UNBIASED - Bump Stock Ban, SCOTUS to Hear Presidential Immunity Claim, Illinois Removes Trump from Ballot, Texas Executes Inmate, Putin's Threats, Good News of the Week, and More.

Episode Date: March 1, 2024

1. DEEP DIVE: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Case Challenging a 2018 Ban on Bump Stocks (Firearm Regulation)(1:55)2. QUICK HITTERS: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Trump's Presidential Immunity Claim (15:23); Appeals Judge Orders Trump Pay Full Civil Fraud Judgment Amount (18:58); Illinois Removes Trump from Ballot (21:44); Sen. Mitch McConnell to Step Down (22:58); Federal Judge Holds Texas Immigration Law Unconstitutional (24:07); Texas Executes Ivan Cantu Via Lethal Injection (25:06); Idaho Cancels Execution of Serial Killer (26:29); Putin Threatens Nuclear on NATO (28:10); Haley Requests RNC Vote on Legal Fee Resolution (29:10); House Passes Temporary Stopgap Measure (30:28); Hunter Biden Deposition (30:57)3. NOT EVERYTHING IS BAD: Good News of the Week (32:26)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. I'm your host, Jordan, and I hope you enjoy the show. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is March 1st, 2024, and this episode was recorded yesterday around 5 p.m. Eastern time. I do just want to do a quick refresher on the segments that I typically do, just in case anyone's new here or maybe you just need a refresher. Each episode I do just want to do a quick refresher on the segments that I typically do, just in case anyone's new here or maybe you just need a refresher. Each episode I do anywhere between two and four segments.

My typical segments include deep dives, which are in-depth discussions, usually about hot topics in the news. These last anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes. Then I do what I call short stories. These last anywhere from three to 10 minutes, and anything under three minutes falls into quick hitters. I have a segment called one liners where I'll catch you up to speed on some quick headlines. And then I also do a segment every Friday called not everything is bad, where I share some good news from the week to leave you feeling a little more positive, you know, going into the weekend. And you guys really love that as do I. So that's going to stay

every now and then, I do throw in a new segment here and there, try to spice things up. But those are my mainstays so that we're all on the same page. So today specifically, we will start with a short story about the oral arguments that took place in the Supreme Court on Wednesday dealing with a firearm regulation on bump stocks. That may turn into a deep dive. We'll see how long that conversation goes, but I think it's closer to a short story. We'll then touch on 11 different quick hitters, so more than usual, and we will finish with not everything is bad because today's Friday. Before we get into the segments, I do just want to remind you that

if you love what you hear today and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave me a review on your preferred podcast platform. Or if you're watching on YouTube, click that thumbs up button, drop me a comment, and subscribe to the channel if you haven't yet. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. We're starting off with these Supreme Court oral arguments. So on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland versus Cargill. This is a challenge to a 2018 ban on bump stocks. If you're not familiar with guns, you likely don't know what a bump stock is, so let's talk about it. A semi-automatic rifle fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but you can replace the stock of the gun, which is the back portion of the gun, with what's called a bump stock. And this

allows you to fire more rounds at a quicker rate than you otherwise would be able to with this type of rifle. Essentially, when you put a bump stock attachment onto a semi-automatic rifle and you pull forward on the front of the rifle while you're firing, the bump stock attachment onto a semi-automatic rifle and you pull forward on the front of the rifle while you're firing, the bump stock will cause the trigger to continuously hit your finger, therefore firing at a continuous rate. And this creates the effect of fire similar to that of a machine gun. And therein lies the problem, according to the ATF. So in 2018, following the Vegas mass shooting, the ATF issued a new rule,

which declared bump stocks to be machine guns under the federal definition, and therefore anyone who possessed one was either required to turn it over to the ATF or destroy it. They were banned. Michael Cargill, he is the owner of a Texas gun store. He did not agree with the ATF's interpretation of bump stocks and decided to take it to court. Now, what's most important here is the definition of machine gun under federal law. The National Firearms Act defines machine gun as, quote, a weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. So the question is, does a bump stock allow a rifle to shoot more than one shot automatically

