Welcome to the Deep Dive. Really glad you could
join us. It's been, well, an incredibly dynamic
week in our sources. Quite surprising in some
ways. You've got material stretching all the
way from high stakes political plays in Washington
and around the country, right down to some unexpected
shifts in just how people are living their lives.
So our mission today, as always, is to cut through
that noise. We want to pull out the key insights,
help you connect the dots, so you walk away feeling
truly informed. maybe even have a few aha moments.
And that's really it, isn't it? Moving past the
headlines to grasp why things are happening,
why they matter. That's the goal, to unpack the
context. Exactly. So let's dive right in. The
executive branch has really been under the microscope
this week, legally speaking. Lots of questions
about authority, accountability. On multiple
fronts, yeah. Let's start with one that's demanding
answers about the past. The Jeffrey Epstein birthday
book, The Deadline, September 8th. It's coming
up fast for his estate to hand over that book
from 2003 to the House Oversight Committee. And
the big, the $64 billion question, as they say,
is there a raunchy drawing in there from Donald
Trump? He's denied it repeatedly, of course.
Our sources outline a few ways this could go.
If it's a bound book, pages numbered, and the
card's in there, well, that makes the past denials
a real problem. That's a very significant problem.
But if it's bound and the card isn't there, Maybe
he's off the hook, though apparently the Wall
Street Journal's lawyers felt 100 % certain about
their story originally, which complicates things.
And does add a layer of complexity. But maybe
the most intriguing possibility, that it's a
loose leaf scrapbook. Right. Which means pages
could potentially be removed or replaced pretty
easily. Which raises serious questions about
tampering. Exactly. And that's why people like
FBI Director Cash Patel are calling for a forensic
exam. Others suggest subpoenaing people who sent
cards. or even Epstein's estate lawyers. And
what's really fascinating here beyond the drawing
itself is the bigger theme, accountability, especially
with Alexandra Acosta's testimony coming up on
September 19th. Okay, yeah. Remind us about Acosta's
role again. He was the U .S. attorney back in
2007 who gave Epstein that deal. widely seen
as a slap on the wrist, right? Even though Epstein
was looking at maybe 45 years for sex trafficking
underage girls. Girls as young as 14, the sources
say. Right. So Democrats are going to press him
hard. Why the lenient deal? Was his later cabinet
job under Trump some kind of reward? And you
have to remember Acosta. He's Harvard Law clerk
for Justice Alito. So he understands the gravity.
Oh, absolutely. He knows very well that lying
to Congress under Earth is a felony. This isn't
just politics for him. It's serious legal territory.
So this isn't just, you know, political theater.
It's got real legal weight. You mentioned historical
parallels earlier. Yeah, it reminds me a bit
of Nixon. His downfall really kicked into high
gear during those Watergate hearings. Remember
Fred Thompson asking Alexander Butterfield that
simple question? About the tapes. Exactly. Is
there a taping system in the Oval Office? Butterfield
says yes, and boom, the dam breaks. Sometimes
asking the right question to the right person.
It can change everything. It shows how truth
can unravel even carefully constructed defenses.
That's a powerful point. So for you listening,
this isn't just digging up old news or focusing
on, you know, salacious details. It's fundamentally
about how truth and accountability work years
later and how that shapes public trust in powerful
figures. Precisely. And speaking of holding power
accountable. This past Friday was really interesting.
We saw courts pushing back directly on the powers
of the executive branch itself, a kind of double
whammy. A big one, yeah. First, those emergency
tariffs got blocked. The U .S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit ruled, pretty decisively,
seven to four, that the president just has no
authority to slap on tariffs using emergency
powers. Because the Constitution gives that power
to Congress. Exactly. The legislative branch,
not the executive. It's right there in Article
1. And the president's reaction was, well, Strong.
He said, if allowed to stand, this decision would
literally destroy the United States of America,
which, as our sources note, seems a bit at odds
with 249 years of constitutional understanding.
Just a bit. Yeah. So the big picture here is
a major reassertion of checks and balances. So
what happens now? It goes to the Supreme Court.
