UNBIASED - November 13, 2025: Government Is Officially OPEN; Here's What's in the Funding Bill. Plus House Releases Epstein Emails and Will Vote Whether to Release Even More Epstein Files.

Episode Date: November 13, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Supreme Court Extends Pause on SNAP Order. Does It Matter? (0:13) Government Officially Re-Opens. Here's What You Need to Know About the Funding Package. (5:50) House Committee Releases Epstein Emails Mentioning Trump and Thousands More Documents. Here's What We Know (24:09) House to Vote on Bill to Require DOJ to Release All Epstein Files in its Possession After Swearing in Democratic Rep. Grijalva (37:25) Quick Hitters: U.S. Mints Last Penny, Court Orders Release of Migrants, Gov. Newsom's Former Chief-of-Staff Pleads Not Guilty (41:07) Rumor Has It: Has Obama Been Making Millions Off Obamacare Royalties? (43:45) Critical Thinking Segment (46:48) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. 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

Boarding for flight 246 to Toronto is delayed 50 minutes. Ugh, what? Sounds like Ojo time. Play Ojo? Great idea. Feel the fun with all the latest slots in live casino games and with no wagering requirements. What you win is yours to keep groovy. Hey, I won! Boarding will begin when passenger Fisher is done celebrating.

19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close, you call 1866-3-3-1-2-60 or visit comixonterio.ca. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, November 13th. Let's talk about some news. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to extend its pause on a lower court's order that required the administration to fully fund SNAP benefits for the month of November. Now, we talked about the previous Supreme Court order.

in depth on Monday. So I don't really want to spend too much time on this, especially now that the government is reopened. But I do want to explain what the Supreme Court's newest order means and why it happened. So we'll do sort of a quick recap. And then we'll talk, yeah, we'll talk about this most recent order and, you know, whether it even matters now that the government has reopened. So as we discussed on Monday, when SNAP funding expired at the end of October amid the government shutdown, several states went ahead and sued the administration. And they argued that the federal government had an obligation to fund SNAP and that it needed to tap into what's called the contingency fund to help cover November benefit payments despite the shutdown. And once that lawsuit

was filed, the district court went ahead and ordered the administration to fund November benefits. And what it said is, listen, you guys can either pay partial benefits using the contingency fund or you can fully fund November stat benefits using additional resources, additional sources of money. The administration chose the partial payment option, but it did not meet the court's deadline for payment. And that ultimately led the court to issue a second order that required full payment of November staff benefits. The administration no longer had an option. So the administration then goes ahead an appeals that ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and requested an administrative stay pending appeal, which is a temporary order that pauses a lower court's ruling when the case

is being appealed. And while the administration was awaiting the appellate court's decision on that request, the administration went ahead and asked the Supreme Court to step in and ask the Supreme Court to grant a temporary stay while the appellate court was deciding what it was going to do with the administration's request because per the lower court's order, the administration only had until the following day to fully fund SNAP benefits. So they were like, if we can't get a decision soon from the appellate court, we're going to again be in violation of the court's order. So, hey, Supreme Court, can you come in and grant us a stay? So the Supreme Court ended up granting the administration's request, which meant that the administration would not have to fund, fully fund

benefits just yet, that it could wait until the appellate court ruled on its request for a stay. And that's where we left off in Monday's episode. But the appellate court ended up rejecting the administration's request for a stay. So the administration went back to the Supreme Court and they asked the court to extend the previous pause that it put on the district court's order. Basically, the administration said, listen, the government is most likely about to reopen. And if the government reopens, our request for a stay is moot anyway. So we're just asking that you extend the stay one more time just for a few days while Congress figures out what it's going to do about the shutdown. And if the shutdown doesn't end, then the court can decide whether to put the district court's order on hold for a longer duration of time.

And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to extend the pause on the district court's order until 1159 tonight. Okay. So the court basically gave Congress a little over 48 hours to figure out what it was going to do about the shutdown. And in the meantime, said the administration wouldn't have to fully fund November snap benefits just yet. Now, what's interesting here is that the first time around when the administration first went to the Supreme Court, it was Justice Jackson that granted the temporary stay request. And as we talked about, that's because she is the justice that receives emergency applications from the First Circuit Court of Appeals. But we also talked about the fact that each justice can refer emergency applications to the full court

so that all nine justices can consider it. And while Justice Jackson decided the first request from the administration herself, the second time around she referred it to the full court. And what's interesting is that despite the administration's request being granted this time around by the majority of justices, Justice Jackson actually said she would not have extended this day and would have turned down the administration's request. So the first time she did it herself. She granted the administration's request herself. But then the second time around, she was like, no, I wouldn't have done this. I don't agree with the majority here. Now, here's the kicker. Okay. None of this matters anymore. Now that the government has reopened,

