UNBIASED - Ed Sheeran & Macklemore Tour Fallout Explained | Hegseth Impeachment + FBI Bestiality Changes and More.

Episode Date: September 17, 2026

Why was Macklemore removed from Ed Sheeran’s tour — and who made the decision? Today, we break down the tour drama, why the other artists started pulling out, and the free speech and First Amendment questions surrounding it. We also unpack the eight articles of impeachment filed against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on mail-in ballots, the FBI’s new hiring standards and automatic disqualification changes, plus the latest on the Lindsay Clancy holdout juror, Quick Hitters, Rumor Has It and more. 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: Ed Sheeran & Macklemore Tour Drama (0:55) Supreme Court Mail-In Ballot Ruling (14:18) Hegseth Impeachment Articles + House Leaves Early (~20:45) FBI Changes Automatic Hiring Disqualifiers (~28:32) Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror Speaks Out (~41:05) Quick Hitters (~42:37) Rumor Has It: Vaccine-Autism Researcher + Trump Jr.’s Wedding (~50:25) Critical Thinking Segment (~54:53) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to unbiased politics. It's Thursday, September 17th, and we're talking about the Ed Shearing Tour Drama, impeachment articles filed against Heggseth, the latest mail-in ballot ruling from the Supreme Court, the FBI's recent automatic disqualification changes, the Clancy holdout juror now that we've heard from him and more. Really quickly, if you are watching on YouTube, can you just make sure to like this video and subscribe to the channel? I do keep the show completely free, and I am trying to not only grow my audience, but also expose this show to more people, which I guess are kind of one and the same. But one of the best ways that you can support me is by liking the video, subscribing to the channel, and sharing it with a friend.

It just helps get the show onto more people's news feeds, which helps me keep growing the show and, you know, doing what I love. And of course, if you're listening audio as well, you can do the same thing. Just share the show. Leaving a review always helps too. So thank you in advance. All right. First story. Ed Sheeran has been on a tour. throughout the United States since June, but last week, everything kind of unraveled. And I do just kind of want to give a heads up. This story is going to focus on the events that have transpired since September 4th. So starting with McElmore's performance at MetLife. I know there's a ton we could talk about in the background of all of this, the century-long fight between Israel and

Palestine, McElmore's past actions, the definition of genocide. I mean, there's a lot that we could cover, but today we're focusing specifically on September 4th. and beyond. If you do want a deep dive on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have a two-part episode that I released back in 2023 after October 7th that you can check out. If you just scroll all the way back in my episodes to October 2023, you'll find it. It's two parts. And the first part is kind of just like a deep dive. And then I believe the second part is more of a Q&A. I gathered a bunch of listener questions and answered those. Okay, so let's get into it. Throughout this tour, Shearin has had multiple different opening acts.

But on September 4th and 5th, when Sharon performed at MetLife in New Jersey, McElmore was the opener. Now, McElmore has long used his music as a political outlet. One of his most famous songs is a song called Same Love. It's about marriage equality and LGBTQ rights. He also has a song called White Privilege and then a follow-up song called White Privilege too. He has a song called Fed Up, which is about billionaires and fascism. and more recently he's been very outspoken about Palestinians and the war in Gaza.

And back in 2024, he released a song called Heinz Hall, which actually plays a role in this story, but that song was written in support of the pro-Palestinian protests that we saw happening on college campuses here in the United States at the time. So when McElmore opened for Sheeran on September 4th, among the songs he performed was Heinz Hall. But before he started performing that song, he gave a little speech. And this is what he said. One of the many reasons why I wanted to come on this tour with my brother, my dear brother,

one of the reasons was I wanted to stand up here on the stages in stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart, free Palestine. I said free power, son. I want those words to be loud and clear. To the people from Gaza, all the nature, that occupied West Bank, they know that we have not forgotten. And his next song was inspired

by the bravery of Columbia University students. Who let it a can't make movement that mobilized the entire. our world open the hearts my self included with what inspires this next time. So thank you to those students the risked their diplomas, the risk for tuition, Christian scholars that you could stood up and said no. CUA students, students for justice and Palestine are Jewish Voices for Peace.

Thank you God. And I want to say this before I give it to the song, I want to say this, to all of my Jews, criticism of Israel criticism of apartheid being against genocide in no way it is a criticism of you my message is for peace love for all human beings including respect and equality so I say free the outside I say free Lebanon I say free people I say free crumble free cede free all people in America living in fear over this terrorist organization heights. All of that's three.

It's so we're all free. Now, after those shows, the Israeli American Council launched a petition asking for McElmore to be removed from the tour. The group argued that McElmore had used Shearhan's concert to push what it described as a one-sided political message and said that freedom of expression doesn't mean opening, uh, an opening act gets to turn somebody else to stage into a political platform. And after that, it turned into this controversy, really online. But then last Monday, McElmore announced that he had been removed from the rest of Sharon's tour, at U.S. tour.

