UNBIASED - Hunter Biden Prosecutor Appointed Special Counsel Status, Leaked Document Signals New Trump Indictment, Missing IRS Microfilm Cartridges, and More.

Episode Date: August 15, 2023

1. US Attorney David Weiss Appointed to Special Counsel in Case Against Hunter Biden; Who Is David Weiss? What Does Special Counsel Status Mean? Why Are Republicans and Democrats Both Displeased? (2:16)2. UBS Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud Case with DOJ for $1.4B (13:14)3. Watchdog Report Says IRS Cannot Locate Thousands of Missing Microfilm Cartridges (15:22) 4. Hawaiian Electric Facing Two Lawsuits in Aftermath of Maui Wildfire (21:14)5. Fulton County DA Mistakenly Uploads Document Signaling Potential Charges Against Trump; Here's What It Said (29:05) **NOTE: Donald Trump was indicted in Georgia late Monday night following the recording of this episode. The indictment will be covered in full on Friday’s episode but this episode will give you a general idea.  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 Tuesday. I hope you had a great weekend and you're ready for a productive week. I have five stories today. The first is going to be all about the appointment of special counsel David Weiss. Who is he? Why did this happen? What does special counsel mean? I'm going to answer all of those questions. We're then going to talk about quickly this settlement from UBS for just over a billion dollars that settles some cases the DOJ had brought after the 2008 recession against certain financial institutions. And then we'll talk about the IRS and this new watchdog report

that shows there are thousands of missing microfilm cartridges. So we'll talk about what microfilm cartridges are, why the IRS even has them, and what this report says. We'll then talk about the lawsuits against Hawaiian Electric following the wildfire, and we will finish by talking about these potential charges that the Fulton County DA may file against Donald Trump. So they haven't been filed yet, but there was a document mistakenly uploaded to the Fulton County Court System's website that kind of gives us a little bit of insight as to at least what charges the prosecutors are presenting to the grand jury. So those are the five stories for today. Before we get into the stories, let me just give you

the reminder that I give you every episode. If you haven't already, please leave my show a review. It really helps support my show, lets other people know why they should be listening to my show, and you can do that on any platform you listen. I also want to remind you, as always, that yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So don't take anything I say as legal advice. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. On Friday, Attorney General Garland appointed Prosecutor David Weiss to special counsel in the case against Hunter Biden. But what does this mean? I want to talk about who David Weiss is, why this happened, what the title of special counsel means,

and what this could mean for a potential trial for Hunter Biden, or at least what this is signaling. I'm also going to talk about why neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are happy about this appointment, but we'll get into that at the end of this story. Who is David Weiss? David Weiss is a U.S. attorney who got his bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis. He got his law degree from Widener University. He clerked for Justice Andrew Christie of the Delaware Supreme Court and then served as assistant U.S. attorney from 1986 through 1989. He then left that job and went to work in the private sector, which is just basically working, you know, for a private firm, not as any sort of government official. And he worked for this financial services firm where he practiced commercial litigation. He then returned to the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office in 2007, where he served as first assistant

U.S. attorney, and he held that position until 2017 when former President Trump nominated him to the position of the United States Attorney of Delaware. At the time of this nomination, he was actually serving as the acting U.S. Attorney for Delaware, and Trump nominated him for the permanent position. So he has been the U.S. Attorney of Delaware since, and he has also been the U.S. Attorney overseeing the investigation into Hunter Biden since 2019. So that's a little bit about him. Now, you may remember I released an episode at the end of June discussing the IRS whistleblower testimony surrounding the investigation into Hunter Biden. In that testimony, the whistleblowers testified

to the fact that David Weiss had presented charges to both the D.C. district as well as the Central District of California to bring against Hunter Biden. And both of those districts had declined to bring charges against him. And therefore, those charges were never brought. But then Attorney General Garland told Congress that David Weiss had all of the authority he needed to bring the charges himself in any district he wanted. And that, you know, Attorney General Garland didn't know how it would have been possible for anybody to block him from bringing a prosecution, given that he had the authority to bring these charges himself. Now, another piece of conflicting information was that David Weiss had allegedly told the whistleblowers that he requested special counsel months ago and was denied. Attorney General Garland, though, says that Weiss never

