Welcome to the deep dive. So this is where we
take a heavy stack of source material. We're
talking legal briefs, political claims, financial
histories, and just, you know, cut through all
the noise. We really want to give you the essential
insights, the context you need to actually understand
what's going on. And our sources this week, they
touch on these surprisingly connected themes.
They really do. It's all about accountability,
influence and how cold, hard financial realities
can just change history. The goal is to make
those connections really clear for you. OK, so
we are tackling three major areas today, plus
a really fascinating little historical footnote
at the end. We're going to start with a massive
legal win in the Nevada fake elector case. Then
we have a multi -part. hypocrisy report, which
covers some pretty high ranking political figures.
Then you're going to get into some previously
unexamined details from the Jeffrey Epstein email
releases. These focus less on the headlines and
more on his enduring global influence. And we
wrap it all up with a quiet official end of a
233 year old piece of American history. OK, let's
unpack this. Let's do it. So we begin with legal
accountability. a really significant moment in
the Nevada fake elector battle. Now, for those
of you following the news, you know that after
the 2020 election, Trump -affiliated individuals
tried to cast fraudulent electoral votes in a
few swing states. Right, and in a lot of those
states, the cases have just stalled out. Totally.
I mean, you've got procedural arguments in Georgia,
a really slow -moving process in Arizona. And
the judges ruling in Michigan, which was... Interesting.
It was. But Nevada was different. The primary
fight there wasn't really about the crime itself,
but about jurisdiction. Where the trial should
actually happen. Exactly. The state attorney
general, Aaron Ford, he brought the case in Las
Vegas. Which makes sense. That's where a lot
of the plotting happened. And you're likely to
get a more, let's say, neutral jury pool. But
the defense, they fought back hard on this. They
argued the whole case belonged 400 miles north
in Carson City, the state capital. Because that's
where the signing happened. Precisely. They claimed
the court crime was forgery and that it was committed
right there in Carson City when they signed the
fake electoral certificates. A lower court even
sided with them at first. Yeah, that was a huge
blow to the prosecution. But they appealed to
the Nevada Supreme Court, which came back with
a unanimous 6 -0 ruling in Ford's favor. Unanimous.
And the court's decision, according to the sources,
was just brilliantly simple. It rested on a point
of law that defines when a crime is actually,
you know, complete. Okay, so walk us through
that logic. If the defense is saying the crime
was finished the second the pen left the paper
in Carson City, what was their fatal flaw? Well,
the fatal flaw was their whole definition of
forgery. The Supreme Court basically said, look,
you can forge documents all day long in your
basement. And it's not illegal. Not yet. Forgery
only becomes a crime, legally speaking. The moment
you attempt to pass those forged documents off
is real to someone else. Oh, I see. So the signing
in Carson City was just the prep work. Exactly.
The prime itself didn't actually happen until
the documents were delivered and received. The
goal was to defraud the courts and the judges.
Who were in Las Vegas. Precisely. So the injury,
the actual attempt to pass off the forgery, that
didn't occur until the documents were received
in Las Vegas. The court just affirmed that Nevada
law lets you bring charges in any location where
a crime unfolds across multiple jurisdictions.
So that technical argument from the defense just
got completely neutralized. Crashed and burned.
So what does this win really mean for you, the
listener? It means the prosecution is back on
track in Las Vegas and the sources are noting
that the defendants who created a quote paper
trail a mile wide. are getting pretty nervous.
Well, especially since some were apparently hoping
for a presidential pardon if Trump were to be
reelected. And that right there is the key takeaway.
It's the absolute key. If you're charged with
a state crime, a US president cannot pardon you.
It's just not in their power. Nevada's justice
system is totally independent of federal pardons.
So this breakthrough pretty much ensures that
the Nevada case, unlike a lot of the others,
has a very high probability of being. the first
and maybe the only fake elector case that actually
gets before a jury. Okay, moving on. Let's shift
gears to our hypocrisy report. This is where
we highlight those profound contradictions where
powerful figures seem to have one set of rules
for themselves. And a totally different set for
everybody else. Yeah. So we can start with immigration.
Specifically, the rhetoric versus the actual
labor practices. Okay. Donald Trump, as we know,
built his political brand on some very strong
anti -immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric. Right.
The sources confirm that last year the Trump
Organization received 184 H -2A and H -2B temporary
worker visas. That's the highest number they
have ever received. And just to clarify for you,
H -2A is for temporary agricultural work and
H -2B is for seasonal non -ag work. The very
kind of jobs that his rhetoric often portrays
as being stolen by immigrants. And that number,
the 184, that's on top of the nearly 400 workers
they have with permanent resident visas. So the
total figures are up something like 40 percent
since 2017. The irony is, well, it's unavoidable.
