WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.680 With the constant stream of news, reports, analysis, 00:00:04.900 --> 00:00:06.980 it really feels like a full -time job just trying 00:00:06.980 --> 00:00:09.240 to keep up. It's overwhelming, isn't it? Yeah, 00:00:09.339 --> 00:00:10.800 let alone trying to figure out what actually 00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:13.160 matters, the sheer volume. Well, that's exactly 00:00:13.160 --> 00:00:15.380 why we're doing this, this deep dive. It's really 00:00:15.380 --> 00:00:18.519 crafted for you, the listener. Right. Our mission 00:00:18.519 --> 00:00:21.940 is to cut through all that noise, pull out the 00:00:21.940 --> 00:00:25.809 most important nuggets of knowledge. The surprising 00:00:25.809 --> 00:00:28.949 facts, maybe, from recent political and economic 00:00:28.949 --> 00:00:31.449 reports. Think of it like your shortcut. Exactly. 00:00:31.589 --> 00:00:34.049 Your shortcut to being genuinely well -informed. 00:00:34.329 --> 00:00:36.369 Absolutely. And we've gathered quite a stack 00:00:36.369 --> 00:00:39.289 of sources for today. The latest election news, 00:00:39.509 --> 00:00:41.869 some political analysis, and also a detailed 00:00:41.869 --> 00:00:44.329 breakdown of the Reagan inflation report. We've 00:00:44.329 --> 00:00:45.890 tried to distill it all down. Yeah, the goal 00:00:45.890 --> 00:00:49.520 is clarity. and engaging delivery and, you know, 00:00:49.759 --> 00:00:51.840 respecting your time, balancing summaries with 00:00:51.840 --> 00:00:53.799 those details that actually stick with you. So 00:00:53.799 --> 00:00:55.460 with that laid out, where are we kicking off 00:00:55.460 --> 00:00:58.000 this deep dive today? Let's start in Arizona, 00:00:58.399 --> 00:01:01.719 specifically with the special election primary 00:01:01.719 --> 00:01:04.280 in Arizona's seventh congressional district, 00:01:04.640 --> 00:01:07.299 AZ -07. OK, this just happened yesterday, actually. 00:01:07.680 --> 00:01:10.400 It was held to replace the late representative, 00:01:10.739 --> 00:01:14.329 Raul Grialva, a Democrat. Hmm. OK. That sounds 00:01:14.329 --> 00:01:16.209 pretty local on the surface. Is there a broader 00:01:16.209 --> 00:01:18.349 significance we should be looking at? Well, yeah, 00:01:18.450 --> 00:01:20.549 it might seem local, but this primary gives us 00:01:20.549 --> 00:01:23.530 a really fascinating window into political dynamics 00:01:23.530 --> 00:01:27.650 and specific patterns you often see play out 00:01:27.650 --> 00:01:30.030 in these kinds of special elections. It's a bit 00:01:30.030 --> 00:01:32.269 of a classic example, you could say, of how certain 00:01:32.269 --> 00:01:34.989 factors shape the outcome. Gotcha. And the Democratic 00:01:34.989 --> 00:01:37.219 results. They were pretty decisive, weren't they? 00:01:37.480 --> 00:01:40.060 Adelita Grijalva, I saw, with most reporting 00:01:40.060 --> 00:01:45.219 in, got 31 ,389 votes. That's like 62 .3%. A 00:01:45.219 --> 00:01:47.599 huge chunk, yeah. Yeah. Then Deja Fox was next 00:01:47.599 --> 00:01:51.599 with about 10 ,200 votes, 20 .3%. And Daniel 00:01:51.599 --> 00:01:55.840 Hernandez had around 7 ,400, so 14 .7%. And I 00:01:55.840 --> 00:01:57.959 understand this is a D plus 13 district. That's 00:01:57.959 --> 00:02:00.620 right, D plus 13, which basically means it leans 00:02:00.620 --> 00:02:02.840 heavily Democratic. So the Democratic primary. 00:02:02.900 --> 00:02:04.590 Yeah. That's really the main event there. It 00:02:04.590 --> 00:02:06.409 usually decides who ultimately gets the seat. 00:02:06.829 --> 00:02:09.849 And a deleted Grijalva, she's 54, Roel Grijalva's 00:02:09.849 --> 00:02:12.229 daughter, pretty progressive. Her campaign was 00:02:12.229 --> 00:02:14.789 largely focused on being anti -Trump. Then you 00:02:14.789 --> 00:02:18.009 had Deja Fox, who's only 25, also very progressive, 00:02:18.330 --> 00:02:20.509 but her campaign theme was more anti -establishment. 00:02:20.650 --> 00:02:22.289 Including the Democratic establishment. Yeah, 00:02:22.569 --> 00:02:23.990 including the Democratic establishment itself. 