UNBIASED - August 6, 2026: Blanche's Abortion Comments, Capital One Claims Money Laundering Review, Fauci Contempt Resolution, and Is Trump Offering an Insider-Trading Subscription Service?

Episode Date: August 6, 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: Victims of Idaho Shooting Identified (0:26) Clarification on Legal Effects of Blanche's Recent Orders Regarding Anti-Weaponization Fund and IRS Audits (2:56) House Committee Recommends Censure Against Rep. Edwards (11:26) Capital One Says Anti-Money Laundering Review Led to Closure of Trump-Affiliated Bank Accounts (~19:49) Blanche's Comments on Abortion Analyzed (~25:25) Senate Committee Votes to Advance Contempt Resolution Against Fauci. Here's What It Means. (~39:01) Quick Hitters (~41:57) Rumor Has It: Is Trump Offering an Insider-Trading Subscription Service? (~44:51) Critical Thinking Segment (~51:51) ⁠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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. It's Thursday, August 6th, and we are talking about the new anti-weaponization fund order, the censure recommendation against Representative Chuck Edwards, Blanche's comments on abortion, the Capital One Money Laundering Review, Fauci's Contempt Vote, and more. But first, in Monday's episode, we talked about the few things we knew about the Idaho shooting. At that point, we really only knew the suspect's name that three people had been killed, two bystanders stepped in and fired at the shooter, and the shooter later died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Since then, we honestly haven't learned much more, but I did promise you an update.

So this is what we have found out. Well, first of all, police still have not identified a motive. We have, however, learned the names of the three victims. Those victims include 23-year-old Ashley Garibet, California, 66-year-old Dale Schultz of Utah, and 59-year-old Christopher Clanch of Idaho. Garibay was an in-and-out employee. She had been chosen to train new employees at various in-and-out locations, including the Twin Falls location that had just opened up a couple weeks prior. Garibay had gotten her first job at In-N-Out and hoped to one day manage a location. Schultz and his wife were charging their Tesla, and sadly, I do believe that they were, They were in that Tesla I talked about last week where you could actually see the shooter,

you know, shooting into the dashboard of the car. Schultz's wife was injured. She suffered a shattered collarbone injuries to her arm. And she is expected to undergo more surgeries. Schultz and his wife had known each other since they were teenagers. They had been married for about 46 years. Clanch had lived in Idaho for 30 years. He worked at the Renaissance Ranch Recovery Center in Rupert, Idaho, after getting

sober himself two years ago. Clunsch's sister said that he would always make a point to stop at the in and out locations when he was in California. So when the location opened in Idaho, he couldn't wait to go, but he knew there was going to be a crazy line for the first couple weeks, so he waited to go. We've also learned that one of the people who was injured was the former police officer who, you know, we talked about briefly in Monday's episode, who confronted the gunman. His name is Austin James. he had moved to Idaho from California to work for both the Twin Falls Police Department and the Idaho State Police Department. However, he has since left law enforcement. According to his dad, James ran toward the gunfire to confront the shooter, but he intentionally chose not to

draw his own firearm because he didn't want the responding officers to mistake him for the gunmen. So that's what we know as of now. Once we have a motive, I will let you know. all right before we get into the rest of today's stories i do want to clarify something from monday's episode so remember when we were talking about blanche's attorney general confirmation vote and i talked about the fact that there were these two holdout senators who needed blanche to put in writing that the uh that the anti weaponization fund was dead and that the irs portion of the settlement would only apply retroactively into the parties named in the lawsuit and i went ahead and i said blanche did do that on Sunday night, which then led to both of the holdouts eventually voting to advance his nomination

Tuesday morning. Well, when I talked about that, I didn't really go into a whole legal analysis of what Blanche's documents meant. And I really want to do that now because there's been a lot of discourse over whether Blanche's order even has legal effect and actually, you know, rescinds the anti-weaponization fund. So just to quickly catch everyone up earlier this year, Trump his sons, the Trump and the Trump organization sued the IRS over improper disclosure of their tax records. That lawsuit ended in a settlement which was announced in May. And under that settlement, the DOJ agreed to create this $1.776 billion anti-weaponization fund and Trump, his sons, and the Trump organization would be protected from certain tax-related claims that could

have been brought against them either on or before the settlement's effective date of May 18, 2026. So Blanche then went ahead and released two orders regarding that settlement. So these orders were meant to implement the terms of the settlement agreement. One of those orders addressed the fund that was released on May 18th. The other addressed the IRS audit. So it was released the following day on May 19th. The fund order basically formally established the fund and explained how it was going to work. And the IRS audit order said that it's actually not just transfer.

