UNBIASED - August 17, 2026: Mangione's Guilty Plea, Trump's Remarks on USS Lincoln, Flocks New Camera System Safeguards, and More.

Episode Date: August 17, 2026

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Flock Introduces New Safeguards for Camera System After Backlash and Criticism (0:45) Trump Takes Ballroom Appeal to the Supreme Court (~16:03) Trump, Hegseth, and Others Comment on Status of USS Lincoln (~20:36) Mangione Pleads Guilty, But Doesn't Take Plea Agreement. What Does This Mean for Double Jeopardy? (~32:09) Quick Hitters (~41:27) Critical Thinking Segment (~45:09) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

At IKEA, we make things just for college life. Come on, come on. Like our Calax desk in white, black, or stained oak for just $75. Yeah, let's go! It's got built-in cable management to help keep your game console cords organized. And a spacious work surface for your laptops, monitors, and textbooks. Whoa! Yeah! If only you were this excited about studying.

Oh, man. Shop back to school at IKEA. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Monday, August 17th. And today we're talking about some flock camera updates. We're going to talk about Mangione's guilty plea. We'll do an update on the USS Lincoln and much more. As always, if you love today's show, if you learn a lot, please go ahead and leave me a five-star review wherever you listen to podcast, whether that's Apple Podcast or Spotify. And then another.

way you can really help is just by sharing the show with people that you love, whether it's a family member, a co-worker, a friend, whoever, word of mouth is truly everything. And I really, really appreciate when you guys share the show. So thank you in advance. Let's get into today's stories. We're going to start with these flock cameras. The latest update is that the company behind these cameras just announced a set of new safeguards. Now, the reason that we're talking about this today is because last week on Monday, we did a whole deep dive into this camera network because there's been months of growing backlash and concerns over privacy and data sharing. And there's been multiple cases of police officers allegedly using these systems for personal reasons. So we did a whole

deep dive, not just what these cameras are all about, not just what they do, but also the possible constitutionality issues that these cameras present, what the supporters say, what the critics say, all of it. So if you do want to deep dive on these cameras, you want to learn a bit more. Go ahead and listen to last Monday's episode. Today, we're talking about the new safeguards that are being put in place. So it's kind of like an add-on to last week's episode. Just as a quick refresher, though, Flock makes these automatic license plate reader cameras or ALPRs. They're mounted along roads. They automatically take pictures of passing cars. You have most likely passed one at some point. You may not have even realized it. They can record.

record things like the license plate, the make and model of the car, the car is color, certain identifying characteristics of a car. And then that data is logged and put into this searchable database where police can search that information during investigations. So let's say police are looking for a car connected to kidnapping. Okay. They can search flock and potentially see where that car was spotted by cameras in the network. Now, thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country use this system. And agencies can also choose to share access to their camera data with other departments, even across state lines. So sometimes, you know, agencies in Idaho can see the data that was collected in, let's say,

Florida or whatever. Some, you know, departments have to choose how they share this information, but it can be shared across state lines. Police say that, you know, flock is an incredibly useful tool for finding missing cars, stolen cars, locating suspects, whatever it might be. But critics have concerns that this camera system essentially creates this really big searchable database of the movements of everyday American citizens. And they brought up, you know, privacy concerns and Fourth Amendment concerns and all of those things that we talked about last Monday. Recently, there's also been another problem that's gotten a lot of attention. We also talked about this briefly on Monday. But

police officers have been using this technology in rare cases for personal reasons. There have now been multiple cases around the country involving officers who are accused of using these cameras to either track their significant others, track their exes, track relatives, or other people who have nothing to do with an actual police investigation. Earlier this month, for example, the Washington Post identified nearly 50 instances involving officers accused or charged with unauthorized use of ALPR systems. A bit more recently, and this is the instance we talked about last Monday, a former police officer in North Carolina was charged after she allegedly searched for information involving her boyfriend's ex-wife,

31 different times. More recently than that, six Savannah Police Department employees, including four police officers, were fired after the department said they improperly searched for friends and family or helped an outside officer access the city's cameras. Savannah, however, does say that it was Flock's own auditing system that actually helped uncover that improper use. Now, amid all of this recent controversy, some cities have ended their contracts with Flock. Some have, you know, rejected contracts, chosen not to get into a contract with Flock. We've also seen Flock cameras being vandalized in.

