Welcome to the Deep Dive. We take stacks of information,
cut through the noise, and we'll get you straight
to the insights that matter. And today, we've
got a really fascinating collection of reports.
They pull back the curtain on the intersection
of politics, power, and information here in the
US. Yeah, quite a mix. Our mission today is to
unpack some complex, intertwined stories. Exactly.
We're looking at the Epstein case. It's surprisingly
linked to QAnon. Still going strong, apparently.
Right. And then there are the internal battles
within both parties, challenges to economic data
integrity, public institutions. It's a lot. We'll
dig into these threads, pull out the key takeaways,
and help you understand what might be happening
behind the headlines. So the big question seems
to be, how do things like a firing at the Bureau
of Labor Statistics? Or a fight in the Texas
legislature? Or the Epstein files fall out? Yeah.
How do they all connect? It points to this broader
struggle over information, right? Who controls
the narrative? Let's unpack that. Starting with
Epstein seems unavoidable. Yeah, especially its
relevance for someone like Donald Trump. Ezra
Klein's interview with Will Summer really nails
it. The short answer is QAnon. OK, so to get
this, we need to understand the QAnon worldview,
right? Yeah. What's their core belief about figures
like Epstein? Well, fundamentally, it's that
corrupt, pedophilic elites control everything.
Think back to Pizzagate, that kind of wild baseless
theory. Right. QAnon believers have this almost
religious intensity about Epstein being central
to that cabal. And Trump's role in this worldview.
For them, almost every politician is corrupt
except Trump. He's seen as, you know, uncorrupted,
maybe even set by God, some believe. To train
the swamp. Exactly. To clean out the swamp and
expose this massive conspiracy. They attribute
everything. Job losses, cancer, high rent, wars.
to these elites. Some even believe truly extreme
things like ritual abuse. Yeah, some go that
far. Ritual child murder for blood. Red shoes
is an insider sign. It's pretty dark. And the
core idea is that arresting just a few key people
would fix everything. Which leads to the storm
idea. Precisely. The storm was their belief that
Trump would order mass arrests, take out these
elites in Hollywood, banking the Democratic Party.
And people genuinely believe this was imminent,
like Ashley Babbitt on January 6th. Tragically,
yes. She believed the storm was here. It started
on like obscure message boards, then spread to
social media and then became almost mainstream.
Millions bought into it. So from Trump's perspective,
how did he handle this? It's a powerful group
of believers. Well, the analysis suggests he
didn't actually believe the crazy story himself.
But he saw that millions of his supporters did.
They bought into it hook, line and sinker. So
he played along. He tantalized them with promises
during the campaign. The thinking seems to have
been, you know, get elected then forget the whole
thing. And initially his supporters were thrilled
when he appointed people like Cash Patel or Dan
Bongino. Oh, yeah, they were delirious with joy.
They saw them as fellow travelers, major conspiracy
theorists. They thought finally someone in power
was going to spill the beans. But then Epstein
gets arrested. That must have seemed like validation
at first. Absolutely. QAnon naturally assumed,
OK, this is it. Trump's on the right trail. So
what changed? The big shock was when Trump and
his lawyer, Pam Bondi, basically said, hold on,
there's no list, no cabal, nobody's getting arrested,
please forget it. Wow, that must have been jarring.
Jarring is an understatement. For them, it meant
their entire mythology was a fable. One source
compared it to the pope announcing Jesus never
existed. It shook them to their very foundations.
So how has that fallout settled? Are they just
moving on? Not at all. QAnon and a lot of MAGA
people have no intention whatsoever of just letting
this drop. They feel Trump switched teams, that
he's hiding it. So the perceived stalling just
makes it worse for them. Exactly. It fuels the
suspicion. This story isn't fading. Which brings
us to Barry Levine's piece in the New York Times.
He's covered Epstein for years, wrote a book,
and he has nine big questions. Yeah, and they
are fundamental questions. First, the money.
