UNBIASED - Congress Averts Shutdown, Gaetz Wants McCarthy Out, Trump Fraud Trial Begins, SCOTUS Rejects Trump Disqualification Case, Newsom Appoints Interim Senator.

Episode Date: October 3, 2023

1. How Congress Averted a Shutdown; Why Gaetz Wants McCarthy Ousted; Motion to Vacate Explained; Why Some Republicans Want Gaetz Expelled; What to Expect From Here (2:51)2. Trump Civil Trial Started Monday; Legal Claims, Damages, and Statute of Limitations Explained (15:44)3. Supreme Court Won't Hear Trump Disqualification Clause Appeal (26:47)4. Gov. Newsom Appoints Laphonza Butler to Fill Feinstein's Seat in Senate (28:09)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.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 Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased

news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. And boy, do we have a lot of ground to cover today. Not only do we have everything that happened in Congress over the weekend, but Monday marked the first day of the Supreme Court's 2023-2024 term. And it also marked the first day of Donald Trump's fraud trial in New York. So our first story is going to be about Congress avoiding the shutdown, not only how they avoided it and what the stopgap measure encompasses, but also why Representative Gates is calling for Speaker McCarthy's removal, why some Republicans are calling for Matt Gaetz's expulsion, what a motion to vacate the speakership entails,

and also the fire alarm incident. And I just quickly have to throw in a little editor's note here. I had already recorded today's episode and Monday night, the news broke that Representative Gates did in fact move to oust Speaker McCarthy. So this whole episode will still flow. It'll all make sense. I'll talk about what's necessary for a motion to vacate, how it passes, what happens if it passes. So all of that stuff will still make sense. But just go into the episode knowing that Gates did in fact move to oust Speaker McCarthy. The second story is going to be about the first day of Donald Trump's fraud trial in New York. So we'll be covering kind of, here's the thing, I'm not going to be talking about this case every single day. It's supposed to last months. So I kind of just want to lay out the groundwork for what this case is about and what we can expect

and kind of clear up a few areas of confusion for some people and leave it at that. The third story is going to be about the Supreme Court announcing on Monday that it will not hear a disqualification clause case as it pertains to Donald Trump and disqualifying Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. And the fourth and final story will be about Governor Newsom in California appointing a new senator to fill Senator Feinstein's seat following her passing. So that'll be today's episode. Before we get into the stories, let me just remind you, please go ahead and leave my show a review if you haven't already. If you have, thank you so much. If you haven't, it takes a quick two seconds. You can do it on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, and it really, really helps support my show. And finally,

yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Congress averted a shutdown with a few hours to spare on Saturday. Let's talk about how they managed to turn it around when many didn't expect an agreement to be reached. Even on Saturday morning, so the deadline was Saturday at midnight, Saturday morning when Speaker McCarthy met with his fellow Republicans, he wasn't even sure that a government shutdown could be avoided, but slowly more and more Republicans started coming around to the idea of avoidance, not all of them, but some of them. Once he had garnered some support from some of

the Republicans, he kind of made the decision to distance himself or step away from the more hardline Republicans in order to get this measure passed. Those hardline Republicans are now calling for his removal from speaker, but we'll get into that in a little bit. So the story goes like this. McCarthy was in a meeting with his conference on Saturday morning, and he had been talking with everyone. Some Republican representatives had started to speak out in support of a short-term funding bill. They were kind of saying that they thought that there would be some political blowback if the government shut down, and that political blowback could be dangerous ahead of the election and whatnot. And the story goes that McCarthy turned to his conference and he said, do we want

to jam the Senate? And he got some cheers from some of his Republican allies. And he then turned to his aide to ask how quickly they could go to the floor and vote on a stopgap bill that had been filed the night before. The aide responded 15 minutes, and that is what they did. Ultimately, McCarthy decides to take this and run with it and go to the floor with a vote, and it was a very quick process. Because this was an expedited vote, it needed two-thirds of the House of Support, which it got. The vote was 335 to 91, 90 Republicans, one Democrat in opposition, all the others in support. Now, what this measure did is it kept the government funded for 45 days until November 17th. It provided natural disaster aid. It kept

the FAA open, but it didn't include additional funding for Ukraine or any heightened border security measures, which were both big points for Democrats and Republicans, respectively. So Democrats really wanted this aid to Ukraine included in there. Republicans really wanted some heightened border security in there, but neither of those were included. However, it still passes the House with bipartisan support. It then heads to the Senate. Senate rules require something called unanimous consent when the Senate has to vote on a bill quickly. What that means is all present senators have to be on board with sending the bill to a vote immediately. So

