UNBIASED - SCOTUS Ends Affirmative Action, Trump Sues E. Jean Carroll, NYC to Charge for Traffic, New Details in Epstein’s Suicide and MORE.
Episode Date: June 30, 20231. New York Announces Congestion Pricing Plan Making Manhattan the First U.S. City to Implement Such a Plan (1:34)2. Moore v. Harper Explained; What is the Independent State Legislature Theory and Why... Did the Court Refuse to Adopt It? (6:44)3. SCOTUS Ends Affirmative Action; Here’s What the Decision Says (14:11)Notable Mentions (2 Minutes or Less)4. Anderson Aldrich Pleads Guilty to Murder and Attempted Murder; Receives Life Plus 2,200 Years (31:15) (**The Defendant's Name is Anderson Aldrich, Not "Andrew" as Mistakenly Stated in the Episode.)5. DOJ Watchdog Releases Report Singling Out Prison Employees for "Misconduct" and "Dereliction of Duties" Leading up to Epstein’s Suicide (32:02)6. Google Backtracks on Drag Show Event for Pride Month After Internal Petition Circulates Claiming Religious Discrimination (33:19)7. Donald Trump Countersues E. Jean Carroll - Also Alleging Defamation (34:27)8. Florida Jury Acquits Scot Peterson, the School Resource Officer on Duty the Day 17 Were Killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (36:20) If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.All sources for this episode can be found here. Moore v. Harper Episode on Apple Podcasts.Moore v. Harper Episode on Spotify. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM,
an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League.
Yard after yard, down after down,
the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone
and celebrate every highlight reel play.
And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL,
BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day.
With a variety of exciting features,
BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron
and to embrace peak sports action.
Ready for another season of gridiron glory?
What are you waiting for?
Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long.
Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.
Must be 19 years of age or older.
Ontario only.
Please gamble responsibly.
Gambling problem?
For free assistance,
call the Connex Ontario Helpline
at 1-866-531-2600.
BetMGM operates pursuant
to an operating agreement
with iGaming Ontario.
You are listening to the
Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased
news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast.
Happy Friday. I have a lot of news for you today.
So I have three full length stories and then I have five notable mentions. So the notable
mentions, if you remember from a couple of episodes ago, that's when I cover stories in
two minutes or less. So very, very brief summarized versions of some of the headlines you have
probably seen. And the three stories I have for you, the first one is going to be about New York's new congestion pricing plan. The second story is Moore versus Harper, a Supreme
Court case. We're going to keep that going with the affirmative action cases that were just decided
yesterday. And then of course, we'll finish with those notable mentions. Before we jump into today's
stories, let me just remind you to please leave me a review on whatever podcast platform you listen on.
It really helps support my show.
If you've already left me a review, I truly, truly appreciate you.
And of course, don't forget to share my show with your friends, your family, your colleagues,
whoever you might know that would appreciate nonpartisan, unbiased, fact-based news.
Without further ado, let's get into today's stories.
On Tuesday, New York's governor announced that New York is going to be the first state in the nation to have a congestion pricing plan. Think of it like this, the tolls that you
have to pay on the highway, depending on where you live, but instead these are tolls on the streets
of Manhattan, more specifically the Central Business District of Manhattan. This announcement
comes after New York City was cleared last week by the Federal Highway Administration to move
forward with the plan, and the government's approval basically gives contractors up to 310 days to complete the design, the development, the testing,
as well as the installation of the tolling system and the equipment. In a press conference on
Tuesday, Governor Hochul said, we are going to be the very first in the nation, the very first city
of America to have a congestion pricing plan.