his sons in the Trump organization that are shielded from potential tax liability. It's Trump, his sons, the Trump organization, their family members, trusts, parent companies, sister companies, subsidiaries, et cetera. And almost immediately, the settlement raised questions. So most notably, number one, whether a settlement like this is even enforceable, given the unique nature of a sitting president suing agencies he oversees in his personal capacity. Two, there was a question as to whether the DOJ even has the authority to create the anti-webinization fund without Congress. And then three, there was a question as to whether a settlement can protect parties that aren't actually involved in the original lawsuit. So when it came time for the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote to advance Blanche's

nomination for permanent attorney general, there were two Republican senators, Senator Tom Tillis and Senator John Cornyn, who said, hold on, before we agree to advance you, we need you to put in writing that this this anti-webenization fund is dead and that the IRS audit portion of the settlement only applies retroactively, meaning it doesn't apply to future tax claims, and it only applies to Trump his sons in the Trump organization, not family members, subsidiary companies, et cetera. So Sunday night, Blanche issued a new order that addressed the fund, as well as in accompanying unsigned press release that addressed the IRS audits. The signed order said in part, quote, the AG's May 18th, 2026 order establishing the anti-weaponization

fund is rescinded and shall have no force or effect, end quote. The accompanying unsigned press release said that the IRS audit portion of the settlement only applied retroactively and only to the parties named in the lawsuit. So you can see why this is so complicated. Okay, we have an underlying settlement agreement. we have the May 18th and May 19th orders that were issued by Blanche. And now we have this new order and accompanying press release also issued by Blanche. So I'm going to do my best to explain this as simply as I can.

It's not going to be a super lengthy explanation because I don't want to confuse anyone in a way that's unnecessary. I don't want to make it too legally complicated. So this is the easiest way to think about it. Okay. The most recent signed order, the one that was just, just issued on Sunday night. Did cancel Blanche's earlier order establishing the fund. So right now, there's no longer an active DOJ order telling the government to set up the fund, to move the money, to start paying claims. That order is dead, okay? But the original settlement

agreement says that the DOJ promises to create the fund. And as we talked about, the settlement terms say that the terms can only be changed through a written agreement signed by the parties. So Blanche's new order clearly cancels that earlier May 18th order that was supposed to get the fund up and running, but it doesn't actually remove the promise from the settlement itself. So yes, the fund is dead right now, but the promise to create the fund is still there. And that means that at a later date, a new order could be issued that revives the fund, because the government does still technically have to fulfill its obligation under the contract, right, under the settlement agreement. The only real ways the government wouldn't have to fulfill

its obligations in the settlement agreement is if either a court struck down the settlement agreement or all parties involved signed a written agreement saying the government no longer, you know, has to abide by its obligations, no longer has to create the anti-weaponization fund. So that's the fund portion of all of this. Now, the press release about the IRS portion is a little different. It didn't formally change the May 19th order. It basically said, here's how the DOJ understands that May 19th order, okay? According to the DOJ, it only, the order and the settlement agreement only protects Trump, his sons, and the Trump organization from tax claims involving conduct that happened before the settlement.

It does not cover future tax issues and it does not protect every family member trust or affiliated company. But that statement itself, again, like the fund portion of this, doesn't rewrite the original settlement agreement, nor does it bind a court to the DOJ's position. It's just kind of the DOJ saying, hey, this is how we interpret that May 19th order. So just to summarize, okay, Blanche did go ahead and formally rescind the original May 18th DOJ order that was supposed to implement and fund the anti-weaponization fund. That means there's no longer an operative attorney general order that directs officials to establish and fund, you know, this anti-weaponization fund. However, the government's promise to create the fund, which was written into the underlying settlement, is still in effect because the settlement says any changes required. require the party's written agreement. So Blanche's new order doesn't appear by itself to get rid of that promise. Now, I know that was a lot. I tried, believe it or not, to make that explanation

as short as possible and as simple as possible. I do have a separate explainer video that I posted to TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram. If you want to listen to that and like watch me explain it, that might help. I actually went into even more detail in that video. So I don't know. that it might be a little easier to follow just in case you still don't fully understand it. You can check that out. Oh, one last thing. As a final note, I know some people had questions about the recent judges ruling about the settlement agreement. That ruling did not void the settlement agreement or even decide whether it's enforceable.

