Morning Wire - Stockton Serial Killer & Trump SCOTUS Request | 10.8.22

Episode Date: October 8, 2022

A string of murders in Stockton California have police warning about a possible serial killer in the area, former President Trump asks SCOTUS to intervene in his legal battle with the FBI, and the Supreme Court hears arguments for online speech case with sweeping implications. Get the facts first on Morning Wire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A string of murders in Northern California have police warning about a possible serial killer. What evidence links the murders, and where do police stand on a suspect? I want to pay close attention to the uneven stride that this person has. This person's posture is extremely upright and is noticeable. I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley. It's October 8th, and this is your Saturday edition of Morning Wire. Former President Trump asks the Supreme Court to weigh in, on the DOJ's investigation.

What is the former president asking for? And what else has been revealed about the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago? And a family is suing Google, blaming the company for the death at their daughter in the 2015 terror attack in Paris. The case now in front of the Supreme Court could change social media forever.

Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. We have the news you need to know. Hey guys, producer Colton here. And an economy is volatile as this one. It's important to have control when you're making a big purchase, like, let's say, a new car. That's where Morning Wire's new partners over at Carzing come into play. Carzing is an online car shopping website with millions of listed vehicles.

By partnering with credit agencies, lenders, and dealerships, Carzing provides you with everything you need before stepping foot into a dealership. Their innovative technology and financial tools let you instantly pre-qualify online without affecting your credit score. Once you find your dream car at your ideal budget, all you have to do is bring your saved deal voucher with you to the dealership to finalize your next ride. Visit carzing.com slash wire today to skip the guesswork and find the best deals near you. That's carzing.com slash wire. A string of murders in Stockton, California have police warning about a possible serial killer in the area. The murders began in April of last year, and it first appeared to be completely random, but now appear to be linked.

Here to discuss the crimes is Daily Wire Senior Editor Ash Short. So, Ash, how many victims have there been? There have been six murders and one attempted murder. The six who died were all men, but the one survivor is a 46-year-old woman. And most of the deaths have been within Stockton's city limits. But they've connected the killer to at least one fatal shooting in Oakland. All of the crimes happened late at night when the victims were alone in poorly lit areas. There doesn't appear to be a clear pattern.

in linking the victims, but at least two of them are thought to have been homeless. And none of the cases have involved robbery or appear to be gang related. The surviving female victim described the man who shot her as between 5 foot 10 and 6 feet tall with a slim build. She also said he was wearing a dark colored sweatshirt with the hood pulled over his head as well as dark pants and a black face mask. But she says she couldn't determine the suspect's race. Now, what makes the police think that all of these crimes are connected?

They say that ballistics evidence and surveillance footage from some of the crime scenes points to the work of a single killer. And during a recent press conference, Stockton Police Chief Stanley McFadden didn't directly say that the same gun was used in all the murders, but he did hint to a single pistol being used in all the crimes. And how long has this been going on? The first suspected murder was back in April of 2021. That was the shooting of the man in Oakland, which was only recently linked to the more recent murders.

Just days after that man was murdered, the woman in Stockton was shot, but she survived. Then, more than a year passed before five more men were killed between July 8th and September 27th of this year. All of the murders this summer were within a few square miles of each other. Police Chief McFadden said he didn't know why there was such a long gap in the crimes or what motive the shooter may have. Do the police have any leads so far? Well, after revealing surveillance footage from several of the crime scenes, police are now looking for a person who appears on video wearing dark clothing. Police were clear that while the person seems to appear on video at several crime scenes,

there is no direct evidence linking them to the shootings. Well, a scary time to be in Stockton. Ash, thanks for reporting. You're welcome. That was Daily Wire Senior Editor, Ash Short. Hey there, producer Colton here. Do you like to be the first to know about trendy news and current events If so, you've got to get the Daily Wire Plus app.

Not only will you receive mobile notifications whenever something's happening, but you'll also have access to the best commentary to break it all down. Download the Daily Wire Plus app and keep up with the facts no matter where your day takes you. Former President Trump has opened the door for the Supreme Court to weigh in on his legal battle with the FBI. Trump asked the high court to reverse a lower court's decision to block a third-party reviewer or special master from seeing classified documents see...

at Maralago in August. Here to tell us about the former president's request and update us on the DOJ's investigation into Trump is Daily Wire reporter Tim Pierce. So, Tim, what does Trump want the Supreme Court to do here? Hey, John, Trump wants a Supreme Court to grant special master Raymond Deary access to about 100 pages worth of classified documents that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked him from reviewing. So as we reported earlier, Trump won the initial fight to get a special master appointed

to review the materials seized from his forward resort. but the 11th Circuit partially stayed Judge Cannon's special master order at the request of the DOJ. Cannon's original order had barred the FBI for moving forward with its criminal investigation into Trump's handling of the documents while Deary reviewed everything the FBI took. The DOJ took the issue to the 11th Circuit and a three-judge panel agreed to free the FBI to continue its investigation while blocking Deary from viewing the documents in question. So the special master is not able to view certain documents. What did Trump's legal team argue? Trump's team said that Deary needs access to the documents that he's currently barred from viewing in order to protect the integrity of his review. They argue it's necessary to ensure public confidence that the proceedings are being handled fairly. They also argued that the 11th Circuit lacked jurisdiction

to limit Deary's review. Trump's filing went to Justice Clarence Thomas, who handles appeals for the 11th Circuit. Thomas gave the DOJ a week to respond, so in the meantime, the 11th Circuit stay remains in place and Deary cannot view the 100 or so documents. I should note that the 11th Circuit has not issued of final ruling on the DOJ's request yet, though they did give the DOJ an early win. The circuit court said it would expedite his final ruling on Thursday and began setting out a timeline for proceedings to take place. So Trump has claimed that these documents, the FBI, are investigating or no longer classified despite being marked as such.

