UNBIASED - December 15, 2025: What We Know About the Brown University Shooting and Person of Interest, New Photos from Epstein Estate Released, D.C. Crime Data Allegedly Manipulated, and More.

Episode Date: December 15, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. PEACE TALKS: Want Jordan's advice on how to navigate relationships amid the polarizing political climate? ⁠SUBMIT YOUR DILEMMA HERE⁠. Have a GOOD NEWS story to submit? Email me at [e-mail]. 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: What We Know About the Brown University Shooting and Person of Interest (2:02) House Democrats Release Photos from Epstein Estate; Here's What to Know About Them (12:51) FDA Reportedly Considering Adding "Black Box" Warning to COVID Vaccines (~19:23) New Congressional Report Accuses D.C. Police Chief of Manipulating Crime Data (~24:26) Quick Hitters: FBI Foils NYE Terrorist Plot, Milwaukee Judge's Trial Starts Today, Trump Sparks Controversy with Reiner Post (~31:05) Critical Thinking Segment (~34:05) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, December 15th. Let's talk about some news. A few reminders before we do, though. First and foremost, this week is the last week of unbiased politics until the new year. So Thursday will be the final news episode. Friday will be the final peace talks episode. And then I will be on break until Monday, January 5th. Second, As I mentioned last week, I would love to incorporate a good news segment into Thursday's episode, but the end of the episode, that way we can just finish off the year on a positive note. So please send me any positive stories that you're willing to share. It can be something

positive that happened to you, a friend, a family member, whoever. And you can submit that story to me by emailing me directly at jordan at unbiasedwork.com or just by simply, clicking the link in the show notes of this episode. It'll be a link that says something like submit your good news story here or something along those lines. Finally, this is a shorter episode. As I said last week, it's just kind of the nature of the game. As the year comes to an end, the news kind of slows down. The political world is kind of slow. The hill is slow. Like, everything just kind of slows down. It's funny. I was thinking about the beginning of the year when President Trump took office and how, I mean, those of you who have been around for a while,

you know, it was just nonstop. The news, there were so much to talk about. I think episodes were over an hour at that point. And I was just thinking to myself, like, is the news ever going to slow down? And now we're here, and it has slowed down. And I miss having things to talk about. So, you know, there's definitely beauty in a middle ground, right? But yeah, it's just the nature of the game. It's just slow this time of year. So with those notes out of the way, let's talk about some news. Unfortunately, we do have to start today's episode talking about the shooting at Brown University. And just as a quick note, I know there was another terrible shooting in Australia over the weekend.

But as we've talked about before, we only cover domestic affairs on this show unless, of course, the United States has some sort of heavy involvement in whatever the foreign affair it might be. but that is to say we won't be talking about the Australia shooting today. We will only be covering the Brown shooting. So on Saturday, a shooting at Brown University left two people dead and nine others injured. At this point, there is still no suspect. There was an individual who was detained as a person of interest, which is different than a suspect, and we'll talk about that in a few minutes, but that individual has since been released and, you know, the law enforcement has a bunch of leads, but unfortunately there is no suspect at this point. So here is everything that

we know. Shortly after 4 p.m. Eastern Time, the shooter entered the Barris and Holly Engineering Building, which is a seven-story building that houses many of the universities' engineering and physics, classrooms, and labs. Because final exams and exam review sessions were taking place when the shooting happened. The outer doors to the building were unlocked and open. We also know that the shooting happened inside a first floor classroom. So around 4.20 p.m., which is about 15 minutes after the shooting, the university first alerted the campus of the shooter. That text alert read quote, there's an active shooter near Barris and Holly engineering, locked doors, silence phones, and stay hidden until further

notice. Remember, run if you are in the affected location. Evacuate safely if you can. Hide if evacuation is not possible. Take cover. Fight as a last resort. Take action to protect yourself. Stay tuned for further safety information. And quote, after that text was sent, the university reportedly sent another alert that said a suspect was in custody. This of course turned out to be false. So then sometime before 5.15 p.m., the university issued another alert, which read, quote, continue to shelter in place, remain away from Barris and Holly area, police do not have a suspect in custody, and continue to search for suspect or suspects. Brown coordinating with multiple law enforcement agencies on site, emergency medical on scene, stay tuned for further safety information.