What that ruling said is that the parties can't use the settlement agreement or cite it in court or before a government agency or in any other official proceeding as evidence that a set. was reached in this case. And I know that sounds complicated, but just for simplicity purposes, the judge did not void the settlement agreement, but she did limit the party's ability to rely on it in an official proceeding. So the settlement agreement is not voided. I know some people were writing to me saying, I thought the settlement was voided. Like why, why are we even talking about this? It wasn't actually voided. Okay, next story. On Monday, the House Ethics Committee released a report recommending that North Carolina Republican Congressman Chuck Edwards be censured by the House. The committee said there was substantial reason to believe that Edwards violated House rules

through persistent inappropriate conduct toward two young female staffers. Then on Wednesday, two days after that report was released, Edwards announced that he was ending his reelection campaign. He did not directly address the committee's findings in that announcement, but he did say that he made the decision after, quote, much prayer and reflection. end quote, and then he plans to finish his current term. Now, before we get into what the report says, I do want to quickly talk about what censure means. Centure is basically a formal public reprimand. It doesn't remove the member from office. It doesn't really impose any real punishment,

but it is one of the House's most serious disciplinary actions short of expulsion. Expulsion would result in removal from office, but a censure is just a reprimand. And at this point, the Ethics Committee has only recommended censure. The full House would still have to vote on it. So let's get into what the committee found. This is a 25-page report that focuses mainly on Edwards' relationship with two women who worked for him. Their names were not made public. So the report just refers to them as Stafford 1 and Stafford 2. Stafford 1 was 19 when she first started working for Edwards as an intern in the North Carolina State Senate. He eventually hired her as his scheduler in Congress while she was still a full-time college student, and she continued to work for him even after she graduated.

Staffer, too, had also worked with Edwards when he was a state senator and later became a legislative staffer in his congressional office. So according to the report, these two women received various gifts from Edwards in the time that they worked for him, including more than $1,000 worth of jewelry, designer purses, guns, shoes, flowers, a laptop, a cell phone. a kitchen aid mixer, a robotic vacuum, trips, tickets to performances, one-on-one dinners, and more. Edwards has said he was generous with other staff members, too, and only saw both of these women as close friends. However, the committee found that the number, value, and personal nature of the gifts went beyond what would normally be expected in a professional relationship between a

congressman and members of his staff. The report also goes through a number of specific incidents. it says Edwards went to Stafford To's house to do things like yard work, arranged for his driver to pick her up and drop her off, and offered to miss votes in the house so he could help her decorate her Christmas tree. When Staffer 2 told Edwards that she had received another job offer, he texted her, quote, I don't cry often, but I have today. It caught me off guard. End quote. The report says he also repeatedly asked Stafford to dinner after she started considering leaving the office. And when she eventually told him that she didn't think dinner was a good idea, Edwards told her that she had the right to set boundaries and that it was his responsibility to respect those boundaries. Edward says that message is evidence that he respected her wishes.

The committee, though, said the overall tone of his messages could have made her feel guilty or uncomfortable for setting the boundary in the first place. The report described similar instances involving Stafford I. In December 2024, Edwards took her to a White House Christmas event. and before the event brought her flowers and texted her saying he was, quote, so excited about tonight, end quote, and wanted the night to be, quote, unquote, perfect. Stafford, one, told investigators that Edwards tried to persuade her to continue the night with him after that White House Christmas event and insisted that she traveled to and from the party in his car with his driver. Edward said he didn't remember suggesting they continue the evening. Instead, he said he rode with her to her home in Virginia because he felt uncomfortable. quote dumping a young lady on the street.

End quote. The report also said Edwards frequently commented on both women's appearances, telling them they looked pretty or breathtaking and commented on their clothing. Edwards, however, says those comments were compliments and were not sexual. He has consistently denied that he was trying to pursue either woman romantically or sexually and says the relationships were close friendships built on trust and genuine concern. And just to be clear, the committee did not find it. evidence that Edwards had a sexual relationship with either woman. It also did not find what's called

quid pro quo sexual harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment would be something like, you know, offering an employee a promotion in exchange for sex or a sexual relationship or threatening to punish an employee if she rejected him, things like that. The committee did not find that. However, in looking at the overall pattern, the gifts, the messages, the dinners, the comments about their appearances, the private outings together, the power imbalance. you know, between a congressman and the younger employees, the committee found that even if every individual interaction did not amount to sexual harassment on its own, the entire pattern could reasonably be interpreted as romantic or sexual attention and made the women and other employees

uncomfortable. And again, Edwards has denied those findings. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we have a lot more to get to. Welcome back. This next one, a lot of you had questions about, you might have seen the headlines earlier this week that said things like Capital One says it shut down hundreds of Trump organization accounts over money laundering concerns. And when you read that or you hear that, you might assume Capital One is accusing Trump or the Trump organization of laundering money. That's not exactly what the bank is saying here. So we got to back up to 2021, March 2021 specifically when Capital One notified a number of Trump-affiliated customers that it was planning to end its relationship with them and it was planning to close more than 300