Sharon had 10 shows left, eight or he has 10 shows left. Eight of those shows are stadium shows and McElmore was supposed to perform at all eight. But this is where Robert Kraft comes into the story. So Robert Kraft owns the New England Patriots and his company owns Gillette Stadium. Shearin is scheduled to perform a Gillette on September 25th and 26th. So from here it kind of snowballed. There's a lot that's happened and we're going to take these developments in chronological order because I just think that's the easiest way to do it.

This all happened over the span of like four or five days. And keep in mind, I'm going to read various statements over the course of the next few minutes, just the statements that have been released by the parties involved here. I'm only reading portions of the statements. All of the statements have been pretty long. So this is just a heads up that the statements I am about to give you don't represent the full sentiment of each of these people. So first, McElmore issued a statement and he wrote in part, quote, Ed told me that

Robert Kraft called him. Ed told me that Kraft said I would not be allowed to perform in his stadium. Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners and collectively they gave him an ultimatum. If McElmore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venue. Ed was in a fucked up position. His typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it had never been before. He told me that the words free Palestine and the image of the Palestinian flag were hurtful to a lot of the people he spoke with. I told him that if those words were more offensive

than tens of thousands of Palestinian children being killed by Israel, then there was a fundamental disconnect where those people stood and where I stood. But he couldn't get past his public facing, I don't take sides. The post then continues on and eventually. actually ends with, quote, I didn't need to, I didn't need 10 shows from Ed. I needed two, two chances to stand in front of 90,000 people and say the words that somehow became too dangerous to say, free Palestine. But if those words cost me the stage while turning the conversation back on Palestine, then it was the most successful tour I've ever been on. And quote, it's also worth mentioning that McElmore's post did focus a decent amount on his

friendship with Shear and the fact that they've been friends for the last 13. years and 13 years of friendship doesn't disappear because of what he called one painful disagreement. He said that he hoped that this wouldn't be the end of their friendship and that they would both continue listening and that his door would always be open to continuing the conversation. After McElmore's post, we heard from Robert Kraft. And in a statement, Kraft said in part, quote, Gillette Stadium has a longstanding commitment to providing a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.

Based on McElmore's recent actions, materials shared from the stage during Ed Shearren shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery, we believe, has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community. We determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26 concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line. This decision is not about diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians or denying anyone the right to advocate on their behalf.

Their pain and loss are real. but that advocacy should not come at the expense of the Jewish community or obscure the responsibility of Hamas, a United States and globally designated terrorist organization whose horrific actions have caused immeasurable suffering for Palestinians and Israelis alike. I agree with Macklemore. Too many lives have been lost and there has been too much suffering, but only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest and only advances more divisiveness and hate. Standing with the Palestinian people and standing against Hamas, anti-Semitism and hate should not be mutually exclusive. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down

with McElmore and discuss the facts because ultimately our goal is the same. Peace for all people, an end to suffering and an end to all hate. End quote. Then on Tuesday, we heard from Shearin. Shearin wrote in part, quote, after McElmore's performances at my New Jersey shows, venues on my upcoming tour dates communicated that they would pull the shows if he was still supporting. I was informed that this stance was based on how McElmore conveyed parts of his message during the performance rather than on everything that was said. I spoke with the venues at length all week to try to build a bridge. Maclemore coming off tour was the promoter's decision. It was not mine. Maclemore's contract for the tour was with the promoter, not me. And quote, he also,

Sheeran also explained his decision to never talk about politics on stage. He wrote, quote, there's a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics. My audience includes young people, often children, of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect McElmore's strength of purpose to stand up for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end. Peace. I choose to use my fame and platform to be a place of safety and sanctuary to maintain diplomacy and keep conversations open, not closed. If we only focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change. There are different approaches to being an advocate for change, end quote. And then within hours of Shearron posting that statement, all other opening artists, as well as Sharon's backing band, pulled out of the remaining tour dates. So that was Tuesday. Then yesterday, McElmore posted that he donated the entire $1 million of his net earnings from Sharon's tour to six organizations working directly to support the Palestinian people. He invited Robert Kraft to match his donation. Kraft then doubled the donation. He donated $2 million, But he said that before Macomore challenged him to do that,

Shearin had actually called him and asked him to commit $2 million to match Shearin's donation. So at this point, McElmore has donated a million, Sherin's donated two million, Kraft has donated two million. So that is the gist of what is going on. Okay. Now, there's one other part of this that I want to talk about because I've seen people calling this a free speech or First Amendment issue.

And legally speaking, it's a little more complicated than that, as it almost always is. but let me explain. So remember that the First Amendment protects you from the government restricting your speech. It doesn't restrict private businesses. The First Amendment does not require that a private business has to give you a platform. So if Robert Kraft, who owns Gillette Stadium, says, I don't want this performer on my stage because I don't like what he's saying, that's not a First Amendment violation. But this is where it gets a little more complicated because two of the stadiums where McElmore had been scheduled to perform, Lucas Oil Stadium and Raymond James Stadium, are publicly owned and operated.