all of this is moot, meaning moot means it's irrelevant. Now that the government is open, the administration now has the funds to issue full payment of November SNAP benefits. And it will presumably issue those benefits as soon as possible if it hasn't already done so. States should expect to issue full benefits within one to three days. Those states that have already issued partial benefits, which we talked about briefly on Monday, will have to calculate how much more recipients are owed and that'll take a little bit longer. they should be able to do that within a week or so. But again, now that the government's reopened, November snap benefits are going to be fully paid. This takes us to the funding bill that officially

ended the 43-day shutdown. On Wednesday night, the House of Representatives passed a temporary funding measure in a 222 to 209 vote sending it to the president's desk. That bill has now been signed by the president, which means the government has officially reopened. And just to kind of catch everyone up to speed, since a lot has happened since Monday's episode, on Monday night, the Senate officially passed a funding bill. That was after seven or eight Democrats, I'm forgetting the exact number, came to Senate Republicans and said, hey, we're willing to work with you here. You know, we'll vote to get this pass to filibuster if you can agree to these few things. So the Senate officially passed a funding bill on Monday night. And from there, the funding bill went to the House.

Now, the House Rules Committee is like the gatekeeper of the House. Before most bills can be debated and voted on by the full House, the House Rules Committee decides whether the bill can be considered on the floor and under what circumstances it'll be debated. So after about six hours of deliberations, the House Rules Committee passed the funding measure in an eight to four vote, and that was around 1 a.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Then last night, around 8.45 p.m., the full House officially passed the bill in that 222 to 209 vote, and the president signed it into law around 1030. As soon as the president signed it into law, the government officially reopened. So let's talk about what is in this bill, okay? The bill essentially includes two major

components. There's a continuing resolution, which keeps the government temporarily funded through January 30th. And then there's a bundle of appropriations bills, which fund certain departments of the federal government for the entire fiscal year. We'll talk about the continuing resolution first. As I said, this continuing resolution temporarily funds the government at the 2025 funding levels through January 30th. What that means is that if, Congress cannot pass the remainder of the appropriations bills or another continuing resolution by that January 30th deadline, the government will partially shut down again. This continuing resolution also provides retroactive pay for the federal workers who were

furloughed or worked without pay during the shutdown. It directs that states be reimbursed for any federal expenses that they covered during the shutdown, though it's not entirely clear. if this applies to SNAP benefits. The language of how this was written is just not, it doesn't mention SNAP benefits specifically, and it's a little bit big. So I'm just not 100% sure on that. If I get a better answer, I will let you know. The continuing resolution also reverses the reductions in force or the layoffs that took place during the shutdown. And it prevents additional layoffs of federal employees through January 30th. It also prevents the Defense Department

from using funds provided by this continuing resolution to start new programs, enter multi-year contracts, or increased production rates. It provides $28 million in additional funds for the protection and security of Supreme Court justices. It provides $30 million to the U.S. Capitol Police for reimbursements for mutual aid and related training and more. Okay, we did not cover every provision that. you know, it's, I just, we'd be here all day. But those are just some of the things that are

worth mentioning in the continuing resolution portion of this package. Now, the second major component of this funding measure is the package of appropriations bills. So remember that an appropriations bill is basically a law that gives the federal government permission to spend money on specific things. It tells agencies how much money they can spend each year. and what they can spend it on. Every fiscal year, Congress has to pass 12 of these. By September 30th of every year, Congress has to pass 12 appropriations bills, which fund the entire government, or it can pass a continuing resolution. If it does neither, that's when we see a shutdown. For fiscal year 2026, Congress has so far only passed three appropriations bills,

the three that were included in this funding bill that was just signed into law. yesterday. So they still have a ways to go with all the others. Also keep in mind that each appropriations bill funds specific departments and agencies. So these three appropriations bills that were passed last night specifically fund the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, related agencies, the legislative branch and related agencies or branches, and military construction and veterans affairs. That means Congress still has to figure out funding for all of the other departments and agencies for this fiscal year. So they're going to work on that over the next couple of months, hopefully, okay? But let's talk about these three appropriations bills that passed

