Welcome to the Deep Dive. You've handed us quite
a stack of source material this week. It really
paints a picture of a political landscape that's
complex, maybe even chaotic, and definitely moving
fast. It is. We're looking at, you know, domestic
political deadlocks, serious constitutional questions,
internal agency struggles, international friction.
it's all happening at once. Information overload
basically. Exactly. So our mission today is to
try and cut through that noise, synthesize this
chaos into clear usable knowledge for you. We're
going beyond just the headlines to pull out those
surprising nuggets, the details that really define
what's happening right now. OK, so what's the
roadmap for this deep dive? Where are we heading?
Right. We'll start with the government shutdown.
It's setting records now. So look at the impact,
the polling, who seems to have the leverage.
Then we pivot to this pretty major constitutional
fight over ceding just one member of Congress.
Testing the speaker's power, essentially. Precisely.
Then we'll look at some severe internal strain,
specifically at ICE immigration and customs enforcement
and also the Pentagon. After that, some high
stakes legal and financial moves, including a
well, a planned $230 million lawsuit against
the Justice Department. Oh, OK. And we'll finish
up with a look at the very, very fragile piece
over in Gaza. All right. Let's unpack this right
here at home. Then the government shut down.
It's now week four. It's officially passed the
21 day Clinton -era shutdown. We're heading into
new record territory. We are. And the specifics
of the stalemate are kind of astonishing. For
the 11th time this week, the Senate failed to
pass a continuing resolution, a CR. That's just
the short -term spending measure to keep the
lights on while they negotiate. And the usual
media line is Democrats block bill or Republicans
block bill. Yeah. But what's fascinating here
looking at the sources is that in many of these
11 failures, neither side really chose to advance
it. It's more like a mutual holding pattern,
a political game of chicken, you could say, where
both sides actively chose not to vote on reopening.
And while they play chicken, the White House
is scrambling, worried about federal employees
calling in sick, these sick outs. They're trying
to prioritize key groups. That's right. Air traffic
controllers, obviously. Military personnel, people
running the WIC program. That's the nutrition
assistance for women, infants and children. Vital
services. Which leads to this other really crucial
point about executive power, right? This idea
of Using tariff money. Yes. The administration
has reportedly floated the idea of using the
roughly two hundred billion dollars collected
from tariffs as a kind of slush fund to pay for
these priorities and basically bypass Congress.
Two hundred billion dollars. I mean, that's a
huge number. What's the legal reality there?
Can they do that? Well, this is where you hit
the constitutional wall. Terra funds, just like
all federal revenue, legally go straight into
the U .S. Treasury. The president cannot spend
a single dime of it without Congress explicitly
saying okay. It's the power of the purse. This
restriction exists specifically to stop any president
from creating a, well, a personal piggy bank
with trade money, with no oversight. It's designed
to prevent exactly this kind of end run around
the legislature. That distinction is critical.
Meanwhile, Congress can't even agree on back
pay for the federal workers. No. Democrats want
to pay everyone who missed a paycheck. Republicans
want to pay only certain groups, mostly soldiers
and air traffic controllers. It shows how deep
the division is. So strategically, Who's holding
the stronger hand in this? What are the polls
saying? Well, polls from Reuters, Sipsos and
CNBC consistently show Democrats seem to have
the advantage here. The CNBC poll had it at 53
percent blaming Republicans versus 37 percent
blaming Democrats for the shutdown. But here's
the real nugget, I think. Independent voters.
They blame Republicans by almost three to one,
58 percent to 21 percent. That's a massive gap.
And that kind of pressure, especially from independents,
it starts to create cracks. We're seeing signs
of it on the Republican side. Like that letter
from moderate Republicans. Exactly. 13 moderate
House Republicans demanding negotiation on Obamacare
subsidies as soon as the government reopens.
And several GOP senators are privately signaling
they oppose plans to punish blue states because,
well, Republican voters live there too and would
get hurt. On the other side, though, the Democrat
resolve seems less about strategy and more about
fear. That's what the sources suggest. They're
holding the line because they're afraid their
base will, quote, rebel or they'll be guillotined
if they vote to reopen without getting concessions.
So it's maybe a battle of who fears their base
more right now. Interesting dynamic. So connecting
this to the bigger picture, what does our readership
think? How long does this go on? Well, our readership
poll suggests most people see an end in sight
but not immediately. An overwhelming majority,
69 .2 % combined, predict the shutdown ends sometime
in November. Okay, let's shift from the money
fight to something even stranger, maybe. This
battle over preventing a single vote. The fight
over seeding Representative -elect Adelita Grijalva.
Right. So Arizona's Attorney General, Chris Mays,
has actually sued Speaker Mike Johnson to force
him to seat Grijalva. She won her special election
for Arizona's 7th District Fair and Square, but
the seat's been empty since March 13th. And Johnson's
reason seems pretty transparently political.