In other words, there is government involvement. So if one of those government-operated stadiums was one of the venues threatening to cancel Sharon's concert specifically over McElmore's political statements, then you could potentially have a First Amendment issue. The government cannot say, you can't perform here just because we don't like your political views. Now, that doesn't mean that absolutely any speech has to be allowed, right? We know there's exceptions to First Amendment protections, things like true threats or incitement can fall outside First Amendment protection, but the government cannot single out a political viewpoint

just because it disagrees with it. And for those wondering, because I know Robert Kraft in his statement referred to this as hate speech, what about hate speech? Well, even speech that people consider to be hateful or deeply offensive can still be protected by. the First Amendment. There is not a blanket hate speech exception that allows the government to censor something just because it's offensive. So that's the difference. If the government is operating the venue, you could potentially have a First Amendment issue. But if it's a purely private venue making that decision on its own, the First Amendment does not apply. Okay, so that is the general gist. I hope that kind of got you caught up with all of the recent developments over the last few days.

let's move on. We're going to do a quick update to this whole mail-in ballot saga that we've been following because we finally have a decision from the Supreme Court on whether the Postal Service's new rules can take effect before the midterms. The answer is no. So on Monday night, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's emergency request to let the Postal Service start enforcing that new rule we've talked about, the one that would require states to submit information about mail ballot voters to the Postal Service, as well as use Postal Service approved ballot envelopes with specific barcodes and other requirements. So for purposes of the November election, that rule remains blocked and states can continue sending mail ballots under their existing

procedures. I do want to clarify one thing because this was an emergency ruling. The Supreme Court still has not issued a final ruling saying whether this rule is illegal. The underlying lawsuits are still moving through the courts. What the Supreme Court said here is that the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its effort to overturn the lower court's injunction, and that the other factors the court looks at when deciding whether to grant emergency relief, like whether either side would suffer irreparable harm and where the public interest lies, weighed against the administration. And there was an interesting split among the conservative justices here. So Justice Kavanaugh, he agreed with the majority that the rule shouldn't take effect for this election. But he wrote

separately to say that he does think there's at least a fair prospect. that the Postal Service does have the legal authority to create a rule like this. His issue was the timing. He said election officials just don't have the time to reasonably implement these changes before November. So applying the rule now would violate federal administrative law and therefore he sided with the majority here. Justice Alito and Thomas disagreed with the majority and said they would have allowed this

rule to take effect while the litigation continued. They argued at least in part that the Postal Service has brought authority. over the mail and that the challengers were unlikely to ultimately win their case. No other justice publicly dissented, though. So those were the three justices that that wrote separately here. Following the ruling, Trump took to truth social to criticize the court. He wrote in part, quote, Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that took the court system, one that the court system took forever to give and then blamed it in part on no time left to implement a solution to our totally corrupt and out of control mail-in voting disaster,

which is a laughing stock all over the world and where we are the only country that has to endure such a nation-destroying scam. Justice Alito and Thomas legends both strongly disagreed with this horrible, highly political ruling. Certain justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. the court's inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our country will go down in a very negative way in the annals of history, end quote. So long story short, nothing changes for the midterms. Whatever male voting rules currently apply in your state are still the rules you follow. But the bigger legal fight over how much authority the Postal Service has here and whether this rule is legal will continue after the election.

Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the impeachment articles filed against defense. Secretary Hegeseth, the FBI's recent automatic disqualification changes, and more. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19-speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary.

Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac Canada.ca.ca. luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. Welcome back. Republican Congressman Thomas Massey introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegsteth yesterday, accusing him of abusing the power of his office over everything from the war with Iran to the military strikes on suspected drugboats, the capture of Nicholas Maduro, and Hegsteth's investigation into Senator Mark Kelly. And Massey actually introduced these articles in a way that was, supposed to force the House to deal with them before lawmakers left Washington for the midterms,

but Speaker Johnson just canceled the House's last day of votes. So we'll get to that part in a second. Now, usually when we talk about impeachments, we're talking about them in the context of presidents, right? But the Constitution says that the president, vice president, and other federal civil officers can be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. So like all impeachment proceedings, the House could impeach Hegseth with a simple majority vote, and then the Senate would have to hold a trial and would need a two-thirds vote to actually convict and remove him. Now, the first four articles here all involve the war with Iran, but the first three deals specifically with whether the administration had the legal

authority to start and continue the war in the first place. Article four is a little different because it deals with how the war has been carried out. So remember that the Constitution splits war powers between the president and Congress. Congress has the power to declare war, the president is the commander in chief. Now, there's also a federal law could the war powers resolution. Congress passed this back in the 70s after the Vietnam War, and it was meant to kind of put limits on how long a president can keep U.S. forces involved in hostilities without congressional approval. Basically, once U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and the war powers clock is triggered, the president has 60 days to get authorization from Congress. Otherwise, he has to end U.S.

involvement. The president can potentially get another 30 days if more time is needed to remove U.S. forces. But presidents from both parties have long disputed or resisted parts of the war power's framework and have argued that the Constitution gives president's independent authority to use military force and at least some circumstances without Congress formally approving it. So there's been this long running fight over exactly where the president's commander and chief power ends and Congress's war. powers begin. In the case of the war with Iran, the United States, we know, began attacking Iran on February 28th. And Congress still hasn't passed in authorization for military force against Iran.