It's heading there. Appeal slated for October
14th. And the court faces a really stark choice.
follow the Constitution, or follow Donald Trump.
If they uphold the appeals court. Well, that
puts a big crimp in Trump's style. Also. Well,
not only does he lose a favorite tool for economic
leverage, but it could mean massive refunds on
tariffs already paid. Billions, potentially.
He could try other tariff methods or ask Congress.
But that's tougher, right? With a narrow majority
and lots of free traders in his own party. Much
tougher. And, you know, it's worth remembering
Congress kind of ceded some of this authority
in the first place. But this ruling pulls it
back firmly. Okay, and this pattern of courts
pushing back didn't stop with tariffs, did it?
There was another ruling on immigration. That's
right. U .S. District Judge Gia Ka blocked the
administration's fast -track removal process.
She found it violated the law. And this process?
Yeah. Wasn't it originally meant for very specific
cases, like recent arrivals near the border?
Exactly. People caught within 100 miles of the
border in the country less than two weeks. But
the administration started using it way more
broadly, deporting people who'd been here a long
time far from the border, like that example from
a slaughterhouse in Iowa. And Judge Ka brought
up a fundamental point. due process. She said,
everyone in the US has a right to due process,
even those people in the country illegally. Even
those here illegally? Yes. She pointed out that
ICE was basically using arbitrary quotas, like
aiming for 3 ,000 arrests a day. That led to
things like staking out courthouses, potentially
grabbing citizens or legal residents without
giving them a proper hearing. The government
can deport people, but it has to follow the legal
process, period. So across the board, we're seeing
courts drawing lines, reinforcing Congress's
power and individual rights, like due process.
These aren't just technical legal points for
you listening. They're about the fundamental
structure of our government and basic rights.
Foundational stuff. OK, let's shift gears slightly.
There's another power struggle brewing, this
time involving Congress's power of the purse.
The September 30th government shutdown deadline
is getting closer. Right. And Senator Susan Collins,
a key Republican from Maine, is more than concerned
about a tactic the administration might use.
It's called a pocket rescission. Uh huh. How
does that work exactly? So imagine Congress passes
a funding bill, allocates money for something
specific, say foreign aid, bipartisan support
signed into law. But then the administration
submits a rescission bill, basically asking to
cancel that funding. But they do it really close
to the end of the fiscal year. Too close for
Congress to act. Exactly. Congress is required
to consider it for 45 days. But if the fiscal
year ends before those 45 days are up, the president
isn't required to spend the money while it's
supposedly being debated. So effectively, they
kill the funding Congress approved. Like the
nearly $5 billion in foreign aid Trump is reportedly
trying to cut right now. And Senator Collins
is not happy. Not at all. As chair of the Appropriations
Committee, she's apparently very angry. calls
it a clear violation of the law, says Trump is
usurping the power of the purse from Congress.
Strong words. And the key insight here is how
this tactic poisons the well for the shutdown
negotiations happening right now. If Democrats
think Republicans are negotiating in bad faith,
agreeing to funding, they know the president
will just try to cancel later. Precisely. It
destroys trust. So. Democrats might insist on
changing the law governing these rescissions,
making them harder to do. But Republicans would
likely balk at that. Which could lead straight
to a shutdown. It very well could. It becomes
a sticking point rooted in whether you can even
trust the other side to uphold a deal. So the
stakes for you are really high. It's about whether
bipartisan agreements mean anything. The integrity
of how your money gets spent. Basically how government
functions. Fundamentally, yes. So. Stepping back
from these specific battles, what does this all
signal for the broader political scene, especially
for the Republican Party? Let's zoom out a bit.
OK. We have a new Quinnipiac poll. And the numbers
for Donald Trump, well, they're not great. 37
% approval, 55 % disapproval. That puts him 18
points underwater. Tied for his lowest point
in this second iteration, Trump 2 .0, as some
call it. Right. His problem isn't really with
Republicans. He's got 84 % approval there. It's
the independents only 31 % approver 59 % disapproval
That's a huge a massive gap and on specific issues
and economy trade Net negative 18. Foreign policy
negative 16. Israel Hamas policy negative 19.
