UNBIASED - August 29, 2024: What We Know About the Cemetery Dispute, Yelp Sues Google, Harris/Trump Debate Rules Set, Truth Behind an Unrealized Capital Gains Tax, CA's New Home Loan Law, and More.

Episode Date: August 29, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Yelp Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google (0:13) What We Know About the Incident at Arlington National Cemetery (2:03) Quick Hitters: Florida to Execute Man Tonight, DOJ Report Shows FBI Failures in Child Sex Abuse Investigations, ABC Sets Debate Rules for Harris/Trump, Harris' First Interview to Air on CNN Tonight with Walz (6:03) Rumor Has It: Is Trump Hosting a Fundraiser for January 6th Defendants? Is Trump Cutting Social Security? Is California Providing Home Buying Assistance for Illegal Immigrants? Does Harris' Proposal for an Unrealized Capital Gains Tax Means We'll Be Taxed Annually on the Value of Our Homes? (8:06) Daily Critical Thinking Exercise (12:58) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. 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 Thursday, August 29th, and this is your final news rundown of the week. Let's get right into today's stories, starting with a lawsuit filed by Yelp against Google. So the reviews company Yelp has jumped into the litigation ring and filed a lawsuit

against Google over its search engine. As you may know, because I did cover this a few weeks ago, a judge just ruled against Google in a similar antitrust lawsuit brought by the government. In that case, the judge ruled that Google had actually violated antitrust law by entering into these distribution contracts with browser developers, cell phone manufacturers, and cell phone carriers as a way to ensure that Google is the default search engine for the users of these goods and services. And if you do want to hear more about that lawsuit, you can check out my August 6th episode. But in the wake of that ruling, Yelp went ahead and filed its own lawsuit. So Yelp's lawsuit is based on the

same premise that Google has illegally preserved its monopoly by way of its search engines. However, Yelp's lawsuit is a bit different in that it claims that the way Google has allegedly designed its search results page is what's illegal, meaning that the way Google lowers the visibility of specialized search engines like Yelp and TripAdvisor is illegal. Yelp says that this scheme prevents businesses from reaching customers without actually paying Google for sponsored search results and in turn starves these competitors of the traffic and revenues that would allow them to adequately compete with Google. Notably, early on in the government's case, the judge overseeing that case actually threw out a very similar claim citing lack of evidence. So we'll see if Yelp's claim can survive in its own lawsuit. Yelp's lawsuit is being overseen by an entirely

different judge, so maybe it works out a little bit differently for them. In some other news, the United States Army has issued a statement after the quote-unquote incident that took place at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday. I initially covered this story on Tuesday, but at that point, it was just sort of this he said, she said as to what happened. We didn't really know too much, and we still don't really know too much because no one has seen the actual incident report that was filed, but we can still talk about what we do know at this point. So let's start with the Army's statement, which was released today. It reads, quote, participants in the August 26th ceremony and the subsequent Section 60 visit were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations, and DOD policies, which clearly prohibit political

activities on cemetery grounds. An ANC employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside. Consistent with the decorum expected at ANC, this employee acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption. The incident was reported to the JBMHH police department, but the employee subsequently decided not to press charges. Therefore, the army considers this matter closed, end quote. The spokesperson added, quote, the incident was unfortunate and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked, end quote. So to recap just a little bit, Trump had attended a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday to commemorate the third anniversary of

the soldiers who died in the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Following that ceremony, Trump then went to the grave sites of some of the soldiers in an area of the cemetery known as Section 60, which is this portion of the cemetery that is mainly reserved for deceased veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, Section 60 has its own rules, and that is where this incident arose. So to be clear, pictures and videos were allowed, they were fine at the actual ceremony, but Section 60 is treated a little bit differently. According to ceremony rules, only cemetery staff are authorized to take pictures and videos in Section 60. On top of that, there's this issue surrounding a potential political conflict that was noted

