WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.399 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we've got 00:00:02.399 --> 00:00:04.360 quite a stack of source material articles, some 00:00:04.360 --> 00:00:06.960 legal briefs, political analysis. A real mix. 00:00:07.179 --> 00:00:09.900 Yeah, and we're trying to apply it all to, well, 00:00:10.199 --> 00:00:12.849 one main question. What does centralized political 00:00:12.849 --> 00:00:15.289 power actually look like in practice these days? 00:00:15.589 --> 00:00:18.329 We're covering a lot from media independence 00:00:18.329 --> 00:00:20.449 challenges to basic governing competence, even 00:00:20.449 --> 00:00:23.070 political strategy shifts. That's right. And 00:00:23.070 --> 00:00:25.309 our mission really is to get past the daily noise. 00:00:25.510 --> 00:00:27.550 You know, we want to synthesize these different 00:00:27.550 --> 00:00:30.129 threads, the legal stuff, the policy moves or 00:00:30.129 --> 00:00:32.049 lack thereof, the political dynamics. Connect 00:00:32.049 --> 00:00:35.070 the dots. Exactly. Connect the dots into a cohesive 00:00:35.070 --> 00:00:38.549 picture so that you can walk away with a clearer 00:00:38.549 --> 00:00:41.340 sense of the current operating environment. And 00:00:41.340 --> 00:00:44.000 it seems defined by this constant push -pull 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:47.960 between really aggressive control tactics and, 00:00:47.979 --> 00:00:50.039 frankly, some surprising disarray. Okay, let's 00:00:50.039 --> 00:00:52.359 get right into it then. Starting where the sources 00:00:52.359 --> 00:00:55.299 seem to point first. This intense pressure on 00:00:55.299 --> 00:00:57.899 the media, on the flow of information. The whole 00:00:57.899 --> 00:00:59.740 thing with Jimmy Kimmel's show being canceled, 00:00:59.759 --> 00:01:02.700 for instance. The analysis we're seeing suggests 00:01:02.700 --> 00:01:05.159 this isn't just a one -off thing. No, definitely 00:01:05.159 --> 00:01:08.140 not. The sources frame it as part of a, well, 00:01:08.299 --> 00:01:11.829 a clear pattern. using institutional power, government 00:01:11.829 --> 00:01:14.349 power, to push back on views they don't like. 00:01:14.890 --> 00:01:16.609 Sometimes it's linked to other crackdowns like 00:01:16.609 --> 00:01:19.709 on universities, but often the sources say it's 00:01:19.709 --> 00:01:22.310 just because Trump's personal fee fees were hurt. 00:01:22.530 --> 00:01:25.010 And what's really striking is how, why this pattern 00:01:25.010 --> 00:01:27.489 seems to be right across the media landscape. 00:01:27.799 --> 00:01:30.180 It's much bigger than one late night show. So 00:01:30.180 --> 00:01:32.260 like the lawsuits. Exactly. Lawsuits against 00:01:32.260 --> 00:01:34.659 big names, the New York Times, the Wall Street 00:01:34.659 --> 00:01:37.019 Journal. And then there are the financial settlements. 00:01:37.200 --> 00:01:40.280 The sources point to specific ones like $16 million 00:01:40.280 --> 00:01:43.060 from CBS after a Kamala Harris interview. Right. 00:01:43.219 --> 00:01:46.439 I saw that. And ABC. $15 million from ABC. That 00:01:46.439 --> 00:01:48.340 was after George Stephanopoulos mentioned the 00:01:48.340 --> 00:01:50.260 civil court finding that Trump raped E. Jean 00:01:50.260 --> 00:01:52.739 Carroll. Critics argue these settlements basically 00:01:52.739 --> 00:01:55.579 act as a penalty for running critical stories. 