Others will look at us. Other cities are paying attention. So how does this work? Well, cars that
either enter or stay in the central business district will be told. And these tolls will
vary depending on the time of day and the level of congestion. So I don't know how it works where
you live, but where I live, the tolls on the highway vary based on whether it's rush hour or you're driving
at nighttime or whatever it might be. So they will vary based on that. The cost of the toll
is still being decided, but it will be up to a six-member traffic mobility review board
who will figure it out, and then they will recommend the costs
to what's called the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. They will have the final say,
and of course, that is following a public hearing. So the public will have a chance to voice their
thoughts on it before those tolls are finalized. Before recommending rates, the Traffic Mobility
Review Board will have to take a few things into consideration. So
they have to look at how traffic moves in this area. They also have to take into account air
quality and pollution, costs, effects on the public, and safety. They'll also likely factor
in a report from last August on the environmental effect of the plan. And this report put toll rates at a range of $9 to $23
at peak times, $7 to $17 at off-peak times, and $5 to $12 overnight. The point of this plan
is to essentially discourage driving, right? Or encourage carpooling. That works too. But
they're basically trying to get cars off the road. They're trying to reduce congestion, improve air quality, and also at the same time bring in revenue
so that they can invest in the city's public transportation system. It's not clear when this
plan will take effect, but it could come as soon as spring of 2024. Now, this idea also comes with limitations. So this whole idea was actually passed in the MTA Reform and Traffic Mobility Act.
It's a New York law, and that law called for this congestion plan, but it also set
forth some requirements and limitations.
So for instance, as I said before, it only applies to the central business district,
but also the bill specifically says
that passenger vehicles can only be charged once a day for entering or remaining in this district.
So you're not being, you know, charged a hundred times for just like driving up and down the street.
The law also says that the people who live in this affected area, so the central business district,
who make less than $60,000 will be eligible for a tax
credit. It also says that qualified emergency vehicles won't be told and neither will vehicles
transporting people with disabilities. Taxis won't be told more than once a day. And the law also
does require that overnight tolls be at or below 50% of the peak toll from at least 12 to 4 a.m.
So it's kind of setting into place these limitations on how much the overnight toll can be.
And finally, it mandates a discount for frequent low-income drivers.
So that is how this idea kind of got set into motion.
But as with most things, not everyone is thrilled. So specifically,
some New Jersey lawmakers are not too happy because New Jersey has a lot of commuters that
go into the city. A lot of people that work in the city live in the suburbs. So these representatives
and the senator, it's actually New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer and Bill Pascrell, as well as New
Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, issued a joint statement calling out the plan.
They called it an anti-environment, anti-commuter, cash-grabbing congestion tax that will cost New Jersey drivers $23 a day.
So the statement goes on to say that the agencies that approved this plan should have consulted with stakeholders across in New Jersey.
And this whole process has not been as transparent as it should be. The lawmakers that issued this joint statement
vowed to fight until the plan is defeated and ensure that New York is not allowed to balance
its budget on the backs of hardworking New Jersey families. So that is New York's traffic congestion pricing plan. Let's move on to the Supreme Court case called Moore v. Harper that was decided on Tuesday of this week and involves partisan gerrymandering and a theory called the independent state legislature theory. Last summer, this case was kind of making headlines because the court had just overturned
Roe versus Wade.
And a lot of people were concerned that this conservative court was also going to rule
in favor of the North Carolina legislature in the case of Moore versus Harper.
But needless to say, the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the North Carolina legislature,
and they declined to adopt that independent state legislature theory.
But let's talk about what it all means.
So this case stems from redistricting. Redistricting happens every 10 years. It
follows every census, and it's mandated by the Constitution. However, when redistricting
starts to take, you know, favor one political party or another, this is what we call partisan
gerrymandering. And in this case, following the 2020 census,
the North Carolina Senate and House enacted these new redistricting plans. And I guess another thing
to keep in mind, not every state has a legislature dominant method when it comes to drawing these new
maps. So there's actually three different methods in drawing new maps after every census, and each
state has their own method.
So each state can either employ a legislature-dominant method, which is what North
Carolina uses, and most states do actually. 33 states use a legislature-dominant method,
and that's when the legislature of the state redraws these maps after the census. However,
the other two methods include a commission method, where a commission, an independent
commission, draws the maps, or you can have a hybrid method which mixes the commission
and the legislature.
So anyway, North Carolina has this legislature dominant method.
So following the census, the North Carolina legislature draws these new maps.
