Welcome to the Deep Dive. We take a whole stack
of recent political reporting, analyses, our
own research too, and we really try to pull out
the key insights for you. Yeah, make sense of
it all. Exactly. Our mission today, cut through
that noise, you know, make sense of all these
different, sometimes contradictory stories. We
want you to feel genuinely informed without getting
totally swamped. Basically a shortcut to clarity.
OK. Let's dive in. It's a good goal because look,
the political landscape right now, it can feel
like such a tangle. Right. But what's really
compelling, I think, is seeing how things that
seem separate, disparate events, they're often
not isolated at all. They're like interconnected
threads revealing bigger patterns. Exactly. Broader
patterns. We're going to look at how everything
from, you know, sensitive files to economic bills,
even power struggles between government branches.
It's all playing out at the same time. Absolutely.
And let's let's kick things up. with a really
prime example of how information, or maybe even
the lack of information, gets used strategically.
Weaponized, almost. Yeah, weaponized. We're talking
about wedge issues, right? Yeah. Those topics,
they're super divisive, designed to split your
opponent's supporters, so some discord. And right
now, the Epstein files, well, they've become
this huge media thing, especially this summer.
A very hot topic. Very. Ankush Khardouri, he's
a former federal prosecutor and now writes for
Politico Magazine. He lays out three, let's say,
plausible scenarios for why these files are hitting
such a nerve, especially with people close to
former President Trump. It's a sharp analysis,
really gets into the political thinking behind
it all. So, Cardori's first scenario, he calls
it the double exploit. This suggests Trump and
others, they maybe knew all along, there weren't
any scandalous files involving them, but they
just exploited the whole Epstein tragedy anyway.
For political gain? maybe financial gain too.
Feeding that red meat to the base, you know,
hinting at corruption that wasn't really there.
Portrayed as deeply cynical, if true. Definitely.
Okay, scenario two. Trump was a client? This
idea suggests, well, maybe a DOJ investigation
found some references linking Trump to Epstein.
And it ties into claims by Michael Wolff about
tape interviews with Epstein. Raising the possibility
that Trump... Maybe people like Mambani, too,
are desperately trying to cover something up.
A potential cover -up, yeah. That's the core
of that one. And then the third scenario, Cardori
offers. Yeah. He calls it, they drank the Kool
-Aid. This one suggests Trump and his allies,
they actually genuinely believed the rumors.
They thought this client list was real, wanted
to use it against Democrats. Ah, so they thought
they had something. Exactly. But now, Cardori
suggests, they're maybe dumbfounded because their
own digging found nothing. No list? Epstein didn't
blackmail anyone. And so now they're kind of
stuck, right, trying to explain to their base
why they were pushing this thing that turned
out to be, well, not there. Which is fascinating
in itself. And what's really interesting now
is how Democrats are just aggressively grabbing
this whole narrative, using it as a potential
wedge issue to try and divide Republicans. Their
theme is pretty straightforward. Powerful Republican
politicians are covering up the misdeeds of other
powerful Republican politicians. Simple, direct.
And for someone leaning towards conspiracy theories,
it's... It's an easy explanation to latch onto.
And they are leaning in hard. Remember, Ro Khanna,
Congressman from California, he introduced that
amendment in committee, forced publication of
Epstein files in 30 days. Right. I remember that.
Every single Democrat voted for it, almost all
Republicans against it. That really felt like
the starting gun for this whole, what are Republicans
hiding? Yeah, that vote was significant. And
since then, we've seen Senator Gallego in Arizona
suggesting Trump's Rosie O'Donnell comment was
just a distraction from the Epstein list. Hakeem
Jeffries, House Minority Leader, demanding the
truth, the whole truth. And Ted Lieu, also from
California, being super direct. Where is that
client list? What is Attorney General Bondi hiding?
This is the case of the powerful protecting the
powerful. That phrase, the powerful protecting
the powerful, that resonates. It really does.
And you're right. The implicit assumption baked
into everything the Democrats are saying is that
this list exists. Crucial assumption. Absolutely.