last night. The first of the three funds the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and related agencies. It provides $26.65 billion in total funding. It fully funds SNAP and child nutrition programs, including free and reduced price school meals. It provides $8.2 billion for the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, otherwise known as WIC, which is actually a $603 million increase from the 2025 fiscal year. It provides 460,000, for the commodity supplemental food program, which supplies low-income senior citizens with monthly food boxes, and it replenishes the contingency funds of SNAP and WIC. It also provides $1.85 billion for the Agricultural Research Service, $1.67 billion for the National Institute

of Food and Agriculture, $1.715 billion for rental assistance, which is a $73 million increase from last fiscal year, $1.2 billion for the Food and Peace Program and more. I'm again, just kind of touching on the things that are worth mentioning, and not even just the things worth mentioning, but also like the things that will give you the general gist of what's included in the bill. And again, because this is an actual appropriations bill we're talking about and not a continuing resolution, this is funding that lasts through the entire 2026 fiscal year. So even if the government were to partially shut down at the end of January because Congress was not able to pass the remaining appropriations bills or another continuing resolution, everything we just talked

about would remain funded and running for the entire 2026 fiscal year. Now, before we move on to the next appropriations bill, we do have to talk about this one provision in the agriculture appropriations bill that has everyone talking. And that is the provision that bans hemp products containing THC. What this provision specifically does is it prohibits the unregulated sale of intoxicating hemp-based or hemp-derived products, including Delta 8, from being sold online, in gas stations, in corner stores, et cetera, you know, as long as it's unregulated channels of sale, which we'll talk about more in a minute.

At the same time, though, this provision preserves non-intoxicating CBD and industrial hemp products. So let's break this down a bit. Delta 8 is a psychoactive compound that can make you feel high. It's chemically similar to Delta 9 THC, which is the main intoxicating compound in marijuana. But Delta 8 is usually made from hemp-derived CBD through a chemical process. Currently, Delta 8 is sold in gas stations, smoke shops, online, et cetera, as gummies, vapes, edibles. You've seen all these things. Basically, the law is saying that it is now illegal to sell intoxicating products like Delta 8 in this manner, through these unregulated channels.

Previously, this wasn't illegal on a federal level because the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp. which was defined as cannabis with less than 0.3% Delta 9 THC, but the law did not mention Delta 8. So manufacturers started producing Delta 8 products from legal hemp, and Delta 8 products started to flood the market because of that loophole in the law. So lawmakers are now closing that loophole, which, again, allowed companies to sell hemp-based products that technically weren't marijuana, but still produced a high. But we also have to talk about the difference between regulated and unregulated sales channels. So some states like Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont, they already treat intoxicating hemp-derived products as part

of their state marijuana programs. So in those states, these products can be sold in state licensed dispensaries and are therefore already sold through regulated channels. In most states, though, these products are sold without oversight, and that's what's, that's unregulated. So this new provision only applies to those unregulated channels. It doesn't affect the already licensed dispensaries. It just stops those open unregulated markets that don't have the same age limits, testing, or labeling standards that these state licensed dispensaries do.

in certain states. Now, notably, the bill does not ban things like CBD lotions and oils, because while those things are made from hemp plants too, they are not intoxicating in the way that Delta 8 or similar hemp derived products are. So that's the gist of the hemp provision. Now, it's possible that lawmakers try to overturn this provision in a later bill. That's not to say it'll happen. It's just to say it's a possibility. But for now, and until that were to happen, intoxicating hemp products cannot be sold through unregulated channels. That is now illegal. Okay, let's take our first break here.

When we come back, we will talk about the two remaining appropriations bills that were included in the funding package, and then we'll get to the newly released Epstein emails and documents. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about the continuing resolution and one of the three appropriations bills that were included in that funding measure to reopen the government. The other appropriations bill that was included in that package was the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. And it provides a total of $7 billion in discretionary funding and another $203 million for

enhanced member security initiatives, which are, quote, in response to an increased threat environment, end quote. And by the way, despite the bill's name, this does not only cover Congress and the lawmakers. It also covers funding for the U.S. Capitol Police, the Library of Congress, the architect of the Capitol, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office. So the $7 billion in discretionary funding is split up between all of those different areas. It's not just what we typically think of when we think of the legislature, which is just the Senate and the House, right? The bill also extends the freeze on the pay of lawmakers, which has been in effect for a long time. It prevents any pay increases during each fiscal year. It retains the

requirement that unspent amounts from lawmakers' personal office budgets be used for debt and deficit reduction. It retains the prohibition on the payment of bonuses to contractors who are behind schedule or over budget. It continues the prohibition on funding for computer networks that don't block pornographic content. It continues the prohibition on the purchase. of drones manufactured in China, and it strengthens an existing ban on the acquisition of telecommunications equipment from certain Chinese companies. Now, one of the provisions in the legislative appropriations bill that similarly has a lot of people talking, as with the previous appropriations bill, is this provision that allows senators to sue the federal government for