different parts of the country. In fact, just in my city last week, the police were looking for information about someone who had damaged a camera. So last Thursday, Flock CEO, Garrett Langley, announced a slew of changes to try to address some of this. Now, in the past, flock has argued that it should be the elected officials and individual police departments that decide what restrictions are appropriate when it comes to the camera systems. But Langley now says that flock itself does have some responsibility to build stronger guardrails directly into the product. So what's changing? Well, first, flock is changing its recommended and default data retention period from 30 days to 7 days. So before,

under the standard setting, when a flock camera recorded your car, that record would stick around for 30 days. It would be searchable for 30 days and after that it would disappear. But under the new default, it would disappear after seven days. Flock says that its own analysis shows that more than 90% of searches where police don't already have a complete license plate happen within that first week anyway. Now, even though seven days is the new default setting, seven days is not a mandatory nationwide limit. So existing customers that already have a different retention period can certainly keep it.

Individual communities can choose a longer retention period or a shorter retention period. or a shorter retention period, Flock is just changing the company's recommendation and default setting. It's the local agency that still ultimately chooses its retention policy. Flock is also creating something called evidence mode, which is for situations where police need certain information for longer than seven days. So let's say investigators pull flock data showing a suspect's car near a burglary scene, okay? Obviously, you don't want that evidence to automatically disappear.

here on day eight. So evidence mode will allow investigators to preserve that specific ALPR information that's connected to an active investigation. And Flock describes that as cold storage. Now, critics say they're going to be watching very closely to see how broad this exception becomes. So for example, the ACLU says that if evidence mode really does only allow police to save specific records that they reasonably believe are evidence in a particular case, then this shorter retention period could be a notable privacy improvement. But if searching data can effectively become a way of preserving large amounts of information that would otherwise be deleted, you know, through this evidence mode, then the seven-day limit doesn't really do much. Flock, though,

says evidence mode is designed to preserve specific evidence for active investigations. It's not meant to be a workaround to keep everything indefinitely. The second big change involves who can search another department's cameras and what they can search them for. And this one gets, I would say it gets pretty directly into one of the biggest controversies we've talked about with flock, which is immigration enforcement. So flock says that customers own and control their own data. And cities can decide whether to share that information with other agencies. But under this new system, departments can get more specific. So instead of saying, yes, this agency can search our data or no, they can't search our data, a city can now say, well, you can search our data if you're investigating,

say, a homicide or a stolen car or a kidnapping, but you can't search our data for immigration enforcement, let's say. So as an example, let's say Miami decides to share its flock data with federal officials. Well, Miami could theoretically allow the federal government to search its cameras for a murder investigation, but then block it from using Miami's cameras for an immigration investigation. And flock is calling this a fence filtering. And the idea is to move away from this all or nothing sharing agreement and let departments actively choose what they want to share and what they don't want to share. Now, just to be clear on the immigration front specifically, Flock has already made some changes here in the past. So last year, Flock removed direct federal access to its nationwide search and it disabled the default federal sharing feature.

So before this most recent change, a local agency still had to deliberately choose to choose to. to share information with a federal agency, but this new feature gives local agencies and another layer of control over, you know, what types of investigations outside agencies can use their data for. Now, the next two changes are really aimed at stopping officers from using the data for personal use. Flock already has something called audit assistance, which is where the system looks for search behavior that seems unusual and then flags it so that an administrator can review what that officer is doing. That's actually how the Savannah Police Department uncovered the behavior of the six employees. So maybe someone's running a weird number of searches. Maybe the

searches don't look consistent with what that employee usually does, something like that. Flock introduced that feature earlier this year, but it was an optional feature and only about one third of its customers had voluntarily turned it on. Now, by the end of this year, every law enforcement customer will be required to use audit assistance. And then Flock is also adding something called a proactive lockout. So if the system detects activity that meets its criteria for unusual behavior, Flock says that that user's access will automatically be suspended until an administrator reviews it.