Following the enactment of these maps, lawsuits were brought challenging the legality of the
plans because according to the plaintiffs, these plans or maps, you may hear me the legality of the plans, because according to the
plaintiffs, these plans or maps, you may hear me use those words interchangeably, but the plaintiffs
thought that these maps were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. They favor the Republican
Party. And eventually this case makes its way to the North Carolina Supreme Court. And the North
Carolina Supreme Court says, yeah, in fact, these maps are unconstitutional and they must be redrawn. And this decision is known as Harper 1. But keep in mind, at the time,
there was this argument from the North Carolina legislature that the legislature has expressed
sole responsibility under the state constitution for drawing the maps. And if the courts get
involved in that, the courts would be usurping the political
power and prerogatives of an equal branch of government. And once the court embarks on that
slippery slope, there's really no corner of the legislative or executive power that the judicial
branch could not reach into. And so the argument from the North Carolina legislature is, look,
we have sole
authority in making these election rules. You guys as the court cannot intervene and get in our way.
But the North Carolina Supreme Court says, no, no, no, you got to redraw these. To keep this brief,
new maps are redrawn, despite the state legislature arguing that, you know, courts have no authority to
intervene in election rules. And these new maps eventually make it back to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Now, keep in mind, this is after the 2022 election.
And I'm saving a lot of time here in this explanation. I do have an episode specifically
about the entire procedural history of this case. I'll link it in the episode description of this
episode if you want to hear more about it. But for time purposes, because I've already gone over the entire procedural history, I just want to kind of
hit on the highlights. So now it's after the election, the North Carolina Supreme Court gets
the new maps and they say, OK, look, the modified House plan is fine, but the modified congressional
plan and the modified Senate plan are not. And what they say is we sit we still stand by the parameters we set forth in
our Harper one decision as to how to draw these maps. But that's not the end of the road. There's
still other things that you have to consider in drawing these maps and making sure that they're
constitutional. And it just so happens that that decision is handed down at the end of 2022.
Well, on January 1 of this year, the North Carolina Supreme Court flips.
So it went from being a Democrat-controlled court to a Republican-controlled court.
And I am well aware that courts are supposed to be impartial, but ideologies do get in the way,
as we've seen in many cases. And so the state legislature knew, hey, we might have a chance
at getting the court to rule
in our favor now that it's a conservative court.
So on January 20th of this year, the state legislature files a petition for rehearing,
basically saying, hey, we want you guys to hear this case one more time because your
previous decision kind of contradicted your first decision.
And we really just need some clarity here.
The new North Carolina Supreme Court says, OK, we will rehear this case and they rule in favor of the state legislature.
And the court says that the courts cannot get involved in the legislature's drawing of the maps.
So what they said is you guys need to go back to the drawing board, draw new maps.
So let's start from scratch. But this time, the court cannot interfere. It is completely up to
you. You guys have sole authority. The courts can't get involved. So keep in mind that once
the Supreme Court heard this case, the question wasn't whether the North Carolina maps were
unconstitutional as partisan gerrymanders. The real question was whether a court can check on the state legislature. Can the court
get involved with the legislature's authority to make election rules? And that is the decision that
the Supreme Court just released on Tuesday. And what the court said is that the elections clause
does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding
federal elections, nor does it insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise So the opinion talks a lot about, you know, Marbury versus Madison.
That's a case from way back when where judicial review and the separation of powers was first established.
And it says that the state legislatures are not immune to that. So
judicial review can still happen here. So what this means going forward is that in those states
that use a legislature dominant method in creating these redistricting maps every 10 years,
the legislature will continue to do so. So it is still within the legislature's authority to draw those maps. But the Supreme Court clarified that, yes, a state court can come in.
They can deem the maps constitutional or unconstitutional.
The legislature does not have sole exclusive authority, which is what's alleged in that
independent state legislature theory. Keeping in line with Supreme Court decisions, on Thursday, the Supreme Court
held that factoring in race for admissions at higher education institutions violates the
Equal Production Clause of the 14th Amendment, marking the end of
affirmative action. Let's talk about this. So there were two lawsuits challenging affirmative
action. One of them was Students for Fair Admissions versus University of North Carolina.