It's really not a pretty picture politically
speaking. No. And the significance is this widespread
assumption in political circles. If those numbers
stay in the mid 30s come November 2026, he will
drown the entire Republican ticket. Wow. So these
aren't just abstract numbers. They could genuinely
reshape upcoming elections and maybe even the
future direction of the party itself. A serious
potential reckoning, yes. And beyond approval
numbers, there's this other deeper shift happening
in Washington. People are calling it the educational
divide. 50 years ago, you had lots of politicians
from both parties coming out of elite universities.
Maybe that helped them find common ground, shared
networks, whatever. There's an argument for that.
But that's really changed. Today, Democratic
politicians are, as the source puts it, appreciably
more elite than Republicans, educationally speaking.
The numbers are quite stark. Yeah. In the Senate,
Republican grads from elite universities dropped
from over half down to about a quarter now. In
the House, it went from over 40 % down to 15
% by 2021. Even degrees from Harvard and Yale
show this split widening. Which does raise an
interesting question, right? Does this make Democratic
politicians potentially out of touch with constituents
who didn't go to those schools, while Republicans
from, say, state schools might actually be more
connected? It's a potential dynamic. Of course,
history is complicated. FDR went to Harvard and
was arguably the most pro -working class president
we've had. But it's something Democrats probably
need to be conscious of not assuming everyone
shares their background. So it's more than just
demographics. It potentially affects policymaking,
how politicians communicate, even how representative
our government feels. It could, yeah. Okay, let's
look even further ahead. Who might be lining
up for the Republican nomination in 2028? What
does that tell us about where the party might
be headed? The crystal ballgazing has begun.
The Hill has a list. People like JD Vance, Senator
Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio. Vance shares Trump's
sort of isolationism, but some apparently see
him as phony. Ted Cruz, who was a big rival in
16, is now supposedly widely disguised. Politics
changes fast. And Ron DeSantis, despite his conservative
cred, apparently has a tin ear, comes across
as inauthentic to some. Interestingly, governors
Brian Kemp and Glenn Youngkin weren't on this
particular list. Yeah, omissions can be as telling
as inclusions sometimes. But the really fascinating
thing here, the bigger issue lurking in the background
is where is the Republican Party going with the
Republican Party? What do you mean? Well, Trump
has shifted the party so much from its traditional
principles. Think about it. The old GOP, small
government, free markets, free trade, welcoming
immigrants, generally trusted science. Right.
Reagan era principles, more or less. And Trump.
Big, powerful government intervening everywhere.
He hates free markets and trade. Tariff is the
most beautiful word, he says. He picks winners
and losers with industrial policy, like for Apple
or Intel. His stance on immigration is, well,
unlike anything since maybe Eisenhower. And there's
the skepticism of science, vaccines. A complete
reversal on many fronts. Totally. So if Trump
isn't on the ballot in 2028, the primaries are
set to be this huge fight for the soul of the
Republican party. They'll be trying to figure
out what it even means to be a Republican going
forward. So these ideological fights happening
now, they're really going to shape the future
of conservatism and the country. And beyond these
big leadership questions, there are tactics being
used to reshape the map itself. Literally, we're
talking about raw political power in the electoral
system. Gerrymandering. Exhibit A, Missouri.
Governor Mike Kehoe called a special session
specifically to, quote, gerrymander the living
daylights out of a congressional district, M
-O -O -5. Trying to flip a Democratic seat. Exactly.
Change it from a D plus 12 district to, as the
source bluntly puts it, something rep, Emanuel
Cleaver, DMO, can't win. Just a naked power grab
to pick up a House seat. And this raises that
huge question about the national picture. Can
gerrymandering actually stop the party that wins
the most votes nationwide from winning the House?
Can it? Nate Cohn at the New York Times ran the
numbers. It depends heavily on a few key states,
like if California redistricts aggressively or
if places like Florida, Ohio, Indiana follow
Missouri's lead. So it could get really messy.