If they can convince even just a part of the
Republican base that it's real, well, as one
source said, they're halfway home. The DNC is
tweeting daily about an alleged coverup. The
House Majority Cac Ring, they've put out a list
of Republicans they claim are helping or tolerating
it. They're coordinating the message. Very much
so. Pat Dennis, he's president of American Bridge,
the Democratic Opposition Research Group. He
sees it as a foot in the door. A foot in the
door to what? To argue that Trump doesn't have
your back on other stuff, too, like health care,
veterans affairs, even if the dead sex offender
angle has more... salience, as he put it. More
immediate impact. Right. And look, it doesn't
help Trump that those photos of him and Epstein
keep circulating. Yeah, those are tough images.
The one with Trump's hand on Epstein's shoulder,
the one with Epstein, Trump, Melania, gasoline
Maxwell, they don't exactly scream strangers,
you know? No, they don't. The more those images
are out there, the harder it is for Trump to
distance himself. It really says something about
our current political moment that this issue
could become so dominant. It really does. And
the polling data, it pites an interesting if
slightly confusing picture. There's an internal
Democratic poll Politico got hold of. It shows
61 percent of Trump voters think he's hiding
Epstein info. Sixty one percent. That's high.
Very high. Now, a CNN poll put the number at
40 percent. So there's a discrepancy. Could be
timing. Could be how the question was asked.
But clearly the issue strikes a chord with the
significant number of Republicans. And the Democratic
goal here, it seems, is just to seed some doubt.
Plant that seed. Yeah, plant the seed. If he
lied to us on this, maybe he lied to us on other
things, too. And Trump's reaction kind of feeds
into this, doesn't it? His social media posts
calling it a Jeffrey Epstein hoax, attacking
weaklings, which seems to mean his own supporters
demanding the files. Yeah, attacking his base.
Strange move. It suggests he's worried, maybe
doesn't quite know how to put the fire out, as
one analysis put it. And, you know, speaking
of questions around transparency and all that,
there's this really interesting little news tidbit.
Marine Comey. James Comey's daughter. That's
the one. federal prosecutor at SDNY, Southern
District of New York, often called one of the
most powerful U .S. attorney's offices, right?
Right, very profile. She worked successfully
on both the Epstein and the Ghislaine Maxwell
cases, and she was just fired out of the blue
yesterday. Fired? Why? The stated reason was
just citing the broad powers of the president
under Article 2 of the Constitution. That's it.
Wow, just presidential power. Given her role
in those specific cases, that timing certainly
makes you look a bit closer. It raises questions
about the nature of that action, for sure. OK,
let's shift gears a bit. Let's transition to
another example of how public perception gets
shaped, but this time more on the legislative
level. OK. This is where you really see the strategic
game playing out around major policy. Look at
the the BBB bill, or technically BBL now. Hugely
unpopular, yeah. Democrats are already planning
to make it a central issue for 2026. So Republicans
have a job to do, right? They have to try and
sell the public on this thing. And who did they
send out to help sell it? None other than J .D.
Vance. Right. The Yale law grad, former Silicon
Valley VC. Yep. They send him to West Pittston,
Pennsylvania, Rust Belt town, actually only about
12 miles from Joe Biden's hometown Scranton.
Trying to shore up support there for the local
Republican congressman Rob Bresnahan. Exactly.
And Vance holds this micro rally, as it was described.
Small event. Pretty focused. How small? Only
about 250 people turned up for his speech, which
is just 15 minutes long. 15 minutes. That's quick.
Yeah. He focused on tax cuts, though, reportedly
didn't detail who benefits most. He get the point
about exempting overtime pay from taxes. And
he played up the nostalgia card, you know, coal
and gas industry, which used to be big there.
Trying to connect on that local level. So how
did it land? Well, reporters from a local paper
talked to some folks afterwards. It gives you
a glimpse into you know, the real world understanding
or maybe misunderstanding. Yeah, those anecdotes
are always revealing. There was Walter Volinsky,
74, retired, said he hadn't read the 900 page
law. Not surprising. But he trusted Donald Trump
to make the country great again. Then there was
Stephen Taylor, 52, truck driver. He liked the
tax breaks on tips and overtime, but he was worried,
worried about Medicaid cuts hurting his nephew
who's diabetic. Ah, the personal connection.
