UNBIASED - 9/11 Attackers Plea Conditions Rejected, Hunter Biden Indictment Coming Soon, Trump Liable for Defamation, NYPD Agrees to Ease Up on Protesters and More.

Starting point is 00:00:00 Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

Starting point is 00:00:26 BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Starting point is 00:00:47 Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased

Starting point is 00:01:08 news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Let's jump right in. First, I will tell you I have about five, six stories for you. And then I have notable mentions. I have more notable mentions than usual today. And again, just to recap, notable mentions are headlines that I think are important to talk about, but there may not be enough information to make a full story out of it, or I just don't think a full story is warranted. So we'll have the first five, six stories, and then we'll get into the notable mentions. Before we dive in though, let's cover some housekeeping matters. Number one, you guys have been blowing my mind with your reviews. You guys have been leaving such thoughtful reviews, at least on Apple Podcasts, where you can actually type out a review. Other platforms, you just leave stars.

Starting point is 00:02:09 But you guys have been, I know I ask you every episode to leave reviews if you haven't already. And truly, I am so thankful you guys have been crushing it. So if you haven't already left me a review and you like what you hear in this episode, feel free to leave me a review on whatever platform you listen. It really helps support my show and I really, really appreciate it. The second thing I want to mention is that tomorrow, Saturday, I have my nonpartisan newsletter going out. Every Saturday, I send out a nonpartisan newsletter via email. It covers things that are happening in the news. It's just basically an additional source of news for you. So if you want to subscribe to that, just head over to jordanismylawyer.com

Starting point is 00:02:50 slash subscribe, and you just enter your email and you'll get the email when it goes out tomorrow. Finally, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So none of this is intended to be legal advice. This is in no way forming an attorney client relationship. That is my legal disclaimer for you. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Wednesday, President Biden rejected joint policy principles sought by September 11th conspirators. Now, before we dive into this story, I want you to think of joint policy principles as a plea deal. So it just has a different name because this is all taking place in a military court. Military prosecutors are the one prosecuting this case. So it's a little bit different,

Starting point is 00:03:46 but it's basically the same thing. So think of joint policy principles as a plea deal. There are five defendants currently being held at Guantanamo that had a role in September 11th, but they don't have a trial date and their pretrial proceedings are set to start in November of this year. And no, you are not hearing things. You are not imagining this. Yes, it has been 22 years since the 9-11 attacks and these men still have not gone to trial. Why? Well, one of the main concerns has been the admissibility of evidence and whether certain evidence is admissible when it was obtained through certain CIA interrogation methods that could be considered torture. Now, the problem

Starting point is 00:04:32 is, is if this evidence is admitted, you run the risk of having a potential death sentence overturned on appeal. So it's taken a long time, you know, just trying to sort that issue out, not to mention the first few years of their sentences, they were just being interrogated by the CIA. So the CIA could get more information on Al Qaeda and things like that. So it's just taken a really long time. But here's what's going on now. In March of 2022, military prosecutors offered these defendants a deal in which they would avoid the death penalty in exchange for pleading guilty to their charges. You might be hearing this and thinking to yourself, why would they ever do that? We want these people dead. The likely reason for this is to avoid a trial and the expenses that come with it when executions

Starting point is 00:05:27 are so delayed anyway. These defendants, if they got the death penalty, wouldn't be executed for years and years. As you can see just with the trial, there are all kinds of delays. So think about death row. It takes so long to actually be executed. So the military prosecutors are probably like, you know, let's save the resources since these guys are going to spend most of their life in prison anyway, awaiting their death sentence. And let's just offer them life to take this trial off the table and save some resources.

Starting point is 00:06:03 Well, the men get this offer from prosecutors, right? And they basically say that's not good enough. We'll plead guilty and we'll take life, but we don't want to serve our sentences in solitary confinement. We want to be allowed to eat and pray with other inmates. We want treatment for injuries we've received from CIA interrogation methods, et cetera, et cetera. They had this whole list of conditions, basically, and that's what we call joint policy principles. We don't know the full list of demands, but we do know that the Secretary of Defense recommended that this deal be rejected. So President Biden talks with the Secretary of Defense and ultimately agrees.

