UNBIASED - Harvard, Penn, and MIT Spark Anti-Semitism Controversy, Southern Border Encounters Break Daily Record, Did Zelensky Buy Yachts With U.S. Money?, Trump's 'Dictator' Remarks, and More.

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

1. DEEP DIVE: Presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn Spark Controversy After Testifying Before Congress Re: Anti-Semitism (2:32)2. QUICK HITTERS: Former SpeakerMcCarthy Not Seeking Re-Election, Rep. Jamaal Bowman Censured, Senate Blocks Foreign Aid Package Over Border Security, Daily Southern Border Encounters Hit Record High, Biden Admin Delays Menthol Cigarette Ban (17:27)3. LOOK WHO'S SUING NOW: Yellowstone Creator Sues Rip Over Coffee Brand, Panera Bread Faces Second Wrongful Death Lawsuit After Lemonade Death (23:18)4. FACT VS. FICTION: More Stimulus Checks? Santos First Non-Convicted Expelled Congressman? Zelensky Buys Yachts with U.S. Funding? (26:12)5. CONTEXT IS KEY: "Trump Says He'll Be A Dictator on 'Day One.'"; Hobby Lobby Removes Hanukkah Merchandise." (28:54)6. NOT EVERYTHING IS BAD: 10-Year-Old Creates 'Postbox to Heaven' (30:58)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased

news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Friday. We've made it through another week. We are on to the weekend. All good things. I am changing up today's episode a little bit. So typically, I do one, two, maybe three deep dives into some stories, possibly four. And lately, I've been introducing a segment at the end of the episode, but I decided this episode we're trying something different. So basically, it'll be one deep dive. So we're going to be talking about MIT, Penn, and Harvard's presidents sitting in front

of the House Education and Workforce Committee, their testimony, but we're going to go deeper. The First Amendment, are they bound by the First Amendment? What about Title VI? A lot of things outside of just the testimony. Then the rest of the episode will be different segments. Segments you haven't even heard of yet. Quick hitters you have heard before. We're going to do that.

We're then going to move on to a lawsuit segment. I'm still trying to come up with a name, so let me know if you have any ideas. I'm thinking maybe something like, look who's suing now, something like that. Then I have a new segment called Fact vs. Fiction, where we'll decipher some rumors. I'll tell you what's true and what's not. Another segment called Context is Key. It's exactly what it sounds like. We have headlines out there that kind of misinterpret some stories, and I'm going to give you the

full context. And then, of course, the Friday segment that we've all been loving, Not Everything is Bad, where I give you some pieces of good news to leave you feeling lighter going into the weekend. So that's what today's episode will look like. As a reminder, tomorrow is Saturday, which means my newsletter is going out. If you're not subscribed to that, it is a free source of weekend news where I basically just cover this past week in the news in a nonpartisan fashion. You can subscribe by clicking the link in the podcast description or just going to jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. And as my legal disclaimer, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. The presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn sat before the House Education and Workforce Committee on Tuesday to testify about anti-Semitism and what they're doing, if anything, to combat anti-Semitism on their campuses. The testimony lasted about five hours. It was pretty long. However, everyone's talking about this one four-minute portion of the testimony at the end of the

five-hour hearing. Representative Elise Stefanik is the one who really took charge in asking the questions. In fact, a lot of the committee members would defer the remainder of their time back to Stefanik because she was the one really pressing. So the question that has caused a lot of controversy is whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective universities' code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment. And just to clarify before we get into their answers, the calls for genocide that are being referenced are two particular chants,

one which says, from the river to the sea, another that says intifada. From the river to the sea is short for, from the river to the sea, another that says Intifada. From the River to the Sea is short for From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free. And this chant references that, you know, piece of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which the Palestinians and Israelis have long fought over. There are two interpretations of this chant. One is from the Palestinian side of things. It calls for liberation, to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, to be free. The other interpretation is from the Jews, in which they see this as a call to erase Israel from existence.