The other was Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. The issues were the same,
but varied slightly. So the overall issue and question for the court was, are race-based
admissions programs constitutional? But the way that they varied was that in the North Carolina
case, the court was to answer whether factoring race into the admissions process violated the
equal protection clause, whereas the Harvard case asked, does factoring race into the admissions process violate Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act?
So you probably noticed that when I mentioned the holding, I only mentioned the Equal Protection
Clause.
I didn't mention Title VI.
And the reason for that is because the court clarified in the opinion, they said, discrimination
that violates the Equal Protection Clause and is committed by an institution that accepts federal funds
like Harvard does also violates Title VI. So the analysis is the same. They consolidated
these two cases into one opinion because the analysis is the same. Now let's talk about how
the court got here because this is what I like to do. I like to explain the court's rationale
so that, yes, while you guys hear how the court ruled when you read the
headlines, not all outlets explain how the court got there. So let's talk about that. But before
we do that, let's first run through how the admissions process works at each school, because
I want you to get an idea of what we're looking at here. At Harvard, each application goes through
this initial screening. And in that initial screening, each application is given a
numerical score, and it's based on six categories, academics, extracurriculars, athletics, school
support, personal, and overall. And in that overall category is where the reader of the application
considers the applicant's race. So then these applications go to subcommittees, and these are called regional
subcommittees. And each regional subcommittee will review applications from a particular geographic
area or region. And at this stage where the subcommittees are reviewing the applications,
race is also taken into account. So then it goes to the full admissions committee who sits down
and begins their deliberations.
And in the deliberations, they talk about the relative breakdown of applicants by race.
So this is a general breakdown.
It's not applicant by applicant.
And the reason for this, Harvard says, is to ensure that there's no dramatic drop off
in minority admissions from the prior class.
From here, if the majority of the admissions
committee votes on an applicant, that applicant is considered tentatively accepted. And at this
point, the racial composition of the tentative applicant is disclosed to the committee. So
before, it was kind of a general look at the racial breakdown, whereas here it's individualized.
So they're looking at the racial composition of the specific tentative applicant, and the racial breakdown, whereas here it's individualized. So they're looking at the
racial composition of the specific tentative applicant, and the racial composition is
disclosed to the committee, and then the applicant will go to the final stage of the process, which
is called the LOP. And the LOP list consists of four pieces of information for each candidate,
legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race.
And from there, the absolute final list is made. UNC has a very similar process. So every applicant
is first reviewed by an office reader who will assign that same sort of numerical rating to each
of several categories, and they are required to consider race at this stage. The office reader
will then make a recommendation on each applicant. And prior to making a recommendation, the office
reader can actually give an applicant a plus depending on the applicant's race. So the office
reader makes the recommendation, a committee then reviews the recommendations from the office reader,
and they can either approve or
reject the recommendation. And at this point, the committee may or may not factor in race. It's not
required. So the Students for Fair Admissions files these lawsuits against these two universities,
arguing that these race-based admissions programs violate both the Equal Protection Clause and Title
VI. The lower courts in both cases found
that the programs were acceptable. So the Supreme Court granted certiorari, which is basically
review. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Now, before we get into how the court reached
their decision and kind of the precedent that was set out before it, let's review what the
Equal Protection Clause and Title VI say.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says that no state shall deny any person the
equal protection of the laws. And as the Supreme Court notes in their holding, proponents of the
Equal Protection Clause describe its foundational principle as not permitting any distinctions of law based on race
or color. Now, Title VI says that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance. So the court's decision in these two cases that was just released yesterday relied
almost entirely on the Equal Protection Clause. But as I said, it was extended to Title VI
because of Harvard's use of federal funds. Now, the key to understanding the court's rationale is understanding judicial
review. In the Supreme Court, there's what's called judicial review, and it's how the court
reviews an issue. And how the court reviews an issue depends on what the issue is. So there's
three different tests depending on what the issue is. There's rational basis, which is typically the
easiest to overcome. There's intermediate scrutiny,
and then there's strict scrutiny. And for the sake of this conversation, we're going to focus specifically on strict scrutiny because that's what applies here. It's the highest standard of
review, and it applies when the equal protection clause is at issue. So in this case, because the
question was, does the admissions process violate the equal protection clause, strict scrutiny
applies. And what strict scrutiny asks is this. Number one, is the challenged issue, so in this
case, race-based admissions, is it used to further compelling government interests? Now, don't take
government so literally here. In this case, we're talking about universities. So now that we've covered
strict scrutiny, let's now talk about previous Supreme Court cases dealing with affirmative
action. The first case at the Supreme Court level to consider whether a university can make
race-based admissions decision was a case called Bakke. And this is in 1977. So Alan Bakke,
he was a 35-year-old white man.