Exactly. And he said If that happens, he'd probably
blame Trump for hurting his family, not just,
you know, other people. That's such a stark example,
isn't it? How that direct personal impact can
just override the broad policy talking points.
Totally. And the counter -attack, the counter
-narrative, it's already going strong. Governor
Josh Shapiro, the Democrat in Pennsylvania, he's
aggressively targeting state Republicans who
voted for the bill like Breznan. Shapiro said
Bresnahan caved, voted for it, even after telling
constituents it was a red line for him not to
hurt Medicaid or rural hospitals. So putting
the pressure on, what's Bresnahan's response?
His counter is that the bill actually strengthens
Medicaid by cracking down on fraud. Right. The
standard waste, fraud, and abuse line. What this
really shows, I think, is how the very same piece
of legislation gets spun in completely different
ways. Depends who you're talking to. Totally.
Depends on the audience, the political goal.
It's less about what the bill actually says line
by line and more about this kind of choose your
own adventure interpretation that's designed
to hit home with specific voter groups. That
feels like a good segue into the the ongoing
tug of war between the branches of government,
starting with this really immediate deadline
on spending cuts. Yeah, that's happening right
now. Donald Trump ordered his team to claw back
$9 billion, unspent funds for foreign aid, and,
interestingly, public media and PR and PBS. $9
billion? By when? By midnight tomorrow. And it
needs House approval. Things got interesting
in the Senate during a procedural vote. How so?
Senators Susan Collins from Maine, Mitch McConnell
from Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, they
all voted no. OK. Three key Republicans. Which
forced JD Vance as president of the Senate to
come in and cast the tie -breaking vote just
to move forward. And even some senators who voted
yes on that procedural step, like Tom Tillis
from North Carolina, they were voicing skepticism,
asking for assurances. So not exactly enthusiastic
support, even from some who voted yes. Right.
So what happened on the final vote? Did Collins
and Murkowski stick to their guns? They did.
The final vote was 51 -48. Collins and Murkowski
voted against the actual bill. The Senate also
managed to add an amendment, removing $400 million
in cuts that were aimed at PEPFAR, the big HIV
AIDS program. Ah, protecting PEPFAR. That's significant.
So now the amended bill goes back to the House.
But the level of concern among many senators,
even some who voted for it, was really striking.
Like what specifically? Well, McConnell complained
the White House hadn't given any details on how
they'd implement the cuts, accused them of basically
wanting a blank check. OK, process concerns.
Murkowski made a really powerful case for public
media, talked about its role broadcasting emergency
alerts, used a recent earthquake and tsunami
warning in Alaska as a specific example. Wow.
Said point blank that public media save human
lives. Hard to argue with that. Yeah. And Tillis,
you know, he's retiring, so. maybe less worried
about political fallout. Right, more freedom
to speak his mind. He was pretty blunt, said
he suspected, quote, we're going to find out
there are some things that we're going to regret,
hinted about second and third order effects,
maybe future posture if Trump ends up double
crossing them. Foreshadowing potential conflict
down the line. And then Senator Roger Wicker
from Mississippi, he said he had reservation,
was troubled. by how much deference they were
giving the executive branch, warned about a disregard
for the constitutional responsibilities of the
legislative branch under Article 1, basically
saying Congress was just conceding that decision
voluntarily to the executive branch. A fundamental
separation of powers argument. Exactly. But you
still voted for it. They said there was a larger
imperative. A larger imperative that really begs
the question, doesn't it? Why would senators
vote for something they seem to have such deep,
fundamental constitutional reservations about?
What is that larger imperative that makes them
effectively hand over power? It's a huge question
about the balance of power right now. And shifting
gears slightly, but staying on this theme of
institutional stability. What does all this mean
for other key bodies? Like, let's look at the
Federal Reserve. There was this weird headline
yesterday, Trump might fire Fed chair Jerome
Powell or maybe not. Classic Trump uncertainty.