The next change is that police officers will now have to connect their searches to an actual case. By the end of the year, Flock says every law enforcement search will require a case code from the agency's records management system. And again, this was a feature that used to be optional, but will now be mandatory. So instead of an officer hypothetically logging in, typing in an ex-girlfriend's license plate number just because he's curious about where she's been, the officer would need to tie that search to an actual police case. There will be an exception for emergencies. So if there's a kidnapping and police have maybe the description of a suspect's car, but there isn't time to

do all of the paperwork that would be typically required. before searching the cameras, an officer can bypass that case code requirement, but Flock says that the search will automatically be flagged for review afterward if the case code requirement is bypassed. And then finally, Flock is also making some cybersecurity changes. Multi-factor authentication, for example, is now mandatory for anyone logging into Flock. That basically just means you need more than just your password to get into the system. Flock has also hired the outside cybersecurity firm, Bishop Fox, to review its products and says that it plans to release a summary of that review and the fixes that it's made in September. And Flock is also launching a vulnerability disclosure program so outside security researchers have a formal process to report any weaknesses that they find in the system.

So overall, these are definitely more guardrails than Flock had before. At the same time, these changes don't necessarily eliminate every issue that's, been raised about the system, right? The seven-day retention period is a default, not a mandatory limit. The new offense filtering system gives departments more control over outside access, but departments still decide how much data they want to share. And the case code requirement and audit assistance are intended to prevent and identify unusual searches, but they don't necessarily make them impossible. And then, of course, there's still the legal debate over whether these types of searches of large license plate databases should require a warrant. That's the whole Fourth Amendment

issue. But again, most of these new safeguards are expected to be implemented by the end of the year. So once they're implemented, we'll have a better idea of how they work and whether they actually address some of the concerns that, you know, prompted these changes in the first place. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Trump's latest appeal to the Supreme Court and then we'll cover some updates regarding USS Lincoln. A few months ago, we finally got to redo our kitchen. That was kind of one of the last major outstanding projects from when we bought our house. But as anyone who's ever redone a kitchen knows, it is not cheap at all. So we did have to save up for a long time, and I've never been the best saver, which is why Rocket Money was everything.

What I love specifically about Rocket Money is that it's not just a financial tracker. You can set savings goals in the app and then set payments to autopilot. So you automatically start saving for a goal without having to set the money aside yourself. That was my downfall. So these automatic payments were incredible. I was one of those people that would always tell myself, oh, next month, I'll make sure to put X amount away. And then I wouldn't do it. And then the next month would come around and I would tell myself the same thing. And it would just never happen. So with rocket money, you can set your goal in the app. You tell it exactly how much money to put aside for you every month. And it just does it. You don't even have to think about it. Now aside from the savings goal, another thing I really love is that

you can cancel unwanted subscriptions from within the app. And a lot of us just don't realize, how much we're spending on subscriptions every month. So having the ability to cancel every subscription you don't want anymore with just a few taps is such a game changer when it comes to saving money. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps you find and cancel unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. Let RocketMoney help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com slash unbiased. That's rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Rocketmoney.com slash unbiased. Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic

was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary. Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Welcome back. President Trump is asking the Supreme Court to step into the legal battle over the proposed White House ballroom. Now, I do just want to be clear about the fact that the Supreme Court isn't being asked right now to decide whether the ballroom is legal. The administration is asking the justices to let construction of the ballroom continue while the lawsuit plays out.

So previously, a federal appeals court ruled two to one that the administration likely doesn't have the authority to build the project without approval from Congress. That ruling blocked the construction of the ballroom and is supposed to take effect later this week on the 21st. So the Trump administration went ahead and filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to temporarily block that ruling. So let's talk about what the Supreme Court has to consider when deciding whether to grant this emergency request. Because even though the justices aren't making a final decision about whether Trump can legally build the ballroom, they do have to take at least a preliminary look. at the merits of the case. So they really have to ask, one, is there a reasonable chance we're eventually going to take this case down the road? Two, is there a fair chance the Trump administration could ultimately convince a majority of us that the lower court got it wrong? And three,

if we don't step in right now, is something going to happen that can't really be fixed later? That's called irreparable harm. And both sides have arguments. here. So the Trump administration argues that stopping construction now would cause serious harm because this isn't just a ballroom project. The project also includes underground military and national security facilities that are designed to protect the president and maintain government operations during an attack. So the administration says every additional day that construction is delayed, those security improvements are delayed. And that construction has already progressed so far that stopping now could create structural, logistical, and financial issues.