End quote. Later, around 5.52 p.m., students were told to continue to sheltering in place as law enforcement were continuing to clear the area. And at 6.05 p.m., the university issued its first official statement, writing, quote, we have been and continue to be very grateful to law enforcement and emergency medical personnel. Please continue to take all steps to remain safe. Follow the instructions of law enforcement personnel and avoid the area. End quote. The shelter in place advisory was in effect all of Saturday night, but did end up lifted Sunday morning. Around 6.30 p.m. on the night of the shooting, Providence Mayor Brett Smiley, along with police and fire officials, held the first news briefing. Three minutes later,

Brown released a statement saying that two of the victims had died and eight others were in critical but stable condition. That statement also said the suspect is still at large. The shelter in place remains in effect and that anyone who is in the affected building is urged to contact police. Around 9.30 p.m., a second news briefing was held where the university president confirmed that nine of the victims are university students, including the two who died. Mayor Smiley also said an additional victim had been identified after the victim had initially left the scene and later realized they had been hit by shrapnel. Around 10,000, 30 p.m. Providence police released surveillance footage that they believe shows the suspect leaving

the scene. In that video, you can see a man wearing dark loose pants, a dark jacket, and a dark hat of some sort. He does have his back to the camera, and he's walking around a street corner. Now, that video does not show the man's face, and unfortunately, it's only a few seconds long. And as of now, that video is the only video evidence that has been released. and the only video evidence that the public knows of. It's possible, of course, that the FBI and law enforcement have more than they're showing the public, but then again, maybe not. Around 10.45 p.m., a Brown economics professor said that the shooting had taken place in a review session

that was being led by a teaching assistant ahead of her final exam for her principles of economics class. She said that the room that the final exam session or review session was taking place in had stadium seating with doors that enter at the top and the shooter came in through those doors yelled something but the teaching assistant could not remember what the shooter yelled and that is when the shooter started shooting. Another news briefing was held at 1115 the night of the shooting but there were no significant updates at that time. early Sunday morning, the day after the shooting, FBI director Cash Patel shared a post on X detailing the FBI's response to the shooting and letting us know that a person of interest

had been taken or detained. He wrote on X, quote, FBI Boston established a command post to intake, develop, and analyze leads and run them to ground. We activated the FBI's cellular analysis survey team to provide critical geolocation capabilities. As a result early this morning, FBI Boston's Safe Streets Task Force, with assistance from the U.S. Marshals and Coventry, Rhode Island Police Department, detained a person of interest in a hotel room in Coventry, Rhode Island, based off of a lead by the Providence, Rhode Island Police Department. We have deployed local and national resources to process and reconstruct the shooting scene, providing headquarters and lab elements on scene. We set up a digital media

intake portal to ingest images and video from the public related to this incident, and the FBI's victim specialists are fully integrating with our partners to provide resources to victims and survivors of this horrific violence. The FBI will continue an all-out 24-7 campaign until justice is fully served. Thanks to the men and women of the FBI and our partners for their continued teamwork, please continue praying for the victims and their families, as well as those at Brown at university. And quote. So keep in mind that this individual that was detained by law enforcement was detained as a person of interest and not a suspect. What does that mean? Essentially, it means that law enforcement had reason to question this individual but didn't have enough evidence

against this individual to suggest that they were the one who committed the crime. When you are deemed a person of interest, you could be anyone from a. possible suspect to just someone that might have more information. It's just someone that investigators want to question more, but you don't get to that suspect level until there is enough evidence to suggest that you were the one who committed the crime. We now know that the person of interest that was detained was a 24-year-old named Benjamin Erickson. From what we know, he does not attend Brown, but he did have plans to continue his college education at Brown in the fall 2025 semester. Not sure what happened there or why he didn't end up attending. When he was found at

the Hampton Inn Hotel in Coventry, Rhode Island, around 3.45 a.m. on Sunday, law enforcement did reportedly find two firearms in his room, a revolver and then also a small Glock handgun that had a laser site attached to it. It was also reported that at least one witness from the scene of the shooting described the gun that was used with distinctive characteristics and that one of the guns in the individual's hotel room matched that description. But again, that was simply reported that has not been confirmed by the FBI. This person of interest had served as an infantry soldier in the army where he passed sniper training. He had experienced. He had experienced with firearms instruction, and he had served as a rifleman between 2021 and 24.

