UNBIASED - May 14, 2024: RFK Jr. Sues Meta for Election Interference, Michael Cohen Testimony (Day Two), Biden Increases Tariffs on Chinese Goods, Harvard Protesters Remove Tents, and More.

Episode Date: May 14, 2024

1. RFK Jr. Sues Meta Alleging Election Interference (0:30)2. Michael Cohen's Testimony Day Two; Trump's Remarks; Appeals Court Upholds Trump's Gag Order (8:21) *Highly recommend listening to yesterday's episode first (5/13/24), so Cohen's testimony has more context. 3. Quick Hitters: Biden Signs Law Banning Uranium Imports From Russia, Biden Imposes Increased Tariffs on Chinese Goods, Environmental Group Sues Tesla Over Emissions, Intentional Francis Scott Key Bridge Collapse, Harvard Protesters Remove Tents Amid University Agreeing to Talk (16:22)Get behind-the-scenes content on Patreon.Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Tuesday, May 14th, and this is your daily news rundown. If you love the unbiased approach this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever podcast platform you listen, share this show with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel if you're not already. Without further ado, let's get right into today's stories, starting with a story that

broke yesterday afternoon, though I actually have not seen many outlets reporting on, but it is that RFK Jr. filed a lawsuit against Meta yesterday, accusing it of election interference. Here's what you need to know. Earlier this month, the political action committee supporting Kennedy's campaign, it's called American Values 2024, released a 30-minute short film called Who Is Bobby Kennedy? According to the Kennedy camp, the film offers a, quote, simple, honest look at Mr. Kennedy's life, formative experiences, accomplishments, character, and values, especially his belief in America and her founding principles, inviting voters to make up their own minds about Mr. Kennedy rather than accepting falsehoods about him

repeatedly asserted by major news outlets and social media platforms. So that was this goal of the short film, and it was posted to various outlets, X, Facebook, Instagram, things like that. Within minutes of the video being posted, Meta, which of course consists of both Instagram and Facebook, allegedly imposed restrictions on the film and went as far as to block users from watching, sharing, or posting the link whoisbobbykennedy.com. The lawsuit also accuses Meta of sending users messages, threatening to suspend their accounts or otherwise punish them if they tried to watch, share, or post the link to the film. In some cases, as the lawsuit alleges, Meta did disable and suspend users. And all of this is shown through screenshots of users' accounts

in the exhibits attached to the lawsuit, which I do, of course, have linked for you. But according to the notifications at the time, the reasons given by Meta for the restrictions were that the video violated community standards, praised organized crime or hate groups, solicited sexual services, contained sexual activity or violent or graphic content, and offered the sale of firearms or drugs. As further proof of censorship, the lawsuit says that on May 5th, Meta's AI bot was asked, when users post the link whoisbobbykennedy.com, can their followers see the post in their feeds? Meta's own bot responded, quote, I can tell you that that link is currently restricted by Meta, end quote.

So the lawsuit cites to the support and advocacy clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. And what that law says is that it is illegal for two or more people to conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for president. In short, two people cannot conspire to interfere with a citizen's ability to support or advocate for a candidate, whether that's a presidential candidate or a congressional candidate, whatever it is. And precedent has established that under that law, it can apply to

not only the government, but also natural people, corporations, private actors, state officials, and federal officials. So in this case, obviously, we have a private entity, but precedent has shown that this particular law can extend to a private entity. Naturally, though, one of the questions here is, well, if the law prohibits a conspiracy, a conspiracy requires at least two people. And if Meta is being sued, who is the second person involved in this conspiracy? Well, what the lawsuit says is that it's the Biden administration that is on the other side of the conspiracy. And we know this, one, because it says it in the claims for relief in the lawsuit, but

also because a large portion of Kennedy's lawsuit talks about a case called Missouri versus Biden. Missouri versus Biden is a case that accuses the administration of coercing social media platforms into censoring certain types of speech. It's actually one of the one of the decisions the Supreme Court will be giving us here within the next month or so. With that said, though, there are three claims for which relief is requested, violations of the First Amendment and violations of two federal laws. So let's start with Kennedy's First Amendment claim. As we know, private entities are not subject to the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects against government restriction, not restriction from private entities. However, certain private actions can become state action if those private entities

are so intertwined with the government. In this case, Kennedy argues that because Meta implemented and executed the algorithms and policies that were first established with the Biden administration when Biden took office, Meta's action in censoring the Who is Bobby Kennedy film rise to the level of state action and therefore violate the First Amendment rights of not only Kennedy himself, but also the Political Action Committee, as well as all other Americans who were either prevented from watching or sharing the film. So that's the First Amendment claim. The second claim is a violation of that federal law I mentioned earlier, the Support and Advocacy Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

