UNBIASED - Arizona Abortion Ban Update, House Fails to Pass Section 702 Reform Bill, Missouri Executes Death Row Inmate, Hush Money Juror Questionnaire Released, and More.

Episode Date: April 10, 2024

1. Updated Information Re: Arizona Abortion Ban Decision (0:40)2. Judge Releases Jury Questions for Jurors in Trump's Hush Money Case (4:59)3. Trump Org. Former CFO Alan Weisselberg Sentenced to 5 Months for Perjury (8:29)4. Missouri Executes Brian Dorsey Via Lethal Injection (11:02)5. House Fails to Pass Procedural Vote on Reform Bill for FISA Section 702 (13:12)6. EPA Issues First-Ever Rule Setting Standards for Clean Drinking Water (15:52)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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,

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. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Wednesday, April 10th, and this is your daily news rundown. Of course, if you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening and you have not already, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen. Share this episode with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel if you haven't done so yet. All of those things really help support my show, and I very much appreciate them.

Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. The first story is an update to yesterday's decision out of Arizona. And the reality is there are pros and cons to daily episodes. I can get you the most need-to-know information very quickly. That's obviously a pro. But it is almost guaranteed that I'll need to add updates or clarification the next day once I have the opportunity to dig a little deeper, which is fine. But here is what I've found in addition to what we

know from yesterday's episode. To touch on the issue before the court a little bit more, the question for the court in this case was whether the newer 2022 15-week abortion ban effectively repealed the older 1913 ban. This was not a question of constitutionality. In fact, the state Supreme Court left the door open in its ruling yesterday for Planned Parenthood to now challenge the constitutionality of the 1913 ban. So that's a new issue that we will likely see play out. But again, just to reiterate, the ruling yesterday did not uphold the 1913 ban as constitutional. The ruling was just that the newer 2022 ban did not, in effect, repeal the 1913 ban, which was never officially repealed.

The second thing I want to touch on is the implications of the ruling. So yesterday I mentioned that the state attorney general said she would not be prosecuting doctors or women under the law. Under most laws, but specifically Alabama's abortion laws, the attorney general is the one who prosecutes offenders, so it's up to her. What that means is that even though the 1913 law can now be enforced, the attorney general has made a decision not to enforce it. However, should a new attorney general get elected in 2026, an attorney general, let's say, that abides by the enforcement of the 1913 ban, it's a completely different story, right? Now, another thing to

keep in mind is that because the law was deemed to be enforceable, what might happen is hospitals and doctors may now start to be incredibly cautious with what they do from here on out. Because, you know, sure, the attorney general said she wouldn't prosecute, but that's only her word. These doctors and hospitals know that they are now wide open to prosecution should they perform an abortion at any gestational age when the woman's life is not at risk. So because of that, once the 14-day stay of the ruling expires, providers in the state may very well stop performing abortions until there's a bit more clarity. And finally, speaking of clarity, let's sort of talk about what can happen from here. So I did

mention yesterday that there will likely be a ballot measure in November that state voters can vote on. That's assuming the proposed measure passes any legal challenges, and that measure, as proposed, would create a fundamental right to abortion up until fetal viability. Also, Arizona's governor has asked the legislature to repeal the 1913 ban. She said, quote, we are 14 days away from this extreme ban coming to life. It must be repealed immediately, end quote. And while the governor is a Democrat, so this request was not unusual, multiple Republican representatives in the state also agree that this ban goes too far, as did Donald Trump. Trump was asked today in Atlanta whether the court went too far,

and his response was, yes, they did. He said, I'm sure it'll get straightened out, and he's sure that the governor and everyone else will have to bring it back into reason, but he does think it went too far, although he does think it'll also get taken care of. So it is possible that the Arizona legislature gets to work on this issue because they know that this is a big issue ahead of the upcoming election. Similar to what we saw in Alabama when the Supreme Court in Alabama upheld a wrongful death statute as it pertains to frozen embryos, the legislature in Alabama then went ahead and enacted a law that offers immunity in those situations. So the Arizona legislature could potentially do the same.

Those are just some of the different implications and potential actions that we may see following that ruling. I just wanted to clear those things up. In other news, the judge overseeing Trump's upcoming hush money trial released the jury selection questions. So this news initially broke Monday night, but it wasn't until yesterday that the court filing started circulating. So let's talk about it. The process of questioning jurors is known as voir dire, and it's done to make sure that the defendant gets a fair and impartial jury because that's required under the constitution. The goal there is to weed out any jurors that have a particular bias any which way. So in this case, Judge Merchan will first ask the jurors to self-identify as unable to be fair and impartial.

