Welcome to the deep dive. We take a stack of
your sources and basically pull out the most
important nuggets of knowledge and insight. Right.
Our mission today is really to cut through all
the noise from recent headlines, give you that
shortcut to being truly well informed. And we've
got a really fascinating set of topics to explore
today. Oh, yeah. High stakes legal battles with
prominent figures. Then there's the whole volatile
world of cryptocurrency and the new government
oversight that's coming in. Plus the inner workings
of political strategy, some surprising legislative
twists. Yeah, you're definitely in for some surprising
facts and probably plenty of those aha moments.
We'll be looking at, well, everything really.
Court documents, news analyses. Legislative acts,
campaign strategies. So let's dive deep into
these sources and see what really stands out.
OK, let's do it. OK, let's unpack this first
bit. Our first set of sources pulls back the
curtain. on the, well, the ever -unsolding story
around Jeffrey Epstein. Right. And specifically
how Donald Trump is now tangled up in this huge
libel lawsuit. A $10 billion lawsuit, right?
Against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch.
Exactly. And the core of it is this this blockbuster
story. It claimed Trump sent Epstein a 50th birthday
letter. But that really weird line, happy birthday
and may every day be another wonderful secret.
Yeah, and apparently alongside a sketch of a
naked woman with Trump's signature. And Trump's
reaction was pretty quick. I never wrote a picture
in my life, which, OK, is literally true. Right.
People draw pictures. They don't write them.
But sources do confirm Trump does sketch sometimes.
What's the strategic angle here? Why, Sue? Is
it like a genuine attempt to? Clear his name.
Well, that's the fascinating question, isn't
it? Or is it more of a shakedown, trying to get
Murdoch to apologize, maybe? Or ban Extean stories
across his media empire. Maybe pay out, say,
$50 million or something. Could be. But here's
where it gets really interesting. What if Murdoch
fights back? Defends the journal's reporting.
Exactly. Because a key defense against libel
is proving the story is true. Which could mean...
Murdoch's lawyers subpoenaing people who knew
Epstein back then around his 50th birthday. Get
sworn testimony. Bring in handwriting experts
to look at that signature from 2003. And they
might even try to call Ghislaine Maxwell ready.
Ask her what she knows about Trump and Epstein.
Absolutely. And connecting this to the bigger
picture, that discovery process before trial.
Oh, yeah. It could dig up all sorts of information.
Trump would much rather keep quiet. It's like
the Streisand effect, but potentially massive.
Exactly. Streisand effect on steroids, as the
source puts it. And apparently Trump doesn't
have much leverage over Murdoch right now. No
big mergers pending or anything. So it's a real
game of chicken in what used to be a pretty symbiotic
relationship. You got it. And it seems unlikely
this lawsuit will really distract from the other
big issue. The fact that the full Epstein files
still haven't been released. Precisely. And speaking
of managing information, There's another layer
here. Senator Dick Durbin, the Democrat from
Illinois, he's reported that Attorney General
Pam Bondi ordered, like, 1 ,000 FBI personnel.
A thousand? Wow. Yeah. To comb through 100 ,000
Epstein -related documents, 24 -hour shifts,
specifically flagging any mention of Trump. So
the big question that raises is, you know, is
this prep work? Are they getting ready to release
tens of thousands of documents? But... with all
the Trump mentions carefully, surgically removed.
And Durbin's source, the thinking goes, might
be one of those agents assigned to the task.
Right. Maybe someone who felt they couldn't go
to a reporter because of, well, pressure from
the top. And Durbin's also asking questions about
that that suspicious one minute gap in Epstein's
prison cell video. The surveillance footage.
Yeah. The metadata apparently indicates it was
edited with Adobe Premiere Pro. Meaning it's
a composite. Not the raw, original footage. Which
is obviously concerning. Then we have insights
from a Republican attorney, Chris Truax. He wrote
a column mentioning the FBI raid on Epstein's
New York mansion. They seized a ton of material.