$500,000 if federal law enforcement obtains their electronic data and does not know. notify them. So last month, Senate Republicans released an FBI document that showed federal investigators had obtained phone record data from eight senators and one representative for calls that they made in the days before and after January 6th, 2021. The records were apparently obtained pursuant to a subpoena in 23 that was sent to phone providers, but the lawmakers themselves did not know about this. So in the legislative appropriations bill, senators put in this provision that, one, requires service providers to alert Senate offices and the Senate Sergeant at Arms if federal law enforcement requests their data. And two, says that any senator whose

data was obtained in violation of that provision can sue the federal government for $500,000 for each violation. And that provision covers violations dating back to 2022. So it would cover those alleged violations that occurred in 2023. Now, there's a little bit of infighting happening in the GOP over this provision. Senator Thune, he's a Republican, he was the one that negotiated this provision. But Speaker Johnson is not happy about it. Speaker Johnson told reporters on Wednesday that he didn't think it was a smart thing to do and that he had he told Senator Thune that he strong disagreed with the provision. In fact, Johnson said that the House would be voting on a bill next week to overturn this provision, and Johnson expects it to pass with strong bipartisan

support. We shall see. So that's the deal with this provision that allows senators to sue the federal government. It may get overturned. Who knows, we will see. And I guess repealed is the right word, but they mean the same thing. And again, everything in the legislative appropriations bill is good for the entire fiscal year. Then we have the third and final appropriations bill, which funds military construction, veterans affairs, and related agencies. It provides a discretionary total of $153.3.3 billion, which includes $19.7 billion in defense funding and $133.5 billion in non-defense funding. Keep in mind that this appropriations bill is separate from the Defense Department Appropriations bill that Congress will eventually have to pass. This appropriations bill,

when it comes to defense specifically deals with housing, infrastructure, and facilities for U.S. military forces and their families, as well as funding for veterans' health care and benefits. So this appropriations bill allocates $115 billion for veterans medical care. That's not including the $52 billion for the toxic exposure fund. It also includes an additional 263 billion for mandatory benefits, mandatory veterans benefits, like disability compensation, education benefits, and employment training. There's 19.7 billion for the Defense Department Military Construction Program, which includes the construction and modernization of military infrastructure, as well as the construction, operation, and maintenance of military

family housing and projects that improve the quality of life for service members. So this can be hospitals, schools, child development centers, fitness centers, dining facilities, mess halls. The bill also includes 118 million for Arlington National Cemetery, another 110 million for other American military cemeteries and federal memorials for service members and more. Now, obviously, we didn't go over every single provision in this 300-page funding package, right? But we did talk about the more notable provisions and the provisions that many of you had questions about. From here, Congress will hopefully work to pass the remaining nine appropriations bills before January 30th so that the government is fully funded until October 1st of 2026. And that way, if it is able to pass the

remaining appropriations bills, we don't have to worry about another potential shutdown until then. Keep in mind, too, that Congress still has to figure out whether they are going to extend those ACA premium tax credits. The Senate agreed to hold a vote on the extension of ACA premium tax credits the second weekend of December, but we will have to see what the House decides to do with it. I have talked about the ACA premium tax credits in depth, and I've talked about what happens if Congress doesn't pass an extension until, let's say, like a month or two into 2026. So if you are interested in hearing more about that, I don't know the exact date of the episode. I know that it was within the last couple of weeks. So if you just go through the episodes and look for the episode

where I talk about the ACA premium tax credits, you will find that, you know, in-depth discussion. But I do kind of set you up for what we can expect if Congress doesn't act, if Congress does act, you know, before the end of the year, or if Congress acts sometime in 2026. Okay. Moving on, let's talk about some Epstein saga updates. Yesterday morning, House Democrats released three emails from Jeffrey Epstein's estate, which mention President Trump by name. Later that day, House Republicans released tens of thousands more documents from the same documents that the Epstein estate provided to this House committee.

So we'll talk about the emails first and then we'll talk about whether we've learned or what we've learned from the Republicans release of documents. First and foremost, these emails, let me just set the stage, these emails came from a subpoena that was issued by the House Oversight Committee back in August. That subpoena was sent to Epstein's estate, and it required Epstein's estate to turn over thousands of documents so that the House could continue to investigate Epstein's network and how the government handled the prosecution of Epstein. That is where those emails are, that is where these emails that we're now seeing are coming from, okay? It's from that subpoena. In one of the three emails released by Democrats, Epstein writes to Jisleine Maxwell, quote, I want you to realize that the dog that hasn't barked is Trump. Victim, name redacted, spent hours at my house with him.

