UNBIASED - May 7, 2024: TikTok Sues United States Over 'TikTok Ban,' Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand in Trump's 'Hush Money' Case, Judge Denies Mistrial Following Daniels' Testimony, and More.

Episode Date: May 7, 2024

1. Updates: Two U.S. Citizens Detained in Russia; Boeing Fails to Launch (0:55)2. Stormy Daniels Testifies in Trump's Hush Money Case; Here's What Was Said and It's Meaning for Prosecutors (3:16)3. Judge Denies Trump's Request for Mistrial Following Daniels' Testimony (10:00)4. TikTok Files Lawsuit Against U.S. Government Over TikTok Ban (12:10)5. Quick Hitters: MIT Does Away With 'DEI Statements' for Prospective Hires, Boy Scouts of America Changing Name After 114 Years, Panera Bread to Discontinue Charged Lemonade Following Lawsuits and Deaths (17:03)Get EXCLUSIVE, unbiased 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 7th, and this is your daily news rundown. Just as a reminder, because I haven't said it in a while, my daily news cycle ends at 3 p.m. Eastern time. That way I have time to get this episode out for you by 5. So just know that anything that happens after three on any given day will usually be pushed to the next day's episode.

But with that said, if you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides, you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen on, share the show with your friends. And if you're watching on YouTube, please just go ahead and hit that thumbs up button, and if you're not already subscribed to my YouTube

channel, please go ahead and do that as well. All of those things really help support my show. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. To pick up where we left off yesterday, I have updates in two stories, two of the stories which I said I would have updates in, one of those being about the soldier detained in Russia, the other story about the Boeing launch. So first, let's start with the story out of Russia. As it turns out, Russia actually detained two United States nationals recently, both completely separate incidents. But the United States soldier who I talked about yesterday,

we found out a little bit more about him. His name is Gordon Black. He was stationed in South Korea where he apparently met a girl online and went to visit her in Russia. According to the army, he was in the process of switching stations from South Korea to Texas. He voluntarily traveled to Russia without official permission from the army. And while he was there, him and this girl got into an argument. He left, but she ended up filing a police report accusing him of assaulting her and stealing roughly $2,200. So he ultimately gets arrested at a local hotel on May 2nd. He's brought to jail and reports are saying he will be detained until at least July 2nd. The second detainee is William Russell Nycombe, a United States citizen who is

in custody for, quote, petty hooliganism. Moscow's court service said he had been found naked outside after drinking alcohol, which, quote, expressed obvious disrespect to society, citizens, and public order, end quote. Nikom supposedly has a lesser sentence of 10 days, so if all goes to plan, he should be out of custody then. Now for another update from yesterday, the Boeing launch that never happened, and I had a slight feeling I might come back with this update today, But as we know, Boeing was set to launch its first manned spacecraft last night after some lengthy and costly delays. The launch was scheduled for 10.34 p.m. Eastern time, but then just hours before the launch, the United States Launch

Alliance decided to call off the mission due to a stuck oxygen valve. So as of now, NASA and Boeing say that the next launch attempt has not yet been confirmed, but they also say it'll take place no earlier than Friday. And of course, if that valve has to be replaced, then it could delay it even longer. Moving on to today's news, we'll start with Stormy Daniels' testimony in Trump's hush money case. We'll then talk about the lawsuit filed by TikTok against the United States government, and we'll finish with quick hitters. In this discussion about Stormy Daniels' testimony, I want to talk about not only the actual testimony, but also how relevant the testimony is to the charges, because I think that's the part that isn't being

talked about as much. So I definitely want to touch on that. But just so we're all on the same page, Stormy Daniels is the woman at the center of the $130,000 hush money payment. She says that she slept with Trump in 2006. This is something that Trump has denied, but she ended up selling her story to Trump and Michael Cohen in 2015, and that payment is pretty much at the center of this case, even though hush money payments are not illegal. I'll get into all of that in a little bit, but as far as the testimony goes, Daniels testified that she met Trump at a golf tournament. His security asked her if she would have dinner with Trump. She said no. The security guard then got her number and invited her to dinner with Trump again. That time she said yes. And then in what would be the first

time they hung out in a private setting, she went to his penthouse hotel room where she says they talked for a couple of hours. She went into the bathroom and when she came out, Trump was on the bed in his boxers and t-shirt. She testified that she's not sure the details of what happened next, but she said the next thing she knew is that they were having sex. She testified that she was, quote, startled to see him on the bed, but never felt intimidated or threatened during the encounter. However, she did say that once their sexual relations were over and she was getting dressed again, putting on her shoes, she was shaking and remembered having a hard time putting on her shoes because of that. After that encounter, she kept in contact with him. They talked about once a week.