Those jurors will then be dismissed. Then the potential jurors that remain will answer this questionnaire. So aside from the usual questions like, you know, what do you do for a living? Are you married? What do you do in your free time? Have you ever served on a jury before? Et cetera, et cetera. Here are some of the more targeted questions. The jurors will be asked to identify which news networks and publications they read or watch. They'll also be asked whether they or a relative or close friend have ever worked for any entity associated with Trump, whether they follow Trump on social media, whether they've ever attended a rally or campaign event for or against Trump, whether they consider themselves a supporter of particular groups and movements such as the QAnon movement, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers,

Three Percenters, Boogaloo Boys, or Antifa. They'll be asked whether they have any strong feelings about how Trump has been treated in this case or whether a former president should even be criminally charged in their view, and whether they've read or listened to any podcasts or books by Michael Cohen or books written by Trump himself. So those are just some of the more targeted questions. In total, there are 41 questions. The first nine questions do have multiple parts to them, so it ends up being a little more than 41. But again, jury selection is scheduled to start on Monday. In some trial-related and very brief other news, Trump's attorneys filed another last-minute appeal today stemming from one of Judge Merchant's recent orders. And as we know, his two requests for a trial delay earlier this week were both denied.

But the appeal today pertains to presidential immunity. So last Thursday, I talked about Judge Merchant's ruling denying Trump's request for a delay due to the presidential immunity issue. And the argument there on Trump's side was that the Supreme Court is about to take up this issue of presidential immunity next month. This trial is about to go forward on Monday, where the prosecution plans to introduce evidence of actions that Trump took while in office. And because of that, the trial needs to wait until there is a

ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue of presidential immunity. But the judge rejected this argument and said, no, there will be no trial delays. Any request for a delay at this point is untimely. So Trump's lawyers appealed today. And just like the appeal filed on Monday, the lawyers are arguing that the judge exceeded his authority in issuing the denial. Now, this appeal also challenges the judge's refusal to recuse himself from the case, as well as another ruling related to the publicity of the docket. But Trump's attorneys have asked the appellate court for a hearing on these issues on May 6th. But as we know, and as I've said two times now, jury selection is set to start on Monday. So we'll see what the appellate court decides to do with it.

It's very possible they make a decision by the end of the day today. Trump Organization former CFO Allen Weisselberg was sentenced to five months in jail today for committing perjury. And this story has a lot of elements to it. So I'm going to try to simplify it the best I can. So we're all on the same page. Back in 2022, Weisselberg actually pled guilty to 15 counts of tax fraud, which stemmed from his failure to pay taxes. So he pled guilty to that. He was sentenced to four months in jail. He ended up serving about 100 days. He was ordered to pay

roughly $2 million back in taxes. But also as part of that deal, he agreed to testify in Trump's civil fraud trial. So he did. And in doing that, he committed perjury, which led to more charges. But even before the trial, back in 2020, Weisselberg sat for a deposition with the Attorney General's office. And in that deposition, Weisselberg said he had never heard Trump misstate the size of Trump's triplex in New York with an interview with Forbes in 2015. Weisselberg later said that was a lie. You can't lie in your depositions. Then in a May 2023 deposition, Weisselberg told state attorneys he did not ever delve into the numbers of Trump's financial statements and

instead relied on the valuations computed by the Trump organization's controller. Weisselberg later said that was a lie. Finally, in the wake of the actual trial, Weisselberg admitted that he had falsely testified about his knowledge of the size of Trump's triplex and how the value of that apartment was calculated on financial statements based on incorrect square footage. So given these false statements, Weisselberg was charged with five counts of perjury. However, he ended up reaching a deal with prosecutors that would allow him to be sentenced to five months in jail and only plead guilty to two of the five charges. So even though he admitted to falsely

testifying at the civil fraud trial, he didn't end up actually pleading guilty to the charges that stemmed from his testimony at trial. Instead, the way the deal was structured is it classified the trial testimony as a violation of his parole in connection to the 2022 plea. So what he actually pled guilty to was the false testimony given at the earlier 2020 deposition. And similar to his 2022 sentence, Weisselberg will again be eligible for release after 100 days with good behavior. So that's the deal with that. Missouri executed death row inmate Brian Dorsey last night after the Supreme Court denied a last minute stay request earlier in the day. They briefly talked about this yesterday. I said I would cover it if it went forward. It did, in fact, go forward.