00:02:24.110 --> 00:02:27.400 So what seems to have happened is... a split 00:02:27.400 --> 00:02:29.300 in that progressive, maybe call it the Bernie 00:02:29.300 --> 00:02:31.840 vote, between Adelita Grishalva, who's progressive 00:02:31.840 --> 00:02:34.680 in Latina, and Fox. Right. And that split kind 00:02:34.680 --> 00:02:37.259 of allowed Grishalva to consolidate support from 00:02:37.259 --> 00:02:40.199 moderate centrists, maybe name recognition too, 00:02:40.539 --> 00:02:42.580 leading to that, you know, 40 plus point win. 00:02:42.659 --> 00:02:44.759 That is a significant victory. What about the 00:02:44.759 --> 00:02:46.689 Republican primary, though? Over on the Republican 00:02:46.689 --> 00:02:50.770 side, Daniel Buteras won. He got 8 ,734 votes, 00:02:51.050 --> 00:02:54.710 about 59 .3%. Jorge Rivas was second with roughly 00:02:54.710 --> 00:02:58.389 3 ,800, 25 .9%. And Jimmy Rodriguez got just 00:02:58.389 --> 00:03:01.770 under 2 ,200, so 14 .8%. And Butyar is his platform. 00:03:01.830 --> 00:03:03.710 What was he focused on? It was pretty distinct, 00:03:03.830 --> 00:03:06.509 really centered on two main things. First, combating 00:03:06.509 --> 00:03:08.870 fentanyl, which is a huge issue, obviously very 00:03:08.870 --> 00:03:12.740 pervasive. And second, railing against government 00:03:12.740 --> 00:03:16.020 overreach. He particularly focused on the federal 00:03:16.020 --> 00:03:19.340 court system, arguing it can kind of unjustly 00:03:19.340 --> 00:03:22.180 trap people without much hope. Interesting focus. 00:03:22.719 --> 00:03:25.419 So if you boil it down, what's the key takeaway, 00:03:25.979 --> 00:03:28.259 the strategic pattern this primary shows us? 00:03:28.509 --> 00:03:30.930 I think the core insight, and you see this again 00:03:30.930 --> 00:03:32.689 and again in special elections like this one, 00:03:33.030 --> 00:03:35.689 is that they really strongly favor relatives 00:03:35.689 --> 00:03:38.229 of the candidate being replaced. Like a spouse 00:03:38.229 --> 00:03:40.930 or a kid. Exactly. Spouse, kid, sibling. Because 00:03:40.930 --> 00:03:42.810 the timelines are so tight and the electorate 00:03:42.810 --> 00:03:45.449 tends to be, well, pretty politically engaged, 00:03:45.469 --> 00:03:47.990 some might say wonky voters, often gravitate 00:03:47.990 --> 00:03:49.650 towards that familiar name. That makes sense. 00:03:49.750 --> 00:03:51.710 We've seen it before. Think about Representative 00:03:51.710 --> 00:03:54.479 Debbie Dingell in Michigan. Democrat she stepped 00:03:54.479 --> 00:03:56.659 right into the seat her husband John Dingell 00:03:56.659 --> 00:03:59.219 held for so long It's a powerful legacy effect 00:03:59.219 --> 00:04:01.199 gives a huge advantage that pattern definitely 00:04:01.199 --> 00:04:02.860 tracks, especially with the compressed nature 00:04:02.860 --> 00:04:05.599 of these races Okay, okay. Let's pivot a bit 00:04:05.599 --> 00:04:08.120 another arena where power is being contested 00:04:08.120 --> 00:04:11.379 fiercely Texas and Donald Trump's involvement 00:04:11.379 --> 00:04:14.159 in their congressional map redrawing plans his 00:04:14.159 --> 00:04:17.120 approach seems to be If a little bit of a good 00:04:17.120 --> 00:04:19.519 thing is good, a lot of a good thing must be 00:04:19.519 --> 00:04:21.459 much better. Yeah, this is definitely a high 00:04:21.459 --> 00:04:24.360 stakes move, not just for the 2026 House elections. 00:04:24.680 --> 00:04:26.680 But you also have to think about potential investigations 00:04:26.680 --> 00:04:29.339 down the line if Democrats manage to retake the 00:04:29.339 --> 00:04:32.199 House. It's aggressive. And Trump's goal is. 00:04:33.870 --> 00:04:35.769 Ambitious isn't quite the word. He's pushing 00:04:35.769 --> 00:04:38.209 for five additional Republican seats. That's 00:04:38.209 --> 00:04:40.589 the target, yeah. Taking the current Texas delegation, 00:04:40.689 --> 00:04:43.569 25 Republicans, 13 Democrats, and trying to turn 00:04:43.569 --> 00:04:46.449 it into a really dominant 30 Republicans, eight 00:04:46.449 --> 00:04:49.170 Democrats. Wow. And just for context, Texas voters 00:04:49.170 --> 00:04:52.009 are roughly what, 55 % Republican, 45 % Democrat? 00:04:52.209 --> 00:04:54.250 Something like that, yes. So aiming for 30 out 00:04:54.250 --> 00:04:57.399 of 38 seats is... Well, it's a stretch based 00:04:57.399 --> 00:04:59.660 on the overall vote share. So where do they start? 00:04:59.839 --> 00:05:02.579 What are the obvious targets for this kind of 00:05:02.579 --> 00:05:05.040 gerrymandering? Well, the most obvious initial 00:05:05.040 --> 00:05:07.959 targets are districts like Henry Queller's TX28. 