UNBIASED - LAW: Week in Review: August 22, 2022

Episode Date: August 29, 2022

(0:25) Intro(2:38) President Biden's Three-Step Loan Forgiveness Plan(17:00) President Bidens' Loan Forgiveness Q&A (30:27) Governor Newsom Vetoes Senate Bill 57 Blocking Overdose Protection Programs(39:14) Redacted Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit and What We Know About the Criminal InvestigationLinks to sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com 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 Law podcast. This is your host Jordan and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. ever have any thoughts about anything I talk about or you know how I always ask you guys critical thought questions to get you thinking about certain issues, now you can actually answer them in a way that I can see your response and other people can see your response and we can all kind of discuss and interact with each other. So you just have to go to my website, click on the episodes menu heading, and then from there click on whatever episode you just listened to or you have thoughts on, and then the comment section will be there. There's not really a better episode to roll this out for because today we're talking about President Biden's announcement on student debt forgiveness, overdose prevention programs in

California and the bill that was just vetoed by Governor Newsom last week, and the redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit that was just unsealed on Friday and what we know from that. So there's a ton of opportunity for discussion. So feel free to share your thoughts and, you know, express yourselves. That's what I'm looking for. And I feel like I just have to say this. You guys know that I keep, me personally, I keep my reporting fair and unbiased, but I always encourage you to share your personal opinions and explanations for those opinions. My only rule, though, is that if you publicly share your opinion, you have to remain open

to other people's opinions as well. Don't tear each other down and rip each other to shreds just because you don't agree with someone else's take. I won't tolerate that. And honestly, you shouldn't either. We need more mature discussion and not more division. So feel free to comment, give your feedback, give your opinions. I would love to see it, but just note that that is a place for substantive, mature, open-minded discussion. So with that, let's get right into it. On Wednesday, August 24th, President Biden announced his plan to forgive outstanding student debt and extend the student loan pause through December 31st, 2022.

Some say he's not doing enough. Some say he's doing too much. Welcome to America. So here's the deal with the debt forgiveness. It's basically a three-step plan through the Department of Education. And that'll be important once we get into how the Biden administration has the authority to do something like this. So stay tuned for that because at the end of this segment, I'll do a little Q&A and answer some questions that you

guys had. So before we get into what the three-step plan is, let's talk about what a Pell Grant is. If you've been listening to the news, you've heard this a lot, this Pell Grant. So a Pell Grant is. If you've been listening to the news, you've heard this a lot, this Pell Grant. So a Pell Grant is a federal grant that is given to low-income undergraduate students, students that just don't have the means to attend college. Now, here's what's confusing. A Pell Grant itself doesn't need to be paid back because it's a grant. Grants are different than loans. The Pell Grant is just a requirement to get the forgiveness on other federal loans. So, and I'll get into that, but Pell Grants are capped every year. So for an example, or as an example, for the 2022-2023 school year, the most a student could receive is $6,895. This number is up about 500

from the 2020-2021 school year. So it does go up marginally every year. But the important thing is these grants aren't meant to cover the full tuition bill. So even if a student does receive a Pell Grant, that student will still need to come up with somewhere around $10,000, $20,000, whatever it might be, of additional financial aid. Obviously, that depends on the situation. Is it community college? Is it a private school? Is it a public university? There's a lot of factors that go into that number, but a Pell Grant doesn't cover the full tuition no matter what. So the thing to understand here is that it's not the Pell Grants that are being forgiven. So they can't be forgiven because they're grants. There's nothing owed on those. But as I said before, the Pell Grant is merely a requirement to obtain a higher forgiveness amount. Because as I said, Pell Grants aren't meant to pay

the full tuition bill. So when someone receives a Pell Grant, they likely have tens of thousands of dollars in other federal loans to cover their remaining costs. Those additional federal loans are what the president is planning to partially forgive. So what I'm assuming his thought is, is the people that really need the help are the ones who came from the lower income households. So how do we sort through all of the millions and millions of borrowers and target those lower income individuals to cancel more of their debt than other borrowers? And his answer was the Pell Grant, because the Pell Grant tells you who came from the lower income households because only those students can was the Pell Grant, because the Pell Grant tells you who came from