He applied to medical school at University of California twice, and he was denied both times.
Well, the school reserved at the time 16 spots of each entering class of 100 students,
specifically for qualified minorities. And this was a part of the school's affirmative action program. The problem was Bakke's qualifications exceeded those of the minority students. So he
sued, alleging that he was excluded from admission solely based on his race because it clearly wasn't
his qualifications. And in that case, the court said, look, race-based admissions are fine, but there are certain
limitations.
So race can only operate as a plus in an applicant's file.
A university can't have a quota system with a specific number of seats reserved for people
in a particular ethnic group.
A university also can't use race to bar a person from consideration. So
in this case, they were barring Bakke from consideration because all of the white spots,
so to speak, were filled up. And in that case, the Supreme Court said a university's freedom
is not unlimited. So sure, affirmative action, fine, but your freedom is not unlimited. There
are limitations. Then came Grutter, and this is in 2003, but the incident at issue happened in 1997.
So in 1997, Grutter, she was a white woman. She applied to University of Michigan Law School.
She didn't get in, and the law school was very transparent about the fact that it used race as
a factor in the admissions process. And what it said, very transparent about the fact that it used race as a factor in
the admissions process. And what it said, and this is going to sound familiar, it said that it used
race as a factor in the admissions process because it serves a compelling interest in achieving
diversity among the students. So their compelling interest was achieving diversity. And the reason
that they, you know, argue this,
this is a compelling interest is because of that strict scrutiny standard I just talked about.
In a 5-4 decision in that case, the court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit
the law school from doing this. However, in saying that, Grutter also imposed its own limitations.
So the court gave two reasons for
imposing limits. They said, one, they want to limit the risk that use of race will devolve
into illegitimate stereotyping. And for this reason, the court said that admissions programs
cannot operate on the belief that minority students always or even consistently express some characteristic minority viewpoint on any issue.
And two, the court said it wanted to limit the risk that race would be used not as a plus,
but as a negative to discriminate against those racial groups that were not the beneficiaries of the race-based preference. So therefore, the court said, a university's use of race cannot
happen in a manner that unduly harms non-minority applicants. And finally, the Grutter court said,
at some point, race-based admissions have to end. And I quote,
enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend the Constitution's
unambiguous guarantee of equal
protection. Now, at the time of Grutter, the court estimated that 25 years would be sufficient. So
they said, we're thinking 25 years is going to be the point at which racial preferences are no
longer necessary to further the interests of the university that existed at this time. So now,
perhaps it makes a little bit of sense what
the Supreme Court was to consider in the two cases it just recently heard. Keeping in mind
strict scrutiny and the Grutter decision, the Supreme Court had to answer, are race-based
admissions still necessary to further the interests of the universities. So writing for the majority was Chief Justice
Roberts. He was joined by Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh,
and Justice Barrett. And first they look at the interests of the university. And the universities
in these cases, they listed the following as their interests. So they said their interests included training
future leaders, acquiring new knowledge based on diverse outlooks, promoting a robust marketplace
of ideas, and preparing engaged and productive citizens. And the court said, look, these are
great. They're great interests, but they're immeasurable. It's not possible for us to know
or for a court to know when these goals
have been achieved. Courts can't discern whether a particular mix of minority students produces
engaged and productive citizens or even effectively trained future leaders. So they say these interests
are not compelling enough. They're immeasurable. Second, the court looked at whether these race-based
admissions programs were helping to achieve the university's goals. And the court noted that the
universities were measuring the racial composition of their classes using racial categories that were
overbroad, undefined, and under-inclusive. To give a few examples, the court said the category just Hispanic is arbitrary
and there's no category at all for Middle Eastern students. So therefore, the court said the
connection between race-based admissions programs and their goals is unclear. And the court is
therefore precluded from meaningfully scrutinizing these programs.
