UNBIASED - Hunter Biden's Plea Fiasco, Biden’s Attorneys Face Possible Sanctions, UFO Whistleblower Testimony, Investigation Into Leon Black’s $158M Payment to Epstein and More.

Episode Date: July 28, 2023

1. Hunter Biden Pleads Not Guilty to Tax Crimes and Gun Charge (1:54); House Republicans File Amicus Curiae Brief (13:22); Judge Threatens Sanctions on Attorney Who Allegedly Misrepresented Her Identity to the Court (15:33)2. Congressional Oversight Committee Hears Testimony from Former Military Officials Claiming Government is Hiding UFO Intelligence (20:42)3. Senate's Progress on National Defense Authorization Act; List of Amendments that Passed and Failed Thus Far (29:00)4. SCOTUS Clears Path for Mountain Valley Pipeline Construction After Emergency Request (31:59)5. UPS Averts Strike After Reaching Tentative Deal with Teamsters Union (33:20)6. Senate Finance Committee Reveals Yearlong Investigation into Leon Black; New Lawsuit Claims Black Raped Underage Autistic Girl in Epstein’s Townhouse (34:41)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. Thank you for being here. As always, I hope you had a great week. We're going to close out the week with some of the biggest news stories of the week. So we're going to deep dive into the Hunter Biden plea deal. What happened there? And it's really a three part story because not only are we going to talk about the plea deal, but we're also going to talk about this brief that was filed by House Republicans the night before the hearing, and then also talk about this incident that happened alongside that

brief being filed that caused the judge to threaten sanctions against Hunter Biden's attorneys. So that's kind of a three-part story that's going to take up the first half of the episode. And then we'll dive into the congressional testimony surrounding the UFO intelligence and what the former military officials are saying about that. And then, of course, we'll finish with our notable mentions. So before we get into the stories, let me just remind you of a couple of things. 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, because after all, nonpartisan news can benefit all of us. And also sharing my show with your friends really helps support me as well. In addition to that, let me just remind you that yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. Hunter Biden had every intention of pleading guilty on Wednesday to two counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax until the judge overseeing the case put the proceedings on hold over concern about the deal's legality. So let's recap what was supposed to happen, and then we'll talk about what happened. There was supposed to be this plea deal

for the two counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax. In addition to that, there was a pretrial diversion for the gun charge. The difference between the plea deal and the pretrial diversion is that a plea deal is an admission of guilt, whereas a pretrial diversion avoids the criminal justice process altogether. So in a plea deal, you're saying, or in this case at least, Hunter Biden was saying, yes, I'm guilty in exchange for admitting my guilt. These things are going to happen as per the agreement, whereas a pretrial diversion says if you do these things in accordance with the agreement, the gun charge will be dismissed. It'll never go on your record. You don't have to admit guilt, none of that stuff. So in this case, the pretrial diversion required that Hunter Biden remained drug free and not commit any additional crimes

for two years. After those two years, the gun charge would be dismissed. It would never be on his record. He would never have to make a plea. So that's the difference between the two. So on Wednesday, Hunter Biden enters the courtroom fully expecting to plead guilty. But things didn't exactly go as planned. So right when the hearing starts, the judge starts to ask these questions about the agreements and expresses some concerns about three things, really. And two of these things are being talked about more than the third. But it's interesting because the third thing is really what caused her to say, I'm not signing off on this agreement. So the first concern that she had was the legality and constitutionality of these two deals being a package deal in the sense that by entering the guilty plea, Hunter Biden would essentially resolve his gun charge. The second concern she had was whether this agreement avoided future charges down the road specifically related to illegally lobbying for a foreign government. And her third concern was her own role in enforcing

the pretrial diversion agreement, because typically a pretrial diversion agreement solely lies with the executive branch, the Justice Department. So all of those concerns were dealt with at this hearing, and we're going to talk through each one. So when it comes to the confusion regarding whether the agreement avoided future charges, the judge immediately started off by saying, look, these provisions are not standard. This is different from what I typically see. And she said she was hesitant to sign off on it because she couldn't find another example of a similar situation. So she couldn't find another example of a diversion