Starting point is 00:06:45 And the rejection, the actual court filing doesn't offer a reason for rejection. But one official did say that the president didn't believe the proposals would be appropriate. And another official cited the egregious nature of the attacks. There are a couple of things worth noting about this case, some of which have been going on behind the scenes. Throughout the process of the military prosecutors offering this deal to these defendants that would take the death penalty off the table, they've also been meeting with small groups of family members that had lost loved ones in 9-11. They've been meeting with them in person in various states like New York and Florida, as well as in Boston and Massachusetts, and talking to them about this

Starting point is 00:07:32 deal and what it means. On top of that, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor for Military Commissions sent a letter in August to families to kind of reach a wider group of people who they didn't get to meet with in person, letting them know that a plea deal was being considered and that that plea deal could take the death penalty off the table. The relatives of the loved ones generally are not happy with it. They don't want this plea deal. They want these men to be sentenced to death, but that's kind of what's been going on behind the scenes. Lastly, what I want to mention is that the offer still stands from prosecutors. That offer is still on the table. Biden's rejection means that those conditions that the defendants set forth aren't agreed to. They won't be granted.

Starting point is 00:08:21 But the prosecutor's original offer is still there. And that original offer can still be accepted by the defendants. So it is possible that the defendants come around and say, we're willing to plead guilty and take the death penalty off the table. So that can still happen. That's what you need to know about that story. Let's move on to the next story, which is out of Texas. A district judge in Texas has ordered the state to move its barriers in the Rio Grande. Little bit of backstory here. Back in July, Texas put these big orange buoys

Starting point is 00:08:58 in the Rio Grande to prevent migrants from crossing over. These buoys spread about a thousand feet. Each buoy is about four to six feet in diameter. They're linked together with these metal cables, and they're then anchored into place with concrete blocks that are placed on the riverbed. Later that month, so later in July, the DOJ files a lawsuit, and the DOJ is asking the court to order Texas to remove these buoys, citing both humanitarian and environmental concerns, as well as violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Now the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits unauthorized barriers or obstructions in navigable waters of the United States. So that is what their lawsuit is based on. And what they said is specifically there's two violations happening of this Rivers

Starting point is 00:09:52 and Harbors Act. One, Texas put these buoys up without authorization from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which is required. And two, Texas created this obstruction in a navigable waterway without affirmative congressional authorization, which is also required. As for Texas, Texas never argued that it had authority to do what it did. It kind of took a different route. So Texas took the approach of arguing whether the portion of the Rio Grande where the barriers were installed is a navigable waterway, whether the barrier is actually an obstruction under the law, and if the barrier violates the law, whether the court should exempt the violation on the grounds that Texas is being invaded by illegal migrants. Now, what the DOJ was seeking in this case, obviously,

Starting point is 00:10:47 they're seeking a permanent injunction, which comes at the end of a case, but they were also seeking a preliminary injunction. Now, the difference between a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction is that a preliminary injunction will block a party from doing something while the lawsuit is pending. So you don't have to wait until the end of the lawsuit to get a party to stop doing something. You can do it while the lawsuit is happening or while it's ongoing. In order to get the preliminary injunction, the DOJ had to show a few things. So there's four factors that the DOJ has the burden of proving.

Starting point is 00:11:27 One, they have to show that they have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case. So not just a likelihood of success, but a substantial likelihood. Two, there's a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. Again, not just a threat, but a substantial threat. Three, that the threatened injury of not getting the injunction outweighs any harm that would result if the injunction is granted. And four, that the injunction is in the public's interest. Now, this third and fourth element is sort of one question for the court when the United States is a party to the lawsuit. So those two elements kind of become one in the sense that the court really has to balance the equities of the case. In this case,

Starting point is 00:12:19 the judge ultimately found that the DOJ did meet its burden and issued this preliminary injunction. The injunction specifically requires two things. One, no more construction on this barrier. All construction is halted. No one can work on it. And two, the buoys have to be repositioned from their current location. So right now they're in the river. They have to be moved to the embankment by September 15th. Now, I had talked briefly about the difference between a permanent injunction and a preliminary injunction. Both can be appealed. So in this case, Texas already said it's going to appeal it. They're appealing it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they said that they're willing to take it to