Including CDs. Probably DVDs, actually. Labeled
with names. Men's names, young women's names.
Which really suggests Epstein might have been
secretly recording powerful men. Possibly with
underage women. Like an insurance policy, the
source calls it. To stop them turning on him.
And the court filing from SDNY back in July 2019,
when they argued against bail for Epstein, it
backs this up. What did it say specifically?
It mentioned a vast trove of lewd photographs
of young -looking women or girls. Hundreds, maybe
thousands, of sexually suggestive photos. Some
looked underage. And in a locked safe. They found
CDs labeled things like Young Name Plus Name,
Miss Nudes 1, and Girl Picks Nude. Really explicit
labels. So, thinking about the libel suit again,
if it goes forward, Murdoch's lawyers would definitely
want those CDs, wouldn't they? Most certainly.
They'd subpoena them. But what if the AG's office
says, oops, sorry, can't find them? That's a
scenario the source has raised. It could lead
to subpoenas for the FBI agents involved in the
raid itself. And the suggestion is Trump would
do, quote, everything humanly possible to make
sure those CDs disappear. Destroyed. It's a pretty
explosive possibility. And finally, On this,
let's just quickly touch on the actual documented
relationship between Trump and Epstein. The New
York Times detailed their, what, 15 -year friendship.
Yeah, started around 1990 in Palm Beach, both
described as outer borough New Yorkers trying
to make it big. And sources say they both very
much enjoy the company of women, especially young
women. There are accounts of them partying together,
dancing with young women, at a calendar girl
competition where they were supposedly the only
guys there. even stories involving Buffalo Bill's
cheerleaders and lawsuits. One settled out of
court alleging Trump kissed, fondled, crawled
into a woman's bed. Another claimed he groped
her like an octopus, quote unquote, in his office
after Epstein brought her there. They flew together
a lot, too, right? Between Manhattan and Palm
Beach on Epstein's jet. Yep. Court records show
at least seven trips on Epstein's private Boeing
727. and that famous photo at the Victoria's
Secret Party in 97. And that quote from Trump
himself in New York Magazine in 2002 is pretty
telling. Oh, yeah. I've known Jeffrey for 15
years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be
with. And then the kicker. It is even said that
he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and
many of them are on the younger side. Wow. The
friendship apparently ended in 2004 over a real
estate deal. But the sources suggest Epstein
had this unlimited supply of young women. often
shared them with Trump. One woman quoted felt
passed around like a platter of fruit, just awful.
So yeah, lots of potential witnesses out there,
which suggests Trump would use, as the source
says, all his powers of intimidation to keep
a lid on things. A very tangled web, indeed.
OK, let's pivot. Moving from those legal battles
to the complex world of economics and policy,
specifically crypto. Right. Cryptocurrency. What
does it all mean? The sources we looked at present
a Pretty strong argument that fundamentally all
crypto is basically a scam, a Ponzi scheme. It's
the core argument. Yeah. The underlying idea
is simple. You buy a crypto coin hoping more
people want it later drives the price up. And
the only real problem it solves, according to
these sources, is untraceable payments, which
is mostly valuable to, well, criminals. It doesn't
really offer advantages over cash or credit cards
for normal transactions and can actually be worse.
Right. With transaction fees, gas fees. Exactly.
Plus, unlike stocks or real estate, there's no
direct return. No dividends. No rent. It's just
pure speculation. No inherent value. Compare
that to gold, you know. Actual commercial use
is a 2 ,500 -year history as a store of value.
Crypto is just different. And the volatility
is insane. Bitcoin. $65 ,000 in late 2021, down
to under $16 ,000 a year later. Now, almost $120
,000. It could genuinely be worthless tomorrow.
Just vanish. So attempts to fix that led to stable
coins. Pegged to something external. Right, trying
to bring some stability. But even those aren't
foolproof. They can get depegged. You betcha.
Look at Tether. Fined $41 million for basically
lying about its reserves between 2016 and 2018.