It's about stopping her from being the 218th
signature on that discharge petition to release
the extinct files. That appears to be the immediate
goal, yes. Yeah. Just to clarify for listeners,
a discharge petition is a House procedure to
force a bill onto the floor for a vote if it's
stuck in committee. It bypasses the speaker's
control. Johnson wants to keep this petition
one signature short. So what's his official reason?
Because the excuses seem flimsy and changing.
They do. First, he claimed it was impossible
to swear someone in during a recess. Now, the
argument is that Grigialva is somehow unique
because she won while Congress was out of session,
and therefore she can't be sworn in during these
brief meetings called pro forma sessions. Which
are just technical sessions to keep things rolling,
right? Exactly. Just brief scheduled meetings.
And the legal precedent here is really quite
clear and goes against the speaker. There is
the Supreme Court case Powell v. McCormack. It
basically says you can only deny a duly elected
member their seat if they fail the constitutional
basics. Age, citizenship, residency. Johnson's
pretext isn't one of those. So why does this
specific fight matter beyond this one seat, this
one petition? Because if you allow a speaker
to use such a flimsy pretext, it sets a really
dangerous precedent. What stops a future speaker
from refusing to see an entire state's delegation
based on some other manufactured technicality?
It fundamentally undermines the whole idea of
representation. And there's a deeper legal twist
here, too, for the real constitutional nerds
listening. Ah, yes. For the super learner. Johnson's
argument that these pro forma sessions aren't
real sessions directly contradicts established
Supreme Court thinking, specifically in a case
called NLRB v. Noel Canning. That case dealt
with presidential recess appointments. So if
a court actually agreed with Johnson. Right.
If a court buys his argument about pro forma
sessions not being real, it could accidentally
hand back power to the president to make recess
appointments power Congress has fought for decades
to limit. It's this potential unintended consequence
they might not have fully considered. Seems like
a losing battle for Johnson anyway, doesn't it?
His delay tactic seems temporary at best. It
does, because another Democrat from a very safe
blue district in Texas, TX -18, is expected to
win a special election soon. They'll likely provide
that 218th vote regardless of what happens with
Grijalva. Okay, shifting gears again. Let's look
inside some federal agencies. There seems to
be significant internal strain, starting with
immigration and customs enforcement. Yes. The
goal at ICE is incredibly ambitious. Double the
number of active agents to 10 ,000. And they've
got a huge $75 billion funding infusion to back
it up, plus incentives like loan forgiveness,
$50 ,000 bonuses. They've got 150 ,000 applications.
Sounds like they should be able to find plenty
of people. But the story here is about who's
failing basic standards. It's really quite striking.
About a third of the new recruits are apparently
failing the basic physical fitness tests. And
basic is the word for it, right? Absolutely.
We're talking 15 push -ups, 32 sit -ups, and
running 1 .5 miles in 14 minutes. A career ICE
official quoted in the sources called these requirements
the minimum for any officer and described that
failure rate as, quote, pathetic. And critics
are worried this isn't just about fitness. No,
critics like Senator Durbin are raising alarms
that standards have been lowered across the board,
the age cap was eliminated, Spanish proficiency
requirements removed. The concern is that this
inevitably leads to lower quality recruits and
potentially increased officer misconduct down
the line. And this isn't just an ICE problem,
is it? Finding fit recruits seems to be a wider
issue. It really mirrors long -standing problems
in the military. Get this. Seventy -five percent
of American 17 to 24 -year -olds are already
ineligible for military service. Reasons range
from weight issues to aptitude test scores, health
problems, or criminal records. Seventy -five
percent. That's a systemic challenge for national
security. Wow. Speaking of the military, let's
move up the chain to the Defense Department leadership.
Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly facing some
serious pushback. He is. Even the conservative
Washington Times is reporting that trust between
Hegseth and the senior generals and flag officers
has, quote, evaporated. What's driving that collapse
in trust? According to the sources, senior military
leaders view Hegseth's policy focus, particularly
the magi and anti -woke initiatives, and also
a specific inflammatory speech he gave, as a
massive waste of time and, frankly, below our
institution's dignity. Sounds like serious discontent.
It does. One general warned the services are
bleeding talent because qualified officers feel
it's becoming the opposite of a meritocracy.
They're losing good people. Is he concerned about
this? His public stance is defiant. He's emphasizing
restoring standards. He celebrated sending some
overweight Texas National Guard soldiers home
and mandated only the highest male standard for
combat fitness tests. His quote was, standards
are back at the Department of War. Hmm. And just
quickly on leadership standards, there was that
withdrawal for the special counsel position.