by a single function of the trigger? Cargill, the challenger, says no. Specifically, his attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, argued that semi-automatic rifles that are equipped with bump stocks don't shoot multiple bullets automatically or by a single function of the trigger. Instead, he argues that a rifle equipped with a bump stock can only fire one shot per function of the trigger because the trigger, which is what initiates the firing of the gun, must reset after every shot. So he says the phrase function of the trigger can only apply to the function of the trigger. It has nothing to do with the shooter, has nothing to do with what the shooter does to the trigger, it's just the function of the trigger. The statute is,

and he says this, that the statute is concerned only with the trigger and whether a single function of the trigger produces one shot. And in the case of bump stocks, he says it does not. He says a single function of a trigger produces one shot, and the trigger is thereafter reset after each shot, allowing for another shot. Furthermore, Mitchell argued that the function of the trigger doesn't occur automatically because the shooter, in addition to causing the trigger to function, must also undertake manual action to ensure a successful round of bump firing. And that manual action being a continual and repeated thrust of this front piece of the rifle forward with the non-shooting hand while simultaneously

maintaining backward pressure on the weapon with his shooting hand. So for these reasons, the challenger's attorney says that bump stocks do not fall under the definition of a machine gun. Now, on the other side of this, you have Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, who represented the ATF and argued the opposite. Fletcher argued that the pushing forward on the front piece of the rifle, which is what initiates and continues the firing, according to his argument, is the single function of the trigger required by the definition of machine gun. Because he says the finger stays stationary the entire time that the gun is firing because of the bump stock. It's the bump stock that allows the finger stays stationary the entire time that the gun is firing because of the bump stock.

It's the bump stock that allows the finger to continuously hit the trigger without the finger actually moving. So he says the definition of a function of the trigger happens when some act by the shooter, usually a pull, starts a firing sequence. And so Fletcher argued, quote, a semi-automatic rifle fires one shot with every function of the trigger because the shooter has to manually pull and release the trigger for every shot. But a bump stock eliminates those manual movements and allows the shooter to fire many shots with one act, a forward push, end quote. So again, the question is, when the rifle is equipped with a bump stock, can it fire multiple rounds automatically with a single function of the trigger? That's the question. And if the court finds that both are true, a bump stock allows rifle to fire automatically and with a single function of the trigger, bump stocks then fall under the statutory definition

of a machine gun and the ban on bump stocks is permissible. However, if the court answers only one of these prongs in the affirmative, the rule very well could be impermissible. In other words, say the Supreme Court finds that bump stocks allow a rifle to fire automatically but need more than just a single function of the trigger. Or bump stocks don't allow a rifle to fire automatically, but only require a single function of the trigger. Then, under this rationale, the bump stocks don't fall within the statutory definition of a machine gun because they're not meeting both prongs, and therefore the ban is impermissible.

So knowing that, let's discuss how the justices were feeling during the arguments. The justices spent a lot of time on the technical mechanics of the gun, and for good reason. You have to understand the mechanics of all of this in order to answer the question, right? So Chief Justice Roberts questioned the challenging attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, on what action specifically the shooter actually takes, which would render this not a single function. Roberts seemed to imply that maintaining pressure, as Fletcher called it, on the gun isn't necessarily an action being taken, and the only single action being taken is actually pushing forward on the front piece of the rifle, which is actually the government's argument in this whole thing. Justice Kagan chimed in and she suggested that

the only single action that the shooter takes with a bump stock attached is, again, just pushing forward on the front of the rifle, and in this case would be one single action. She was saying that maintaining pressure on the back of the gun isn't really an action as far as she's concerned. And Mitchell actually conceded that Kagan was probably right, but stressed that even if the shooter is simply applying constant pressure, the shooter is still acting manually rather than automatically as the statute requires. Because remember, Mitchell only has to prove one of the prongs, either automatically or single function. Another issue that the justices

inquired about was the effect that the ban would have on bump stock owners who bought them when they were legal. Because as Justice Gorsuch noted, the ATF has repeatedly indicated that bump stocks were not considered machine guns prior to 2018. And because of that, you have hundreds of thousands of Americans that have them and could be convicted of felonies because of the ban. And obviously, if they're convicted, this could lead to jail time, the potential loss of certain civil rights, like the right to vote. So Gorsuch was concerned about that. But he did also note, he said, despite these concerns of mine, I can certainly understand why bump stocks should be made illegal. Justice Thomas came in with some surprising concerns of his own. Those who know Justice Thomas and know his rulings and how he usually thinks know that he is a conservative constitutionalist, so one might think he was leaning towards the challenger, right? Wrong. Because something else about Thomas is that he's also a textualist and an originalist, meaning that he's big on the nation's history and tradition. He's big on the

