WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.259 Hey there, and welcome to the Deep Dive. You've 00:00:03.259 --> 00:00:06.839 handed us a really compelling stack of sources 00:00:06.839 --> 00:00:09.300 today. Yeah, what's great. Covers a broad spectrum 00:00:09.300 --> 00:00:11.779 of what's happening right now, you know, specific 00:00:11.779 --> 00:00:15.679 government figures. major policy debates, even 00:00:15.679 --> 00:00:19.460 the mechanics of politics and information integrity 00:00:19.460 --> 00:00:22.120 challenges. It really is a comprehensive snapshot. 00:00:22.260 --> 00:00:24.699 Yeah. These sources, they touch on high profile 00:00:24.699 --> 00:00:27.660 roles, the nitty gritty of policy fights, voter 00:00:27.660 --> 00:00:30.039 sentiment, and even those procedural skirmishes 00:00:30.039 --> 00:00:32.539 that don't always make headlines. Right. So our 00:00:32.539 --> 00:00:34.420 mission here is to take this material you've 00:00:34.420 --> 00:00:37.020 shared, unpack the key stuff, pull out the important 00:00:37.020 --> 00:00:39.719 nuggets and connect the dots, help you get up 00:00:39.719 --> 00:00:41.700 to speed quickly, but thoroughly. Absolutely. 00:00:41.780 --> 00:00:44.000 Think of it as just walking through this information 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:45.700 together, pointing out what really jumps out. 00:00:46.119 --> 00:00:50.600 OK, let's unpack this stack. So kicking us off 00:00:50.600 --> 00:00:52.500 is the discussion in the sources around Elon 00:00:52.500 --> 00:00:55.159 Musk, his time in government, his recent departure. 00:00:55.659 --> 00:00:58.640 And the description is pretty striking. It starts 00:00:58.640 --> 00:01:02.079 with what's called a weird exit interview. Trump 00:01:02.079 --> 00:01:04.739 reportedly praising Musk, but the sources suggest 00:01:04.739 --> 00:01:07.579 it didn't really match Musk's actions, making 00:01:07.579 --> 00:01:09.819 claims the source calls false. And what's really 00:01:09.819 --> 00:01:13.390 fascinating here is the detail about how unconventional 00:01:13.390 --> 00:01:16.510 his role was. The source notes he acted as an 00:01:16.510 --> 00:01:18.989 officer, but without Senate confirmation. Right. 00:01:19.329 --> 00:01:21.290 And he brought in these individuals, described 00:01:21.290 --> 00:01:24.049 as young hackers, who apparently overruled confirmed 00:01:24.049 --> 00:01:27.390 officials. And maybe unexpectedly, the source 00:01:27.390 --> 00:01:29.569 points out, you know, just like there was focus 00:01:29.569 --> 00:01:31.750 on Zelinsky's clothes before, Musk also didn't 00:01:31.750 --> 00:01:34.010 wear a suit. Kind of an interesting detail they 00:01:34.010 --> 00:01:36.549 included. Yeah, it is. The source uses that metaphor, 00:01:36.670 --> 00:01:38.510 a black eye, to describe his time there. Pivot, 00:01:38.629 --> 00:01:40.430 yeah. And when you look at the numbers the sources 00:01:40.430 --> 00:01:43.090 cite about his budget impact, Well, it tells 00:01:43.090 --> 00:01:46.019 a story. Musk reportedly promised, what, $2 trillion 00:01:46.019 --> 00:01:49.079 in savings? That was the claim. But an analysis 00:01:49.079 --> 00:01:51.379 cited by the BBC, according to these sources, 00:01:51.459 --> 00:01:54.519 puts the actual savings, the realized ones, at 00:01:54.519 --> 00:01:58.340 $32 .5 billion. Which is only about 1 .6 % of 00:01:58.340 --> 00:02:01.519 the promise. Exactly. And even that $32 .5 billion 00:02:01.519 --> 00:02:04.219 figure is questioned by the source. They point 00:02:04.219 --> 00:02:07.200 to things like estimated savings on a vaccine 00:02:07.200 --> 00:02:09.500 that hadn't even been developed yet. Right. The 00:02:09.500 --> 00:02:11.819 sources break down some of the biggest cited 00:02:11.819 --> 00:02:14.819 savings. highlights the, well, the fuzziness. 00:02:15.280 --> 00:02:19.099 $2 .9 billion from canceling a migrant children 00:02:19.099 --> 00:02:22.620 housing contract. Cut it. A reported $0 from 00:02:22.620 --> 00:02:25.360 canceling an IRS contract because, the sources 00:02:25.360 --> 00:02:27.520 say, it was already canceled by the previous 00:02:27.520 --> 00:02:30.080 administration. Ah, so not really a new saving 00:02:30.080 --> 00:02:33.759 then. Seems not. And $1 .8 billion from a DOD 00:02:33.759 --> 00:02:36.060 IT contract where the source notes no work had 00:02:36.060 --> 00:02:38.500 actually been done. The source's take is, these 00:02:38.500 --> 00:02:40.580 examples don't necessarily show major savings 00:02:40.580 --> 00:02:42.979 or cutting significant waste. And then you have 00:02:42.979 --> 00:02:45.020 the other side of the ledger. The cost, the sources 00:02:45.020 --> 00:02:47.360 mention things like rehiring, retraining workers 00:02:47.360 --> 00:02:50.580 after layoffs, lost productivity, lawsuits. Lost 00:02:50.580 --> 00:02:53.180 tax collections from IRS cuts too. Right. The 00:02:53.180 --> 00:02:55.580 source suggests these could add up to maybe $135 00:02:55.580 --> 00:02:59.020 billion. Another estimate cited puts net savings 00:02:59.020 --> 00:03:02.199 at only $16 .3 billion, and that doesn't even 00:03:02.199 --> 00:03:04.900 count the cost of fixing damage. Wow. Even a 00:03:04.900 --> 00:03:07.080 conservative estimate from the Manhattan Institute, 00:03:07.520 --> 00:03:09.500 mentioned in the sources, puts the savings at 00:03:09.500 --> 00:03:12.490 less than 0 .1 % of the federal budget. Tiny. 00:03:12.729 --> 00:03:14.289 So when you put those numbers next to the House 00:03:14.289 --> 00:03:16.830 budget bill, which the source projects adds $4 00:03:16.830 --> 00:03:19.889 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, Musk's 00:03:19.889 --> 00:03:22.210 reported savings start looking, well, like the 00:03:22.210 --> 00:03:24.590 source says, small potatoes. It really does make 00:03:24.590 --> 00:03:27.810 you think about how we measure success in these 00:03:27.810 --> 00:03:29.789 kinds of roles, right? Especially high level 00:03:29.789 --> 00:03:33.159 advisory ones where the goals might be. Murky 00:03:33.159 --> 00:03:34.939 or maybe they shift. So what's the perceived 00:03:34.939 --> 00:03:36.979 legacy here according to the sources? They're 00:03:36.979 --> 00:03:40.180 pretty blunt his reputation as a genius in tatters 00:03:40.180 --> 00:03:43.939 Tesla facing a crisis net income down 71 % in 00:03:43.939 --> 00:03:47.610 q1 ouch His fortune diminished by $122 billion, 00:03:48.050 --> 00:03:50.909 widespread public dislike mentioned. And the 00:03:50.909 --> 00:03:52.849 bottom line from the sources achieved virtually 00:03:52.849 --> 00:03:55.370 nothing of lasting value. They even linked the 00:03:55.370 --> 00:03:57.389 Wisconsin Supreme Court race result as maybe 00:03:57.389 --> 00:04:00.370 signaling the end of his ability to buy elections. 