parliamentarian, Elizabeth McDonough, 00:17:27.019 --> 00:17:29.299 had ruled that certain EPA waivers for vehicle 00:17:29.299 --> 00:17:32.160 pollution standards weren't technically rules 00:17:32.160 --> 00:17:35.240 under the CRA definition. So they couldn't be 00:17:35.240 --> 00:17:37.359 overturned using that simple majority process. 00:17:37.740 --> 00:17:41.059 Got it. So Thune. Thune basically got a majority 00:17:41.059 --> 00:17:44.559 of the Senate, 53 votes, to agree that points 00:17:44.559 --> 00:17:48.039 of order The procedural tool you use to object 00:17:48.039 --> 00:17:50.680 when you think a rule is being violated are allowed 00:17:50.680 --> 00:17:52.880 during the CRA process for these waivers. Even 00:17:52.880 --> 00:17:54.759 though the parliamentarian said the waivers weren't 00:17:54.759 --> 00:17:57.680 subject to the CRA? Right. He effectively got 00:17:57.680 --> 00:18:01.180 the Senate majority to overrule or reinterpret 00:18:01.180 --> 00:18:03.299 the parliamentarian's application of the rules 00:18:03.299 --> 00:18:06.799 in this specific case. Even though, the sources 00:18:06.799 --> 00:18:09.619 note, the law itself seems to say points of order 00:18:09.619 --> 00:18:12.220 aren't allowed like that in CRA. And this worked, 00:18:12.740 --> 00:18:15.559 despite objections. It did. Senate Minority Leader 00:18:15.559 --> 00:18:17.940 Chuck Schumer tried to block it, but the majority 00:18:17.940 --> 00:18:20.640 vote carried the day. So the significance, according 00:18:20.640 --> 00:18:23.519 to the material? It suggests that, at least for 00:18:23.519 --> 00:18:26.039 many procedural rules, the Senate majority might 00:18:26.039 --> 00:18:28.299 effectively be able to just decide what the rules 00:18:28.299 --> 00:18:30.819 mean at any given moment, or set new precedents 00:18:30.819 --> 00:18:33.619 on the fly, regardless of the parliamentarian's 00:18:33.619 --> 00:18:36.279 guidance. And the potential implication for that? 00:18:36.380 --> 00:18:38.779 big, beautiful bill. Well, if the parliamentarian 00:18:38.779 --> 00:18:40.660 rules that certain parts of that bill violate 00:18:40.660 --> 00:18:43.859 the bird rule, maybe things like a ban on state 00:18:43.859 --> 00:18:47.119 A .I. regulation or blocking courts from enforcing 00:18:47.119 --> 00:18:49.920 contempt orders or certain ways of calculating 00:18:49.920 --> 00:18:52.920 tax cut costs. Things that don't seem directly 00:18:52.920 --> 00:18:55.779 related to spending. Exactly. If she rules those 00:18:55.779 --> 00:18:59.740 non germane, this Thune maneuver might be used 00:18:59.740 --> 00:19:02.819 as a precedent, a way to try and override her 00:19:02.819 --> 00:19:05.880 ruling and keep those items in the bill. if the 00:19:05.880 --> 00:19:08.779 53 Republicans agree. So potentially ignoring 00:19:08.779 --> 00:19:11.500 the Byrd Rule if needed. That's the implication 00:19:11.500 --> 00:19:13.799 raised in the sources. They wrap up this section 00:19:13.799 --> 00:19:16.640 asking, if the majority is willing to disregard 00:19:16.640 --> 00:19:19.460 the parliamentarian's guidance here, what stops 00:19:19.460 --> 00:19:22.200 them doing it elsewhere on their agenda? It raises 00:19:22.200 --> 00:19:24.660 real questions about the stability and predictability 00:19:24.660 --> 00:19:27.200 of the whole legislative process. Wow. Okay. 00:19:27.380 --> 00:19:29.299 So we've covered tariff challenges, personnel 00:19:29.299 --> 00:19:32.220 moves, Senate rules. Now let's turn to a really 00:19:32.220 --> 00:19:34.640 strong, maybe even provocative claim made in 00:19:34.640 --> 00:19:36.759 one of your sources. Yes. This one stands out. 00:19:37.279 --> 00:19:39.660 One piece of material makes the very bold argument 00:19:39.660 --> 00:19:41.940 that the scale of alleged self -enrichment during 00:19:41.940 --> 00:19:45.019 this presidency is frankly unprecedented in American 00:19:45.019 --> 00:19:47.220 history. Unprecedented. That's a huge claim. 