accounts. Those accounts were connected to several Trump businesses like golf courses, real estate companies, etc. Capital One gave them about three months to move their money elsewhere and the bank actually later says it gave them several extensions, but all of the accounts had been closed by October 2021. Then four years later, in March 2025, the Donald J. Trump revocable trust, Eric Trump, and several Trump-affiliated companies went ahead and sued Capital One. And they accused the bank of politically motivated debanking. Now, debanking is when a bank either ends or just refuses to provide a banking relationship to a person or a business. And that by itself is not illegal. Banks generally have a good amount of discretion over who they do business with. The legal

question is whether the bank either violated a contract or violated a consumer protection. law or some other legal restriction when it made the decision to close those accounts. So in this case, the Trump plaintiffs argue that Capital One closed the accounts because the bank wanted to distance itself from Trump and his political views after January 6th. They say the decision was politically motivated, financially harmful, and part of a bigger pattern of financial institutions discriminating against conservatives. Capital One has denied that. But now, for the first time publicly, the bank is sort of giving a more detailed explanation for why it says the accounts were closed. So Capital One says that its anti-money laundering team had been reviewing the accounts for months

before the final decision was made in March 2021. Now, money laundering typically means that, you know, you're taking money connected to an illegal activity and you're trying to make it seem as though it came from a legitimate source, right? And banks are legally required to have systems in place that look for these types of patterns that could potentially indicate either money laundering or fraud or some other illegal activity. And those systems can flag activity that looks unusual or doesn't seem to match what the bank would typically expect from that customer. And sometimes after reviewing it, the bank finds a completely legitimate explanation. Sometimes it decides to keep the account open, but monitor it

a bit more closely. Sometimes it decides the legal or regulatory risk is high enough that it no longer wants to keep doing business with that customer. And Capital One says that is what happened here. The bank says its review was conducted under its internal policies and federal banking guidance and that the team reviewing the accounts included people with decades of law enforcement experience. It also says the team identified transaction patterns that according to Capital One were, you know, among the types of activity flagged in federal banking guidance. But, we don't know exactly what those transactions were. Some of the information, a lot of the information is still redacted or sealed and Capital One's filing doesn't give much detail. We also don't

know whether Capital One filed any suspicious activity reports with the federal government, which is something a bank might do when certain transactions look weird enough that it thinks the government should take a closer look. But suspicious activity reports are also generally confidential. So a bank usually can't just like publicly state whether it filed one. So based on what's a available right now. All we can really say is that Capital One claims that its internal review raised anti-money laundering concerns. However, Capital One has not gone so far as to accuse Trump or his businesses of actual money laundering. Now, Trump's lawyers have disputed Capital One's explanation. They argued that the anti-money laundering concerns were either exaggerated or just came

after the fact as a way to justify a decision that was actually political. They've pointed out that before the accounts were closed, Capital One hadn't told them that the accounts involved fraud or that the accounts had been flagged for suspicious activity. Capital One's response that banks don't necessarily have to tell customers everything that's happening during a review and that if its goal were really to publicly distance itself from Trump for political reasons, then the way it went about this wouldn't make sense. It just kind of quietly gave Trump and the Trump-related accounts notice to move. It also granted multiple extensions. And they said that that would be a weird way to go about it if they were really trying to publicly

distance themselves. Capital One also argues that regardless of why it made the decision, the account agreements gave the bank authority to end the relationship at any time. Now, a judge has already dismissed two earlier versions of this lawsuit, but it did allow the Trump plaintiffs to rewrite their claims. So that's what this is. Capital One says this newest version still has the same basic legal problems that the earlier versions has or had. And, or had. is therefore asking a judge to dismiss this case with prejudice, which would mean they would not get another opportunity to rewrite and refile these claims. They could appeal if the judge grants this dismissal, but if the dismissal is granted with prejudice, that would mean they couldn't bring this

claim again. All right. This next story is another one a lot of you asked about. So last week, acting attorney general Todd Blanche was on a conference call with a religious advocacy group called Intercessors for America. And a recording of that call was later posted online. In that recording, Blanche can be heard making some comments about abortion. And this is what he said. We have a lot of work to do with some of the policies around pro-life and some of the pro-abortion work that the Biden administration and the Justice Department allowed to happen. Some of that is taking longer than we want. But rest assured that we're working, you know, hand in hand with. with HHS and the FDA and the White House and President Trump's team to get permanent solutions

so that so that the Dobbs decision becomes permanent in every single state. So that means that if states are allowing, if states have said we are not, we are going to protect the unborn and we're going to protect every life from the moment of conception, we're putting practices and policies in place so that other states and other organizations can't attack that and they can't, you know, do things like they're doing with mailing and mail order drugs and things like that. And it's a process that takes a lot of time and that's why it's been 19 months and we don't have complete victory yet, but we will have victory and victory will be soon and it will be permanent. And that's an important thing to everybody remember.