requested special counsel status. And no one really ever got down to the bottom of what the truth was. The GOP actually wanted David Weiss to come in and testify to Congress about what actually took place, and he never did. And now that he's special counsel, he doesn't have to. He won't have to testify in front of Congress. And we'll get into that towards the end of the story. But basically, we don't really know what the truth is because we're getting two stories from two different people. So knowing what you know now, let's talk about what special counsel status means. Special counsel, by definition, if we're looking at the actual definition of special counsel, gives an individual the full power and independent authority to

exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States attorney. In practice, what this means is that he can now issue subpoenas, he can issue search warrants, he can bring charges both within Delaware's jurisdiction as he could before and now outside of Delaware's jurisdiction. He can investigate crimes that occur during the investigation, such as obstruction of justice. He can supervise investigations. He can decide whether to not only bring charges, but take charges to trial. So there's a lot more authority with special counsel status. On top of all of that that I just mentioned, there's no longer this day-to-day control by the DOJ, and they don't have to consult with the attorney general in making decisions

about an investigation. However, just as a side note, the attorney general can still overrule decisions made by special counsel in these investigations, but special counsel doesn't have to consult with the attorney general in making decisions. Typically, special counsels are brought in from outside of the DOJ, but in certain cases, attorney generals will appoint lawyers from within the agency to add weight, so to speak, to investigations that they were already supervising. And one final element that kind of makes special counsels distinct is that they are appointed to handle sensitive cases that usually involve political figures or wrongdoing by the government. And what the rules governing the DOJ say is that the attorney general can appoint one special counsel when the Justice

Department would have either a conflict of interest or when the attorney general decides it would be in the public interest to have an outside lawyer handle the investigation. Now, other recent instances we've seen special counsels be appointed, and this is just in the last, you know, 12 months. Robert Herr was appointed special counsel to review the classified documents found in President Biden's home earlier this year. And then we know Jack Smith was appointed special counsel to oversee Donald Trump's classified documents case. Now let's talk about why now? I mean, it's been five years since the investigation started. Why is he being appointed special counsel now?

Well, all Attorney General Garland said in his statement was that the investigation had reached a stage at which David Weiss should continue his work as a special counsel. He didn't go into any further detail other than that it was in the public's interest. But here is what we also know. We know, as I've discussed in previous episodes, that Hunter Biden's plea deal kind of crumbled. The judge had concerns about a few aspects of the deal, told the lawyers from both sides to get together, revise the agreement in 30 days, and come back with a new agreement. Well, we also more recently found out that federal prosecutors submitted a court filing. This just happened on Friday. Federal prosecutors submitted a court

filing that they had reached an impasse with Hunter Biden's lawyers. And since then, on Sunday, Hunter Biden's lawyers had submitted a filing of their own saying that federal prosecutors went back on their deal. So one school of thought is that David Weiss was appointed special counsel because there's now this chance that Hunter Biden's case goes to trial. And in that case, there may be more investigations to be had. There may be a need for special counsel that there wasn't before. Another thought, though, is that the investigations could now involve the president. If we look at the last two special counsel nominations, the special counsel Robert Herr and special counsel Jack Smith, Attorney Garland

specifically mentioned in those two appointments that they were warranted because the investigations involved a presidential candidate. So maybe this investigation has moved closer to the president. I mean, we do know that as part of the IRS whistleblower testimony, the whistleblowers told Congress that they wanted to interview the Biden family members but had been blocked by the DOJ. We also know there was the recent testimony from Devin Archer, you know, exploring potential involvement by President Biden in foreign business dealings. And for the record, Devin Archer said that as far as he knew, there wasn't any involvement. But all of this to say that if there are even inquiries into the president, it could warrant the appointment of special counsel. That is not to say that the president has done anything wrong, but even if