00:19:47.539 --> 00:19:49.990 How do they define the scale? They go so far 00:19:49.990 --> 00:19:51.950 as to compare it to levels of corruption you 00:19:51.950 --> 00:19:54.930 might see in some post -Soviet states or maybe 00:19:54.930 --> 00:19:56.730 post -colonial nations where institutions are 00:19:56.730 --> 00:19:59.109 weaker. That is a serious comparison. Do the 00:19:59.109 --> 00:20:02.470 sources provide specific examples of this alleged 00:20:02.470 --> 00:20:04.349 wealth collection? They do. They list several 00:20:04.349 --> 00:20:07.789 categories. Nearly $2 million in taxpayer money 00:20:07.789 --> 00:20:10.089 reportedly spent on travel to the president's 00:20:10.089 --> 00:20:13.119 own properties. Okay. Millions more in campaign 00:20:13.119 --> 00:20:15.619 funds diverted from candidates who were using 00:20:15.619 --> 00:20:19.039 his fundraising platforms. At least $13 million 00:20:19.039 --> 00:20:21.619 documented coming directly from foreign governments 00:20:21.619 --> 00:20:24.359 just during the first term. $13 million from 00:20:24.359 --> 00:20:27.079 foreign governments. And more recently, material 00:20:27.079 --> 00:20:29.259 points to cash flow from Middle Eastern governments 00:20:29.259 --> 00:20:32.019 and also Chinese firms buying up meme coins, 00:20:32.500 --> 00:20:35.039 those volatile cryptocurrencies. Why meme coins? 00:20:35.299 --> 00:20:37.480 The sources argue it's a way to funnel money, 00:20:37.880 --> 00:20:40.099 especially for those seeking access or influence. 00:20:40.349 --> 00:20:42.769 There's a quote suggesting the value of certain 00:20:42.769 --> 00:20:45.589 coins reflects, quote, future access to Trump. 00:20:46.250 --> 00:20:48.849 Hmm. And the sources contrast this with his business 00:20:48.849 --> 00:20:51.549 history before the presidency. Yes. They characterize 00:20:51.549 --> 00:20:54.230 that history by, well, failures, bankruptcies, 00:20:54.309 --> 00:20:56.789 and a lack of traditional legitimate investors 00:20:56.789 --> 00:20:59.529 compared to the alleged influx of cash during 00:20:59.529 --> 00:21:02.009 and after his time in office. The material also 00:21:02.009 --> 00:21:04.150 suggests a reason why this alleged enrichment 00:21:04.150 --> 00:21:06.789 doesn't get more traction or how criticism is 00:21:06.789 --> 00:21:09.269 deflected. It does. The argument is that the 00:21:09.269 --> 00:21:12.250 president allegedly deflects criticism by painting 00:21:12.250 --> 00:21:14.730 the entire U .S. political system as corrupt, 00:21:15.170 --> 00:21:19.009 basically saying everybody does it. To normalize 00:21:19.009 --> 00:21:21.549 his own alleged actions, the source suggests. 00:21:22.230 --> 00:21:25.430 To make his conduct seem less unique, less shocking, 00:21:25.950 --> 00:21:28.269 just part of a broken system. There's an example 00:21:28.269 --> 00:21:31.730 used from a debate, 2015. Right. The Fox News 00:21:31.730 --> 00:21:34.569 debate. He was asked about donating money to 00:21:34.569 --> 00:21:37.180 Democrats. like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, 00:21:37.799 --> 00:21:40.000 supposedly to get favors later. And his response? 00:21:40.200 --> 00:21:42.180 According to the source, it wasn't really a denial. 00:21:42.599 --> 00:21:44.960 Instead, he reframed it. He said the system was 00:21:44.960 --> 00:21:47.539 broken, explained that as a businessman, yeah, 00:21:47.539 --> 00:21:50.420 he gave money and that when he needed something, 00:21:50.559 --> 00:21:52.960 quote, they were there for him. He actually said 00:21:52.960 --> 00:21:55.839 that. And then came the really blunt quote, when 00:21:55.839 --> 00:21:57.980 you give, they do whatever the hell you want 00:21:57.980 --> 00:22:00.619 them to do. And he added the anecdote about Hillary 00:22:00.619 --> 00:22:03.079 Clinton coming to his wedding because he claimed 00:22:03.079 --> 00:22:07.039 she had no choice. because I gave. The source 00:22:07.039 --> 00:22:09.519 presents this as a kind of political jujitsu, 00:22:09.859 --> 00:22:12.359 turning a potential weakness about buying influence 00:22:12.359 --> 00:22:14.799 into an attack on the whole system, making himself 00:22:14.799 --> 00:22:17.240 look like a savvy operator who just understood 00:22:17.240 --> 00:22:20.000 how things really worked. OK, so how does this 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:23.359 source then compare this alleged self -enrichment 00:22:23.359 --> 00:22:26.900 to past presidential scandals to justify the 00:22:26.900 --> 00:22:30.059 unprecedented claim? They draw several contrasts. 