Where did Epstein get it? Yeah. A billion dollars
wired to his account. With no obvious source,
like a start -up or CEO role. Right. Who sent
it? Why? That seems like something the Fed should
be able to figure out, doesn't it? You'd think
so. Then there's the spy angle. Yes. The Acosta
quote is pretty damning. Rene Acosta, who later
became Trump's labor secretary, said he was told
Epstein belonged to intelligence and I should
leave him alone. Who told him that? And was the
cabinet job related? Big questions. Huge. And
then, Trump's own potential involvement. Pam
Bondi allegedly told him he was in the Epstein
files. Reports of FBI agents removing documents
mentioning him. How much is true? We don't know.
And Bill Clinton. 21 phone numbers in Epstein's
little black book. What was that relationship
really? Beyond Prince Andrew, who else was involved?
Who were the clients on the island? Any frequent
flyers? And who helped Epstein? Besides Ghislaine
Maxwell. There's the mysterious death of Jean
-Luc Brunel, the French modeling scout, in a
Paris prison. What about the contents of the
safe rated by the FBI? A three -page index listing.
40 computers, 26 hard disks, 70 CDs, recording
devices, thousands of compact disks. People want
that list made public. And the videos? Why can't
they be released? Levine suggests blurring tech
exists. Right, like Google Maps uses. And finally,
the autopsy report. The full report by Kristin
Roman. DNA tests on the sheet. Did other prisoners
hear anything? These are specific, pointed questions.
They are. And the feeling is, much of the country
wants to know, but the response is stonewalling.
which, as Levine notes, didn't work out so well
for Nixon. It just keeps the story alive. So
this isn't going away for potential 2028 Republican
candidates either. It could linger into the 27
primary. Seems very likely. The more stonewalling,
the longer it lasts. And it creates a real dilemma
for them. Align with Trump? Nothing to see here.
Or align with the base demanding answers. Exactly.
And the assumption is, if you're demanding transparency,
you're probably not in the files yourself. But
taking a stance now is risky, isn't it? What
if new information surfaces? Totally. It's playing
with fire. Imagine if videos came out showing,
you know, a dozen congressional Republicans committing
statutory rape, live and in color. Any stance
taken now could look terrible. High stakes indeed.
So who's aligning where? among the potential
candidates. Well, demanding release, siding with
the base. You've got Senators Ted Cruz, Josh
Hawley, Rand Paul. They're staying visible, taking
positions. Cruz with his media presence, Hawley
on issues like stock trading bans, Paul doing
early state visits. Right. And then on the other
side, with Trump's nothing to see here line,
you have J .D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Kristi Noem.
And some are trying to stay out of it. For now,
yeah. Governors like Brian Kemp, Glenn Youngkin,
Sarah Huckabee Sanders seem to be waiting it
out. What about the actual voters? Where did
they stand? Polls show almost 80 percent of Trump
voters want to get to the bottom of this. And
over half 52 percent think the government is
covering things up. Interesting. Even non -politicians
who support Trump are pushing back on this. Yeah,
figures like Mike Cernovich, Mike Lindell, Joe
Rogan, Andrew Schultz, Steve Bannon. They're
attacking Trump for not releasing everything.
They're actually siding with the base against
Trump on this one issue. So while that struggle
over inflation plays out. There's the more traditional
power struggle. Campaign money. Right. And Democrats
aren't really agonizing over Epstein. They're
focused on more conventional campaign stuff.
Raising money, building infrastructure, leaving
those FEC paper trails. It's all about being
a team player for 2026, helping win back the
House and Senate. That means fundraising, spending,
campaigning in key places. Pete Buttigieg is
leading the pack so far. Yeah, $1 .6 million
bank this year, paying staff. Governors are more
in the hundreds of thousands range, with super
PACs handling bigger costs like travel and polling.