They only had enough backing for their coins
about a quarter of the time. Something like that.
But the really dramatic one was Terra, May 2022.
It was the third biggest crypto coin. And then
five days, it went from one dollar to 13 cents.
Within two weeks, its value dropped from 60 billion
dollars to zero. 60 billion to zero. How? Its
reserves were held in another crypto coin that
crashed. It's like the 17th century Dutch tulip
mania all over again. Wow. OK, so enter the scam
master. as our sources put it, Donald Trump.
Who, remember, called crypto a scam back in 2021.
Right. But now he's enthusiastically signed this
new law. The Genius Act sets guidelines for stablecoin
trading. And it's probably hard to ignore the
200 million dollars the crypto industry poured
into political campaigns in 2024. 200 million.
More than oil, tech or pharma combined. Yep.
Big money talking. Plus, Trump's sons run World
Liberty Financial, which issues a stablecoin.
And he has his own Truman Poor coin now. OK,
so let's look at the genius act itself. What
does it actually do? Well, it sets rules. Who
can issue stable coins? Who audits them? Who
can take action against issuers? Rules about
not mixing assets, mingling assets. Right. And
it tells the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, NIST, to set up standards for
exchanging stable coins. And Section 11 is interesting.
Tells the Treasury secretary to decide what can
actually be in the reserve fund. Exactly. Because,
you know, could someone just put their grandma's
old painting in there and claim it's worth millions?
Right. The senator who wrote the bill, Bill Haggerty.
He has a finance background, right? Co -founded
a private equity firm. So he understands this
stuff. And the bill does briefly mention the
potential insolvency of stable coins. So the
expectation now is big banks, companies like
Amazon, Walmart. They'll start issuing their
own stablecoins. That seems to be the idea. Potentially
thousands of competing coins flooding the market.
Which means lots of smaller companies will probably
fail. And if Tera and Tether are anything to
go by, a lot of people holding those coins could
lose everything as companies get, let's say,
creative with what's backing them. Somali shellings.
Guest tickets to dinner with Trump. The sources
get a bit colorful there, but yeah, the risk
is creative accounting with reserves. So what's
the risk of a bigger collapse? Coins are held
in wallets on exchanges, right? Right. And exchanges
get hacked. All the time. Look at Bybit, the
second biggest exchange, hacked for $1 .5 billion
in February 2025. North Korea suspected. Even
big tech like Microsoft gets breached. So it's
definitely possible. And if a major exchange
gets hit hard, it could trigger a bank run on
stable coins. Millions trying to cash out at
once. And the reserves might not cover it. especially
if they're holding illiquid things like real
estate. Exactly. And companies competing for
business might use increasingly iffy assets in
those reserves to look better, more risk. Plus
there are other risks too, right? Software bugs.
Oh yeah. Bugs in the crypto software itself.
Flaws in the complex math behind blockchains.
Even bad actors maintaining the blockchains.
Any of those could cause catastrophic failure.
So here's where the sources get really stark.
Short term, the Genius Act probably boosts the
crypto industry. Lots of money made. Seems likely.
But the worry is, some unforeseen event triggers
those bank runs. And it doesn't just crash crypto,
it could potentially bring down the entire global
financial system. That's the nightmare scenario
the sources raise. A global depression, or worse,
future historians might look back at this like
they look back at... The Holly Smoot Tariff Act
in 1930, which helped trigger the Great Depression.
That's the parallel being drawn. It's a huge
potential risk. And one really striking detail
in the genius act. The exemptions. Right. It
bans members of Congress and their families from
issuing stable coins. But specifically exempts
the president, his family, cabinet members, other
high officials. And an analysis apparently shows
20 percent of high level administration officials
already own crypto. The potential for corruption
seems. Vast. Absolutely. Take World Liberty Financial,
run by Trump's sons. They issue the USD1 stablecoin.
