Welcome to the deep dive. This is where we take
a whole pile of information, articles, notes,
research, and really boil it down for you. We're
after the key insights, the surprising bits,
the things you need to know. And our mission,
as always, is to get you up to speed quickly
on some really complex stuff happening right
now. Yeah, today we're looking at, well, a whole
web of things. Political moves, court cases,
big changes in the media world, even global trade.
It's a lot to connect. Absolutely. The sources
are all over the place. Legal filings, news reports,
analyses. We're going to try and pull those threads
together for you. And there are some, frankly,
unexpected links, like how trying to suppress
a story might actually backfire or what happens
when all the obituary writers at a major paper
suddenly quit. It tells you something. It really
does. OK, where should we start? Let's kick things
off with the Epstein files. This story, it's
just... keeps evolving. Right now, a lot of focus
is on Ghislaine Maxwell, who's in prison down
in Florida. And there's this idea, especially
circulating on the right, that she's the one
who holds the key, the Rosetta Stone to the whole
Epstein network. Exactly. And the thinking goes,
she might be willing to say what's, well, what
Donald Trump wants her to say. In exchange for
a pardon, right, there's, she's given Deputy
AG Todd Blanch a list, maybe 100 names. That's
the rumor. Mostly elites. that the base dislikes
maybe a few minor Republicans thrown in to make
it look, you know, balanced. But this creates
a huge problem for Attorney General Pam Bondi
and Blanche, doesn't it? What if Maxwell's testimony
is all they have? Yeah, I mean, will a grand
jury indict based just on her word? If not, the
backlash from the base could be intense. They'll
want answers. It really is high stakes, sort
of a game of chicken, you could say. Totally.
Does Maxwell demand a pardon right now? Maybe
post -dated. Or does she threaten to expose Trump
if she doesn't get one? Which carries its own,
uh, grim risks given the history surrounding
this case. That idea she could be suicided. It's
a chilling undercurrent. It is. But what if there's
other evidence? This brings us to that birthday
book. Uh, yes, the one The Wall Street Journal
reported on. Which Trump denies exists. But Brad
Edwards, a lawyer for many victims, says, no,
it's real. Epstein's estate lawyers have it.
That's fascinating. So House Democrats want it,
but they can't subpoena it. Right. But House
Republicans could. And the worry is maybe they
make sure it can't be found. And you have to
think, Epstein's 50th birthday party. That was
probably a big event. Lots of people might have
seen Trump's card. Which could just blow up any
claims Maxwell might make, yeah. But even beyond
the book, there are the videos. Oh, right. The
Department of Justice itself mentioned thousands
of videos in a court filing. July 8, 2019, page
9. Thousands. I mean, think about that. If a
neutral party, someone with a strong stomach,
actually watched those. That could be far more
valuable, more definitive than any single person's
testimony, couldn't it? Absolutely. It could
change the whole narrative. Which, speaking of
narratives, Politico put together a timeline
showing how this has all shifted. Right. Starting
back in January with Cash Patel vowing to expose
connections. Then Pam Bondi in February claiming
she had a client list on her desk. Trump's name
reportedly surfacing in files in May. And then
fast forward to July. Trump suddenly denying
everything, calling it a hoax. Right after the
Wall Street Journal reported on that body birthday
card. And then he sues. The WSJ and Rupert Murdoch
over it. It's quite a sequence. It really highlights
that phenomenon, doesn't it? The Streisand effect.
Trying to suppress something just draws more
attention. Like that South Park episode years
ago, making Trump look like a buffoon with Satan.
It just got people talking more. Same principle,
maybe. Could be, the more you try to hide something.
Okay, let's pivot to some broader political maneuvers.
We're seeing some interesting uses of executive
power. Reminds me a bit of Nixon and impoundment.
Can you refresh us on that? Sure. Impoundment
was basically Nixon refusing to spend money Congress
had already approved. It led to a law specifically
banning that practice. Okay, so that's illegal
now. But Trump seems to have found a workaround.
Sort of a legal trick, yeah. Make a bipartisan
deal to fund the government. Get everyone on
board. And then use these things called rescission
bills to cancel the parts the Democrats wanted.
Exactly. And those rescission bills only need
50 Senate votes plus the vice president. So Republicans
can legally back out of the deal they just made.
Wow. So what can Democrats even do? Well, that's
the dilemma, isn't it? They could refuse to vote
for the initial funding bill, risk a government
shutdown. Which is always risky politically.