the lower income households because only those students can get a Pell Grant. So now that you know a little bit about what the Pell Grant is and how it comes to fruition, let's talk about the three-step plan. And then I'll answer some of the questions I got on TikTok, including how the president has the authority to do something like this, how much this is going to cost, who's paying for it, et cetera. So step one of President Biden's plan is that the Department of Education, or you'll hear me refer to this as the DOE, will provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education, and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients. Keep in mind this only applies to people that

make under $125,000 a year. So for individuals, it's under $125,000 a year. For married couples, it's under $250,000 a year. So if a student has loans but makes over $125,000 individually or $250,000 in their marriage, they get no forgiveness. So let's break this down. If you have federal loans, not private loans, we're not talking Sallie Mae. Someone said Sallie Mae's name was changed. I know I had Sallie Mae or I went through Sallie Mae when I got loans for law school, but this does not apply to private loans. This is just federal loans. If you have federal loans and you are a Pell Grant recipient, you are entitled to have $20,000 of your loans forgiven so long as your annual salary is under $125,000. On the other hand, if you have outstanding federal loans and

you did not receive a Pell Grant, you are entitled to have $10,000 of your loans forgiven, so long as, again, your annual salary is under $125,000. To ensure a smooth transition to repayment and prevent unnecessary defaults,, as you guys know, the student loan repayment pause has been in effect for a couple of years now. President Biden has extended that pause one final time through the last day of the year. Note that this debt cancellation applies to loans issued on or before June 30, 2022. So loans that were issued after that date are not entitled to this debt cancellation. Step two of the plan is that the DOE is to make the student loan system

more manageable for current and future borrowers by cutting monthly payments in half for undergraduate loans and by proposing a rule that borrowers who have worked at a non-profit in the military or in the government receive appropriate credit towards loan forgiveness. According to the White House, this means that the average student loan payment will be lowered by more than a thousand dollars for both current and future borrowers annually. And then step three in President Biden's plan is to protect future students and taxpayers by reducing the cost of college and holding schools accountable when they hike up prices. To do this, President Biden says he will continue to fight the double maximum Pell Grant and make community college free. So that is the three-step

plan in a nutshell. That is a condensed version of that three-step plan. President Biden says 43 million federal student loan borrowers can claim the relief, and of that number, 20 million will have zero student debt after this forgiveness. Now, I don't want to get too far into the technicalities, which is why I kept this description of the three-step plan pretty brief. So if you want to read more into it, I have the White House fact sheet linked on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. Just go to the episode description for this episode's get into the implications and pros and cons of this loan forgiveness plan. So obviously, as with most things in this country, you have people praising

the president for what he's doing. You have people saying that this is ludicrous. You have people saying that the president should have forgiven $50,000 instead of $20,000. And then you have the people that are saying this isn't getting to the actual problem, which is the ever-increasing cost of tuition. According to a 2021 Georgetown college costs have increased 169% since 1980. But pay for young workers out of college is only up by 19%. So you have the cost after college has only gone up 19%. Those statistics are very disproportionate. But aside from the increasing cost of college tuition, I personally think what most people are failing to realize, or at least the people that are like up in arms about this being a free handout and this is free money and yada yada, is the fact that this forgiveness at the end of the day for most

people, I'll say for some people, won't even cover the interest on these loans, let alone the principal, right? So you're not even going to get to the actual money that was borrowed. So my thought is why not cap interest rates on student loans, right? Forget giving out money. Forget saying, hey, we're going to take away this amount of debt. How about just when these students have to take out these loans? Just cap the interest rate. Say it can't be over 3% or whatever. The federal student loan interest rate for undergrads for the 2022-2023 school year is just under 5%, 4.99% to be exact. Federal interest rates for unsubsidized graduate student loans are even higher, 6.54%. And then you have private student loans, which is, like I said, what I did when I went to law school. And I ended up getting F'd, like capital F.