00:01:55.640 --> 00:01:58.739 And it goes beyond lost. doesn't it, to the actual 00:01:58.739 --> 00:02:02.260 licenses? Yeah, the threat level escalates. Trump 00:02:02.260 --> 00:02:05.739 publicly floated the idea that networks claiming 00:02:05.739 --> 00:02:10.000 97 % negative coverage, which is quite a claim, 00:02:10.479 --> 00:02:12.759 that they should maybe have their broadcast licenses 00:02:12.759 --> 00:02:15.139 looked at, possibly revoked. And then he had 00:02:15.139 --> 00:02:18.020 the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, kind of adding fuel 00:02:18.020 --> 00:02:20.460 to that, saying, we're not done yet with media 00:02:20.460 --> 00:02:23.629 changes. Which raises a big question. Why would 00:02:23.629 --> 00:02:26.590 companies, you know, give in to this? Because 00:02:26.590 --> 00:02:29.009 legally, it seems like they'd have strong grounds 00:02:29.009 --> 00:02:31.469 to fight back. That's the fascinating part. The 00:02:31.469 --> 00:02:33.810 legal ground is incredibly strong. You have to 00:02:33.810 --> 00:02:36.210 remember, NRA vidoe it. The Supreme Court case. 00:02:36.449 --> 00:02:39.090 Unanimous decision. It made it absolutely clear 00:02:39.090 --> 00:02:41.629 governments can't use their regulatory power 00:02:41.629 --> 00:02:44.710 or threats to bully private companies into censoring 00:02:44.710 --> 00:02:46.509 views they don't like. That's a pretty clear 00:02:46.509 --> 00:02:48.990 cut. Very. Legal experts in these documents are 00:02:48.990 --> 00:02:51.530 basically saying, look, if the FCC actually tried 00:02:51.530 --> 00:02:54.139 to pull ABC or Disney's license over content? 00:02:54.280 --> 00:02:56.219 They'd get an injunction. Almost certainly. And 00:02:56.219 --> 00:02:58.740 immediately. The precedent is that solid. So 00:02:58.740 --> 00:03:00.699 the sources are suggesting it's more about the 00:03:00.699 --> 00:03:02.639 fear of a fight, maybe, than the actual legal 00:03:02.639 --> 00:03:05.500 risk? Seems to be the calculation, yeah. But 00:03:05.500 --> 00:03:08.080 it's not just the legal system potential here. 00:03:08.139 --> 00:03:11.400 There's also pushback from consumers. Ah, right. 00:03:11.439 --> 00:03:14.060 People canceling subscriptions. Exactly. Readers, 00:03:14.159 --> 00:03:17.139 viewers taking direct action, canceling Disney 00:03:17.139 --> 00:03:19.840 Plus, Hulu, Paramount Plus, Slaree, things like 00:03:19.840 --> 00:03:23.719 that. And they're doing it to protest what they 00:03:23.719 --> 00:03:29.080 see as companies being complicit in MAGA cancel 00:03:29.080 --> 00:03:31.000 culture. And they're making it clear why they're 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:33.810 leaving. That's the key detail, isn't it? They're 00:03:33.810 --> 00:03:36.330 not just clicking cancel. Many are using those 00:03:36.330 --> 00:03:39.069 little feedback boxes, the cancellation screens, 00:03:39.469 --> 00:03:41.590 to type out why they're leaving. That gets noticed. 00:03:41.830 --> 00:03:44.729 You bet. When that data hits the C -suite, it's 00:03:44.729 --> 00:03:47.810 not just noise anymore. It's a documented financial 00:03:47.810 --> 00:03:50.689 risk. OK, so that's the external pressure. But 00:03:50.689 --> 00:03:52.969 the control attempts aren't just outside in. 00:03:53.020 --> 00:03:55.699 The sources also point to internal restrictions, 00:03:56.340 --> 00:03:58.840 like new rules limiting reporting right from 00:03:58.840 --> 00:04:00.680 inside the Pentagon. Yeah, that's another angle. 00:04:00.879 --> 00:04:02.379 What are the details there? Who gets in, who 00:04:02.379 --> 00:04:05.080 doesn't? It's kind of layered. First, reporters 00:04:05.080 --> 00:04:07.139 apparently can't just roam the halls anymore. 00:04:07.240 --> 00:04:09.740 They need an official minder with them. But the 00:04:09.740 --> 00:04:12.439 bigger change, arguably, is the policy about 00:04:12.439 --> 00:04:15.520 information itself. The Dow information rule. 00:04:15.680 --> 00:04:17.519 What does Dow stand for again? Department of 00:04:17.519 --> 00:04:19.819 War. It's an older term, but basically means 00:04:19.819 --> 00:04:22.800 any operational detail. Got it. And the new rule 00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:25.779 is that this Dow information has to be approved 00:04:25.779 --> 00:04:28.220 