Intifada translates literally to uprising or shaking off. And in the past, intifada has been used to describe intense and violent periods of Palestinian protests against Israel. The first intifada and the second intifada specifically. And again, it goes back to this same idea. Palestinians will say liberation is the goal when it comes to this word. It's resistance to the Israeli occupation. It's fighting back. Israelis and Jews see this as violence against them. So when phrases like intifada or globalize the intifada are spoken, Jews see this as a call for violence targeted at them. There is also some debate as to whether there were more direct calls for the genocide of Jews. I've seen some conflicting narratives. At one point, there was a post on X that showed a pro-Palestine rally at Penn, and the caption of that post said, in part, students gathered chanting, we want Jewish genocide. But the Anti-Defamation League, who often speaks out against anti-Semitism, confirmed that the chant is, Israel, Israel, you can't hide. We charge you with genocide,

meaning the Palestinians charge the Israelis with genocide, not that they want the genocide of the Jews. So conflicting narratives. I have heard both sides. But regardless of where the question potentially stems from, the question presented to the president was, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate their respective university's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no? MIT's president, who is Jewish, answered, quote, if targeted at an individual or individuals, not if making public statements. I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus. I have heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic, depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people, Penn's president answered, erected and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. It is a context-dependent decision. She's then

pressed a little harder by Stefanik, and the president responds, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Yes. Harvard's president answered that calling for the genocide of Jews can violate Harvard's rules against bullying and harassment depending on the context. To which she was asked, what's the context? And the president replied, if it's targeted at an individual. The president continued and said, anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, it amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. that is actionable conduct and we do take action, end quote. So those are the responses that sparked a lot of controversy because a lot of people were like, why can't you just say yes? Or why can't you say, you know, any call of genocide against any group

of people violates our code of conduct? Now, there are a couple of things I want to discuss that relate to this testimony and will hopefully give you a better, more well-rounded understanding of this whole situation. For one, all three presidents used the terms free speech and free expression. Their universities respect free speech, respect free expression, and unfortunately or not unfortunately, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. But here's the thing. These private universities are not bound by the First Amendment. And this is something I don't know if a lot of people know. The First Amendment governs government action. The First Amendment does not govern private entities. It does not govern private schools. It does not govern private companies, which is why social media platforms can censor what it wants. It's not govern private schools. It does not govern private companies, which is why social media platforms can censor what

it wants. It's not subject to the First Amendment. However, private universities are a little different in the sense that they receive federal funding. So while they may not be a government entity subject to the First Amendment, federal funding opens the door to the Civil Rights Act. Any educational institution that receives federal funding or the door to the Civil Rights Act. Any educational institution that receives federal funding or assistance, whether it be through participating in federal student

aid programs, whatever it is, is bound by the Civil Rights Act. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The Department of Justice and the Department of Education have also said that Title VI includes religion as well. What this means is that if a university fails to address harassment on its campus based in any of these things, race, color, national origin, religion, and that harassment is creating a hostile environment for students, the university may be in violation of Title VI, and it can have lawsuits filed against it. In fact, two students filed a lawsuit against Penn on Tuesday for this exact reason. So perhaps this gives you a better idea as to why the presidents were using phrases like, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment.

Because Title VI is all about harassment and when universities have to intervene and prevent harassment. So under Title VI, schools have to address harassment if it's creating a hostile environment for students. Naturally, this begs the question, how is harassment defined? Let's go through it, because the Congress members really should have narrowed the scope of their inquiry and asked the questions in the language of the policies. If you saw my video I posted to Instagram or TikTok just a couple of days ago, you'll see where I'm going with this. But, you know, each school has a different policy and each policy is worded differently. And each school has different definitions of harassment or bullying or whatever it is. So what the Congress

members could have done is taken the exact verbiage of their policies and asked the question in a more direct way, right? For instance, Harvard says, discriminatory harassment may violate school policy when it is so severe or pervasive and objectively offensive that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive, and denies the individual an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the institution's programs or activities. Now, Harvard considers bullying a form of harassment, as do most universities, and its bullying policy, which was asked about, just not specifically, says, quote, abusive expression directed at an individual or individuals such as

derogatory remarks, epithets, or ad hominem attacks that are outside the range of commonly accepted expressions of disagreement, disapproval, or critique in a setting that respects free expression. End quote. Knowing this and what I'm trying to say is a more direct question would have been this. Is calling for the genocide of Jews so severe and pervasive and objectively offensive that it creates an environment in which a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive? Similarly, another question that could have been asked to Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews fall outside the range of commonly accepted expressions of disagreement, disapproval, or critique in a setting that respects free expression? So you can see what

I'm saying with this. Positioning the questions in the terms of the policies would have maybe prevented the vague responses from the presidents. MIT's harassment policy is similar to Harvard's. It says, Harassment is defined as an unwelcome conduct of a verbal, nonverbal, or physical nature that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a work or academic environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive, and that adversely affects an individual's educational, work, or living environment. And Penn's is the most vague. It says that the university condemns hate speech, epithets,

and racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs. However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action. Now, although Penn's code of conduct is pretty vague, Penn also sent out a letter back in October basically saying, and this letter went out after the most recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, and the letter basically says that the school can't do anything about hate speech unless it rises to the level where it's meant to intentionally provoke a crowd to immediately carry out violent and unlawful action.

