Welcome to today's deep dive. If you're joining
us right now, you probably know that familiar
kind of creeping feeling of information overload.
Oh, absolutely. It is everywhere. Right. You
want to be well informed. You want to understand
the forces shaping your world. But sitting down
to read a mountain of political newsletters and
demographic research and investigative reports
after a long day is, well, it's a lot to ask.
It's exhausting. It really is. And that is exactly
why we are here. We've gone through the stack
and our mission today is to extract the most
critical insights for you, minus the overwhelm.
It's about finding the signal and the noise.
And today, the signal we are picking up across
all our sources is pointing to one massive overarching
theme, and that is accountability and judgment
in America. We're looking at how we judge our
politicians, how political actions are justified
on the global stage, and ultimately, as some
really fascinating new data will show us, how
incredibly harshly we judge each other. The lineup
we've got for you today is honestly gripping.
Our stack includes the widely read Electoral
Vote News political newsletter, From March 11,
2026, a deep dive investigative piece on a sitting
U .S. congressman. and a brand new demographic
report from Hedgeye that unpacked some jaw -dropping
Pew research data. And look, just a quick heads
up before we dive in. Today's stack, especially
the political newsletters we are looking at,
they throw some serious punches. They really
do. They use strong language and have very clear
biases. So our job today isn't to take a side
or endorse these left or right wing views. We're
just here to hold up a mirror to the narratives
exactly as they're being pushed out there so
you can see the full board. Well said. We're
your guys to the material. Nothing more. Ah.
So let's start with a story that perfectly illustrates
this theme of accountability, specifically regarding
the trust deficit in Washington. We're looking
at the investigative piece on Representative
Rob Bresnihan, a Republican from Pennsylvania.
Let's rewind the tape to his 2024 campaign. Right.
The campaign promises. Exactly. He ran on a very
strict, very vocal promise to ban congressional
stock trading. I mean, he even wrote a public
letter to a local paper stating that it's fundamentally
wrong for members of Congress to buy and sell
stocks while voting on legislation that impacts
those exact companies. Which is a highly popular
stance. Banning congressional stock trading is
one of those rare issues that pulls incredibly
well across the entire political spectrum. Voters
absolutely hate the idea of insider trading in
Congress. They really do. But the reality of
his time in office tells a totally different
story. The investigation reveals that in 2025...
While sitting as a member of Congress, Bresnahan
made over 600 stock trades before finally suspending
the practice toward the end of the year amid
this massive wave of public criticism. Six hundred
trades in a single year is a massive volume,
especially after campaigning on a ban. And when
you do that, you need an airtight defense. Bresnahan's
core argument, which was repeated by his team
multiple times, has been that he delegates absolutely
everything to professional financial advisors.
He claimed he has zero input. on day -to -day
trading. He went so far as to include a line
in his periodic transaction reports explicitly
asserting that he has no role in and is not informed
of specific investment decisions prior to their
execution. Okay, let's unpack this. Because here's
where it gets really interesting. The investigative
reporters unearthed a little noticed and apparently
now deleted April 2025 radio interview with a
local host named Bob Cordaro. And in that audio,
Bresnahan says, and I quote, I mean, I meet with
my financial advisor. We talk about, you know,
what different positions are coming up. That
audio is the smoking gun of this piece because
it is a direct contradiction of his written legal
assertions. If you are discussing what different
positions are coming up, you are by definition
not entirely walled off from the process. No,
not at all. And this becomes a major issue when
you look at the specific trades detailed in the
report. We aren't talking about broad harmless
index funds here. Exactly. The piece details
that Bresnihan sold between $100 ,000 and $250
,000 in Pennsylvania healthcare -related bonds.
Furthermore, he traded up to $130 ,000 in stock
across four specific Medicaid providers. Wow.
And the timing is what makes this radioactive.
He made these specific health and Medicaid trades
right before voting on massive Medicaid cuts
in Congress. The optics are brutal. You have
a congressman trading heavily in a specific sector
just days before casting a vote that directly
impacts the financial viability of that sector.
Now his campaign, understandably, is pushing
back fiercely on this. Yeah, they have to. His
spokesman, Chris Pack, claimed the audio from
that radio interview was just referring to a
30 ,000 foot investment strategy. Pack likened
it to a totally routine 401k risk tolerance meeting
that any normal employee would have. But a member
of Congress isn't a normal employee. How does
a 30 ,000 foot view defense hold up when he's
trading specific Medicaid stocks right before
a Medicaid vote? It doesn't hold up well under
scrutiny at all. And the source brings in Ted
Rossman, a principal analyst at Bankrate, to
explain why. Rossman points out that for a federal
lawmaker, even sharing general thoughts on themes
on the market is incredibly problematic. Because
they have inside info. Precisely. Members of
Congress possess material nonpublic information.