Dorsey pled guilty to killing his cousin Sarah and her husband Ben in 2006. The story goes that Dorsey, he was a drug addict at the time, he called Sarah and Ben to ask them for help in paying off a drug debt. He told them that the dealers were at his apartment. He needed them to come over and help pay the debt so that the dealers would leave. So Sarah and Ben went to Dorsey's apartment, presumably paid the money. The dealers left. Sarah and Ben then took Dorsey back to their house where he spent the night. But at some point during the night, after Sarah and Ben were asleep, Dorsey grabbed a shotgun in the garage, went into Sarah and Ben's room, and shot them both.

Three days later, Dorsey turned himself into the police. And court documents also allege that Dorsey had raped Sarah's body after he killed her, but he was never actually charged with rape or sexual assault, so the attorneys maintain that that never happened. In Missouri, the lethal injection is a single dose of pentobarbital, which is a sedative, and as I mentioned in a recent episode, it varies by state. Missouri is just one single drug. Prior to the execution, Dorsey ate his requested final meal, which was two bacon cheeseburgers, two orders of chicken strips, two large orders of fries, and a pizza with extra cheese, sausage, pepperoni, onion, and mushrooms. What's interesting in this case, and we don't typically see this often, which is what makes it interesting, is that

72 correctional officers had actually backed Dorsey's petition to commute his sentence to life in prison, which was obviously ultimately denied. But they were very much pushing in favor of commuting his sentence. In fact, one of the cousins of Sarah, the victim, who was also Dorsey's cousin, was also hoping Dorsey wouldn't be executed. She said she knows obviously the crime is a terrible one, but that Dorsey was not the worst of the worst. She said that a single terrible night in his life did not justify killing him. Earlier today, the House failed to pass a procedural vote that would have begun debate on a bill to reauthorize electronic surveillance powers. 19 Republicans joined Democrats, resulting in a 193 to 228 vote.

And here's the deal with this. So the main law at issue is called the Foreign International Surveillance Act, or FISA for short. The particular provision that has sparked some concern amongst some people is Section 702. Section 702 of FISA gives the government the authority to spy on foreigners abroad for national security purposes. But when spying on foreigners abroad, if they're speaking and communicating with Americans, it also gives the government authority to spy on, you know, their conversations with Americans as well. But as we know, the Constitution protects us Americans from warrantless searches by the government. So it's become this sort of controversial provision of the law. Currently, FISA is set to expire on April 19th, just nine days from now.

In order to reauthorize FISA ahead of this April 19th expiration date, some House Republicans have been working on a bill called the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act. And in a nutshell, what it would do is it would reauthorize Section 702 for another five years, but also impose a series of reforms, which includes adding a warrant requirement when it comes to Americans. But that bill is what failed to pass the procedural vote today. The thing that's funny, though, about this, you know, potential reauthorization is it's not Republicans against Democrats or vice versa. Some Republicans are on the same team as Democrats pushing for reforms, whereas some Democrats are joining Republicans in opposing new restrictions.

And just to sort of illustrate the divide within the Republican Party specifically, Speaker Johnson wants this reform bill to pass. He wants to reauthorize FISA while also prohibiting abuses at the same time, whereas other Republicans and some Democrats, of course, feel that the reforms in this bill don't go far enough. And that's ultimately why it didn't pass today. Donald Trump earlier today called for the reform bill to be killed. And the reason for that, him specifically, he's against FISA because it was actually used to surveil his 2016 campaign aide, Carter Page. So the views are sort of all over the map on this issue. But what the vote today means is that the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which would reform FISA if it passed, did not pass. It will not make it to the debate stage,

which means it won't be voted on either. So Congress at this point has until April 19th to reauthorize the law. We will see what they do with that. The final piece of news for the day is that the EPA announced a new final rule today that sets drinking water standards for the first time ever. Now, the good news here is that this rule will indirectly save lives because the group of synthetic chemicals known as PFAs or forever chemicals are what's being regulated under this new rule. And these PFAs have been linked to cancer, mostly kidney and testicular cancer, heart problems, liver problems, immune disorders, as well as developmental disorders in children. So essentially this rule requires public water utilities to now test for six different types of PFAs. And while this is a

wonderful step forward, there are thousands of PFAs, more than 15,000 PFAs. So six is sort of a drop in the bucket. Under the rule, operators will have three years to test for PFAs in the water, and then another two years to identify, purchase, and install the necessary technology to treat the water. So in order to carry out this testing and treatment, the EPA is making a billion dollars available to the states, which is part of a $9 billion investment, which was included in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law to specifically help communities impacted by PFAs. So first ever standard for drinking water, but the reason that it's so difficult to regulate these PFAs comes down to politics. The chemical industry opposes regulation and even some of the water utilities oppose regulation because they know it costs a lot of money to treat money they don't want to spend that is what i have for you today thank you so much for being here i hope you have a great rest of your day and i will talk to you tomorrow for the final episode of the week