Now, we don't know what exactly led to his detainment other than Patel's suggestion that it was the result of geolocation data. And we similarly don't know exactly what prompted his release other than the mayor of Providence saying that it was determined he didn't need to be detained any longer. And the Rhode Island Attorney General saying that the evidence that justified detaining him in the first place, now points in a different direction. So that's all we know. Police did initially say they were confident that the person of interest was the shooter, but obviously something changed along the way. And perhaps we'll learn more about that at some point, but we just don't know right now. We have learned the identities of the two victims,

Ella Cook and Mukhammed Aziz Ummersakov. Cook was a 19-year-old sophomore at Brown. She was the vice president of the school's Republican club and a parishioner at the Cathedral Church of the Advent in her hometown of Birmingham, Alabama. Umersikov was an aspiring neurosurgeon from Uzbekistan. So basically at this point, now that the person of interest has been released, law enforcement has to just start at square one. They basically have to restart the investigation and look at all of the evidence as if they're seeing it for the first time and try to get additional leads that way. Law enforcement has said that they are confident that they're looking for a sole gunman and the mayor of Providence has reiterated that Brown students are safe and there have been no credible threats received against the campus community or greater Providence area. Hopefully by Thursday we have an update that I can share with you, but for now, this is what we know. So now let's switch gears a bit. On Friday, House Democrats released 92 pictures from Jeffrey Epstein's estate.

There's not too much to say here other than tell you what was included in those pictures, but there is one thing that I do want to make clear. As we have discussed before, all of these documents and pictures that are being released by lawmakers stemmed specifically from a congressional subpoena that required Epstein's estate to turn over various documents in its possession as part of a congressional investigation. These documents in pictures are separate from what the DOJ is legally required to release by the end of this week. The DOJ is required to release all documents in its possession stemming from the prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell, whereas these documents that lawmakers have are documents that were turned over by Epstein's estate earlier this year as part of that congressional investigation. Now, some of the documents and photos may overlap, meaning some of the documents and photos

that Epstein's estate turned over to lawmakers and what's in the DOJ's possession, they may overlap, but this is just to say that it's two different sets of records that we're talking about. So basically on Friday morning, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee posted on X that they had received 95,000 new pictures from Epstein's estate. They wrote, quote, Breaking. Oversight Dems received 95,000 new photos from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. These disturbing images raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world. Time to end this White House cover up, release the files. End quote. Then later that afternoon, about six hours later, they posted again to X writing,

quote, in the interest of transparency, we will continue to release photos from the Epstein estate. We have released an additional 70 plus photos sent to our committee. More to come. See them using the link below. End quote. And so when you click that drop box link, there are 92 pictures. Most of those pictures, I would say about 70 of them, are of Epstein's actual house, different rooms in the house, the backyard, random appliances, just kind of random pictures.

But then there are about 20 pictures that people have found to be more interesting. And these 20 pictures include one of a variety of sex toys, two of Epstein and Steve Bannon, one of Trump standing with six other women, one of Trump standing next to Epstein, seemingly being introduced to another woman, a few others of Steve Bannon talking to other people. There's one of Epstein with Jisland Maxwell, Bill Clinton, and two other individuals. There's one of Trump with another woman on what appears to be a private plane. There's one of Bill Gates talking to Prince Andrew. There's one of Epstein and Richard Branson.

There's another one of Bill Gates with a pilot of a private plane. There's one of Epstein and Woody Allen. And then there's a picture of Trump condoms, which are priced at $4.50. It's basically a bowl of red packaging with Trump's face on each of the little packages, and then text that reads, I'm huge. Now, it's unclear where a lot of these photos were taken. It's unclear who took these photos. It's unclear when they were taken.

There's a lot that's unknown. But it does seem as if all the pictures were taken for the most part in different locations, whether it was on private planes, whether it was at Epstein's house. We just don't know, but it does appear to be different locations. Notably, these pictures do not disclose anything new about Epstein's crimes or reveal any new people that he associated with, and none of the release images depict any wrongdoing or illegal activity. Now, as I mentioned, the DOJ is legally required to release all unclassified, redacted Epstein files in its possession by the end of this week, by December 19th. So we'll have to see what happens there and what comes from that release.

Let's take a break here when we come back. We'll talk about a new warning for the COVID vaccine, a new congressional report alleging the manipulation of DC crime data, and more. About twice a year, I deal with hair shedding, and let me tell you, it's not a good time, okay? And when it first happened in May 2023, I found Nutraful. I had heard everyone talking about it online. I decided to try it for myself, and I was really happy with the results.