And a lot of that early money is about raising
more money, buying donor lists. Exactly. People
like Beshear in Kentucky and Whitmer in Michigan,
they're investing in lists. Their emails might
ask you to donate to the DNC or DSCC, but they
also boost their own profile. And Newsom is using
his big donor network to help others building
Goodwill. Precisely. They've all got super PACs,
digital operations ramping up, some are running
national ads if they're less known. Like Beshear
campaigning down in South Carolina already. Right.
And even governors up for re -election in 26,
like Shapiro and PA or Moore and MD, they focus
on that. But raising money nationally for their
own race lets them meet key players everywhere.
OK, but here's the kicker. While the race is
on, Republicans are financially Way ahead. Yeah,
the disparity is stark. Maggio Inc, the main
GOP super PAC, pulled in $177 million in the
first half of 2025. A lot from crypto sources
rewarded with things like a strategic Bitcoin
reserve. Sounds interesting. Let's just say it
contrasts sharply with the main Democratic super
PAC, Future Forward. Right. They have about $2
,800 on hand and are apparently still paying
back money from crypto execs now in prison. Ouch.
And it's bad down ballot, too. Yep. The House
GOP fund has $11 million more than the Dems.
The Senate GOP fund has 16 million dollars more,
plus the Democrats have 21 million dollars in
debt left over from 2024. So why the big gap?
What's the underlying dynamic? Fundamentally,
rich people and corporations generally get a
better deal from Republicans. That's a strong
incentive. While Democrats rely more on small
donors who aren't focused on midterms yet. Right.
Small donors don't usually pay much attention
to midterms, especially this far out. Plus, the
party in power can always offer valuable favors
to potential donors. And donors usually focus
on the next election at most. Shifting globally
trade deals. Trump's had some wins with the UK,
Japan, EU, but China remains the elusive one.
And they won't just roll over and beg like the
EU perhaps did. No, Xi Jinping has significant
advantages. He doesn't face elections, so he
can impose more pain on his people if needed.
And strategic resources. Rare earths. Exactly.
China has those rare earth elements America needs.
Xi can control sales. Big consequences for U
.S. companies. Plus, China makes tons of parts
for jets, phones. Taxing those exports is easy
for him. And the trade balance. U .S. imports
lots of agricultural goods from Trump's base.
Correct. China exports way more to the U .S.
450 BME versus 150 BME. U .S. imports include
a lot of farm products. She could sign long -term
contracts for Brazilian soybeans, for instance,
that would very much upset Trump's base. He also
doesn't have to convince 27 other leaders, unlike
the EU chief. Right. That gives him far more
power. The idea of Trump doing a one -on -one
visit to show off his deal -making skills, sources
say that will never work. Why not? Because frankly,
the analysis suggests Trump doesn't understand
any of the details of trade. She, however, is
prepped. Talks to experts for hours and won't
just agree on the spot to some crazy proposal.
So if Trump imposes high tariffs, G likely blocks
exports of key materials and parts. That could
shut down U .S. companies, maybe even trigger
a recession. A deal might still happen through
lower level talks, but it won't be one sided
like the EU one. Unless it's one sided against
the U .S.? That's a possibility some sources
raise. OK, let's bring it back home. Institutional
integrity. The Senate went quiet for August recess,
but right before Schumer and Thune cut a deal
on some nominees. Not all, though. Yeah. And
one confirmation was pretty controversial. Jeanine
Pirro, as U .S. attorney for D .C., former prosecutors
and judges called her totally unfit. Her stated
goal, prosecute Trump's enemies, raises impartiality
questions. Yeah, the minority party can't block,
but they can slow things down, which annoys Trump.
Right. And Thune, the majority leader, thought
about going nuclear, stripping that minority
power. But he's been around. He knows the shoe
may be on the other foot someday. A Democratic
Senate could ram through their own people later.
Exactly. Trump doesn't care about post -2029,
but Thune, at 64, definitely does. He's playing
the long game. Meanwhile, in Texas, Republicans
are pushing a new redistricting map. They played
it safe in 2020, protecting incumbents. Which
was seen as a good decision then. But now Trump
apparently demanded they be aggressive and try
to win five more House seats. And they said,
yes, sir, even if it was against their better
judgment. Seems that way. They do this new map
and the media mostly assumed, OK, GOP just picked
up five seats. But not so fast. There's a flaw.