nixing the debate, right? Just sending it to a vote. One Democratic senator initially opposed the idea of sending it to a vote, and he knew that he had leverage in that sense, right? So what happened was, is there was this Senate bill that was scheduled for a procedural vote on Saturday, the same day that the stopgap measure was passed, but this was scheduled, this was a separate bill, right? The stopgap measure that was passed was first passed in the House. This was in the Senate, and it included $6 billion in aid for Ukraine. But the Republican leaders got together, and they decided that they had to figure out a way to ensure that that bill didn't pass the Senate, because if it did, it would have put the House and the Senate on this sort of collision course

and ultimately led to a shutdown. So the Republican senators decide they're going to unite together and vote against the Senate bill. A lot of them are planning on supporting it, but they decided for the sake of getting this measure in the House passed, they're going to vote no on the Senate bill. And instead, when the House bill comes their way, they'll support that. It was the only way to leave one option, so to speak. The Senate bill is opposed. It doesn't pass, which leaves the House bill. Once the House bill comes to the Senate for a vote, this one Democratic senator is holding out. And the reason being is that the Senate's bill included support for Ukraine, but the House bill didn't. So what he said is, what I need is for the Senate to issue

this joint statement of our support for Ukraine. And until then, I'm going to use my power to hold out on sending this to a vote because you guys need my vote. So it's up to you. Are you going to issue this joint statement or, you know, are you going to let this this bill flop? So the Senate decides to issue a joint statement. And what the statement says is this says, quote, We welcome today's agreement to avoid a harmful and unnecessary shutdown of the federal government. Nevertheless, this agreement leaves a number of urgent priorities outstanding. In the coming weeks, we expect the Senate will work to ensure the United States government continues to provide critical and sustained security and economic support for Ukraine.

We support Ukraine's efforts to defend its sovereignty against Putin's brazen aggression, and we join a strong bipartisan majority of our colleagues in this essential work. With the eyes of our partners, allies, and adversaries upon us, we keenly understand the importance of American leadership and are committed to strengthening it from Europe to the Indo-Pacific, end quote. Once this joint statement was issued, it went to a vote because that one Democratic senator holding out agreed. He got a statement, they sent it to a vote, and it got the votes it needed, 88 to 9. All nine senators in opposition were Republicans. It then goes to the president, the president signs

it into law with just hours to spare until the deadline. What that means is the government shutdown is averted, right, for 45 days till November 17th. So now until then, Congress will be back in session trying to negotiate on these appropriations bills to continue funding the government throughout this fiscal year. Of course, as with anything, not everyone's happy. Republican Representative Matt Gaetz, he has, you know, him and McCarthy have really been at odds for McCarthy's entire speakership. He told Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union on Sunday that he is planning to try to oust Speaker McCarthy this week by filing a motion to vacate. What he said was, quote, I think we need to rip off the bandaid.

I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy. Now, prior to Gates's CNN appearance, McCarthy, knowing a motion to vacate was coming, said in a news conference that if someone wants to make a motion against him, bring it on. And what he said is that there has to be an adult in the room. I'm going to govern with what's best for this country. The controversy is back when Speaker McCarthy was seeking the speakership in January, it took 15 rounds of voting to get him there. The same Republicans that aren't happy with him now, you know, with the stopgap measure didn't want him in the position then.

And they were kind of using, just like this one Democrat senator was using his holdout on the Senate vote as sort of leverage, these Republican representatives were using their holdout when Speaker McCarthy was trying to get elected as their own leverage. Basically, McCarthy had to buy their vote. So in order to get their vote to get him elected to Speaker, McCarthy agreed to certain things. Most notably, he agreed that he would move for spending cuts and get spending back to pre-COVID levels. What the representatives are now saying is that McCarthy hasn't done any of it. He promised to do so. He hasn't done it. And this stopgap measure, which didn't provide

for additional border security or the spending cuts that they wanted, was sort of the last straw for them. Now, in order to remove Speaker McCarthy, what has to happen is there has to be a motion to vacate. Before, half of House Republicans had to bring a motion to vacate in order for the motion to be brought. Now, under the agreement that these Republican representatives reached with McCarthy for McCarthy to be elected, it only requires one. So one representative can bring a motion to vacate, which Matt Gaetz says is going to be him. From there, once a motion to vacate is brought, a representative, in this case probably Matt Gaetz, goes to the House floor and requests a vote. Once that vote is requested, the vote will be scheduled within two days. It could also happen as soon as it's introduced, but the vote is scheduled any