there are just questions, then that could explain why Attorney General Garland made the decision that he did to appoint David Weiss to special counsel. Now, of course, there could be other things going on that we as the public just aren't privy to yet, but that is what we do know. So finally, let's conclude with why are both Republicans and Democrats not too pleased at the appointment? Let's first start with the Republicans. Because special counsels operate outside of the DOJ's chain of command and the congressional oversight that comes with it, they are not required to keep Congress or the Justice Department updated on the status of their work. Now, I've mentioned before that the House wanted David Weiss to testify, but he doesn't have to anymore because he's not subject

to congressional oversight. Obviously, recently, the House Oversight Committee has been on overdrive to get testimony and evidence surrounding the Bidens. And they see this move appointing David Weiss to special counsel as a roadblock. And actually, what they say is that a special counsel probe effectively draws a curtain around the evidence they are seeking. But another issue that Republicans have with the appointment stems from trust. And what they're saying is that, you know, David Weiss is the one who gave Hunter Biden this quote unquote sweetheart deal. So why should why should anyone trust him to act as special counsel? So that's kind of where the Republicans disappointment lies. Now, as for the Democrats, or at least the Biden family and those who would like to see Joe Biden be reelected

or potentially beat Donald Trump is is simply because what this means is that the case against Hunter Biden is is far from over and it could now potentially interfere with President Biden's 2024 run. And there's and there's really two reasons for that, because one, you know, if it comes down to Joe Biden versus Donald Trump, obviously the supporters of Joe Biden are going to want Donald Trump's. So there's that. And then also just in a more general sense, like the president's son having legal issues isn't a good look for the president. So for those reasons, Democrats aren't exactly thrilled with this either. That takes us into our second story, which is that on Monday, UBS agreed to pay $1.4 billion in civil penalties over fraud and misconduct during the 2008 recession and in the years leading up to it more so. Now, this number doesn't even come close to the penalties paid by

other institutions, but it's worth talking about because this settlement from UBS concludes the final case in the cases brought by the DOJ against various financial institutions over their misleading statements made to purchasers of mortgage-backed securities. The cumulative recoveries from all of the financial institutions that faced penalties from the DOJ total about $36 billion. So here's what happened. In the years leading up to the purchasers of these mortgage-backed securities. So that's where all of these settlements are stemming from. Now, as I said, UBS, $1.4 billion doesn't even come close to the amount paid by other financial institutions. Just to give you some context, Bank of America had

previously paid $16 billion to settle the claims against them. That was back in 2014. JPMorgan Chase paid about $13 billion, and Citigroup paid about $7 billion. But as I stated earlier, this UBS settlement just closes out all of these cases that the DOJ had brought against the financial institutions. Let's take a quick break. And when we come back, we will finish with the three remaining stories. According to a new watchdog report, the IRS is having trouble locating thousands of microfilm cartridges storing millions of sensitive business and individual tax account records. Now you might be wondering, what are microfilm cartridges? Why does the IRS have them? And why are they missing?

So let's take it from the top and just first and foremost say that this headline is part of a larger study that was done by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. The study was done in order to analyze the processes and procedures that are used by the IRS to look after its microfilm, which, by the way, the IRS is actually required under the Federal Records Act of 1950 to back up and store its tax records. But microfilms specifically are used to store photographic records and tax information for both businesses and individuals. And the reason that microfilms are used is because they're low cost, they're reliable, they're long term, and it's a standardized storage medium. Now, these records are kept for

anywhere from 30 to 75 years. So personal tax accounts are kept for 30 years before they're destroyed or they're supposed to be destroyed. And then business tax account records are kept for 75 years before they are supposed to be destroyed. But what happens is, and where these missing cartridges are stemming from, is that whenever the IRS closes a tax processing center, which is usually due to the fact that fewer and fewer people are paper filing their tax returns, but whenever a tax processing center closes, the IRS will relocate the storage of the microfilm cartridges to a tax processing center that is still open. So as an example, when the IRS closed its processing center in Fresno,