Potentially a big one. Four of the five tweaked
districts are now majority Latino. The assumption
was based on Trump getting 55 percent of the
Latino vote in 2024. But gerrymandering 101 says
you need reliable voters. Exactly. And it's.
Far from clear that Latinos are reliable Republicans.
Even if some like Trump personally in 24, that
calculation might be faulty. Because things have
changed since November 2024, Latino sentiment
has shifted. Significantly, it seems. Many Latinos
are souring on Trump. Why? Deportations and tariffs.
I see arresting people without trial doesn't
build goodwill. Not exactly. And the tariffs
are hitting trade with Mexico, hurting jobs,
especially in South Texas. What are the polls
showing now? Nationwide, Trump's approval with
Latinos is around 36%. That's down 19 points
from the 24 exit polls. Probably worse in Texas
because of the direct impact of policies. Plus...
You know, it's perceived lack of interest in
helping flood victims there. So this dummymander,
as some are calling it, could backfire badly.
It absolutely could. These districts aren't guaranteed
wins. Republicans could lose them all. If Dems
run local Latinos and hammer on deportations
and tariffs, forget gaining seats. Could it be
even worse, like a blue wave making safe GOP
seats vulnerable? That's the risk. Basing everything
on only one election is dangerous. And this is
causing pushback even within the Texas GOP from
Latino Republicans. Yeah, they're hearing it
from constituents and they're starting to do
the unthinkable, advocating for some undocumented
immigrants like DREAMers. Like Rep Salazar in
Florida, supporting a path to citizenship, that's
heresy to the Trump line. It is. She made a point
about past shameful treatment of immigrants.
Although it's noted she did vote for the bill,
giving ICC $75 billion for roundups. So it's
complicated. And the Democrats' response? Fleeing
the state. Yep. The quorum break stunt. They've
decamped to Illinois. Guests of Governor Pritzker.
Texas police can't arrest them there. Pritzker
will shred extradition requests. They can't stay
there forever, obviously. Probably not till November
2026. But the stunt gets national attention on
the redistricting and maybe pushes other states
like California or New York towards countermeasures.
Can Governor Abbott just replace them, though?
No, not unilaterally. Expulsion needs a two -thirds
vote in the House 100 votes. That's extremely
rare. Like only happened once since 1927 for
misconduct. Exactly. And quorum breaks. They
have a storied tradition in Texas. 1870, 1979,
2003, 2021. None of those lawmakers were expelled
for it. The publicans don't have the 100 votes
needed. Right. They have 88. The threshold protects
against political overreach. Quorum breaks are
basically minority resistance made possible by
the state's own rules. OK, next up. The integrity
of economic data. Friday's firing of the BLS
commissioner, Erica McIntarfer, that really shook
things up. It did. She was about an appointee,
fired after a weak jobs report and downward revisions.
Trump immediately claimed the data was rigged
to make him look bad. Even without evidence,
he's disputed data before, right? Inflation numbers.
Repeatedly. This latest move alarmed economists
across the political spectrum and federal statisticians.
It amplified fears about institutional capture.
And the BLS is crucial. 140 years old produces
the monthly jobs report everyone watches. Markets,
policies, public mood, they all rely on that
data. Direct interference with the professionals
who compile it is rare and potentially destabilizing.
How is this data usually protected from politics?
Agencies like BLS, BEA, Census Bureau operate
under established protocols. They're meant to
be insulated. It's career civil servants, not
political appointees, who design surveys, collect
data. The processes are complex, entrenched the
bedrock of policy and market confidence. But
there are weak points. A president can't just
order a change in the inflation rate. No, but
they can influence appointments, shift incentives,
change funding, or just undermine trust in the
results. Trump calling unemployment phony or
inflation fake laid the groundwork for suspicion.
