UNBIASED - Everything You Need To Know: Iowa Caucuses, Biden Admin and TX Fight Over Border, Congress' Stopgap Measure, Firearm Restriction Ruled Unconstitutional, and More.

Episode Date: January 16, 2024

1. DEEP DIVE: Iowa Caucuses (What Are They, How Do They Work, Why Do They Matter, Differences Between Caucuses and Primaries)(1:35)2. QUICK HITTERS: Biden Admin and Texas in Conflict Following Rio Grande Drownings (13:54), Congressional Leaders Agree on Stopgap Measure (17:35), Federal Law Banning Guns in Federal Facilities Ruled Unconstitutional (19:48)3. FACT OR FICTION: Is Massachusetts Requiring Citizens to House Migrants? (23:14) Are the Apple Settlement Checks Real? (24:48) Will Write-In Votes for Trump Count? (25:29)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news! Watch this episode on YouTube.Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, formerly known as Jordan is my lawyer. I have three segments for you today. The first is going to be a deep dive into Iowa caucuses. What are they? How do they work? Why does it look a little different this year than it has in years past? Why are they important? And the differences between caucuses and primaries. This is a very important discussion, given the fact that yesterday, Monday, the Iowa caucuses took place. So I think there's a lot to learn. Then we'll get into quick hitters where we'll talk about a dispute between the Biden

administration and Texas, yet another dispute. And then we will talk about this ban on firearms in post offices that was just ruled unconstitutional. And the third quick hitter will be this temporary stopgap measure that both Senate Majority Leader and Speaker Johnson have approved and will be putting forth to Congress on Tuesday. The last segment is fact or fiction. That's basically where I go over some headlines that may or may not be true, and I clarify what's true and what's not. So that'll be the final segment.

Before we get into today's stories, let me just remind you to please go ahead and review my show if you haven't already. It lets people know why they should listen to me and really just, you know, gets my name out there. And then also, as your reminder, the show is now on YouTube. So if you're watching this on YouTube, hello. If you're not, check it out sometime. It's great in video format because I know some people have trouble keeping up with the audio format and video just kind of helps keep their attention a little bit better. This episode was recorded at 4 p.m. on Monday, January 15th. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Let's first start with the Iowa caucuses. So the Iowa caucuses took place yesterday, January 15th, and I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to discuss what the Iowa caucuses are and why they're so important.

And I also in the near future, the very near future, I want to do a dedicated presidential election episode because I just think there's a lot to learn there. But for now, let's stick to the Iowa caucuses. And I do want to mention that at the time this episode is being recorded, we don't yet know the results of the caucuses. But this segment is really just to let you in on all of the not so talked about details. And then that way, you know, once we have the results, whatever they end up being, they make more sense. I want you to picture a horse race. So all of the horses are lined up in their stall waiting to race to the finish line. And with the fire of a gun, the horses are off, right? That gun signals the start of the race. The Iowa caucuses is the equivalent of that gun in terms of the presidential election. Once the Iowa caucuses take place,

the presidential election is officially full steam ahead. And you'll understand why by the end of this discussion, but just know that going into it. Now, the actual definition of a caucus is a meeting of a group of people belonging to the same political party used to select candidates. Now this cannot be also, this group can also be used for other party matters, but typically it's used to select candidates. Each county or district or precinct has a designated location for their caucus to take place. There are about 1,600 different caucuses that happen in Iowa alone. So I want you to picture a caucus as a community of people getting together in a room. Now this can be in a church, it can be in a school, it can be in a community center. They basically get together and they

discuss the candidates and then they cast their votes. There's typically one representative for each candidate who will pitch why that candidate should win, and they'll try to sway any undecided voters in the room. And by the way, this isn't an official representative picked by the candidate. This is just someone from the community who has deemed themselves to, you know, represent their chosen candidate. Once each person casts a vote, these votes are tallied in front of everyone in the room. The winner is announced to the group. It's then tallied on a form, and that form is then reported electronically via an app to the state's headquarters. From there, the 40 Iowa delegates are then proportionally distributed among the candidates based on their share of the statewide vote. This is where the candidates win