California in 2021, the microfilm cartridges were sent to the Kansas City Processing Center and kept there. Because remember, there's this certain amount of time that these cartridges have to be kept for. So it's not like when a processing center closes, they just destroy all of their stuff. They have to actually keep it. So they send it to a center that's still operating. So the TIGTA, which is the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, comes into these facilities and says, we're going to take a look at how you're handling these records and, you know, look at what processes and procedures you guys have in place to make sure you're complying with the rules and regulations. And what the report concluded was that there are, quote, significant deficiencies in the IRS's safeguarding, accounting for, and physical storage of its microfilm backup cartridges, end quote. But more specifically, at the Kansas City Processing Center, where those Fresno microfilms were transferred, the inspectors said they were informed that when they received the

microfilm from the Fresno facility, the fiscal year 2010 microfilm cartridges were missing from the shipment. They haven't seen them since, they haven't found them since, and they've just been missing. Now, additional microfilm record logs that are provided to the IRS from its vendors that make these cartridges shows more than 4,500 cartridges from fiscal year 2019 containing individual tax account information and more than 4,000 cartridges containing business tax account information for fiscal year 2018 and 2019 that were supposedly sent to Kansas City are unaccounted for. And then on top of that, at the Ogden Processing Center, which is in Utah, officials on site found seven empty boxes, which in total would hold about 168 cartridges. And inside these boxes, there were these notes that the cartridges had been sent for reformatting in what looks like 2013. But IRS personnel at the processing center didn't know the location of the cartridges because apparently the prior microfilm contractor went out

of business abruptly and the cartridges haven't been seen since. So they were sent out for reformatting. Whoever they were sent out to for reformatting apparently went out of business and they just don't know what happened to the cartridges. On top of the missing cartridges, inspectors also found that cartridges stored at the processing center in Utah are being stored on open shelving in the middle of a large warehouse, which is accessible to all personnel within the facility and not within the eyesight of the IRS personnel that are supposed to be overseeing the microfilm. So not only is it that the people in charge of the microfilm aren't actively overseeing it, but then it's available and accessible to anyone in the

facility when it's specifically supposed to be accessible to only the IRS personnel that are supposed to have access to it. And the final issue inspectors found is that the cartridges are not being disposed of when they're supposed to be. So I mentioned previously that the backups of individual tax account records are supposed to be disposed of after 30 years. But when inspectors were in these processing facilities, there were cartridges that were much older than 30 years. If you want to read more about this inspection and what the report says, I do have it linked on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. You can just go directly to the site, click on episodes, click on this episode and scroll all the way to the bottom.

Or you can always find the link in the podcast description. It says all sources can be found here. Click on that and just scroll down to the bottom and you'll find it. Now, the fourth story I have for you is about the lawsuits against Hawaiian Electric. Hawaiian Electric was hit with two lawsuits over the weekend, and they're seeking class action status. And I'm sure you weekend, and they're seeking class action status. And I'm sure you could guess why they're facing these lawsuits, but the lawsuits are due to Hawaiian Electric's contribution to what has become the deadliest wildfire in the United

States in more than 100 years. And I should note that Hawaiian Electric is not the only defendant. There are also some subsidiaries that are named defendants as well, including the power utility company that services Maui. But Hawaiian Electric supplies 95% of Hawaii's electricity, so they are the main defendant. So why is Hawaiian Electric Services being sued? Well, obviously we know it stems from their contribution to the fire, but how do we know that they contributed? Well, we don't know for sure, right? So there's no official cause of the fire. But last Thursday, Maui's mayor had said that power lines that were still energized had fallen on the roads. And that's kind of where this idea is coming from,

that that is what ignited the fire. However, even the lawsuit doesn't exactly state how the power lines ignited the fire, but the assumption is that Hawaiian Electric's power lines at least contributed to the fire. So did Hawaiian Electric do anything wrong? Well, here's what happened. So on August 4th, four days before the fire broke out, the National Weather Service had issued a warning that Hawaii could see indirect impacts from Hurricane Dora. Hurricane Dora was about 800 miles off the coast of Maui. But what the National Weather Service said was that the indirect impacts could be strong and gusty trade winds and dry weather with a high fire danger. In addition to that, the National Weather Service also issued a red flag warning for portions of the Hawaiian