The letter says if someone voices hateful views, the only appropriate response takes the form of disagreement, rejection, or offering alternative. So you can decide for yourself whether calling for the genocide of Jews or any group of people, for that matter, violates those codes of conduct, knowing what you know about the language of the actual codes. And whether those presidents answered properly or they should have answered differently, you can make all those opinions. A couple of other pieces of testimony I feel are worth mentioning. Chairwoman Fox asked the presidents if they recognized Israel's right to exist as a nation. They agreed. President Gay of Harvard said the term intifada is personally abhorrent to her and at odds with Harvard's values, but does not violate the code of conduct. The president said

both Palestinians and Jews on campus have experienced a certain level of threat since October 7th, and that action is already underway to support students facing threats or to hold code at least, seemed to realize the impact that their answers had. President Gay of Harvard posted to X, quote, There are some who have confused the right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear. Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account. End quote. Liz McGill, president of Penn, posted a video to X in which she was actually talking to the camera. And what she said in part was that in

that moment when she was asked the question of whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates school policy, she was focused on the university's longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution. She says, I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. I want to be clear, a call for genocide of Jewish people is threatening. It is intentionally meant to terrify a people who have been subject to pogroms and hatred for centuries and were the victims of mass genocide in the Holocaust. In my view, it would be harassment

or intimidation. Penn must initiate a serious and careful look at our policies, and Provost Jackson and I will immediately convene a process to do so. So it's clear that they realized, again, the impact that their statements had. Most people after these statements were published were wondering why they couldn't just say that in front of Congress. You know, a lot of people were saying this, it's too late, you said what you said. But those were their statements after the fact. On Thursday, the House Education and Workforce Committee was expected to announce an investigation into the three universities following the testimony. Representative Stefanik did say in a statement, quote, after this week's pathetic and morally bankrupt testimony by university presidents when answering questions, the Education and Workforce Committee is launching an official congressional investigation with the full force of subpoena power into Penn, MIT, Harvard, and others.

That concludes the discussion on everything I wanted to say about the testimony to Congress. Now I'd like to move on to quick hitters and all the other exciting segments I have for you, but let's quickly take a 10-ters. Number one, former Speaker McCarthy is officially leaving Congress after this term. People were wondering what he would ultimately decide to do given the recent ouster. And with the deadline to file for re-election being friday it was only a matter of time before you know the public figured it out but on wednesday he did post a farewell message to x he included a caption that read quote as the son of a firefighter from bakersfield my story is the story of america for me every moment came with a great deal of devotion and

responsibility serving you in Congress and as the 55th Speaker of the House has been my greatest honor. End quote. Second quick hitter, Representative Jabal Bowman was censured by the House on Thursday for pulling the fire alarm back in September, right before the House was supposed to vote on government funding. You probably remember this. He was walking out of the building across from the Capitol. He says he went to go open the door. He wasn't thinking straight. He accidentally pulled the fire alarm. He has maintained it was an accident, but other people feel otherwise. He eventually was charged with a misdemeanor for falsely triggering the fire alarm, which he pled guilty to, and the censure motion

was brought on Tuesday. It was brought as privileged, which meant that the House had two legislative days to vote on it, and procedurally, when motions to censure are brought, before the actual vote, a member of Congress can bring a motion to table, which if the motion to table is passed, prevents a vote, right? And therefore prevents a censure at all. But in this case, a motion to table was brought but failed by a vote of 201 to 216, so it went to a vote and it passed 214 to 191. And as a reminder, a censure is a formal reprimand. So it's basically the House saying, hey, we publicly and formally disapprove of your actions, but nothing happens to his seat in the House or

anything like that. It's just a formal reprimand. Number three, Senate Republicans and Bernie Sanders voted to block a $111 billion foreign aid package on Wednesday. This bill included funding for Ukraine, Israel, the Indo-Pacific, humanitarian aid for Gaza, and some border funding. But Republicans say they are not entertaining this foreign aid until there's a sufficient border remedy. So here's the deal. The funding in the package that was blocked is aimed at increasing the number of border agents, immigration judges, and asylum officers. But Republicans are saying this isn't enough. We need to do more to actually prevent people from a little bit to get the funding for Ukraine. So we'll see what happens with that in the coming days and weeks. Procedurally speaking,

