Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we're wading
into some really complex territory, looking at
sources covering everything from, well, some
pretty wild constitutional maneuvers to serious
economic jitters, and even how local elections
are being fundamentally reshaped. That's right.
We've got legal analyses, economic reports, ground
level strategy docs. And what really jumps out
is how interconnected it all seems to be. Yeah,
it feels like different fronts in the same battle
almost. The sources suggest key institutions
institutions, the courts, the civil service,
the Fed, election laws, they're all facing these
strategic pressures, these workarounds. Exactly.
for you listening is to really connect those
dots, show you the specific tactics being used
across these different areas. OK, so we'll kick
off with this whole third term question, the
length some are apparently considering to get
around the 22nd Amendment. Then we'll pivot to
the economy. The Fed's making big calls, but
the data situation is looking really shaky, flying
blind, basically. And finally, we'll dig into
how power is being contested right down to the
state and local level, from gerrymandering pushes
to, believe it or not, your local utility board.
Sounds like a plan. Let's start with that constitutional
big one. The third term idea. Right. So the 22nd
Amendment seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Two
terms, period. It does. And interestingly, the
sources mentioned Donald Trump himself publicly
saying something like, based on what I read,
I guess I'm not allowed to run. But despite that
acknowledgement, there's clearly this intense
interest in finding a way around it. The motivation
seems pretty straightforward. Staying in the
White House is seen as the best shield against
potential prosecutions later on. OK, so if running
directly is off the table, what are these convoluted
workarounds, the source's detail? Let's start
with the VP one. Ah, yes, the VP resignation
strategy. It sounds simple initially, but it's
legally fraught and politically risky. How's
it supposed to work? Exactly. The idea is this.
You run on a ticket, say, Vance Trump. They win.
Then almost immediately, Vice President Vance
resigns. And under the 25th Amendment, Trump
as VP would then become president. Step three,
President Trump nominates Vance to be his vice
president again. Wow. That's intricate and cynical,
maybe. What's the legal argument that even allows
for considering this? It all hangs on a very
specific reading of the 12th Amendment combined
with the 22nd. The core question is, does the
22nd Amendment make someone ineligible to the
office of president, meaning they can't be elected
president again? Or does it ban them from serving
as president beyond two terms, no matter how
they get there? If, and it's a big yes, five
Supreme Court justices decided it only bans election.
Well, then this VP resignation route potentially
opens the door to serving multiple future terms.
But the risks seem enormous. What if the VP just
doesn't resign? That's the huge gamble. The sources
point this out directly. Trust. You'd be relying
entirely on someone like Vance in this hypothetical
to actually step down. History isn't exactly
reassuring there, I think, to Aaron Burr back
in 1800. He could just say, nope, changed my
mind, I'm president now. And the other key thing
from the sources, apparently Trump himself dismissed
this whole idea as too cute. Too cute. Interesting.
So even he sees the potential backlash or, well,
the sheer awkwardness of it. It suggests a recognition
that making such an obvious kind of gamey maneuver
the core of your path back to power might be
politically toxic, regardless of the legal theory.
OK, so that brings us to the other path mentioned,
the Speaker of the House route. This one sounds
even more complicated. Oh, it is. This is pure
political theater meets constitutional arcana.
Step one. Get elected Speaker of the House on
January 3rd, 2029. Constitutionally, there's
nothing stopping a former president or really
almost anyone from becoming speaker. OK, so they're
speaker. Then what? Then on Inauguration Day,
January 20th, both the newly elected president
and the newly elected vice president would have
to resign simultaneously. Both of them. Both.
That clears the decks. And under the presidential
line of succession, the speaker of the House
becomes president. But wait, isn't the speaker
only acting president in that scenario? Exactly.
That's the massive vulnerability. They serve
only as acting president until a new vice president
is nominated and confirmed by Congress. So it's
incredibly precarious. Extremely. Your hold on
power literally depends on your own heartbeat.
If something happens to the acting president
before a VP is confirmed, the presidency passes
to the next person in line, the speaker pro tempore,
or the Senate president pro tempore. And if Congress
has flipped or is divided? You could inadvertently
hand power right back to the opposition party.