00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:10.740 That one leans R plus 2. And Vicente Gonzalez's 00:05:10.740 --> 00:05:14.060 TX34, which is basically an even district. Right. 00:05:14.220 --> 00:05:16.680 They both had pretty narrow wins last time. Exactly. 00:05:16.879 --> 00:05:20.180 Kimmel won by just over 13 ,000 votes. Gonzalez 00:05:20.180 --> 00:05:23.040 by just over 5 ,000. So those are definitely 00:05:23.040 --> 00:05:24.860 seen as the most vulnerable seats. Okay, but 00:05:24.860 --> 00:05:27.199 how are they trying to justify... pushing for 00:05:27.199 --> 00:05:29.259 more than just those two. What's the legal angle 00:05:29.259 --> 00:05:31.800 here? This is where it gets interesting. According 00:05:31.800 --> 00:05:33.980 to the analysis we looked at, the argument relies 00:05:33.980 --> 00:05:35.879 on treating the Department of Justice almost 00:05:35.879 --> 00:05:39.120 like Trump's personal law firm. With figures 00:05:39.120 --> 00:05:41.959 like Pam Bondi, who the sources may be a bit 00:05:41.959 --> 00:05:44.540 wryly, call attorney general in this context 00:05:44.540 --> 00:05:47.519 playing a key role. They apparently sent a letter 00:05:47.519 --> 00:05:50.319 advising that four specific Democratic districts 00:05:50.319 --> 00:05:54.100 are supposedly illegal racial gerrymanders and 00:05:54.100 --> 00:05:56.709 have to be redrawn. Which districts are? Let's 00:05:56.709 --> 00:06:01.290 see, TX09, which is D plus 24, TX18, D plus 21, 00:06:01.529 --> 00:06:06.509 TX29, D plus 12, and TX33, D plus 19, all heavily 00:06:06.509 --> 00:06:08.550 Democratic, heavily minority districts. Wait 00:06:08.550 --> 00:06:11.279 a minute, is that? Is that a serious legal argument? 00:06:11.360 --> 00:06:13.860 Didn't Texas just argue their maps were colorblind 00:06:13.860 --> 00:06:16.120 when they were challenged before? That's precisely 00:06:16.120 --> 00:06:18.399 the point the sources make. It's seen as absolutely 00:06:18.399 --> 00:06:20.939 not a serious legal argument. The weakness is 00:06:20.939 --> 00:06:23.720 glaring. Texas just argued when defending their 00:06:23.720 --> 00:06:25.720 current maps against claims they hurt minority 00:06:25.720 --> 00:06:29.040 voters that the process was entirely colorblind. 00:06:29.120 --> 00:06:31.740 You can't really credibly argue race wasn't considered 00:06:31.740 --> 00:06:34.100 and then immediately claim Republican officials 00:06:34.100 --> 00:06:36.300 knowingly drew maps discriminating against white 00:06:36.300 --> 00:06:38.560 people, which is sort of the implication needed 00:06:38.560 --> 00:06:41.019 to attack. the Dem districts. It's a direct contradiction. 00:06:41.980 --> 00:06:45.459 So if the legal argument is that shaky, what's 00:06:45.459 --> 00:06:47.480 the actual strategy? What are they trying to 00:06:47.480 --> 00:06:50.300 achieve? The core strategy seems pretty transparent, 00:06:50.319 --> 00:06:52.980 actually. It's likely about redrawing the maps 00:06:52.980 --> 00:06:55.180 in a way they know probably won't hold up in 00:06:55.180 --> 00:06:57.699 court long term. OK. But by using the Voting 00:06:57.699 --> 00:07:00.779 Rights Act as a kind of excuse, the goal is to 00:07:00.779 --> 00:07:02.959 knock out Democrats representing these heavily 00:07:02.959 --> 00:07:05.540 minority districts specifically for the 2026 00:07:05.540 --> 00:07:08.560 cycle. They're basically betting the legal challenges 00:07:08.560 --> 00:07:10.879 will just take too long to resolve before that 00:07:10.879 --> 00:07:14.420 election happens. But that sounds incredibly 00:07:14.420 --> 00:07:18.050 risky for the Texas GOP itself. What are the 00:07:18.050 --> 00:07:21.329 potential downsides? Oh, huge risks. Several 00:07:21.329 --> 00:07:23.750 big ones. First, the courts could fast track 00:07:23.750 --> 00:07:27.009 lawsuits. If Texas loses quickly, you get massive 00:07:27.009 --> 00:07:28.870 headlines about suppressing minority voters, 00:07:29.069 --> 00:07:33.069 especially Latinos. That's a PR nightmare. Second, 00:07:33.389 --> 00:07:35.290 even if the state legislature goes along with 00:07:35.290 --> 00:07:37.870 it, they still have to draw new maps. And they're 00:07:37.870 --> 00:07:40.709 facing huge uncertainties. Like, how permanent 00:07:40.709 --> 00:07:44.009 is this supposed Latino swing towards the GOP? 00:07:44.129 --> 00:07:46.399 We don't really know. Good point. And how much 00:07:46.399 --> 00:07:48.819 has the population shifted since the last census? 