intent of the drafters at the time that this law was drafted. He's big on textual interpretation. So because of this, Justice Thomas brought up the fact that the ban on most machine guns was originally enacted during the prohibition era in response to what people were doing during that time. So what he said, he cited to this significant damage from machine guns, carnage, people dying, etc. And he said to Mitchell, the challenging attorney, he said the government is arguing that the bump stock does this exact thing that they were trying to prohibit when they enacted this ban. So with that background, why shouldn't we look at a broader definition of what it means for something to be a single function of the trigger rather than this narrower definition

that you're suggesting? And this question basically signaled the idea that perhaps the court should look to the general intent of the ban on machine guns more so than the narrow single function definition that the challenger is focusing on. And Justice Jackson piggybacked on that. She said that the ban on machine guns specifically was based on the high rate of fire as opposed to the actual movement of the trigger. And the reason she says this is because of what she calls the common usage of the word function And the reason she says this is because of what she calls the common usage of the word function. She cited to a couple of different definitions of the word function, one of which was, quote, the action for which a person or thing is specifically fitted or

used. And she said it seems to her that Congress was trying to capture a class of weapons in which a trigger can achieve a certain result. So she asked Mitchell, quote, Why would Congress want to prohibit certain things based on whether the trigger is moving, as opposed to certain things that can achieve this lethal kind of spray of bullets? End quote. Justice Alito remarked, he said, quote, can you imagine a legislator thinking we should ban machine guns, but we should not ban bump stocks? Is there any reason why a legislator might reach that judgment? End quote. And Justice Kagan shared a similar concern, which is a little surprising considering Kagan is definitely not a textualist. She's actually the very opposite of Justice Thomas.

However, she told Mitchell as well, quote, textualist is not inconsistent with common sense, end quote. And she continued that common sense leads to the conclusion that the statute is intended to cover a weapon that fires a multitude of shots with a single human action. She said, quote, whether it's a continuous pressure on a conventional machine gun holding the trigger or a continuous pressure on one of these devices on the barrel, I can't understand how anybody could think that these two things should be treated differently, end quote. And you might be thinking at this point, it seems that they're really on the government side, and they were leaning in that direction. We'll get there. But Justice Kavanaugh gave the challenger's attorney a little bit of a break and took issue with the fact that in the past, administrations like the Bush administration and the Obama administration didn't consider bump stocks to be machine guns. So what Kavanaugh said to the government's attorney is, quote,

what's your explanation for why when this does become an issue years and years ago, the Bush administration, the Obama administration, Senator Feinstein all say no, bump stocks are not covered. Because if your position were correct, you would expect the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and Senator Feinstein to say, of course bump stocks are considered. And they didn't. And that's reason for pause. It's not dispositive, but it's reason for pause. End quote. Justice Barrett indicated that she might agree that a bump stock doesn't allow for automatic fire, but that she was having a hard time understanding the single function element and why it wouldn't be considered a single function of the trigger.

So that's sort of a general summary of what the arguments looked like. And look, this one did seem to lean more in favor of the government, but you really never know what this stuff. I don't feel confident enough to say it looks definitive one way or the other, but if I had to guess, I would say the government will win this one. Either that or it'll be a five to four decision the other way. I think if it goes the other way, if it goes in the challenger's favor, it's going to be very close. And if you are curious as to how the appellate court ruled on this issue, so the court below, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the gun shop owner. And they said that the federal definition of machine gun does not apply to bump stocks because semi-automatic rifles that are equipped with bump stocks don't shoot multiple

bullets automatically or by a single function of the trigger. But the court said regardless, the rule of lenity instructs courts to apply ambiguous criminal laws in a way that's most favorable to defendants, which in this case also weighs in favor of not including bump stocks in the definition of machine gun. So that is how the appellate court ruled. Of course, in time, we'll see how the Supreme Court rules on this. Now, this takes us into quick hitters, but we're not getting away from the Supreme Court because the first of the 11 quick hitters I have for you is that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim. So the Supreme Court agreed to hear this claim on Wednesday,