It requires a Republican House majority to even
attempt, and it's fragile every step of the way.
All right. Let's shift from these sort of grand
constitutional schemes to something maybe less
dramatic, but just as impactful. The rules around
government administration, specifically appointments.
Yes. The sources highlight real tension around
the Vacancies Act, particularly that 120 -day
limit for temporary appointments. It's meant
to ensure Senate oversight, right, to stop presidents
from just installing unconfirmed people indefinitely.
But the claim is that this limit is being deliberately
ignored. Repeatedly. The pattern described is
using temporary appointments to install people.
The Senate likely wouldn't confirm. The sources
used terms like totally unqualified toadies.
They mentioned specific examples like Alina Habba
in New Jersey, Seagal Chadda in Nevada. And this
recently came to a head in that Los Angeles case,
the Assali ruling. Tell us about that clumsy
ruse. Right. So the background is Bill Assali
was serving as an acting U .S. attorney. Just
before his 120 days were up, AG Pam Bondi's office
fired him. Fired him. Yes. Only to immediately
reappoint him as the first assistant U .S. attorney
with the clear expectation he'd then step back
into the acting U .S. attorney role through that
position. Trying to reset the clock, essentially.
Pretty much. But Judge Michael Seabright wasn't
having it. He called it a clumsy ruse and ruled
that Assali had unlawfully assumed the role the
second time around. He disqualified him from
being acting U .S. attorney, though he could
stay as first assistant. OK, one judge, one district.
Why does this ripple outwards? Because it potentially
sets a precedent. The argument being made now
is that other high -profile officials, like Lindsay
Halligan, who signed indictments against Letitia
James and James Comey in Virginia, were also
put in place using similar maneuvers after their
120 -day limits arguably expired. If the assailee
logic holds, those indictments could be challenged,
maybe even invalidated. And for Comey specifically?
That's the critical part. The statute limitations
on the potential charges against Comey has apparently
run out. So if the indictment is invalid due
to Halligan's appointment being improper, they
likely can't just issue a new one. The case could
just... Evacuate. Wow. Based on an administrative
appointment rule. Something. Okay, let's look
at the Pentagon now. Secretary Pete Hegseth and
this push to remove civilian workers. Yeah, this
is another angle on administrative power. The
sources describe a move to significantly speed
up firing civilian defense employees. How are
they doing that? Aren't they usually protections
appeals processes? There are. But this new internal
memo apparently focuses on streamlining terminations
for poor performance. Crucially, it seems to
cut out prior steps like mandated improvement
plans or multiple warnings. So it makes it faster,
easier to fire individuals one by one. Exactly.
Which might be a way to avoid the legal challenges
that could block a large -scale sudden layoff
or purge. It's firing by a thousand cuts, perhaps.
But the sources suggest the real target isn't
just poor performers in the traditional sense.
That seems to be the core issue highlighted.
The claim is that poor performance is being redefined
or at least reinterpreted to mean disloyal. Disloyal
to whom or what? Disloyal, according to the sources,
means not subscribing to Donald Trump's agenda.
So political alignment is effectively being equated
with job competence. It's framed as an ideological
purge masked as performance management. And the
scale of this is significant. Apparently so.
The material mentions the Pentagon having already
shed about 60 ,000 civilian positions. That's
around 8 % of that workforce. This memo looks
designed to accelerate removing those deemed
politically unreliable, or just not with the
program. Okay, let's pivot to the economy. Things
feel unstable, costs are high, but the sources
suggest there's another layer here. A problem
with the data itself. The Fed just cut rates
by 0 .25%. Right. But the context provided is
that they made that call while basically flying
blind. Flying blind. Why? What's wrong with the
economic data? Two big problems outlined. First,
leadership instability at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the BLS. Remember, Donald Trump fired
the nonpartisan head, Erica McTarfer, reportedly
over disagreements about the numbers. Right.
And her replacement? Was nominated, but then
withdrawn. So the BLS, which collects critical
data on jobs and inflation, has been operating
without confirmed nonpartisan leadership for
a while. That raises questions about data collection
and interpretation. OK, so that's one issue.
What's the other factor making the Fed fly blind?