So Massey's argument here, or at least in the first three impeachment articles, is that the administration lacked authority to start the war without Congress, but then lack the authority to continue it after the war powers deadlines expired and argues that Hegset has, has improperly continued the operation after Congress passed measures directing the administration to end hostilities, including through various concurrent resolutions. So Massey's asking the House to adopt his interpretation of this war powers resolution and find that Hegset's role in carrying out these military orders rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

And then Article 4 accuses Heges Seth of weakening or ignoring protections designed to reduce civilian casualties. And Massey argues that Hegset's actions contributed to civilian deaths during military operations. The other four articles involve separate matters. Article 5 involves those military strikes on suspected drug smuggling boats that we talked quite a bit about last year. So Massey argues that the administration used lethal force in circumstances that he feels should have been handled through traditional maritime law enforcement. So stopping suspected traffickers, arresting them, and then prosecuting them. Article 6 involves Senator Mark Kelly, because remember Kelly and several other Democratic

lawmakers, either with military or intelligence backgrounds, released that video last year that reminded service members that they don't have to obey illegal orders. Hegg Seth had then launched an investigate or had told the Pentagon to investigate Kelly. Kelly's a retired Navy captain. And Massey argues that that amounted to using the defense department to retaliate. against a sitting senator for constitutionally protected speech. Article 7 involves Venezuela and the U.S. military operation that captured Nicholas Maduro and his wife earlier this year. Massey argues Hegseth lacked constitutional or statutory authority to use

the military for that operation. And then Article 8 involves the U.S. bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen last year. Massey argues that that was another military campaign carried out without proper congressional authorization and also accuses Hegeseth of violating war powers reporting requirements. So big picture here, Massey says that Hegset has repeatedly either used or directed the U.S. military beyond the authority Congress has given the executive branch and that those actions are serious enough to justify impeachment. Now, procedurally speaking, okay, Massey had introduced these as a privileged resolution and a privileged resolution gives the resolution, gives the resolution special priority under House rules. And the reason that he did that was to avoid leadership

sending this resolution to a committee and just leaving it sitting there. Okay. Once Massey brought it forward as a privileged resolution, the house had to address it within two legislative days. And when I say address it, I just mean the house had to acknowledge it in some way. So that doesn't necessarily mean lawmakers had to vote on whether Heggseth should be impeached. They just had to do something with it, whether that's voting on it, moving to table it, whatever. Massey's goal was just to force the House to address it in some way before lawmakers left Washington. And he introduced it on Tuesday because Thursday was supposed to be the final legislative day before the House left Washington until after the November election. And Massey actually told reporters that he had kept his plan quiet

because he thought that Speaker Johnson might shorten the schedule if he knew what Massey was planning to do. And yesterday, Johnson went ahead and canceled today's votes. So lawmakers were supposed to leave Washington today once they finished their votes for the day, which would have included Massey's impeachment effort, but they left Washington a day early and aren't scheduled to come back until after the November 3rd election. Now, Johnson already shortened the September schedule earlier this month. So this isn't the first time that leadership has canceled, scheduled house days. But Massey and Democrats are accusing Johnson of canceling Thursday.

specifically to avoid the Heggseth impeachment issue. Johnson, though, says that's not why. He says the House has finished the work it needed to do and that he thinks lawmakers need to return to their districts ahead of the election. And as for Massey's impeachment resolution, Johnson called it a stunt. Johnson defended Heggsett's performance and said the House could deal with the resolution once lawmakers return. It's worth mentioning that on Tuesday, so the day Massey introduced these articles, the House did vote 220 to 204 for another war powers resolution that directs Trump to end unauthorized military action against Iran. And seven Republicans joined every Democrat who voted in supporting it. Now, obviously voting to limit the president's war powers is not the same thing

as voting to impeach Hegset. So there's no reason to assume those seven Republicans would support Massey's impeachment resolution. It just shows that the underlying disagreement over whether Congress has adequately authorized this war extends beyond Massey and beyond Democrats. So as of now, lawmakers likely won't deal with these impeachment articles until they come back after the midterms unless Johnson decides to call them back sooner. All right, next story. The FBI has made some changes to its hiring standards that are getting quite a lot of attention. In short, and we'll elaborate in a second, but in short, there are certain things that used to automatically disqualify you from working at the FBI, things like paying for sex, stealing from an employer, in some circumstances,