It could become all out war if multiple states
go down this path. But there's a flip side, which
is independents absolutely hate gerrymandering,
despise it. So Democrats could actually use this,
propose reforms and potentially mobilize those
independent voters against Republicans who are
seen as rigging the maps. So for you listening,
how these maps are drawn directly impacts the
power of your vote and who represents you. It's
not just some obscure state level game. It's
fundamental to democracy. It really is. OK, let's
shift gears completely now. Moving away from
all that political intensity to a social trend
that honestly might surprise you. Let's unpack
this. OK, I'm curious. A new Gallup poll. It
found that the percentage of Americans who drink
alcohol has hit its lowest level since the Great
Depression. Wow. Since the Depression? Yeah.
Only 54 % of Americans in 2025 say they occasionally
drink alcohol. That's a big drop. That is a big
drop. Any particular group striving that? Yes,
the decline since just 2023 is pretty significant
in some areas. Younger generations, homelanders,
and millennials down 9 points. Women saw an 11
point drop. Men, only 5 points. But here's the
kicker. Republicans. Down a massive 19 points.
19 points for Republicans. Compared to Democrats.
Democrats only dropped three points. So huge
partisan divergence there. That's fascinating.
And the deeper implication. Could there be a
connection between that Republican shift and,
say, the White House's Make America Healthy Again
campaign? I mean, both Trump and RFK Jr. are
known non -drinkers. It's plausible. And one,
it lines up with this growing feeling that alcohol
just isn't healthy. A record 53 % of Americans
now say even moderate drinking is bad for health.
Especially younger people. Among those under
35, it's even higher, 66%. So it really looks
like a cultural shift towards health consciousness
might be driving this. But I had to inject a
note of caution here, a caveat. Remember the
COVID years, 2020 to 2022. Alcohol consumption
actually spiked then, cabin fever, stress. Oh
yeah, levels got very high. So the question is,
Is this big Gallup drop just things returning
to normal after that spike or is it really a
new sustained low? What does other data tell
us? That's the critical question. And the data
is still a bit murky because despite this reported
drop in consumption from Gallup, the alcohol
related death rate in twenty twenty three, that's
the latest CDC data we have, was still very high,
still high, even with fewer people supposedly
drinking. Yeah. And alarmingly, for people aged
35 to 44, the death rate was roughly double what
it was just a decade ago. Double? Wow. So if
this Gallup trend of lower consumption holds
true over time, we should see those mortality
numbers come down eventually. But there's always
a lag. It's possible the Gallup drop is just
a one -off, a correction after the pandemic.
Or maybe. Fewer people are drinking overall.
But those who do drink are drinking more or engaging
in more dangerous binge drinking. That's the
other possibility. Maybe the beneficial effect
of fewer drinkers is being canceled out by more
harmful patterns among those who still drink,
honestly. We'll know soon enough as more data
comes in. It's a really surprising trend, but
the full story isn't clear yet. Yeah. So for
you listening, this isn't just about lifestyle
choices. It touches on public health, changing
social norms, maybe even generational shifts.
And it definitely challenges some common assumptions
about American life. Absolutely. A lot to watch
there. Wow. OK. We have covered a lot of ground
today. We've really taken that deep dive, haven't
we? From the high stakes political games in DC,
in the States, all the way to this quiet, but
maybe profound shift in alcohol use. And if we
try to connect all these threads. political,
legal, social, you really get a sense of a moment
of significant change, maybe even redefinition
happening in American life right now. Understanding
these different forces, how they interact, it
helps make sense of the bigger picture. So here's
a final thought for you to reflect on as you
go about your day. What connections do you see
between these things, between the shifting political
tides we talked about, the legal battles over
power and rights, and these subtle but maybe
significant changes in social behavior like the
drinking trend? Are these things completely separate?
Or are they influencing each other in ways we
maybe haven't fully grasped yet? Hmm. Good question.
Keep exploring. Keep questioning. And thanks
so much for joining us for this Deep Dive.