00:07:49.220 --> 00:07:51.100 That data is almost five years old now. Plus, 00:07:51.139 --> 00:07:54.500 what kind of election will 2026 be? A blue wave? 00:07:54.779 --> 00:07:58.199 A red trickle? Nothing. They'd need to make incredibly 00:07:58.199 --> 00:08:00.560 precise guesses with almost no room for error. 00:08:00.740 --> 00:08:03.639 So if you had to distill that risk, what's the 00:08:03.639 --> 00:08:06.569 core vulnerability for Trump's team here? I think 00:08:06.569 --> 00:08:08.970 the insight is that the sheer audacity of the 00:08:08.970 --> 00:08:10.910 goal grabbing those five seats is exactly what 00:08:10.910 --> 00:08:13.129 makes it so fragile. They're banking on legal 00:08:13.129 --> 00:08:16.069 delays, but the chance of a PR disaster alienating 00:08:16.069 --> 00:08:19.069 parts of their own base, it risks becoming what's 00:08:19.069 --> 00:08:22.250 called a dummymander. Ah, the dummymander. That's 00:08:22.250 --> 00:08:23.949 when you gerrymander so aggressively you actually 00:08:23.949 --> 00:08:25.410 end up losing seats you might have otherwise 00:08:25.410 --> 00:08:27.949 kept, right? Exactly. Named for obvious reasons. 00:08:28.250 --> 00:08:31.009 So yeah, they risk losing seats instead of gaining 00:08:31.009 --> 00:08:34.509 them. So with all those risks hanging over them, 00:08:35.229 --> 00:08:38.210 What are the actual options for the Texas legislature 00:08:38.210 --> 00:08:40.470 now? What could happen? Well, they seem to have 00:08:40.470 --> 00:08:43.950 three basic paths. One, they could just refuse 00:08:43.950 --> 00:08:46.529 to take on this risk. Tell Trump, tell Governor 00:08:46.529 --> 00:08:49.409 Abbott, nope, not doing it. OK. Two, they could 00:08:49.409 --> 00:08:51.990 sort of play along, but secretly hope the courts 00:08:51.990 --> 00:08:54.289 step in quickly and fix it before the election, 00:08:54.710 --> 00:08:56.549 taking the heat off them. Plausible deniability. 00:08:56.769 --> 00:08:59.350 Kind of. Or three, they could fully play along, 00:08:59.529 --> 00:09:01.669 cross their fingers, hope the courts stay quiet, 00:09:01.870 --> 00:09:04.169 and just pray it all works out for them on Election 00:09:04.169 --> 00:09:08.070 Day November. third, 2026. Each path has pretty 00:09:08.070 --> 00:09:10.909 significant consequences. OK, from those strategic 00:09:10.909 --> 00:09:13.629 power plays in Texas, let's shift gears again. 00:09:13.870 --> 00:09:16.090 Another really high stakes political situation, 00:09:16.389 --> 00:09:19.230 one that just keeps making headlines and not 00:09:19.230 --> 00:09:21.590 just for the salacious details, but for legitimate 00:09:21.590 --> 00:09:24.710 reasons, too. The Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Right. 00:09:24.769 --> 00:09:27.230 It's causing real conflict within Magier world, 00:09:27.230 --> 00:09:30.210 and it definitely has potential midterm implications. 00:09:30.289 --> 00:09:33.129 It's fascinating how certain people can act as 00:09:33.710 --> 00:09:35.870 What do you call them? Bellwethers? Yeah, exactly. 00:09:36.049 --> 00:09:38.210 Bellwethers. People whose actions or statements 00:09:38.210 --> 00:09:40.730 kind of signal bigger shifts happening under 00:09:40.730 --> 00:09:42.950 the surface. Like how certain endorsements may 00:09:42.950 --> 00:09:45.230 be helped Biden after his early debate stumbles. 00:09:45.450 --> 00:09:48.429 Precisely. And in this Epstein situation, our 00:09:48.429 --> 00:09:52.019 sources point to similar Canaries in a coal mine, 00:09:52.259 --> 00:09:55.139 so to speak. Okay, who are these key bellwethers 00:09:55.139 --> 00:09:57.519 we should watch regarding Epstein? The analysis 00:09:57.519 --> 00:10:00.179 highlights three main figures. Speaker Mike Johnson, 00:10:00.600 --> 00:10:03.379 Republican from Louisiana. Senate Majority Leader 00:10:03.379 --> 00:10:06.940 John Thune, Republican from South Dakota. And 00:10:06.940 --> 00:10:09.259 Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South 00:10:09.259 --> 00:10:12.019 Carolina. Why them specifically? Well, Johnson 00:10:12.019 --> 00:10:13.919 and Thune are critical because they essentially 00:10:13.919 --> 00:10:17.080 set the congressional agenda. They decide what 00:10:17.080 --> 00:10:19.799 gets voted on, like say, subpoenaing the Epstein 00:10:19.799 --> 00:10:23.559 