She said that she kept in contact with him because her publicist said it was a good idea since there was a good idea since there was a chance she would be on The Apprentice. That's something her and Trump talked about. So that's why she says she stayed in contact with him. She ended up seeing him again the day after their sexual encounter and a few times in 2007, but only explicitly testified about the sexual relations on that one day in the penthouse in 2006. There was no mention of sexual relations after that. She testified that the last time she spoke to him was summer of 2007 when he told her over the phone that he was, quote, overruled and wouldn't be able to get her on The Apprentice. Fast forward eight years in 2015, Daniels testifies that her

publicist reached out to her and told her that she could sell the story of her affair with Trump because Trump was married to Melania at the time and still is married to Melania, but also at the time. And Daniels testified that it wasn't until the Access Hollywood tape came out that she started entertaining with these conversations with her publicist about selling the story. Initially, Daniels testified that her motivation wasn't money, but rather just to get the story out. But then her testimony changed a little bit when she said that in October of 2015, when it became known to her that Trump and Michael Cohen were interested in buying the story, she said that that was, quote, the best thing that could have happened. She said, quote, because then I'd be safe and the story wouldn't come out,

end quote. Ultimately, she entered into an agreement with Trump where she would be paid $130,000 for the story. And that was the general gist of her testimony as of the lunch break today. Now, something I want to sort out is the relevancy of this testimony, because as I said, this is something that's not being talked about as much, but as you know, I like to sort of give you the legal background on things. So in litigation and as a party to a case, you will call different witnesses for different reasons, right? One witness may be called to prove X, another witness may be called to prove Y, maybe a third witness is called to prove X, Y, and Z. In this case specifically, the most important witness for purposes of proving the actual charges against Donald Trump is Michael Cohen. And that's because what Trump is facing charges for

is falsifying business records. And not only that, but falsifying business records with the intent of hiding information from voters ahead of the 2016 election. Because as I've explained before, falsifying business records alone is a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony if the falsifying is done in furtherance of another crime. So the prosecution here wants to prove that not only did Trump falsify the purpose of his payments to Michael Cohen when the payments were recorded, but also that those payments were made as part of this bigger scheme to suppress information from voters ahead of the election. So for that reason, Michael Cohen is important because he can testify to all

of those things. He can testify to the payments that were made to him. He can testify to the purpose of those payments as well as the purpose of any alleged scheme. Stormy Daniels, on the other hand, doesn't serve that kind of substantial purpose. She doesn't serve as big of a purpose for the prosecution as Michael Cohen does. She can testify about her relationship with Trump, her sexual encounters with Trump, and what she knows about the agreement that she entered into for the $130,000 in exchange for the story and the conversations that took place around that agreement. But none of that really goes to the heart of the charges because remember, hush money payments in and of themselves are not illegal. So for that reason, Daniels isn't necessarily an incredibly important witness for purposes of the prosecution proving their charges

beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the reason that her testimony is sort of making waves is because Trump has consistently denied allegations of an affair with Daniels. So for her to get on the stand and say, hey, here's what happened, it's notable testimony in that sense. And yes, of course, she may provide relevant information, but all of this to say she's certainly not the most important witness to take the stand. Now, Daniels did continue her testimony at 2 p.m. today, which I did not have a chance to include in tonight's episode, but if there's anything worth mentioning, I can always discuss it tomorrow. The last thing I wanted to say about this trial, which was the last thing I was able to catch from the trial today, is that Trump's team actually submitted a motion for mistrial after Daniel's first round of testimony,, given the fact that it has nothing to do with

the actual charges. And this has to do, this argument really has to do with particular parts of the testimony about Trump not wearing a condom, a bodyguard waiting outside of the room during their encounter, their height difference, the power dynamic between the two of them, things of that nature. Trump's attorney noted that once the courtroom broke for lunch, media outlets were already reporting about Daniel's testimony and sort of questioning the consent element of their encounter. So for that reason, Trump's team tried to get a mistrial by arguing that Daniel's testimony was way too prejudicial. The prosecution, on the other hand, rebutted this by saying that Daniel's testimony was way too prejudicial. The prosecution, on the other hand, rebutted this

by saying that Daniel's testimony was actually probative and necessary to show Trump's motive for the hush money scheme and cover up. When it comes to mistrials specifically, the judge has to consider whether there was an error or some sort of other legal defect during the trial or maybe conduct outside the courtroom that is so prejudicial to the defendant that it deprives him of a fair trial. So in this case, Judge Merchant ultimately ruled that while there were things said that probably would have been better left unsaid, it's not at a point where a mistrial is warranted. In other words, Trump isn't so prejudiced by the testimony thus far so as to warrant a mistrial. And just as an FYI and a final sort of note, that whole motion for mistrial hearing happens before the jury is even called back into

the courtroom after lunch, so the jury doesn't hear any of that stuff. It's only once the judge hears what he has to say or issues his ruling, then the jury will come back in. And now for the bigger piece of news from the day. TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, have officially filed a lawsuit against the United States government over the so-called TikTok ban. This is definitely a lawsuit we knew was coming. We fully expected it. But let's start from the top. As we know, Congress, with the help of President Biden, recently enacted a law called Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. And that law, in part, says that ByteDance has to divest TikTok's United States business or face a shutdown. And just for clarity's sake, the law actually applies to any website or app that's owned by any foreign adversary, those being China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea.