delegates. And that's how the RNC does it. Just, you know, by the way, because the RNC and the DNC do it a little bit differently, the RNC uses this proportional distribution method. And as I said, the DNC does it a little bit differently. I'm going to save the DNC's methodology for when I do a full election episode, because as you will hear later on, the DNC actually didn't vote on their preferred candidates in the Iowa caucuses. Now, when I say delegates, I'm talking about delegates to the Republican National Convention. When it comes to the primary, it's the delegates in each party's convention that determines the candidates. It's similar to the role that the Electoral College plays in the general election, right? Because even though during the primary season you're casting a ballot for your preferred candidate, it's actually the delegates to the national party conventions that choose the presidential nominees for each party. So in other

words, whichever candidate can accumulate the majority of delegates in each party's convention is who will ultimately advance to the general election. So it's very important for these candidates to win delegates. Ultimately, the more delegates they win, the better their odds of having their name on the ballot when it comes time for the general election. And when you do the math, the 40 Iowa delegates that are up for grabs only account for 1.6% of the Republican National Convention. right, in any way. But it's still important in the sense that it sort of creates momentum leading up the Republican convention in July. It's, you know, there's also momentum going into the New Hampshire primary, which is on the 23rd of this month. It's also important in the sense that this is the start of the delegate selection process. The Republican delegate selection process started with the Iowa caucus yesterday. The Democratic delegate selection process, on the other hand, that'll start on February 3rd with the South Carolina primary. But again, we'll talk more about that in a minute. don't necessarily indicate the party's eventual nominee, right? Mike Huckabee, he won the Iowa

Republican caucus in 2008, but John McCain won the GOP nomination that year. Rick Santorum, he won the Iowa Republican caucus in 2012, but Mitt Romney won the GOP nomination that year. And then in 2016, Ted Cruz won the Iowa Republican caucus, But as we know, Donald Trump ended up winning the GOP nomination. And then on the Democratic side of things, in 2020, Pete Buttigieg won the caucus in Iowa, but Joe Biden ended up winning the party's nomination. And Joe Biden actually came in fourth in the Iowa caucus that year. But you know, that's not to say that there haven't been years where the winner of the Iowa caucus did become that party's nominee. I just want to show you that the Iowa caucus is far

from a sure sign, right? Speaking of Democrats, did Democrats participate in this year's Iowa caucuses? The answer to that question is yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the Democratic Party still held caucuses, but they did not vote on who they want for president at those caucuses. Instead, they conducted quote-unquote party business. So for example, they elected delegates to the county conventions, which really starts the process of choosing delegates to the national convention. They also use these caucuses as an opportunity to allow people to register as Democrat at the various caucus locations. So didn't vote on who they want for president, but did conduct other party business. As for voting on who they want for president, Democrats are sending in their picks by mail. The mail and ballots will then be

tallied and the results will be released on March 5th. March 5th is also Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday is when 12 other states hold their primaries. So on March 5th, we'll know the results of the mail-in from the Democrats in Iowa. Now, in years past, both the RNC and DNC have put on their caucuses in Iowa. But this election is a little bit different because the DNC voted last winter to remove Iowa from its early primary calendar lineup. This was a result of the 2020 election, and now the DNC will host its first primary in South Carolina instead. So DNC Chair Jamie Harrison said not only are voters in South Carolina more representative of the party's diversity than those in New Hampshire and Iowa, but historically the winners

of South Carolina's Democratic primary have served as an early indicator of the party's eventual nominee. And this sort of ties into what I was saying before, where the winner of the Iowa caucuses, it's not necessarily a good indication of who ends up getting that party's nomination. So in this case, the DNC chair is saying South Carolina gives us a better indication of who the Democratic nominee will end up being. Now, this move to South Carolina was pretty controversial and for a multitude of reasons, but within the party specifically, within the Democratic Party, one of the biggest controversies with the move lies within New Hampshire. And I don't want to