According to the administration, the project is about 65% complete and has reached what it describes as a point of no return. However, it is worth noting here that the federal appeals court did point out in its injunction that the underground construction can still proceed, and so can any above ground work that's strictly necessary to protect the president, the White House, or the government. those underground facilities. The injunction only stops the construction of the actual ballroom. Now, on the other side, you have the National Trust, which is the group challenging the ballroom construction. And the National Trust argues that allowing even just the ballroom itself to keep going

creates its own irreparable harm because once this massive structure is built, you can't just, you know, go back and pretend it never happened if it's determined that the administration did this seeking congressional approval and congressional approval was required. And the appeals court agreed on that point that the court said that continued construction of the ballroom could permanently alter the historic and architectural character of the White House and President's Park before the courts had even decided whether the administration had legal authority to build it. And ultimately, that was one of the big reasons that the appeals court blocked the construction of the ballroom, but said at the same time, the security features can still continue being built. So,

Now the Supreme Court has to look at those arguments and weigh those competing harms. They basically have to ask, what is the greater risk here while this lawsuit is playing out? Is it stopping most of the above ground construction and potentially delaying a project that the administration says has important security benefits? Or is it allowing construction to continue and potentially having the ballroom either largely built or completely built before a court determines whether it was legally authorized in the first place? from here the National Trust has until tomorrow to respond to Trump's emergency request, and the court will then decide whether to let construction continue. If the court grants Trump's request, construction can keep going while this case goes forward. Construction of the ballroom, construction of the underground facilities, construction of everything. If the court denies Trump's request, then most of the above-ground construction would have to stop on the 21st, but the security-related work could still proceed.

So that's what we're looking at there. We should have a decision relatively soon. Next story is a little update on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Remember, in our last episode, we talked about these reports of sailors attempting to go overboard. One sailor did go overboard. And there's just been concerned from family members about mental health and living conditions on the ship. Well, since then, so we talked about that on Thursday. And then on Friday, and really Friday into the weekend and over the weekend, we heard from President Trump,

Defense Secretary Hegzath, the acting secretary of the Navy, and the commander of sentcom. Before we play the soundbites, I do want to provide a little bit of context for anyone who might have missed Thursday's episode. The USS Lincoln left San Diego in November. It's been assisting with the conflict in Iran, and it's now approaching nine months deployed. The typical deployment is about six months. However, deployments can definitely go longer, especially. during wars or, you know, international, major international affairs.

For example, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed for about nine months in 2023 and 2024 while operating against the Houthis in the Red Sea. During COVID, USS Nimitz spent about 11 months deployed. And more recently, the USS Gerald R. Ford had about an 11 month deployment. So nine months isn't unprecedented, but it's definitely on the longer end. in addition to the longer deployment, the Lincoln has also gone 208 days without a port call, which means the ship has not pulled into a port in more than 200 days. That doesn't mean the Lincoln hasn't been resupplied in 208 days.

It just means the sailors haven't had a chance to get off the ship in that time. And just to give you a comparison point there, so there isn't really a set number of days that ships are supposed to go between port calls, but during a more routine deployment, they'll typically make a port call every few weeks. However, again, during wars or other major events, ships can go much longer. So for example, when the Eisenhower was deployed during COVID, it went 206 consecutive days at sea without a port call. That was a record breaking length of time, according to the Navy times. So the Lincoln has now surpassed that by about two days. So with that context, let's play some clips. The audio might be a little tough,

especially the first one of the president because Marine One is running in the background. But I did my best to enhance the audio. So let's see. Family members of U.S. service members are concerned about the conditions on towards the trip. Well, no, that ship is moving. No, they're not. That ship is moving right now, or very shortly, and it's being replaced with another very similar ship. No, no, no, not nearly long enough. Okay. So in case you couldn't hear that one well, the reporter mentioned that families of U.S. service members are concerned about the conditions on board the Lincoln. Trump said, no, they're not, and then said the ship was in the process of being relieved.