But obviously this law was enacted because of the security concerns that surround TikTok. The lawsuit reads in part, quote, the qualified divestiture demanded by the act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible, not commercially, not technologically, not legally, and certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the act. There is no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere. End quote. The lawsuit then continues and says, quote, of course, even if a qualified divester were feasible, the act would still be an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power. If upheld, it would allow the government to decide

that a company may no longer own and publish the innovative and unique speech platform it created. If Congress can do this, it can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being There are four grounds that this law is being challenged on. The first is the First Amendment. The second is Bill of Attainder. The third is the Equal Protection Clause. And the fourth is an unconstitutional taking. We're all pretty familiar with the First

Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, those being that obviously our right to free speech is protected from government regulation, and we are all entitled to equal treatment under the law. But I want to talk about the grounds we're not as familiar with, starting with Bill of Attainder and finishing with the Takings Clause. So a Bill of Attainder is the name given to a law that essentially deems a party guilty of a crime. In effect, it allows a person to be punished for a crime without first standing trial. And this is something that was actually legal in England. So when the Constitution was being drafted here in America, the drafters specifically prohibited Bill of attainder under Article 1, Section 9. And the basis for that unconstitutionality stems from the separation of powers. In other words, Congress can't perform the job of the judiciary, just like the judiciary

can't perform the duties of Congress, so on and so forth. So what TikTok alleges is that this law singles out TikTok and ByteDance for legislative punishment. In other words, it punishes them without justification by forcing a sale within 270 days on terms that are not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. So for that reason, this is a bill of attainder and should be held unconstitutional. Lastly, the unconstitutional takings claim. The Fifth Amendment takings clause prohibits the government from taking your property without justly compensating you. Given that, what the lawsuit says about the taking is this. It says, quote, petitioners, TikTok and ByteDance, have substantial property interests in and

associated with their affiliates' U.S. operations. These include not only ByteDance Limited interests in TikTok and other United States businesses, but also the platforms and applications themselves. If the act's prohibitions take effect, they will deprive petitioners of property protected by the takings clause, end quote. In other words, the government, what TikTok is saying is the government is trying to take their property, which they say is their business interest, without justly compensating them for it, and therefore it violates the takings clause of the Constitution. As I've said before, I'm sure this is a lawsuit that will eventually

make its way to the Supreme Court, but once we have a decision out of the DC circuit, I will certainly let you know. In the meantime, if you do want to read the lawsuit yourself, I of course have it linked for you in the sources section of this episode. So you can find that in the episode description or just by going to jordanismylawyer.com and finding today's episode. Scroll all the way down to the bottom. that's where you will find the sources. Some quick hitters for you just before we close out this episode. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, better known as MIT, announced that it would no longer require prospective hires to pledge allegiance to the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion as an employment condition. So diversity statements have become more and more popular over the years, especially in more prominent educational institutions. But it's basically a one to two page written statement by a prospective employee that describes either

that person's accomplishments in DEI or that person's goals to advance DEI as a faculty member. And if you want a little bit more about what a diversity statement entails, I actually included a link to Harvard's description of what a diversity statement is. So it is in the sources section if you're interested in that. But in announcing MIT's decision, the university president said in a statement, quote, my goals are to tap into the full scope of human talent, to bring the very best to MIT, and to make sure they thrive once there. We can build an inclusive environment in many ways, but compelled statements impinge on freedom of expression, and they don't work, end quote.

In other news, the Boy Scouts of America is officially changing its name to Scouting America. Announced today, the organization said the rebrand reflects its, quote, ongoing commitment to welcome every youth and family in America to experience the benefits of scouting, end quote. The official name change will take place next February, specifically February 8th, which will also be the organization's 115th anniversary. And lastly, this is sort of an, if you've been here for a while, you heard about the Panera Bread charged lemonade lawsuits, but this is an update to that. Panera Bread is officially eliminating its charged lemonade drink from its menu following multiple lawsuits and two deaths. A Panera spokesperson said the drink will come off the menu in the next two weeks and said that new drinks will replace it. That is what I have for you today.

Thank you so much for being here. As always, I hope you enjoyed today's episode and I will talk to you tomorrow.