just to clear this up, what do I mean when I say Republicans blocked the package? So here's how this works. Before the package actually goes to a vote, there's what's called a cloture vote in the Senate. If a bill passes the cloture vote, then the bill can go to an actual vote. But here's the thing. It takes 60 senators to vote yes on the cloture to even get it to a vote. So it's not just that simple majority threshold of 51, it's 60. So in this case, the cloture vote was 49 to 51, which meant it did not reach that 60 vote threshold and could not go to a vote. That's why you'll hear the word blocked in these situations because the bill at issue was quite literally blocked from actually going to a vote. Number four, encounters at the southern border hit the

highest total for a single day ever recorded on Tuesday. Multiple sources from Customs and Border Protection said there were over 12,000 southern border encounters on Tuesday alone, which surpasses the previous record of around 10,000. Roughly 10,200 of those 12,000 encounters were between ports of entry. And number five, the Biden administration has again delayed banning menthol cigarettes. The ban was previously pushed back to the end of December, and now it won't take effect until at least March of 2024. A senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that the delay was caused by a lobbying push by civil rights groups that urged the ban would unfairly target Black smokers and could hurt Biden's re-election chances with Black voters. You might be wondering

why would this hurt Black smokers and not other smokers, and the argument stems from a criminal justice standpoint. To illustrate, National Action Network, one of the groups that is against this ban, told ABC News in a statement that it has, quote, taken the position that unless there are real safeguards against criminal prosecution of the ban said, given that more than 45,000 black people die from smoking each year, quote, I don't know how black lives matter if you're willing to put 45,000 lives at risk, end quote. And the White House declined to comment on the delay. Next segment is some lawsuits. And I haven't quite figured out what to call this one. So if you have any ideas, let me know. As I said, I'm leaning towards look who's suing now, but I feel like I could do better. The first lawsuit involves Rip from Yellowstone. If you watch Yellowstone, this is Cole Hauser.

This is the cowboy everyone loves. He started a coffee company called Free Rain. The man loves his coffee. He says on an average day, he'll have up to five cups of coffee in one day. So someone on his design team crafts up this logo for Free Rain, comes up with an F and an R overlapping one another. Of all people, guess who's suing him? The creator of Yellowstone, Taylor Sheridan. Taylor Sheridan is suing Cole Hauser. He says Hauser's logo is too similar to his own logo, which was created for his brand Bosque Ranch Craft Coffee. What is the logo of Bosque Ranch Craft Coffee? A B and an R overlapping. And while the design concept, letters overlapping, is quite common, the logos actually do look very similar. Sheridan's suit

is requesting that Hauser be permanently prohibited from using the FR logo and that all products, marketing, and promotional material bearing the logo be destroyed. Sheridan also wants compensatory damages, which include but are not limited to Hauser's profits off the logo and the damages sustained by Sheridan's brand as a result of Hauser's logo, which likely isn't much. The second lawsuit, Panera Bread, received its second wrongful death lawsuit stemming from its charged lemonade drink. A couple of months ago, a young girl, she's a college girl, she drank a charged lemonade without realizing it had caffeine in it and died. She had a heart condition. She wasn't supposed to drink caffeine, but according to her family's lawsuit, the lemonade was not

labeled properly. Now, a man who suffers from an unspecified chromosomal deficiency disorder has died. He drank three charged lemonades in one sitting despite having high blood pressure. To give you an idea of the caffeine content, one large 30-ounce charged lemonade has 390 milligrams of caffeine, which is about three 12-ounce cans of Red Bull. So actually, proportionally, it's probably the same as Red Bull, right? Because three 12-ounce cans is equivalent to 36 ounces. One 30-ounce charged lemonade has the same amount of milligrams of caffeine. But if you can't drink caffeine, you can't drink this lemonade. So this is Panera Bread's second wrongful death lawsuit.