Then the reporter asked whether the deployment has gone on too long, and Trump responded, no, not nearly long enough. Hegg Seth has also pushed back on some of the reporting about the conditions aboard the ship, saying the reports about the conditions have been, quote, completely misrepresented, unquote. But he did spend most of the time that he was talking, acknowledging what the sailors are going through. So this is what he said. Completely misrepresented. Listen, we make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others.

And I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody. What they do in those high seas and those austere conditions with less port calls. It's incredible. Americans don't understand what it's like to do that. So as someone who's not been on a ship like that, but been on long deployments, I feel it. I want them home as soon as everybody else. Do I want folks rotate it as quickly as possible? I want the best for them.

My commanders know that. Our service secretaries know that. The president expects that. And so to that crew and to all those crews, we're going to do everything we can for you. And we are so grateful for their dedication of that crew and others. They've held the line for the country and they've done fantastic stuff. Heggseth also wrote on X, quote, the reckless and shameless, quote unquote, American media completely and intentionally misrepresent the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The brave sailors of that strike group are very proud of their tough and historic mission. They embody resilience and excellence. And quote. Then on Friday, the acting Navy secretary put out a statement. He wrote in part, quote, the USS Abraham Lincoln crushed. their deployment and will return home soon as part of a planned rotation. Details will come, but let me be clear. The safety and security of our sailors and Marines always comes first. The Lincoln was extended because the mission demanded it. Deployments are hard. Combat operations

make them harder. War is hell and normal routines are disrupted. One of the hardest aspects about war fighting beyond knowingly placing our service members in harm's way is that even with the best planning and communication, change and uncertainty will always be in play. Our success depends how we adapt. Unfortunately, the media are trying to paint our warriors as victims. Not only is that dishonest, but it takes away the focus on the enemy and the threat it poses against our nation, people, and way of life. Here's the truth. 266 days deployed 200 days in a combat zone, 10,000 plus sordes, 1.5 million pounds of ordinance drops. And retention rates on the Abe are among amongst the highest of all carriers. It is also true that a small number of mental health cases

were treated with no loss of life. Meal plans were adjusted when fresh resupply was unavailable without a single meal being missed. Calls home were limited when the operational threat was too high. And quote. And then finally, the commander of the Central Command issued a statement yesterday that reads in part, quote, my time aboard USS Abraham Lincoln yesterday was awe-inspiring. I wish every American could see the crew in action, you would beam with absolute pride when witnessing their camaraderie, teamwork, and resilience. Here's an important fact. Of the U.S. Navy's 11 active aircraft carriers, the Lincoln currently has among the lowest number of cases related to mental health. This doesn't mean that all is perfect. Find any of the nearly four million Navy veterans

in America today, and they will likely tell you that service at sea for long periods isn't for everyone. I've long believed that mental health is another aspect of individual health and requires our attention just like physical health and spiritual health. I applaud Lincoln's leadership for stepping up in making mental health and crew resilience a leadership priority." And quote. Now, some family members of the service members say those statements don't necessarily reflect what they've been hearing from loved ones on board the Lincoln. Military times, stars and stripes, and other outlets have reported concerns from sailors or their families about mental health, exhaustion, and living conditions aboard the ship. In fact, on Thursday,

we talked about the family members that spoke to Navy leadership at the in-person meeting, and that discussion included a spouse saying that her husband texted her that morning, saying he hoped he didn't wake up tomorrow. Since then, one sailor sister said Trump's and Heggseth's comments made her feel like the concerns families have been raising were being dismissed. Another mother wondered why reports about food, water, mental health, and living conditions weren't being taken more seriously. A father, though, who spoke to CNN was asked whether,

