UNBIASED - December 16, 2024: ABC News to Pay Trump's Library $15 MILLION, Texas SUES New York Provider Over Mailed Abortion Medication, Daylight Saving Time on the Chopping Block AGAIN, and More.

Episode Date: December 16, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: ABC News Agrees to Donate $15M to Trump's Presidential Library After Lawsuit (1:04) Trump Proposes Doing Away with Daylight Saving Time; Here Are The Arguments (6:15) Texas' Attorney General Sues NY Doctor for Providing Abortion Pills to Texas Patient (11:00) Quick Hitters: Shooter Kills Two at Wisconsin School, Lawmakers and Trump Say Drones Should Be Shot Down, SpaceX Wants to Create Its Own City, SoftBank Announced $100B Investment, California DMV Issues Apology After Controversial License Plate, Former Sen. Bob Menendez Denied New Trial, Luigi Mangione Hires NY Lawyer, RFK Jr. Meets with Senators Ahead of Confirmation Hearing, Pelosi Gets Hip Surgery After Injury Abroad, Biden Honors First Female Cabinet Secretary with Monument (13:56) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Monday, December 16th and this is your daily news rundown. Before we get into today's episode, I do just want to make mention of the fact that this Thursday will mark the end of season 2 of Unbiased. And then season 3 will kick off on Monday, January 6th. And if I'm being honest, after this year and the election and all of the work that came with it, I am ready for a couple of weeks of downtime. We'll come back better than ever. I do have some really exciting things happening in the new year for season 3 and I just can't wait to share with all of you what's in store.

So stay tuned for that. And as always, if you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening Please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen share the show with your friends And if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel If you're not already that can be your Christmas present to me without further ado. Let's get into today's stories on present to me. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Friday, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million towards Donald Trump's presidential library to settle a defamation lawsuit against it. Per usual, let's go through a little bit of a backstory. In March of this year, ABC News aired an interview between George Stephanopoulos and ABC anchor

and House Representative Nancy Mace. In the interview, they first showed a clip of Mace discussing her experience having been raped as a teenager. After that clip is shown, the interview then cuts back to Stephanopoulos and Mace sitting together at a table. And Stephanopoulos asks Mace about her endorsement of Trump despite his recent sexual assault cases involving E. Jean Carroll. Here's a little bit of that clip for you. Thanks for joining us this morning.

You've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw? Well, do not come forward. They are afraid. Congressman, thanks for joining us this morning. You've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony we just saw?

Well, I will tell you, I was raped at the age of 16. And any rape victim will tell you, I've lived for 30 years with an incredible amount of shame over being raped. I didn't come forward because of that judgment and shame that I felt. And it's a shame that you will never feel, George. And I'm not going to sit here on your show

and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim. I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna do that. It's actually not about shaming you, it's a question about you. No, you are shaming me. You've endorsed Donald Trump for president. Donald Trump has been found liable for rape by a jury. Donald Trump has been found liable for defaming the victim of that rape by a jury. It's been affirmed by a judge. It was not a criminal court case, number one. Number two, I live with shame. And you're asking me a question about my political choices,

trying to shame me as a rape victim. And I find it disgusting. And quite frankly, E. Jean Carroll's comments when she did get the judgment, joking about what she was going to buy, it makes it harder for women to come forward when they make a mockery out of rape, when they joke about it. So following the airing of that interview, Trump sued ABC because the issue was that neither case against Trump involved a finding of rape as defined under New York state law. And this is a little bit nuanced, so let's go a little

deeper. E. Jane Carroll was a former advice columnist who went public in 2019 with an allegation that Trump raped her decades earlier at Bergdorf Goodman. And I do have, by the way, an entire episode detailing the allegations, the trial, and the verdict. If you want to hear more on that, that's my May 10th, 2023 episode. That was before I was on YouTube. So if you're watching on YouTube and you prefer to watch on YouTube, you will have to listen just on a podcast platform for that episode. But basically, E. Jean Carroll came out with this allegation

and Trump denied it. He said it never happened and he called her a liar. Carroll then sued Trump for defamation. Then in 2021, a new New York law was enacted that said a sexual abuse victim can sue their abuser civilly, not criminally, but civilly, even after the statute of limitations for a criminal charge had elapsed. So following the enactment of that law, in addition to the defamation claim, Carroll sued