for public release by an authorizing official 00:04:28.220 --> 00:04:31.279 before a reporter can publish it, even if the 00:04:31.279 --> 00:04:34.500 info is already unclassified. Wow. So basically 00:04:34.500 --> 00:04:36.620 pre -publication review by the government. That's 00:04:36.620 --> 00:04:39.319 what it amounts to, yes. Institutionalized pre 00:04:39.319 --> 00:04:42.019 -clearance on the press's own reporting. And 00:04:42.019 --> 00:04:44.360 wasn't there also a physical change? Like, who 00:04:44.360 --> 00:04:47.300 got office space there? There was. happened right 00:04:47.300 --> 00:04:49.620 before these rules tightened up, outlets that, 00:04:49.620 --> 00:04:51.959 well, had sometimes been critical of the administration. 00:04:52.160 --> 00:04:54.639 Like the Times, NPR? Yeah, the New York Times, 00:04:54.839 --> 00:04:57.759 NPR, Politico, NBC News, they were moved out 00:04:57.759 --> 00:05:00.180 of their dedicated workspace inside the Pentagon. 00:05:00.300 --> 00:05:02.620 And replaced by? Replaced by outlets seen as 00:05:02.620 --> 00:05:04.980 more favorable. The New York Post, Breitbart, 00:05:05.240 --> 00:05:07.819 OANN, even HuffPost got space in that shift. 00:05:08.259 --> 00:05:11.160 It sends a pretty clear signal about who's considered, 00:05:11.160 --> 00:05:13.579 you know, trustworthy enough to be close. OK, 00:05:13.839 --> 00:05:16.759 let's use that idea of shifting access as a bridge. 00:05:17.300 --> 00:05:20.040 We've talked about these pretty extreme control 00:05:20.040 --> 00:05:22.980 tactics. Let's pivot to the other side of the 00:05:22.980 --> 00:05:26.040 argument in our sources. This idea of governing 00:05:26.040 --> 00:05:29.379 disarray, maybe even incompetence. Right. The 00:05:29.379 --> 00:05:31.680 contrast. And there's a huge paradox here, especially 00:05:31.680 --> 00:05:34.319 around human trafficking. The Republican platform 00:05:34.319 --> 00:05:37.379 is really clear. Ending child trafficking is 00:05:37.379 --> 00:05:40.540 a top priority. It's stated very clearly, but 00:05:40.540 --> 00:05:42.740 the evidence presented in the sources points 00:05:42.740 --> 00:05:45.560 the other way. They show government efforts being 00:05:45.560 --> 00:05:48.800 aggressively rolled back. Why? What reasons do 00:05:48.800 --> 00:05:51.819 they give? Two main verifiable ones. First, resource 00:05:51.819 --> 00:05:54.560 pairing. Funding and focus shifted away from 00:05:54.560 --> 00:05:56.500 established government anti -trafficking units. 00:05:56.800 --> 00:05:59.740 Some of it apparently went towards external advocacy 00:05:59.740 --> 00:06:01.579 groups, sometimes linked to sort of celebrity 00:06:01.579 --> 00:06:04.439 causes. The sources use this cryptic phrase, 00:06:04.680 --> 00:06:08.090 Elon Musk and doggies movements. OK. diverting 00:06:08.090 --> 00:06:10.250 resources. What's the second reason? Staff reassignment. 00:06:10.769 --> 00:06:12.769 Just moving experienced anti -trafficking people 00:06:12.769 --> 00:06:14.889 over to border control and deportation tasks. 00:06:15.029 --> 00:06:17.829 And the most basic sign of neglect, the missed 00:06:17.829 --> 00:06:20.069 deadline. That's probably the starkest example. 00:06:20.889 --> 00:06:22.610 Federal law says the Department of Justice has 00:06:22.610 --> 00:06:25.449 to submit a big report on sex trafficking every 00:06:25.449 --> 00:06:28.430 year by June 30th. And? It just hasn't been submitted. 00:06:28.649 --> 00:06:31.649 It's overdue. And the consensus among professionals 00:06:31.649 --> 00:06:34.430 cited is, when you miss basic oversight like 00:06:34.430 --> 00:06:36.709 that, it can take years to get back on track 00:06:36.709 --> 00:06:38.949 with prosecuting these really complex crimes. 