00:04:00.849 --> 00:04:03.610 Ties back to that black eye idea. And the sources 00:04:03.610 --> 00:04:05.870 list a whole range of possible reasons why he 00:04:05.870 --> 00:04:09.509 left. Maybe Trump felt overshadowed or disliked 00:04:09.509 --> 00:04:11.870 Musk's policy views, like opposing the bill or 00:04:11.870 --> 00:04:14.789 tariffs. Maybe Musk just got tired of being a 00:04:14.789 --> 00:04:18.250 pariah or realized how hard budget cutting actually 00:04:18.250 --> 00:04:21.149 is. Or maybe it was about protecting Tesla, protecting 00:04:21.149 --> 00:04:23.490 his fortune. Boredom's even mentioned. Yeah, 00:04:23.689 --> 00:04:26.410 boredom, blowback from officials like Treasury 00:04:26.410 --> 00:04:29.029 Secretary Scott Besant, that New York Times drug 00:04:29.029 --> 00:04:32.949 addiction report, fear of lawsuits. Lots of possibilities 00:04:32.949 --> 00:04:35.329 floated. But here's an alternative take from 00:04:35.329 --> 00:04:37.949 the sources that really grabbed me. What if he 00:04:37.949 --> 00:04:40.180 didn't fail? Not if you look at it differently. 00:04:40.339 --> 00:04:43.060 Also. What if his real goal wasn't saving money? 00:04:43.339 --> 00:04:45.660 What if, as the sources just we consider, it 00:04:45.660 --> 00:04:49.019 was about gutting agencies he or Trump disliked? 00:04:49.199 --> 00:04:52.800 Agencies Congress wouldn't cut? Like USAI? Okay, 00:04:53.199 --> 00:04:55.920 so undermining from within. Potentially. Or hobbling 00:04:55.920 --> 00:04:57.779 oversight bodies on the ones watching companies 00:04:57.779 --> 00:05:01.000 like Tesla or investors like Musk. Maybe scooping 00:05:01.000 --> 00:05:03.220 up government contracts for his businesses, collecting 00:05:03.220 --> 00:05:05.980 data on citizens. From that angle, his time might 00:05:05.980 --> 00:05:08.579 look like a success towards those goals. And 00:05:08.579 --> 00:05:11.199 building on that, the sources suggest Trump's 00:05:11.199 --> 00:05:13.779 public praise, these planted statements perhaps, 00:05:14.180 --> 00:05:17.300 could be part of a PR effort. trying to rehabilitate 00:05:17.300 --> 00:05:20.060 Musk's image. Which leads to this really unexpected 00:05:20.060 --> 00:05:23.879 angle in the sources. Could Democrats actually 00:05:23.879 --> 00:05:26.439 maybe work with Musk? Seems counterintuitive. 00:05:26.680 --> 00:05:28.439 Right, but the sources mention his opposition 00:05:28.439 --> 00:05:30.699 to killing those clean energy tax credits from 00:05:30.699 --> 00:05:33.720 the Biden administration, and, you know... Democrats 00:05:33.720 --> 00:05:35.939 generally like EVs and probably don't mind high 00:05:35.939 --> 00:05:38.480 profile people dissing Trump's policies. True. 00:05:38.660 --> 00:05:41.579 The sources cite Debra Kahn at Politico and Representative 00:05:41.579 --> 00:05:44.600 Ro Khanna, a California progressive. They suggest 00:05:44.600 --> 00:05:47.740 Democrats might need to, quote, cozy up or at 00:05:47.740 --> 00:05:50.079 least acknowledge where he's right, even with 00:05:50.079 --> 00:05:52.819 big disagreements elsewhere, specifically on 00:05:52.819 --> 00:05:55.259 those tax credits. And the potential strategy 00:05:55.259 --> 00:05:58.399 described is. Well, interesting. Musk reportedly 00:05:58.399 --> 00:06:00.459 working the Senate trying to get parts of the 00:06:00.459 --> 00:06:03.139 bill killing subsidies removed. Maybe even threatening 00:06:03.139 --> 00:06:05.779 GOP senators with primary challenge. Using his 00:06:05.779 --> 00:06:08.660 influence, yeah. Trump's year, ex Twitter. The 00:06:08.660 --> 00:06:11.079 sources admit the alignment is probably for different 00:06:11.079 --> 00:06:13.920 reasons, Musk protecting his fortune. But as 00:06:13.920 --> 00:06:17.040 they say, support is support and politics makes 00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:19.800 strange bedfellows right. Absolutely. Looking 00:06:19.800 --> 00:06:21.740 back at this whole Musk section of the sources, 00:06:22.300 --> 00:06:25.459 what's really striking is that contrast. grand 00:06:25.459 --> 00:06:28.079 claims of savings versus the actual figures, 00:06:28.180 --> 00:06:31.019 the potential costs, and how different perspectives 00:06:31.019 --> 00:06:33.439 may be driven by different aims, paint completely 00:06:33.439 --> 00:06:36.060 different pictures of success or failure. Okay. 00:06:36.500 --> 00:06:39.100 Let's shift gears. Let's dive into another big 00:06:39.100 --> 00:06:42.079 area your sources cover. Trump's views on judges 00:06:42.079 --> 00:06:44.860 and specifically his recent criticism of Leonard 00:06:44.860 --> 00:06:47.279 Leo. Right. The sources observe that Trump seems 00:06:47.279 --> 00:06:50.319 to be finding out that outsiders like Leo recommend 00:06:50.319 --> 00:06:52.959 conservatives who, well, believe in the rule 00:06:52.959 --> 00:06:55.500 of law. Which clashes, the sources suggest, with 00:06:55.500 --> 00:06:57.339 Trump's preference for judges who will rule his 00:06:57.339 --> 00:06:59.740 way regardless of the law. It's framed simply. 