time between the point at which the motion is introduced till two days, so sometime between those 48 hours. What can happen, though, is there's these motions that are called blocking motions. This can be a motion to table the resolution or a motion to refer the resolution to a committee, in which case, if these blocking motions succeed, the vote on the motion to vacate would be blocked. Now, if no blocking motions are brought or if the blocking motions fail and therefore a vote on the motion to vacate goes forward, it only requires a simple majority. If it gets the simple majority, the speakership is immediately vacate goes forward, it only requires a simple majority. If it gets the simple majority, the speakership is immediately vacated. Now, McCarthy would remain in Congress,

in the House, he just wouldn't be Speaker. Here's a fun fact. Under the continuity of Congress procedures that were enacted after 9-11, there's this predetermined list of people that can act as speaker pro tempore in the event that the speakership is vacated. So basically what this was meant to be at the time of enactment was with the thought that a mass casualty terrorist attack could happen. And in the case that the speaker was no longer available, presumably dead, there would be this list of people that could take over. That was the intent at the time of enactment, but it would also apply here too. So if the speakership is vacated, there's this list of people that could take over. The interesting thing though is that the list is

written by the speaker himself. So Speaker McCarthy is fully aware of the list of people that could take over his role if he were to be ousted, but that list is only made public if he were to be ousted. So that's how that would work if he was removed. Separately though, before we move on to the fire alarm incident, some Republican representatives are calling for the expulsion of Matt Gaetz. For Matt Gaetz to be expelled, there would have to be a motion for expulsion, in which case it would need two-thirds of the House's support. And if he was expelled, then he would be expelled completely from Congress, whereas McCarthy, you know, this motion to vacate would just be a

removal from speakership, but he would stay in Congress. So that's the difference between those two things. Now, finally, we have the fire alarm incident. And then this is the last event I want to talk about from the weekend before we move on to our other stories. Shortly before the House was scheduled to vote on the stopgap measure that eventually passed, Representative Jamal Bowman pulls the fire alarm in the Cannon House office building, which is right across from Capitol Hill. The ordeal did not delay the vote on the bill, but it did cause some drama. Bowman says this was just an accident. He was trying to exit a door. He thought that the pull would open the door, and it in fact pulled the fire alarm. What he said was this. He said, quote, today I was rushing to make a vote. I came

to a door that is usually open for votes, but today would not open. I'm embarrassed to admit that I activated the fire alarm, mistakenly thinking it would open the door. I regret this and sincerely apologize for any confusion this caused. But I want to be very clear. This was not me in any way trying to delay any vote. It was the exact opposite. I was trying to urgently get to a vote, which I ultimately did, and joined my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to keep our government open. My hope is that no one will make more of this than it was. End quote. So he says it was an accident. Some Republican representatives are saying it was intentional, that he was trying to delay the vote. They're calling for him to be punished. Some are even calling for criminal charges. Speaker McCarthy asked that the ethics committee

investigate it further. He called the incident serious and he said, you know, look what happened the last time people tried to mess with things at the Capitol. They got jail sentences. This has to be looked into. So all of this to say, Congress returned on Monday. They will continue their negotiations on long-term bills. They're going to try to figure out funding for this fiscal year, and that is now their job. Okay, so I will keep you posted on a motion to vacate if that happens. I will keep you posted on any potential expulsions, but for now, the government stays open for 45 days. Let's take a quick break. When we come back, we will discuss the last few stories. Day one of Donald Trump's fraud trial started on monday let's talk about it this trial as i said

in the beginning of the episode is expected to last until december it could be shorter now that the judge has ruled on one of the claims but that to say i won't be doing these recaps every episode you know it gets exhausting when we talk about the same thing over and over again. So I just kind of want to lay the foundation as to what this trial entails, what this case is about, what you can expect, and then kind of clear some things up that have been causing some confusion. But other than that, I won't be talking about this case every episode. If important things happen, I may mention them, but this is going to

be our biggest deep dive until there's actually a ruling from the judge. So before we really get into what this case is about or what this trial entails, I want to talk first about New York's court structure because I think it can be pretty confusing for people that aren't familiar with it. New York has an interesting court structure. You know how at the federal level, when we think of our court system in the United States, the trial courts are the lowest courts, right? Then you appeal to the appellate courts or the court of appeals, and then the Supreme Court is the highest court. The Supreme Court has the ultimate say. In New York, at the state New York level, the Supreme Courts are the trial courts, so the lowest level. Then when you appeal from the Supreme Court, it goes to the appellate divisions of the Supreme Court. And then the Court of