00:06:39.509 --> 00:06:42.370 That failure seems even more stark when you contrast 00:06:42.370 --> 00:06:45.110 it with areas where the administration is incredibly 00:06:45.110 --> 00:06:48.529 focused, like using the Department of Justice 00:06:48.529 --> 00:06:51.750 politically, weaponizing it against perceived 00:06:51.750 --> 00:06:54.329 enemies. The sources point to some pretty blatant 00:06:54.329 --> 00:06:57.610 examples, right? public demands. Yeah, the violation 00:06:57.610 --> 00:06:59.709 of that traditional separation between the White 00:06:59.709 --> 00:07:02.129 House and law enforcement seems pretty stark. 00:07:02.550 --> 00:07:05.370 Sources detail things like public posts on social 00:07:05.370 --> 00:07:07.750 media, the administration calling for the attorney 00:07:07.750 --> 00:07:10.290 general, Pam Bondi, to hurry up and prosecute 00:07:10.290 --> 00:07:12.689 people like Letitia James, Adam Schiff, James 00:07:12.689 --> 00:07:15.069 Comey. Perceived political opponents. Exactly. 00:07:15.170 --> 00:07:17.649 But were those cases even like real cases? What 00:07:17.649 --> 00:07:19.709 did the experienced prosecutors think? According 00:07:19.709 --> 00:07:22.250 to the sources, they're essentially non -existent. 00:07:22.410 --> 00:07:24.509 The supposed charges against James and Schiff 00:07:24.509 --> 00:07:27.459 were about mortgage fraud. OK. But the legal 00:07:27.459 --> 00:07:29.680 standard needs proof of intent to defraud the 00:07:29.680 --> 00:07:32.399 bank. And the sources say the evidence just isn't 00:07:32.399 --> 00:07:36.259 there. At all. Experts quoted say any judge would 00:07:36.259 --> 00:07:40.040 likely toss the cases out. And if prosecutors 00:07:40.040 --> 00:07:42.959 internally resisted? There were consequences. 00:07:43.480 --> 00:07:46.319 One career prosecutor, Eric Siebert, was apparently 00:07:46.319 --> 00:07:49.040 fired right away for refusing to pursue the file. 00:07:49.439 --> 00:07:53.199 OK. So on one side. Aggressive pursuit of political 00:07:53.199 --> 00:07:56.800 enemies with weak cases. What about allies who 00:07:56.800 --> 00:08:00.120 might be caught up in actual verifiable wrongdoing? 00:08:00.300 --> 00:08:02.220 And that's where the contradiction gets really 00:08:02.220 --> 00:08:04.399 sharp, according to these analyses. They cite 00:08:04.399 --> 00:08:06.839 the investigation into the border does our Tom 00:08:06.839 --> 00:08:09.439 Homan. It was dropped. Dropped. But wasn't there 00:08:09.439 --> 00:08:12.300 strong evidence? Very strong, apparently, including 00:08:12.300 --> 00:08:14.480 a recorded video of him taking a fifty thousand 00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:17.300 dollar cash bribe from an undercover FBI agent. 00:08:17.300 --> 00:08:19.420 Wow. Looked like a slam dunk case suddenly dropped 00:08:19.420 --> 00:08:21.800 by the DOJ. And you have to connect that, the 00:08:21.800 --> 00:08:23.579 sources argue, to what happened to the unit that 00:08:23.579 --> 00:08:25.879 investigates corruption. Public integrity. Yeah, 00:08:26.040 --> 00:08:28.279 the public integrity section, it was drastically 00:08:28.279 --> 00:08:30.980 cut back from about 30 experienced prosecutors 00:08:30.980 --> 00:08:34.440 down to just five. Five. Five. When you get the 00:08:34.440 --> 00:08:38.019 unit responsible, it seriously impacts the ability 00:08:38.019 --> 00:08:40.519 or maybe the will to go after people connected 00:08:40.519 --> 00:08:43.200 to the administration. Let's shift focus slightly 00:08:43.200 --> 00:08:46.480 to the D .C. U .S. Attorney's Office under Jeanine 00:08:46.480 --> 00:08:49.850 Pirro. She walked into a tough situation, right? 00:08:50.289 --> 00:08:53.190 Staffing shortages. A massive labor shortage. 00:08:53.330 --> 00:08:55.529 Inherited it from her predecessor, Ed Martin, 00:08:55.629 --> 00:08:58.909 after lots of resignations. We're talking 344 00:08:58.909 --> 00:09:03.250 lawyers when they needed 414. Only 227 support 00:09:03.250 --> 00:09:06.769 staff instead of 367. A skeleton crew, basically. 