00:07:00.300 --> 00:07:03.860 Trump sees legal guardrails as basically a nuisance, 00:07:04.459 --> 00:07:06.579 an obstacle. And there's a specific example cited 00:07:06.579 --> 00:07:09.339 that makes this really clear. A unanimous ruling 00:07:09.339 --> 00:07:11.600 against Trump on tariffs by the U .S. Court of 00:07:11.600 --> 00:07:14.240 International Trade. And notably, the panel included 00:07:14.240 --> 00:07:16.779 Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Trump himself, 00:07:17.279 --> 00:07:20.160 along with Reagan and Obama appointees. The sources 00:07:20.160 --> 00:07:23.240 suggest Trump felt Reif owes him and didn't deliver. 00:07:23.899 --> 00:07:26.379 And Trump's reaction, reported in the sources, 00:07:27.100 --> 00:07:29.699 lashing out at Leonard Leo, reportedly calling 00:07:29.699 --> 00:07:33.300 him a sleazebag who probably hates America. Wow. 00:07:33.680 --> 00:07:35.480 And Leo's response, according to the source, 00:07:35.839 --> 00:07:38.290 quite restrained. expressed gratitude for Trump 00:07:38.290 --> 00:07:40.709 transforming the federal courts, called his own 00:07:40.709 --> 00:07:43.889 involvement a privilege, had the, quote, grace 00:07:43.889 --> 00:07:46.889 not to fire back. This whole exchange, as the 00:07:46.889 --> 00:07:48.870 sources describe it, really highlights a core 00:07:48.870 --> 00:07:51.290 tension, doesn't it? A president reportedly seeking 00:07:51.290 --> 00:07:53.750 personal loyalty on the bench versus the conservative 00:07:53.750 --> 00:07:56.149 legal movement's goal, articulated by figures 00:07:56.149 --> 00:07:58.589 like John Yoo also cited, of appointments based 00:07:58.589 --> 00:08:01.730 on movement principles, not patronage. And the 00:08:01.730 --> 00:08:03.970 sources point out that calling Leo a federalist 00:08:03.970 --> 00:08:06.910 society leader, devout Catholic, key figure in 00:08:06.910 --> 00:08:09.470 picking Trump's first three Supreme Court justices, 00:08:09.750 --> 00:08:12.870 someone who hates America, is just, well, the 00:08:12.870 --> 00:08:15.149 source calls it nonsense. John Yoo, the conservative 00:08:15.149 --> 00:08:17.110 law professor cited, reportedly went further, 00:08:17.610 --> 00:08:19.839 calling Trump's attacks outrageous. But this 00:08:19.839 --> 00:08:22.680 is contrasted really sharply in the sources with 00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:26.019 Pam Bondi's stance. She's described as agreeing 00:08:26.019 --> 00:08:28.920 with Trump, suggesting, according to the sources, 00:08:29.199 --> 00:08:31.620 that future nominees wouldn't need standard vetting 00:08:31.620 --> 00:08:34.340 like ABA questionnaires or interviews. Making 00:08:34.340 --> 00:08:37.399 it easier, the implication goes, to appoint judges 00:08:37.399 --> 00:08:40.220 whose main qualification is just total loyalty 00:08:40.220 --> 00:08:43.100 to Trump, even if otherwise unqualified. And 00:08:43.100 --> 00:08:45.840 they give an example of this approach. Trump 00:08:45.840 --> 00:08:48.460 nominating his personal lawyer a meal above the 00:08:48.460 --> 00:08:52.019 third. to a circuit court. Bove did clerk for 00:08:52.019 --> 00:08:54.919 Scalia, but the source also notes he was reportedly 00:08:54.919 --> 00:08:57.159 unwilling to make some kind of corrupt bargain 00:08:57.159 --> 00:09:00.379 involving NYC Mayor Eric Adams. Interesting detail. 00:09:00.679 --> 00:09:02.820 The potential long -term implications here described 00:09:02.820 --> 00:09:04.980 in the sources are pretty significant. If Bove 00:09:04.980 --> 00:09:06.820 gets confirmed, maybe he's on a Supreme Court 00:09:06.820 --> 00:09:10.179 list if Thomas or Alito retire. But, the sources 00:09:10.179 --> 00:09:12.580 add, Thomas and Alito are reportedly close to 00:09:12.580 --> 00:09:15.440 Leo. Respect him. Which might influence their 00:09:15.440 --> 00:09:17.870 retirement timing. The sources even speculate 00:09:17.870 --> 00:09:19.950 they might wait for a possible president advance 00:09:19.950 --> 00:09:22.870 in 2029. So pulling back from this section, what 00:09:22.870 --> 00:09:25.029 you see in the sources is the stark picture, 00:09:25.389 --> 00:09:27.789 right? A potential shift in judicial appointments 00:09:27.789 --> 00:09:31.490 away from ideology, more towards personal fealty. 00:09:31.830 --> 00:09:33.970 And the implications for the courts down the 00:09:33.970 --> 00:09:38.350 line could be huge. Let's pivot again. Another 00:09:38.350 --> 00:09:40.649 major legal development your sources highlight, 00:09:41.330 --> 00:09:44.899 a Supreme Court ruling on immigration. The sources 00:09:44.899 --> 00:09:48.279 frame Trump's nightmare scenario as a court striking 00:09:48.279 --> 00:09:51.320 down a big executive action, forcing him to drop 00:09:51.320 --> 00:09:53.980 a policy or maybe even defy the court. They note 00:09:53.980 --> 00:09:56.340 he's kind of lucked out so far. And the specific 00:09:56.340 --> 00:09:59.360 policy here was Joe Biden's program extending 00:09:59.360 --> 00:10:01.919 legal protection, humanitarian parole to hundreds 00:10:01.919 --> 00:10:04.460 of thousands of undocumented migrants from Latin 00:10:04.460 --> 00:10:07.220 America with U .S. sponsors. The source mentions 00:10:07.220 --> 00:10:09.039 J .D. Vance's past comments here, too. Yeah, 00:10:09.120 --> 00:10:11.240 those controversial ones. And it's worth noting, 00:10:11.399 --> 00:10:13.620 as the source does, this parole power goes back 00:10:13.620 --> 00:10:16.320 to Eisenhower. But Biden really expanded its 00:10:16.320 --> 00:10:19.179 use. OK, so Trump hated the program, sued to 00:10:19.179 --> 00:10:21.600 stop it. Lower court said no, so he appealed 00:10:21.600 --> 00:10:23.240 to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court. 00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:26.179 Well, they overturned the lower courts. A 7 -2 00:10:26.179 --> 00:10:28.139 decision rescinding the migrants' protection. 00:10:28.720 --> 00:10:31.440 Sotomayor and Jackson dissenting. Right. But 00:10:31.440 --> 00:10:34.409 here's the twist the sources point out. Justice 00:10:34.409 --> 00:10:38.110 Elena Kagan voted with the six Republican appointees. 