Welcome to the Deep Dive. Our mission today is,
well, pretty straightforward. We have a stack
of sources here detailing a week of, frankly,
staggering political instability. It's a lot
to get through. It is. So we need to distill
what really matters. We're going to start with
this unprecedented clash between the executive
branch and Congress, a clash that openly brought
up capital punishment. Unbelievable. And then
we'll move through some surprising resignations
and land on these legal and electoral time bombs
that look like they're set to go off by 2026.
Yeah, we're seeing this high velocity political
conflict. But what makes this deep dive so critical,
I think, is tracing how these minute by minute
headlines connect back to deeper long term issues.
Like gerrymandering, policy failure. Exactly.
From gerrymandering to the looming crisis in
health care and the national debt, we're here
to give you the context that hopefully ties all
of this chaos together. OK, let's dive right
into the first incident because the seriousness
here, it just can't be overstated. It all started
with a video titled Don't Give Up the Ship. Right.
And this video was put out by six Democratic
members of Congress, people like Senators Mark
Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin and some House members,
too. Representatives Crowe, DeLizio, Goodlander
and Houlihan. And the key thing about this group,
the crucial point, is their identity. Every single
one of them is a veteran of the armed forces
or has served in the intelligence services. So
their message wasn't for the general public?
Not at all. It was a targeted appeal aimed directly
at people currently serving in uniform and in
the intelligence community. So what was the core
message? It seemed like it was two things. First,
just acknowledging the intense stress these communities
are under. Right. But second, and this is the
explosive part, they explicitly said that the
threats to the Constitution are now seen as domestic,
not just foreign. And they reminded service members
of their oath. Precisely. Their oath is to the
Constitution, not to any one leader or political
party. And they really emphasize the legal right
and duty to refuse illegal orders. That closing
line from Senator Slotkin, we've got your back.
That was basically a public guarantee of protection.
Right. It was a guarantee of political and legal
protection. It was saying, if you feel you're
being ordered to do something against the law,
we will stand with you. I mean, that's such an
unusual message. It just assumes this level of
tension where people in uniform might actually
fear getting an illegal order. Well, the sources
noted a really stark example, even if it was
hypothetical. In order to open fire on civilian
fishing boats without provocation, the Democrats
were putting out a direct preemptive warning.
And that warning triggered a Just an incredible
reaction from the former president. Yeah, Donald
Trump went on social media Furious calling the
video seditious behavior at the highest level
He called for them to be arrested put on trial
as traitors to our country, but it went way beyond
just arrest He followed up with the explicit
phrase, seditious behavior punishable by death.
I mean, an open threat aimed at sitting members
of Congress. Who are also decorated military
veterans. The fallout in Washington was deeply
alarming. Speaker Mike Johnson, instead of backing
away from that, called the video wildly inappropriate.
But then he agreed with the punishment. He concurred
that death is the proper punishment for sedition.
And then you had Senator Lindsey Graham demanding
a single example of an illegal order, just totally
missing the point that the warning was about
the future. The White House tried to walk it
back a bit. Press Secretary Caroline Levitt claimed
the Democrats brought the president to responding
in this way. But the damage was done. The danger
was real. Representative Slotkin later revealed
she was assigned a two hundred and forty seven
Capitol Police security detail. Because the threats
were deemed that serious. Exactly. You have a
public call for execution leading to a real world
security detail. But here's the major insight
from our sources. The real failure we have to
talk about. The story just vanished. It disappeared
almost instantly. You scan the front pages. CNN,
Fox, New York Times gone within 24 hours. And
you have to ask this. more than just us being
desensitized, isn't it? What does it mean politically
when the system treats calls for executing rivals
as just another Thursday? It represents a fundamental
failure of political accountability. When extreme
threats that in any other time would dominate
the news for weeks are just normalized, it means
the system's defenses, the media institutional
condemnation, they're failing. It just raises
the baseline of what's acceptable. Well, that
kind of high velocity conflict, that fragility,
it has to take a personal toll. And that seems
to be the thread that connects us to our next
segment. The surprising number of people leaving
Congress this week, most notably the resignation
of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green. The
MTG exit was just stunning, mostly because of
her prominence and well. the reason she gave.
Her letter was long, citing disillusionment with
Congress. But it also mentioned being really
concerned about the Epstein files release and
crucially worrying that the former president
was turning against her. The timing kills a really
sharp story, doesn't it? The price of loyalty.
It absolutely does. I mean, think about it. Green
was aided by the political left for five years,
and she never seemed to fear for her safety.
But she was hated by the Medjugorje base for
about two weeks, and suddenly she needs protection
and has to end her career. It really shows you
where the immediate danger is in today's politics.