files. And all three, but especially Johnson 00:10:23.559 --> 00:10:25.820 and Graham, have generally been seen as pretty 00:10:25.820 --> 00:10:29.029 loyal to Trump. So. If one or more of them starts 00:10:29.029 --> 00:10:31.769 to publicly shift their stance on this, it's 00:10:31.769 --> 00:10:33.710 a strong sign that pressure from the base and 00:10:33.710 --> 00:10:36.370 maybe other Republicans is really mounting. And 00:10:36.370 --> 00:10:38.769 it sounds like we might already be seeing some 00:10:38.769 --> 00:10:41.789 maybe subtle cracks with Speaker Johnson. It 00:10:41.789 --> 00:10:44.070 seems that way. Johnson did an interview recently 00:10:44.070 --> 00:10:47.029 with a right wing podcaster and he talked about 00:10:47.029 --> 00:10:49.850 wanting transparency. He said something like 00:10:49.850 --> 00:10:51.610 we should put everything out there and let the 00:10:51.610 --> 00:10:54.570 people decide it. Now he also said he had confidence 00:10:54.570 --> 00:10:57.669 in Trump and Pam Bondi, but the part that really 00:10:57.669 --> 00:10:59.409 seemed to resonate, apparently even with Trump 00:10:59.409 --> 00:11:02.149 himself, was Johnson seeming to break from that 00:11:02.149 --> 00:11:04.750 nothing to see here line. And we saw that pressure 00:11:04.750 --> 00:11:06.789 reflected in the House itself recently, didn't 00:11:06.789 --> 00:11:09.169 we? There was that vote on Ro Khanna's amendment. 00:11:09.289 --> 00:11:12.480 Yes, the Democrat from California. His amendment 00:11:12.480 --> 00:11:15.460 to a crypto bill basically requiring the administration 00:11:15.460 --> 00:11:18.000 to release all the Epstein files. And it was 00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:21.120 incredibly close. What was it, 215 to 217 against? 00:11:21.379 --> 00:11:24.340 Yeah, super close. And adding even more pressure 00:11:24.340 --> 00:11:26.960 now, Representative Thomas Massey. The Republican 00:11:26.960 --> 00:11:29.539 from Kentucky, often critical of Trump. That's 00:11:29.539 --> 00:11:32.200 him. He's preparing his own resolution. It's 00:11:32.200 --> 00:11:34.200 what's called a discharge petition. How does 00:11:34.200 --> 00:11:36.379 that work? It's a procedural move. If he can 00:11:36.379 --> 00:11:40.220 get 218 members, just a simple majority, to sign 00:11:40.220 --> 00:11:43.240 on to his petition, it forces a floor vote on 00:11:43.240 --> 00:11:45.860 the resolution, completely bypassing Speaker 00:11:45.860 --> 00:11:48.240 Johnson. Doesn't matter what Johnson wants. So 00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:51.240 he'd need all 212 Democrats and just, what, six 00:11:51.240 --> 00:11:53.240 Republicans to sign on? Just five Republicans 00:11:53.240 --> 00:11:55.299 now, actually, given recent shifts. But yes, 00:11:55.299 --> 00:11:57.480 that's... the math, it could force a vote. Wow. 00:11:58.100 --> 00:12:00.559 This really highlights the Republican dilemma 00:12:00.559 --> 00:12:03.460 here, doesn't it? It's crystal clear. The exact 00:12:03.460 --> 00:12:06.120 same voters who are incredibly loyal to Trump 00:12:06.120 --> 00:12:09.580 are also often deeply invested in all the Epstein 00:12:09.580 --> 00:12:12.120 conspiracy theories. Right. So every single time 00:12:12.120 --> 00:12:14.139 a Republican votes against making these files 00:12:14.139 --> 00:12:16.659 public, they're just handing ammunition to their 00:12:16.659 --> 00:12:18.600 opponents for the next election. How so? Well, 00:12:18.820 --> 00:12:20.940 primary challengers will hammer them, accuse 00:12:20.940 --> 00:12:23.220 them of being part of some deep state conspiracy. 00:12:23.559 --> 00:12:26.059 And then in the general election, opponents will 00:12:26.059 --> 00:12:28.019 argue they're protecting Donald Trump at the 00:12:28.019 --> 00:12:30.240 expense of justice. That's a tough spot. It really 00:12:30.240 --> 00:12:32.679 is. It suggests, and this is what the source 00:12:32.679 --> 00:12:36.100 observes, that maybe the political harm from 00:12:36.100 --> 00:12:38.679 defying Trump on this might actually be less 00:12:38.679 --> 00:12:40.860 now than the harm from sticking with him. That's 00:12:40.860 --> 00:12:44.460 a significant shift in calculation. Huge. Steve 00:12:44.460 --> 00:12:47.100 Bannon himself apparently estimated that if this 00:12:47.100 --> 00:12:49.679 isn't handled right, maybe 10 % of Republican 00:12:49.679 --> 00:12:51.960 voters could just stay home next election day. 00:12:52.240 --> 00:12:55.240 And that, he figured, could cost the GOP 40 or 00:12:55.240 --> 00:12:58.600 more house seats. 