00:10:38.149 --> 00:10:40.230 That is interesting. The source's interpretation 00:10:40.230 --> 00:10:42.450 isn't that Kagan is suddenly anti -immigrant. 00:10:42.950 --> 00:10:45.350 It's that she reportedly believed Biden lacked 00:10:45.350 --> 00:10:48.149 the legal authority for such a broad use of parole, 00:10:48.629 --> 00:10:50.809 especially for people from countries not seen 00:10:50.809 --> 00:10:53.370 as, you know, brutal dictatorships. There was 00:10:53.370 --> 00:10:55.840 a second issue, too, right? Whether the Homeland 00:10:55.840 --> 00:10:58.639 Security Secretary needed individual documents 00:10:58.639 --> 00:11:02.200 to revoke status for all 530 ,000 people. Exactly. 00:11:02.519 --> 00:11:05.759 Or could one document do it? The court reportedly 00:11:05.759 --> 00:11:08.259 sided with Trump on that procedural point, too. 00:11:08.379 --> 00:11:11.080 Making it the second time in May, the sources 00:11:11.080 --> 00:11:14.019 say, the court sided with him on revoking protected 00:11:14.019 --> 00:11:16.799 status for a large group. The sources described 00:11:16.799 --> 00:11:18.919 the dissents from Sotomayor and Jackson as pretty 00:11:18.919 --> 00:11:21.860 powerful. Writing about immense harm, arguing 00:11:21.860 --> 00:11:23.820 keeping people here wouldn't hurt the government 00:11:23.820 --> 00:11:26.200 while the case was fully heard. And on the other 00:11:26.200 --> 00:11:29.139 side, Stephen Miller reportedly celebrated the 00:11:29.139 --> 00:11:31.379 decision. But it's crucial to understand, as 00:11:31.379 --> 00:11:34.299 the sources stress, this was an unsigned emergency 00:11:34.299 --> 00:11:37.029 decision. Right, not the final word. These are 00:11:37.029 --> 00:11:40.090 often preliminary, done quickly. The case itself 00:11:40.090 --> 00:11:42.570 continues in the lower courts. But the practical 00:11:42.570 --> 00:11:45.230 impact, the sources say, is immediate. The administration 00:11:45.230 --> 00:11:47.990 will likely try to deport as many of the 530 00:11:47.990 --> 00:11:50.830 ,000 as possible. Though the sources note the 00:11:50.830 --> 00:11:54.029 huge logistical challenges. Rounding people up, 00:11:54.490 --> 00:11:57.009 potential lack of cooperation, the sheer number 00:11:57.009 --> 00:11:59.330 of flights needed, it could take a very long 00:11:59.330 --> 00:12:01.769 time. And the sources present a contrasting view 00:12:01.769 --> 00:12:05.370 from within the GOP itself. Senator Lisa Murkowski 00:12:05.370 --> 00:12:08.450 from Alaska reportedly dislikes killing the program, 00:12:09.330 --> 00:12:11.230 specifically worried about deporting Afghans 00:12:11.230 --> 00:12:13.929 who helped the U .S., sending them back to face 00:12:13.929 --> 00:12:16.750 potential torture or death by the Taliban. Her 00:12:16.750 --> 00:12:19.610 view, per the source, that's no way to treat 00:12:19.610 --> 00:12:21.929 friends. But Trump's likely reaction, according 00:12:21.929 --> 00:12:24.309 to the sources, just ignore her. Republicans 00:12:24.309 --> 00:12:26.929 have a 53 -47 Senate majority. They don't need 00:12:26.929 --> 00:12:29.759 her vote on this. So this ruling, as laid out 00:12:29.759 --> 00:12:31.960 in the sources, really throws that balance into 00:12:31.960 --> 00:12:34.039 sharp relief, doesn't it? Executive authority, 00:12:34.259 --> 00:12:37.080 judicial review, humanitarian concerns. And the 00:12:37.080 --> 00:12:39.519 immediate large -scale human impact of these 00:12:39.519 --> 00:12:41.600 policy fights, even from a preliminary court 00:12:41.600 --> 00:12:45.220 ruling. It's stark. OK, switching gears again. 00:12:46.080 --> 00:12:48.799 Let's look at how that bill passed by the House 00:12:48.799 --> 00:12:51.480 Trump's big, beautiful bill is reportedly being 00:12:51.480 --> 00:12:53.639 received by voters. Yeah, the sources draw a 00:12:53.639 --> 00:12:55.759 really sharp contrast here. Getting the votes 00:12:55.759 --> 00:12:58.639 in the House. Easy, they say. But selling it 00:12:58.639 --> 00:13:01.179 back home, that's proving much harder. Republican 00:13:01.179 --> 00:13:04.700 reps are running into a buzzsaw of criticism. 00:13:05.019 --> 00:13:06.899 What are the main complaints the sources mention? 00:13:07.159 --> 00:13:10.259 Objections to cuts in popular programs. Medicaid. 00:13:10.779 --> 00:13:14.399 S &D. Big objections to adding $4 trillion to 00:13:14.399 --> 00:13:17.840 the debt seen as unsustainable. And this feeling 00:13:17.840 --> 00:13:20.840 that it hurts ordinary Americans to give tax 00:13:20.840 --> 00:13:23.200 cuts to the wealthy. The specific anecdotes in 00:13:23.200 --> 00:13:25.500 the sources really paint a picture. Representative 00:13:25.500 --> 00:13:27.820 Mike Flood in Nebraska reportedly got a flood 00:13:27.820 --> 00:13:30.799 of criticism, booed at a town hall. Asked about 00:13:30.799 --> 00:13:32.559 a provision making it hard to hold officials 00:13:32.559 --> 00:13:35.259 in contempt for ignoring court orders. His response, 00:13:35.379 --> 00:13:37.460 per the sources, was basically, hey, it's a thousand 00:13:37.460 --> 00:13:39.399 page bill. I didn't read it all. And the audience 00:13:39.399 --> 00:13:41.820 reaction. Reportedly yelled back, you voted for 00:13:41.820 --> 00:13:44.539 all of it. Then there's Ashley Henson in Iowa. 00:13:44.980 --> 00:13:47.000 Reportedly booed when she said she was proud 00:13:47.000 --> 00:13:49.519 of her vote and when she mentioned DOGE. The 00:13:49.519 --> 00:13:52.830 cryptocurrency. Weird tangent. Yeah. And the 00:13:52.830 --> 00:13:54.870 audience reportedly cheered when asked about 00:13:54.870 --> 00:13:57.590 alleged corruption involving a jet from Qatar. 00:13:58.450 --> 00:14:00.409 Hinson's response, according to the source, was 00:14:00.409 --> 00:14:03.629 to claim holding the town hall was transparency. 00:14:04.149 --> 00:14:07.409 Hmm. And Senator Joni Ernst in Iowa, that quote. 