I've definitely noticed less shedding. I feel like my hair is even slightly thicker. And it gives me peace of mind just knowing that I don't have to worry so much about shedding in the future because that first time, it was a jump scare. Nutraful is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand trusted by over 1.5 million people. You can see thicker, stronger, faster-going hair with less shedding in just three to six months.

This holiday season, Nutriful is the perfect gift for anyone on your list, your mom or aunt that's going through menopause, a friend who just had a baby and is experiencing postpartum hair shedding, your husband or dad who relies on, you know, on his hat to cover up a bit, yourself or anyone looking to support their overall hair health. This might not be something you've ever thought of as a gift, but trust me, they will thank you later. Give the gift of confidence this holiday season with Nutraful. Whether you're treating yourself or someone on your list, visibly healthier, thicker hair is the gift that keeps on giving. Right now, Neutrofo is offering my listeners, $10 off, your first month's subscription, plus free shipping when you go to

Nutraful.com and use promo code unbiased. That's Nutraful.com promo code unbiased for $10 off. Remember that doctor's appointment that you were supposed to make a while ago? That one that you meant to book, but then you got sidetracked and completely forgot about it until just now, you know, that dentist appointment for your biannual cleaning, that overdue annual skin check at the dermatologist. Let this be a reminder to book that appointment. And not only am I reminding you to book those overdo appointments, but I'm actually going to make booking those appointments a lot easier. Zocdoc is my absolute lifesaver, and I'm really excited to tell you about it because it has helped make my life so much easier, and I know it can do the

same for you. So Zococ is this free app and website where you can search and compare high quality in network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. Once you find a doctor for your particular medical need. You can see their appointment openings right there on Zoc Doc. You just pick the time slot that works best for your schedule and that's it. You're done. And one of my favorite features is that you can filter by who's in network. I always think that's like the hardest part of finding a doctor. So you can see who actually takes your insurance before you go through the list of doctors that are available. So stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to Zocdoc.com slash unbiased to find and instantly book a top rated doctor today. That's ZOCDOC.com slash unbiased.

Zocdoc.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. According to a CNN report, the FDA is considering adding a black box warning to COVID-19 vaccines. Black box warnings are the most serious type of FDA warning when it comes to prescription drugs, they're meant to put patients and doctors on notice about potentially severe risks like death or serious injury. So you'll see black box warnings on things like antidepressants, opioids, enseds, benzos, JK inhibitors, the acne medication, acutane, and more. When it comes to vaccines, black box warnings are not common, but they're not unheard of. So one example is the ACAM 2000 smallpox and MPox vaccine. The warning for that particular vaccine warns about the risks of serious complications, including heart and brain

inflammation, both of which have been observed with its use. And so that kind of takes us to the COVID vaccine. As we know, the MRNA vaccine specifically, which are made by Pfizer and Moderna have been linked to rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, which are types of heart inflammation. Large vaccine safety databases in the U.S. and in other countries consistently show a small but real increased risk. And that risk appears to be highest in males, roughly between the ages of 12 and 24, and most often after the second dose. And this isn't new information, by the way. Regulators have acknowledged this risk and current FDA labels for the mRNA vaccines already include warnings about myocarditis and pericarditis. Those

warning labels were introduced earlier this year. The difference is those warnings, even though they exist with the vaccines, they're not currently presented as black box warnings, which as I said just a minute ago, black box warnings are the most serious type of warning label that is issued. So if the FDA were to move forward with a boxed warning, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there's a new safety issue. It would just essentially highlight the risk of heart inflammation more prominently. And at this point, it's not clear whether the FDA's plans would apply only to MRI vaccines or whether it would apply to all COVID vaccines, whether it would just apply to, you know, the younger age groups or it apply to all age groups. There's a lot that's

unclear about this. But a big question that people are asking is what a black box warning would actually change. A black box warning does not automatically change who can get a vaccine. It doesn't ban it. It doesn't restrict it to certain groups. And it doesn't require special permission. What it does is is increased transparency and make sure serious risks are clear. laid out. It also doesn't suddenly give doctors new legal power to refuse the vaccine. Doctors already have professional discretion to recommend for or against a vaccine based on a patient's individual situation. And doctors can decline to administer a vaccine if they believe it would be medically inappropriate, but a black box warning doesn't give a doctor more authority in that