He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera. I'm 75% there. End quote. Maxwell responded to that email saying, quote, I have been thinking about that. Dot, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot. End quote. That exchange was written in 2011.

Now, Republican members of the House Oversight Committee say the victim named in the email was Virginia Jufre. This is one of Epstein's victims who died by suicide this past April. Republicans accused Democrats of hiding her name from the publicized version of the email because she had never alleged Trump to have done anything wrong. And just to give a little more context there, Jufre is the most high profile victim of Epstein. She has spoken in many, many interviews. So we do have many transcripts of things that she said, many quotes of things that she said. So I kind of want to go over some of the things that she has said in relation to Trump just to kind of add color to what's going on here. So back in 2011, she was quoted in a Mail on Sunday story saying

that she encountered Trump during her time with Epstein, though it's not clear in what capacity she encountered Trump or what she meant by that. Months after that story was published is when Epstein sent Maxwell that email that we just talked about. In another article that was published around the same time in 2011, Joufrey is quoted as saying, quote, Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffries. He didn't partake in sex with any of us, but he flirted with me. He would laugh and tell Jeffrey, you've got the life. End quote.

Years after that, Joufrey said in a sworn statement that the quote about Trump that was attributed to her was not accurate and that she couldn't recall ever seeing Epstein and Trump at the same time or seeing Trump at one of Epstein's houses. When she was asked to clarify what portion of that quote wasn't accurate, she said that it was true that Trump was a good friend of Epstein and it was also true that Trump did not partake in sex with the girls, but that the part about Trump flirting with her was false. She said Trump never flirted with her. And then most recently, shortly before she passed, Jouffer wrote a memoir. And in that memoir, which was published last month, she wrote that she met Trump initially at his Mar-a-Lago club where she worked. And I'll just

read you a little excerpt from her book. So she writes, quote, in the summer of 2000, my father, then a maintenance man at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, got me a job there as a $9 an hour locker room attendant. It couldn't have been more than a few days before my dad said he wanted to introduce me to Mr. Trump himself. They weren't friends exactly, but dad worked hard and Trump liked that. I'd seen photos of them posing together, shaking hands. So one day my father took me to Trump's office. This is my daughter, dad said, and his voice sounded proud. Trump couldn't have been friendlier, telling me it was fantastic that I was there. Do you like kids? He asked, do you babysit at all? He explained that he owned several houses next to the resort that he lent to friends, many of whom

had children whom who needed tending, end quote. Joufrey said that not long after that is when she was recruited by Juslane Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago. And Trump has said, as recently as this past July, that Epstein, quote, unquote, stole Jewfrey and other young women from Mar-a-Lago. Joufrey consistently stated that Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing related to Epstein's activities and that she had, quote, unquote, fond of. memories of him. According to Amy Wallace, Joufrey's ghostwriter for her memoir, Joufrey was a strong

Trump supporter because he had campaigned on releasing the Epstein files. Wallace said in an interview just last month, quote, she, meaning Jufre, was very excited that he made that one of the main planks of his campaign and she felt validated by it. And quote, when Wallace was asked whether Dufre ever accused Trump of wrongdoing during their private conversations. Wallace said, quote, she never talked about him in any sense that he was involved in any of this. As far as she knew, and again, she was there for two plus years. But as far as she knew, Trump was not involved in the ring of trafficking that Epstein was working. And quote. So that's a little bit about what Joufrey said about Trump and his relationship with Epstein. And I just feel like that's important to add

color, too, because at the end of the day, what this debate is over in this email is whether, first of all, whether Joufrey is the name that is redacted in that email, as Republican lawmakers allege, or whether it's someone else we don't know because the name is redacted in the public version of the email. But that's why Republicans are claiming this is her because she has been, she was consistent in the fact that Trump never did anything wrong or she never witness Trump doing anything wrong. Democrats have so far not rebutted that she is the one named in this email. So, so that's just, I just felt it was important to add color there. But that's the first email. The second email, which was written in 2019, was sent from Epstein to an author and