So the fear now is more about subtle manipulation,
putting loyalists in key spots. Exactly. That
opens the door. Maybe methodology gets quietly
revised to downplay people leaving the workforce.
Or a GDP report is delayed due to technical review.
Small moves that erode credibility quickly. And
just raising the possibility of fraud is damaging.
It can be enough to destabilize public faith
and undermine trust, even if the numbers themselves
aren't touched. Is there a check on this? Non
-governmental data sources? Thankfully, yes.
The U .S. has a whole ecosystem of them. The
Conference Board's LEI, ADP payrolls, ISM indices,
NFE, Small Business Index, University of Michigan
consumer sentiment. Real estate data from CoreLogic,
Zillow, Redfin, commodity prices, shipping. All
of that. They serve as a vital check on government
narratives, a reality check. What about the institutional
safeguards? How strong are they? They exist,
but their strength really depends on leadership
respecting them and vigilance from outsiders,
Congress, press, groups like the American Statistical
Association. But sustained attacks, firings,
that takes a toll regardless. Definitely. It
leads to staff leaving, delays in updates, lower
morale. That degrades data quality even without
fabrication. And re -brilling lost confidence.
Much harder. This isn't just politics. It's about
governance, how we react to economic signals.
Precisely. The firing sends a message. Deliver
bad news. Get punished. That's a dangerous precedent.
It's about soft power, eroding trust, reshaping
narratives, undermining institutions. Related
to institutions, a Fed governor resigned. Adriana
Kukler. A lucky break for Trump. You can see
it that way. Trump desperately wants lower interest
rates, good for his real estate background, lowers
federal debt payments. Though maybe he doesn't
realize low rates fuel inflation. Possibly not.
He's even talked about firing Fed Chair Powell,
his own nominee, though that's legally tricky.
Anyway, Kugler, a Biden appointee, resigned a
little bit early, gives Trump an early appointment.
And that means Republican appointees will now
have a majority on the Fed board. Yes, which
they didn't before. So does this mean lower rates
are coming? Maybe. Depends on Powell. If he's
against it, the votes aren't there. Probably.
If he's for it, they will be. The Fed's mission
includes keeping inflation in check, and the
14 -year terms are meant to insulate them from
pressure. But this president has a knack for
bending people to his will. He's extraordinarily
good at it, reports suggest. A majority of his
people on the board makes the task much easier.
Finally, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
shut down. Yeah, another move related to information
control. Authoritarians always try to control
the information flow. Trump's internalized this.
Even suing media outlets. Seems so. For MPR and
PBS via CPB, it was a different tactic. Republicans
pushed through rescissions, cutting off all its
funding. And CPB announced Friday it has to shut
down. Mission accomplished, as one source put
it. Grimly, yes. And the hardest hit. Rural areas.
You know, where many Trump voters live. Because
CPB funds a big chunk of their local MPR and
PBS stations. Exactly. Without it, they can't
make ends meet. Urban stations can fundraise
from wealthy donors, maybe even use the shutdown
as a rallying cry. Less true in rural areas.
So the result is more reliance on Fox News for
information in those areas. That appears to be
the likely outcome. And Trump probably doesn't
mind this so much. One last observation from
the sources, George W. Bush's silence. It's noted
as curious. He's alive. His opinion still matters
to many Republicans. A statement that Trump's
actions affront traditional GOP values could
have an impact. But he's been as quiet as a mouse.
OK, quite a deep dive today. What really stands
out, we've seen how things that seem separate,
Epstein fallout, campaign cash, Texas gerrymandering,
data integrity, they're all tangled up. Yeah,
they're part of this bigger story about power,
information, trust, and institutions. It really
reminds you that under the daily news churn,
these fundamental forces are shaping how we see
reality. Right. So here's something to think
about. In a time when trust in official data
in established stories is being challenged so
much, how do we navigate that? How do you personally
figure out what's true, what's important, what
really matters for the future? Definitely something
to mull over this week.