agreement so broad that it shielded the defendant from charges in a different case. Then the prosecutors are like, well, no, you know, the investigation is still ongoing and the plea deal and pretrial diversion, they don't necessarily avoid future charges. We can always bring charges down the road. And Hunter Biden and his attorneys are like, no, no, charges. We can always bring charges down the road. And Hunter Biden and his attorneys are like, no, no, no. We thought that by Biden pleading guilty, he was avoiding any future charges. So here's where that confusion stemmed from. The pretrial diversion language said that the government, meaning the DOJ, agrees not to prosecute Hunter Biden for any crimes encompassed within this whole list set forth in the agreement. And I'm not going to get into specifics. I don't want to confuse you with a bunch of verbiage. It's not necessary. What is necessary to understand is that

this this word encompassed, it kind of meant two different things. It meant one thing to the prosecution and another thing to the defense attorneys. So the defense attorneys, you know, it's possible they read this language and they thought, OK, he's safe from future charges as per this language, whereas the government's intention could have been, let's leave it vague enough where we keep the investigation open. You know, we agree not to bring future charges for particular things, certain things, but not everything. So about an hour into the hearing, the judge asks Hunter Biden whether he would accept the plea deal related to those tax charges if the pretrial diversion for the gun charge fell through. And Biden's lawyers said that

Biden would only accept both agreements together as one package. That's when the judge left the courtroom so that the lawyers could get together and talk about it and try to reach some sort of agreement with each other as far as what this meant as far as future charges. So negotiations started out a bit contentious, but eventually the disagreement was resolved. The judge comes back, the hearing goes forward, and the judge again asks, you know, explain the scope of the agreement to me as far as bringing future charges. What did you guys decide? And the judge specifically asked if the agreement precluded charges against Hunter Biden for violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And what that act does is it bans Americans from

secretly lobbying for foreign governments. And the prosecutor says, no, no, no, this agreement does not preclude those charges. It just precludes charges pertaining to the gun possession and the taxes. And again, the defense attorneys say, no, we don't agree with that interpretation of the deal, to which the prosecutor then says, then there's no deal. And again, the legal teams get together, they talk it through. And at the end of the second round of discussions, Hunter Biden's attorney eventually agrees that the scope of the agreement would avoid future charges on the gun tax and drug issues, but not the illegal lobbying. So they finally, you know, come to this conclusion. And that's still not enough because the judge then expresses concern

about her role in enforcing the pretrial diversion agreement. So the judge felt that she shouldn't have anything to do with enforcing this pretrial diversion agreement because that's entirely within the DOJ's territory to deal with. And what she said was that she felt that the prosecution and the defense were asking her to rubber stamp the deal. But here's where the issue lies. So according to the pretrial diversion, if Hunter Biden were to violate any of the provisions of the pretrial diversion, prosecutors would have to go to the court and ask the judge to make an official determination that he had violated the agreement. And only after that would prosecutors be able to bring charges. So in other words, the way that the agreement was drafted, the only way the DOJ

could bring charges is if this judge holds a hearing and determines that violations of the agreement occurred. But the judge says this is not typical procedure. She's never seen it done this way before. She's not comfortable with it because what she says is that this is essentially making her a gatekeeper to criminal charges and potentially violating the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. we have a full understanding. What would typically happen in this situation is the prosecutor says there is a breach of a pretrial diversion agreement and we want to move forward with charges. The defense would then say, no, no, no, my client didn't breach. Here, judge, review the facts. But the difference is that typically the prosecution already makes the determination to proceed with charges before bringing it to the court. In this pretrial diversion agreement, though, the government can't make the decision to proceed with charges without the court first making a determination.

And the judge says this is where the potential violation of the separation of powers doctrine lies, because this is a role for the executive branch, not the judicial branch. So because of this, she wants both sides to submit briefs explaining the legality and constitutionality of this issue, and also look into a pre-trial diversion agreement that doesn't require the court's involvement before bringing charges against Biden if a violation were to occur. So once that happened at the hearing, the judge asked Biden how he would plead, and that's when he entered a plea of not guilty to all charges, those being the two tax charges and the gun possession charge. And the judge made a point to apologize to Biden. And she was saying, you know, I know you want this resolved, but I have to make sure you know what you're getting as far as immunity and that this diversion agreement is constitutional to avoid any legal

troubles or hassle in the future. Because the thing with plea deals is that they have to be knowing and voluntary. And the judge wasn't convinced that Hunter Biden knows all of the implications of his deal because after all, according to her, the lawyers didn't even know all of the implications of the deal. And therefore, she couldn't allow it to proceed because she said this is not a knowing plea deal. So from here, both sides will have 30 days to submit their briefs. And from there, the judge will likely call the parties back into court and make a decision. Keep in mind that this whole ordeal doesn't mean that the plea deal is dead. The parties are going to have to clear up