and the decision came by way of a one-page unsigned order. And before I read this order, let me just give you a little bit of context. So months ago, special counsel Jack Smith had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in this case as a way to sort of speed up the appeals process and get the trial going. At that time, the Supreme Court declined to get involved because typically cases will first go to the appellate court on appeal. The appellate court will render a decision and then once that decision has been issued, the losing party can petition the Supreme Court to take up the case. In this case, the appellate court hadn't yet issued a decision when jack smith petitioned the supreme court so what the justices said at that point is no wait for the appellate court to issue their

decision and then you can come back to us and that's what happened the appellate court released their decision a few weeks ago the decision was against trump so this time it was trump that filed the appeal to the supreme court rather than jack Smith, because obviously Jack Smith would want the appellate court ruling to stand. Now, when the Supreme Court either agrees to hear a case or declines to hear a case, their decision will come by way of an order, which is different than an opinion in that orders are usually very short to the point. Justices don't have to make public which justices want to do the case and which didn't they can but they don't have to so knowing that here is what the order says it says quote the petition is granted limited to the following question whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to

involve official acts during his tenure in office. Without expressing a view on the merits, this court directs the Court of Appeals to continue withholding issuance of the mandate until the sending down of the judgment of this court. End quote. The order then laid out the following deadlines. So Trump's brief and any briefs in support of Trump's position have to be filed with the court on or before March 19th. The government's brief and any supporting briefs have to be filed on or before April 8th. And then Trump's reply brief to the government's brief has to be filed on or before 5 p.m. on April 15th, and oral arguments are scheduled for April 22nd. Now, what's interesting about the order is that it specifically limited it to, it specifically limited the issue in this case

to one issue, the question of whether a former president enjoys immunity from prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure. However, when Trump petitioned the court, he had two questions for the court. The one that I just mentioned, and then a second question, which was whether the impeachment judgment clause and the principles of double jeopardy forbid the prosecution of a president who has been impeached and acquitted by the Senate for the same and or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal charges. So the court

won't answer that question. Basically in their order, they said, we're just sticking to the first question. We're not going to touch the second question. In some other Trump related news, a New York appellate judge rejected Trump's request to halt the collection of penalties in his civil fraud case until his appeal is complete. So following that $355 million ruling against him, he filed a notice of appeal with the appellate court. Now, had he posted the full amount of the judgment in a court-managed account or secured a bond for the full judgment amount, the collection of the judgment would have been put on pause while Trump appeals the case. But he didn't because according to him and his lawyers, the judgment amount was just too high to obtain a bond for the full amount because they would

have had to get, I believe it was like a $520 million bond or something. It was 120% of the judgment amount. And in addition to that, part of his argument was that because the judge banned him from obtaining loans from New York charter banks for three years, it was much harder for him to secure a bond. So what his lawyers wrote is, quote, the exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond, end quote. So instead of posting the full amount, he went to the appellate court and he said, hey, I'll post a $100 million bond, but can you do me a

favor and pause enforcement of this judgment while the appeal plays out? And the court said no. Judge Singh, the appellate judge who ruled on this issue, said that Trump must postpone for the full amount in order to stop enforcement. But the judge did pause enforcement of both the three-year ban on Trump being able to obtain loans from New York charter banks and the three-year ban on Trump conducting business in the state of New York. So for now, Trump and Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. can actually remain in charge of the Trump organization, and perhaps now it's a little bit easier for Trump to secure a bond. Now, why would Trump

want the enforcement paused? Well, one, pausing the enforcement of the judgment would have stopped interest from accruing. Right now, the judgment against him alone is accruing about $112,000 per day. So each day that passes, he owes another $112,000 plus. So pausing enforcement would have helped stop that. And second, if he isn't able to post the full amount or secure a bond for the full amount, New York's Attorney General Letitia James can start going after his properties. So pausing enforcement would have stopped that as well. From here, Trump can appeal this ruling first to a panel of judges at New York's Appellate Division, and then if that doesn't go in his favor, he can also appeal to New York's Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state. And then your last Trump

focused quick hitter is out of Illinois. So a judge in Illinois removed Donald Trump from the state's primary ballot on Wednesday, citing the disqualification clause. And Trump has since appealed this ruling. He appealed it yesterday on Thursday. This is obviously something we've talked about, you know, a lot from other states, mainly Colorado, and it's an issue that's currently pending before the Supreme Court. So for now, the ruling doesn't really mean much. And honestly, we should just wait for the Supreme Court to release their decision before we start to determine what effect this ruling will have. It may not have an effect at all. It very well could. We just don't know until the Supreme Court rules on this. What's interesting out of Illinois, though, is that last month,