OK, so from immigration to the justice system.
Yeah. Let's pivot that contradiction into pardons
and political attacks. The sources point out
that Republicans often use these tragic violent
crimes committed by people released under Democratic
policies. We all remember cases like Willie Horton.
or more recently, the murder of Lake and Riley.
Exactly, those become central points in political
campaigns. So, the source material offers a counterpoint.
A man named Jonathan Braun. Okay, who's Jonathan
Braun? Braun was convicted of some very serious
crimes, money laundering, drug trafficking back
in 2019. He was then pardoned by Donald Trump.
And the reason for the pardon? According to the
source, it wasn't for compassionate reasons or
new evidence. It was because Braun's family are
personal friends with Jared Kushner's family.
A political connection. And the results of that
pardon have been frankly devastating. Since his
release, Braun has allegedly assaulted his wife,
his 75 year old father -in -law, a three year
old boy. He also attacked his nurse with an IV
poll. allegedly molested his kid's nanny and
ran a predatory loan -sharking scheme. He's now
headed back to prison for years. So the contrast
is just incredibly stark. It is. Between how
a case like this based on connections is handled
versus those used for political attacks. OK,
next up is political data and claims of fraud.
Right. So in Tennessee, the Secretary of State,
Tree Hargett, referred 42 non -citizens to the
FBI for allegedly illegally voting. The intention
was to show that systemic fraud was a real problem.
But the number itself tells a different story.
It really does. Because that number 42 people
represents .00001 % of the total voting population
in Tennessee. So if the goal is to prove widespread
systemic fraud. This number actually documents
how infinitesimally small the possible problem
is. The data becomes its own contradiction. And
the sources suggest that was maybe the point.
The goal was never to prove systemic fraud, but
just to get the number of alleged instances out
there no matter how small. It's the implication
that matters. Precisely. And the final piece
here, it involves a shocking reversal on special
prosecutors. Right. So the context for you is
that the Trump defense team is arguing in court
that Jack Smith's appointment to the classified
documents case was illegal because he wasn't
properly confirmed by the Senate. But the sources
reveal that the very same administration, when
they were trying to prosecute people they saw
as political enemies, like James Comey or Letitia
James, they used an unconfirmed appointee. Her
name was Lindsay Halligan. Her background was
mostly in insurance law. And when her legitimacy
was challenged, the government quickly used a
backup step, appointing her as a special prosecutor.
So the contradiction is? Blatant. Smith's appointment
is illegal. But Halligan's was not only legal,
but necessary. So what happened in the courtroom?
It got pretty dramatic. The sources detail this
exchange where the judge asked the Doje attorney
to explain the difference between Smith, who
has decades of high -level experience, and Halligan.
And what did he say? He claimed that Smith did
not meet the qualifications to be appointed,
but that Halligan did. The career prosecutor
is unqualified, but the insurance lawyer is.
You can imagine the reaction. The sources say
there were audible gasps in the courtroom. It
just shows that in this particular arena, the
legal argument often seems to come second to
the political goal. OK, let's shift now. Let's
explore the details coming out of the Jeffrey
Epstein email releases. The headlines always
grab onto the celebrity stuff, but the real insights
are about his continued influence after his conviction.
Yeah, he remained incredibly connected. Post
-conviction, the sources show he was meeting
or emailing with just a stunning list of global
power players. Peter Thiel, former UK Prime Minister
Gordon Brown. Scholar Noam Chomsky, then former
Israeli PM Ehud Barak. And even the then current
president of Mongolia. He was not hiding out.
No, not at all. He was still operating as this
power broker, this intellectual advisor, giving
financial counsel to people like Larry Summers,
members of the Rothschild family, unnamed Middle
Eastern sheiks. And an unnamed There's also this
personality detail that comes through in the
emails. That he was a highly self -regarding,
almost pompous ass. Yes. Constantly sending articles
on science and psychology, writing these long
essays on his own theories to friends like Chomsky,
he clearly thought he was the smartest person
in any room. And the emails also get into the
volatile dynamics around Bill Clinton. Right.
Both Clinton and the Gores were adamant they
had never been to the island. And at some point
before 2016, the relationship between Epstein
and Clinton clearly soured. Massively. Epstein
started calling Clinton a friend killer. And
one of Epstein's email confidants went even further,
calling Clinton very close to being a psychopath
with no conscience and scary because of his ability
to lie. Which is a pretty heavy charge. It is.