be ceasiality. Those things no longer automatically end your application. Now, some of the headlines that I've seen on this kind of make it sound like the FBI just decided all of those things are totally completely fine now. That's not necessarily what happened here. However, people do have a lot of questions about why this change was even necessary in the first place. So let's get into it. This change involves with the FBI cause automatic disqualifiers. There are certain things in your background that can immediately make you ineligible to work at the FBI. If one of those things applies to you, your application is done. No questions asked, regardless of everything else in your background, your application's done. It is an automatic disqualifier. Well, earlier this year,

the FBI changed some of those rules so that certain applicants who would have been automatically rejected in the past can now be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. And according to sources, the FBI implemented these changes to facilitate hiring after losing more than a thousand special agents in 2025. I should also mention that the internal memo that reportedly communicated these changes within the FBI isn't available to the public. All of this that I'm about to tell you is based on reporting and sources briefed on the matter. So the first change getting attention is paying for sex. Previously admitting that you hired a sex worker was an automatic disqualifier. Under the new criteria, someone who paid for sex fewer than three times and whose most recent instance,

happened more than 10 years ago is no longer automatically disqualified. Those people can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. However, there are additional restrictions if that person was serving in certain positions the FBI considers positions of public trust at the time. So these are positions like public safety, education, healthcare, social work, finance, law. If you are serving in one of those positions of trust when you solicited sex, you're still automatically disqualified. And I can read your mind, you're sitting there thinking, are people just supposed to admit to paying for sex even if there's no record of it? Like, are they just supposed to stay on their application? They've done this. And yeah, pretty much. According to the FBI, applicants are expected to disclose any kind of conduct, even if they were never arrested.

The FBI does do a pretty extensive background check as part of the application process. So people are expected to come clean about whatever might turn up. The second change getting attention is stealing from an employer. If the theft happened more than three years ago, that also. no longer results in automatic disqualification. Then there's the category that got the most amount of attention, which is beastiality and animal cruelty. Conduct involving beastiality or animal cruelty that happened before an applicant turns 18 is no longer automatically disqualifying. If it happened before the applicant turned 18, the application can be reviewed on a case-by-case

basis. An FBI spokesperson confirmed that some changes to the eligibility requirements have taken place, but that they are limited to a narrow set of circumstances such as in case. where a person was sexually abused with animals as a child. Now, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week, lawmakers asked Patel about these changes. And Patel defended several of them by saying that the FBI was trying to avoid permanently disqualifying people who had been victims of trafficking or abuse and were forced into certain conduct. And he specifically made that argument when talking about prostitution and bestiality. But the bestiality provision raised a separate question because if the goal is to protect victims, then who's the victim in that situation?

Obviously, the animal is the one being sexually abused, right? But Patel's point was that there can also be cases where the human involved was trafficked, abused, or forced into the Beastiality Act. Republican Senator John Kennedy had an especially notable exchange with Patel about why the FBI needed to change the automatic disqualification at all. Here it is. Before the FBI made these changes, there were certain things that disqualified you from being an FBI agent. And you, not you, but the agency said, we're no longer going to allow these things, this behavior, to disqualify you. What were the things you changed?

Simply that if you were a victim of some of these vicious crimes and you wanted to serve this country, the FBI is now for the first time ever considering your out. application and not disqualify. Victim of what? Give me the... Prostitution, bestiality, crimes like that, traffickers. So if you were...

It's not if you frequented a prostitute. It's if you were a prostitute? If you were, yes, the victim, forced into it. Okay. What about the bestiality? Same thing, because the regs wrote it up in a fashion before I arrived that addressed prostitution, bestiality, and trafficking. They were there before I got there. Tell me what it said before.

It automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it. Obviously, we are never going to hire the criminal. The bestiality? Yes. So you disqualified the animal? Well, I don't think we have great canines, but we're not going to disqualify it. I understand. I'm trying to understand why you did this.

Why would you, in light of the context and what we're going through and we're having a tough time attracting agents, good quality agents we all can trust, because so many people, fairly or unfairly, think that to order to be an FBI agent now, your political point of view matters. Why would you even get into bestiality? We are not into beastiality, but a lot of these individuals... I know you're not, but you changed... But I'm trying to explain it. You changed the qualifications and mentioned bestiality.

If Joe participated in beastiality, not as the animal, but as the human, don't you think he ought to be qualified, disqualified? If he voluntarily did it, sure, but if he was trafficked into it, Okay, how do you involuntarily do it? In a lot of these cases, when human traffickers, who are some of the worst individuals on planet Earth, they don't just traffic you for prostitution. They traffic you for degrading acts of all kind,

and they force you into that type of conduct. And some of these individuals would go on to be law enforcement officers who qualified to be law enforcement officers and later applied to the FBI. But you're not telling us today that if a human being had sex with an animal, that they can still be an FBI agent? No. Are you?