the Illinois State Board of Electors voted unanimously to keep Trump on the primary ballot. Now, this board is made up of four Democrats and four Republicans, and the reason they decided to keep them on the ballot, or keep him on the the ballot is because they said that they didn't have jurisdiction to decide the issue. So that's when it was left to the court. And then this ruling obviously reverses that decision. But again, let's wait for the Supreme Court's ruling before we analyze this. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he will be stepping down from his position following the November elections. McConnell was first elected to the Senate 40 years ago in 1984 and has become the longest serving senator to represent Kentucky in the state's history. And he's also the longest

serving Republican Senate leader in the history of the Senate. His announcement isn't too much of a surprise considering he has dealt with a handful of health-related incidents over the past year or so, and he is 82 years old after all, so he's getting up there. In his speech, he said he plans to remain in his position until the Republicans elect a new leader in November, and that new leader can take the role over in 2025. As for who may take the position next, sources say that potential candidates at the moment include Senator John Thune of South Dakota, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Senator Cornyn of Texas. But obviously this is still very, very early in the game. A lot can happen,

so take those names with a grain of salt. Those are just some names being thrown around at the moment. A federal judge in Texas blocked a Texas law on Thursday that gives law enforcement the ability to arrest, prosecute, and order the removal of people who illegally cross over into Texas from Mexico. Now, from the time that this law was drafted, it was seen as a very controversial law, and people kind of knew that it may not stand the test of time given that it potentially conflicts with federal law. And the judge's ruling on Thursday held that this law does in fact interfere with the federal government's powers under the Constitution to enforce immigration laws and the ability of migrants to apply for asylum and other humanitarian aid. This law was set to take effect on March 5th, but the judge's ruling blocks that, of course, and Texas will be appealing this decision to the Fifth Circuit. And they can ask the appellate court to reinstate the law while the appeal plays

out, so just stay tuned for some updates on that, but for now, that law is blocked. Texas executed Ivan Cantu on Wednesday via the lethal injection. Cantu was convicted of killing his cousin and his cousin's girlfriend in 2021, though him and his attorneys have long maintained his innocence, claiming that this conviction was based on questionable evidence and false testimony. Prosecutors successfully argued that Cantu killed his cousin and cousin's fiance as he tried to steal drugs from his cousin's home, but Cantu says it was actually a rival drug dealer that killed his cousin in a fight over money and he had nothing to do with it. Prior to his execution, there was a big movement to have

his execution stayed. 145,000 people signed it, including some celebrities, but ultimately the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 7-0 against commuting his sentence and against granting a four-month reprieve. His final words were to the victim's families. He said, quote, I want you to know that I never killed James and Amy. And if I did, if I knew who did, you would have been the first to know any information that I would have had that would have helped to bring justice to James and Amy. End quote. He then addressed his family, friends, supporters, and attorneys.

He cited to a Bible verse and told the warden he was ready. And Texas does not offer inmates a final meal of their choosing, but a state that does offer chosen final meals is Idaho, which called off an execution on Wednesday after failing to place the IV in the inmate's arm. Thomas Creech, this is a man who there is no doubt as to his guilt. He had his execution scheduled for Wednesday in Idaho, but it was called off Wednesday morning around 11 a.m. when prison officials were unable to set the IV in his arm and other extremities. So he was actually set to be Idaho's first execution in 12 years. Creech is the longest serving inmate on Idaho's death row.

He pled guilty to the murder of another inmate in 1981 while he was serving four life sentences for other crimes, and since then he has been convicted of four other murders and at one of those trials admitted to killing more than 42 people across more than 12 states in the United States. So he is definitely guilty. Most recently, in January, the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department announced that it had solved a 50-year cold case after determining Creech had killed a man named Daniel Walker in 1974. Ultimately, prison officials tried to place the IV eight different times through, quote, multiple limbs and appendages, end quote,

but were unsuccessful. From here, Idaho will have to decide whether it's going to seek another death warrant. It may not. It didn't sound like they were sure in their press release. But as a little fun fact, Idaho does allow for the firing squad as an alternative method of execution, but a prison official did say on Wednesday that the state lacks the necessary facilities to carry an execution out that way, so they won't be doing that. Vladimir Putin has seemingly threatened NATO with a nuclear strike should it send troops to Ukraine. On Monday, the president of France discussed the idea of sending Western troops to help Ukraine. The United States, the UK, and Germany shot down this idea, and Putin had some words of his own. On Thursday, Putin said in his annual State of the Nation