It does. Crossing the opposition party means,
you know... institutional attacks. But crossing
your own populist base means immediate personal
threats and you don't have the party to protect
you. If you're seen as a traitor to the base,
you've got nowhere to go. Some sources were speculating
this could be some kind of strategic chess move,
you know, stepping back to return later. But
the analysis seems pretty skeptical of that.
That's right. The source material suggests she
just doesn't have that kind of long term strategic
mind. The calculus is pretty simple. She's now
been labeled a traitor by the very base that
created her. She has no path back. The political
structure just consumed another one of its own.
And we should also mention, you know, the more
graceful exit of Representative Nidia Velazquez
stepping down after 16 terms. Yeah. And she was
explicit, saying she wanted to make way for a
new generation of leaders. So this backdrop of
people leaving, it leads us right into the huge
policy struggles the Republican Party is facing,
especially on economics. Let's start with the
president's plan for those $2 ,000 relief checks.
OK, the plan is to fund them with tariff money.
But let's just break down the arithmetic here.
Let's do it. The total cost is estimated at $660
billion. Annual tariff revenue is What about
a third of that? Roughly. Around 200 billion.
So right from the start, the math is just fundamentally
broken. Yeah, that's not even the only obstacle.
And not even close. First, that tariff money
isn't just a slush fund for the executive. Congress
has to authorize the spending. Second, and this
is critical, powerful Republican senators, Ron
Johnson, Rick Scott, Bernie Moreno, they're already
firmly against it. They want to pay down the
38 trillion dollar national debt. Not create
a new entitlement. And third, from an economic
view, just dumping $300 billion or more onto
consumers, that's almost guaranteed to be inflationary.
It would completely undercut the efforts to stabilize
the very prices people are complaining about.
The other huge policy crisis is health care.
Premiums for both ACA and non ACA plans are apparently
set to skyrocket, which is creating a frantic
scramble inside the GOP. And the policy ideas
are all over the map. You've got retiring Senator
Tom Tillis pushing to eliminate all ACA subsidies,
which is wildly unpopular and would crush rural
hospitals. Exactly. Then you have Senator Rick
Scott proposing these Trump freedom accounts.
But he's also pushing to eliminate the subsidies
that keep the market from collapsing. So what's
the ultimate risk here if they can't agree or
if they do get rid of the subsidies. The core
risk is what they call the death spiral. Imagine
your insurance premium suddenly jumps by 20 or
30 percent. Young, healthy people who don't use
their insurance much, they'll just drop their
plans to save money. Which leaves the insurance
pool full of older, sicker people who need expensive
care. So insurers have to raise premiums even
higher to cover the costs, which drives even
more healthy people out. It's a vicious cycle
that makes insurance unaffordable for everyone
who actually needs it. And the numbers back that
up. They do. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation
study showed a recent increase of 114 percent
in out -of -pocket premiums. It's just not sustainable.
OK, so let's move from economic policy to legal
chaos, specifically the just astonishing collapse
of the prosecution against former FBI Director
James Comey. And this all centered on the misconduct
of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. What's so
wild here is the audacity of the mistakes. Yeah.
In court, Halligan admitted she never presented
the final two -count indictment to the entire
grand jury that indicted Comey. I mean, can you
imagine? There were audible gasps in the courtroom.
The DOJ later tried to file this puzzling correction,
but the damage was already done. Wait, just so
I have this straight. A prosecutor admitted she
got an indictment without the grand jury even
seeing the final charges. That's... That's profound.
It is. And magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick followed
up with this blistering 25 -page order. He called
it stunning improprieties. Let's break down what
went wrong. It started with a Fourth Amendment
violation. Right. The Fourth Amendment protects
you from unreasonable searches. The violation
was complex, but basically, officials seized
materials under a warrant way back in 2019, but
then they illegally rummaged through them again
in 2025, accessing private files way beyond what
the original warrant allowed. So a fishing expedition
years later. Essentially. And then there was
the use of privilege information, which is catastrophic
for a case. This is attorney -client privilege.
Mostly, yes. Communications that are legally
protected. The prosecution used this unlawfully
seized privilege material to secure the indictment.
They even had an agent who'd been exposed to
it testify before the grand jury. That just taints
the entire process. And then this conduct went
right into the grand jury room itself. Oh, it
did. Halligan made severe misrepresentations.
She implied Comey had no Fifth Amendment right
not to testify, which is just flatly wrong. And
even worse, she told the grand jury they could
rely on better evidence that would be presented
at the actual trial. But that's not their job.
Exactly. Their job is to assess the evidence
in front of them. The judge basically said her
law license is now in serious jeopardy. The whole
case could be dismissed. Let's pivot from there
to the electoral map, where The courts are also
playing this decisive role through gerrymandering.