Starting point is 00:13:03 the Supreme Court if need be. What this means is that if the appeal on the preliminary injunction is granted, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately says, no, the lower court got it wrong, you know, Texas can continue what it's doing, Texas can continue what it's doing until the lawsuit plays out. But if it gets to the end of the lawsuit and the judge still says, actually, actually, no, you can't do what you're doing, you're violating law, that would be a permanent injunction, at which time that can also be appealed. Now, if the appeal is granted and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with the lower court and says this preliminary injunction is valid,

Starting point is 00:13:41 then Texas has to abide by that, stop what they're doing, stop construction, move the barriers, and the lawsuit will continue to play out, at which time either a permanent injunction is issued or not. I hope that makes sense. But if you're interested in reading the ruling, go ahead and just go to my sources section on my website, or you can find it linked in the podcast description. All of my sources are there, and you can find it linked in the podcast description. All of my sources are there and you can find the ruling there. Let's move on to the latest update in Hunter Biden's case, which is that prosecutors have said an indictment will be brought by the end of the month, specifically by September 29th. This update came as a court filing in which special counsel David

Starting point is 00:14:23 Weiss wrote, quote, the government intends to seek the return of an indictment in this case before that date, end quote. If you're wondering why he's going to be indicted, I will briefly recap. Hunter Biden was supposed to enter a plea deal and a pretrial diversion related to tax charges and a gun charge. The deal fell through because the judge had some concerns about it. She gave both sides 30 days to submit their briefs and address her concerns. But within those 30 days, the deal fell apart. And both sides are kind of blaming each other as to why it fell apart. But David Weiss, who was formerly just a prosecutor, was since granted special counsel status from Attorney

Starting point is 00:15:06 General Garland, which means Special Counsel David Weiss has kind of taken over this case, taken over the investigations. He has full authority. This indictment may have more charges than we saw before. It may have less. We don't know. We won't know until the indictment is brought or filed and unsealed, and when and if it is, I will have an update for you. Let's move on to Trump. Another short update for you. The judge overseeing E. Jean Carroll's 2019 defamation suit against Donald Trump has found Donald Trump liable. This liability stems from a 2019 statement that Donald Trump made after E. Jean Carroll came forward with her story and Donald Trump denied her allegations. Keep in mind, this judge is the same judge that oversaw Carroll's 2022 case.

Starting point is 00:15:57 That was the case for both defamation and sexual assault. Now, we know that in that case, Trump was also found liable. So what the judge said was that there's no need to relitigate the attack. We know what it is. And therefore, here's my ruling. He's liable for this statement as well because a jury of that. So I'm going to go ahead and hold him liable. That way, when the trial goes forward, which is set for January 15th, the jury only has to rule on how much Donald Trump owes Carol. Now, Carol is seeking $10 million. The $10 million was originally $5 million, but she added on 5 million more after Trump went on CNN and again denied the accusations after the jury had already rendered a verdict against him. So she went to the court and she said, hey, I know I asked for 5 million, but I want 5 million more

Starting point is 00:16:57 because he just doubled down. So again, she's asking for 10 million. The jury will be tasked with determining how much he owes. Let's take a quick break here. And when we get back, we will finish with the rest of the stories. In a new research report, Microsoft is saying it found what it believes is a network of fake Chinese-controlled social media accounts attempting to influence voters in the United States by using AI. We have observed China-affiliated actors leveraging AI-generated visual media in a broad campaign that largely focuses on politically divisive topics such as gun violence and denigrating U.S. political figures and symbols. This technology produces more eye-catching content than the awkward digital drawings and stock photo collages used in previous campaigns. We can expect China to continue to hone this technology over time, though it remains to be