Okay. So if you take out a private loan through something like Sallie Mae, your interest rate can vary from 1% to 15%, depending on whether you do fixed or variable interest rate. I took out three loans, one for each of the three years. And my interest rate for each of these three loans was around 8.25%. And I'll be honest, when I was applying for these loans, I had no idea what I was doing. And my parents didn't know. My dad, I remember we were sitting on the couch and he was trying to help me, but he had never done this. So we both were kind of aimlessly applying's just cap the interest rates on student loans, right? And then you have Republicans saying that this will contribute to inflation down the road and that this is just an election gimmick. So you have Mitt Romney, a Republican senator,

he tweeted and said, sad to see what's being done to bribe the voters. Biden's student loan forgiveness plan may win Democrats some votes, but it fuels inflation, foots taxpayers with other people's financial obligations. It's unfair to those who paid their own way and created irresponsible expectations. Then you have Senator Ted Cruz, who is also a Republican senator, who said this is, quote, insane and illegal. And then you got the other people on the other side of this saying it's great, but more should have been done. So the president of the NAACP, the National Association for Advancement of Colored People, made a statement saying, we've got a ways to go, but the NAACP is proud to say we were able to push President Biden to exceed $10,000, bringing us closer to $50,000 and beyond. Our continued focus remains on closing the

racial wealth gap, and we will continue to press for scaled solutions. And then you have Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator, who tweeted, Today is a day of joy and relief. It is a powerful step to help rebuild the middle class. This will be a transformative, this will be transformative for the lives of working people all across the country. Elizabeth Warren was one who pushed for 50,000 as well. And then to give some perspective from working class individuals rather than just political figures, because as we know, political figures are very divisive. They're political talking heads, so they'll talk to their own party's narrative. So I wanted to give you guys an example of someone I know through a friend

that posted something on Facebook that I thought would be a value to share with you guys to just kind of illustrate the real world implications. So she says, after over a decade of faithfully making my student loan payments, this relief will still only bring me back down to the original amount I borrowed. When the payments and therefore interest resume, don't worry, I will still end up paying that money back. So like I said, you have people on both sides and even in the middle, meaning like you have the Democrats or the liberals, and then you have the Republicans or the conservatives, and then you have your middle ground people that are somewhere in the middle of those two sides that have their qualms about President Biden's plan.

And the reality is, in the grand scheme of things, as I just illustrated, for most borrowers, $10,000 barely makes a dent. I can speak from my own personal experience on that. For the Pell Grant recipients, this will make more of a difference. But I'm telling you, the impact is small. And I get it. Like, there's that other side that's saying, you know, well, this is going to end up costing taxpayers. I totally get that. Like, why are we forgiving people's loans and then putting the obligation on people who didn't take out loans to pay, you know, whatever it might be per taxpayer? So I'm not saying one side is right or wrong. I'm just trying to give both perspectives as I usually do. So the reality not saying one side is right or wrong. I'm just trying to give both perspectives,

as I usually do. So the reality, the other reality is, I should say, the other reality that we have is that, and this is what most people agree on, is that this doesn't really solve the root of the problem. The root problem is the increase in cost of tuition and not seeing that same proportionate increase on the other side when these students are graduating. Some are saying this is just a band-aid that, you know, it's going to just cover up the problem and we're going to be having the same conversation in five more years. So only time will tell. But with that, let's jump into some questions you guys had on TikTok.

So first question, how does the president have the authority to do this? OK, the short answer is that no one knows if this is going to pass challenges. Right. If it's going to get past the challenges that will most likely come, because it'll almost definitely be challenged. But it appears that the Department of Education saw this issue coming. So the general counsel of the DOE, Lisa Brown, sent a letter to Miguel Cardona, the Secretary of Education, regarding the Secretary's legal authority for debt cancellation. So this isn't necessarily the President's authority. It's still within the executive branch because the Department of Education is part of the executive branch. But it's not

President Biden's authority. It's the Secretary of Education's authority, really. So in that letter I just mentioned, it says, for the past year and a half, the Office of General Counsel, in consultation with our colleagues at the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, so the DOJ, has conducted a review of the Secretary's legal authority to cancel student debt on a categorical basis. We have determined that the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, otherwise known as the HEROES Act, grants the Secretary authority that could be used to effectuate a program of targeted loan cancellation directed at addressing the financial harms of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The HEROES Act, first enacted in the wake of the September 11th attacks, provides the security broad authority to grant relief from student loan requirements during specific periods and specific purposes. The Secretary of Education has used this authority under both this and every prior administration since the act's passage to provide relief to borrowers in connection with a war, other military operation, or national emergency, including the ongoing moratorium on student loan payments and interest. And I'm still reading from the letter here, guys. I haven't. This is still what the letter says. Specifically, the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to, quote, of several enumerated purposes, including that borrowers are not placed in a worse