Islands, which included West Maui. So what the lawsuit says is that by August 8th, four days after this announcement, despite knowing all of these warnings, Hawaiian Electric chose not to de-energize its power lines, including the power lines that had already been downed and in contact with the ground. The lawsuit also says that de-energizing power lines during fire weather conditions is common practice in the western United States and that public safety power shutoffs are used during red flag and high wind conditions to specifically prevent wildfires. So I specifically looked into this a little bit and I found this article on a site called Sunrun and it's all about Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which is

California's gas and electricity supplier. And for those like me that live on the eastern side of the United States, you may not be as familiar with wildfires and what electric companies may do during wildfire season or when they are likely. So what this article said is that there are certain conditions that cause electric companies, specifically Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to shut off power. And you may have heard about these shutoffs on the news. They're called blackouts. What the article says is that in deciding whether or not to shut off power, there are multiple criteria that Pacific Gas and Electric looks at when making that decision. So the criteria include the National Weather Service red flag warnings, low humidity levels, usually 20% and below, forecasted sustained winds generally above 25 miles per hour and wind gusts above approximately

45 miles per hour, dry fuel on the ground and moisture content of live vegetation, and on-site real-time observations from field crews. So that's the criteria they look at. They analyze all of those different factors and decide whether or not a shutoff is necessary to reduce the risk of a fire. So that's how things work in California. However, if I was one of the lawyers representing the people who have lost their homes or loved ones, et cetera, this is pretty critical information because at least three of those factors were present before the fire broke out in Hawaii, and yet there wasn't this shutoff. And what's interesting is that Pacific Gas and Electric actually just recently settled

several settlements of their own in 2019 after its electrical equipment was found to have caused the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, which killed 85 people. And at the time, that was the deadliest fire since 1918. This fire in Hawaii, though, obviously just surpassed the Camp Fire. But up until this Hawaiian fire, the Camp Fire was the deadliest wildfire. Pacific Asset Electric settled for about $13 billion, and it also pled guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter. So that kind of gives you an idea of how electric companies can be responsible for fires like this. So obviously, the Camp Fire in California is a pretty similar situation to what we're seeing in Hawaii, except this one is

a bit worse. In addition to that, there are two pieces of information in one of the lawsuits that kind of insinuate that Hawaiian Electric knew the risk of the fire. The first piece of information is that a member of the Hawaiian Public Utilities Commission is quoted as saying, quote, there was absolutely knowledge within the state and within the electric industry that fire was a huge, huge concern on the island of Maui, and even more so than any of the other islands, end quote. The second piece of information is this 2022 Hawaiian Electric Funding Request, which states that the risk of a utility system causing a wildfire ignition is significant. And the company was specifically seeking funding to, quote, minimize the probability of the

company's facilities becoming the origin or contribution source of ignition for a wildfire, end quote. So look, if you look at what happened, and of course, we don't know the official cause of the fire, but let's say a downed line had sparked the flames. To add to that, you have the hurricane 800 miles off the coast that's bringing intense wind, dry weather conditions, and causes this fire to go absolutely wild. Then Hawaii has this outdoor siren warning system, which has about 80 alarms just on Maui alone. It's actually the largest siren system in the world, and that wasn't activated during the fires, so no one knew what was happening or had any warning. Knowing all of that, is it Hawaiian Electric's fault entirely that all of these people lost their homes and