Explaining rescissions is kind of inside baseball
for most voters. Or they vote for the bill and
just get As some are saying, stabbed in the back
again. Meanwhile, some Republicans, like Senator
John Kennedy, are saying, hey, this is the only
way we actually cut spending. It's a powerful
tool, and it definitely strains the whole appropriations
process. And speaking of straining systems, what
about these immigration judges? Oh, that's quite
something. Since January, 100 out of about 700
immigration judges have been fired. 100? That
seems unprecedented. It is. And these judges
are Department of Justice employees. The attorney
general can fire them at will. No reason needed,
officially. We're hearing stories, right? Like
Jennifer Payton, a supervising judge. Yeah, top
performance reviews, then fired with a three
-sentence email. She thinks she was on a watch
list maybe for not being cooperative enough with
the Trump agenda, possibly after she gave Senator
Dick Durbin a tour. And in another judge, Carla
Espinosa. Fired while she was delivering a verdict.
She pointed out how many women and minorities
were being let go. She thinks her dismissal was
because she released a man who was later proved
to have been framed. So the judge is still there.
Must feel. Very threatened, according to reports.
Uncertain. Which has got to affect how they approach
cases, you'd think. It feels like a pattern,
maybe? This focus on loyalty extending to nominations
too, like Jeanine Pirro for US Attorney for DC.
Right, that's one of the most powerful prosecutor
jobs in the country. And her qualifications.
She was a DA in Westchester County, yes, but
also lost or dropped out of several political
races. Her main qualification, it seems, being
cited is just unflinching loyalty to Trump. She
spread claims about the 2000 election, talked
about prosecuting the lawyers who prosecuted
Jan 6 rioters. And yet the Senate Judiciary Committee
advanced her nomination. 1210 party lines. Even
though she refused to fill out the standard questionnaire
or appear before the committee? Correct. It really
signals a shift, prioritizing that allegiance
over the traditional vetting process. OK, let's
zoom out a bit to the wider political landscape.
How's Trump doing in the polls? Well, there's
a new Gallup poll out. His approval among all
adults is down to 37 percent. That's actually
his lowest point since taking office again. This
poll was taken right after the BBB bill passed.
37 percent. And what about independence? That's
often a key group. Just 29 percent approval among
independents. That has to be pretty concerning
for his team. How does that compare historically?
Well, his second quarter in 2017 was 39 percent
the worst first term Q2 since World War Two.
This year's Q2 average is 40 percent, which makes
it the second worst. And are there specific issues
where support is dropping? Yeah, Gallup shows
dropped since February, March on almost everything.
Foreign affairs, the Middle East, economy, trade.
immigration, Ukraine, and the budget deficit
down a whopping 14 points. Interesting. And even
with those numbers, he's already looking ahead
to 2026. Oh, deeply involved. He knows a Democratic
House in 2026 probably means more impeachments.
So he's trying to shape the battlefield early.
Exactly. Pre -selecting candidates, endorsing
early to avoid messy primaries, often picking
very Trumpy candidates, even if they might have,
you know, candidate quality issues for a general
election. I mean, telling incumbents not to run
for higher office. Right. Ordering people like
Zach Nunn in Iowa, Mike Lawler in New York, Bill
Huizenga in Michigan to stay in their House seats
even if they might have had a decent shot at
governor or Senate. And pressuring sitting senators
to run again. Yeah. Folks like Joni Ernst in
Iowa, Susan Collins in Maine. Even though polls
show like 70 percent of Maine voters think they've
had enough of Collins, he wants her to run. What
about Texas? That Senate primary looks tricky.
That's the conundrum, isn't it? You've got the
long -serving incumbent, John Cornyn, a pretty
standard Republican. Versus Ken Paxton, who is
very Trumpy, but comes with a lot of baggage.
Impeachment scandals. Major candidate quality
problems, potentially. But he could still win
a primary. Trump, interestingly, hasn't endorsed
anyone in that race yet. And North Carolina.
He seems to have played a big role there. Definitely.
He basically pushed the incumbent Republican
Tom Tillis out of running again, which seems
strategically odd given how often incumbents
win. And then Laura Trump decided not to run.
Yeah, possibly because internal polls showed
the likely Democrat, former governor Roy Cooper,
would soundly beat her. So Trump quickly endorsed
Michael Watley, the former RNC chair. Right.
Lots party experience, but never held elected
office himself. And everyone expects Roy Cooper,
the popular two -term former governor, to jump
in for the Democrats. So that's shaping up to
be a huge, expensive race in a key purple state.
OK, let's shift gears completely now to the media
world, specifically national investigative reporting.
Which is so incredibly important and concentrated,
really. It's kind of amazing when you think about
it. Only four U .S. newspapers have over a million
subscribers. USA Today, Washington Post, Wall
Street Journal, New York Times. And less than
8 % of American adults subscribe to any of them.