position financially because of a national emergency. So that's a lot of language. I'm going to break it down for you. There's a lot more in that letter, by the way. I just summed it up, but it's linked for you on my website. But basically what this letter is arguing is that the HEROES Act gives the secretary authority to forgive or cancel debt because the forgiveness is necessary to ensure that borrowers are not in a worse off position because of COVID-19. Okay. So when I was reading you the letter, the term used in the letter is a national emergency. But in this particular situation, we're talking like that national emergency is COVID. That is what they're arguing their basis is. So the letter also argues that this authority

can be exercised categorically to address the situation at hand and does not need to be exercised on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the secretary isn't required to show individual borrowers are entitled to a specific amount of relief. Instead, the secretary can just say all borrowers are entitled to relief because of the pandemic. Now, the reason that that letter is pointing that out, that this authority can be exercised categorically, is because in the past administrations that have used the HEROES Act, it's been case-by-case basis. So this is really the first time that it's being used on a categorical basis. On the other hand, there's a previous memo written in January 2021 from the former deputy counsel to former secretary of education Betsy DeVos, which says the opposite, that there is

no authority to cancel debt on a broad basis, meaning categorical basis. And then you also have the major questions doctrine, which questions whether or not the executive branch has the authority to do this. The major questions doctrine was implemented in a recent Supreme Court case this past June, which limited the administration's strategies to combat climate change unilaterally. There, the Supreme Court said that when dealing with such major questions, the administration must point to clear congressional authorization when it asserts power over an important part of the economy. So that's another potential basis for arguing that Biden's administration doesn't have the requisite authority here. So there's the long answer to that question. And welcome to Law 101, by the way. The answer is

never clear cut. That is like one of the first things you learn in law school. It always depends. Does the president have the authority to cancel a debt like this? We don't know. Even Nancy Pelosi doesn't know. She's the speaker of the House and she doesn't know. In July 2021, Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference, in part, people think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress. And then, this past Thursday, she said she didn't know what authority the president had to do this, but clearly now it seems he has the authority. So she's confused too. No one really knows.

According to some people, he has authority. According to others, he doesn't. What we do know is that we'll eventually find out. This action is bound to be challenged. The Supreme Court will have to make a decision on whether this action requires clear congressional authority as per the major questions doctrine. So that's what we know on that. Moving to question two. Who will end up footing the bill? Well, the White House press secretary was asked this question and she did not have an answer. Experts say that this will be paid by taxpayers, and the average taxpayer will

end up paying about $2,100 over the next 10 years. Obviously, that all depends on how much taxes are paid by each taxpayer, if this is even left to the taxpayers, how many people take advantage of this loan forgiveness, but I can't really speak on this with 100% certainty because the press secretary herself didn't have an answer. Finally, question number three, is forgiveness automatic or do I need to apply? It'll be automatic for some. If you're not sure whether yours will be automatic or not, you can actually go to studentaid.gov and enter your email address and you'll be notified when the website is available for you to fill out the forms, which will basically just attest to your income

to make sure you're under that $125,000 threshold if individual or under 250 if married. According to domestic policy advisor Susan Rice, down the road, up to 8 million Americans may be automatically eligible because they filled out a financial aid form at one time. So it's estimated that 20% will get automatic relief, but the rest will have to apply on the Department of Education's website to become eligible. So I'd recommend just applying just to be safe, but that's what we have on that. If you have other questions, I linked specifically two videos on my website that may help you. One is the White House Press Secretary answering some questions from the press, and the other is the Domestic Policy Advisor and the National Economic Council Deputy Director answering questions from the press as well.

I also linked a CNBC article that answers some additional questions in short form, so that'll be useful. And one last thing before we move on to our next topic, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on something. And please comment on, like, this is exactly what I have that comment section for now. I really want to know what you guys think. So during one of the press conferences that I was watching, Susan Rice, the domestic policy advisor, answered some questions about the loan forgiveness. And she brought up the PPP loans that were given to small businesses during COVID and how those didn't need to be paid back. And she was saying that Republicans have such an issue with loan forgiveness, but they didn't have any issue with PPP loans. And she says that this loan

forgiveness is similar to the PPP loans. And my initial thought was, but is it similar? Because I mean, from my point of view, it's similar in the sense that it's what some might call a handout, right? But when we look at the national emergency that was COVID-19, these small businesses were going out of business forever. Once they're out, they're out. And yes, there was a federal eviction moratorium at one point, so these small businesses couldn't be evicted, but rent payments didn't stop. There were some landlords that were more lenient than others, but rent payments didn't stop. There were some landlords that were more lenient than others, but rent payments didn't stop. I mean, and for some time, people quite