Appeals is the highest court. So it's a bit different than how we do it federally, which is why when you hear people talking about this case, that it's a Supreme Court case in New York, it's not the highest court in New York. It's actually the lowest court in New York. So if Donald Trump were to appeal this, it would go to the appellate division, and then it would go up to the court of appeals, which is the highest level in the state. I also want to touch on really quickly why this isn't a jury trial. The judge actually addressed this during his opening statements on Monday, and it's simply because it wasn't requested. So typically when a lawsuit is filed or when a party is responding to a lawsuit, one of the parties will request a jury trial.

In this case, according to the judge, one wasn't requested. On top of that, this case deals with executive law, which is a little bit different, and it's not clear whether a jury trial could happen with executive law. So there were a couple of issues, but the main reason that a jury trial is not happening here is because it wasn't requested, which means that the judge will decide all of the claims. So now that we have those things out of the way, let's get into what happened on Monday. Donald Trump was there prior to the start of the trial. Donald Trump made a statement outside of the courtroom. He called the trial a sham and a scam. He reiterated his claims that no bank was hurt in loaning him money. They

were all paid back. There are no victims. And this is actually something I really want to talk about because one of the main questions I've received is how can this case proceed if no one was harmed? Why is there damages if these banks didn't lose money? The banks were paid back. There were no defaults. So how can the attorney general ask for $250 million? Let me clarify what's going on here. The position set forth by New York's attorney general is that Donald Trump lied on his financial statements. And because he lied on his financial statements by inflating his net worth and the value of his assets, he was able to in in turn, secure more favorable loan terms, more favorable interest rates, more beneficial terms on insurance policies,

things like that, things that saved him money and also allowed him to profit on these investment properties more than he otherwise would have. So it's not that banks lost money. It's that Donald Trump was able to, according to the attorney general, unlawfully profit more than he would have had he not misrepresented and overvalued his assets. With that said, the monetary remedy here sought by the attorney general is disgorgement. Disgorgement is meant to prevent what's called unjust enrichment and make illegal behavior unprofitable. So again, it's not the banks lost $250 million and Trump has to pay them back. Instead, it's that Trump profited at least $250 million more than he would have had he not

made these material misrepresentations. And therefore, he has to give up that amount that he profited that he wouldn't have profited had he not made these material misrepresentations. I hope that makes sense. With that said, there's one other thing I feel is important to clear up because Donald Trump often talks about it. He talked about it at the courthouse on Monday. And I think this is another thing that's kind of caused some confusion with people. Trump often references this decision made by New York's appellate court back in June. It was a five to zero decision. The decision in part dismissed Ivanka from the lawsuit, but also came to another conclusion that the statute of limitations prevented the attorney general from

suing over claims where the transaction had been completed before certain dates. So what this appellate ruling said was that there was this tolling agreement entered into by the Trump organization and New York's attorney general in 2021 that basically told or put on pause the statute of limitations during document production. What the appellate court said is that the defendants that are bound by the tolling agreement can't be held liable for transactions that took place before July of 2014, but anything after that date was fair game. On the other hand, what the appellate court said was defendants not bound by the tolling agreement couldn't be held liable for those transactions that were completed before February 2016, but anything after that was fair game. And the appellate court left it up to the

judge, who's currently overseeing the case, to determine which defendants were bound by the tolling agreement and which weren't. Naturally, Donald Trump and his co-defendants, like his two sons and these two other individuals, argued that they weren't bound by the tolling agreement because obviously the less time they're liable for, the better. They'd much rather only be liable for transactions after February 2016 than transactions after July 2014. So what they argued was this. They said the tolling agreement was between the Trump organization and theated LLCs, but not the individual defendants. And therefore, we are not bound by the tolling agreement. The Trump Organization is bound,

you know, the Associated LLCs are bound, but us individuals, us people, Donald Trump, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., the other two individuals, were not bound by the tolling agreement. And the judge said, no, no, no, no, no. Individual defendants are in fact bound by the tolling agreement because the agreement binds all directors and officers of the company. So now, per the judge's ruling, the individual defendants are liable for transactions that were completed after February 2014. Had the judge ruled the other way, that only the corporate defendants were bound by the agreement, Donald Trump, his sons, and the two others would have been off the hook for a good chunk of the transactions at issue here,