00:14:07.649 --> 00:14:10.710 Oh, yeah. Asked about Medicaid cuts causing deaths, 00:14:10.750 --> 00:14:12.850 her reported response, well, we're all gonna 00:14:12.850 --> 00:14:15.730 die. Yikes. The source notes that didn't go over 00:14:15.730 --> 00:14:19.029 well. Understatement of the year, probably. She 00:14:19.029 --> 00:14:22.070 tried to walk it back, saying, only ineligible 00:14:22.070 --> 00:14:24.350 people affected, but the sources counter that 00:14:24.350 --> 00:14:27.129 the bill actually makes eligibility harder. And 00:14:27.129 --> 00:14:29.070 a t -shirt with the quote apparently went on 00:14:29.070 --> 00:14:31.809 sale almost instantly. Unbelievable. Then you 00:14:31.809 --> 00:14:34.629 have Evans and Boebert in Colorado heckled outside 00:14:34.629 --> 00:14:36.909 the state capitol. Boebert quoted defending the 00:14:36.909 --> 00:14:39.070 bill, victory for our values, cutting waste, 00:14:39.330 --> 00:14:41.429 fraud, abuse, etc. But the crowd wasn't buying 00:14:41.429 --> 00:14:44.190 it, sources say. And Evans? Asked how many of 00:14:44.190 --> 00:14:46.429 his constituents on Medicaid, reportedly a third 00:14:46.429 --> 00:14:49.070 of them would lose coverage, he apparently mumbled 00:14:49.070 --> 00:14:51.789 about categories of people and refused to give 00:14:51.789 --> 00:14:54.820 a number to a reporter. Wow. What stands out 00:14:54.820 --> 00:14:57.940 here from the sources is just how specific and 00:14:57.940 --> 00:15:01.340 visceral the reactions are. Voters directly confronting 00:15:01.340 --> 00:15:03.980 their representatives. It really highlights that 00:15:03.980 --> 00:15:07.100 gap between legislative action in D .C. and constituent 00:15:07.100 --> 00:15:09.179 priorities back home, especially on things like 00:15:09.179 --> 00:15:11.779 social programs and debt, and how tough these 00:15:11.779 --> 00:15:14.559 reps are finding it to defend the bill. Let's 00:15:14.559 --> 00:15:16.659 pivot now to a different kind of political fight 00:15:16.659 --> 00:15:19.740 described in your sources, the internal Democratic 00:15:19.740 --> 00:15:22.659 debate over the 2028 primary schedule. Right. 00:15:22.750 --> 00:15:24.830 The background, according to the sources, is 00:15:24.830 --> 00:15:27.870 Biden shaking up the 2024 schedule, trying to 00:15:27.870 --> 00:15:30.230 put South Carolina first seen as payback for 00:15:30.230 --> 00:15:33.269 Jim Clyburn's crucial endorsement. But now, with 00:15:33.269 --> 00:15:35.549 Biden's reputation described in the sources as 00:15:35.549 --> 00:15:37.710 tarnished, some Democrats are apparently rethinking 00:15:37.710 --> 00:15:40.870 that 2028 order. The core conflict seems to be, 00:15:40.870 --> 00:15:43.250 should New Hampshire go first again? The arguments 00:15:43.250 --> 00:15:45.639 against are laid out. It's an all -white state 00:15:45.639 --> 00:15:47.960 seen as disadvantaging black candidates. But 00:15:47.960 --> 00:15:50.279 interestingly, the sources also present an argument 00:15:50.279 --> 00:15:52.659 for returning to New Hampshire, framed strategically, 00:15:53.059 --> 00:15:55.299 if the goal is specifically winning back working 00:15:55.299 --> 00:15:57.419 -class white men. Then there's the progressive 00:15:57.419 --> 00:16:00.460 case for Nevada, mentioned in the sources. Better 00:16:00.460 --> 00:16:02.399 choice for winning back working -class white 00:16:02.399 --> 00:16:05.019 men because of its strong union base in hotels, 00:16:05.500 --> 00:16:07.429 restaurants. The sources touch on the political 00:16:07.429 --> 00:16:10.830 reality, too. Changing dates needs state cooperation. 00:16:11.409 --> 00:16:14.169 Neither NH nor SC are likely to agree easily 00:16:14.169 --> 00:16:17.350 to SC going first. Right. If the DNC wants NH 00:16:17.350 --> 00:16:20.690 first, that's easy state law. But if they push 00:16:20.690 --> 00:16:23.669 for SC or NV, those states need to change their 00:16:23.669 --> 00:16:26.529 dates, which probably just makes NH move even 00:16:26.529 --> 00:16:29.200 earlier. The source has mentioned Ray Buckley 00:16:29.200 --> 00:16:31.820 and NH isn't likely to help Democrats take away 00:16:31.820 --> 00:16:34.019 his state's first -in -the -nation status. And 00:16:34.019 --> 00:16:36.340 we're already seeing early moves, the testing 00:16:36.340 --> 00:16:39.299 the waters phase described in the sources. Governors 00:16:39.299 --> 00:16:41.720 Tim Walz of Minnesota and Wes Moore of Maryland 00:16:41.720 --> 00:16:43.899 showing up in South Carolina at Clyburn's fish 00:16:43.899 --> 00:16:46.379 fry. What were their messages? Walz, according 00:16:46.379 --> 00:16:48.720 to the sources, talked about needing to expand 00:16:48.720 --> 00:16:51.820 the map beyond the usual swing states, more focused 00:16:51.820 --> 00:16:54.659 on Trump's big, beautiful bill, framing it as 00:16:54.659 --> 00:16:57.480 pushing kids into poverty to help cronies. different 00:16:57.480 --> 00:16:59.700 angles. But here's a question the sources say 00:16:59.700 --> 00:17:02.039 isn't being asked enough. Which state should 00:17:02.039 --> 00:17:04.579 go first if the main goal is actually winning 00:17:04.579 --> 00:17:07.619 the 2028 general election, not just satisfying 00:17:07.619 --> 00:17:10.240 one group within the party? Exactly. The sources 00:17:10.240 --> 00:17:12.700 note that the different preferences, black Democrats 00:17:12.700 --> 00:17:15.279 leaning towards SC, progressives towards NV, 00:17:16.079 --> 00:17:19.380 each wanting one of its own, maybe without prioritizing 00:17:19.380 --> 00:17:22.099 the strongest candidate overall. The sources 00:17:22.099 --> 00:17:24.559 concluding thought here is maybe a state that 00:17:24.559 --> 00:17:28.079 best mirrors the country. like Michigan or Wisconsin, 00:17:28.400 --> 00:17:30.859 perhaps. This whole debate, detailed in the sources, 00:17:31.400 --> 00:17:33.740 it's a fascinating window into that internal 00:17:33.740 --> 00:17:36.339 party tension, isn't it? Is the primary about 00:17:36.339 --> 00:17:39.200 reflecting specific groups or optimizing for 00:17:39.200 --> 00:17:41.779 the general election win shapes everything for 00:17:41.779 --> 00:17:43.960 the next cycle? Okay, let's shift to another 00:17:43.960 --> 00:17:46.640 power struggle detailed in your sources. State 00:17:46.640 --> 00:17:48.700 -level fights between Republican legislatures 00:17:48.700 --> 00:17:51.380 and voters using initiatives and referendums. 