literally weren't allowed out of their house to support small businesses, whether it be restaurants or shops or whatever. Whereas on the other hand with student loans, student loans and accruing interest have been paused since April of 2020, and they'll remain paused through the end of the year. So now knowing that, when you look at the authority that the Department of Education is citing, the HEROES Act, it gives the secretary authority to forgive debt because the forgiveness is, quote, necessary to ensure that borrowers are not placed in a worse-off position because of the COVID-19 pandemic. So I would argue that the PPP loans were certainly necessary to ensure small businesses weren't in a worse-off position because of COVID, because COVID definitely put them in a worse off position. But arguably, student loan borrowers

are actually not in a worse off position at all. Student loan borrowers haven't had to make payments for over two years. They've had two years of not having to pay anywhere from a few hundred dollars to over a thousand dollars a month to save their money, resume work if they were laid off. I mean, if COVID put these borrowers into more debt, then yes, I could totally see how the two instances are similar. But I just don't see that here. And that's what I want your thoughts on. Even the White House press secretary, when asked how this debt cancellation is going to help a national emergency, despite the government themselves even arguing in court previously that the national emergency was over, the press secretary said, well, look, you have the people that have had the opportunity to save and the people who are in a better position now because

of the pause on student loan repayments. But then you have the people that are going to have a worse time because they were in a different bracket before. But being in a different bracket, a different income bracket before, has nothing to do with COVID, right? That has everything to do with high college costs, high interest rates, and not enough income. Now, on the other hand, because I always want to argue the other side of this, the average PPP loan was $107,000. The max loan forgiveness amount per individual is $20,000. That's the max. Not even everyone's entitled to that $20,000. According to a 2021 PPP report, as of March 28th, 2021, 8,728,494 PPP loans had been approved, totaling just over $734 billion. How much will loan forgiveness cost? The administration doesn't know because it

depends on how many eligible borrowers take advantage of the opportunity. But reports say it could be anywhere from $300 billion to $980 billion. Now, obviously, that's a huge range, but if it's on that lower end, if it's the $300 billion, that's a lot less than the $734 billion that was spent on PPP loans. So in addition to giving me your thoughts on that issue, I also want to know your thoughts on capping the statutory interest rate and what you guys think about that. And like I said, if you do share your opinion, which I hope that you do on my website, just be open to other opinions as well because they're bound to differ. But conversation is key here. We're not going to work together if

we don't have substantive conversation. So let me know what you think. Leave your comments. I'm very curious. But with that, let's move on to another topic that I would also love to hear your thoughts on, overdose prevention programs. On Monday, August 22nd, 2022, Governor Newsom of California vetoed Senate Bill 57, which would have allowed three counties in California to approve overdose prevention sites. Specifically, the bill would allow the city and county of San Francisco, the county of Los Angeles, and the city of Oakland to approve entities to operate overdose prevention programs. These programs, or sites, would provide a, quote, hygienic space supervised by trained staff where people who use drugs can consume pre-obtained drugs.

The facility would provide sterile consumption supplies, i.e. needles, and provide access or referrals to substance use disorder treatment. The bill does say that if passed, these cities and counties would have to allow local law enforcement officials, local public health officials, and the public an opportunity to comment in a public meeting before authorizing an overdose prevention program. And as the bill currently stands, these overdose prevention programs would be in place until January 1st, 2028. So it appears the implementation of these programs would be basically like a five-year trial run. In support of the bill, the legislature set forth the following, that overdose has been the leading cause of accidental deaths in the United States and in California each year since 2011, that the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a rapid increase in drug overdose

deaths, that overdose prevention programs, or OPPs, are an evidence-based harm reduction strategy that allows individuals to consume drugs in a hygienic environment under the supervision of trained staff to intervene if the individual overdoses. The OPPs also provide sterile consumption equipment and offer general medical advice and referrals to substance use disorder treatment, housing, medical care, and other community social services. And finally, the bill notes that there are approximately 165 overdose prevention programs operating in 10 countries around the world. Research has shown that OPPs decrease the amount of overdose deaths, decrease HIV transmission, decrease use of

emergency medical services, decrease public drug use, decrease syringe debris, and do not increase crime or drug use. Now there's a lot more to the bill that like a lot more was set forth in support of the bill. So if you're interested in reading it, I have it linked on my website. But that's, that's the short version. And the bill basically sets forth the reasons why the legislature thinks OPPs are necessary, the requirements for an OPP to be approved, etc. But this isn't going to happen now, at least because Governor Newsom vetoed the bill. So in his letter dated August 22, 2022, Newsom says, number of overdose prevention programs, often referred to as safe injection or consumption sites, where individuals may use illegal controlled substances at a supervised facility.