Ah, yes. Pieden -Gressia. He'd admitted to having
an occasional Nazi streak, which... Understandably,
raised eyebrows. He withdrew from consideration
to head the White House Office of Special Counsel
after the Senate basically signaled they wouldn't
even hold confirmation hearings. He does still
have a job, though, as a liaison to Homeland
Security. OK. Let's dive into the legal and financial
world now. Some really high stakes maneuvers
happening, particularly involving the Department
of Justice. Looking at the James Comey case,
it feels less like legal strategy and more like
Well, stunts. The phrase table pounding comes
to mind. When the law isn't on your side, you
pound the table. That seems to be the approach
here. Like trying to disqualify Comey's lawyer,
Patrick Fitzgerald. Exactly. The prosecution
claimed Fitzgerald had a conflict because he
supposedly helped Comey leak classified info.
But that's contradicted by the facts Comey shared
memos he believed were unclassified. And Fitzgerald
immediately returned materials that were only
later retroactively marked classified. It looked
like a red herring. And the judge didn't buy
it? No. Judge Michael Nakmanoff denied their
request for an expedited filter team, pointing
out that Doherty had the materials for years
and only raised this concern right when they
filed the motion. Seemed pretty transparent.
Then there's the acting U .S. attorney, Lindsay
Halligan, and her texting spree. Yeah, that was
something. She was apparently upset about reporting
that, implied she'd misled a grand jury about
a property involved in a case. So she sent dozens
of texts to a reporter, Anna Bauer, trying to
defend herself. Which sounds risky. Very. In
doing so, sources say she came awfully close
to violating grand jury secrecy rules. It suggests
a certain level of perhaps inexperience or maybe
even desperation in that office. But the really
big financial story here is this planned lawsuit
against the DOJ itself. That's the one. The plan
detailed in the sources is for Trump to sue the
Department of Justice for $230 million, claiming
federal investigations seriously damaged him.
OK. But how does that work when the DoJ is run
by his own appointees? And that's the crux of
it. The deputy attorney general, Tud Blanch,
used to be Trump's personal lawyer. So the structure
is potentially there for the DoJ, staffed with
loyalists, to just say, you know what? He has
a point. Guess we better settle. turning the
Treasury into a payout mechanism. The comparison
made in our sources is stark. It resembles a
mafia protection racket using the power of the
state to potentially extract money from the Treasury
for personal benefit. It sounds almost designed
to bypass accountability. Are there any checks
on something like this? Congress seems unlikely
to step in right now. The likely checks are external.
One is simply massive public outrage. If the
public is horrified, that could translate into
electoral consequences. Maybe a midterm belief
tsunami. And the other. State level action. State
attorneys general could bring charges against
DOJ officials involved, or they could face disbarment
proceedings. A presidential pardon at the federal
level won't protect them from state charges or
losing their law licenses. That gives state AGs
real leverage. OK, finally, let's touch on global
instability. Gaza. Verifying anything there is
notoriously difficult. Extremely difficult. Truth
is always the first casualty in conflict, and
this is no exception. We have very conflicting
claims about the ceasefire. What are the reports
saying? Well, Israel reportedly resumed bombing
over the weekend, claiming two or three of their
soldiers were killed by Palestinian forces. They've
now supposedly resumed the ceasefire again. And
Hamas. Hamas denies there's proof Israeli soldiers
were killed. They claim Israel has killed 87
Palestinians since the ceasefire began. though
neutral sources seem to put that number closer
to half that. And there are deeply disturbing
claims from Hamas that 135 bodies returned from
an Israeli detention facility. Semitamen showed
signs of mutilation and organ removal implying
medical experiments. Again, incredibly hard to
verify independently. What's clear is that there's
been significant fighting during the supposed
ceasefire. Absolutely. Neither side seems to
be acting like they're moving towards a permanent
peace right now. The situation feels incredibly
fragile. And the White House is clearly concerned.
They've dispatched envoys, JD Vance, Steve Witkoff,
Jared Kushner. That seems like a high -level
intervention. It does. It signals deep U .S.
concern. A total breakdown there could unravel
regional alliances, undermine U .N. policy goals,
and yes, from the administration's perspective,
potentially jeopardize any shot at a Nobel Peace
Prize. Sending envoys like this suggests they
realize this truce is probably more likely to
collapse than solidify. We have covered an incredible
amount of ground, from the specifics of push
-up failures at ICE to major constitutional showdowns
in Congress and this potential $230 million raid
on the Treasury. If you pull back and look at
the pattern across all these sources, what emerges
is a clear theme. A rapid multi -front expansion
of executive power and an aggressive testing
of institutional limits. Congress, the military,
law enforcement, executive finance, they're all
being stressed, maybe near the breaking point.
And woven through much of this, especially that
lawsuit plan, is the reported motivation of money.
It reminds me of that ancient story of King Midas.
Everything he touched turned to gold, but he
starved because he couldn't eat gold. A powerful
cautionary tale. So here's something for you,
the listener, to think about. When the pursuit
of money becomes the absolute driving motivation
for political action, for governance itself,
what fundamental non -monetary things these like
trust, like basic competency, institutional fitness,
even the credibility of the office, what has
to be sacrificed along the way. Something to
mull on until our next deep dive.