Look, very little of what he does seems based
on, you know, careful advance planning. People
talk about 4D chess, but honestly, it often looks
more like tic -tac -toe. Where he loses half
the time. Yeah, exactly. The reporting suggests
his motivation here would be to fire Powell,
put in someone who'd slash interest rates way
down. Why? to lower the interest payments on
all that new debt from the BBB bill. That seems
to be the thinking. Lower the debt service costs
on that $3 trillion. But the economic consensus
is pretty overwhelming. What's the consensus?
Super low rates like that, they'll spark major
inflation, which ironically could lead to Republicans
losing big time in 2026, maybe 40 or more seats
in the House and control of the Senate. So potentially
self -defeating in the medium term. But that
highlights the short term thinking, right? He
apparently doesn't think 17 months ahead. It's
also not clear he can just fire Powell easily.
Oh, so? The law says the president can only fire
the Fed chair for cause, not just because you
disagree on policy. Powell could actually take
it to court. Really? Would he? Maybe. Not for
the money, obviously, but sources suggest maybe
out of an obligation to prevent Trump from ruining
the economy by putting in some unqualified loyalists.
So you have this stark tension again. Political
desires crashing against institutional independence.
Exactly. It's a recurring theme. OK, let's broaden
that again. Loyalty, legacy, political futures.
Let's talk about the judiciary, specifically
Trump's approach to picking judges and how it
seems to be evolving. Yeah, there's definitely
a difference. People are pointing out. Remember
Trump V1 .0 back in his first term. He basically
rubber stamped Supreme Court picks from the Heritage
Foundation. Right. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
These were seen as, you know, heavyweight intellectuals,
very conservative. Yes, impressive resumes on
paper, but their primary loyalty was arguably
to the conservative legal movement. A known quantity
within that world. But Trump v 2 .0, the current
version. Yeah. It seems different. The reporting
suggests he doesn't just want... loyalty to the
conservative movement. He wants loyalty to him.
Personal loyalty. Above all else. Often seemingly
above qualifications or anything else. Think
about some of the names in the Justice Department
now. Former AG Pam Bonney, who was his lawyer
during the first impeachment. Deputy AG Todd
Blanche, who defended him in his criminal trial.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, his lead lawyer
in the immunity case before the Supreme Court.
A pattern of appointing his defense lawyers to
top legal positions. Exactly. And a really prime
example of this Trump v. 2 .0 judicial pick seems
to be Emile Boeuf III. Trump nominated him for
the U .S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
OK, tell us about Boeuf. He's 44, Georgetown
Law degree, did some clerkships, spent nine years
as an assistant U .S. attorney down at SDNY.
Prosecution experience. Yes, but apparently was
denied a promotion there. Some former colleagues
were quoted calling him, pretty harshly, a prosecutor
version of a drunken driver. Ouch. That's strong
criticism. Yeah. He then went into private practice,
helped defend Trump in several cases. Now he's
back in DOJ as Principal Associate Deputy AG.
But the defining characteristic people point
to is total loyalty to Trump above all else.
How is that evidenced? Well, reports identified
him as a key player. in that alleged scheme to
blackmail New York Mayor Eric Adams. Ah, okay.
So controversial actions link directly to Trump's
interests. Right. And connecting this to the
bigger picture, what worries some observers is
the idea that Trump might nominate Bug to the
Supreme Court if, say, Justice Thomas or Justice
Leto were to retire soon. To the Supreme Court,
based on what? The argument goes. He's young,
only 44, and that perceived total loyalty to
Trump might... in Trump's eyes, outweigh his
lack of legal gravitas. So loyalty Trump's qualifications
for the highest court. That's the concern. And
the thinking is, if he gets confirmed to the
Third Circuit now, maybe spends a year as an
appeals judge, if a Supreme Court seat opens
up in, say, June 2026, some worry that year might
be seen as Just enough judicial experience to
get him Senate confirmation. It really puts the
focus on the integrity of the judiciary, doesn't
it? And what the criteria should be for these
lifetime appointments. Absolutely. And his confirmation
hearing for that Third Circuit seat back on June
25th, it was apparently very contentious. How
so? Eight former federal prosecutors wrote urging
the Judiciary Committee to reject him, called
him the worst conceivable nominee. Wow, from
former colleagues. And 75 state and federal judges
signed a letter calling his record egregious
and disqualifying. You had opposition from groups
like the Society for the Rule of Law Institute.