Have we seen any documentation to support Trump's claims? No. Trump's attorneys said they weren't ready to provide that evidence. And in a blow to Trump's legal team, Deary said that he needed the proof saying, you can't have your cake and eat it. Have we learned any more about what the documents seized in the raid contained? We actually did, though it was by accident. A detailed list of some of the seized materials was apparently posted on the court docket mistakenly.

The list was supposed to be under seal and it's no longer viewable online. But before it was taken down, somebody copied it. Bloomberg made it public again. The available information isn't a comprehensive list of everything taken from Mar-a-Lago, but the leaked list reveals hundreds of pages of tax documents were seized along with government forms, such as drafts of presidential orders, notes on Trump's phone calls, as well as documents on candidates for presidential pardons. Tax documents, so maybe we'll see those tax returns after all.

Maybe so. Tim, thanks for reporting. Thanks for having me. That was Daily Wires, Tim Pierce. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard opening arguments on a case relating to online speech and content algorithms. The family of Nohammi Gonzalez is suing Google for allegedly promoting extremist content on their platform,

which they say led to the terror attack that killed Gonzalez and 130 others in Paris in 2015. The Gonzalez family says the platform should be financially responsible for the kind of dangerous rhetoric that was spread by the algorithms on their platform that led to the deaths. Joining us to discuss is Jake Denton, research associate in the Tech Policy Center at the Heritage Foundation. Jake, thanks for coming on. Absolutely, thanks for having me. So tell us about this case.

What is the Gonzalez family arguing? Absolutely. Absolutely. So the Gonzalez versus Google, right, is really looking at the core of the nature of the algorithm on social media platforms. But in this instance, it's quite focused on YouTube. And so the real question is, you know, YouTube's algorithm is pushing you down kind of a journey, right? The user may be of the belief that, you know, they're on their own self-guided quest throughout the platform, but it's a curated experience. It's one that recommends videos that are what they believe to be of your interest. So the Gonzales family in this case is essentially alleging that YouTube's algorithmic design gave potential Islamic extremists this kind of content journey that agitated them, kind of wound them up, and it directly led to the Paris attack where their daughter died. And so it's kind of unpacking the nature of the algorithm and how that kind of affects content consumption on the platforms.

Now, this is obviously targeting religious extremism, but we'll be able to be. this potentially lead to platforms being responsible for all kinds of acts committed based on the content people are watching? Should people be concerned about this ruling affecting free speech online? Sure. So this is really aiming to provide clarity to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. And so that act obviously, you know, given by the date there in the name, didn't really have social media companies in mind. It didn't have these platforms that are kind of driving the current content consumption most people are taking in every day. And so this, while obviously is targeting the kind of Islamic extremism through this case, it has implications for the platform as a whole because it's looking to provide clarity as to, you know, which type of company gets a liability shield for their content that's posted on the platform. And so this case, obviously kind of as we've discussed, basically is suggesting that YouTube isn't going to be awarded that liability shield because their algorithm is pushing a certain type of content to a user. It's editorializing. It's

pushing kind of ideas. And so it will have implications far beyond the Islamic extremism content. It'll have, you know, it'll spill over into political communications, anything where content is either promoted or suppressed because they're alleging that the algorithm has intent as it's an active extension of the company. Are there any indications or past statements from the justices that give hints about how they might rule on this? Yeah, so Clarence Thomas mentioned a handful of years ago that they were waiting for the right time to take up the Section 230 case, rating for the right case. And I think he's kind of hinted that he's of the belief that these tech companies should not be granted the liability shield. And so this may be kind of the moment

where Silicon Valley loses that Section 230 protection. Now, if Section 230 does no longer apply to these social media platforms after this case, what would change about, the social media experience for everyday users? So I'm a bit of a pessimist. I don't truly believe that this will fundamentally change the nature of the platform without, you know, legislative intervention. I think that the courts could potentially get rid of this protection, this explicit protection. I think Silicon Valley and big tech in particular are very creative about how they could suppress speech, how they could censor dissenting opinions that they don't want on their platforms. And so until there is a strong legislative action taken by Congress,

I truly don't believe that the platform experience will change too much. I believe that it'll largely look the same, but they'll just find different ways to kind of suppress that content. All right. Well, Jake, thanks so much for coming on today. Absolutely. It was a pleasure. That was Jake Denton, research associate in the Tech Policy Center at the Heritage Foundation. Other stories we're tracking this week.

66 abortion clinics and 15 states have stopped performing abortions since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. and returned laws related to abortion to individual states. The research was released on Thursday by the Gutmacher Institute, a pro-abortion access organization. Women around the world, including actresses and a Swedish legislature, have been cutting their hair in support of women in Iran as demonstrations continue in the country. Swedish actress Svante Pabo was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine Monday

for extracting DNA from an ancient human finger bone found in a cave in Siberia. Discoveries from the extracted DNA suggest interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans. Thanks for listening to Morning Wire. We created this show to bring more balanced to the national conversation. If you love our show and you stand with our mission,

please consider subscribing, leaving us a five-star rating, and most importantly, sharing our podcast with a friend. Well, thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back tomorrow with the news you need to know.