So those were his comments. Now, we don't know exactly what he meant because he didn't really announce like a specific policy on the call, nor did he really explain what the administration plans to do. But there are a few things that we can talk about and kind of try to clear up here. So first, quick refresher on Dobbs in 2022, the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturn Roe v. Wade and held that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion. Dobs did not ban abortion. What it did is it removed the federal constitutional protection that had limited the government's ability to restrict abortion and return the issue to the states. The most immediate result was that states were free to adopt whatever policies they wanted, right? So you had some states that were banning abortion with very few exceptions. You had some states that were expanding access to abortion. You had other states that were somewhere in the middle. And that's sort of why Blanche is common about making the Dobbs decision permanent in every single state is a little confusing. Dobbs already applies in every state because it's a Supreme Court decision.

And Dobbs also doesn't mean that abortion has to be banned in every state. It just means the Constitution no longer protects abortion in the way that Roe said it did. So again, it's not really clear what Blanche meant by that. We might be able to analyze his second comment, though, the comment about making sure other states and organizations can't interfere with total abortion bans with things like mail order drugs. And actually after Blanche's comments were made public, the DOJ came out and said Blanche was talking specifically about mail order abortion drugs, not about an attempt to take control of every state's abortion laws. So based on the rest of his comments, he appears to be talking about stopping providers in states where abortion is legal from mailing pills into states where abortion is banned or restricted. However, he didn't exactly explain what policy the administration is considering or whether it would affect male delivery nationwide.

So let's talk about some possibilities. First, we have to talk about why male order abortion pills have become such a big issue. Medication abortion usually involves two drugs, Miphrastone and Mizopristal. And during the pandemic, getting Mifapristone through the male became a lot more common. And in 2021, the FDA said that it would temporarily stop in force. forcing this rule that required patients to get the drug in person. And then in 2023, the agency went ahead and formally removed that requirement. So under the FDA's current rules, MIFA person, it has to be prescribed by a certified, you know, health care provider and dispensed by a certified

prescriber or pharmacy, but it can be sent through the mail. And after Dobbs, this became a lot more complicated because abortion laws now vary so much from state to state, right? So as an example, let's say a patient in Texas wants abortion medication but can't legally get it there. Well, that patient might seek help virtually from a doctor in New York who then mails the medication to her. But that obviously creates this big legal question, which state laws should control in that situation, the state where the provider is sitting, or the state where the patient actually receives the medication. So that's one legal issue that kind of stemmed from Dobbs and specifically as it pertains to mail, mail order drugs. But there's also a separate lawsuit challenging the FDA's decision

to allow MIFA person to be dispensed by mail in the first place. Louisiana sued the FDA. And Louisiana argued that, number one, the agency did not adequately justify removing that in-person requirement. And number two, these mail order rules are making it harder for it to enforce its abortion laws. And in May, a federal appeals court went ahead and temporarily suspended the FDA's 2023 mail order rules while the case continued. But the drug manufacturers then went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court paused that appeals court order. So for now, nothing has changed. Okay. The FDA's current rules allow certified pharmacies to mail Miffipusone while this lawsuit continues. But all of this kind of speaks to what Blanche is talking about.

his comments on this recorded call line up with Louisiana's concern, that the mail order rules are making it harder for states with abortion bans to enforce their laws. And based on this call, Blanche was clearly, you know, expressing that the administration wants to address that concern. So what power does Blanche actually have here? Well, as acting attorney general and perhaps soon to be permanent attorney general, he leads the DOJ. And that means that he oversees the enforcement of federal law and he oversees the positions the federal government takes in court. But he obviously can't change state laws himself, right? State laws are state laws separate from the federal government.

And he doesn't control the FDA. The FDA is an entirely different agency within the federal government. The FDA is the agency that sets drug rules. Now, when we talk about the federal government trying to restrict abortion pills through the mail, there are really two main ways that can try to do this. The first is through the FDA, and the FDA is actually already reviewing this. The FDA is currently conducting a new safety study of Mipiphrastone and says that once it finishes reviewing the data, it's going to decide whether any changes should be made to the

drug's rules. And that could potentially include bringing back the requirement that patients receive Mipapristone in person. But Blanche can't make that decision himself. He couldn't make those changes himself. That decision would have to come through the FDA's own legal and regulatory process. However, Blanche did say the DOJ is working hand in hand with the FDA. So what does that mean?