The government shutdown. It directly halted or
delayed the collection of a lot of the raw economic
data the Fed relies on. Things like retail sales,
construction spending, you name it. So they cut
rates even though inflation was reportedly rising
and unemployment too. Exactly. It was a gamble.
If underlying inflation is actually the bigger
long -term threat, cutting rates was the wrong
move. They could pour fuel on the fire. But if
recession was the immediate danger, maybe it
was necessary. The point is, The decision seems
to have been made with much less reliable information
than usual, possibly driven more by political
pressure to do something than by solid economics.
And meanwhile, families are feeling the pinch
directly. That rate cut isn't going to fix everything,
especially these redoing race spikes like in
Pennsylvania. No, it won't. Pennsylvania's situation
is stark. The sources state it has the highest
grocery price inflation in the country right
now. 8 .2 percent year over year as of July 2025.
That's huge. And nearby states too? Yeah. West
Virginia at 6 .9 percent. New Jersey at 6 .8
percent. Also very high. What's driving those
numbers? Is it just general inflation or specific
things? It seems to be a mix, but with some specific
drivers really hitting hard. The report mentions
rapid increases in basics, grains, beans, pasta
up over 5 % just in a short period, much faster
than the national average for those items. Plus
you've got persistently high diesel fuel costs
hitting transportation, overall regional inflation
being higher in the Northeast for food and energy
anyway, and maybe even issues with low market
competition among grocers in some areas. So these
are supply side problems, mostly. Things a Fed
rate cut doesn't really address. Precisely. Rate
cuts work on the demand side, trying to stimulate
borrowing and spending. They don't make wheat
cheaper or lower the cost of trucking food across
the country. Global commodity issues, transport
costs, those are outside the Fed's direct control.
And there's another potential cost shock looming
health care. The ACA preview for 2026 sounds
alarming. It really does. The headline number
is a projected average nationwide premium increase
of around 26 percent, which is substantial in
itself. But the bigger hit comes from the subsidies,
right? That's the potential catastrophe. The
enhanced federal subsidies, the premium tax credits
that have made ACA plans affordable for millions,
are set to expire if Congress doesn't act to
extend them. What happens? Out -of -pocket costs
for people getting those subsidies could, on
average, more than double. The figure cited is
a potential 114 percent increase in what people
actually pay. 114 percent jump. Why would Congress
let that happen? It seems politically dangerous.
Well, it creates massive leverage, doesn't it?
but the impact on people is severe. The sources
use a specific example. A 60 -year -old couple
in York County, Pennsylvania, their current annual
premium with subsidies might be around $7 ,000
if those subsidies expire. Their bill could shoot
up to over $35 ,000 a year for the same coverage.
unaffordable for most people. It's a cliff edge
tied directly to congressional action or inaction.
Okay, final segment. Let's look at the electoral
map itself and how the rules governing it are
being challenged. The sources point to the Supreme
Court and the Voting Rights Act. What's at stake
there? The expectation discussed is that the
court might significantly weaken or gut, the
last major operative piece of the VRA. And that
piece is? What does it do? It's basically the
main legal tool left to challenge racially discriminatory
gerrymandering, states drawing electoral maps
that dilute the voting power of minority groups.
Section two is the key part remaining. So if
that's weakened, what's the expected outcome?
The sources suggest, particularly in southern
states, there's a real eagerness champing at
the bit. It is the phrase used to redraw congressional
and state legislative maps to maximize partisan
advantage, often by packing minority voters into
fewer districts or spreading them out thinly
to make nearly every district majority white,
aiming for districts that are maybe 70 % white,
30 % minority, for example. And there are specific
examples of this ambition. Yes, South Carolina's
LT Governor Pamela Vett is quoted wanting a clean
sweep, explicitly aiming to eliminate the congressional
district currently held by Jim Clyburn, a long
serving black Democrat. So the goal is purely
partisan gain using race as the tool once the
VRA constraints are lifted. That appears to be
the strategy described. Now, there are some potential
roadblocks. Florida, for instance, actually has
language in its state constitution banning maps
drawn primarily for partisan gain. But Governor
DeSantis has appointed five of the seven justices
on the Florida Supreme Court. So how that state
constitutional provision would be interpreted
is an open question. Also, timing is tight. The
Supreme Court would need to rule pretty quickly
for states to draw and implement radically new
maps before the 2026 election. OK, so that's
the high level state and federal map manipulation.