But then there's this one moment of what seems
like humility from Epstein. In an exchange, he
admits he was humbled, and that his friend was
right about something related to Clinton. As
if even he had been surprised by something the
former president did. Now, we do have to address
this very niche and difficult political reference
that came up in the emails. We do. In an exchange
with the journalist Michael Wolff, Wolff asks
about a reference to Nussbaum Foster, which relates
to some old, dark, fringe conspiracy theories
from the 90s. And Epstein replies at the line,
Hillary Clinton doing notties with Vince Foster.
and it is so important to emphasize here. just
as the source material does, that this is purely
a claim made in a private email. Right. And the
nature of the Noddies, whether it's a video,
a picture, a drawing, it's not specified or verified
at all by the source. It just documents the kind
of speculative material being shared between
them. It does. And on the Republican side, the
connections were there, too. He spent time in
Palm Beach with all the Trump boys in December
of 2016. And his correspondence with Steve Bannon
started in 2017, and they became, quote, close
friends by March 2018. The influence really did
span the entire political spectrum. It did. And
then there's this final, truly bizarre, alleged
claim from the emails. About pictures of Trump
blowing Bill Clinton. Which Putin may possess.
And the commentary from the source on this is
actually pretty insightful. I thought so too.
It argues that even if the act were consensual,
it only becomes politically compromising because
of the embarrassment, which is compounded by
Trump's choice to align himself with political
homophobes. So the compromise is basically self
-inflicted. Exactly. It's about using shame as
a political weapon, even in the most outlandish
of scenarios. OK, let's transition now to a final
and pretty surprising fact. Today, in numismatics,
after 233 years, an era has ended. It has. The
U .S. Mint produced its very last penny in Philadelphia
this week. And this was really just an exercise
in financial common sense. Or a lack thereof
until now. For years, the cost of making a single
penny had risen to about four cents per corn.
Four cents to make one cent. Yeah. Keeping the
penny in circulation was costing the U .S. government
over 50 million dollars a year. Its financial
relevance in an age of electronic commerce has
just plummeted. The sources note the last time
the U .S. actually retired a coin was the half
cent, all the way back in 1857. Which brings
up a really interesting linguistic question,
right, about language versus currency. Will phrases
like, a penny saved is a penny earned, or a penny
for your thoughts survive? Where do they have
to evolve now? A nickel for your thoughts. It
doesn't have the same ring. It doesn't. But language
is incredibly resistant to change. I mean, think
about, penny -wise, pound foolish. That phrase
has survived for centuries, even though the US
hasn't used pounds sterling in, well, forever.
The symbolism outlives the currency. It often
does. And on a historical note, Lincoln was put
on the penny back in 1909 specifically to emphasize
his role as the president of the common man.
And now he's just on the five dollar bill. George
Washington is the only president left who appears
on commonly circulating paper money and coins.
The sources did mention some interesting conceptual
discussions around coinage. like if Washington
were ever removed from the quarter. Who would
replace him? One suggestion was Theodore Roosevelt,
the argument being he's arguably the best president
who doesn't have his own coin. That's a good
point. And another really thoughtful suggestion
was Rosa Parks, which creates this powerful historical
parallelism. She paid a 15 cent bus fare in 1955,
which she likely would have paid with a quarter.
and gotten a dime back. Exactly. And that connects
so nicely to the Roosevelt dime, which was created
because of his support for the March of Dimes
charity. OK, so let's synthesize everything we've
covered. Right. So we saw law defining accountability
in Nevada, ensuring justice finds its intended
venue. We saw how self -interest exposed these
massive contradictions in political power through
the hypocrisy of visas, pardons and selective
legal arguments. And we looked at how global
influence and information brokering continued
for Jeffrey Epstein way outside the spotlight.
And finally, we saw how the simple economics
of commerce dictates change with the end of the
penny. The key takeaways for you are pretty numerous.
There's that specific legal definition that the
crime in the Nevada forgery case was completed
upon receipt, not signing. The massive increase
in foreign workers at the Trump Organization,
which contrasts so sharply with the political
rhetoric. The shocking fact that a dangerous
criminal received a pardon based purely on his
family's connection to the Kushners. And of course,
the official start of a new era of American currency
without the cent. So here is a final provocative
thought for you to consider. We learned that
the cost of keeping the physical penny in circulation
was over 50 million dollars a year. So now that
the physical penny is gone, will the historical
and symbolic value of that phrase, a penny saved
is a penny earned, finally be upgraded by a culture
that increasingly values dollars and cents over
history and symbolism? Will the language of our
personal finances evolve now that the smallest
denomination of our physical wealth is just gone?
Something to think about. Food for thought indeed.
Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.