And this argument is essentially that the government and META worked together by and through that previously discussed algorithm to censor the film as well as other expressions of support or advocacy in favor of Kennedy's candidacy and to punish users who engaged in such support or advocacy by restricting or disabling those accounts. And then finally, the third claim in this lawsuit stems from the second, specifically section 1986 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which says that any person who knows that a wrong is about to be committed under that law we just discussed and has the power to prevent it acts unlawfully if he neglects or refuses to do so. to the instant lawsuit. The allegation is that Meta, and specifically Mark Zuckerberg, could have acted to stop the censorship of Kennedy's film, knowing that what it was doing was a violation of federal law, but failed to do so. So those are the three claims for relief set forth in the complaint. But now let's talk about what Kennedy is seeking. So for one, Kennedy wants an injunction to stop Meta from further censoring campaign-related

information, to stop Meta from making any other threats of punitive action against users who express support for Kennedy, to stop Meta from any further collusion with federal officials, and to lift any suspensions or restrictions that are currently in place on users' accounts who are restricted because of their support for Kennedy. In addition to the injunction, Kennedy also wants compensatory damages to compensate him for the harm he has suffered due to the censorship, punitive damages to punish Meta for its actions, a court order requiring Meta to publicly retract its false statements surrounding Kennedy's campaign, and finally, declaratory judgment, which is basically a statement from the court that says

that Metta did in fact violate the First Amendment and these federal laws at issue. From here, I'm sure Metta will file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and it will then be up to the judge whether the lawsuit proceeds. But if you want to read the lawsuit for yourself, it's actually pretty short. The complaint itself is only about 24 pages, and then there's about 12 pages of screenshots from various users' accounts. But I, of course, have it linked for you in the sources section of this episode, which you can find in the episode description. Moving on to the main story from today, which is that Michael Cohen took the stand for the second day in Trump's hush money trial, and this is what you need to know. The most notable

testimony, at least when it comes to the root of the charges in this case, was Cohen's testimony about his reimbursement conversation with Allen Weisselberg, who was the CEO for the Trump Organization, and Cohen's subsequent meeting with Trump in the Oval Office. Both of these took place in 2017. Cohen said that him and Weisselberg came up with this plan where Cohen would send a series of false invoices requesting payment for legal services that he performed pursuant to this false retainer agreement. And subsequently, Cohen would receive monthly checks for $35,000 for a total of $420,000 to cover the payment he made to Stormy Daniels, his taxes, and a bonus. Cohen also testified that there was never a real retainer agreement. He testified that he met with Trump in the Oval Office after this meeting with Weisselberg,

where Trump asked him if he was okay, if he needed any sort of help financially. Cohen said no, and Trump said, okay, just make sure you deal with Allen. The prosecutor and Cohen then went through each invoice and check stub. In total, there were 11 checks, and the line of questioning followed the same pattern for each check. So the prosecutor would ask whether the invoices Cohen sent were consistent with directions given by Weisselberg. Cohen confirms this. Whether the invoices were actually reimbursements for the hush money payment and not for legal services. Cohen confirms this as well. What the payments were actually reimbursements for the hush money payment and not for legal services. Cohen confirmed this as well. What the payments were actually for, this was just another way for Cohen to say that the payments were for reimbursements and not legal services. Whether the invoices were false records,

Cohen said yes. Whether the invoices were based on legal services performed pursuant to a retainer agreement, Cohen said no. And whether the description in the check stub is a false statement, which Cohen said yes. Cohen testified that despite being paid $35,000 per month in 2017, he did maybe 10 hours of work for Trump that whole year. This obviously was to prove that the monthly payments were not for legal services, but rather for the reimbursement. Then the prosecution got into Cohen's false statements to Congress, which Cohen pled guilty to in 2018. And the reason the prosecution did this was most likely for two reasons. Number one, to get ahead of cross-examination, because as we'll talk about in a minute, Trump's team is

really focused on attacking Cohen's credibility, but also number two, so that Cohen could establish a storyline of sorts for why he's not lying on the stand today. So Cohen testified that his previous false statements to Congress dealt with the Trump Tower Moscow project and the number of times that he claimed to have spoken to Trump about the project as well as the time period for those conversations. But he said that eventually he knew he couldn't continue to lie for Trump anymore and that he came to his senses when his family confronted him about his loyalty to Trump. Cohen also briefly testified about a 2018 lawyer that was sent by Cohen's lawyer to the Federal Election Commission, which said that the payment from Cohen to Stormy Daniels was a personal payment that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign were involved