journalist named Michael Wolfe. The email reads, quote, victim, name redacted, Mara Lago. More redactions. And then it says, Trump said, he asked me to resign, never a member ever. Of course he knew about the girls as he asked Jislane to stop, end quote. That email, by the way, is seemingly referencing Trump's claim that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago years ago for, quote, being a creep, end quote, and for stealing women who worked at Mar-a-Lago. Epstein seems to be saying that, one, he was never a member of Mar-a-Lago so he couldn't have been asked to resign, and two, that Trump knew about the girls and what Epstein was

doing because he asked Jis-Lain to stop. Now, just to add a little color to this one, Michael Wolfe, he is, like I said, a journalist and author. He has written four books about Trump. He has also participated in a 90-minute documentary about Trump's return to the White House. He says he's recorded around 100 hours of interviews with Epstein over the years. Their relationship started when Epstein became a source for Wolf's first book about Trump, which was written in 2018. Wolf has said that Trump and Epstein socialized in the same New York circles. and shared an interest in women's wealth, status, and women. According to Epstein's statements, as recounted by Wolfe, Epstein was one of Trump's closest friends

for nearly a decade before they had a falling out in 2004, which Epstein claimed was over real estate. Wolf also alleged that Melania Trump was acquainted with Epstein. That claim, that was actually pretty recent, resulted in Melania's lawyers threatening to file a $1 billion lawsuit, against Wolf, which then led to Wolf suing Melania for harassment and intimidation. So that's a little bit about Wolf. Trump does not like Wolf. He has called him a liar. But that's a little context there. And then finally, the third email exchange released by Democrats was another exchange between

Epstein and Wolf. This one was written a few years prior in 2015. Wolf says, quote, I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you either on air or in scrum afterwards. End quote. Epstein replies, quote, If we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be? End quote, Wolf responds, quote, I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and

political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you or if it really looks like he could win, you could save him generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that when asked, he'll say Jeffrey, is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime, end quote. So that's what we know about the emails. Those are the three emails that were released by Democrats on this House committee. Democrats say the emails are significant because they come directly from Epstein's own communications and show that Epstein believed

Trump was aware of his activities, whereas Republicans say that Democrats selectively released the three most sensational emails while keeping names and details redacted. So a few hours after those emails were released, Republicans on the committee went ahead and released another 23,000 pages of documents that it received from the Epstein estate as part of this same subpoena. Republican lawmakers said Democrats had cherry-picked certain emails to release to generate clickbait, but that the public deserved the full truth. Now, I think this goes without saying, but I did not sift through the 23,000 pages myself, Okay, I looked at what various outlets and independent journalists across the political spectrum were reporting after reviewing the documents, and I compiled the following information.

So one of the emails included in the Republican's release of documents was a 2017 email which Epstein wrote to a woman that was also a former lawyer for the Obama administration, but Epstein wrote, quote, you might want to tell your dem friends that treating Trump like a mafia dawn ignores the fact that he has great dangerous power. tightening the noose too slowly risks a very bad situation. Gambino was never the commander in chief. there was little Gambino could do as the walls closed in, not so with this maniac, end quote. The next year, when the same woman sent Epstein a New York Times column about Michael Cohen's guilty plea that was Trump's former attorney and what that guilty plea could mean for Trump, Epstein wrote, quote, you see, I know how dirty Donald is. My guess is that non-lawyers, any biz people have no idea, what it means to have your fixer flip, end quote. In one 2015 exchange, Epstein told the New York Times reporter that he could produce, quote, photos of Donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen, end quote. And later in that same email thread, he wrote about how he had a 20-year-old girlfriend in 1993,

who he later, quote, unquote, gave to Trump. In 2018, Epstein wrote an email that said, quote, Donald is close to no one. He talks to many people. He tells each one something different, end quote. So those are some of the documents that came out of the Republicans. release. Now, keep in mind that not all 23,000 documents include Trump's name, right? Most of the documents actually don't. And that's just because the documents are related to the entire investigation into Epstein. So other documents show, you know, Epstein and Maxwell coordinating a public response

to a lawsuit that was filed by one of the victims. There are various spreadsheets. There are various pictures of Epstein taken from a book written by James Patterson titled Filthy Rich. There are emails and messages between Epsine and various associates. There's transcripts of deposition testimony and so much more. In fact, you can find this. I included it in my sources section, obviously, but it's a Google drive. And in that Google drive, there are various folders. And then within those various folders, there's all the documents. So you can certainly take a look at it for yourself. It's a lot, of course. But that's the gist of what we know as far as these documents released by the House Committee.