any of the judge's concerns surrounding the deal, as well as her role in enforcing the pre-trial diversion aspect of the deal. And then if they can come to some sort of resolution and the judge approves the deal, Hunter Biden can then actually withdraw his not guilty pleas and replace them with a guilty plea on the tax charge as he was originally going to do. And the DOJ would defer prosecution on the gun charge. So a deferred prosecution agreement, otherwise known as a DPA, is similar to a pretrial diversion, except it occurs at a different stage of the proceedings. So basically with a deferred prosecution agreement, the prosecutor agrees to pardon a defendant in exchange for them fulfilling certain requirements. So the court will basically

hold off on entering a judgment of guilt despite a guilty plea and wait to see if the defendant meets these certain conditions that are laid out in the agreement. And if the defendant meets those conditions, then the charges will be dismissed. There's no record of conviction. Now, if the defendant fails to meet those conditions, the court will enter that guilty judgment. So the main difference between a deferred prosecution agreement and a pretrial diversion is that the deferred prosecution agreement happens after a plea has been entered, whereas a pretrial diversion avoids a plea altogether. Now, of course, we also know there's been this issue over the IRS whistleblower testimony, which implied that the DOJ and FBI obstructed the

investigation into Hunter Biden. So in accordance with that, the day before the hearing, House Republicans actually submitted their own court filing in this case, and it's called an amicus curiae brief. It asked the judge to consider the recent whistleblower testimony in making her decision in accepting or rejecting the deal. Now, you might be wondering how are they able to file this brief despite not being a party in the case? Well, it's exactly what amicus curiae is. So amicus curiae is a Latin word. It translates literally to friend of the court, but it's when a person or group isn't a party to the case, but has a strong interest in it and therefore files, you know, their point of view, their take, their request, whatever it is.

So the House Republicans filed this brief saying basically that there's this whistleblower testimony and the House committee thereafter asked Garland and U.S. Attorney Weiss to respond to the accusations. They have yet to do so. So the House is asking the court, given this, we want you to consider the whistleblower testimony in deciding whether to accept or reject the plea agreement. Now, attached to the brief are various documents, including the whistleblower testimony, which had already been made public before the filing, the letter to Attorney General Garland and U.S. Attorney Weiss, and other documents as well. But they're called exhibits. So they're attached to the brief for the judge to reference. Hunter Biden's attorneys took issue with this filing because

they said the testimony contained some of Hunter Biden's personal tax information, whereas the attorneys for House Republicans said the testimony had already been made public, so there's no issue. Any information that's in the filing is already out there anyway. And Hunter Biden's attorneys are saying that's besides the point. Court rules are court rules. Sensitive information can't be on the docket. So let's talk about the drama surrounding this brief. The brief is filed on Tuesday.

It was filed by Ted Katilla. He is the managing partner of a Delaware law firm that's representing the interests of the House Republicans. Shortly after this brief is filed, the clerk's office, which is who handles all of the filings with the court, allegedly informs the judge that a Latham & Watkins employee, which is the firm representing Hunter Biden, had called the clerk's office and falsely claimed to work with Cotilla, who is the firm representing the House Republicans. On that call, allegedly, the employee asked that Cotilla's filing, so the House Republicans brief, be removed because of sensitive information on the docket. Now, Latham and Watkins denies any

misconduct, but we'll get into that in a minute. So in an order entered on Tuesday, the day before the plea deal hearing, this is what the judge wrote, quote, the court has reviewed the allegations in Mr. Cotilla's letter regarding a call made to the clerk's office. Mr. Cotilla asserts that an individual associated with the firm representing the defendant, Hunter Biden, called the clerk's office pretending to be associated with Mr. Cotilla and requested that the amicus materials be removed from the docket, which the clerk's office did. The response from defendant's counsel on the issue was that as far as he was aware, the managing attorney from Latham called the clerk's office to note that personal tax information of the defendant had been filed in a non-redacted manner and to inquire regarding

having the information sealed and that the clerk took the filing down on their own accord. The order goes on to say the court has discussed the matter with relevant individuals in the clerk took the filing down on their own accord. The order goes on to say the court has discussed the matter with relevant individuals in the clerk's office and has been informed that the caller, Ms. Jessica Bengals, represented that she worked with Mr. Cotilla and requested the amicus materials be taken down because they contained sensitive grand jury, taxpayer, and social security information. It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the clerk's office to remove the materials from the docket. So the judge also threatened sanctions,