get too off topic here, but it does tie into this discussion. So I do briefly want to address this. New Hampshire wants to remain the party's first primary. Consequently, New Hampshire is still holding its Democratic primary on January 23rd. This is technically in violation of DNC rules, and the DNC hasn't yet said whether or how that primary would affect the state's delegate allotment, so it's kind of up in the air. You may remember a few weeks ago, President Biden said he wasn't going to be putting his name on the state ballot in New Hampshire. This is all part of the same conflict. In fact, a week ago, the conflict sort of heated up a bit and became a bit more serious. It snowballed, if you will, when the DNC sent the New Hampshire Democratic Party a letter

that said it should, quote, educate the public, end quote, that the state's primary is a, quote, non-binding presidential preference event and is meaningless, end quote. Following that letter, the New Hampshire Attorney General's office then sent a cease and desist order to the DNC, which said, quote, this office recently became aware of a January 5th, 2024 letter from you to New Hampshire's Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley. In that letter, you state that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee commanded NHDP to educate the public that the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary election is meaningless. Falsely telling New Hampshire voters that a New Hampshire election is meaningless

violates New Hampshire voter suppression laws. Accordingly, this office orders you, the DNC, and the Rules and Bylaws Committee to immediately cease and desist. So as of now, the New Hampshire primary is still happening on the 23rd, but that at least gives you a little insight into the current situation with the DNC, and only time will tell how that will all play out. But before we end this deep dive, I do think it's important to just differentiate, well, I guess not entirely differentiate, but identify both the differences and similarities between caucuses and primaries because they do serve the same purpose, but they're also very different. So they're the same in that both caucuses and

primaries determine the delegates to each party's convention. Each state has either a caucus or a primary. It's one or the other. Primaries, though, are similar to that of the general election where you go in you cast your ballot and you leave whereas caucuses are more community oriented they're more conversation oriented proponents of caucuses actually tend to think voters are more engaged in caucuses than in primaries and one of the biggest differences between the two is that caucuses are hosted by the political parties, so by the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee, whereas primaries are hosted by the state's government. But regardless of which route a state chooses, whether they have

caucuses or whether they hold primaries, once the states have completed either or, the delegates will get together and that's when they determine the party's official nominee for the general election. That is what you need to know about the Iowa caucuses and caucuses generally. And now more than ever, I want to do a dedicated episode on elections because I just think there's so much more to learn about just all of it, really. So stay tuned for that. But let's now move on to quick hitters, the quick hitters that aren't really quick hitters. Typically, I like to keep my quick

hitters under two minutes, but some of these may go longer. Sunday was a particularly contentious day for the Biden administration and Texas. Following the drowning of a woman and her two children, the Biden administration demanded that Texas immediately stop its efforts in blocking Border Patrol's access to a particular area in Eagle Pass, Texas. This demand from the Biden administration was sent in the form of a letter from the Department of Homeland Security to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. And what it said in part is this. On January 10th, 2024, the state of Texas took action to block U.S. Border Patrol's access to the border over an approximately two and a half

mile stretch of the Rio Grande, inclusive of the area of Shelby Park and areas south of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas. And then it continues on and says, Texas's failure to provide access to the border persists even in instances of imminent danger to life and safety. On January 12th, 2024, upon learning from the Grupo Beta, a group affiliated with the National Institute of Migration of Mexico, that a group of migrants was attempting to cross the river, Border Patrol contacted Texas officials and requested access to the border. Texas refused. Later, a rescue group from Mexico was able to rescue two individuals from the group, both with signs of hypothermia. Three individuals drowned. Texas has demonstrated that even in the

most exigent of circumstances, it will not allow Border Patrol access to the border to conduct law enforcement and emergency response activities. Texas's actions are clearly unconstitutional and are actively disrupting the federal government's operations. So then Texas, they issued their first statement on Saturdayurday and they said in part that texas's military department had been contacted by border patrol on friday night quote in reference to a migrant distress situation it said one of its units actively searched the river with lights and night vision goggles but found no migrants in distress. The search was suspended after detecting Mexican officials responding to an incident on the Mexico side of the riverbank. Then on Sunday,