They know what legislation is in committee, what
is likely to pass, what regulatory actions are
imminent. If a congressman tells his broker,
I'm feeling bearish on health care right now.
That isn't just a casual hunch, it's informed
by insider knowledge. The campaign also tried
a classic pivot, pointing out that Bresnihan's
Democratic opponent in the upcoming midterms,
Paige Cognetti, used to work for Goldman Sachs
and has millions in investment holdings herself.
Which is a standard political deflection, but
it doesn't erase the fact that Bresnihan explicitly
campaigned on ending this exact behavior. So
to bring this back to you listening, why should
you care about one congressman's portfolio? Think
about the constituent mentioned in the piece
who confronted Bresnahan during a tele -town
hall. She didn't use any complex financial jargon.
No. She just said, flat out, I didn't send you
there to trade. Bresnahan represents a highly
competitive, slightly Republican -leaning district.
The report notes that 54 % of his voters already
know about these trades. They are paying close
attention because it strikes at the fundamental
question of governance. Are you serving the public
interest or your own portfolio? That trust deficit
at the local level is palpable. But the electoral
vote newsletter transitions us from domestic
financial accountability to a much larger global
stage. We're looking at the ongoing U .S. military
intervention in Iran, which is now entering its
second week. Yeah. And the newsletter offers
a blistering critique of how the executive branch
is attempting to justify this conflict to the
American public. It's a fascinating read because
it really highlights the absolute message maze
coming out of Washington. The newsletter argues
the administration has completely failed the
politics of geopolitics 101. Instead of a clear
unified objective, high ranking officials have
offered 10 different and often widely conflicting
rationales for why the U .S. is currently engaged
in this conflict. What's fascinating here is
the sheer panic that multiple shifting excuses
implies. When you group these rationales together,
you see the administration throwing everything
at the wall to see what sticks. First, you have
the standard geopolitical talking points. They
claim the goal is to stop Iran from developing
nuclear weapons. But hold on. The newsletter
points out a massive contradiction right there
with the nukes. Didn't the president just recently
claim that Iran's nuclear program was already
wiped out? Yes, exactly. How do they justify
a new military intervention to stop a program
they already told the public was destroyed? That's
exactly the kind of glaring inconsistency the
newsletter highlights. And the contradictions
only get worse. They cite conventional weapons,
with Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating the
military needs to deprive Iran of short range
ballistic missiles and naval threats. Right.
That was reason number two. Then reason three,
Rubio claimed the conflict was instigated by
Israel, a claim he then denied and which the
president also pushed back on. Reason four is
the economic power argument that Iran controls
too much oil. OK, so that's What's four? What's
five? Five is the imminent threat. Rubio claimed
Iran poses an immediate threat to the U .S. But
in the same news cycle, Senator Tom Cotton argued
that Iran has been an imminent threat for 47
years. Which leads right into reason six. The
president pivoted to a punishment narrative,
stating the intervention is retribution for 47
years of killing Americans, dating all the way
back to the deposition of the Shah in 1979. So
it's an imminent threat, but it's also a half
century old grudge. It is incredibly messy messaging.
Then you have reason seven, regime change. They
acknowledge the Ayatollah's oppressive regime,
though the source heavily questions the lack
of any actual succession plan. Right. But the
newsletter really digs into what I would call
the wild card rationales. And these are jarring.
Reason eight, over a hundred soldiers have filed
formal complaints stating their superior officers
told them the war's actual purpose is to bring
about Armageddon or the end of days. I have to
stop you there. A hundred soldiers formally complaining
about an Armageddon directive? That is staggering.
It is. The newsletter alleges this is tied to
directives from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
For soldiers of different faiths, or no faith
at all, being told they are fighting to trigger
a specific religious apocalypse is deeply unsettling.
It's terrible for unit cohesion. Completely.
And Reason 9 is just as wild. The president posted
on social media that the intervention was necessary
because Iran tried to interfere in the 2020 and
2024 elections to stop him, essentially framing
a global military conflict as a stop the steal
operation. And finally, reason 10 is what the
source calls incompetence or distraction. They
ironically cite a 2011 quote from the president
himself, back when he was criticizing Barack
Obama, saying that presidents who don't know
how to negotiate start wars with Iran just to
get reelected. Talk about a quote aging poorly.