he's heard about the issues with resources on board, and he said he's had, quote, very positive communications, end quote, with his son, but said he's sure the heat, humidity, and boredom are taking a toll on the sailors. He added, quote, this is the first time we're ever hearing these reports, referring to the supplies, and it's hard to know what's true, what's exaggerated, and it's very worrisome, I will say on the parents' end, because you hear these things, even when you know they're not true or they might be grossly exaggerated, it's an extra amount of stress when you're loved ones are at sea. End quote. So at this point, we have families describing very different experiences. And from the outside, it's, it's hard to know exactly how widespread some of these

problems are, right? We know that these problems are happening because we've heard from some of the family members who have given firsthand accounts, but also other family members are saying differently and hearing differently. So it's just hard to know how widespread the problems are. What we do know is that the Lincoln's deployment is nearing its end. U.S. officials have said that the USS George Washington is heading from the Western Pacific toward the Middle East with the intention of relieving the Lincoln and have said that that rotation was pre-planned. However, earlier last week, the acting secretary of the Navy told Lincoln families that the

USS Theodore Roosevelt was being prepared to relieve the carrier. And then by Thursday, that's when officials started saying it was actually the George Washington, that was heading over. But, you know, the Navy typically keeps the timing and routing of carrier movements on the low. So we don't know why the plan changed. We just know that the plan was at some point changed. As of right now, though, the George Washington, which is normally based in Japan, is the carrier that multiple officials have said will replace the Lincoln. We just don't know exactly when that's going to happen. So that is the update there. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Mangione's guilty plea. And then we'll finish with

quick hitters and critical thinking. Welcome back. Luigi Mangione appeared in federal court in Manhattan on Friday and pleaded guilty to two federal charges, one count of interstate stalking resulting in death, and one count of stalking through the use of interstate facilities resulting in death. Both charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. Now, he did not plead guilty to murder. So Mangione was originally facing four federal charges. The two charges he pleaded guilty. guilty to plus a federal murder charge and a firearm charge. The federal murder charge would have exposed him to the death penalty and former Attorney General Pam Bondi did tell federal prosecutors last year to seek the death penalty. However, in January, a federal judge threw out those two charges.

So the only two charges left were the two charges he pled guilty to. That also means the death penalty is and was off the table. So fast forward to Friday, Mangione gives him. up in federal court and for the first time admits that he shot and killed Brian Thompson. And not only did he admit to killing Thompson, but he actually explained the steps that he took leading up to the killing. So he said after dealing with severe back pain and what he described as obstacles within the health insurance system, he learned about United Health Care's annual investor conference and he started looking into it. He said that he contacted United Healthcare and pretended to be an investor managing more than $50 billion.

and assets just so he could get more information about that conference. Interestingly, he wasn't insured by United Healthcare. So it's not clear why he targeted United Healthcare's investor conference, but we know that he did. He said that he used a 3D printer to manufacture part of the gun. He traveled to New York with the intent of killing Thompson. And then he added, quote, on the morning of December 4th, 2024, I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan, and he died. I knew what I was was illegal. End quote. So Mangione admitted under oath that he killed Thompson. And we'll talk about how that'll affect his upcoming state trial in just a minute. But where all of this is kind of interesting is that he, Manjioni did not take a plea deal. He pled guilty, but there's no plea agreement

between him and the federal government. Usually when you hear somebody pled guilty, there's been some sort of negotiation with prosecutors. Maybe prosecutors agree to recommend a lower sentence. Maybe they dismiss another charge. Something has typically been negotiated, but that's not what happened here. Federal prosecutors say they gave Mangioni no concessions, no accommodations in exchange for his plea, and they're still planning to ask the judge to sentence him to life in prison. Now, something to keep in mind here on the sentence front is that even though prosecutors are asking for life, it doesn't necessarily mean he's guaranteed life. The judge is ultimately the person who decides his sentence. So prosecutors will ask for life. Manjone's attorneys will,

will argue for something lower, but the judge ultimately has the final say. This begs the question, though, why would he plead guilty if he got nothing in return? And we don't know the answer for sure, but we can make an educated guess because within minutes of his guilty plea, his attorneys went over to his separate New York state case and asked the judge to throw out almost everything that's left there based on double jeopardy. So it's looking like that was the strategy. and it'll make more sense when we flesh it out a little bit. So the Fifth Amendment, right, of the Constitution says the government cannot put someone in jeopardy twice for the same offense. In other words, once the government has already prosecuted you for a crime, it generally can't prosecute you again for that same crime just because it didn't like the first outcome.