regard. Instead, it more so raises the bar for informed consent, right? So maybe there's more detailed conversations around it. Maybe there's clear documentation, perhaps there's more individualized recommendations, especially for groups where risk is the highest. But again, a black box warning wouldn't give a doctor more power to refuse to administer the vaccine. It's also worth noting that a lot of widely used medications carry black box warnings, and they're still commonly prescribed when the benefits, you know, are believed to outweigh the risks. So a box warning doesn't automatically. mean reduced access. It's about making sure people understand the tradeoffs. Now, there are some

medical professionals that are worried that if the COVID vaccine does receive a black box warning, that that will turn more people off to the vaccine and there will be less people getting the vaccine. But again, a black box label does not, you know, it doesn't restrict the vaccine to people. It doesn't mean that people, certain people can't get it. Now, the sources who informed CNN's report did not explicitly explain why the FDA is considering this move, but separately, and as we talked about recently, there was a reported internal FDA memo that raised concerns about possible pediatric deaths following vaccination, specifically tied to myocarditis. So perhaps one is related to the other, but that has not been confirmed.

I want to be clear the FDA has not made a formal announcement about this possible warning change. So if and when the FDA does come out and make a formal announcement, that's when this will become more than just a report. But speaking of reports, a new House committee report alleges the former D.C. police chief pressured officers to manipulate crime data to create the appearance of a safer city. The executive summary of the 22 page report reads in part, quote, on October 25th, 2025, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform launched an investigation. in response to reports of efforts to manipulate and lower publicly reported crime statistics in the District of Columbia. Chairman James Comer wrote to Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department, the MPD, Pamela A. Smith, requesting transcribed interviews with all MPD district commanders. During October, November 2025, the committee conducted eight transcribed interviews with the seven acting and one suspended MPD commanders. This is an interim report released following Chief Smith's December 8th resignation announcement.

The committee is releasing this interim report in light of Chief Smith's resignation to add context to this decision, to protect witnesses from retaliation, and to inform both district residents and the American public at large. The committee's ongoing investigation has heard testimonies from commanders that there are clear pressures placed on MPD personnel to lower the class. of crime to present to the public the perception of low crime in the district. Specifically, there was an emphasis on the Daily Crime Report, a public-facing data set that only includes nine categories of felony offenses, five above all other crimes discussed within the highest levels of the MPD. Chief Smith, the commanders testified, was so preoccupied with the statistics of the select crimes that were made public that she incentivized her subordinates to lower

those crimes by whatever means necessary. MPD commanders' testimonies corroborated concerns about alleged manipulations of crime statistics. In fact, commanders told the committee that on numerous occasions, they were not only pressured, but also instructed to lower crime classifications to lesser immediate offenses in such a way that those offenses would not be included in the DCR reported to the public. The committee's investigation heard consistent testimony about frustration and exhaustion among MPD commanders and the manifestation of a culture of fear, intimidation, threats, and retaliation by Chief Smith. In the interests of the MPD District commanders, each of whom appeared voluntarily to testify before the committee, the committee has

anonymized the transcribed interviews referenced in this report to protect the commanders from potential retaliatory actions. End quote. So to give you an example of one of those testimonies. A commander with the MPD was asked, quote, over the last few years, has there been any internal pressure to simply bring down crime statistics? And quote, the commander responded, quote, yes, I mean extreme, there's always been pressure to keep crime down. But the focus on statistics has come in with this current administration or regime. And you know, that has manifested publicly. And quote. Later, the same commander testified that the chiefs, chief established expectations that commanders had to make their superiors aware, who in turn must

communicate to the chief, that the crimes which would affect MPD data reports have occurred. So the commander said in his or her testimony, quote, during one of those instances, he called about an ADW, assault with a dangerous weapon for shooting where nobody was hit. I briefed out my patrol chief. He called the executive assistant chief. And when he called me back, he said, well, it sounds like you have an endangerment with a firearm. And I said, well, are you asking me or telling me because I briefed you on what I had? And when I said that, he responded, the executive assistant chief says, you have an endangerment with a firearm. So I said, okay, and that was the classification. End quote. Other commanders testified about similar instances.