00:09:06.950 --> 00:09:09.009 And her approach hasn't helped. According to 00:09:09.009 --> 00:09:11.600 staff quoted in the sources, no. She's described 00:09:11.600 --> 00:09:13.659 as zealous, and that seems to mean she tends 00:09:13.659 --> 00:09:15.480 to overcharge defendants. Is that the sandwich 00:09:15.480 --> 00:09:17.679 example? Yeah, that specific detail was in there, 00:09:17.679 --> 00:09:19.460 charging someone who just threw a sandwich with 00:09:19.460 --> 00:09:21.580 aggravated assault. That sounds excessive and 00:09:21.580 --> 00:09:24.299 like it would waste resources. Exactly. Overcharging 00:09:24.299 --> 00:09:26.460 forces the already stretched team to spend way 00:09:26.460 --> 00:09:28.679 more time trying to justify these really severe 00:09:28.679 --> 00:09:30.539 charges in court. And the result? The system 00:09:30.539 --> 00:09:32.860 is pushing back. Grand juries have apparently 00:09:32.860 --> 00:09:34.840 rejected at least eight indictments recently 00:09:34.840 --> 00:09:37.440 because they were seen as excessive. Judges are 00:09:37.440 --> 00:09:39.980 dismissing cases too. So this zealous approach 00:09:39.980 --> 00:09:43.259 is reducing crime. It's actually increasing the 00:09:43.259 --> 00:09:45.980 workload for her own staff. It really highlights 00:09:45.980 --> 00:09:48.879 that mix again. Aggressive tactics combined with, 00:09:48.879 --> 00:09:52.620 well, profound disorganization. Okay, let's completely 00:09:52.620 --> 00:09:55.519 change gears now. Political strategy ideology 00:09:55.519 --> 00:09:59.379 starting with the the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's 00:09:59.379 --> 00:10:02.860 death tragic situation But the media political 00:10:02.860 --> 00:10:04.919 effect the sources say was this galvanization 00:10:04.919 --> 00:10:08.700 of young conservatives a surge in money Volunteers 00:10:08.700 --> 00:10:11.860 new TP USA chapters all rallying around his wife 00:10:11.860 --> 00:10:14.039 Erica who took leadership right which creates 00:10:14.039 --> 00:10:16.980 this really interesting ideological puzzle for 00:10:16.980 --> 00:10:18.899 the movement, doesn't it? It really does, because 00:10:18.899 --> 00:10:21.440 so much of Kirk's political identity, his brand, 00:10:21.639 --> 00:10:23.860 was tied up in this message about, well, women 00:10:23.860 --> 00:10:25.679 stepping back from leadership, focusing on the 00:10:25.679 --> 00:10:27.820 home. So can a movement built on that specific 00:10:27.820 --> 00:10:30.840 idea be led effectively by a woman? That's the 00:10:30.840 --> 00:10:33.600 question. If Erica softens that message about 00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:36.419 men running things, does she risk losing the 00:10:36.419 --> 00:10:39.120 core followers who were drawn to that exact ideology 00:10:39.120 --> 00:10:41.139 in the first place? It's a real tightrope walk. 00:10:41.320 --> 00:10:43.320 The source is also picked up on a really quick 00:10:43.320 --> 00:10:46.039 shift on censorship right after his death. Yeah, 00:10:46.039 --> 00:10:47.960 that was a telling moment. You had Republicans 00:10:47.960 --> 00:10:51.539 who just days before were staunchly against any 00:10:51.539 --> 00:10:54.179 censorship, even for hate speech. Suddenly changing 00:10:54.179 --> 00:10:57.000 their tune. Completely reversing course. After 00:10:57.000 --> 00:10:59.379 Crookes Killer was found to be radicalized online, 00:10:59.779 --> 00:11:01.720 suddenly they're demanding social media companies 00:11:01.720 --> 00:11:04.919 block hate speech. It just shows how quickly 00:11:04.919 --> 00:11:08.179 ideological stances can flip when, you know, 00:11:08.399 --> 00:11:12.200 personal or political stakes change. Trump's 00:11:12.200 --> 00:11:15.919 eulogy was memorable. Highly unconventional is 00:11:15.919 --> 00:11:18.820 one way to put it. He actually used the platform 00:11:18.820 --> 00:11:21.259 to disagree with Kirk, saying Kirk supposedly 00:11:21.259 --> 00:11:23.879 didn't hate his opponents enough. Trump said, 00:11:23.960 --> 00:11:26.580 and this is a direct quote, I hate my opponents 00:11:26.580 --> 00:11:28.519 and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. 