lost their lives? Perhaps not entirely. There were many contributing factors, some of which, what we call in the law, were force majeure, which is an act of God. It's this unforeseeable event for which no one can be held accountable. But if what the complaint says is true, and Hawaiian Electric knew the risk of fire months ago, and they knew that they could potentially be the origin or the contributing factor, a contributing factor, to the ignition of a wildfire, perhaps that increases their liability. I do think we will see a settlement from them similar to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, but it's going to take time. We really just don't know when, we don't know how much. After all, the cause hasn't even been established yet, so it'll all happen in time. On a related note, Hawaiian Electric shares dropped nearly 40%

on Monday, down to just over $20 a share. The last time the stock price was that low was in 2010. The fifth and final story I have for you is about this document that was mistakenly uploaded to the Fulton County Courts website on Monday and quickly taken down. So the document is dated August 14th. Donald Trump is named as the defendant in a case titled State of Georgia versus Donald Trump. The document was first reported by Reuters and Reuters actually had to change their headline. So first it mentioned something about an indictment and then it just changed the headline to the fact that this document was uploaded and taken down. But following Reuters first report, the DA released their own statement saying that the Reuters report that those charges were

filed is inaccurate, but beyond that, we cannot comment. So the thought is these are at least potentially the charges that they're presenting to the grand jury. Obviously, we know an indictment hasn't been brought in order for an indictment to be brought. The grand jury has to agree to bring charges, which I'll get into in a second. But my point is, it's unclear what this document exactly was. We just know it lists Donald Trump as the defendant, it lists charges, and the case is called State of Georgia versus Donald Trump. As we know, Georgia's district attorney has been investigating Donald Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and an indictment is expected this week. Supposedly, Tuesday is the

day the grand jury is supposed to hear from some key witnesses. So we know it's coming, right? The document that I do have linked for you on my website lists 13 different charges, but it's unclear whether there are multiple counts of each charge or like how many counts of each charge if they're just single charges. But what the charges include are these. So violation of the Georgia RICO Act. This pertains to organized crime and racketeering. Solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer. And this is listed three times. One dated December 2020, one dated January 2021, and another dated September 2021. Then there's conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer, conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree. This is listed twice. Conspiracy to commit false statements and writings, conspiracy to commit false filing documents, filing false documents, and false statements and writings. And that's listed twice. Of these charges, 12 are considered felonies. One is considered a serious felony. And if I had to guess,

and just keep in mind, this document could have completely inaccurate information and that's why it was taken down. So just take all of this with a grain of salt. But based on this information, based on the charges listed, I would guess that the first solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer charge, the conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree charges, the conspiracy to commit false statements and writing charges, and the conspiracy to commit filing false documents charge are all related to the Georgia elector slate, that elector slate that I elaborated on last episode. Because those charges are dated December 6th and December 7th of 2020, which is about a week before the elector slate met. And they just sound like something that

would stem from that, from these electors meeting, signing off on the certificates, sending the certificates in. They actually sound pretty similar to the charges brought against the Michigan elector slate. But again, we don't know much. This is all based on assumptions from this one document. And it's very possible that these are just the charges that are being presented to the grand jury this week. And the grand jury may decide to charge him with all of those or some of them. But just remember how the grand jury works is that the grand jury will hear evidence as to why prosecutors think someone committed a crime or in this case, multiple crimes. The burden of proof is different at this stage than

at a trial. So the grand jury has to find probable cause, which means that a reasonable person could believe the crimes were committed. So if the jury finds that, those charges are brought in an indictment, and then he will proceed to trial, assuming he pleads not guilty, as he has done with all of the other indictments. And then at the trial stage, the burden of proof becomes beyond a reasonable doubt. So we'll know more later this week. That's when the indictment is expected. Remember, I said that Tuesday is the day the grand jury is supposed to hear from key witnesses. And then potentially by the end of the week, we will see that indictment. That concludes this episode. I hope you enjoyed it. Please don't forget to leave me a review.

Have a great rest of your week, and i will talk to you on friday