That's what we call double jeopardy. However, under something called the dual sovereignty doctrine, the federal government and a state government are considered separate sovereign. governs. Federal law is one government's law. State law is another government's law. So the federal government can prosecute someone for something and then a state can prosecute that person for the exact same thing or vice versa without violating the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. So if we're only looking at the Constitution here, Mantioni's double jeopardy argument would be much harder. It's not necessarily double jeopardy if he pleads guilty to federal crimes and is then prosecuted for state crimes. But New York specifically, okay, gives defendants more protection

against multiple prosecutions than the federal constitution requires. So under New York law, you can't separately prosecute someone for offenses arising from the same act or criminal transaction after they've already been prosecuted. And New York specifically says that includes a previous federal prosecution and a federal prosecution counts as a prior prosecution once it goes to trial or ends in a conviction through a guilty plea. So Mangione's argument is that by pleading guilty federally, he has now triggered New York's broader protection against a second prosecution, meaning the state murder case should be dismissed unless prosecutors can show that one of the law's exceptions applies. And there are exceptions. So for example,

A second prosecution can sometimes go forward if the two crimes are legally different enough and are based on different acts, or if each crime requires proving something the other doesn't, and the laws are aimed at preventing different kinds of harm. So let's say someone drives drunk and then proceeds to crash into another car and then leaves the scene of that accident. Well, drunk driving and leaving the scene are two different crimes aimed at different conduct. The first is about the danger created by driving while drunk. The second is about what you're required to do after you've been in a crash. You have to stay on the scene. So depending on the specific circumstances, New York law can allow separate prosecutions for those offenses, even though they came out of the same overall event.

In Mangione's case, prosecutors are going to argue that the federal stalking charges and New York's murder and weapon charges are legally different offenses. The federal case required prosecutors to prove stalking involving interstate travel or interstate facilities. The state murder charge requires proof that Mangione intentionally caused Thompson's death. And then the state weapons charges have their own separate elements. So prosecutors are going to argue that one of New York's exceptions allows the state case to proceed. Mangione's lawyers, though, are saying, well, yeah, the statutes might have different elements, but look at what these prosecutions are actually about. The federal stalking charge is involved in intent to kill and resulted in Thompson's death,

and the state case is also based on that same alleged plan, the same victim, the same shooting, the same death. So Mangione's lawyers are arguing that the differences between the statutes aren't enough to fit within New York's exceptions and allow the state to prosecute him again. So now it's up to the state judge to decide whether one of New York's exceptions applies. If an exception applies, the state murder and weapons charges and upcoming trial can proceed. But if no exception applies, those charges could be dismissed. And Mangioni actually, so I just think this is important to note here. Mangione actually raised this double jeopardy issue before.

But at the time, the judge said that the argument was premature because Mangione hadn't gone to trial federally and he hadn't pleaded guilty federally. Now he has. So after his guilty plea on Friday, his attorneys immediately. filed this new motion asking the New York judge to dismiss the remaining state charges. And interestingly, they're not asking the judge to dismiss the final state charge that involves possession of a fraudulent ID because they concede that that's a separate criminal transaction from Thompson's killing. Now, the Manhattan DA's office obviously disagrees with Mangione's attorneys

and does intend to fight their motion. So we'll have to see how the judge ultimately analyzes this. if the judge does ultimately dismiss the state case because of New York's double jeopardy law, Mangione would only be sentenced for his federal crimes. If the judge doesn't dismiss the state case, and Mangioni does go to trial in New York, he has now made sworn statements in federal court admitting that he killed Thompson. So on one hand, the plea could potentially help him by strengthening his argument to get the state charges dismissed. But if that argument doesn't work, he's now on the record admitting to intentionally killing Thompson,