specifically those transactions that happened before February 2016. But that's not how the judge ruled. So that's why Donald Trump says that this judge chose to ignore the appellate court's ruling. It's not necessarily that the judge chose to ignore the appellate court's ruling, but rather that the judge chose to interpret the appellate court's ruling in a way that didn't favor Donald Trump. So I know that this is a lot of information. I just want you guys to be, you know, I always say I want you to be as informed as possible. So if you have any confusion, feel free to listen to the last, you know, five minutes or so again and get a better understanding of it. But I do think these are important things to talk through because these are the things that the media doesn't necessarily dive into. The media won't explain this in layman's terms. You don't even

know the amount of articles and the amount of research I've had to do to just get this information and compile it into a five-minute discussion. It's nearly impossible to find all of this information in one place. So that's why I think it's important to go over it. I know it can be a lot at times, but hopefully, you know, with the ability to just rewind and re-listen, you guys can be as informed as you possibly can. Because again, this isn't something that the media gives us. So I am happy to do it. Now let's get back on track with what we can expect throughout the end of the trial. Last week, we know that the judge ruled on the issue of persistent and repeated fraud. He found the defendants liable for persistent and repeated fraud. What that means is that this trial will focus on the remaining six claims brought in the lawsuit,

specifically falsifying business records, conspiracy to falsify business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to issueify business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to issue false financial statements, insurance fraud, and conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. Three of those claims, so the non-conspiracy claims, falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, and insurance fraud, all require the intent to defraud. So that will be the question throughout this whole trial. Did the defendants have the requisite intent to defraud these lenders and insurers? The judge already ruled that the statements were fraudulent. So now he just has to rule on whether the intent to defraud was there. As to the conspiracy claims, those claims require the judge to find that two or more people

agreed to defraud and took some act in furtherance of that fraud. That can be the making of the financial statements, that can be the signing of the statements, the submission of the statements, the lenders, the insurers, etc. So again, this trial is going to come down to did the defendants have the intent to defraud, did they conspire to defraud? And if so, how much did the defendants profit off of the misrepresentations? Because that's ultimately going to determine how much they owe. Again, I know that that was a lot. Lucky for you or maybe not lucky for you.

I don't know. Depends on how overwhelmed you're feeling. These last two stories are short. So just some things I feel like you should know, but there's not necessarily a lot to say on them. On Monday, the Supreme Court said it would not take up a case seeking to disqualify Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot based on his role in January 6th. So this case was denied without any comment from the justices. There wasn't a recorded vote, which basically means we don't know which way the justices vote or we don't know which justice voted which way. But this case was based on the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment, which I have gone over many times.

What it says is that an official who previously took an oath to uphold the Constitution and later engaged in insurrection or rebellion against it, or provided aid or comfort to those that did, cannot hold office in the future. Several lawsuits have been brought in various states on this same premise, but this is the first to appeal to the Supreme Court. With that said, just because this case was denied by the Supreme Court doesn't mean that others will be denied as well if they make it that far. It's a good indication as to how the Supreme Court would

rule, but you never know. Also, as a side note, Monday was, as I said, the first day of the Supreme Court's 2023-2024 term. It kicked off with hearing oral arguments in a case called Pulsifier v. United States. It deals with the safety valve provision of federal drug sentencing guidelines. The fourth and final story, Governor Newsom has appointed LaFonza Butler to fill Senator Dianne Feinstein's vacancy. Butler has been serving as the president of an organization called Emily's List, which works to elect Democratic female candidates who support abortion rights. She previously worked as a senior advisor to Vice President Harris. She was also the

president at one time of the largest labor union in California. In a statement, Governor Newsom said, quote, an advocate for women and girls, a second generation fighter for working people, and a trusted advisor to Vice President Harris, LaFonza Butler represents the best of California and she'll represent us proudly in the United States Senate. LaFonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington, D.C. End quote. And if you're interested in reading Governor Newsom's full statement, I do have it linked for you in the sources section if you're interested. Thank you for being with me today. I know there's some episodes that I just know I'm giving you a

lot of information, but I'd rather give you more information than not enough information. So I hope you appreciated it. I hope you learned a lot this episode. My favorite episodes are always the ones that I feel I'm educating the most. So I hope I did just that. Please don't forget to leave me a review if you enjoyed today's episode. Have a great week and I will talk to you on Friday.