No. They can't be, can they? They cannot. In fact, they ought to be in jail, right? They all are. Yeah, well. Senator Dick Durbin also asked about the change. He asked Patel whether he thought applicants who had engaged in viality were qualified candidates

whom the FBI was losing. Patel responded, quote, applicants who have engaged in viality means they were victims of bestiality because they were forced to do so. And at this FBI, we are not going to criminalize and prevent victims from serving the United States of America and the premier law enforcement agency in the world. And quote. Now, if the new rule only applies to people who had been forced into this kind of conduct, Patel's explanation is pretty straightforward. But sources reportedly told CBS News that the new eligibility requirements don't distinguish between candidates who are coerced into sexual activity with animals and candidates who engage voluntarily. The criterion is reportedly only based on whether the conduct occurred before the applicant turned 18.

Now, Patel told Kennedy that the FBI would not hire somebody who committed the conduct voluntarily. But because the actual internal memo hasn't been released, there are so questions about exactly how the FBI will apply this rule in practice. Patel was also asked about prostitution. His responses focused heavily on people who had been forced into prostitution or trafficked. But reporting also specifically covers applicants who, paid for sex. If the person paid for sex fewer than three times, more than 10 years ago and meets that other criteria, that conduct is no longer necessarily an automatic disqualifier. So Patel says the point of these changes was to make sure people weren't being automatically shut out just

because, you know, because of something that they were forced into as victims of trafficking or abuse. And getting rid of an automatic disqualification doesn't mean the FBI suddenly has lower standards. Applicants still have to get through the rest of the screening process before they can actually be hired. Lawmakers, however, are questioning whether these new rules go further than what would be necessary to protect victims. And because FBI employees can have access to really sensitive information, they testify in criminal cases, they need high level security clearances. Lawmakers want to know how the Bureau will look at things like past criminal conduct, dishonesty, or anything else that could potentially create a security risk if those things no longer

automatically end someone's application. Senate Judiciary Democrats specifically asked the FBI to explain whether these changes could affect things like an agent's credibility in court, counterintelligence risks or vulnerability to blackmail. But Patel pushed back on that and reiterated that just because something is no longer an automatic disqualifier doesn't mean the FBI has to overlook it. Applicants still have to meet all of the other requirements before they're hired. So Senate Judiciary Democrats have asked the FBI to turn over that internal memo explaining these changes.

They've also asked for records showing how these changes were developed and approved. They've also asked for data showing how many applicants have already been hired or received conditional offers or been put through case-by-case review who would have been automatically disqualified under the previous standards. That information, if it becomes available, should give us a better idea of what these changes look like in practice. Let's take our final break here. When we come back, we'll finish with an update on the Lindsay Clancy Holdout Juror, and then we'll get into Quick Hitters, Rumor has it, and Critical Thinking. Welcome back. We've now heard from the Holdout Juror in the Lindsay Clancy. Clancy case, and this is what we've learned. First of all, he identified as Michael in his interview.

It's not clear if that's his actual name or just what he wants to be known as for privacy purposes, but he talked to Ray Marcell on the streaming series Fugitive TV. Now, Ray Marcell then went on News Nation and talked to Chris Cuomo, and this is what Michael said. So Marcel says that Michael said that he felt Clancy was guilty from the beginning of the trial. He felt that she was sane when she did it and that from day one he always felt she was guilty and that he never, quote, displayed or said anything about reasonable doubt, end quote. Michael told Marcel that deliberations were contentious from the start and that from day one, they voted every single day. Michael said on the first day of deliberations, eight jurors believed Clancy was not guilty by reason of insanity that

aligns with what the other jurors said just last week. By the end, though, Michael said there were two jurors that still felt she was guilty. That also aligns with what the other juror said. According to Michael, though, at the last minute, that other juror decided to go not guilty, and he stood his ground. He felt that she was sane based on the preparation that went into the killings and that she knew what she was doing and knew right from wrong, and that is why he ultimately stood his ground. So he refuted the allegations that he said he had, or that he expressed reasonable doubt. All right, let's do some quick hitters. We have quite a few today. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point yesterday, bringing its benchmark rate to a range

of 3.75 to 4%. It's the Fed's first rate increase since 2023, and all 12 voting members supported the decision. The Fed said inflation is still too high, while the economy and job market have remained relatively strong, giving officials more room to raise rates in an effort to bring inflation back toward the 2% goal. President Trump criticized the decision. He said U.S. interest rate should be 1% or lower. New projections show most Fed officials expect at least one more rate increase before the end of the year. Also related, the average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage rose to 6.95% this week. That's up from 6.75% last week and the highest level since January 2025. A year ago, the average 30-year mortgage rate was 6.26%. Senator Mitch McConnell returned to the Senate this week.