the Texas military department issued an update to their original statement, which disputed the assertions set forth in DHS's letter and said, quote, claims of border patrol requesting access to save distressed migrants are inaccurate. Claims that the Texas Military Department prevented Border Patrol from saving lives of drowning migrants are wholly inaccurate. At the time that Border Patrol requested access, the drownings had occurred. Mexican authorities were recovering the bodies and Border Patrol expressed these facts to the TMD personnel on site. Soldiers confirmed that when Border Patrol requested access to the park, they stated that Mexican authorities had already recovered the bodies of two drowned migrants.

So this is an apparent game of he said, she said, right? The government is saying that because the Texas Military Department denied them access, that these migrants drowned, whereas Texas is saying, no, they didn't request access until after it became clear that the migrants had drowned. So DHS said that Texas has until Wednesday to cease and desist its efforts to block border patrols access and remove all barriers to access the border. And if Texas has not abided by DHS's request, the department will refer the matter to the DOJ for quote unquote appropriate action, which probably just means yet another lawsuit. Quick hitter number two is this stopgap measure.

Congressional leaders have agreed on another two-tiered stopgap funding measure that they say will be introduced on Tuesday to the rest of Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Sunday that he and Speaker Johnson have agreed on the text for a continuing resolution that would keep the government open temporarily. So as of now, a partial government shutdown would happen on Friday. This new spending bill would extend the deadline to March 1st for four of the 12 appropriations bills, the ones that currently are set to expire on Friday, and then it would extend the remaining eight appropriations bills, those deadlines, to March 8th. Keep in mind, all 12 annual appropriations bills are supposed to be passed before the end of each fiscal year on October 1st. When that doesn't happen, the government shuts down. The only way to avoid a government shutdown in that case, if these 12 appropriations bills can't be passed, is to pass these continuing resolutions. So that

is what we've been seeing for the last few months. This measure, this temporary stopgap funding measure, comes with the same debate that the last stopgap measure came with. And that is that hardline Republicans see this temporary solution as quote unquote surrendering. And they are urging Speaker Johnson to renegotiate to include more spending cuts and a crackdown on border security. However, the more moderate Republicans are supportive of this temporary measure. They're wanting Speaker Johnson to stick by his game plan. They want him to stay the course. They don't want him to give in to the hard right flank. So this will be introduced on Tuesday, and then we'll see what happens with it from there.

The only real block is the conservatives in the House, but we'll see. It could get passed just like the last one did, and then we have sort of this deadline extended until March. Quick hitter number three. Let me know what you think about this. The United States has a law that prohibits people from possessing firearms in federal facilities. It's called Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 930. On September 14th, 2022, an employee who works for the United States Postal Service, he works as a semi-truck driver who would transport packages to and from different facilities. He walked into work one day, he was wearing his fanny pack that he usually wore, and he had his gun inside of that fanny pack. According to him, he carried his gun from time to time while he was retrieving his work truck

on site at the post office for, quote, extra protection. He also has a Florida concealed carry permit. So, you know, if this wasn't a federal building, it would be fine. But on this particular day, after clocking in for work and after walking through these metal turnstiles to get into the building, he was confronted and arrested by two agents from the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General. He tried to run from them. He didn't get very far. He was ultimately arrested and indicted by a federal grand jury for not only resisting arrest, but also violating this federal law that prohibits possession of a firearm inside of a federal facility. Following his arrest, he files a motion to

dismiss his charges, specifically when it came to the possession charge. What he said is that this is a violation of my Second Amendment right to, you know, carry my firearm for self-defense. So this goes to court, and on Friday, a federal district judge agreed with him. The judge found that this federal law is unconstitutional and cited the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Bruin. And what Bruin said is that in order for a firearm restriction to be upheld, that restriction has to be consistent with America's historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the new standard they set forth. So basically what the judge said is, when it comes to this particular law, there's not enough historical tradition to ban the possession of firearms