Right, the Texas case. A district court ruled
the Texas map was an illegal racial gerrymander,
but Justice Alito temporarily saved it. He granted
an administrative stay. Which sounds minor. But
the consequence was massive. It pushed the final
decision past the state's December 8th filing
deadline. So by delaying the ruling, he effectively
locked in that map for this election cycle, no
matter what the final legal decision is. And
the stakes for control of Congress are huge.
If that Texas map survives, it nets Republicans
about three seats. Yeah. If it had been voided,
it was a D plus two game. But. And this is a
big but. You have to consider the blue state
counterpunch. States where Democrats control
the process, like Virginia and Illinois, they
have new maps ready to go. And the numbers there.
The data shows Virginia could net three Democratic
seats, Illinois two. That's a potential D plus
five game. So even with Texas, the whole national
gerrymandering fight could end up as a wash or
even a small net win for Democrats. Which sets
a really interesting stage for 2026 and brings
us to this historical warning. The six -year
itch. Yeah, history shows the president's party
almost always gets hit with severe losses in
the Senate during their sixth year in office.
We saw it with Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Obama.
It's a very consistent pattern. And given the
2026 map, history suggests Democrats are in a
good position to pick up seats. A very good position.
The most vulnerable GOP seats are in North Carolina
and Maine. And if Democrats can get to a 50 -50
Senate, which is a high leverage scenario, it
gives enormous power to moderates like Senator
Lisa Murkowski. She could threaten to vote with
the Democrats. And effectively hand the majority
leader role back to Chuck Schumer, completely
derailing the incumbent's agenda. That 29 point
swing among independents in the recent Virginia
election, it shows that movement is already happening.
That shifting ground makes the 20 -28 horizon
feel a lot closer. Many in the media are acting
like JD Vance is the inevitable nominee for Republicans.
But historically, sitting vice presidents really
struggle to get the top job. It's only happened
twice since 1800. Why is that? It's structural.
VPs are always seen as an extension of the sitting
president who almost always loses popularity
over time. They don't have their own identity
and they can't run as the change candidate because
they're part of the system the public wants to
change. Running as Trump the third doesn't seem
like a winning formula for a general election.
So are we seeing competitors trying to carve
out their own space already? Absolutely. You're
seeing these proxy fights develop. Ted Cruz is
strategically picking fights over things like
NASA and FCC nominees, even attacking people
close to Vance. He's working to build an independent
brand right now. And Vance could have competition
from a familiar name in 2028. Robert Kennedy
Jr. He's relaunching his We the People party.
And that's smart because getting ballot access
is often easier for an actual party than an independent
candidate. The party's theme is explicitly non
-ideological anti -establishment, which makes
it a perfect spoiler. Because it pulls from both
sides. Exactly. It captures niche voters, anti
-vaxxers, people who distrust the deep state
from both the far left and the far right. It
could be corrosive to both major parties. But
regardless of who's running, it all seems to
hinge on one thing. The economy. The latest polls
confirmed James Carville was right. It's the
economy, stupid. Still true. It's the top issue
for a third of Americans. And here's the number
that should have the incumbent party very worried.
65 % of Americans believe current policies are
making their grocery prices go up. And 77 % think
the administration isn't spending enough time
on it. It's not a theoretical complaint. It's
a visceral kitchen table dissatisfaction, the
kind that predicts severe midterm losses. And
that unhappiness with the economy, it directly
fuels how people feel about wealth disparity.
Polls show Democrats, 75 % of them, think billionaires
spending money on elections is bad for democracy.
Which creates a clear political opening for Democrats
if they ever get a governing trifecta. They could
leverage that anger for some significant tax
reform. What are the main proposals? The sources
detail a few. First, removing the $176 ,000 FICA
tax cap. So, right now, a billionaire pays the
same amount in Social Security tax as someone
making just over that threshold. Removing the
cap would make high earners contribute a lot
more. And the others target the highest levels
of wealth. Exactly. Second, raising the top income
tax rate back towards Eisenhower -era levels,
which were as high as 91%. Third, raising the
estate tax on estates over $100 million to 95%.
And finally, closing loopholes for people who
renounced their citizenship to avoid taxes. These
are specific fixes based on that public anger.
Wow. So we've covered everything from calls for
executing members of Congress to a prosecutor
potentially losing their law license, all while
the electoral and economic ground just keeps
shifting under everyone's feet in Washington.
It's a moment defined by high stakes risk and
real systemic instability. And if we combine
the historical pattern of that six -year itch
with the public's current very real economic
pain, where two -thirds of Americans blame current
policies for their grocery bills, it raises a
big question, a question that goes beyond the
scandals we know about, beyond the obvious which
economic unknown unknown, you know, maybe a sudden
trade war, an unexpected debt crisis, which one
is most likely to deliver that decisive unforeseen
blow to the incumbent party in 2026? That is
what you need to be watching for next year.