00:22:30.099 --> 00:22:32.720 Watergate under Nixon, primarily about political 00:22:32.720 --> 00:22:35.299 power, abuse of power. Money was involved, but 00:22:35.299 --> 00:22:37.940 more as a tool, not the main goal. Nixon's own 00:22:37.940 --> 00:22:40.220 tax issues were seen as relatively minor compared 00:22:40.220 --> 00:22:42.339 to the scale of wealth accumulation claimed here. 00:22:42.500 --> 00:22:45.440 What about older scandals? Teapot Dome? Whiskey 00:22:45.440 --> 00:22:47.670 Ring? Teapot Dome under Harding. The whiskey 00:22:47.670 --> 00:22:50.150 ring under Grant. Those involved corruption among 00:22:50.150 --> 00:22:52.849 their appointees, their associates. But the sources 00:22:52.849 --> 00:22:54.890 argue the presidents themselves didn't personally 00:22:54.890 --> 00:22:57.730 profit. Historians often see them as maybe too 00:22:57.730 --> 00:23:00.390 trusting or lax rather than personally greedy. 00:23:00.710 --> 00:23:02.890 Any other examples? Eisenhower's chief of staff 00:23:02.890 --> 00:23:05.400 accepted some small gifts. of a CUNY code, I 00:23:05.400 --> 00:23:07.859 think. And the source makes a point of saying 00:23:07.859 --> 00:23:10.839 no previous president, as far as they know, violated 00:23:10.839 --> 00:23:13.619 the Constitution's Emoluments Clause by accepting 00:23:13.619 --> 00:23:16.619 significant gifts or payments from foreign powers 00:23:16.619 --> 00:23:18.940 without getting Congress's explicit permission 00:23:18.940 --> 00:23:21.859 first. What about presidents relatives cashing 00:23:21.859 --> 00:23:24.119 in? That's happened before. Oh, yes. The sources 00:23:24.119 --> 00:23:26.400 mentioned Hunter Biden, Jimmy Carter's brother, 00:23:26.539 --> 00:23:29.480 Billy Carter, Grant's nepotism, even FDR son 00:23:29.480 --> 00:23:32.180 James Roosevelt using his name. These things 00:23:32.180 --> 00:23:34.230 happened. But the sources argue this time is 00:23:34.230 --> 00:23:36.509 different. They argue it's different in three 00:23:36.509 --> 00:23:38.970 key ways regarding the Trump family's alleged 00:23:38.970 --> 00:23:41.109 exploitation of the presidency. OK, what's the 00:23:41.109 --> 00:23:44.930 first difference? Scale. The claim is about accumulating 00:23:44.930 --> 00:23:47.910 potentially billions trying to build dynastic 00:23:47.910 --> 00:23:50.930 wealth compared to much smaller sums, or maybe 00:23:50.930 --> 00:23:53.730 just jobs or positions for relatives in past 00:23:53.730 --> 00:23:56.890 instances, which the source describes as not 00:23:56.890 --> 00:23:59.730 dynastic wealth. OK, scale. What's second? Degree 00:23:59.730 --> 00:24:03.359 of separation. The sources allege the president 00:24:03.359 --> 00:24:06.319 remained the beneficial owner of the businesses 00:24:06.319 --> 00:24:09.839 receiving these funds. So the gains flowed, or 00:24:09.839 --> 00:24:13.440 could flow, directly to him. As opposed to? As 00:24:13.440 --> 00:24:15.440 opposed to relatives in the past maybe trading 00:24:15.440 --> 00:24:18.460 on the family name. But without that direct financial 00:24:18.460 --> 00:24:20.500 pipeline connecting back to the president's own 00:24:20.500 --> 00:24:22.900 bank account or decisions, a bit more indirect. 00:24:23.140 --> 00:24:26.460 Got it. Scale separation. What's the third difference 00:24:26.460 --> 00:24:29.079 highlighted? Lack of conscience, as the source 00:24:29.079 --> 00:24:31.819 puts it. They contrast the alleged approach here 00:24:31.819 --> 00:24:34.079 with historical examples where presidents like 00:24:34.079 --> 00:24:36.660 Harding or family members like James Roosevelt 00:24:36.660 --> 00:24:39.700 showed some shame or took steps to address scandals 00:24:39.700 --> 00:24:42.779 or avoid conflicts. Like George H .W. Bush warning 00:24:42.779 --> 00:24:45.440 his sons. Exactly. Warning them not to trade 00:24:45.440 --> 00:24:48.700 on his name. The source implies a different attitude 00:24:48.700 --> 00:24:51.279 in the current situation, a lack of concern about 00:24:51.279 --> 00:24:53.660 appearances or conflicts. And this all ties back 00:24:53.660 --> 00:24:56.039 to the founders' fears. Yes, connects directly 00:24:56.039 --> 00:24:58.180 back to