00:17:51.519 --> 00:17:53.900 Yeah, the sources frame this interestingly, suggesting 00:17:53.900 --> 00:17:56.440 the writers of state constitutions were clairvoyant, 00:17:56.619 --> 00:17:58.619 didn't fully trust the legislature, so they built 00:17:58.619 --> 00:18:01.160 in ways for voters to bypass them directly. Popular 00:18:01.160 --> 00:18:03.740 vote for laws or constitutional amendments. Which 00:18:03.740 --> 00:18:06.799 legislators, the sources note? dislike, especially 00:18:06.799 --> 00:18:09.859 lately, as voters pass laws the legislators really 00:18:09.859 --> 00:18:13.039 don't like. Often in states with GOP legislatures, 00:18:13.200 --> 00:18:15.720 but voters passing opposing measures. Abortion 00:18:15.720 --> 00:18:18.759 is key, but not the only issue. And the legislators' 00:18:18.799 --> 00:18:21.059 reaction. The sources say they're fighting back. 00:18:21.279 --> 00:18:23.700 Question if voters know anything. Nothing. That's 00:18:23.700 --> 00:18:26.180 our job, is the reported attitude. Wanting to 00:18:26.180 --> 00:18:28.819 go after the cause, meaning the initiative process 00:18:28.819 --> 00:18:31.099 itself. We see specific examples in the sources. 00:18:31.480 --> 00:18:34.839 Missouri, 2024. Voters approved abortion legality, 00:18:35.180 --> 00:18:37.859 employees sick leave. The GOP legislatures reportedly 00:18:37.859 --> 00:18:40.500 working to undo the damage. Alaska and Nebraska. 00:18:40.839 --> 00:18:42.779 Legislatures working on rolling back voter past 00:18:42.779 --> 00:18:45.339 sick leave. Arizona. Voters approved abortion 00:18:45.339 --> 00:18:47.640 protections last year. The legislature's busy 00:18:47.640 --> 00:18:49.579 trying to undo them. And the strategy across 00:18:49.579 --> 00:18:52.019 multiple states, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, 00:18:52.319 --> 00:18:54.380 Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 00:18:54.380 --> 00:18:57.279 Dakota, Utah, is Republicans trying to restrict 00:18:57.279 --> 00:18:59.740 the initiative process itself. making ballot 00:18:59.740 --> 00:19:02.299 access harder, requiring supermajorities to pass 00:19:02.299 --> 00:19:04.619 initiatives. The legislators claim they represent 00:19:04.619 --> 00:19:06.859 the people better, but the sources counter that 00:19:06.859 --> 00:19:09.619 these legislators are often heavily gerrymandered, 00:19:09.920 --> 00:19:12.599 giving rural conservative Republicans disproportionate 00:19:12.599 --> 00:19:15.200 power. Chris Melody Fields, figurado from the 00:19:15.200 --> 00:19:17.400 Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, is quoted 00:19:17.400 --> 00:19:21.460 with a sharp take. They can't win fairly, so 00:19:21.460 --> 00:19:23.519 they're trying to rewrite the rules to get their 00:19:23.519 --> 00:19:25.700 way no matter what a majority of folks in their 00:19:25.700 --> 00:19:28.130 state wants. And there's pushback from voters 00:19:28.130 --> 00:19:31.450 too. In Missouri, a citizens group is reportedly 00:19:31.450 --> 00:19:35.130 trying for a 2026 ballot measure to ban lawmakers 00:19:35.130 --> 00:19:37.710 from overturning initiatives. The sources note 00:19:37.710 --> 00:19:39.369 these battles are happening where initiatives 00:19:39.369 --> 00:19:42.630 are allowed mostly Midwest and West, many Republican 00:19:42.630 --> 00:19:44.529 controlled states. It's a map of the conflict. 00:19:44.779 --> 00:19:47.700 This fight, laid out in the sources, really raises 00:19:47.700 --> 00:19:49.700 a fundamental question about state governance, 00:19:49.759 --> 00:19:52.599 doesn't it? When elected reps actively try to 00:19:52.599 --> 00:19:54.799 override direct voter will, what does that mean 00:19:54.799 --> 00:19:57.480 for democracy, for accountability? It's a clear 00:19:57.480 --> 00:20:01.000 conflict. Let's shift focus entirely now, a different 00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:03.900 kind of challenge detailed in your sources. Serious 00:20:03.900 --> 00:20:06.079 allegations about a government report, the MHA 00:20:06.079 --> 00:20:08.920 report, potentially using AI and fake sources. 00:20:09.240 --> 00:20:11.299 Yeah, this one's pretty wild. It's conclusions. 00:20:11.559 --> 00:20:14.619 described in the sources are controversial. Childhood 00:20:14.619 --> 00:20:18.000 health negatively impacted by ultra -processed 00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:21.259 foods, toxins, tech meds, and vaccines. And the 00:20:21.259 --> 00:20:24.200 source makes a pointed comment. Gee, exactly 00:20:24.200 --> 00:20:27.119 the things HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy opposes. 00:20:27.839 --> 00:20:30.420 Kennedy writes, scientists wrong, how convenient. 00:20:30.740 --> 00:20:33.119 How did the issues surface? According to the 00:20:33.119 --> 00:20:35.700 sources, two young women interns at notice looked 00:20:35.700 --> 00:20:39.440 closely at the report. And they found what? Alarming 00:20:39.440 --> 00:20:43.329 things. Some cited papers don't exist. Fake citations. 00:20:43.769 --> 00:20:46.190 And some listed authors insist they never wrote 00:20:46.190 --> 00:20:48.470 papers with the titles given in the report. Wow, 00:20:48.630 --> 00:20:50.289 so the Washington Post investigated further. 00:20:50.509 --> 00:20:53.049 Yeah, four reporters dug in. Found substantial 00:20:53.049 --> 00:20:54.829 evidence, the sources say, that at least part 00:20:54.829 --> 00:20:57.650 was written by an AI bot, not actual researchers. 