I have long supported the cutting edge of harm reduction strategies. However, I am acutely concerned about the operations of safe injection sites without strong, engaged, local leadership and well-documented, vetted, and thoughtful operational and sustainability plans. The unlimited number of safe injection sites that this bill would authorize, facilities which could exist well into the later part of this decade, could induce a world of unintended consequences. It is possible that these sites would help improve the safety and health of our urban areas, but if done without a strong plan, they could work against this purpose. These intended consequences in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland cannot be taken lightly. Worsening drug consumption challenges in these areas is not a risk we can

take. And he finishes by saying, we should strive to ensure our innovative efforts are well planned, even when they start as pilots, to help mitigate the potential for unintended impacts. Therefore, I am instructing the security of health and human services to convene city and county officials to discuss minimum standards and best practices for safe and sustainable overdose prevention programs. I remain open to this discussion when those officials come back to the legislature with recommendations for a truly limited pilot program with comprehensive plans for siting, operations, community partnerships, and fiscal sustainability that demonstrate how these programs will be run safely and effectively. Sincerely, Gavin Newsom. So from that letter, it's clear

that he's not totally opposed to the idea of overdose prevention programs, but he says if we're going to do this, it needs to be better thought out and there needs to be a better plan because as these cities currently sit, we can't risk making the situation worse. And actually, Governor Newsom isn't the first California governor to veto a bill like this. In 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed Assembly Bill 186, which would have allowed San Francisco to open overdose prevention services. So that bill was specifically limited to San Francisco. This bill kind of expands the reach. But nonetheless, they were both vetoed.

So let's take a look at the arguments for and against. On one hand, you have the argument that this bill would get drug use off the streets. It would prevent overdose deaths. It would reduce the cost of emergency medical services. But on the other hand, you have the fact that this could be seen as a way to almost legalize drug use and provide an incentive for addicts to continue using. Law enforcement groups that spoke out about SB 57 said the bill would only increase drug use and harm public safety. They criticized the bill as a legal way to normalize addiction without

providing a strong incentive for treatment. On the contrary, a coalition of treatment specialists, healthcare groups, and civil rights organizations argued that safe injection sites would save lives by giving people with addiction a safe place to use drugs under the supervision of trained professionals. They said it would lead to cleaner streets, reduce crime, and prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis while saving taxpayers money on ambulance calls and emergency room services. Now something you might not know is that New York already has overdose prevention sites in operation. New York's overdose prevention sites located in Washington Heights and East Harlem, opened at the end of 2021.

They're located within existing syringe services programs or syringe service programs. And if you didn't know what those are, according to the CDC, SSPs or syringe service programs are community-based prevention programs that provide a range of services, including linkage to substance use disorder treatment, access to and disposal of sterile syringes and injection equipment, vaccination, testing, and linkage to care for treatment for infectious disease. And this was open mostly due to HIV transmission, so SSPs have been around for years, but OPPs and OPCs, those overdose prevention programs, are pretty recent. According to a statement made by the New York Health Department, within the first three weeks of operation, the two overdose prevention centers had averted at least 59 overdose deaths and the centers saw or the centers had been used over 2,000 times just in

that first three weeks. So now I ask you, what are your thoughts on this idea? Do you feel that safe injection sites would save lives by giving people a safe place to use drugs and that these kind of programs would lead to cleaner streets, reduce crime, and you you know, at the same time, prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis, and at the same time, save taxpayers money on emergency room services and ambulance calls? Or on the flip side, do you feel that these kind of programs would ultimately increase drug use and harm public safety? Do you feel this would, like, legalize drug use in a sense? It's also possible, by the way, to agree with all of of that it's just something to think about i really welcome your thoughts on this so please comment on my website because i'm really curious to see what you guys think about this and the final