in federal buildings, and especially in post offices. And her ruling noted that while post offices have existed since the nation's founding, federal law did not bar guns in government buildings until 1964 and post offices until 1972. And the judge noted that allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities, so let alone employees, now she's talking about visitors, as a condition of admittance into these buildings, it would allow the government to, quote, abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence, end quote. Now, this ruling may very well get appealed by the government, but sound off in

the comments. Let me know if you feel that the judge got it right or if the law should remain in place. And I should mention as a side note that this judge's ruling does not apply nationwide, nor does it even apply to the entire state of Florida. District court opinions aren't what we call binding on other district courts or even courts of appeals for that matter. This decision wouldn't really apply to anyone else unless and until it went up on appeal and the appellate court rendered a decision. Then that decision would apply to other courts, but in this case,

it doesn't really have any effect on anyone else. Finally, let's finish off this episode with fact or fiction. The first one is this. Is Massachusetts proposing a requirement that residents host migrants in their home? This is fiction. This is not true. However,

a post from an account on X, the account is called End Wokeness. This post has been viewed more than 43 million times. And what it says is this, quote, six months ago, Massachusetts began to ask residents to host illegals in their homes and properties. Soon it will be mandatory, end quote. Now, while it is true that Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll did ask state residents back in August to volunteer to host migrants on the same day that the Massachusetts governor declared a state of emergency due to the number of migrant families arriving in Massachusetts, there is no requirement or even a proposed requirement for residents to house migrants, nor has the state legislature proposed or passed any laws that would require residents to house migrants in their homes,

nor has the governor issued any executive orders requiring citizens to house migrants, nor has the governor issued any further announcements or updates suggesting that this is a potential possibility. So don't believe everything you read, always do your own research, and also, you know, just maybe don't take things so literally on social media. It's very possible that this person was just making an assumption that soon it will be mandatory, not necessarily stating fact. So just take things with a grain of salt. Number two, fact or fiction, is Apple really sending out settlement checks? Yes, this is a fact. Settlement administrators have started mailing out checks for $92.17 to those people who submitted eligible claims back in 2020 for a class action lawsuit against Apple. Now, this lawsuit was about those, it was over those device updates that were slowing

down some iPhones, the battery life of iPhones. And no, you can't submit a claim now. Unfortunately, it's a little bit too late. But distribution of these settlement payouts began on January 5th. They're being sent out on a rolling basis and they will end at the end of this month. So just note that. The third and final fact or fiction, write-in votes for Trump would count in the Colorado primary even if the Supreme Court upholds Colorado's decision to keep Trump off the ballot. Fiction. They would not count, and here is why. Number one, Colorado state law says that a vote for a write-in candidate shall not be counted unless the candidate is qualified to hold office for which the elector's vote was cast. So obviously,

if the Supreme Court upholds Colorado's decision, and that is a big if, state law would prohibit Trump's name from being counted as a write-in because according to Colorado, he's not eligible for the ballot. Now, obviously that law applies only to Colorado, right? However, the Supreme Court has also held that each state can do what they want when it comes to electors and how electors vote in each state. So as an example, in the past, there was an elector in Colorado. He violated his pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton. The state voided that elector's vote, removed the elector, replaced the elector with someone who would vote in accordance with their pledge. And the Supreme Court of the United States said that that was totally fine. So let's say that the Supreme Court decides to leave the issue of ballot eligibility to the respective states, which is not likely to happen, but could happen.

In a state like Maine, who has already ruled that Trump can't be on the ballot, any number of people could technically write in Trump's name, but that doesn't mean that they would count for anything because as the Supreme Court is held, each state can do what they want in these situations. Maine could, you know, as a result, remove any elector that voted for a person not on the ballot. They could have an elector replaced with someone else. So it's not correct just to say, you know, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, you could just write in a vote for Trump and it would count. That's not true. That is what I have for you today. I hope you enjoyed this episode. As always, thank you so much for being here. Have a great week, and I will talk to you on Friday. day.