which would, without a doubt, hurt him in the state trial. That state trial has, I mean, it is scheduled to begin with jury selection on September 8th. Whether that actually happens now is up in the air because the judge now has to deal with this new double jeopardy motion. So what we're waiting for at this point is just a ruling from the state judge on that double jeopardy motion. That'll tell us whether his state charges are dismissed or not. And then we'll also have to look out for an appeal. And regardless of what happens with the state charges, we'll know what his state charges will know what his federal sentences in December. All right, let's do some quick hitters. A federal judge dismissed

the Trump administration's lawsuit accusing Harvard of failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from anti-Semitic harassment, ruling that the government had not plausibly shown an ongoing violation of federal civil rights law. The judge said most of the alleged incidents occurred during the 2023, 2024 school year and that the few later incidents were too isolated to establish continuing non-compliance. The DOJ says it disagrees with the ruling and is considering next steps. President Trump has ordered the Pentagon to substantially scale back upcoming joint military exercises with South Korea, citing his quote unquote very good relationship with Kim Jong-un, the costly nature of the exercises, and the negative signal the exercises send to North Korea.

Those annual exercises did begin today as planned, but it's not clear how much. involve the U.S. is given Trump's announcement. For the first time, Army soldiers can buy alcohol inside a dining facility with Fort Hood's privately operated 42 bistro now selling beer and wine to customers 21 and older. The alcohol is not covered by soldiers' meal benefits and must be purchased separately, but will be available from 5 to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and noon to 7 p.m. on the weekend. Army officials say the change is part of an effort to make dining facilities more like college campus eateries and encourage more soldiers to use them. Lake Powell, the nation's second largest reservoir, has fallen to a record low water level, less than two weeks after Lake Mead also hit a record

low. Both reservoirs supply much of the southwest with Colorado River water. Now, Lake Powell broke its previous record by just one hundredth of a foot, so 3,519.91 feet compared with the previous low of 3,519.92 feet, which was set in April 2020, 23. And because that difference is so tiny, federal water officials say the daily measurement is still provisional and subject to revision, meaning technically the record could be walked back. But even if that happens, the lake is still turning downward. So experts say a new record low is likely just days away. And while this year's El Nino could bring some much needed rain to the West, experts do say it'll likely take multiple very wet years to substantially replenish the reservoir system. The Supreme Court rejected President

Trump's final efforts to overturn the $5 million civil verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll leaving the judgment in place. The court gave no explanation for denying Trump's request, and the court is separately considering his challenge to an $83 million defamation judgment involving statements he made about Carol while president. And Attorney General Blanche is making headlines after declining to pledge that the DOJ would operate independently of President Trump in the White House, saying instead the president has not and will not ask him to prosecute specific individuals. Blanche told host Kristen Welker on NBC's Beat the Press, quote, there's a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I'm not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that.

If I were to pledge, I will be independent of the White House. What that means is that if President Trump says, I want the DOJ to go after every violent criminal in this country, which is what he has said, what you're saying to me is I should say, no, sir, I'm not going to do it. End quote. Blanche also said he would, quote, unquote, of course, take the president's view into consideration before taking action. All right, it's time for critical thinking.

We're going to go back to Mangione's guilty plea. So as we've talked about, New York. defendants more protection against multiple prosecutions than the Constitution requires. And New York is not alone in this. California, for example, generally allows a prior federal or out-of-state conviction or acquittal to block another prosecution based on the same act. Pennsylvania also limits when someone can be prosecuted again after already being prosecuted in another jurisdiction. The specific rules and exceptions vary by state.

But the point is, some states choose to give defendants more protection than the federal Constitution requires. So my question for you is, should states be allowed to give people more legal protections than the federal constitution guarantees, or should those protections be the same nationwide? And why? And then I want to take the facts of Mangione's case out of this for a second. I want you to think of another scenario. Take drunk driving, kidnapping, whatever it might be. If the same conduct violates two different laws, when should prosecutors be able to? allowed to bring a second case. And when should the first prosecution be the end of it? Where would you draw that line? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. As always,

if you loved today's episode or if you learned something new, please go ahead and leave me a five-star review wherever you listen to podcasts, whether that's Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And please share this show with a friend, a co-worker, a family member, a loved one, whoever it might be. I hope you have a great next couple of days. And I will talk to you again on Thursday.