topic of the day the redacted mar-a-lago search warrant affidavit. So on Thursday, August 25th, Magistrate Judge Reinhart ruled that the redacted search affidavit from the Mar-a-Lago search had to be unsealed by the DOJ. If you listened to my August 15th episode, you know that Judge Reinhart previously held a hearing on a motion to intervene to unseal this affidavit, which was filed by news organizations including NBC, Scripps, The Washington Post, and CNN. And at that hearing, the judge gave the DOJ a deadline to submit redactions to the affidavit because the judge said, look, we don't have to unseal the whole thing, but we're going

to unseal part of it. The DOJ thereafter submitted their redactions, and the judge ruled this past Thursday that that version of the affidavit must be unsealed by noon on Friday, August 26th. Now, keep in mind the search affidavit is different than the search warrant. We've already seen the search warrant. We saw the property receipt. We saw both of these things a few weeks back. But the search affidavit is what is used to obtain the search warrant. So the search affidavit has to specifically lay out the probable cause that a crime has been committed by former President Trump in order for the judge to sign off on the search warrant. So now that the affidavit has been unsealed, what do we know?

Well, we know a little more than we did before, but we don't know much. So in the last episode, I said how I'm pretty positive that the affidavit would be mostly black with redactions. And to my surprise, there was more unredacted than I thought there would be, but still 19 of the 32 pages are redacted. So of the 13 or so pages that are not redacted, here is what we know. Between May 2021 and December 2021, the National Archives and Records Administration, which I will refer to as the NARA going forward, made requests to former President Trump's team for missing Presidential Records Act records. So just certain records that stay with the National Archives and Records Administration once a president leaves office.

In late December 2021, someone on Trump's team informed the NARA that 12 boxes of records from former President Trump and or his team, at which point the NARA determined that the boxes contained, quote, highly classified documents intermingled with other records. Specifically, a preliminary triage of the documents revealed 184 total documents marked classified. Of those 184, 67 were marked confidential, 92 were marked secret, and 25 were marked top secret. And if you listened to my prior episode, you know confidential, secret, and top secret are different levels of classification. So a few weeks later, a few weeks after they received these boxes from Mar-a-Lago, on February 9th, 2022, the NARA sent the DOJ an NARA referral, which basically informed the DOJ of the retrieval of these 15 boxes. And in that referral, they said the boxes contained, quote, newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous

printouts, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and a lot of classified records. So after reviewing this referral, the FBI then opened a criminal investigation specifically to determine five things. One was how the classified documents were removed from the White House and brought to Mar-a-Lago in the first place. Two was whether the storage locations at Mar-a-Lago were authorized locations for the storage of classified information. Three was whether any additional classified documents may have been stored in an unauthorized location at Mar-a-Lago. And four, if so, whether such documents remain at Mar-a-Lago. And five, to identify any person who may have removed or retained this classified information without

authorization. In conducting this investigation and looking at those five things, those five questions essentially, the FBI determined that the classified documents found in the 15 boxes given to the NARA were stored in an unauthorized location at Mar-a-Lago. Because of this, the affidavit says there was probable cause to believe that additional classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago and that evidence of obstruction would also be found. So at this point, they opened the investigation around February 2022. Who knows how long the investigation took. But then on May 25th, 2022, so two, three months later, Trump's attorneys sent a letter to Jay Brat, who's a lawyer with the DOJ, regarding the, quote, presidential records investigation. The letter from Trump's attorney

basically outlines arguments as to why former President Trump didn't violate any laws, according to Trump and his team, and can't be subject to criminal charges. So his letter starts by saying, you know, basically Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, the DOJ is under the control of a president from the opposite party, and that because of this, every effort must be made to ensure this investigation is not a matter of politics. Then the letter goes into the fact that the communication between the NARA and Trump has been friendly, open, and straightforward in that Trump voluntarily ordered the boxes to be provided to the NARA upon the NARA's request. But his attorney says that the

good faith was not reciprocated by the NARA once the boxes were received because of the various leaks that occurred once the DOJ got involved. And then he finishes the letter by acknowledging four of what he calls bedrock principles. One is that the president has the absolute authority to declassify documents under the constitution. Two is that presidential actions involving classified documents are not subject to criminal sanction as per the language of the statute that governs classified documents. That argument is essentially that the statute allows for officers to be criminally charged, but that the president is not an officer as per precedent, definition, and the constitution itself. The next bedrock principle is that the DOJ must be insulated from