40 seats? That's massive. So 00:12:58.600 --> 00:13:00.360 OK, let's play this out as a thought exercise. 00:13:00.500 --> 00:13:02.659 If the current strategy of just ignoring it isn't 00:13:02.659 --> 00:13:05.179 working, what options might Trump have to deal 00:13:05.179 --> 00:13:07.419 with this, according to the analysis? Well, the 00:13:07.419 --> 00:13:09.559 source lays out a few kind of creative writing 00:13:09.559 --> 00:13:12.159 scenarios, you could say. Option one, give the 00:13:12.159 --> 00:13:15.370 base what it wants, part one. Meaning? maybe 00:13:15.370 --> 00:13:18.090 create some documents, fake ones presumably, 00:13:18.509 --> 00:13:20.970 implicating figures the base loves to hate, like 00:13:20.970 --> 00:13:22.990 the Clintons or Anthony Weiner. But wouldn't 00:13:22.990 --> 00:13:25.990 that be incredibly risky? Defamation lawsuits. 00:13:26.309 --> 00:13:28.710 Exactly the problem. Trump knows this firsthand 00:13:28.710 --> 00:13:31.090 from the Eugene Carroll cases, right? Roberta 00:13:31.090 --> 00:13:33.450 Kaepernick won huge judgments against him. Five 00:13:33.450 --> 00:13:36.629 million dollars, then 83 million dollars. Yeah, 00:13:36.710 --> 00:13:41.159 so... To avoid suing living people, the source 00:13:41.159 --> 00:13:43.720 kind of darkly jokes, maybe implicate a deceased 00:13:43.720 --> 00:13:46.539 Republican, and they land on Rush Limbaugh as 00:13:46.539 --> 00:13:49.580 the most obvious choice. Rush Limbaugh. Why him? 00:13:50.080 --> 00:13:52.360 Well, he's dead, so he can't sue. He was a Trump 00:13:52.360 --> 00:13:55.360 ally. He had a somewhat controversial past himself. 00:13:55.500 --> 00:13:58.200 And maybe, the thinking goes, he could believably 00:13:58.200 --> 00:14:00.980 take a posthumous bullet for the team. That is 00:14:00.980 --> 00:14:03.139 definitely a political thriller kind of scenario. 00:14:03.419 --> 00:14:05.679 OK, let's give the base what it wants, part two. 00:14:05.769 --> 00:14:08.049 That involves delivering some kind of carefully 00:14:08.049 --> 00:14:10.789 worded, really vague, conspiratorial sounding 00:14:10.789 --> 00:14:12.929 explanation. Maybe on a friendly right -wing 00:14:12.929 --> 00:14:15.210 show like Tucker Carlson's. Okay. The idea would 00:14:15.210 --> 00:14:17.049 be to just imply the information is being held 00:14:17.049 --> 00:14:19.830 back for, you know, certain opportunities. Let 00:14:19.830 --> 00:14:21.929 the base keep believing the Democrats are evil, 00:14:22.090 --> 00:14:24.370 Trump's playing 4D chess, and they are in on 00:14:24.370 --> 00:14:26.870 some special secret knowledge. Keep the mystery 00:14:26.870 --> 00:14:30.950 alive. Right. What else? Option three. The classic. 00:14:31.450 --> 00:14:34.960 Buriamin paperwork. Ah, just... dump massive 00:14:34.960 --> 00:14:37.580 amounts of documents. Right, produce millions 00:14:37.580 --> 00:14:40.360 of pages, maybe pad it with unrelated stuff, 00:14:40.580 --> 00:14:42.460 totally mundane things, maybe even some fake 00:14:42.460 --> 00:14:44.860 stuff mixed in. It might satisfy that hunger 00:14:44.860 --> 00:14:47.440 for something and let the conspiracy theorists 00:14:47.440 --> 00:14:50.500 find hidden meaning wherever they look. Okay, 00:14:50.820 --> 00:14:53.740 another option, find a scapegoat. That seems 00:14:53.740 --> 00:14:56.659 like maybe Trump's initial instinct, yeah, sacrificing 00:14:56.659 --> 00:14:59.440 someone, perhaps like... Pam Bondy. But what's 00:14:59.440 --> 00:15:01.600 the problem there? The problem, as the source 00:15:01.600 --> 00:15:04.100 points out, is it's really hard to explain why 00:15:04.100 --> 00:15:06.279 the files still can't be released after you've 00:15:06.279 --> 00:15:07.879 supposedly gotten rid of the person blocking 00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:10.240 them. Right. Richard Nixon could probably tell 00:15:10.240 --> 00:15:12.279 you how well that tends to work out in the end. 00:15:12.340 --> 00:15:14.419 Doesn't usually solve the underlying problem. 