Also, next week, the House will be voting on whether to release even more Epstein files, specifically the redacted Epstein files that the DOJ currently has in its possession. That vote is based on a discharge petition that until now didn't have enough votes to make it to the House floor. But let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we will talk about how that discharge petition works. and why the House is voting on it now. Welcome back. As I mentioned before the break, the House is getting ready to vote on a discharge petition

that would force the release of the Epstein files that are in the DOJ's possession. But I want to talk about how we got here. So back in August, a Democrat and a Republican in the House introduced a discharge petition that would call up a bill directing the Attorney General to release unclassified records and documents in the DOJ's possession related to Epstein, Maxwell, and other individuals named or referenced in connection to Epstein's illegal activities. Notably, this petition would allow records to be withheld that contain personally identifiable information about victims or that depict or contain child sexual abuse materials. And just so we're all on the same

page, a discharge petition is a petition that allows members of the House to for a bill out of a committee and bring it to the full House floor for a vote because otherwise House leadership could prevent a bill from ever getting to a vote, but this is a mechanism for lawmakers to force something to a vote. Now, the thing with discharge petitions is that you need a majority of the House or 218 lawmakers to sign off on it for it to become eligible for consideration. And until now, it only had 217 signatures. It was one signature short. But yesterday, Speaker Johnson swore in a new Democratic representative, Representative Adelita Grijalva, who signed on as the 218th signor. And I do quickly want to mesh two stories into one here

and talk about Krihalva and her swearing in. She won a special election in the beginning of October to fill the seat that was previously held by her father. Her father passed away in March. And her swearing in this week drew national attention because despite being elected in early October, Speaker Johnson did not immediately administer the oath of office. And administering the oath of office is necessary for her to officially begin her congressional duties. So she was elected in October, but she couldn't start working until now. As far as why she wasn't sworn in right away, Johnson said that it was because the House had been out of its full legislative session due to the shutdown. Democrats, though, accused Johnson of putting off the swearing in ceremony simply because he knew she was going to be the 218th signature on the Epstein petition, and he was trying to avoid that.

Now that she's been sworn in, though, the petition does have 218 signatures, and Speaker Johnson has said that the bill to force the release of the Epstein files will be voted on next week. Assuming all representatives that signed onto this petition vote in its favor, it should pass. And even more Republicans have said they plan to support the bill once it hits the floor. So this discharge petition should pass. However, keep in mind that it then has to go to the president for signature, right, in order for it to become law. So if Trump signs the bill once it gets to his desk, then the DOJ would have to release all Epstein documents in its possession, with those few exceptions we talked about earlier, the redactions and a few other things. But if Trump doesn't sign the bill, Congress would have to override his veto with a two-thirds vote. Whether Congress is capable of that, we don't know.

But that is what we can expect from here. So we'll stay tuned for next week's vote. And then after next week's vote, assuming it passes the House, it'll have to go to the Senate. Assuming it passes the Senate, it'll go to the president's desk. And we'll have to see what the president decides to do with it. Let's do some quick hitters. The United States officially minted its last penny yesterday. today. As treasurer Brandon Beach hit the button to strike the final penny, he said, quote,

God bless America, and we're going to save the taxpayers $56 million. End quote. The final coins were then placed on a tray for journalists to see, and now they will be auctioned off. For the record, as of last year, each penny, despite only being worth one cent, cost nearly four cents to make. So it costs four cents to make each one cent penny. No more pennies will be made, of course, but billions of them will remain in circulation and we will be able to use them. They are still definitely legal forms of currency. It's just that no more pennies are going to be made from here on out. A federal judge has ordered the release of hundreds of people detained by ICE between June and early October.

For the court's order, at least 13 detainees must be released as soon as this week, since both the plaintiffs and the government agree that those individuals were detained in violation of a settlement that prohibits warrantless immigration arrest in Illinois specifically. Okay, this is a settlement specific to Illinois. By Friday, DHS has to hand over documents showing the status and flight risk of roughly 615 detainees. By the 19th, DHS has to provide an updated list of people both Border Patrol and ICE have arrested in Chicago specifically.