00:20:57.809 --> 00:21:00.130 Why would an AI bot do that? The source speculates 00:21:00.130 --> 00:21:02.309 they're trained by scouring the internet, maybe 00:21:02.309 --> 00:21:04.269 incorporate... Well, the source says bash crazy 00:21:04.269 --> 00:21:06.890 theories. They give a specific example. The report 00:21:06.890 --> 00:21:09.269 citing an R .L. Findling for a paper called, 00:21:09.630 --> 00:21:11.990 Direct to Consumer Advertising of Psychotropic 00:21:11.990 --> 00:21:15.119 Medications for Youth, A Growing Concern. Fingling 00:21:15.119 --> 00:21:17.559 is a psychiatry professor, but reportedly told 00:21:17.559 --> 00:21:19.819 The Post he never wrote that article. And Dr. 00:21:19.940 --> 00:21:22.799 Ivan Oransky, cited in the sources, says these 00:21:22.799 --> 00:21:26.339 errors are typical of work done by AI, like errors 00:21:26.339 --> 00:21:29.339 seen in AI -written legal briefs. So the administration's 00:21:29.339 --> 00:21:31.880 reaction, reportedly scrambling to replace fake 00:21:31.880 --> 00:21:34.140 citations with real ones now that this is public. 00:21:34.319 --> 00:21:36.700 But the sources say the damage has been done. 00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:39.660 The conclusions can't be taken seriously if based 00:21:39.660 --> 00:21:42.359 on nonexistent papers. They are careful to distinguish. 00:21:42.670 --> 00:21:44.930 Some parts might be true, maybe about processed 00:21:44.930 --> 00:21:47.789 food. But the conclusion that vaccines are harmful 00:21:47.789 --> 00:21:50.430 described as Kennedy's hobby horse is reportedly 00:21:50.430 --> 00:21:53.890 based entirely on fake sources. This story from 00:21:53.890 --> 00:21:56.009 the sources, it's a really troubling look at 00:21:56.009 --> 00:21:58.970 tech and information integrity, possibly at high 00:21:58.970 --> 00:22:01.529 government levels. Raises huge questions about 00:22:01.529 --> 00:22:04.750 vetting, right? And the risks of using AI when 00:22:04.750 --> 00:22:07.309 accuracy is critical, especially on sensitive 00:22:07.309 --> 00:22:10.789 topics like vaccines. OK, moving to another distinct 00:22:10.789 --> 00:22:13.809 topic from the sources. An internal political 00:22:13.809 --> 00:22:16.329 race for ranking member of the House Oversight 00:22:16.329 --> 00:22:18.769 Committee. Right. The sources describe this committee 00:22:18.769 --> 00:22:21.549 as powerful, broad investigation and subpoena 00:22:21.549 --> 00:22:24.660 power. Current chair is James Comer, noted for 00:22:24.660 --> 00:22:26.740 interest in Hunter Biden previously, less so 00:22:26.740 --> 00:22:29.660 now. And the ranking member spot. Currently pretty 00:22:29.660 --> 00:22:33.019 useless. Sources say no real power. But whoever 00:22:33.019 --> 00:22:35.359 gets it is in a strong position to become chair 00:22:35.359 --> 00:22:38.240 if Democrats win the House in 2026. That's the 00:22:38.240 --> 00:22:40.039 key. And the race is happening because of the 00:22:40.039 --> 00:22:42.059 vacancy left by the late Jerry Connolly, who 00:22:42.059 --> 00:22:45.039 died May 21st. Three Democrats currently vying, 00:22:45.180 --> 00:22:47.819 per the sources, reps Robert Garcia from California, 00:22:48.240 --> 00:22:50.400 Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts, and Quasim 00:22:50.400 --> 00:22:52.599 Fuem from Maryland. And the sources point out 00:22:52.599 --> 00:22:56.119 their ages, 47, 70, and 76, which they say will 00:22:56.119 --> 00:22:57.819 certainly result in a battle about whether it 00:22:57.819 --> 00:23:00.099 is time for a new generation of leadership. Could 00:23:00.099 --> 00:23:02.900 be more candidates, too. Jasmine Crockett from 00:23:02.900 --> 00:23:05.140 Texas is mentioned, but her chances are seen 00:23:05.140 --> 00:23:07.559 as low because the Black Caucus is reportedly 00:23:07.559 --> 00:23:10.440 backing him, Fuem, due to seniority. and the 00:23:10.440 --> 00:23:13.079 process. Democratic Steering and Policy Committee 00:23:13.079 --> 00:23:16.079 recommends then the full caucus votes on June 00:23:16.079 --> 00:23:19.009 24th. This glimpse into the oversight race from 00:23:19.009 --> 00:23:21.089 the sources, it just shows that strategic thinking, 00:23:21.289 --> 00:23:23.809 doesn't it? Positioning for future power, even 00:23:23.809 --> 00:23:26.769 in roles that seem minor now. Internal dynamics, 00:23:27.130 --> 00:23:29.410 generational shifts playing out behind the scenes. 00:23:30.210 --> 00:23:32.450 All right, let's go back one last time to Trump's 00:23:32.450 --> 00:23:35.009 big, beautiful bill, but focus now on the Senate 00:23:35.009 --> 00:23:37.809 process as detailed in your sources. The House 00:23:37.809 --> 00:23:40.490 passed bill is heading for a, quote, showdown 00:23:40.490 --> 00:23:42.900 with the Senate parliamentarian. And the key 00:23:42.900 --> 00:23:45.960 challenge Democrats plan to raise, making Trump's 00:23:45.960 --> 00:23:49.500 expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent. OK, so introduce 00:23:49.500 --> 00:23:51.619 the players. Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth 00:23:51.619 --> 00:23:54.259 McDonough and the Byrd rule. Democrats will argue 00:23:54.259 --> 00:23:56.720 making the tax cuts permanent adds to deficits 00:23:56.720 --> 00:23:59.319 beyond the 10 year window, violating the Byrd 00:23:59.319 --> 00:24:02.039 rule. And if the parliamentarian agrees with 00:24:02.039 --> 00:24:04.819 the Democrats, their plan to make the cuts permanent 00:24:04.819 --> 00:24:07.500 gets blown up, the sources say. They need to 00:24:07.500 --> 00:24:09.920 add sunset language for it to pass with just 00:24:09.920 --> 00:24:12.079 a simple majority. But here's where the sources 00:24:12.079 --> 00:24:14.380 highlight the bigger picture, the warning from 00:24:14.380 --> 00:24:17.339 Democrats. If Senate Republicans try to somehow 00:24:17.339 --> 00:24:20.480 ignore or override the parliamentarian. Which 00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:22.759 the sources suggest they arguably did before 00:24:22.759 --> 00:24:25.960 on California's EV mandate. Right. If they do 00:24:25.960 --> 00:24:28.940 that, Democrats warn it would seriously undermine 00:24:28.940 --> 00:24:31.859 the filibuster. It would open the door for Democrats 00:24:31.859 --> 00:24:34.319 to rewrite Senate rules if they get control back. 00:24:34.519 --> 00:24:37.700 And the sources have strong quotes on this. Senator 00:24:37.700 --> 00:24:40.319 Jeff Merkley, co -leading the challenge, explicitly 00:24:40.319 --> 00:24:43.039 links bypassing the parliamentarian to needing 00:24:43.039 --> 00:24:45.700 filibuster reform. He wants a talking filibuster. 