On the other side, 20 Republican attorneys general
supported him. So a real battle. Has the committee
voted? Not yet. The Senate Judiciary Committee
still hasn't taken a vote on his nomination.
OK, one to watch. Definitely. Finally, let's
bring it back to how all these pressures, these
dynamics affect individual politicians and their
careers. Let's look closely at Senator Susan
Collins of Maine. Right. Caught in the middle
of a lot of this. Her dream job, reportedly,
was always to chair the Senate Appropriations
Committee. Well, she got the job. But now sources
say it feels more like a nightmare. Why a nightmare?
Because Donald Trump and the Senate Majority
Leader, John Thune, are apparently forcing her
into positions that really hurt people in Maine.
Like the clawback bill we just talked about.
That's a key example. She put out a statement
saying she votes according to what I assess to
be in the best interests of my constituents and
my country. Standard stuff. Sure. But sources
counter that she's often only really allowed
to vote against the party line if her vote isn't
absolutely essential to pass something Trump
wants. So only when her vote doesn't matter to
the outcome. That's the suggestion, which puts
her in a really tough spot politically back home.
Yeah, very vulnerable. She's up for re -election
next year, right? Next year. She'll be 72. She's
the only Republican senator running in a state
that Kamala Harris won. That's a tough map. And
her approval rating isn't great. Yeah. One recent
poll had 51 % of Maine voters disapproving of
her job performance. She's reportedly even said
things privately like, what's the point if I
have to vote against the interests of my constituents
all the time? You can see the frustration there.
After Tom Tillis announced his retirement, she
is by far the most vulnerable Republican senator
up in 26. And, you know, tens of millions of
dollars are going to pour into Maine to try and
beat her. So the Democrats must be targeting
her heavily. Oh, yeah. Some Democrats are apparently
just hoping she decides it's not worth it anymore
and retires. What about the Trump factor specifically
with Collins? Well, Trump is reportedly pretty
irritated with her generally. He's been quiet
about her race so far, but that could change.
How might that play out? It's tricky. If he just,
you know, barks at her from afar, that might
actually help her in Maine play into her independent
image. Right. The standing up to Trump angle.
But if he were to endorse a primary challenger
against her, get his wealthy friends to fund
that challenger, she could potentially lose the
Republican primary. And that primary challenger.
Would almost certainly lose the general election
in relatively blue Maine. So Trump attacking
her. could cost the Republicans the seat. A complicated
dynamic for him too then. Very. And it's telling
that Trump apparently refused her requests for
changes on the BBB bill. That's almost unheard
of, right? For a president to just order the
chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee
around. Especially the chair who controls the
purse strings. But he did it! Yeah, because with
that narrow three seat majority, he figured he
could afford to ignore Collins, ignore Murkowski
and still get his way. It really highlights the
intense pressure these figures are under. It
does. And it raises this maybe unforeseen possibility
that maybe she really does just decide what's
the point. Maybe she chooses to retire come January
3rd, 2027. A fascinating potential outcome. So
quite a journey we've taken today from. the strategic
use of information or non -information with the
Epstein files, how that's used to shape opinion,
divide parties to that intricate dance around
the unpopular BBB bill, how its impact gets spun
completely differently for different people.
Yeah, the messaging battles. We've seen that
ongoing tug of war between the White House and
Congress over spending, over executive power.
And the deep concerns about institutional independence.
Exactly. The Fed, the judiciary. Yeah. Especially
with judicial picks, seemingly jased more on
personal loyalty than anything else, it's this
incredibly complex web, isn't it? Power, strategy,
personal impacts. It really is. So what does
this all mean for you? Listening. It means trying
to understand that the news you read, the headlines
you see, they're often just one piece of a much
larger multi -layered game. There are complex
motives, potentially far -reaching consequences,
hiding behind the day -to -day noise. And maybe
it prompts a vital question for you to think
about. Beyond these specific battles, how does
this constant pursuit of short -term political
goals, these intense expressions of loyalty,
how does that shape not just the next election,
but the actual long -term fabric of how government
works? What does accountability even look like
down the road? That's something worth pondering,
I think, as you keep following the news.