So the report then says, quote, prior to Chief Smith, commanders testified that they were very limited, there were very limited circumstances under which district commanders, command of staff, or the chief of police would become involved with crime classifications. Those instances usually only arose if certain violent crimes occurred or if an officer under their command made a mistake. Chief Smith suspended this customary practice and instead increased control over the classifications that would become one of the nine felony offenses reported to the public before they could impact those public statistics.

end quote. Okay, so a few things to note here. Number one, this is an interim report, not a final report, and it was completed by Republicans specifically on the House Oversight Committee. Two, the police chief did announce last week that she would be leaving the department, but has denied the allegations and has said that her decision to leave has nothing to do with the investigations. And the third thing to note is, you know, when it comes to D.C. crime, what we know is this. Crime numbers hit record highs in 2023. Chief Smith, who is the police chief that is at the center of this report, was nominated in July 23 and confirmed in November 2020. Since then, crime rates have dropped. There were 274 reported homicides in 23, the city's highest number since

1997, but then there was a 32% drop in 2024 to 187, and then another 12% drop through August of this year. Carjackings similarly surged to 959 in 23, but then dropped to 500 in 2024. So this is to say, we just don't know what the real story is at this point. We don't know if crime has in fact dropped since 23, just perhaps not actually as much as reported due to data manipulation or maybe crime has dropped

as much as reported, but there was still this culture of fear and intimidation that the commanders testified to. Multiple things can be true here, but what we know from this interim report is just that, you know, multiple commanders testified that they were intimidated into manipulating crime data and that

while there's always been this pressure to keep crime data down, it's recently become more of an issue within the MPD. All right, now for some quick hitters. The FBI says it disrupted a credible terrorist threat over the weekend, arresting four alleged members of a pro-Palestinian extremist group accused of planning coordinated New Year's Eve bombings in L.A. The FBI said the individuals self-identified as part of a radical offshoot of the Turtle Island

Liberation Front and were allegedly planning to target five separate locations with bombings. moms across L.A., as well as ICE agents and vehicles. They've each been charged with conspiracy and possession of a destructive device. The federal trial of a Milwaukee County judge accused of helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE began today. Hannah Dugan has been charged with one felony count of obstructing a proceeding and one misdemeanor count of concealing an individual to prevent arrest. So according to the criminal complaint, ICE officers were attempting to arrest a Mexican national named Eduardo Flores Ruiz for being in the United States illegally. And they attempted this arrest while he appeared at a Milwaukee courthouse on unrelated charges.

So Dugan told the ICE officers that showed up to the courthouse that they would need a judicial warrant to carry out the arrest and sent them to the chief judge's office. When she sent them to the chief judge's office, she then allegedly allowed Flores Ruiz and his lawyer to leave the courtroom through a non-public jury door. Dugan's attorneys are arguing that court policy on immigration enforcement was in flux at the time of the incident and that she was just simply following draft protocols from the chief judge that required her to refer ICE agents to a supervisor. Dugan trial is expected to last about a week and if she's convicted, she faces up to six years in prison. And President Trump sparked some controversy today after appearing to blame the murders of

director Rob Reiner and his wife on Trump derangement syndrome. Trump posted a true social quote, A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented, movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind-crupling disease known as Trump derangement syndrome, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people crazy by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness and with the golden age of America upon us, perhaps like never before.

May Rob and Michelle rest in peace. And quote, Representative Marjorie Taylor Green and California's Governor Newsom were some of the ones to speak out against Trump after this post. We know that Reiner and his wife were still. dabbed to death in their L.A. home and their son, Nick Reiner, is in custody as a suspect. We do not know what motivated him at this time. All right, let's finish this episode with some critical thinking. We'll revisit the story about manipulation of crime data in D.C. So these questions are for everyone, regardless of where you stand on the matter. Sometimes I split it up, you know,

and ask certain questions to supporters, certain questions to opponents. But these are just kind of general questions for everyone. First, I want you to think about how partisan context factors into how we interpret this report. So in other words, does the fact that this is a Republican-led committee make you more skeptical, less skeptical, or neither? And why? And if it were a Democrat-led committee that came to the same result, would you give it the same weight? If not, Why? And finally, what additional evidence would you want to see before reaching a more definite conclusion on this? Would that have to be independent audits, responses from MPD leadership, findings from nonpartisan investigators, something else? Try to figure out what

additional evidence you need to feel comfortable in coming to a conclusion about whether this data was in fact manipulated. That's what I have for you today. don't forget to subscribe to my newsletter, which will be going out tomorrow. Thursday will be the last news episode of the year and Friday will be the last peace talks episode. Oh, and don't forget to submit any good news stories you might have so I can potentially feature your story in Thursday's episode. All relevant links and information, including to the newsletter, to submit your good news story, to submit a dilemma for peace talks.

All of those links can be found in the show notes of this episode. Have a great next couple of days and I will talk to you again on Thursday. Yeah.