address, quote, there has been talk of sending NATO contingents to Ukraine, but we remember the fate of those who sent contingents in the past. Now the consequences for the interventionists will be much more tragic. We too have weapons that can hit targets on their territory. This really threatens a conflict with nuclear weapons and thus the destruction of civilization. End quote. But to add some color here, Putin also warned of, quote, serious danger back in June of last year should NATO continue to supply aid to Ukraine. So this isn't necessarily anything super new, but felt like I should talk about it. Republican presidential candidate Nikki

Haley has asked the Republican National Committee to hold a vote on a draft resolution that would revoke the party's ability to direct funds toward legal fees. Now, it's of course no coincidence that this is an incredibly expensive time for President Trump when it comes to legal fees because, you know, he's dealing with a lot of legal battles right now. Haley said, quote, all Americans and Republicans especially deserve a vote on the record on that resolution. We deserve to know how the RNC is going to spend their money and if it's going to go towards legal fees, end quote. If the resolution does get voted on, the committee would vote in early March in Houston at their spring training. Now, there have been two resolutions put forward by one committee member in particular, one of which prohibits the committee from paying any candidates legal fees and another which focuses on slowing the RNC from coordinating with a presidential candidate until that candidate meets the delegate threshold to win the nomination.

So those are the two potential resolutions that the committee may vote on in March, or I guess in a week or so. The House passed a bill Thursday afternoon to avoid a government shutdown, which is set to happen Friday at midnight if this stopgap measure is not signed into law. The vote in the House was 320 to 99, with 207 Democrats voting in its favor, along with 113 Republicans. The bill extends funding for some agencies until March 8th and for other agencies until March 22nd. This continuing resolution will now head to the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says that he hopes it passes. And the last one, number 11, Hunter Biden appeared for a closed

door deposition on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify about his foreign business dealings and any potential involvement by his dad. Hunter Biden opened his testimony by saying, quote, I am here today to provide the committees with one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry. I did not involve my father in my business, end quote. He said, quote, to be clear, I have made mistakes in my life and I have squandered opportunities and privileges that were afforded to me, but my mistakes and shortcomings are my own and not my father's, who has done nothing but devote his entire life to public service and trying to make this country a better place to live,

end quote. Both of the committees that conducted this deposition and Hunter Biden have agreed to release the transcript of the testimony afterwards, so we should have that in the coming days. But even the Republicans have said not to expect anything surprising from the transcript. One member of the House Oversight Committee said that the statements that Hunter made were absolutely contradictory, but said, quote, when the transcript comes out, it's going to read well for him because they did a great job prepping him for a read, end quote. Some Democrats spoke on break of the deposition and said that the whole thing was a waste of time and an embarrassment for the Republicans on the committee. So conflicting stories per usual,

would you expect anything else? Now it's time for Not Everything is Bad, my favorite segment of the week. A former professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Ruth Gottesman, announced a $1 billion donation to the school, which will allow the school to be tuition-free for all students starting in August. Now if you're like me, you're wondering how in the world Gottesman was able to donate a billion dollars considering that she's a retired professor. I'll tell you because you already know I looked into it. Gottesman lost her husband of 72 years in 2022. Her husband, David Gottesman, built the Wall Street Investment House first Manhattan.

He was also on the board of Berkshire Hathaway. He did fantastic for himself. And when he passed away, he left his money to Ruth. So Ruth gave all the credit to her late husband. When she announced the donation, she said, quote, I feel blessed to be given the great privilege of making this gift to such a worthy cause. End quote. This gift is believed to be the largest made to any medical school in the country, according to the umbrella organization for the school. And they are the second university to offer a tuition-free medical school experience. But great news nonetheless. I'm sure it's going to make some people's lives. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here.

And this is your reminder. If you have any good news that you want to share with me, please submit it on my website. Jordan is my lawyer.com. I have a contact form there. It can be anything, an act of kindness that you witnessed, an act of kindness that you did, an act of kindness someone, you know, someone did for you or just something that made you feel good. Anything. I really like to be able to share your guys' stories on here. So the form is on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. And I hope you have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Tuesday.