which is a monetary payment that Hunter Biden's attorneys would have to make, and ordered defense counsel to show cause within hours of this order being entered as to why sanctions shouldn't be considered. So in the law, if you are threatened with sanctions by a judge, you are ordered most of the time to show cause. And that is your opportunity to basically explain why you shouldn't be subject to sanctions. So in this case, defense counsel from Latham and Watkins submitted their letter showing cause, stating, quote, we have no idea how the misunderstanding occurred, but our understanding is that there was no misrepresentation. Our staff member represented her affiliation with Latham and Watkins to the clerk with whom she spoke with. Both her phone number and her affiliation with Latham & Watkins to the clerk with whom she spoke

with. Both her phone number and her affiliation with Latham also typically appears on caller ID. The letter then goes on to say that the employee called and introduced herself to the clerk, provided her full name and firm affiliation, and notified the clerk that she believed one or more exhibits in the House Republicans Republicans filing may have personal information which the firm believes should not be on the docket. According to defense counsel's letter, the clerk asked the employee for more information which the employee didn't have, and the employee told the clerk she would call back once she got that information. But before the employee had a chance to call back, the employee actually got a call from a different

employee of the court who said that the filing had been removed from the docket. So the firm says, of course, it wasn't their intention to mislead the court. And they also attached a signed declaration from Ms. Jessica Bangles, who reiterated the facts as alleged by the law firm. It doesn't appear as of now that the judge has made her decision regarding sanctions yet. As of Thursday, there hadn't been an order entered on the docket, so that's what I'm going off of. Once and if there is an order on the docket, that's when we would know for sure whether the judge has decided to sanction Hunter Biden's attorneys or not. Now, I just want to note that the employee, this Miss Jessica Bengals girl who called the clerk's office, she is a managing partner at

Latham & Watkins, but she is not one of the attorneys representing Hunter Biden in this case. But that is what's going on with the Hunter Biden case. I know that was a lot of information, so let's take a quick break. And when we get back, we will talk through the whistleblower testimony about UFOs and secret intelligence, and then we'll finish with a few notable mentions. The past few weeks of congressional hearings have been nothing short of interesting. Most recently, on Wednesday, three former military officials told Congress that they believe the government knows much more about UFOs than it's telling the public.

According to the whistleblowers, not only is the government in possession of UFOs, but they've recovered non-human biologics, and they're also concealing a long-standing program that retrieves and reverse engineers UFOs. So first, let's differentiate a UFO and a UAP, which are often used interchangeably, but they mean slightly different things, and then we'll discuss the congressional testimony. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. We, of course, know that traditionally it's used to refer to alien spacecrafts, but it can also refer to things like weather balloons or balloons like the one that was just shot down that was the, you know, the Chinese balloon or even drones.

So that's an unidentified flying object. A UAP, on the other hand, can refer to an unidentified aerial phenomena, or I have also heard unidentified anomalous phenomena. The difference is that it's used to describe unexplainable sights in the sky. So it's not limited to just objects, it's a more broad term. But both terms do refer to unidentified objects in the sky, which is why these terms are often used interchangeably. But government agencies started using UAPs instead of UFOs within the last couple of years because of the sort of conspiracy connotation that UFOs had garnered. So how did we get to this congressional testimony? Well, in June, a man named David Grush, who is a former U.S. intelligence official for 14 years and one of the whistleblowers, claimed publicly that the government had possession of intact and partially intact alien vehicles, non-human biologics, which assumingly means aliens or something non-human, and also that

the government has been secretly maintaining this program that not only collects extraterrestrial material, but is reverse engineering it as well. So a little bit more about Grush. He served as a representative on two Pentagon task forces, specifically investigating UAPs until earlier this year. And he says that that's where he gathered all of this intel. During this time on these task forces, he said that he was informed of this multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program. And he requested access to this program, but was denied. And he said that government and defense contractors had been recovering fragments of non-human craft, and in some cases, entire

craft for decades. Some of them were as big as football fields. And the government has even recovered, again, these non-human biologics from these crafts. He said he hasn't seen these aircrafts or biologics himself, but that he had conducted extensive interviews during his time in these task forces and through those interviews is where he gathered all of this information. So let's break this down into the top moments or the most notable moments of the testimony. Grush told the House Oversight Committee that he is absolutely certain that the federal government is in possession of UAPs. He said that he led Defense Department efforts to analyze reported UAP sightings and, again, was informed of this multi-decade Pentagon program that is collecting and reconstructing