But the shifting rationale isn't just a PR problem.
The real -world consequences detailed in the
source are immediate and devastating. Absolutely.
Look at the global oil market. The administration
is reportedly considering tapping the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve and even seizing Iranian oil
fields just to prevent a massive spike in domestic
gas prices. The political risk of that strategy
is immense. If American forces take casualties
while actively trying to secure foreign oil fields,
the public perception instantly hardens into
a narrative that soldiers are dying for oil.
That is historically a very difficult position
for any administration to sustain. And the human
tragedies are already unfolding. The newsletter
decals a horrific incident in Tehran where a
U .S. missile reportedly went off course and
struck a girls' school, killing 149 students.
It's just awful. The military says they are investigating,
but the global blowback from 149 civilian casualties
in a single strike is impossible to overstate.
It isolates the U .S. on the world stage instantly.
And as if the stakes weren't high enough, the
administration's own Caroline Leavitt went on
record, stating that reinstituting the military
draft is on the table. Floating the idea of a
draft in the current political climate is a massive,
incredibly risky gamble. Again, just as a reminder,
we are reporting the analysis presented by the
Electoral Vote newsletter here. But what this
source illustrates so vividly is the dangerous
collision between chaotic public messaging and
the harsh unforgiving reality of global conflict.
You can't spin a missile strike or a volatile
oil market. No, you can't. So we've looked at
accountability for lawmakers trading stocks and
the struggle to justify executive action overseas.
Let's bring it back stateside, down to the machinery
of the justice system in the ballot box, where
the wheels of accountability actually do seem
to be turning. They turn slowly, but they do
turn. The newsletter highlights a rather stunning
update on Ed Martin, the former acting U .S.
attorney for D .C. He is currently facing the
very real potential of losing his law license.
Why? The Disciplinary Council is coming after
him because he sent a threatening letter to Georgetown
Law School. He essentially told them the U .S.
Attorney's Office would refuse to hire any of
their graduates unless the school dropped its
DEI program. Using the power of the U .S. Attorney's
Office to strong -arm a university's internal
policies. Yeah. How did the disciplinary council
react to that? Well, they investigated it as
a clearly discriminatory threat, and Martin's
response only made it worse. Instead of defending
the policy through proper channels, he improperly
wrote letters directly to D .C. Circuit judges
complaining about the disciplinary council investigating
him. It's a potent reminder that wielding power
recklessly eventually invites professional and
legal scrutiny. OK, let's unpack this, because
accountability isn't just happening in closed
-door disciplinary hearings. happening loudly
at the ballot box. The newsletter provides some
fascinating recent election data showing voters
exercising their judgment in ways that really
defy conventional wisdom. Yes, the local elections.
Let's look at Georgia's 14th congressional district.
This is a deep red area, Marjorie Taylor Greene's
former seat. In the Republican primary, voters
outright rejected former state senator Colton
Moore. The newsletter literally refers to him
as the crazy pants candidate, noting his behavior
was so extreme he was previously banned from
even speaking on the state House floor. Wow.
The primary voters clearly had enough. They chose
Clay Fuller, a more establishment law and order
candidate who had Trump's endorsement. Fuller
is now facing Democrat Sean Harris, a black retired
brigadier general running a fascinating campaign
where he identifies simply as a Georgian rather
than leaning heavily into partisan labels. He
really shows a limit to what primary voters will
tolerate when it comes to legislative theatrics.
And then you have New Hampshire, a special election
for a vacant state house seat. Just saw a massive
30 point swing. A huge margin. Democrat Bobby
Boadman won a district that Trump carried by
26 points just two years prior in 2024. This
letter includes a great little detail about that
vacant seat, actually. The previous Republican
likely resigned because New Hampshire legislators
are famously only paid $100 a year. $100 a year?
I mean, you couldn't pay me to commute in the
snow for $100 a year, let alone run a state government.
Honestly, no wonder they quit. Right. But jokes
aside, a 30 -point swing in a hyperlocal race
shows an electorate that is highly engaged and
willing to wildly shift its judgment. It does.
And in Mississippi Second District, you have
Representative Benny Thompson routing a primary
challenger with over 85 percent of the vote.