in the Army's statement. Specifically, Title 32, Part 553 of the Code of Federal Regulations says that memorial services and ceremonies at Army National Military cemeteries will not include partisan political activities. End quote. The cemetery's own policy reads, quote, ANC will not authorize any filming for partisan political or fundraising purposes. end quote. Now, obviously there's this debate as to whether this was a partisan political activity, right? Some could say that Trump's appearance was part of his campaign, whereas others could say he was simply there to show his respects. Family members of the soldiers said that they were actually the ones that invited him to

the grave sites in section 60 and gave approval for his photographer and videographer. But regardless of whether this was, you know, political or not, cemetery rules say that only cemetery staff are allowed to take pictures and videos in Section 60. It sounds like one of Trump's campaign staff tried to take pictures and or videos in this area, and that is when the altercation happened. Still, a lot of he said, she said happening. The cemetery employees said the altercation was physical and verbal. Trump's campaign says there was no physical altercation. What we do know is that one, whatever type of altercation this was, it was likely over the photography and videography rules. Two, it stemmed from a campaign staffer

being told that he or she couldn't take the photos or videos. Three, an incident report was filed, we just haven't seen it yet. And four, the employee isn't pressing charges. We may know more in the days to come, but that is what we know at this point. Now we can move on to quick hitters, starting with an execution in Florida. Florida is set to execute a man tonight who murdered an 18-year-old boy who was on a camping trip with his sister in 1994. Now 57-year-old Loran Cole will be the first inmate executed in Florida this year. His execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. tonight, and he will receive the lethal injection,

which in Florida is a three-drug cocktail, as they call it. The first drug is a sedative, the second drug is a paralytic, and the third drug stops the inmate's heart. In a new audit by the DOJ's Inspector General released today, the FBI has continued to mishandle allegations of child sexual abuse in the years following the investigation into USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar. In one example laid out in the report, the FBI failed to follow up for more than a year on a tip about child abuse being committed by a registered sex offender. The FBI also failed to report this allegation to local law enforcement and the

abuser's probation officer. Because of those failures, the child continued to be abused for another 15 months. The inspector general also noted in the report that out of the 327 cases that were reviewed for the audit, only 17% were reported with all of the required documentation. And next month's debate between Harris and Trump will have the same rules in place as the last debate between Biden and Trump. A copy of the debate rules was provided to the Associated Press today on the condition of anonymity, and according to those rules, there will be no live audience, a candidate's mic will be muted when they're not speaking, and they will not be allowed to have written notes.

And finally, don't forget that the Harris-Walls sit-down interview with CNN will air tonight at 6 p.m. Eastern time. This is both the first interview that they have done together and Harris's first interview since launching her campaign. So again, that's CNN, 9 p.m. Eastern time tonight, Thursday. Take back your free time with PC Express Online grocery delivery and pickup. Score in-store promos, PC optimum points, and more free time. And still get groceries. Shop now at pcexpress.ca. On to the new segment that we all love, Rumor Has It. This is where I address some recent rumors

and either confirm them, dispel them, or add some context so that we're all as informed as possible going into the election. Let's do it. Rumor has it that Trump is hosting a fundraiser for January 6th defendants. Let's add some context. The Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, is hosting an event on September 5th called the J6 Awards Gala. Trump was invited, but his campaign says he will not be in attendance. The awards gala will be benefiting Stand in the Gap Foundation, which is a non-profit that provides financial support for the legal bills of the roughly 1,200 January 6th defendants.

Moving on, rumor has it that Trump supports cutting Social Security. Not true. This rumor came from a recent Harris rally where she said that Project 2025 is a plan to weaken the middle class and that Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security. Walls then made a similar claim in his initial campaign speech, saying Trump will, quote, gut Social Security. Harris got this idea from an interview Trump did with CNBC, where he said that there was a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting. Trump had said that what he meant in that interview