Trump for sexual assault. Now, when the jury ultimately returned a verdict following a trial in 2023, the jury found that Trump was liable for both defamation and sexual assault, but that Carole had failed to prove rape. The obvious next question is, what's the difference between sexual assault and rape? Well, according to New York State law,

rape requires vaginal penetration by a penis. Sexual assault is not. So basically the jury found that Trump more than likely sexually assaulted Carol in some way, but that it wasn't more than likely that he actually put his penis inside of her. Because remember, in civil cases, the standard of proof is that the claim

has to be more likely true than not. So according to the jury's verdict, Trump was not liable for rape. And that's why when Stephanopoulos said what he said on air, Trump sued the network for making what he said was statements with malice and a disregard for the truth. As we found out on Friday, that lawsuit was settled and per the settlement, one, ABC has to donate $15 million to Trump's presidential library, two, ABC has to pay a million dollars to cover Trump's attorney's

fees and three, ABC had to add an editor's note to the bottom of the article featuring the original Stephanopoulos interview which reads, quote, ABC News and George Stephanopoulos regret statements regarding President Donald J. Trump made during an interview by George Stephanopoulos with Representative Nancy Mace on ABC's This Week on March 10th, 2024. End quote. Moving on to our next story, Donald Trump has proposed Congress ending the practice of daylight saving time because as he says, adjusting the clocks twice a year is inconvenient and costly. Now the daylight saving time standard time debate is a classic one.

So I want to talk about this a little bit. Truth be told, it's been a pretty slow few days in the news and I think this could add a little bit of entertainment. It could also be an educational piece to add to today's episode to just sort of walk through not only both sides of the argument, but also the history behind it. In the United States, daylight saving time or DST starts in March and ends in November. The clock springs forward in March one hour and then falls back to standard time in November. DST first started in 1918 as a wartime effort to save in hours worth of fuel each day

to light lamps and coal to heat houses. But in the next year in 1919, it was repealed nationwide with the exception of certain individual cities like New York City, which wanted to keep the time change. Then more than 45 years later in 1966, the Federal Uniform Time Act made the DST change consistent nationwide. Currently, in the United States, all states participate in daylight saving except Arizona and Hawaii. Also worth noting, there have been two times in history that DST has been permanently implemented, once during World War II and once in the 1970s during

the energy crisis. When World War II ended, only 17% of people wanted to keep DST year-round, but after the energy crisis, that number went up to 47%. According to a more recent poll, a 2020 poll, 40% of Americans would prefer to stay in standard time all year and 31% of people would prefer to stay in standard time all year and 31% of people would prefer to stay in daylight saving time all year. The most recent attempt from Congress to alter the time change was in 2022. That's when the Senate unanimously approved the Sunshine Protection Act, which would have made daylight saving time permanent as of November 20th, 2023, if it were approved by the House and signed into law by Biden, but

the House never took any action on it, which meant that nothing ever happened with it. So let's talk about the arguments on both sides here. Advocates of daylight saving argue that more sunlight means more safety, a better economy, and a more active lifestyle. Advocates say that longer daylight hours make driving safer, lowers accident rates, lowers crime because crimes are less likely to be committed during daylight hours, makes it safer for people like joggers,

makes it safer to walk dogs after work, and makes it safer overall to play and hang out outside. Advocates also argue that DST is better for the economy because later daylight means more people are shopping and going out to eat after work, which increases not only retail sales, but also gas and food sales. Certain industries, of course,

see more of a benefit than others. Examples of industries that do see a huge benefit are the golf industry and the barbecue industry. The golf industry has reported that one month of DST was worth $200 to $400 million because of the extended evening hours. And same with the barbecue industry. The barbecue industry estimates that their profits increase $150 million for one month of DST.