The source attributes this massive win not just
to his national profile, but to his ironclad
reputation for excellent constituent services.
It's a simple formula. Voters reward politicians
who actually answer the phone and take care of
their districts. So we've seen voters demanding
accountability from Bresnahan on the stock trades.
We've seen the struggle to justify a chaotic
war. And we've seen local voters rejecting extremes
and rewarding actual public service. But to understand
why the public is judging its leaders so intensely
right now, we need to look at how we're judging
each other. This is where we bring in the hedge
-eye report, which breaks down some truly eye
-opening Pew research data. If we connect this
demographic research to the broader political
picture, the findings are staggering. It turns
out, if we are judging our politicians harshly,
it is because Americans are currently the most
critical people in the world regarding their
fellow citizens. The hard numbers here are a
really tough pill to swallow. According to this
25 country survey, fully 53 % of U .S. adults
say the morality and ethics of Americans are
somewhat or very bad. Let that sink in. It's
incredible. That is 25 points above the global
median. Out of all 25 nations surveyed, the United
States is the only country where a majority of
people believe their fellow citizens are fundamentally
more bad than good. It's a profound level of
societal distrust. And the Hedgeye Report shows
that partisan animosity is hardening at a terrifying
rate. Between 2016 and 2022, the share of Republicans
who say Democrats are immoral rose 25 points
to a massive 72 percent. On the flip side, The
share of Democrats who say Republicans are immoral
climbed 28 points to 63 percent. It isn't just
about disagreeing on tax policy or health care
anymore. Both sides increasingly view the other
as fundamentally closed minded, dishonest, unintelligent
and lazy. It's a complete demonization of your
neighbor. Yeah. But what I found so compelling
in the Hedge Eye analysis is the highly contradictory
nature of American moral standards. When you
compare us to the rest of the world, we aren't
just broadly judgmental. We have a very specific,
almost bizarre moral compass. We really do. Americans
are incredibly strict on certain traditional
moral issues, yet shockingly permissive on others.
For example, 90 % of Americans condemn extramarital
affairs, compared to a global median of 77%.
39 % condemn homosexuality, which is 11 points
higher than the global median. And 23 percent
condemn divorce, nearly double the global median
of 12 percent. But then flip the coin. Only 23
percent of Americans say using marijuana is morally
wrong. That is way below the global median of
52 percent. And only 29 percent say gambling
is immoral compared to a global median of 49
percent. We're this strange, contradictory mix
of highly puritanical and broadly permissive.
How does Hedgeye interpret that split? The author
of the report, Neil Howe, suggests this contradictory
data points to a society that is desperately
trying to assert and enforce boundaries of acceptable
behavior. When the cultural landscape feels volatile
and untethered, people double down on moral judgments
as a way to regain control. They become hyper
-focused on the perceived ethical failings of
others. So what does this all mean for you, the
listener, as you navigate this environment? Think
about how these strict judgments of one another
fuel the exact political dysfunction we read
about in the news. When you have a society where
the majority actively thinks everyone else is
morally bad, does that breed the kind of deep,
cynical distrust that makes stories like Bresnan's
doctrine so explosive? It absolutely does, and
it extends to the global stage. Does this culture
of distrust create the fractured chaotic environment
where an administration feels it needs 10 different
conflicting excuses for a war in Iran? Because
perhaps they know the public assumes they are
acting in bad faith anyway, so they just throw
everything at the wall. Exactly. So to quickly
recap the journey we've been on today. We started
with the glaring loopholes of congressional stock
trading and the trust deficit it creates between
lawmakers and voters. We navigated the absolute
messaging maze of the U .S. intervention in Iran,
looking at the stark real -world consequences
of chaotic leadership. And then the local level.
Right. We looked down -ballot at how local voters
are exercising swift, surprising judgment at
the polls. And finally, we looked in the mirror
with a hedge eye in Pew data, proving just how
harshly Americans are currently judging one other's
base. I want to leave you with a final thought
to mull over, something that dills on this pew
data. If a nation's political institutions are
ultimately just a reflection of its people, could
it be that our hyper -focus on the moral failings
of our neighbors is exactly what prevents us
from demanding unified systemic accountability
from our leaders? Think about it. If we automatically
assume everyone else in the country is acting
in bad faith, perhaps we inadvertently give our
leaders permission to do the exact same thing.
A really powerful thought to end on. Thank you
so much for joining us on this deep dive. Keep
reading. Keep questioning. around you and we
will catch you next time.