OK. Earlier this month, an Abu Dhabi investment
firm used USD1 to make a $2 billion investment
in the Binance crypto exchange. Putting World
Liberty Financial in a position to profit significantly
from that deal. Exactly. The source basically
says the Constitution's emoluments clause, it's
now officially dead. Wow. OK, let's shift gears
again to federal employment and election strategies.
First up, Trump is apparently back creating a
new class of civil servants. Easier to fire ones.
Yeah, he's wanted this for a while, right? The
ability to fire civil servants he thinks are
disloyal. The Pendleton Act makes that hard.
You need malfeasance. Refusing an illegal order
usually doesn't count. Right. Unlike political
appointees who serve at the president's pleasure,
they can be fired for pretty much anything. So
back at the end of 2020, he created Schedule
F for policymaking employees. Said they could
be fired at will. And now he signed an executive
order creating Schedule G. A whole new class.
Hired and fired at will. Jobs end when the president
who appointed them leaves office. Trump's rationale
is that these short -term workers, no job security,
will be more motivated, more efficient. But the
sources argue it will undoubtedly motivate them
to obey his orders, legal or not. And the big
federal employee union, AFGE, is obviously very
concerned. Legal challenges seem inevitable.
Definitely something to watch. OK, next, let's
look at how Democrats are talking about this
new law. The one sources call the BBB or Big
Bad Bill impacts taxes and health care. Right.
Well, someone like J .D. Vance might highlight
its tax cuts on tips and overtime. Democrats
are hitting hard on the other side. big tax cuts
for millionaires and billionaires. And crucially,
the estimate that it will cause 12 million people
to lose their health care. And they're really
zeroing in on rural areas now, aren't they? Saying
those areas will be hit hardest. Yeah. Pointing
to things like potential county hospital closures.
This is a big shift strategically. Democrats
haven't typically spent much time campaigning
hard in deep red rural areas. Their message seems
really direct now. Republicans don't care about
you. Look what they just did to you. Bernie Sanders
has been doing this for months, right? Rallies
in places like Idaho, Texas, showing other Democrats
how it's done. And it seems to be catching on.
Senator Hickenlooper, who was skeptical, is now
apparently sold on it. He notes the frustrations
people have is real, not just in rural areas,
but across red states. Representative Melanie
Stansberry said people were literally crying
in rural New Mexico when she explained the bill's
impact. So the plan is for many Democrats to
spend the August recess out in these rural areas
talking directly to people. A real grassroots
push. Interesting shift. Now let's touch on some
other political movements. Intelligence community
and local elections. First, Senator Mark Warner.
Democrat from Virginia, ranking member on the
Senate Intel Committee. He's come out publicly
saying Tulsi Gabbard is not competent to be director
of national intelligence. Pretty strong words.
Very strong. He believes she's trying to politicize
the workforce and work product, making America
less safe. He even said allies are scaling back
intelligence sharing because of her. and called
for her to resign or be fired. And he cited specifics
too, allegedly firing Intel officials who wouldn't
cook the books on an assessment about Venezuela
and MS -13. And blamed her for sensitive Intel
going to unauthorized people. And almost as if
on cue, Gabbard immediately put out a report
claiming Obama officials were part of a treasonous
conspiracy to alter Intel on the 2016 election.
Which was basically her spin on the finding that
Russia interfered to help Trump. a finding every
Intel committee member agreed on. Exactly. And
her deputy chief of staff then called Warner
a loser for falling for the debunked Russia hoax.
It's quite something. Definitely playing hardball.
OK, finally, let's look at New York City, the
mayoral race. High stakes there. Yeah, Democratic
nominee Zoran Momdani is trying to lock down
support from party leaders. He's the favorite.
But Mayor Eric Adams and former governor Andrew
Cuomo are also on the ballot. And Cuomo is expected
to get big money, tens of millions, from Bill
Ackman, who sees Momdani as a potential disaster.