He attended a Senate Agriculture Committee meeting. He cast the deciding Republican vote to advance the farm bill, which passed the committee 12 to 11 along party lines. During the vote McConnell initially voted no, but changed his vote to yes. Based on the video I've seen, it's unclear whether he would, I see some reports that say he was told by another senator to vote no, and then it was clarified. Based on the video, I've seen it's unclear whether he was mistakenly told to vote no before he said no when his name was called, but either way, he did eventually vote yes with the help of the

colleagues that were sitting next to him. McConnell said he's still not fully recovered and will continue with physical therapy, but plans to be present for important votes when needed. A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to explain whether the Kennedy Center's plan to close for up to two years for a $257 million renovation violates an earlier court order. The Kennedy Center board voted Tuesday to move forward with the closure. Democratic representative Joyce Beattie, who's suing over Trump's effort to rename the center after himself argues that this closure conflicts with a previous ruling that blocked an earlier shutdown plan. Now, that earlier ruling did not prohibit the board from closing the center altogether, but it did say that any new decision

to do so had to be considered independently and carefully. So the court is basically saying, hey, let us know that this decision was done independently and carefully. So the administration has until today to respond to the court. Three people were killed after an NBC four-neventeen, news helicopter crashed in the Chatsworth area of Los Angeles while covering a fatal bus crash. The reporter and pilot aboard the helicopter were killed. A man on the ground was also killed. The NTSB says video recorded from the helicopter captured changes in the engines, speed and warning sounds shortly before the crash, but investigators have not determined what caused it. The Senate voted 74 to advance the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act, moving the bill closer

to a final vote. The legislation would create federal rules for several major issues in college sports, including putting into law a cap on how much revenue schools can directly share with athletes, limiting athletes to one transfer without having to sit out a year and setting a five-year eligibility limit. It would also give the NCAA and athletic conferences more legal protection from certain lawsuits over rules governing college sports. The Senate is continuing to consider the bill this week, but a final passage vote has not yet been scheduled. And speaking of Senate votes, the Senate failed to advance the Clarity Act. which was the comprehensive crypto legislation we briefly mentioned in Monday's episode.

The bill fell 10 votes short of reaching the 60 vote threshold needed to advance. Four Republican senators joined all the Democrats in voting against it. The vote was 50 to 49 in favor. An anonymous federal whistleblower is alleging that DHS employees were instructed to access state voter registration systems as part of an effort to identify potential non-citizen voters ahead of the midterms. According to the whistleblower, employees were told in some cases, cases to falsely represent that they were the voter or were authorized by the voter in order to access certain state records. The whistleblower also alleges that employees were instructed

to create federal law enforcement records even when they had concerns about the accuracy of the underlying data, which could result in U.S. citizens being incorrectly flagged. Democratic senators released the allegations and are asking DHS to stop the initiative and provide more information about how it's being conducted. The U.S. military has confirmed for the first time that it has weapons deployed in orbit. Air Force secretary Troy Manx said the US now has on-orbit space control weapons that can be used to defend American forces against hostile actions. But he did not say what the weapons are, what they can do, or when they were deployed. The announcement, though, comes after years of U.S. warnings that China and Russia have been developing and testing their own

capabilities that could interfere with or damage satellites. So Space Force officials have framed the new capabilities as part of an effort to protect U.S. satellites and military operations as space becomes a greater focus of national security. And new pictures show damage to U.S. military positions in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait following Iranian missile and drone attacks during the war with Iran. The images include a heavily damaged E3 century surveillance aircraft at Prince Sultan Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia, as well as damaged buildings, barracks, and vehicles at U.S. facilities in Kuwait. The pictures were provided by active duty service members who spoke anonymously because of military restrictions on speaking to the media. And White House Chief of

Staff Susie Wiles announced that she's cancer-free about six months after revealing that she had been diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Wiles said pathology results from a recent appointment at the Mayo Clinic came back clear. The House passed a bipartisan bill yesterday aimed up preventing electricity costs from new data centers from being passed on to regular customers. The Rate Pay or Protection Act passed 417 to 3 and would require state utility regulations. regulators to consider whether large electricity users, including data centers, should pay the additional infrastructure costs needed to supply them with power. Supporters say the measure would help protect rate payers, while some consumer advocates

argue it doesn't go far enough because states would only be required to consider making data centers cover those costs rather than actually require it. The bill now moves to the Senate. Hundreds of pages of FBI records related to Thomas Crooks, the man who tried to assassinate Trump at the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, have been. released. The records describe Crooks as very intelligent but very socially isolated and show that in the months before the shooting, he took several firearm courses, became more involved in competitive style shooting, and purchased body armor. They also show Crooks was ordering

some packages using the fake name Bob Dole. And one particular part of the records getting attention is this FBI note that says an anonymous donor paid for Crooks cremation. But the records don't identify that person or explain why they paid. And the White House has withdrawn. on Lance Schroier's nomination to lead immigration and customs enforcement. President Trump nominated Troyer, a former Oklahoma State Trooper in June after Homeland Security Secretary, Mark Wayne Mullen recommended him for the position. His nomination had stalled in the Senate where Republican Homeland Security Committee Chair ran poll hadn't scheduled a confirmation hearing and some immigration-focused conservatives

and DHS officials had raised concerns about Troyer's limited experience with immigration enforcement and running a large agency. Schroier's name appeared this week on a White House list of withdrawn nominations. But interestingly, and I did not know this, ICE hasn't had a Senate confirmed director since the Obama administration. Since January 2017, ICE has been led by acting officials rather than a Senate confirmed director. So didn't know that.