Now let's talk about the critics. Critics of DST argue that DST is bad for your health, decreases productivity, and is more expensive. As critics say, changing sleep patterns, even if it's just by one hour, goes against a person's natural circadian rhythm and has negative consequences for health. Researchers have found links to an increase in cluster headaches, heart attacks, and even suicides after the time change in the fall. Furthermore, critics argue that DST results in less productivity because the human circadian clock doesn't adjust to DST and therefore leads to more tired workers. And then finally, on the financial side of things,

according to the Lost Hour Economic Index, moving the clocks forward has a total cost to the US economy of $434 million when factoring in health issues, decreased productivity, and workplace injuries. So those are sort of that's sort of the gist of the arguments for and against. We'll see what happens to DST if anything, but I am curious to hear where you stand. So what I'll do actually is I'll put up a poll on Instagram tonight and I'll pose the question just so we can see where the majority stands. Let's take our quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a new lawsuit in Texas over abortion pills sent in the mail and we'll finish with some quick hitters. Texas's Attorney General

Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against a New York doctor for sending abortion pills into Texas. Important to understanding this story is understanding what are called SHIELD laws. SHIELD laws are meant to offer protection to certain types of people. For instance, some SHIELD laws may protect witnesses from revealing certain information. Other SHIELD laws might protect journalists from revealing certain information. Other shield laws might protect journalists from revealing confidential sources. Others might protect rape victims from having to reveal their sexual history. In this case, New York's shield law is meant to protect physicians and providers who help

patients outside of New York access abortion via telemedicine. This shield law was expanded to these doctors and providers after Roe versus Wade was overturned. So if a woman in Texas, let's say, wants an abortion, makes a telemedicine appointment with a doctor in New York, and that doctor in New York mails the woman abortion medication to her home in Texas, New York's shield law protects that doctor.

This new lawsuit though will test the validity of these types of shield laws because ultimately the court will have to decide whether one state can protect an individual from prosecution or claims in another state. Texas argues that the state of Texas has a right to enforce its own laws and disallow anyone from illegally practicing medicine in their state who is not legally allowed to do so. But the question there, of course, becomes is the doctor practicing in New York or Texas when the doctor from their office in New York prescribes medication to a patient in Texas? And where does that line get drawn? Right. Because let's say a patient from New York travels out of state, gets sick, but then requests a telehealth appointment with their primary care doctor

in their home state. Is the primary care doctor then not allowed to participate in that call because it's across state lines? How would that work? Or does the line get drawn when, you know, maybe one state bans a certain procedure or medication and now that's the issue. And then on top of that, you have the question of how another state shield law plays a role here, right? Because it could be argued that another state's shield law is regulating the practice of medicine outside of their jurisdiction or is it within their jurisdiction because they're protecting one of their own state licensed physicians from claims in another state.

These are all very interesting questions and And ultimately, some of these questions will have to be answered by a court if the court decides to take up this case. In this case specifically, Texas is essentially asking the court to one, prevent this New York doctor from prescribing medications to Texas residents, and two, require the New York doctor to pay $100,000 for practicing medicine in the state of Texas in violation of Texas law. This is the first lawsuit of its kind to sort of challenge these types of shield laws, so I will keep you posted as to where this goes. And now it's time for some quick hitters. Starting with a terrible story out of Madison, Wisconsin, a believed to be student

at an abundant life Christian school opened fire today killing at least two people before turning the gun on themselves. The call of an active shooter was made around 1057 a.m. And when police arrived they found multiple victims suffering from gunshot wounds and the suspect dead. The story was breaking as of this afternoon, so we will find out more as time goes on. If we have more details tomorrow, I will be sure to let you know. In an update to the drone situation in New Jersey, members of Congress and Trump are calling for the federal government to shoot them down. Trump wrote on True Social Friday, quote, mystery drone sightings all over the country. Can this really be happening without our government's knowledge? I don't think so. Let the public know

