Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we are really
digging into a mix of topics, things that seem
separate, but you'll see how they connect. Our
goal, as always, is to give you that shortcut
to feeling well -informed, pull out those key
insights, those aha moments, no information overload,
just the important stuff. So. Let's unpack this.
We've got sources touching on everything from
surprising prosecutor fails to forgotten figures
in history, those really tough debates after
national tragedies, and even the big chess game
of global trade. It's quite a range. But what's
fascinating here is seeing the threads, you know,
how a legal quirk might echo in geopolitics or
how history informs current debates. Synthesizing
it gives you that richer picture. Absolutely.
So let's start with something almost comical,
if you know that old legal saying. The ham sandwich.
Exactly. The one that says a prosecutor can get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they
want to. It just shows how low the bar usually
is for an indictment, right? Formal accusation
stage. That's the idea. The grand jury standard
is just probable cause. Did a crime probably
happen? The prosecutor presents their side. No
defense arguments. Just need a simple majority
vote. It's designed to be a fairly low hurdle.
Yeah, not a high bar at all. So failing repeatedly,
that's... Well, that's almost unheard of. If
we connect this to the bigger picture, it really
makes you question what's going on. Is it competence?
Is it juror trust? It shouldn't be this hard.
And that brings us to Washington, D .C. and Prosecutor
Pirro's office. Our sources mentioned they'd
already struck out three times before on getting
a felony assault indictment in another case,
had to reduce the charge eventually. Three no
true bills, as they call it, yeah. But then it
happened again, and this time it literally involved...
Whoa. A sandwich. Uh -huh. A Subway cold -cut
combo, actually. Ham, salami, bologna. This guy,
Sean Charles Dunne, apparently threw it at a
Customs and Border Protection officer back on
August 10th in D .C. Wow. And the consequences
for Dunne were serious, right? Lost his DOJ job,
arrested, jailed. Yeah. Definitely not minor.
But then Piero's office went for a felony assault
indictment for the sandwich throwing. And the
grand jury said no. Again. Unbelievable. This
time they seemed to learn, though. After that...
First refusal, that first no true bill. They
quickly reduced it to a misdemeanor assault charge.
It's just, it's such a strange story. But OK,
beyond the flying lunch meat, what does this
tell us? Well, I think it points to something
fundamental about trust in the system. Grand
juries usually work on the assumption that the
prosecutor is competent, presenting things fairly.
Right. When that trust breaks down, maybe jurors
think the prosecutor is overreaching or politically
motivated. Then you get these weird outcomes.
The sources hint this could be part of a pattern
for certain Trump prosecutors, maybe a long line
of defeats we didn't used to see. Interesting.
And then there's the public reaction, them becoming
a sort of folk hero, these Banksy style images
popping up. That suggests, well, it suggests
a kind of vocal growing resistance. And that
kind of energy often translates into votes, doesn't
it? It certainly does. So yeah, a weird sandwich
incident ends up being this lens on the legal
process, public mood, political currents, fascinating
stuff. Now, speaking of perception and maybe
misperception, let's shift gears and dive into
some American history. There's been this push,
you know, for a while now to tell a broader story,
move past just the feel -good white man history,
as some sources put it. Right. And attempt to
diversify aren't new. They go back a long way.
But sometimes those early efforts weren't great.
You mentioned Molly Pitcher earlier. Yeah, the
Revolutionary War figure. Well, turns out Molly
Pitcher wasn't one person. It was more of a nickname
for lots of women helping out. Once historians
figured that out, she kind of faded from the
textbooks. Huh. And Bessie Ross? Sowing the flag?
Yeah, lovely story. But the sources are pretty
clear. It's entirely unsupported by evidence.
The story only popped up. Like a hundred years
after she died. Okay, so if they're not the full
picture, who should we be looking at? Our sources
highlighted someone really incredible, but maybe
overlooked. Anne Smith Franklin. Ah, yes. Benjamin
Franklin's sister -in -law. That's the one. Married
to his older brother James. Ben actually apprenticed
under James in Boston before, you know, he took
off for Philadelphia and became Benjamin Franklin.