So Momdani really needs the Democratic establishment
because leaders could still endorse Cuomo. And
it's a first past the post -election, winner
takes all. So maybe 40 percent could be enough
for Cuomo if the vote splits multiple ways. So
this meeting between Momdani and House Minority
Leader Hakeem Jeffries was pretty key. Right.
Momdani was desperately hoping for endorsement.
But he left with just. A promise for another
meeting later. Apparently so. Jeffrey said he
didn't know Mamdani well enough, but also raised
a specific concern. Mamdani refusing to condemn
the phrase, globalize the Intifada. Exactly.
Which many see as calling for Israel's destruction.
Jefferies clearly wants no part of that. And
Republicans are trying to paint Mamdani as the
new face of the Democrats, right? A new boogeyman.
Yeah, the sources suggest figures like AOC aren't
scary enough for them anymore. But Mamdani...
Beard, a strange name, a vowed socialist, fits
the bill they want to create. So Jeffries doesn't
want to be tied to him, and probably fears Mom
Donnie just isn't capable of governing NYC. Well,
Cuomo, despite being described in very unflattering
personal terms by the sources. Personally, a
sleazebag and a mean old bastard, I think is
the quote. But Jeffries likely sees him as a
competent administrator who got things done as
governor. So Jeffries is keeping his powder dry.
Might not endorse anyone. Seems like a possibility.
Playing the long game, perhaps. Okay, one last
quick political story. This one's unexpected.
From Minnesota, State Senator Nicole Mitchell.
DFL Democrat, also an LT Colonel in the Air National
Guard. She was just convicted of first -degree
burglary. Yeah, for entering her estranged stepmother's
house through a window, trying to get her dad's
things because the stepmother wouldn't talk to
her. She wasn't accused of taking anything else
or damaging anything, so sentencing might be
light, like a fine or probation. But the political
fallout could be huge, right? Because the DFL
holds a razor -thin majority in the Minnesota
Senate, 34 -33. So if Mitchell is expelled or
resigns... The Senate becomes tied 33 -33. Yeah.
At least until a special election. Her district
is fairly blue, so another DFLer would likely
win that election. But in the meantime, the Senate
could grind to a halt. And this is happening
alongside other instability in Minnesota. Yeah.
The state house is 67 -66 Republican, but with
one vacancy. Right. That vacancy happened June
14th, 2025, when Vance Bolter assassinated Melissa
Hortman, the DFL representative for HD 34B. Which
the sources describe as appearing to be a political
assassination. Just chilling. Absolute groom.
Her district is also very blue, so a DFLare will
probably win the special election, tying the
House 67 -67. And the Lieutenant Governor, Peggy
Flanagan, also DFL, breaks ties in the House.
So before Hortman's murder, the DFL basically
controlled the legislature now. The tied Senate
could block anything from the House. Meaning
Nicole Mitchell's decision stay or go is suddenly
critically important for the state. Makes the
whole legislative picture kind of dicey, as the
source says. Yeah, a lot riding on that one seat
now. Wow. OK. What a deep dive indeed. We've
really unpacked a lot. lawsuits with potentially
shocking revelations. The incredibly volatile,
maybe even a world -shaking future of crypto.
These shifting dynamics of power, both in Washington
and down to the state level in Minnesota. Yeah,
these stories seem disconnected on the surface,
but they all really touch on themes of information
control, trust in institutions. And the high
stakes of power, right? How individual actions
can just ripple through everything legal, financial,
political systems. Absolutely. Creates these
far -reaching consequences we're only starting
to see. So what does this all mean for you listening?
I think it's a powerful reminder that behind
every headline. There are these intricate layers.
Strategy, influence, often surprising details
that are actually shaping the world around us.
Things aren't always as simple as they seem.
Definitely not. And as you reflect on all this,
maybe consider this thought. We live in an age
with so much information, right? But truth feels
increasingly contested. So how is society going
to navigate this, the growing demands for transparency
from leaders, while at the same time grappling
with facts being manipulated, information being
weaponized? What kind of impact could that have
on public trust, on democracy itself? It's a
big question, something to really mull over.