00:24:46.019 --> 00:24:48.400 He says this is exactly, exactly what happened 00:24:48.400 --> 00:24:51.000 as he predicted would fuel reform efforts. Senator 00:24:51.000 --> 00:24:52.980 Elizabeth Warren, who wants to end the filibuster, 00:24:53.079 --> 00:24:56.019 is quoted to saying Republicans can no longer 00:24:56.019 --> 00:24:57.660 say that they're opposed to getting rid of the 00:24:57.660 --> 00:24:59.920 filibuster because they just got rid of the filibuster 00:24:59.920 --> 00:25:02.380 when it suited them. Calls for rules applying 00:25:02.380 --> 00:25:06.000 across the board states clearly. Yes, it is time 00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:08.740 for filibuster reform. The sources also get into 00:25:08.740 --> 00:25:11.200 the technical weeds of the Democratic strategy, 00:25:11.720 --> 00:25:14.400 challenging the GOP plan to score the tax cut 00:25:14.400 --> 00:25:18.319 extension using a current policy. baseline versus 00:25:18.319 --> 00:25:20.720 current law. Explain that difference again. Okay. 00:25:21.119 --> 00:25:24.920 Under current law, the 2017 cuts expire and have 00:25:24.920 --> 00:25:27.779 come 25. So extending them under current law 00:25:27.779 --> 00:25:30.299 shows a big deficit increase after 10 years, 00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:33.619 meaning huge offsets. Scoring as current policy 00:25:33.619 --> 00:25:35.839 pretends they aren't expiring for budget math, 00:25:36.079 --> 00:25:38.539 avoiding that problem. Got it. Democrats argued 00:25:38.539 --> 00:25:40.500 to the parliamentarian back in April that current 00:25:40.500 --> 00:25:42.759 policy scoring violates Senate precedent and 00:25:42.759 --> 00:25:45.759 the 1985 Balanced Budget Act. And they were reportedly 00:25:45.759 --> 00:25:48.480 optimistic afterwards. felt their arguments were 00:25:48.480 --> 00:25:50.740 well received, hoped for a favorable ruling. 00:25:51.220 --> 00:25:54.380 But then, the sources say, Republicans were scheduled 00:25:54.380 --> 00:25:57.339 to argue their side and withdrew at the last 00:25:57.339 --> 00:26:00.599 minute, postponing the ruling indefinitely. Their 00:26:00.599 --> 00:26:03.079 reported reason, convincing themselves they could 00:26:03.079 --> 00:26:05.220 just empower the budget chair to set a current 00:26:05.220 --> 00:26:07.799 policy baseline anyway. So the sources say this 00:26:07.799 --> 00:26:10.480 just sets up a procedural showdown this summer, 00:26:10.960 --> 00:26:12.819 still could wipe out the permanent tax cut plan. 00:26:13.059 --> 00:26:15.420 And that filibuster consequence looms large. 00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:19.039 Thune could try to circumvent again via a vote 00:26:19.039 --> 00:26:22.180 on baseline authority, but Democrats warn. That's 00:26:22.180 --> 00:26:24.319 another blow to the filibuster hastening its 00:26:24.319 --> 00:26:27.240 end. Senator John Hickenlooper is quoted acknowledging 00:26:27.240 --> 00:26:29.299 there are a bunch of Democrats who would probably 00:26:29.299 --> 00:26:31.880 vote to get rid of the filibuster. and that the 00:26:31.880 --> 00:26:34.519 temptation will be there if they regain power. 00:26:34.799 --> 00:26:36.920 This whole Senate section in the sources, it 00:26:36.920 --> 00:26:39.279 just reveals that complex procedural battlefield 00:26:39.279 --> 00:26:42.259 where technical rules like BIRD, budget baselines, 00:26:42.420 --> 00:26:44.819 they have huge policy impacts like on taxes. 00:26:44.859 --> 00:26:47.140 And now they're directly tied to the future of 00:26:47.140 --> 00:26:50.559 the Senate itself, the filibuster. Current fights 00:26:50.559 --> 00:26:52.619 shaping future battles over how the place even 00:26:52.619 --> 00:26:55.279 works. Well, we have certainly covered a lot 00:26:55.279 --> 00:26:57.440 of ground in this deep dive digging into the 00:26:57.440 --> 00:27:00.740 sources you shared from Musk's government role. 00:27:00.920 --> 00:27:03.740 Debates over judges, that big Supreme Court ruling, 00:27:03.980 --> 00:27:06.140 voter frustration, party strategy fights, state 00:27:06.140 --> 00:27:08.460 -level battles, information integrity questions, 00:27:08.900 --> 00:27:11.259 complex Senate procedure. It really paints a 00:27:11.259 --> 00:27:13.680 rich, complex picture of right now. Yeah, walking 00:27:13.680 --> 00:27:15.200 through these sources really helps you see the 00:27:15.200 --> 00:27:17.359 connections, doesn't it? Between different branches, 00:27:18.079 --> 00:27:20.279 different levels of government, the gap between 00:27:20.279 --> 00:27:23.599 stated goals and actual outcomes, and these ongoing 00:27:23.599 --> 00:27:26.200 fights over power, over how decisions get made. 00:27:26.410 --> 00:27:28.710 And our goal, as always, was to give you that 00:27:28.710 --> 00:27:31.289 quick path, help you get informed fast on all 00:27:31.289 --> 00:27:33.490 these important issues by going straight to the 00:27:33.490 --> 00:27:36.349 details in the material you gave us. And as these 00:27:36.349 --> 00:27:38.670 sources show us all these ongoing battles over 00:27:38.670 --> 00:27:41.849 executive authority, judicial philosophy, legislative 00:27:41.849 --> 00:27:44.890 rules, even the direct will of voters versus 00:27:44.890 --> 00:27:47.289 their reps, it does make you wonder, doesn't 00:27:47.289 --> 00:27:49.450 it? What has all this taken together? Tell us 00:27:49.450 --> 00:27:52.309 about the maybe the health in the future direction 00:27:52.309 --> 00:27:55.109 of democratic governance itself. Definitely something 00:27:55.109 --> 00:27:56.029 worth mulling over.