And James. Yeah. Oh, well, James was apparently
quite a character. Good printer, sure, but also
very outspoken. The source to describe him is
leaning into conspiratorial thinking, even anti
-vax, for his time, called smallpox inoculation
the work of Satan. Oh, okay. Yeah. His strong
opinions got him jailed in Boston, which is why
he and Anne moved to Rhode Island. And there,
they set up the state's first printing press
and publishing business. And Anne wasn't just,
like, standing by. She was involved, right? Deeply
involved. Sales, editing. And think about typesetting
back then. tiny, individual -led letters, delicate
work, often done by women or kids with smaller
hands. Right. When they printed things like a
perpetual almanac, Anne certainly did the work
herself, sources say, all while managing a household
without any modern conveniences. That's incredible.
But what happened after James died? That's where
it gets really interesting. James died in 1735.
Anne's left with hardly any money for kids, all
under 10. Oh, wow. But she takes over the business,
lands the contract for all official printing
for the Rhode Island legislature, starts publishing
American versions of popular English novels like
Fair Rosamond, revised the Rhode Island Almanac.
So she's a real entrepreneur. Absolutely. She
becomes the first woman newspaper publisher in
American history with the Newport Mercury. And
that paper still publishes today, believe it
or not. Definitely the first woman newspaper
editor. That's amazing. And the Newport Mercury
under her leadership. It was progressive. It
was the first paper in America to publish poetry
by Phyllis Wheatley, a black woman. What a legacy.
How did her story end? Well, she ran the shop
for nearly 15 years, then partnered with her
son, James Jr. They billed themselves as James
and Anne Franklin. She stepped back a bit. But
when James Jr. died in 1762, Anne, nearly 68,
went back to working full time. Just kept going.
Yep. Her obituary from April 1763 praises her
fine constitution, great integrity, calls her
a faithful friend, and a compassionate benefactor
to the poor. But it also has this really poignant
detail. She outlived all her children. Oh, that's
heartbreaking. Yeah. And her printing press.
Even that has a story. British soldiers targeted
it during the Revolution. It got disassembled,
buried for safety, then dug up after the war
and put back into service. A real symbol of resilience.
It's in the Rhode Island Historical Society now.
Just incredible. Anne Smith Franklin. Her story
just hammers home that history isn't simple.
It's this vast and complicated tapestry, you
know, way more complex than the old narrow narratives
allowed. So many stories waiting to be told.
Definitely. Well, from uncovering hidden histories
to confronting debates that feel all too familiar.
Let's shift now. It's a tough topic, but an important
one. OK. Another school shooting this week, Minneapolis,
a Catholic school, two 10 -year -olds killed,
18 injured. Shotgun. Just awful. And the response
is. Sadly predictable. Yeah, the script as the
sources described it played out again from the
left You basically heard two things demands for
action on gun violence and a rejection of quote
empty thoughts and prayers and on the right some
responses felt Pretty tone -deaf didn't they?
Yeah, they did. You have the religious framing
like former congressman Trey Gowdy saying the
only comfort is knowing the kids are with Jesus
Which you know felt like proselytizing especially
since the kids were apparently killed during
prayer time at a religious school Kind of missed
the mark there right and then there were the
deflection arguments the focus on mental illness
not guns Scott Jennings on CNN blamed it on the
shooters mental illness being crammed being encouraged
instead of treated. The sources call that absolutely
vile. Yeah, that's rough. HHS Secretary Robert
F. Kennedy Jr. also jumped on the mental illness
train, speculating about antidepressants, SSRIs
maybe being a trigger. What's fascinating here
is the pushback. Senator Tina Smith, a Democrat
from Minnesota. She went on Twitter and just
let loose, said something like, dare you to tell
our grieving community guns don't kill kids,
antidepressants do. Just shut up. Stop peddling
bullshit. You should be fired. Pretty direct.
Wow. Strong words. And Gowdy managed to get heat
from his own side, too. Yeah, besides that with
Jesus comment, he also said something like, we're
going to have a conversation of freedom versus
protecting children. It's always a young white
male. That last part got huge backlash from right
-wing commentators demanding Fox fire him. So
just a mess all around. Where does this leave
things? Well, the political reality, as the sources
see it, is the U .S. isn't going gun free. The
left pushes for more restrictions. Who buys?
How easily? What types? The pro -gun side sees
any limit as the beginning of the end. fueled
by very motivated single -issue voters. Right,
stalemate. Pretty much. Yeah. Which led our sources
to float this, like, completely radical hypothetical.