and now, otherwise shoot them down." Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand similarly said, if you don't know whose it is and who's flying it, you have to take it down. However, local and federal officials say that shooting down these types of aircrafts can be dangerous given their size and could lead to casualties on the ground. Because keep in mind some of these aircrafts that are being spotted are the size of cars. And in addition to the calls for these drones to be shot down, four senators from New York and New Jersey have also written a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the FAA, and the Director of the FBI requesting a briefing on the drones and what the federal

government is doing about it. Elon Musk's SpaceX is trying to transform its industrial complex and launch site in southern Texas into its own city. In a letter petitioning this idea to a judge, SpaceX wrote in part, quote, to continue growing the workforce necessary to rapidly develop and manufacture Starship, we need the ability to grow Starbase as a community. SpaceX currently performs several civil functions around Starbase due to its remote location, including management of the roads, utilities, and the provision of schooling and medical care for the residents.

Incorporation would move the management of some of these functions to a more appropriate public body." End quote. The judge made a statement saying that the next step is for the Legal and Elections Administration to review the petition and see whether SpaceX has complied with all of the statutory requirements and that if the process moves forward the County Elections Department would plan a vote accordingly. Donald Trump and the CEO of SoftBank Group jointly announced today SoftBank's plans to invest at least $100 billion in US projects over the next four years.

The Japanese Internet and Telecommunications Company estimates that its US-based investments will create 100,000 jobs focused on artificial intelligence and emerging technologies and plans to complete the work before Trump leaves office in 2029. However, it is unclear how SoftBank intends to fund the commitment since it does currently have roughly $30 billion of cash on hand. The California Department of Motor Vehicles has issued an apology after it issued a personalized license plate that reads LOLOCT7, which some people, including watchdog group Stop Antisemitism,

says is a mocking reference to October 7, 2023, the day when Hamas launched its attack on Israel. The son of the truck's owner said that this was simply a misunderstanding and that the license plate referred to the owner of the truck, who is a Filipino grandfather. Lolo, or L-O-L-O, means grandfather. C-T refers to the cyber truck that the license plate was issued for, and the number seven represents the owner's seven grandchildren. Nonetheless, the DMV said in a statement that the department is taking swift action to recall these quote-unquote shocking plates and would immediately strengthen their internal review process to ensure such a quote-unquote egregious oversight never happens again.

And former New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez was denied a new trial after having been convicted of corruption, bribery, fraud, acting as a foreign agent, and obstruction. Menendez tried to argue that the evidence failed to support his conviction, but the judge disagreed, writing, quote, The jury's guilty verdicts were readily supported by the extensive witness testimony and extensive documentary evidence admitted at trial, and there is no manifest injustice requiring a new trial."

Luigi Mangione, the suspected killer of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, will be represented by Karen Friedman Agnifilo in New York. Friedman Agnifilo is a high-profile lawyer who previously worked at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office serving as the Chief Assistant District Attorney for seven years before moving to private practice in 2021. I did dive into the details of Mangione's charges last week in New York and Pennsylvania, as well as the details of his extradition. So if you're wanting a bit more information there, check out last week's episode. Today, RFK Jr. will start three days of consecutive meetings on Capitol Hill with a series of senators and their staff in hopes of getting their votes to become the nation's next health secretary. Republicans do control the chamber, but their 53-47 majority means that RFK can only afford

to lose a few Republican votes and in a scenario where all Democrats vote against him, which may not be likely, but if it happens, RFK could only lose three Republican votes to be confirmed. On Friday, Nancy Pelosi sustained an injury while in Luxembourg attending a ceremony to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, a fight during World War II. The next morning, she underwent hip replacement surgery at a U.S. military base in Germany. And finally, President Biden is set to sign a proclamation today, establishing a national monument in Maine honoring former Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, who was the first female cabinet

secretary. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Have a fantastic night and I will talk to you tomorrow.