00:11:28.840 --> 00:11:31.779 I am sorry, Erica. Wow. Quite the statement at 00:11:31.779 --> 00:11:34.700 a funeral. A very stark, unfiltered moment of 00:11:34.700 --> 00:11:36.960 political philosophy. And then it turned into 00:11:36.960 --> 00:11:39.620 a 45 -minute campaign speech. A stump speech. 00:11:40.090 --> 00:11:42.350 At the funeral. Yep. And apparently a noticeable 00:11:42.350 --> 00:11:44.490 number of people actually got up and left during 00:11:44.490 --> 00:11:47.309 that part. Suggests maybe the audience there 00:11:47.309 --> 00:11:50.090 for a memorial wasn't quite in the mood. Stump 00:11:50.090 --> 00:11:53.990 speech fatigue, perhaps? Okay, next topic. A 00:11:53.990 --> 00:11:56.509 really unexpected policy move. This proposed 00:11:56.509 --> 00:12:00.769 $100 ,000 annual fee on H -1B visas. Yeah, came 00:12:00.769 --> 00:12:02.990 out of left field for many. Now this will probably 00:12:02.990 --> 00:12:04.889 get challenged in court, right? Congress usually 00:12:04.889 --> 00:12:07.230 sets visa fees. But assuming it happens, what's 00:12:07.230 --> 00:12:09.899 the economic impact? Well, economically, it's 00:12:09.899 --> 00:12:12.639 actually seen by some analysts as good news for 00:12:12.639 --> 00:12:15.960 highly skilled American workers. We're talking 00:12:15.960 --> 00:12:19.779 college educated, six figure earners often in 00:12:19.779 --> 00:12:22.879 tech, a group that tends to lean Democrat. Interestingly, 00:12:23.360 --> 00:12:25.779 the huge fee makes it much less attractive for 00:12:25.779 --> 00:12:28.360 companies to use H1Bs to hire cheaper foreign 00:12:28.360 --> 00:12:30.779 labor, which can suppress wages. So it protects 00:12:30.779 --> 00:12:32.639 domestic salaries in those fields. That's the 00:12:32.639 --> 00:12:34.620 idea. And it's worth noting, like over 70 percent 00:12:34.620 --> 00:12:37.120 of H1Bs last year went to workers from India. 00:12:37.120 --> 00:12:41.539 So it impacts that flow significantly. But isn't 00:12:41.539 --> 00:12:44.139 this completely at odds with the other immigration 00:12:44.139 --> 00:12:46.769 things they're doing? like the programs for wealthy 00:12:46.769 --> 00:12:49.250 foreigners. Totally contradictory. The sources 00:12:49.250 --> 00:12:52.070 draw a sharp contrast between this H -1B fee 00:12:52.070 --> 00:12:54.590 and the new gold card that's for a $1 million 00:12:54.590 --> 00:12:57.389 investment and the platinum card. Platinum card. 00:12:57.529 --> 00:12:59.669 $5 million investment. And it comes with big 00:12:59.669 --> 00:13:02.669 tax breaks on foreign income. These programs 00:13:02.669 --> 00:13:04.970 seem designed purely to raise money for the government, 00:13:05.049 --> 00:13:07.470 not really to create jobs like some other investor 00:13:07.470 --> 00:13:09.789 visas aim to do. To protect American tech jobs 00:13:09.789 --> 00:13:12.549 on one hand, sell visas to rich foreigners on 00:13:12.549 --> 00:13:15.080 the other. Exactly. And that tension is... apparently 00:13:15.080 --> 00:13:17.220 causing some real friction within the Magier 00:13:17.220 --> 00:13:20.100 days. Hardliners like Steve Bannon, Laura Loomer, 00:13:20.580 --> 00:13:23.279 they're strongly against these pay to play visa 00:13:23.279 --> 00:13:25.639 schemes. Okay, let's wrap up with Paul Krugman's 00:13:25.639 --> 00:13:28.139 analysis. He connects male joblessness to what 00:13:28.139 --> 00:13:30.580 he calls male rage. Yeah, he looks at the underlying 00:13:30.580 --> 00:13:33.659 data and it's stark. Regardless of politics, 00:13:33.840 --> 00:13:37.100 the number of men aged 25, 54 who aren't working 00:13:37.100 --> 00:13:39.659 or even looking for work, it's over 10 % now. 00:13:39.700 --> 00:13:42.470 Which is high historically. Way higher. Before 00:13:42.470 --> 00:13:45.669 the 1960s, it was under 3 percent. And the sources 00:13:45.669 --> 00:13:48.769 Krugman cites point the finger squarely at factory 00:13:48.769 --> 00:13:51.730 automation and foreign competition. Not, as some 00:13:51.730 --> 00:13:53.950 narratives claim, women entering the workforce. 