Oh. Yeah, like, what if Democrats got power,
expanded the Supreme Court to 15 justices, found
a judge to rule the Second Amendment, only applies
to 1789 -style muskets, and got the new court
to uphold it? Whoa. Yeah. They frame it as the
only route we can even conceive of to maybe stop
the shootings. It just shows how deep the divide
is, how desperate the search for any kind of
systemic change feels. Definitely highlights
the deadlock. Okay, let's pivot one more time.
To the global stage now. Economics, geopolitics,
the Trump administration's trade wars. Right.
And a key piece here is something called the
de minimis exemption. Okay, what's that? Basically,
it lets you as a U .S. consumer import up to
$800 worth of goods per day without paying tariffs
or fees. It's actually been around for ages since
1938. The limit's gone up over time. The $800
level was set in 2016 with huge bipartisan support.
And the point is? Just to avoid the hassle and
cost of collecting tiny amounts of money on small
packages, you know, the paperwork would cost
more than the tariff itself. Makes sense. But
the Trump administration sees it differently.
Yeah, they're calling it a de minimis loophole.
Peter Navarro, he was the president's senior
counselor for trade, justified getting rid of
it by executive order, claimed it was a national
emergency. A national emergency? Why? Well, his
reasons were diverse. Stopping narcotics coming
in, raising maybe $10 billion in tariff money,
creating U .S. jobs, fighting intellectual property
theft. Does that logic hold up? Well, this raises
an important question. Do those claims really
pass the smell test? The sources argue Mostly
no. The drug thing. Cartels aren't exactly declaring
their shipments. Terrorists won't stop them.
Right. And the jobs versus revenue thing. It's
contradictory. A tariff can't be massively revenue
generating AD protectionist at the same time.
If it protects jobs, people buy American, imports
drop, and you don't get the tariff money. If
you get the money, it means people are still
importing. I see. So what are the actual consequences
of ending this exemption? Immediate disruption.
Starting tomorrow, apparently. There's just no
system ready to handle tariffs on millions of
small personal packages. And the impact is already
showing. Postal services in like over 10 major
countries, Australia, France, Germany, Japan,
the UK, others have announced they're just stopping
shipments to the US. Stopping them altogether.
Wow. Yeah, which could really mess up the upcoming
Christmas shopping season. The sources made this
interesting comparison to FDR trying to move
Thanksgiving earlier, Thanksgiving to boost shopping.
It was a political disaster. He had to walk back
fast, messing with holiday commerce. Politically
risky. Definitely something to watch. OK, so
that's one part of the trade wars. What about
the bigger picture, specifically China and Xi
Jinping? Yeah. The sources describe Xi as Trump's
biggest and most dangerous adversary. And there
are like four main reasons why. Okay. One, just
the sheer volume of trade between the US and
China. Two, China holds massive amounts of US
currency reserves. Three, China has way more
options for other trade partners than the U .S.
might. And four, Xi himself is seen as a very
skilled political operator. So how is Xi playing
this? Well, look at this signal China's sending.
This Wednesday, they're having a huge 80th anniversary
celebration of their WWII victory over Japan.
Big military parade. Trump loves parades. Was
he invited? Nope, explicitly not invited. But
guess who is invited and attending? Vladimir
Putin and Kim Jong Un. Oh, OK. That sends a message.
A couple of messages, really. The parade itself
says don't mess with China. But having Putin
and Kim there while excluding Trump, that says
I can play this geopolitical game better than
you, Donald. And also, hey, you're not our only
option for trade and partnerships, especially
since Trump's talks with both Putin and Kim have
stalled. Exactly. It reinforces that analogy
the sources used. She is playing 40 chess while
Trump is playing Candyland. Wow. OK, we have
covered a lot of ground today, from sandwich
indictments to Anne Franklin's printing press
to global chess moves. It really shows how connecting
these different pieces gives you that fuller
picture. Hopefully you feel really well informed
after this dive. And maybe it leaves you with
a final thought. This raises an important question.
Think about the power of individual actions we
discussed. A throne sandwich, a buried printing
press, even appointed non -invitation to a parade.
How do these small things sometimes reflect or
even help shape these much bigger historical
currents and political shifts? It makes you think
about how easily the narratives we accept, politically
or historically, can be challenged just by looking
a little closer, doesn't it?