Well, we know the DOJ doesn't set the FDA's drug rules, but it does represent federal agencies in court and it helps determine the government's legal position when those rules are legally challenged. So if the FDA changes, it's MIFA person rules and that change is challenged, the DOJ would be the one defending the government's position. Now, the second possible avenue is a very old federal law called the Comstock Act. The Comstock Act was originally passed in 1873 as an anti-obscenity law. One of the things that law does is prohibit the use of mail to send drugs or other items intended for producing an abortion.

Now, the fact that the words are still in the law doesn't really by itself tell us how the law would be enforced today because courts actually began narrowing the crime. Comstock Act decades ago. And then in 2022, the Biden administration's DOJ issued this legal opinion saying that the Comstock Act does not prohibit someone for mailing Mipapristone or Miserprostel unless the sender intends for the recipient to use the drugs unlawfully. And you might be thinking, well, if Miphorstone or Mizaprostol are sent to a state like Texas, then isn't the sender intending for the recipient to use the drugs unlawfully if abortion is banned? And sure, the argument can certainly be made, but the DOJ's opinion from 2022 specifically said that simply mailing the drugs into a state with an abortion ban isn't enough by itself to prove that intent. And that's partly because these drugs have lawful uses and because there might be certain circumstances where their use would still be legal.

Notably, though, the Trump DOJ has not formally withdrawn that 2022 opinion. Blanche has committed to reviewing it, though. So could Blanche change the DOJ's interpretation of the Comstock Act? Sure. The department could either withdraw the 22 22, uh, 22 doj opinion or it could issue a new opinion that adopts a broader interpretation of the Comstock Act. It could then potentially try to use that interpretation in prosecutions, litigation, other enforcement actions involving the shipment of abortion drugs. However, keep in mind, Congress wrote the law and courts ultimately decide, what the law means. So even if the DOJ adopts this broader interpretation of the Comstock Act and attempts to, let's say, restrict abortion pills nationwide, it would almost certainly be challenged in federal court. And then a court would have to decide whether it agrees or disagrees with the administration's broader interpretation. And then another thing worth noting is that if the DOJ were to adopt a broader Comstock interpretation, it may actually have wider consequences

than an FDA rule change, right? Because changing the FDA's Miffa-Pristone rules would directly affect Miffa-Pristone. But the Comstock Act's language isn't limited to one specific drug. So the government could potentially try to apply a new interpretation to both Miffa-Pristone and Miser-Pristol to try to prevent both of those drugs from being shipped in the mail. But again, that's just a possible legal theory. Blanche did not say during this call that the administration had decided to use the Comstock Act, he didn't, he didn't give any specifics about policies. So here's what we can take from the call. Belanche's comments imply that the administration is considering ways to stop or at least limit providers in states where abortion is legal from mailing abortion medication into

states where it's banned or restricted. But he didn't cite a specific policy. We still don't know whether the administration plans to act through the Comstock Act or the FDA or, or this ongoing lawsuit that Louisiana brought or some combination of those things. And I know some people have been talking about a potential nationwide abortion ban. Some people had wrote to me saying, you know, what's the deal with Blanche's comments about a nationwide abortion ban? Blanche didn't talk about a nationwide abortion ban on this call. His comments were focused on mail order abortion medication. And like I said, just preventing providers in states where abortion is legal from sending pills into states where it's banned or restricted. So that's really what this call was about.

let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Fauci's contempt vote. And then we'll finish with quick hitters. Rumor has it and critical thinking. Welcome back. This morning, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a resolution to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt of Congress after he declined to answer lawmakers' questions during a hearing last week. That vote to approve the resolution was along party lines. Now, under the typical process, the committee approves a contempt resolution and then sends it to the full Senate. If the Senate passes it, the president of the Senate, who's also the vice president of the United States, can then formally send that referral to the U.S. attorney for possible prosecution. But Senator Rand Paul, who leads the committee, says that he doesn't want to wait for a full Senate vote on this. And instead, he's just going to send the committee's

finding directly to the DOJ. And the committee can do that. It can send the DOJ the information that, you know, it's gathered and ask prosecutors to take a look at it. But for the Senate to formally hold Fauci and criminal contempt under the usual process, the full Senate would still need to vote. Paul says the committee might try to bring the resolution to the Senate floor later, but he has also acknowledged that it'd probably be difficult to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and actually move the measure forward to a final vote. So that's where this stands. What happens now? Well, Paul can send the committee's referral directly to the DOJ like he said he would. and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington can review it. And then after reviewing it,