crashed UAPs. When asked by one of the House representatives how such a program is funded, Grush said that the effort is above congressional oversight and bankrolled by a misappropriation of funds, to which the representative then responded, does that mean there's money in the budget that is set to go to a program, but it doesn't and it goes to something else? Grush responded, yes, I have specific knowledge of that. But he didn't provide any other details. He said that that information is classified. He also testified that he knows of multiple colleagues that were injured by UAPs and said he's also interviewed individuals who have recovered these non-human biologics from crashed UAPs. And again, he said he couldn't divulge specific details because of the sensitivity of the information, but did say that the United States

has likely been aware of non-human activity since the 1930s. A Defense Department spokeswoman said in a statement in regard to these claims that investigators have not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate the claims. Then we have Ryan Graves, who is a former Navy pilot. He's also the executive director of Americans for Safe Aerospace. He testified that military pilots don't feel adequately briefed on UAPs, which he said leaves them unprepared to respond to UAP encounters. He also said that the stigma associated with reporting these sightings silences pilots who fear professional repercussions. And then the third testifier was David Fravor. He is a former Navy commander, and he said that he and three fellow military pilots saw

this white tic-tac-shaped object back in 2004 hovering below their jets and just above the Pacific Ocean. He said he and his fellow pilots then descended to get a better look at the object when the object started to ascend towards him and then vanished, totally disappeared, only to reappear seconds later, but this time 60 miles away. So Fravor told the committee that this encounter defies logical explanation, and therefore he believes the government has capabilities far greater than anything they're leading us on to believe that they have. Whether you believe this testimony or not, transparency surrounding UFOs is actually something that has bipartisan support for national security reasons. In fact,

both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate are using their annual defense bills to get the government to share more information about UFOs. So I've talked about this National Defense Authorization Act that the House just passed recently and the Senate is in the midst of negotiations over. And it is in this National Defense Authorization Act that they are trying to implement these amendments. So just a couple of weeks ago, the majority Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, who is a Democrat, as well as Republican Senator Mike Rounds, proposed this 64-page amendment to the Senate's version of the National Defense Authorization Act called the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023.

And what that would do is it would mandate the National Archives collect and store UAP records across the government. The amendment would also carry this presumption of immediate disclosure, which would mean that the records would be public unless a review board provided some sort of reasoning for the documents to remain classified. That amendment has support both from Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans. Now, as I said, the House just passed their own version of the National Defense Authorization Act, and their act included a little bit narrower of a provision that would require the defense secretary to declassify Department of Defense records and documents which relate to publicly known sightings of UAPs that don't reveal sources, methods, or otherwise compromise the national security of the United States.

Under this provision, the Department of Defense would have 180 days from the bill becoming a law to declassify the reports that fall under those terms. And actually, the next story or notable mention is in regard to the National Defense Authorization Act. So we're going to talk about that a little bit more. But it's possible that the recent testimony from the military officials helps enact these bipartisan efforts. But of course, as with anything, only time will tell. So let's get into our first notable mention, which is about the negotiations in the Senate over their version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Senate negotiations are underway for its own version of this act for fiscal year 2024. It's set to be finalized this week. It could happen Thursday night. It could happen Friday once this episode is live, but they're in the midst of negotiations. So let's

talk about some of the negotiation updates in the Senate, specifically some amendments that have been accepted and some that have been rejected. So we'll start with the approvals first. Earlier in the week on Tuesday, two significant amendments passed with bipartisan support, one requiring United States investors to report their stakes in certain Chinese, Russian, and North Korean tech industries like AI and semiconductors, just to name a couple. This amendment passed 91 to 6. Another measure would boost federal reviews of foreign purchases of U.S. farmland, and in some cases, bar Chinese, Russian, Iranian, or North Korean purchases of farmland. And this measure passed 91 to 7. During Wednesday night's session, there were at least three proposed amendments that were

rejected and at least one that was passed. So we'll talk about the rejections first, and then we'll talk about the one that passed. One of the measures that was rejected would have reinstated military service members who were previously discharged for opting out of the COVID vaccine. This measure failed 46 to 53. Another measure would have allotted $10 million to create an exclusive office dedicated solely to overseeing United States aid to Ukraine. This got a 51 to 48 vote, but it wasn't enough to meet that three-fifths threshold that is required for passing an amendment. Finally, the third measure that was rejected in Wednesday night session was this