in. Cohen said that the wording of this letter was intentionally misleading because while the letter was true that the Trump Organization and the Trump campaign were not involved in it, it was Trump himself that was involved. And finally, the prosecution asked Cohen if he would have made the payment to Stormy Daniels if not for the election, and Daniels said no. And that's, of course, just to lay the groundwork that the payment was made only for purposes of protecting Trump's campaign and nothing else. And again, obviously this doesn't encompass everything that Cohen testified about, but I'm limiting my talking points to what's relevant to the charges at hand,

because if I didn't, we'd be here for hours. And at the end of the day, the testimony relevant to the charges is really the most important aspect of this entire thing. Around 2 p.m., the defense began cross-examination. And as I mentioned before, the cross was really focused on attacking Cohen's credibility. And this is because if the defense can make Cohen out to be a liar to the jury, it's possible that the jury doubts the truthfulness of Cohen's testimony and therefore doubts the main elements of this case. Because remember, the prosecution has to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of this, in criminal cases, the strategy is often to raise doubt. If the defense can raise enough doubt so as to prevent the prosecution from

reaching that beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the defense can get an acquittal. So that is the strategy a lot of times from the defense. Now, I could only catch up until 3 p.m. today of the cross because that's when I have to start recording. But from what I did catch, cross started with questioning Cohen about his activity on social media, both leading up to and during this trial. Cohen has been pretty active on social media, specifically TikTok, talking not only about the case, but also witnesses, Trump's attorneys, and Trump himself. So the first few questions from Trump's team were questions about negative comments Cohen made about Trump and Trump's attorneys.

Cohen confirmed that he had called Trump's attorney a, quote, crying little shit, and confirmed that he called Trump a, quote, dictator douchebag. Cohen testified that he goes live on TikTok about six nights a week to make some money. He talks about Trump roughly six nights a week on live and that he once wore a shirt on his live showing Trump behind bars, which is part of his own merch collection. It's on his own merch store. And during that live, he was encouraging viewers to buy it. So it's really the gist of Cross Up Until 3 p.m. And the purpose of that line of questioning is, number one, not only to show

how much hatred Cohen has towards Trump and show some potential bias and potential motive in some, you know, in the way that he was answering the prosecution's questions, but also, too, to show the jury that Cohen isn't this calm, remorseful stand-up guy that he portrayed himself to be during direct examination. Cross will continue into tomorrow, and Cohen is the last witness for the prosecution. So once Cross is over, the prosecution will redirect Cohen, and then it'll be Trump's turn to present his case. And once the defense goes, closing statements are had and that's the end. Jury will go into

deliberations. As for Trump himself, he's obviously limited in what he can say. But prior to court starting this morning, he made comments to the media. He said in part, quote, I paid a lawyer a certain amount of money. We marked it down as legal expenses. So I had a legal expense and I marked it down as a legal expense. I didn't mark it down as a construction of a wall, construction of a building. I didn't mark it down as electricity. There's no crime. I've been here for almost four weeks in an icebox. They call it the icebox, listening to a judge who is totally corrupt and conflicted. Then later, when court took a little break, reporters asked how he was feeling about what was going on in the courtroom in light of Cohen's testimony, and he gave two thumbs up. Also, it's worth noting that the appeals court in New York

today upheld Judge Merchant's gag order against Trump. The appeals court wrote in its order, quote, we find that Judge Merchant properly weighed petitioners first amendment rights against the court's historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings for being free from threats, intimidation, harassment and harm, end quote. Okay, so now let's finish this episode with some quick hitters. We'll start with the first one, which is that President Biden signed H.R. 1042 into law today, which prohibits the importation of uniradiated, low-enriched uranium produced in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity. And speaking of imports from foreign countries, President Biden announced a series of tariff increases on goods made in China, 25% on steel and aluminum, 50% on semiconductors, 100% on EVs, and 50% on solar panels. And that's just to name a few. An environmental non-profit sued Tesla yesterday, accusing it of violating the Clean Air Act by allegedly letting its Fremont, California plant emit an abundance of harmful pollutants. The nonprofit wants an injunction to stop excess

pollution from the plant as well as civil fines of up to $121,275 per day per violation of the act. Crews in Baltimore set off controlled explosions yesterday to remove a portion of the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge from the bow of the container ship that's been grounded since the collision. The project was originally planned for Sunday but was delayed a day due to weather, and that is of course in an effort to move the grounded ship. And finally, the anti-war protesters at Harvard were seen voluntarily taking down their tents in Harvard Yard today after university officials allegedly agreed to discuss the questions surrounding the endowment. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for

being here. Have a great night, and I will talk to you tomorrow.