why they put the emoluments clause in 00:24:58.180 --> 00:25:00.140 the Constitution in the first place, the fear 00:25:00.140 --> 00:25:02.380 of foreign influence buying access or corrupting 00:25:02.380 --> 00:25:04.680 the president. But the sources suggest it's flipped 00:25:04.680 --> 00:25:08.099 now. The argument is that today, a powerful president 00:25:08.099 --> 00:25:12.299 can allegedly extract emoluments, demand payments 00:25:12.299 --> 00:25:14.980 or benefits, rather than just passively receive 00:25:14.980 --> 00:25:18.079 them. And enforcing that clause, it relies heavily 00:25:18.079 --> 00:25:20.839 on Congress having the will to act and on public 00:25:20.839 --> 00:25:23.559 opinion if it's violated. And the final thought 00:25:23.559 --> 00:25:25.900 from the source on this topic. It's quite striking. 00:25:26.420 --> 00:25:28.819 It concludes this story of alleged corruption 00:25:28.819 --> 00:25:32.680 is almost too big to see, that it's so unsettling 00:25:32.680 --> 00:25:35.160 if people really face the scale and nature of 00:25:35.160 --> 00:25:37.480 the claims being made. Well, it would require 00:25:37.480 --> 00:25:40.819 action proportional to that allegedly unprecedented 00:25:40.819 --> 00:25:43.140 scale. A very heavy note to end that section 00:25:43.140 --> 00:25:44.980 on. It really is. So looking back at everything 00:25:44.980 --> 00:25:46.980 from the sources you shared, wow, we've really 00:25:46.980 --> 00:25:49.059 covered a lot of ground. Quite a landscape. We 00:25:49.059 --> 00:25:51.220 really have. We explored those multiple layers 00:25:51.220 --> 00:25:53.579 of challenges hitting the administration's tariff 00:25:53.579 --> 00:25:56.240 plans. Yeah, the judicial roadblocks, the loopholes 00:25:56.240 --> 00:25:58.460 like the first sale rule, how the markets are 00:25:58.460 --> 00:26:00.319 reacting with the taco trade, how companies are 00:26:00.319 --> 00:26:02.900 passing on costs. Then we touched on those shifts 00:26:02.900 --> 00:26:07.400 in key personnel. Musk out. above nominated, 00:26:07.920 --> 00:26:10.259 and the potential political chess game behind 00:26:10.259 --> 00:26:13.000 those moves, at least as interpreted by your 00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:15.839 sources. Right, and we dove into that pretty 00:26:15.839 --> 00:26:19.259 intricate maneuvering around Senate rules, the 00:26:19.259 --> 00:26:23.400 Byrd rule, the CRA, Thune's move, and what that 00:26:23.400 --> 00:26:25.500 might signal about the legislative process itself. 00:26:25.700 --> 00:26:28.089 Definitely food for thought there. And finally, 00:26:28.250 --> 00:26:30.849 we grappled with those very serious, historically 00:26:30.849 --> 00:26:34.630 framed claims made in one source about alleged 00:26:34.630 --> 00:26:37.210 self -enrichment, its scale, its nature, and 00:26:37.210 --> 00:26:39.430 how that source contrasts it with anything seen 00:26:39.430 --> 00:26:41.920 before in the presidency. It's clear this deep 00:26:41.920 --> 00:26:44.059 dive was absolutely built from the ground up 00:26:44.059 --> 00:26:46.839 using the rich and sometimes conflicting material 00:26:46.839 --> 00:26:49.279 you provided. It really was. What's fascinating 00:26:49.279 --> 00:26:51.279 to think about pulling it all together is when 00:26:51.279 --> 00:26:52.839 you take all these different threads, the legal 00:26:52.839 --> 00:26:54.920 challenges to policy, the personnel changes, 00:26:55.579 --> 00:26:58.019 the pushing boundaries on procedural rules, and 00:26:58.019 --> 00:27:00.640 these really significant claims about personal 00:27:00.640 --> 00:27:03.579 gain. According to these sources, what kind of 00:27:03.579 --> 00:27:07.099 picture does that paint about the maybe the fundamental 00:27:07.099 --> 00:27:09.880 nature of power and policy operating right now. 00:27:10.359 --> 00:27:12.480 What does it reveal when you look at it all together? 00:27:12.819 --> 00:27:14.420 That is definitely a question that gives you 00:27:14.420 --> 00:27:17.559 pause. A lot to think about there. Thank you 00:27:17.559 --> 00:27:19.480 again for sending over this incredible stack 00:27:19.480 --> 00:27:21.720 of sources that made this deep dive possible 00:27:21.720 --> 00:27:22.059 today.