the office would decide whether it thinks there's enough support to actually bring a criminal charge. If prosecutors do decide to move forward with prosecution, they would have to, you know, actually formally bring that charge. And that could include presenting the case to a grand jury and getting an indictment. And as we talked about on Monday, just to kind of recap, for those of you who haven't listened to Monday's episode, Paul's position here is that Fauci's pardon. removed his ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment when he was answering questions about conduct covered by the pardon and that Fauci waived any remaining protection by giving an opening statement at the hearing. Now, Fauci and his lawyers have disputed both of those arguments, and Fauci's lawyer gave a statement after this morning's vote. He called it a, quote, crude political stunt intended to punish Dr. Fauci for exercising his constitutional rights.

And quote. So again, the committee has approved a resolution to hold. hold Fauci in contempt and Paul does plan to send the matter directly to the DOJ. The DOJ could review it and potentially pursue charges even if the full Senate never votes on this. However, Fauci's lawyers could challenge whether a committee only referral, you know, follows the statutory process that's required for a formal criminal contempt case. Now, if you did miss Monday's episode and you're looking for a deeper explanation of whether Fauci legally had the right to plead the fifth, I highly recommend you go back and listen because we did

walk through both sides of that argument in a lot more detail. Let's do some quick hitters. Senate Republicans advanced Todd Blanche's attorney general nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The committee vote was 12 to 10 along party lines. Blanche's nomination now heads to the full Senate where his path still isn't guaranteed after Republican Senator Susan Collins says that she will vote no. The Senate voted 51 to 44 to confirm. Dr. Erica Schwartz as the director of the CDC, making her the agencies at first confirmed director in nearly a year. Schwartz, a former deputy surgeon general with medical and law degrees, will lead the agency after a period of leadership turnover and staffing changes. Voters in Michigan,

Missouri, Kansas, Virginia, and Washington held primaries Tuesday. In Michigan, Abdul al-Sayed narrowly defeated Representative Haley Stevens for the Democratic Senate nomination, while Jocelyn Benson and John James advanced to face each other for governor. Progressives also won two notable Michigan House races, but former rep Cory Bush lost her Missouri rematch against Democratic Representative Wesley Bell. Kansas and Missouri voters also rejected three ballot measures placed before them. Those included a Kansas proposal to elect state Supreme Court justices, and a Missouri proposal to make citizen-led constitutional amendments harder to pass,

both tied to broader fights over abortion rights as well as a Missouri tax proposal. A former supervisory FBI agent has been fired and arrested after prosecutors accused him of stealing more than $900,000 in cryptocurrency from accounts the FBI was monitoring as part of a national security investigation. Court records say the agent allegedly used his internal agency access to transfer the funds to a personal account after becoming frustrated by what he viewed as government inaction involving the accounts. The FBI says it began investigating as soon as it learned of the allegations, and he faces charges of interstate transportation of stolen property and receipt of stolen property.

President Trump is rejecting reports that the U.S. is running low on key munitions during the war with Iran. Some outlets reported that military commanders have raised concerns about depleted stockpiles of certain air defense interceptors, But Trump said the U.S. has quote unquote massive amounts of munitions and that more are being produced and shipped as needed. He also criticized the officials who leaked information about military inventories and said his administration would seek long prison sentences for them. And the FDA approved the first seasonal flu vaccine in the U.S. made with MRNA technology. The shot is made by Moderna and approved for adults 50 and older with full approval for ages 50 to 64 and accelerated approval. for people 65 and older while Moderna conducts additional follow-up research. And now it's time for rumor has it my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and do my best to

either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Today we are doing one. Rumor has it that Trump has a new insider trading subscription service where you can pay for early access to important government policy information. This is true in part, but we do need to add some pretty critical context. This rumor stemmed from a video posted by Senator Chris Murphy, and this is what he said. Donald Trump just announced that he is setting up an insider trading information subscription service. If you pay Donald Trump, $100,000 a month, he will give you early access to the announcements he's making regarding federal policy, early access to information about tariffs, early access to information about the Iran war, early access to information about what country he's bombing next. This is a criminal syndicate that he is running

out in the open. It is illegal to make money off of inside information. Donald Trump is literally setting up a formal process by which you can pay him a bribe in exchange for information that no one else has $100,000 a month. Big billion dollar corporations have that money. And when they have advance notice of a tariff announcement, they can place bets on the market to be able to make millions of dollars. Well, ordinary Americans who cannot pay him for inside information get screwed. None of this is normal. A lot of this is illegal. All right. Now let's talk about what we know. Trump Media and Technology Group, which is the company that owns Truth Social, has launched a service that gives financial firms and other institutional customers like hedge funds, investment banks, etc., faster access to posts from influential truth social accounts, including President Trump's account. The service, which is called Truth API, was made available to institutional customers on August 1st, though Trump media first announced this new service on July 16th.