But the sources also talk about a push much further
down the ballot into races that are usually,
well, nonpartisan. This is a really significant
trend highlighted. The idea that local elections,
city councils, school boards, even things like
water boards or utility commission should be
nonpartisan is being actively challenged. How
so? Who's doing it? Groups like Turning Point
USA, now led by Erica Kirk, according to the
sources, are reportedly making a concerted effort
to inject partisanship into these low -profile
races, to turn them into explicit Republican
versus Democrat contests, even if the ballot
doesn't list party labels. Can you give an example?
The recall election mentioned in Mesa City, Arizona,
they're targeting a Republican council member,
Julie Spillsbury, not because she's a Democrat,
she's not, but because she's seen as not aligned
enough with the mangy wing of the party. She
apparently supported Kamala Harris at some point.
So it's about ideological purity within the party
being enforced even in nonpartisan roles. Exactly.
And it extends beyond just city councils. TPUSA
is reportedly targeting positions like the Salt
River Project Board. That's a major water and
power provider in Arizona. The stated goal is
to oust people. They label radical environmentalists
and influence energy and climate policy at that
very local but impactful level. The sources observe
that this makes the whole idea of nonpartisan
elections feel like a fairy tale? Yeah, because
the strategy is asymmetric. One side is heavily
investing resources, identifying candidates,
mobilizing voters based on party affiliation
for these races. They're aiming to out register
opponents, sometimes 10 to 1, in specific local
contexts. While the other side might still be
operating under the old assumption that these
races should be neutral. That seems to be the
dynamic. So you get this gradual capture of local
institutions, not through direct election changes,
but by fundamentally changing the nature of the
contest themselves, often under the radar. Hashtag
tag outro. So, wrapping this all up, when you
look across these different areas, the constitutional
questions, the administrative power plays, the
economic data issues, the electoral map fights
there really is a common thread, isn't there?
There is. It's a consistent challenge to establish
rules, norms, and institutions, whether it's
the 22nd Amendment's term limits, the 120D rule
for appointments, the Voting Rights Act's protections,
or even just the basic reliance on objective
nonpartisan government data. Right. It feels
like a multi -pronged pressure test on the system.
designed for, well, stability and neutrality.
Constitutional succession, bureaucratic impartiality,
data integrity, they all seem to be in the crosshairs.
And ultimately, when rules are bent or broken,
you look to the legal system for accountability.
Which brings us to one final point from the sources.
The status of those fake elector cases. Yes.
Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin.
What's the update there? The truly startling
thing is this. It's now four years since the
events of 2020. Indictments were filed. But as
of the time of these sources, not a single one
of these fake electric cases has actually gone
to trial. Four years. Why the delay? That seems
extraordinary for something so central to the
election process. The sources point to a cascade
of procedural issues and failures. You have the
controversy surrounding D .A. Fonney -Wilson's
conduct in Georgia, potentially delaying things
there. In Michigan, a judge actually dismissed
charges against some electors, bizarrely stating
they weren't savvy or sophisticated enough to
understand what they were doing. Seriously. And
in Nevada... there were legal battles just over
whether the case was filed in the correct venue,
the right county. So procedural roadblocks, questionable
judicial rulings, venue disputes, all contributing
to massive delays. So the old saying, justice
delayed is justice denied seems relevant here.
Very much so. And it leads to the final question
we wanted to leave you with, something to really
think about based on everything we've discussed
today. OK. If serious attempts to interfere with
or subvert an election occur, and our legal system
through procedural snags, venue arguments, maybe
even defenses, claiming political naivete proves
unable to even bring those cases to trial within
four years. What does that delay signal? What
does it tell us about the rule of law's ability
or handle politically charged time -sensitive
offenses? And perhaps more importantly, what
message does it send about the potential consequences
or lack thereof for trying similar things in
the future? A sobering thought to end on. That's
definitely something for all of us to chew on.