And these suits just stem from the fact, you know, either it's not labeled properly or it's not adequately advertised that it has caffeine in it, whatever it might be. Those are the two lawsuits I had for you. Now let's move on to fact versus fiction. Number one, there are more stimulus checks going out. This is fiction. Don't believe everything you see on Facebook or anywhere for that matter. everything you see on Facebook, or anywhere for that matter. A recent post on Facebook claims that the IRS is sending out a fourth round of stimulus checks to people in certain states. Multiple posts actually claim this. One post

says, quote, if your account information is on file with the IRS, you will automatically get your money deposited into the account they have on file. This is not true. The Treasury Department's website makes no mention of a fourth payment. The IRS has also verified there are no additional payments going out. So keep in mind, in order for a fourth stimulus check to go out, Congress would have to pass legislation authorizing it. It would have to get the president's signature, and that just simply has not happened, nor is there any indication that it will happen in the foreseeable future. Number two, George Santos is the first congressman to be expelled without being convicted of a crime or committing treason. This is fact. Only five other House representatives have been expelled

from Congress in our country's history. Three were in 1861 for committing treason. They were supporting the Confederacy. One was in 1980 after he was convicted of bribery. And one was in 2002 after being convicted of bribery, conspiracy to defraud the United States, corruption, tax evasion, and more. So although Santos has been indicted, he has not been convicted in a court of law. A conviction would require a determination of guilt. And number three, President Zelensky of Ukraine bought yachts with U.S. aid money. This is fiction. Rumors are

swirling that President Zelensky of Ukraine bought two big yachts using the funding that the United States has been sending over. Not true. One post on X included a picture of a yacht that said, Zelensky's new yacht, purchased with donations from U.S., U.K., E.U. taxpayers. Another X user wrote, quote, Dear Speaker Johnson, Americans overwhelmingly do not want to fund a war in Ukraine or another yacht for dictator Zelensky. Stop funding Ukraine with our taxpayer money. Sincerely,

all Americans. The two yachts that were claimed to have been bought, but both listings are still active on the respective brokerages' websites. Representatives from both brokerages told Verify, which is a fact-checking platform, that the claims were false and that both yachts are still for sale. Zelensky did not buy them. On to the next. Context is key. Here's a headline for you. Trump says he'll be a dictator on day one. Here's another headline. Trump will be a dictator on day one and every day thereafter. Okay, let's give some context. Did he say he would be a dictator on day one? Yes. Did he say he would be a dictator every day thereafter? No. So Trump sat down with Sean Hannity for a town hall where Hannity asked him, quote,

You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody. End quote. Trump responded, except for day one. Hannity said, meaning? And Trump said, I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill. Hannity said, that's not retribution, to which Trump said, I love this guy. He says, you're not going to be a dictator, are you? And I said, no, no, no. Other than day one, we're closing the border and we're drilling,

drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator. So yes, he said he would be a dictator on day one for the purpose of closing the border and drilling, but other than that, he has no plans to be a dictator. Here's another headline. Hobby Lobby stores in Texas and Louisiana have removed Hanukkah. Another one. Hobby Lobby under fire over Hanukkah merchandise. For those who don't know, Hobby Lobby is a craft store, and it's a very Christian craft store, actually. And yes, Hobby Lobby has, in fact, stopped selling merchandise. But this isn't a new policy this year. Hobby Lobby actually didn't sell Hanukkah merchandise last season either, and they only started selling Hanukkah merchandise, I believe, in 2013. It ran for a few years and that was it.

So recently, a lot of articles have been coming out, a lot of posts about it, that they've taken their Hanukkah merchandise off the shelves. Yes, true. However, the merchandise was not on the shelves last holiday season either. And finally, my favorite segment, not everything is bad. The heartwarming news I have for you today is courtesy of Matilda Handy, who is a 10-year-old girl in England. Matilda was devastated when she lost her grandpa last year. He was her last surviving grandparent. Her grandmother had passed away a few years earlier, and she really was just devastated

that she couldn't tell them all about her life anymore, how much she loved them, and just that she could no longer talk to them. So she came up with this brilliant idea of a postbox to heaven. And the idea was inspired by her grandmother who had worked 25 years at the post office, and she wanted to be able to write letters to her grandparents. So Matilda's mom, who happens to work for a cemetery in Nottingham, she brought Matilda's idea to her bosses. Her bosses were more than happy to make Matilda's idea come to life, and the first postbox to heaven was installed one year ago, right before Christmas. But since then, the postbox idea has become so popular that there are now more than 40 post boxes to heaven in cemeteries across England and Scotland and Wales. Nearly 3,000 letters have gone into them so far,

and Matilda was awarded a British Citizen Youth Award medal earlier this year. The award recognizes people under the age of 18 who have made a positive difference in their community, and she sends her grandparents letters all the time. That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Let me know what you think of this new format. Have a great weekend. I will talk to you on Tuesday.