measure that sought independent audits of Ukraine spending, and that failed 20 to 78. So the one measure that did pass on Wednesday, it passed in a 95 to 4 vote, and it was aimed at halting the harassment of military members from debt collectors. Thursday night session, which of course this episode will have already been recorded by then, it's expected to go very late into the night, they are voting on eight amendments. One of those amendments is a measure that would give permanent residency to roughly 80,000 Afghans who came to the United States following the country's fall a couple years ago. But as of Thursday afternoon, not including the Thursday night session, of course, senators had passed 16 total amendments to their

version of the National Defense Authorization Act. So by the time this episode goes live on Friday morning, the Senate may have passed their version depending on how late they go Thursday night, or they may not have, but they are about to enter an extended recess on Friday afternoon. So I know Chuck Schumer was trying to get this passed before then. The second notable mention is an update from a few weeks ago where I reported on the backers of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project who filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to allow construction to proceed. So as a little bit of background, as part of the debt ceiling deal, the previously stalled Mountain Valley Pipeline Project was fast-tracked to completion. And not only was it

fast-tracked to completion, the fourth circuit court of appeals was stripped of its jurisdiction over the project and jurisdiction was given to the appellate court in dc so despite that a couple of weeks ago the fourth circuit came in and halted construction on the pipeline citing concerns from environmentalists and the backers of the project said no no The debt deal specifically said you can't do this. You can't get involved. You have no say. So they asked the Supreme Court to get involved and say, we're lifting this order. Construction can proceed. And that's exactly what happened. So on Thursday, in a short one paragraph order, the Supreme Court justices agreed to lift

the Fourth Circuit's order halting construction while the legal challenges played out. So what this means is that environmentalists can continue to challenge the project and the legality of the debt deal, stripping the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction. But while all of that is being challenged, the construction can still proceed. The third notable mention is that a UPS strike was averted as of Tuesday, at least for now. As of Tuesday, UPS and its Teamster union signed a tentative contract deal for roughly 340,000 UPS workers in the United States. The 10-day strike was set to begin on August 1st had this deal not been reached. Some economists, the Anderson Economic Group estimated that the strike

could have cost the economy more than $7 billion. The strike isn't officially off this table. The deal is still tentative. It does have to be ratified by the union members, but the strike is off for now. So member voting to ratify this agreement would start August 3rd and end August 22nd. So at that point is when we'll know what happens with this officially. Under the terms of the deal, current full and part-time UPS workers will get $2.75 more per hour in 2023 and $7.50 more per hour over the length of the contract. According to Teamsters, the deal also includes one more paid holiday, it requires air conditioning in the company's trucks, and it eliminates a two-tier pay system and forced overtime for delivery drivers. And this agreement

is a five-year agreement if it gets ratified. The fourth and final notable mention is that on Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee revealed a year-long investigation into Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. The same day that the Senate Finance Committee revealed this investigation, a federal lawsuit was filed against him accusing him of raping an underage autistic girl at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in 2002. So first we'll talk about the Senate panel's investigation, and then we'll talk about this lawsuit very briefly. The Senate panel's investigation was focused on $158 million that Black allegedly paid to Epstein for tax and estate planning services between 2012 and 2017. In a letter written from the committee's

chairman to Black, the chairman accuses Black of providing inadequate responses which have only raised more questions, failing to address tax issues that have been uncovered over the course of the investigation, refusing to answer questions related to payments made to Epstein, and refusing to substantiate how the payments were calculated or were compensation for services. A spokesperson for Black said that Black had already answered more than a dozen of the committee's prior questions and produced more than 150 pages of his personal tax and estate documents, and that the committee's latest round of questions are quote-unquote inappropriately invasive and potentially overstep the panel's

oversight. So that's a quick update on the Senate's investigation. The lawsuit, on the other hand, alleges that the unnamed then 16-year-old girl, who is now in her late 30s, had been trafficked to Epstein and Maxwell, and the complaint describes her as being born with Mosaic Down Syndrome and having a developmental age around 12 years old. The attorney for Black denied the allegations and accused the law firm behind the lawsuit of pursuing a vendetta against Leon Black through multiple cases. Apparently, this is not the first or even second case that this law firm has filed against

Leon Black. Now, notably, the lawsuit being filed on the same day as the announcement of the investigation is likely not correlated. You just can't typically draft a complaint, especially one of this nature, in a day. So it's not likely that they are related, but they are two stories that go hand in hand.

With that, that concludes this episode. I hope you enjoyed it. Please don't forget to leave me a review, share the show with your friends, have a great weekend, and I will talk to you on Tuesday.