Starting point is 00:18:11 seen how and when it will deploy at scale. End quote. This report didn't specify which social media platforms were affected, but the report did include screenshots of some examples of some posts that it found, and those posts appear to be from both Facebook and X, which we know is formerly known as Twitter. The report further stated that these accounts were attempting to appear American by listing their public locations within the United States, posting American political slogans, and sharing hashtags related to political issues in America. The report didn't explain in detail how researchers were able to attribute the posts specifically to China, but a Microsoft spokesperson told Reuters that the company's researcher used a, quote, multifaceted attribution model that relies on technical evidence, behavioral evidence, and contextual evidence. of AI is actually part of a larger research study that looked at some more things outside of China's

Starting point is 00:19:25 AI. And it was published in a report that I do have linked for you. So if you're interested, it's basically it looks like a PowerPoint presentation. It's about 19 pages. It's a pretty easy read. So if you're interested, it really just pinpoints four different trends that Microsoft says illustrates this quickly changing threat landscape across East Asia. And one of those is, you know, of course, this AI interference, but three other trends as well. So it is on my website or in the podcast sources if you're interested in reading it. The next story is about the New York Police Department. The New York Police Department has agreed to scale back its enforcement of protests to settle a lawsuit that was brought by New York's Attorney General,

Starting point is 00:20:13 the Legal Aid Society, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. This lawsuit was brought after the protests surrounding George Floyd's death. And again, it was brought by those three plaintiffs. And the one particular tactic that the lawsuit took issue with is this tactic called kettling. So say you have a big crowd that's protesting, whether peacefully or not, the police will surround the crowd and create sort of like this barrier to keep the protesters in one place in order to control it. The lawsuit, though, says that this tactic encloses individuals without having probable cause to detain them. So it's comparing this sort of kettling technique to detainment. The New York Police Department decides it's going to settle the lawsuit.

Starting point is 00:21:04 And as part of the settlement, it says it's going to one, ban the tactic of kettling, two, implement other reforms to its protocols, three, create a new senior executive role to oversee responses to protests, four, allow the press more leeway to cover marches. And also create this four-tiered response in order to de-escalate conflict and prevent excessive use of force. So this four-tiered response is basically, you start at tier one, that's like the lowest level of police interference, and then you get up to tier four once a protest becomes, let's say, uncontrollable, or there's just more need for police interference. Tier one, and this is coming directly from New York City's government website, tier one is used for peaceful protests. So under

Starting point is 00:21:59 tier one, the New York Police Department will temporarily accommodate peaceful protests passing through the streets or sidewalks. In tier one, community affairs can liaise with protesters while the New York Police Department retains the ability to use patrol officers to enforce traffic laws and direct crowds. Tier two is used when the New York Police Department believes illegal activity may be about to occur or that the protest is going to block critical infrastructure. In this case, the New York Police Department can station additional officers in the vicinity of the protest in anticipation of the need for law enforcement intervention. Tier three takes effect once there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. At this point, the New York Police Department can

Starting point is 00:22:52 deploy enough officers to address those that are breaking the law, and specialized units can be deployed as well. And then finally, tier four activates when either protesters are trying to enter a sensitive location or block entry to a sensitive location, or if crimes are so widespread that de-escalation and or targeted enforcement has not worked and cannot work. In this tier, it says the only viable option is to end the protest. But before ending the protest, the New York Police Department has to issue dispersal orders to warn the crowd, they have to point out exit points, and they have to identify a location where a protest could continue if feasible. So that's tier four. That's like the max activation tier. This system, according to the settlement, is to be reviewed every three years on a regular basis in order to analyze the New York Police Department's implementation and the program's effectiveness. The NYPD has

Starting point is 00:23:59 not yet responded to requests for comment, but an attorney for one of the plaintiffs said in a statement, quote, today's settlement represents a novel approach to policing protests that if implemented faithfully by the NYPD will ensure that protesters are never again met with the sort of indiscriminate violence and retaliatory over policing New York saw in the summer of 2020, end quote. So that ends the stories, the full-length stories, and now I have some notable mentions. So again, notable mentions are things that have happened in the news that I feel you should know about, but aren't necessarily, there's not enough information, or I just don't think a full story is warranted. Number one, an American cave explorer is currently trapped