political influence, just basically saying, hey, like, you know, I know we're two different parties here, but don't let this be a political thing. And the fourth bedrock principle is that the DOJ must be candid in representations made to judges and requested that the DOJ provide this letter that I'm reading to any judicial officer or grand jury that is to make any ruling or decision on this matter. Now, keep in mind that these are Trump's arguments by and through his lawyer. This isn't to say that all of those better off principles are 100% true. As with anything in the law, these principles can be argued both ways. You get creative lawyers and they can argue this every which way. So just to be clear with you, those are the arguments set forth by Trump's team.

And I think they're pretty solid arguments from a legal standpoint. But like I said, everything can be argued any which way. So once that letter is sent by Trump's attorneys to the DOJ in end of May 2022. About two weeks later, on June 8th, 2022, the DOJ sends a letter back to Trump's attorney just reiterating that Mar-a-Lago is not an authorized place to store classified information and requested the preservation of the storage room at Mar-a-Lago and all boxes that had been moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago until further notice. So it's basically saying, don't touch anything, don't move anything, don't touch anything, keep everything under lock and key and preserve everything. The next day, Trump's lawyers

acknowledged receipt of this letter from the DOJ via email, and the rest of the affidavit is basically black. So that is what we know as far as the procedural history of what's happened since, you know, January 2021, basically. Now, the guy who signed the affidavit is a special agent with the FBI. We don't know his name because it was redacted for his own privacy and protection, as it should have been, but the warrant goes through his experience and training to serve as a basis for why, in his belief, the requisite probable cause existed to obtain the search warrant. So I guess if I had to break this down into a few sentences, I would say that the NARA asked Trump for records that were taken upon him leaving

office. Trump eventually sent them to the NARA. The NARA found classified documents in those boxes, told the DOJ, who told the FBI, who then launched a criminal investigation. And upon further evidence, which we don't know what that evidence is because it's redacted in the affidavit, felt that there was even more classified documents

at Mar-a-Lago, so they got a search warrant to go get those classified documents themselves. It's unclear whether Trump became uncooperative at some point and didn't want to hand over more boxes after he initially handed them over in January. We just don't know why a search warrant was necessary just because the affidavit doesn't say it's blacked out. You can't read anything. So we just don't know. Once this redacted affidavit was unsealed on Friday, Trump made a statement on Truth

Social, his social media app, and he said, affidavit heavily redacted, nothing mentioned on nuclear, a total public relations subterfuge by the FBI and DOJ. He said, recused himself two months ago from one of my cases based on his animosity and hatred of your favorite president, me. What changed? Why hasn't he recused himself on this case? Obama must be very proud of him right now. Now, in conjunction with the redacted affidavit, the DOJ also filed an accompanying memo, which set forth reasons as to why so much of the affidavit was redacted. And basically, the DOJ gave five categories affidavit was redacted. And basically, the DOJ gave five categories of information that must remain redacted in order to protect the safety of witnesses and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The five categories are witness information, the investigation roadmap, federal rule of criminal procedure 6E, which protects grand jury information,

information regarding the safety of law enforcement personnel, and information regarding privacy interests. The memo is also redacted, by the way. But if you're interested in reading it, I have it linked on my website along with the redacted search warrant affidavit. So you can take a look at both of those things if you feel so inclined and you want to see it for yourself. But that is that. I mean, that is a pretty good summary if I do say so

myself. So we covered a lot, even though it was only three topics, we covered a lot of ground. But you guys know these are my favorite episodes, the ones that I know you're leaving with so much more knowledge than you started this episode with. So I love that for you. I love that for me. And just a few things before you go, don't forget to listen to tomorrow's episode, which will cover one of the most shocking stories of child abuse you've ever heard. And don't forget to use the comment section on my website to share your thoughts on this episode, because I'm really, really excited to spark some conversation with you guys and for you guys to be able to converse with each other. And again, those comments can be found on this episode's description page on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. And finally, you guys know

the drill. If you haven't already and you enjoyed this episode, please don't forget to leave me a five-star review on whichever platform you listen. And if you have already left me a review thank you so much i appreciate it more than you can imagine and with that i will talk to you guys tomorrow