00:15:14.600 --> 00:15:17.559 And the final option mentioned, appointing a 00:15:17.559 --> 00:15:20.320 special counsel. I think Lauren Boebert suggested 00:15:20.320 --> 00:15:23.370 Matt Cates. Yeah, that was floated. But the optics, 00:15:23.710 --> 00:15:26.289 I mean... Having an accused sex trafficker investigate 00:15:26.289 --> 00:15:28.549 an accused sex trafficker. It's not great. And 00:15:28.549 --> 00:15:30.830 it's unlikely to actually satisfy the base or 00:15:30.830 --> 00:15:33.809 change anyone's mind. We saw that when even hardcore 00:15:33.809 --> 00:15:36.970 Mejia fans turned on people like Cash Patel and 00:15:36.970 --> 00:15:39.990 Dan Bongino just for supporting a DOJ memo saying 00:15:39.990 --> 00:15:42.110 there wasn't some big conspiracy. It sounds very 00:15:42.110 --> 00:15:45.490 Nixonian again. Exactly. It feels like a playbook 00:15:45.490 --> 00:15:47.889 straight out of Nixon's later years where every 00:15:47.889 --> 00:15:49.509 attempt to control the narrative just seemed 00:15:49.509 --> 00:15:52.690 to backfire and dig the hole deeper. So, wrapping 00:15:52.690 --> 00:15:55.389 up this Epstein section, what's the bottom line 00:15:55.389 --> 00:15:57.289 for Trump here? It really looks like Trump and 00:15:57.289 --> 00:15:59.549 his administration have backed themselves into 00:15:59.549 --> 00:16:02.769 a very difficult, increasingly Nixonian corner. 00:16:05.840 --> 00:16:09.519 go away for Trump, this situation might be different. 00:16:09.580 --> 00:16:12.080 It might actually require some really risky, 00:16:12.139 --> 00:16:15.200 maybe even illegal actions to resolve, or perhaps 00:16:15.200 --> 00:16:17.279 more likely just kicking the can down the road 00:16:17.279 --> 00:16:20.139 again and hoping it somehow disappears. But the 00:16:20.139 --> 00:16:22.100 pressure seems to be building this time. OK, 00:16:22.500 --> 00:16:25.220 let's shift gears completely now. Away from the 00:16:25.220 --> 00:16:26.980 political maneuvering and scandals, let's talk 00:16:26.980 --> 00:16:29.480 about the latest economic news, specifically 00:16:29.480 --> 00:16:32.399 the June inflation breakdown. What does this 00:16:32.399 --> 00:16:35.139 mean for your household budget? Yeah, a really 00:16:35.139 --> 00:16:37.279 key insight here, maybe a surprising one, is 00:16:37.279 --> 00:16:39.360 that inflation actually accelerated last month. 00:16:39.419 --> 00:16:42.120 It picked up speed. Oh, really? Yeah. And we're 00:16:42.120 --> 00:16:44.159 starting to see some tangible signs that all 00:16:44.159 --> 00:16:46.539 the global trade turmoil, especially the impact 00:16:46.539 --> 00:16:48.740 of tariffs, is beginning to take a measurable 00:16:48.740 --> 00:16:51.080 toll on consumer prices. OK, so what are the 00:16:51.080 --> 00:16:54.419 numbers? The Consumer Price Index, the CPI. It 00:16:54.419 --> 00:16:57.840 rose 2 .7 % over the prior year in June. Now 00:16:57.840 --> 00:17:01.879 that's an uptick from May, which was 2 .4%. So 00:17:01.879 --> 00:17:04.259 yeah, it's moving in the wrong direction, accelerating 00:17:04.259 --> 00:17:06.359 slightly. And where are we seeing those price 00:17:06.359 --> 00:17:08.579 increases specifically? What categories moved? 00:17:08.859 --> 00:17:10.859 Well, looking inside the numbers, we saw prices 00:17:10.859 --> 00:17:13.400 for things like airfares and also new and used 00:17:13.400 --> 00:17:16.099 cars. Those actually slowed down a bit. OK. But 00:17:16.099 --> 00:17:19.890 other categories like coffee, meat. medical care, 00:17:20.069 --> 00:17:22.390 and especially shelter costs, rent, housing, 00:17:22.750 --> 00:17:25.049 those continue to march higher. And that's what 00:17:25.049 --> 00:17:27.309 pushed the overall index up. You mentioned tariffs. 00:17:27.950 --> 00:17:30.450 Are we seeing clear, definite signs of their 00:17:30.450 --> 00:17:33.930 impact yet? Or is it still speculative? The analysis 00:17:33.930 --> 00:17:36.170 calls it scattered signs, but they seem to be 00:17:36.170 --> 00:17:39.430 getting clearer. Bloomberg's senior editor, Chris 00:17:39.430 --> 00:17:42.269 Ancy, he specifically pointed out that household 00:17:42.269 --> 00:17:45.170 furnishings think furniture were up one percent 00:17:45.170 --> 00:17:48.289 just in the month of June. One percent in a month. 00:17:48.430 --> 00:17:50.660 Yeah. which he noted was the biggest monthly 00:17:50.660 --> 00:17:53.720 gain since January 2022, back when inflation 00:17:53.720 --> 00:17:56.299 was really surging, and he explicitly linked 00:17:56.299 --> 00:17:59.440 that to tariff effects starting to bite. Interesting. 