Starting point is 00:24:46 more than 3,000 feet deep in a cave in Turkey after suffering gastrointestinal bleeding. So European rescue workers are working on rescuing him, but they said it could take up to two to three weeks. This is a big rescue mission. There are over 170 people assisting in the mission from many different countries and what's interesting is that they actually have been able to communicate with him by dropping a phone line down into the cave so they are communicating with him the communication does take a long time but they've been able to also provide him with medication. So apparently his symptoms have gotten better. He said he was kind of on the verge of death, but now he's feeling better. There's going to be, it's going to be a really intense rescue mission. Notable mention

Starting point is 00:25:34 number two is kind of a two-part story, both out of California dealing with fentanyl. So the first part of that is that Governor Newsom increased the number of CalGard troops at the Mexico-California border from 40 to 60. The whole point of this is to assist with drug enforcement at entry points, specifically with fentanyl and just opioids in general. California is looking to crack down on this opioid crisis. But at the same time, and this is part two of the story, there's a fentanyl punishment bill that is st But at the same time, and this is part two of the story, there's a fentanyl punishment bill that is stalled in the California Senate, and lawmakers are getting very frustrated. It's causing some problems in the California Senate.

Starting point is 00:26:21 Senate Democrats are split on whether it should be passed because some Democrats are trying to avoid longer sentences and stricter penalties due to overcrowding at the jails, and they just are looking for prison reform. So they don't necessarily think that California should be increasing sentences and imposing stricter penalties, whereas other lawmakers are saying we have to do something about this fentanyl crisis. Notable mention number three, President Biden headed to the G20 summit in New Delhi on Thursday. The discussions at the summit are said to include plans to counter military and economic aggression from Russia and China, as well as some proposed reforms to the World Bank. Neither Putin nor China's President Xi will be in attendance, and their non-attendance

Starting point is 00:27:03 comes less than a week after Putin said he would soon meet with Xi, and the worry is that China will be offering weaponry and economic support to Russia during its war with Ukraine. Notable mention number four. The demand for mortgages has fallen to the lowest level since December 1996. Purchase applications fell to a 28-year low as the average interest rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage averages 7.21%. It's true that mortgage interest rates fell slightly last week. They decreased to 7.21% from 7.31%, but it apparently wasn't enough to maintain mortgage demand. Last week, total mortgage application volume fell 2.9% compared with the previous week. On another economic note, unemployment applications fell to the lowest level in seven months.

Starting point is 00:28:00 According to the Department of Labor, U.S. applications for jobless claims fell by 13,000, totaling 216,000 for the week ending September 2nd, which is the lowest level since February. The next notable mention is that the former co-CEO of FTX, Ryan Salem, has agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to making unlawful contributions and defrauding the Federal Election Commission. Part of this plea is that he will also forfeit $1.5 billion. His decision to enter the guilty plea comes less than a month before Sam Bankman Freed is set to stand trial on his fraud and conspiracy charges. Salem is the fourth former FTX executive to plead guilty. It's not clear at this time whether Salem is going to

Starting point is 00:28:52 cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for a lesser sentence or something, but that news just broke on Thursday that he will plead guilty. And the final notable mention I have for you is that Peter Navarro, a former Trump aide, was found guilty of two counts of criminal contempt of Congress on Thursday. The charges revolved around Navarro's failure to comply with a congressional subpoena. That subpoena was specifically seeking documents as well as Navarro's testimony over efforts to reverse the 2020 election results. Navarro had defended his charges by saying he had only failed to comply because Trump had instructed him to assert executive privilege, but ultimately the jury found him guilty and the judge set his sentencing for January 12th. He faces up to a year in prison. That is what you need to know and that concludes my stories for you today.

Starting point is 00:29:46 Don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter if you want more stories tomorrow. Don't forget to leave me that review if you haven't already. I appreciate you being here as always and I will talk to you next week. Have a great weekend. you

UNBIASED - 9/11 Attackers Plea Conditions Rejected, Hunter Biden Indictment Coming Soon, Trump Liable for Defamation, NYPD Agrees to Ease Up on Protesters and More.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.