And by the 21st, DHS has to release on bond into a monitoring program at least 313 people whom the plaintiffs suspect were arrested in violation of an agreement and whom the government deems low flight risk. The government has not said whether it'll appeal the court's order, but did say the order will present a, quote, significant challenge, end quote, to gather the required documents. And California Governor Gavin Newsom's former chief of staff has pleaded not guilty to federal corruption charges. Dana Williamson is accused of funneling roughly $225,000 from a dormant campaign account belonging to former HHS Secretary Bacera to Bacera's former chief of staff. Williamson was arrested and charged on Wednesday with

conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. She faces 23 charges in total and up to 20 years in prison. For more quick hitters, make sure you are subscribed to my newsletter. It goes out every Tuesday and Friday morning. It is quick hitters in pop culture, politics, business, health, and international news. It is completely free. You just click the sign up link in the show notes of this episode, enter your email address, and that is it. All right, now it's time for rumor has it. My weekly segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you, I either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. Today we have one. Rumor has it that former President Obama has been making millions of dollars off of Obamacare. This one appears to be false. Let's add some

context. This rumor started after a satirical social media account and website called America's Last Line of Defense, otherwise known as the Dunning Kruger Times, claimed that Doge stopped an annual payment to former President Obama for $2.6 million for royalties associated with Obamacare. The Post also said that Obama had been collecting these annual royalties since 2010 for a total of 39 million taxpayer dollars. President Trump shared this claim in a truth social post last week and wrote, quote unquote, wow, exclamation point. Now, to be clear, the Dunning Kruger Times' own About Us page on its website says, quote, everything on this website is fiction, end quote. Not to mention fact-checking organizations like Snopes, Green Matters, Politifact, and fact-check.org

have analyzed this claim and found no credible evidence that Obama has ever received royalty payments tied to the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. But we also have to talk about how royalties work because it would not be legal for Obama to receive royalties associated with Obamacare. So a royalty is a payment that is made to a person for the ongoing use of that person's property or assets. Think copyrighted works like songs, books, etc. So book royalties are paid to authors by publishers, the owners of copyrighted music will get paid royalties every time their song is used in a movie or by a third party. Patent owners get paid royalties whenever their product is licensed, et cetera. And there are various types of royalties, but royalties do not apply to

federal laws. You cannot own a trademark or a copyright to a federal law that would give you shares of proceeds from that law's operation. And not only do royalties not apply to federal laws, but the actual name of the law in question is not Obamacare. That is its nickname. That is the name it's been given by the public. The law's actual name does not include Obama's name. So Obama wouldn't even have any rights to anything. And then finally, there are certain federal legal barriers that also make this kind of personal payment highly unlikely.

For example, we've talked about the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the Constitution before. That prohibits presidents from receiving any sort of additional compensation aside from his salary. So again, there's no evidence to support the claim that Obama has profited off of the Affordable Care Act, and it is very, very, very, very, very unlikely. And the last thing I'll say in regards to this rumor is that this is not the first time this rumor has circulated. It's circulated back in 2017, too. So just be aware, this probably won't be the last time we see this claim. We've seen it before. We're seeing it again.

We'll probably see it in the future. For today's critical thinking segment, I want to revisit the Epstein email. because this is a pretty emotionally charged topic. And I want to promote an exercise that kind of takes the emotion out of it. Because I think depending on how we view the president, we are quick to interpret these emails one way or another. But it's important for us to kind of take a step back and consider all potential interpretations and not let our emotions cloud what they could potentially mean or how we feel about them. So when I say this, I mean, supporters of Trump might be quick to interpret these emails as not implicating Trump at all, right? Whereas opponents of

Trump might be quick to see the exact opposite. So let's think about this for a minute. Both of these questions that I'm going to ask or both sets of questions, these are for everyone, regardless of how you feel. So the first question is, you know, analyze how you feel about these emails. Do you see emails as implicating Trump or do you see them as not implicating Trump? The question is, would your feeling be the same if these same emails hypothetically mentioned a Democratic president or political figure? So take President Biden, for instance, if you swapped Biden's name for Trumps, would you still hold the same belief? If Epstein was sending the same emails, but instead of saying Donald, he was saying Joe, or instead of saying Trump, he was saying Biden,

would you still feel the same way? And then the second question I have for all of you stems from one particular email. So I want to think about the language of the email, okay? When Epstein said, quote, the dog that hasn't barked is Trump, end quote. What could this mean? And I want you to come up with a couple of different interpretations. Could it mean Trump knew something about Epstein? You know, he knew about Epstein's behavior and actions, but he stayed quiet. Could it mean Epstein was surprised that Trump hadn't spoken publicly about him and his actions? Could it mean Trump hasn't yet bit at the opportunity to take part in Epstein's scheme? Just think about like the different interpretations, right?

And try to come up with some that support how you feel about this, but also some that contradict how you feel about it. And then you can account for the second part of that same email, which says, quote, victim spent hours at my house with him with Trump. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, et cetera. I'm 75% there. End quote. What could that mean? And how does how does the second part of that email change your interpretation of the first part of the email, if at all? That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I am very grateful for all of you. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.