All right. It's time for rumor has it in my weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and do my best to confirm them, dispel them, and or add. context. Today we have two. First one, rumor has it that the scientist behind studies used to debunk the vaccine autism link just pleaded guilty. This is true, but we do need to add context. The researcher in question is a Danish scientist. His name is Paul Thorson. And between 2000 and 2009, the CDC awarded more than $11 million to two Danish government agencies. Those grants supported studies involving things like autism and vaccines, childhood development, fetal alcohol,

alcohol exposure, etc. Well, Thorson became responsible for overseeing the money in 2002. And prosecutors said he later submitted more than a dozen fraudulent invoices bearing the forged signature of a CDC official. So he submitted these fake invoices that made it look like money was owed to the CDC, but the accounts the money was being transferred to belonged to him. Now, he was indicted all the way back in 2011, but he stayed in Denmark for years to avoid prosecution. He was finally arrested in Germany last year. He was eventually extradited to the United

States this past May, and he pleaded guilty to wire fraud on September 1st. Now, here's the important part. Thorson did not plead guilty to anything related to his actual findings, okay? His crime did not involve falsifying vaccine research. It didn't involve manipulating data. It didn't involve fabricating study results. His case was about stealing grant money through fake invoices back in the 2000s, early 2004 to 2008. So where does the vaccine autism part come from? Well, he was a co-author on some pretty well-known Danish research that found no association between vaccines and autism. One of those was a 2002 study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It looked at more than 500,000 Danish children found no increased risk of autism among children who received the MMR vaccine. But Thorson

was one of eight authors on that paper and the study was published two years. before prosecutors say his fraudulent invoice scheme started. So yes, a scientist behind studies finding no link between autism and vaccine pleaded guilty, but his guilty plea had nothing to do with his actual research. Second and final, rumor has it, that a Russian oligarch with ties to Vladimir Putin paid for part of Don Jr's wedding. This is true. So Don Jr. and Bettina Anderson, now Bettina Trump, got married in May.

And earlier this week, ProPublica reported that a Russian businessman named Umar Kremlev paid hundreds of thousands of dollars toward the celebrations surrounding their wedding in the Bahamas. According to records reviewed by ProPublica and interviews with three people familiar with the event, Kremlev paid to rent one of the private islands where the guest stayed and where one of the receptions was held. He also paid for a fireworks show and his team helped plan some of the events. The payments themselves came through a Dubai company affiliated with the International Boxing Association, which Kremlin is the president of. Now, Kremlin does have ties to the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. He actually received Russia's Order of Friendship

Award from Putin earlier this year. And China's state media reported that Kremlin was in China with the Russian delegation accompanying Putin just days before the wedding. But after this ProPublica story came out, but Tina confirmed that Kremlin did pay for part of the celebration. She posted a statement that reads in part, quote, Don and I got married privately on Friday surrounded only by our family. The weekend that followed had actually been planned well in advance as a fun weekend with friends. It was never intended to be our wedding weekend. Our dear friend, Umar, very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us after our wedding. It's unfortunate that something so personal and happy can be recast as something political or sinister

simply because of who someone is or where they came from. Friendship doesn't require a political motive. generosity doesn't automatically come with an agenda, and sometimes a wedding gift is simply a wedding gift." End quote. Ranking Democrat Robert Garcia has opened an investigation and has requested records about Don Jr's relationship with Kremlin and the foreign payments connected to the wedding celebrations. Garcia says he's concerned about possible foreign influence given Trump Jr's relationship with his dad and his business interests, but at this point, there's no evidence that Kremlin have received any political or business favors in exchange for his contribution.

For today's critical thinking segment, we're going all the way back to the beginning of this episode. We're going back to the Ed Shear and Tor drama. So my first question for you is this. Macklemore has said that criticizing Israel and Zionism is not the same thing as criticizing Jewish people. His critics say that the way he presents some of those messages can contribute to anti-Semitism. My question for you is, when the speaker's intent and the audience's experience are different,

which one should carry more weight? And does it depend on the circumstances? What does that look like? When might a speaker's intent carry more weight than an audience's experience? And when might an audience's experience carry more weight than a speaker's intent? And second, what are your thoughts on the free speech argument? So if your position is that McElmore should be free to use his platform to speak about what he believes. Does that same principle protect sheer

choice to not publicly take a position? And I don't mean legal, like I don't mean analyze the First Amendment, okay? I'm specifically just talking about the public's free speech argument. Does the same principle protect Sherence choice to not publicly take a position? In other words, does freedom of expression also include the freedom to stay silent? And on the flip side, if your position is that McElmore is not entitled to say whatever he wants on someone else's stage, would you apply the same standard if a venue removed an artist for expressing a political view that you agreed with? Would your position change depending on what is being said? That's what I have for you. I can't thank you enough for being here.

I'm always very, very grateful that you're here. I would love if you share this episode with a friend or a family member or a coworker. If you learned anything at all, if you appreciate the unbiased nature of this episode, please, please, please go ahead and share it. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.