So then the court goes on and looks at whether the race-based admissions were being used
as a negative or as a stereotype.
Because if you remember, the Supreme Court had previously said in upholding affirmative
action that affirmative action was OK so long as these race-based admissions weren't being
used as a negative or as a stereotype.
And what the court said is that these programs require stereotyping. And I quote,
when a university admits students on the basis of race, it engages in the offensive and demeaning
assumption that students of a particular race because of their race think alike. Such stereotyping
is contrary to the core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause.
And for these reasons, the fact that, you know, the court said that these universities didn't
have a compelling interest, they said that the race-based admissions programs were not helping
to achieve their goals, and these race-based admissions programs were being used as a negative
or as a stereotype, the court said these admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the
guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Now, the court did note that this decision is not meant
to prohibit students from writing about their race in their personal statements and in their essays,
but their race has to have affected their life in some type of way. So should an applicant decide
to write about their race, the writing has to be concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.
Now, let's talk a little bit about the dissent. So the dissent was from Justice Jackson, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, also known as the more liberal justices.
Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, quote, Today she goes on to say that the compelling interest in student body
diversity is grounded not only in the court's equal protection jurisprudence, but also in
principles of academic freedom, which she says have long been viewed as a concern of the First
Amendment. And the dissent disagrees that racial indifference is the only constitutionally
permissible way to achieve racial equality in college admissions. So Justice
Sotomayor is saying ignoring race is not the way. And what she says is, quote, ignoring race will
not equalize a society that is racially unequal. The dissent also discusses systemic inequities
that disadvantage racial minorities. So racial minorities are more likely to grow up in poverty
with fewer resources. They're more likely to attend schools with less qualified teachers and less challenging
curriculums, lower standardized test scores and fewer extracurricular activities.
All of this, which gives them a disadvantage when it comes to getting into higher education
institutions.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent also discusses the history of white supremacy and racism
at both University of
North Carolina and Harvard. Now, what's interesting about Justice Thomas is, and I'll wrap up the
discussion with this, Justice Thomas, he's known for being a conservative justice, of course, but
Justice Thomas actually got into Yale Law School because he was black, because of their affirmative
action program. And in law
school, but also when he got out of law school and started working in the real world, he grew
very resentful of affirmative action because he said that he felt as if people were attributing
his success to being black rather than how smart he was or how educated and experienced he was.
And I think he called his law degree actually a 15 cent degree or a five cent degree or
something.
He did become very, very resentful of affirmative action, and he's very much against it.
So it's not surprising at all that he joined the majority in ending affirmative action. we have five notable mentions today notable mentions are covered in under two minutes so
let's get into it anderson aldrich the 23 year old who identifies as non-binary and carried out
the 2022 shooting at an lgbtq plus nightclub in Colorado Springs, pled guilty
to five counts of first degree murder, 46 counts of attempted murder, and no contest to two counts
of bias motivated crimes. Aldrich declined to speak at the sentencing, but the defense attorney
said that Aldrich was deeply remorseful. The judge sentenced Aldrich to five consecutive life sentences for the murder
charges and more than 2,200 years of additional prison time for the attempted murder counts.
This sounds like a very long jail sentence because it is, but the longest jail sentence
ever given actually was 10,000 years, which it was given to a man for murdering his wife.