So pretty much all the deep national investigative
work relies on those four. Plus the wire services
like... AP and Reuters. Which means if one of
those big four starts to falter, it's a really
big deal for, well, for how we understand what's
happening in the country. And there are signs
of trouble at the Washington Post, aren't there?
There are. And maybe the strangest sign, the
real canary in the coal mine, is the obituary
desk. Right. The head obit writer, Adam Bernstein,
left for the New York Times. And then basically
everyone else on the desk quit except one junior
person. It's highly unusual. And obit writers,
they do unique work. They write these detailed
life stories, often including, shall we say,
unsavory details about powerful people. That
can only be published after they die, so no lawsuits
or complaints. Exactly. A posterbituary was like
the ultimate DC status symbol. But if the whole
experienced team leaves... Does it mean future
obits get sanitized? Or just copy pasted press
releases? We lose that critical, sometimes uncomfortable,
historical record. That's the concern. It signals
something deeper might be wrong at the paper.
So what is going wrong? Is it about the owner,
Jeff Bezos? Well, after initially being hands
off, he seems to be interfering more. Famously
vetoing the planned Kamala Harris endorsement.
Which reportedly cost them 250 ,000 subscribers.
Yeah. Part of a half million drop since 2020.
That's what's reported. And then his directive
that the opinion section should push personal
liberties and free markets, basically, be libertarian.
Which probably didn't sit well with a lot of
their traditional readership. Likely led to more
cancellations, yeah. And we've seen a real exodus
of top talent. Big name opinion columnists leaving.
Dan Balls, Jonathan Capehart, Ruth Marcus, Jennifer
Rubin. Others too. JVL with the bulwark summarized
some of the internal issues, right? Yeah, he
pointed to the high -profile exits, putting someone
seemingly unqualified in charge of opinion, the
publisher William Lewis killing his own third
newsroom idea, and Lewis getting caught basically
lying about key events like editor Sally Busby's
departure. So the argument is this interference
from Bezos and Lewis is driving talent away.
And hurting the post's ability to actually be
a top newspaper, yes. They also have some odd
legacy structures like two separate opinion sections.
All right, a holdover from the past that doesn't
make much sense now, it makes it harder to adapt,
needs real strategic leadership. And some of
their big innovation projects haven't worked
out. ARC, that content system. Ripple, the idea
of reprinting outside writers. Yeah, Ripple especially
seems odd now with AI generating so much content.
Why just reprint stuff? It's interesting you
mentioned the bulwark. They seem to be doing
okay. They offer a contrast. They've grown by
building a community. They're writers, they're
podcasters, they have personalities. People feel
a connection. So maybe that connection's more
important now than just scale or legacy. It seems
to be a successful model, fostering that link
between the creators and the audience, something
the post seems to be struggling with. Okay, one
last quick item before we wrap. This tentative
trade deal between the US and the EU. What are
the basics? OK, so it looks like a 15 % tariff
on most EU exports to the US. That's down from
the 30 % Trump initially proposed. Steel tariffs,
though, stay high at 50%. And what does the EU
give in return? They're committing to buy $750
billion worth of US liquefied natural gas and
invest $600 billion in the US, including buying
military gear. The perception, though, is that
this was kind of achieve through blackmail. That's
how some see it, yeah. Trump threatens huge tariffs.
The EU makes big concessions to lower them. But
the EU doesn't really get anything back other
than avoiding the worst case scenario. Tariffs
are still going up significantly. And a 15 %
tariff across the board, that could still cause
problems, right? Inflation. That's the economic
risk, definitely. Think about Smoot -Hawley back
in the 1930s. Those tariffs raised rates from
about 13 .5 % to 20%. Many economists think that
made the depression worse. And this jump. from
near zero for many goods, up to 15%. Proportionally,
it's actually a bigger jump than Smoot -Hawley.
So yes, the potential for economic disruption
is definitely there. Something to watch very
closely. Hashtag tag a tag outer. Wow. OK, so
we've covered a lot today from the ongoing Epstein
saga and these intricate political power plays.
To the judicial appointments, the poll numbers,
the deep involvement in future elections. Right
through to the struggles at a major newspaper
like the Washington Post and these big shifts
in global trade. It really is all connected,
isn't it? It forms this incredibly complex, constantly
moving picture of information, influence and
power. Absolutely. It really makes you think.
And maybe that's the final thought for you, the
listener, to take away. In a world where information
can be spun, suppressed or strategically leaked
like never before, And where the traditional
sources of news are facing their own immense
pressures, where do you turn? What sources will
you trust to get that truly deep dive to understand
the real forces shaping your world?