00:18:00.099 --> 00:18:03.019 Any other categories? Yeah, other areas often 00:18:03.019 --> 00:18:05.480 impacted by tariffs, like recreation, apparel, 00:18:05.779 --> 00:18:08.460 appliances, those also ticked a bit higher in 00:18:08.460 --> 00:18:11.059 June, so the signs are there, even if scattered. 00:18:11.299 --> 00:18:13.460 Okay. Now what about food prices? That's always 00:18:13.460 --> 00:18:15.339 front and center for people's budgets. Food price 00:18:15.339 --> 00:18:17.480 hikes are definitely continuing, yeah. Overall, 00:18:17.559 --> 00:18:20.059 groceries were up 0 .3 % in June, which was the 00:18:20.059 --> 00:18:22.559 same as May's increase. Annually, groceries are 00:18:22.559 --> 00:18:25.460 up 2 .4%. And what about Uggs? They were the 00:18:25.460 --> 00:18:27.559 poster child for inflation for a while. Right, 00:18:27.660 --> 00:18:29.559 eggs. Well, their prices actually slowed down 00:18:29.559 --> 00:18:32.940 quite a bit from May, dropping 7 .4%. But they're 00:18:32.940 --> 00:18:35.859 still a steep 27 .4 % higher than they were a 00:18:35.859 --> 00:18:38.440 year ago. Wow. So still way up year over year. 00:18:38.720 --> 00:18:40.589 Do we have an average cost? Yeah, the average 00:18:40.589 --> 00:18:44.690 for a dozen large grade A eggs was $3 .78 in 00:18:44.690 --> 00:18:47.769 June. That's a down from 4 hours and 55s in May, 00:18:47.789 --> 00:18:50.349 which is good. But compared to a year ago, when 00:18:50.349 --> 00:18:54.069 the average was $2 .72, still much higher. OK, 00:18:54.269 --> 00:18:57.230 and meat prices? Still elevated, especially beef. 00:18:57.630 --> 00:18:59.769 Ground beef is nearly 10 % higher than a year 00:18:59.769 --> 00:19:02.630 ago. That averaged $6 .10 per pound in June. 00:19:03.029 --> 00:19:06.130 Steaks are up even more, 12 .4%. Ouch. Anything 00:19:06.130 --> 00:19:08.869 stable. Seafood and poultry prices, interestingly, 00:19:09.180 --> 00:19:11.440 held relatively stable in June compared to the 00:19:11.440 --> 00:19:13.259 month before. And eating out, that cost keeps 00:19:13.259 --> 00:19:15.779 climbing too, right? It does. Costs for eating 00:19:15.779 --> 00:19:18.400 out grew 0 .4 % just from May to June, and they 00:19:18.400 --> 00:19:21.119 were 3 .8 % higher than a year ago. So that trend 00:19:21.119 --> 00:19:23.559 continues upward as well. Woohoo. OK, we have 00:19:23.559 --> 00:19:25.559 covered a lot of ground today. Really bounced 00:19:25.559 --> 00:19:27.960 around. We really have. From the micro -level 00:19:27.960 --> 00:19:30.180 insights you get from a single special election 00:19:30.180 --> 00:19:33.400 to the huge strategic power plays of gerrymandering. 00:19:33.619 --> 00:19:35.839 Then diving deep into the Epstein scandal and 00:19:35.839 --> 00:19:37.990 its political fallout. And finally landing on 00:19:37.990 --> 00:19:41.109 these macro level economic trends, the inflation 00:19:41.109 --> 00:19:43.269 numbers that hit your wallet directly. And our 00:19:43.269 --> 00:19:45.710 aim, like always, is just to give you that deeper 00:19:45.710 --> 00:19:48.529 understanding, maybe spark a few aha moments, 00:19:49.009 --> 00:19:52.470 help you feel truly well informed without needing 00:19:52.470 --> 00:19:54.910 to sift through, you know, hundreds of articles 00:19:54.910 --> 00:19:56.730 yourself. Precisely. And maybe leave you with 00:19:56.730 --> 00:19:58.980 something to think about. As you consider all 00:19:58.980 --> 00:20:01.140 these complexities we talked about, the mechanics 00:20:01.140 --> 00:20:03.799 of gerrymandering, how districts get drawn to 00:20:03.799 --> 00:20:06.960 consolidate power. Or the public's really insistent 00:20:06.960 --> 00:20:09.279 demand for transparency when it comes to these 00:20:09.279 --> 00:20:11.859 major scandals. Or even just the nuances of how 00:20:11.859 --> 00:20:14.720 global economics shift prices at your local store. 00:20:14.720 --> 00:20:17.220 Yeah. It makes you wonder, what responsibility 00:20:17.220 --> 00:20:20.240 do we have? As informed citizens, how do we best 00:20:20.240 --> 00:20:22.619 discern the actual truth from what might just 00:20:22.619 --> 00:20:24.700 be calculated political strategy? It's a big 00:20:24.700 --> 00:20:27.400 question. It is. Definitely something worth mulling 00:20:27.400 --> 00:20:30.079 over in a world where information is everywhere, 00:20:30.539 --> 00:20:32.460 but also constantly contested.