Our second notable mention is that on Tuesday, a DOJ internal watchdog said that the prison guards tasked with guarding Jeffrey Epstein
failed to conduct the required cell search and failed to check on him for hours before he
committed suicide back in 2019. And the report singled out 13 prison employees for misconduct
and dereliction of their duties, saying that their actions, or in this case, it would seem inactions, allowed Epstein to be alone and unmonitored from 1040 p.m.
until the time he was discovered the next morning at 630. And this was all despite Epstein leaving
plenty of signs prior to his suicide. So the month before he hung himself in his jail cell,
he was found with a piece of orange cloth around his neck,
yet he was still allowed to have blankets and linens and clothing in his cell. He even ripped
those blankets and linens and clothing that he was allowed to have following that incident
in a way that created nooses. He drafted a last will and testament on August 8th,
that's one day before he hung himself. And on the day he hung himself, on August 8th, that's one day before he hung himself, and on the day he
hung himself, on August 9th, he was allowed to make an unrecorded and unmonitored call, and that was
the night that he killed himself. So 13 prison employees have been called out again for misconduct
and dereliction of duties. The third notable mention is that Google has stepped away from one
of its annual pride events this week,
putting another one into action last minute. This backtrack seems to be a result of an internal
petition claiming religious discrimination, though Google did not confirm that. So at least for the
last two years, Google has sponsored a variety of pride events during Pride Month in San Francisco.
And this year, the closing event was a
drag show and it featured a performer named peaches christ a name which plays on jesus christ
and this did not sit well with some of the employees a few hundred of them signed a petition
in opposition of the drag performance claiming that it sexualizes and disrespects christian
co-workers and accused google of religious discrimination. Again, while
Google didn't confirm that the decision to step back from the event was a result of the petition,
it did confirm that it no longer categorized the performance as a Google-recognized DEI event,
diversity, equity, and inclusion. And instead, Google set up a separate social event at Google's
offices but says the drag performance will still go on at the planned venue and is open to the public.
The fourth notable mention is that Donald Trump sues E. Jean Carroll for defamation.
So Donald Trump has filed his own suit against E. Jean Carroll,
who just won a defamation suit against Donald Trump.
Last month, a jury found that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll,
awarding her $5 million.
Following that, something a bit rare happened.
So the night after the jury returned their verdict on CNN, both Trump and Carroll doubled
down on their claims.
So Trump was he the town hall was that night and he called Carroll a whack job who made
up the allegations.
This actually triggered Carroll to amend her filing with an already existing case and ask
the court for another $5 million for defamation.
But then that same night of the town hall, CNN aired an interview with Carol in which
she doubled down on the allegation that she was raped.
So specifically, Carol was asked about the verdict, finding that Trump had sexually abused
her but didn't rape her. And she responded, oh, yes, he did. And this led to Trump countersuing.
So on Tuesday, Trump's lawyers filed his countersuit for defamation, alleging that Carol
had defamed him by saying that he raped her despite a jury finding otherwise. Trump is asking
the court to reject Carol's defamation claim against him
and order Carroll to retract her statements. So just in case you're confused very quickly,
E. Jean Carroll had two lawsuits against Donald Trump. She had one filed in 2019. And then in
2021, when the New York Adult Survivors Act came into play, she filed that second lawsuit. That
second lawsuit is what the jury just issued their verdict on last month.
The first lawsuit that was just for defamation that was filed in 2019 is still tied up in appeals.
So that first lawsuit is what she asked for more damages in following his statements in
the Trump Town Hall.
And that's also the same lawsuit that Trump is asking the court to reject.
Our fifth and final notable mention is that on Thursday afternoon, a jury acquitted
Scott Peterson, the school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, who did not go into
the building amid the shooting that took place on February 14th, 2018. State prosecutors had
accused Peterson of ignoring his training and doing nothing as 17 people were killed by Nicholas
Cruz. His charges included seven counts of felony neglect
and three counts of culpable negligence.
An interesting note about this is that
Florida doesn't have any laws
that would have required him to go in to the school
as an officer.
Like there's nothing requiring him
to put his life on the line.
So instead, prosecutors chose to argue
that he was a caregiver
and he had a duty to protect
the children.
And because he didn't, he basically neglected the children.
But at his trial, Peterson himself said the only person to blame was that monster.
It wasn't any law enforcement, nobody on that scene.
Everybody did the best that they could.
When the unanimous not guilty verdict was read, Peterson began sobbing
and hugged his lawyers saying that he got his life back. That concludes this episode. Don't
forget to leave me a review. Please share my show with your friends and I will talk to you next week.
I hope you have a great holiday weekend. Bye.