was cutting back on fraud, not cutting Social Security. The truth is, neither Trump nor fraud, not cutting Social Security. The truth is, neither Trump nor Project 2025 support cutting Social Security. In fact, Trump's Agenda 47, which is his own policy plan, reads, quote, under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security, end quote. Similarly, the official Republican platform reads, quote, fight for and protect Social Security and end quote. Similarly, the official Republican platform reads, quote, fight for and protect Social Security and Medicare with no cuts, including no changes to the retirement age, end quote. Next one, rumor has it that California is enacting a law that provides home down payment assistance to illegal immigrants. That is true, but let's provide

context. California Assembly Bill 1840 just passed both the House and the Senate in California and is currently waiting on Governor Newsom's desk. What the bill says is as follows, quote, an applicant who meets the requirements for a loan under the Home Purchase Assistance Program shall not be disqualified by the agency solely based on the applicant's immigration status. End quote. Now, under this home purchase assistance program in California, qualified applicants can receive a 20% down payment or up to $150,000 for their first home. That loan is to be repaid once the home is sold or transferred. So under this bill,

anyone who qualifies would be eligible for this assistance, regardless of immigration status, which can of course include those undocumented. At this point, Governor Newsom has not said whether he will sign the bill into law. And finally, rumor has it that Harris's new proposal for tax on unrealized capital gains will tax you annually on the extra value of your home. For 99.9% of us, this is not true. What that rumor is referring to is your unrealized capital gain on your home. So if you, let's just say as a hypothetical, you bought your home in 2005, you sold it in 2018, you profited, let's say $600,000 on that sale. That would be the capital gain and you would be taxed accordingly. It's known as a

capital gains tax. Same thing with stocks too. You buy a stock, those shares increase in value over time. Hopefully when you go to sell, you pay a capital gains tax on whatever your profit was. But let's say that you bought that house in 2005 and you still own it. You haven't sold it, therefore you have not realized your profit despite its value increasing. That is an unrealized capital gain. What Harris is proposing is a tax on these types of gains. So taxing individuals while they still possess their holding before they've sold it and realized the profit. Here's the catch though, and this is the part a lot of people are missing. Harris's proposal only applies to people with more than $100 million in assets.

If you do not have more than $100 million in assets, you will not be taxed on your unrealized capital gains. If you do not have more than $100 million in assets, you will not be taxed on the extra value of your home that you still own. If you are in the less than 1% that does have more than $100 million in assets, then yes, this minimum 25% unrealized capital gains tax would apply to you should Congress act on it. Because remember, this would ultimately be in the hands of Congress. I also want to note that this tax on unrealized capital gains is actually something President Biden proposed as part of his 2025 budget plan. Harris's proposal came by way of support of that budget plan as well as everything else included in Biden's budget plan. So that's where this unrealized capital gains tax proposal

is coming from. Now I want to continue on the discussion of an unrealized capital gains tax for today's critical thinking segment. On one hand, you have the argument that this type of tax on unrealized capital gains is essentially a wealth tax, given that it only affects about 10,000 people or 10,000 of America's richest people, right? The argument on that side is just that those people will be just fine having to pay the tax. They'll still be rich, and the government will bring in more money to pay our ever-growing debt. Furthermore, it's a way to address income equality and raise revenue for social programs. On the other side, you have constitutionality and legal arguments when it comes to the government's ability to tax, as well as these arguments about economic effects, right? So this type of tax may discourage investment and capital formation because there's less incentive to invest in assets like stocks, real estate, or business, and this could ultimately

lead to slower economic growth. Also, innovation. If there's less investments in startups, we may see slower innovation, less innovation. Then there's a more general argument that it's not right to tax profits that we don't actually have in our pockets. So as always, there's arguments on both sides of this. But to think about this critically, think about all of those arguments we just went over. Think about how such a tax makes you feel. Do you like the idea or not like the idea? And why? What is your number one reason for either opposing the tax or supporting the tax? And then whatever that number one reason is, I want you to try to rebut it. This is something we call steel manning. It's actually a debate technique that allows us to refine our

arguments by pointing out the arguments on the other side. And as I always say, I don't expect you to have an answer right away, nor do I want you to have the answers right away. Critical thinking requires us to challenge the answers that come to us instinctively. So take your time with it. That is what all of this is for. And that is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.