00:13:54.450 --> 00:13:56.350 So Krugman says Democrats need to acknowledge 00:13:56.350 --> 00:13:59.009 this is a real problem and offer real solutions. 00:13:59.309 --> 00:14:02.850 Exactly. He argues they need specific, appealing 00:14:02.850 --> 00:14:05.309 policies for these men. What kind of policies 00:14:05.309 --> 00:14:08.940 did he suggest? Three main ideas. First, make 00:14:08.940 --> 00:14:11.679 traditionally female -coded jobs, like healthcare 00:14:11.679 --> 00:14:14.440 tech or teaching, more attractive by boosting 00:14:14.440 --> 00:14:17.980 pay and status. Second, offer free community 00:14:17.980 --> 00:14:20.759 college and vocational training, plus subsidized 00:14:20.759 --> 00:14:23.100 apprenticeships, real pathways back to skilled 00:14:23.100 --> 00:14:25.960 work. And the third. Reframe green energy jobs. 00:14:26.360 --> 00:14:29.240 Things like solar panel installation, wind turbine 00:14:29.240 --> 00:14:31.679 maintenance, broadband rollout, which involves 00:14:31.679 --> 00:14:34.840 heavy equipment, digging. Frame these as blue 00:14:34.840 --> 00:14:38.070 -collar, skilled... Even manly jobs make them 00:14:38.070 --> 00:14:40.070 appealing. So looking back at everything we've 00:14:40.070 --> 00:14:42.230 covered in this deep dive, it really is a picture 00:14:42.230 --> 00:14:44.809 of contrast, isn't it? On one hand, media under 00:14:44.809 --> 00:14:47.610 serious threat the DOJ used politically. Aggressive 00:14:47.610 --> 00:14:50.610 control tactics. Right. But then simultaneously, 00:14:51.350 --> 00:14:54.389 core government functions, like fighting trafficking, 00:14:54.929 --> 00:14:58.230 seem to be failing. It's this weird mix of extreme 00:14:58.230 --> 00:15:01.990 control and, well, basic incompetence. And circling 00:15:01.990 --> 00:15:04.350 back to those initial threats, like against the 00:15:04.350 --> 00:15:07.600 media? The key takeaway from the legal analysis 00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:10.000 is pretty clear, resisting the pressure, drawing 00:15:10.000 --> 00:15:12.799 a line. It often works. The precedent suggests 00:15:12.799 --> 00:15:15.139 that standing firm often makes the bully back 00:15:15.139 --> 00:15:17.600 down, especially when the legal ground is solid. 00:15:18.039 --> 00:15:19.820 Which leaves us with a final thought for you, 00:15:20.000 --> 00:15:22.850 the listener, to chew on. Given how clear the 00:15:22.850 --> 00:15:25.649 legal precedents seem to be, like NRA, Vivolo, 00:15:25.789 --> 00:15:28.610 and given the documented lack of success in some 00:15:28.610 --> 00:15:30.789 of these politically charged prosecutions, think 00:15:30.789 --> 00:15:33.350 about the Piro indictments being rejected, the 00:15:33.350 --> 00:15:35.950 nonexistent fraud cases. Yeah, the track record 00:15:35.950 --> 00:15:37.850 isn't great for those pushing these things. So 00:15:37.850 --> 00:15:40.690 the question is, if these attempts at governing 00:15:40.690 --> 00:15:43.309 through aggressive prosecution and control are 00:15:43.309 --> 00:15:46.480 demonstrably hitting roadblocks or failing, Why 00:15:46.480 --> 00:15:48.700 haven't more of the targets, whether it's corporations 00:15:48.700 --> 00:15:51.519 or other entities, chosen to really push back 00:15:51.519 --> 00:15:54.320 now? Why wait for potentially bigger conflicts 00:15:54.320 --> 00:15:56.179 down the road? Something to think about.