And at that point, it said that it had already signed customers ahead of the launch. Now, according to Trump Media, these companies don't see Trump's post before he publishes them or get a heads up that a post is coming. Instead, Trump Media says the post becomes public on truth social at the same time it's delivered through this new service. The advantage is how quickly these companies can receive and process it. So Truth API essentially sends the post directly. to a company's computer system through what's called a low latency machine readable data feed. So normally a person might have to open truth social, refresh Trump's account, wait for a post to load, read it, and then go ahead and decide what to do with that information, right?

With this new service, though, the post can be sent directly from truth social into a company's computer system within milliseconds. The computer can then immediately scan the post for references to, let's say, certain companies, tariffs, wars, countries, commodities, government policies, whatever it might be, and then potentially make trades based on that information before most users have had a chance to see the post. So based on what Trump Media has said, these firms aren't receiving the information before it officially becomes public, but they will likely be able to receive it, process it, and act on it faster than the rest of the public. Trump Media says Truth API is specifically designed for

organizations, quote, most impacted by the cost of a delay in information, end quote, which includes high frequency and algorithmic trading firms. So when we look at whether these companies are really getting early access to Trump's post, it kind of depends how you look at it, right? It doesn't appear to be early access in the sense that a company knows what Trump is, you know, going to announce before he announces it, but it could be considered early in a practical sense because a company's computer could potentially analyze and act on a post much more quickly than a typical truth social user would. And again, we're talking about milliseconds or seconds here. So, you know, there is the question of like, why would milliseconds even make a difference? But in the financial world, milliseconds can actually matter a lot. Some firms use what's called high frequency or algorithmic trading systems. And these systems can actually automatically, like buy or sell pretty huge amounts of stocks, commodities, or other types of investments based on new information. And like I said, Trump Media openly said that Truth API is designed for these types of organizations. Now, as we know, Trump typically uses Truth Social to announce or comment on tariffs, military action, foreign policy, energy policy, things like that.

And all of those things can, of course, move financial markets. So let's say Trump posts that he's, you know, imposing a new tariff on steel imports. Well, a computer connected to Truth API could potentially identify the words steel and tariff and determine which companies might benefit or might be disadvantaged and start placing trades almost immediately. meanwhile, the average person might not even get the notification about the post until those trades have already happened, right? So, you know, Senator Chris Murphy called this an insider trading subscription service. Is this actually an insider trading subscription service? Well, insider trading legally involves someone buying or selling stocks using material non-public information that they received in violation of a duty. Material means the information would likely matter

to a reasonable investor. Non-public means the information has to be. hasn't yet been made public. And non-public is really the key word here. If, you know, a Trump post becomes public at the exact same time it's sent through Trump API, then the information in that post is technically public. So based on the facts we currently have, the service itself doesn't appear to satisfy that non-public information requirement of, you know, traditional insider trading laws. But just to be clear, the president is not exempt from federal insider trading laws. So if there were evidence that Trump traded on material non-public information or improperly provided that information to someone else for trading purposes, his position as president wouldn't automatically protect him

from those laws. Now, at this point, several Democratic senators have called for the SEC to investigate the service and, you know, look into it and determine whether any security laws are being violated. So just to wrap this up, the claim that Trump media is selling financial firms faster access to potentially market moving posts is true. The claim, that subscribers are receiving government information before it becomes public or that, you know, the service has been established as insider trading is not supported by the evidence that is available to us. So overall, this rumor is true in part, but does leave out some pretty critical context. All right. Speaking of critical, let's do some critical thinking. We're sticking with the Trump API story,

of course. First question is this. Assuming information becomes public at the same time for everyone. but only the paying customers can realistically act on it first. Where should the line be drawn between faster access and privileged access? And how, is the second question, how, if at all, would your view of this situation change if Trump weren't president? So, for example, what if a former lawmaker launched this exact same kind of service? They're not technically in government anymore, but they might still have close ties to people who were. Would that change how you see it? Why or why not? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much

for being here. As always, please leave me a five-star review. If you enjoyed this episode, you can leave those reviews wherever you listen to this podcast, whether it's on Apple Podcast or Spotify, I very much appreciate you. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.