UNBIASED - September 11, 2024: Presidential Debate Fact-Check, Michigan Supreme Court Says Kennedy Must Stay on Ballot, Kennedy Files Federal Lawsuit, and More.

Episode Date: September 11, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Michigan Supreme Court Says Kennedy Must Stay on Ballot; Kennedy Files Federal Lawsuit (2:02) Presidential Debate Fact-Check; Clearing Up Some False and Misleading Claims (4:11) Quick Hitters: SpaceX Polaris Reaches Record Distance, P. Diddy Ordered to Pay $100M, Inflation Hits Three Year Low, GOP Cancels House Vote on Government Funding (17:37) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE 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 Wednesday, September 11th, and this is your daily news rundown. Let's start with some important admin things. First, as those of you can probably tell watching on YouTube, I am back home and in studio. Flew home on the red eye last night,

but the conference went great. A lot of you asked about it. You wanted to know what it was all about. So this was an annual event called Lex Summit, which is put on by a legal tech company called Filevine. It was a two to three day event. There were tons of people there, many chats just like mine over the course of the few days. But in my Q&A specifically, we spoke about my transition out of the law and how I transitioned into doing what I do today on social media and hosting the podcast. So it was really great. Once that footage becomes available, perhaps I can share it with you on YouTube or something, but I will keep you posted. I also want to note the significance of today before we get into today's episode.

Today is, of course, the 23rd anniversary of 9-11. And I just want to say that I'm thinking of anyone and everyone that has, you know, been impacted by the tragic events that took place 23 years ago today. And I hope that all of you out there take at least one minute today to think of the victims, their families, the survivors, the first responders, our veterans, and our troops, as well as how we are able to come together simply as Americans on a day like today. And finally, as far as the format of today's episode, we will start with an update to Monday's episode. We'll then do a little presidential debate fact check, and then we will finish with some quick hitters. The usual daily critical thinking segment will return tomorrow

along with Rumor Has It, which is that new Thursday segment where I, you know, clear up some recent rumors. And now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories. First, let's start with an update to Monday's episode. So right after I released Monday's episode, which included a conversation about Kennedy's current legal proceedings surrounding the removal of his name from some state ballots, the Michigan Supreme Court went ahead and reversed the appellate decision that I had just reported on. In Monday's conversation, we spoke about the appellate court ruling that had just reported on. In Monday's conversation, we spoke about the appellate court ruling that said Kennedy could be taken off the state ballot because one,

the election law that the state of Michigan was trying to use to prohibit Kennedy from withdrawing didn't apply to federal candidates. And two, the election law that does apply to federal candidates doesn't mention anything about withdrawal being prohibited or anything about withdrawal, period. But what the state Supreme Court said on Monday is that because there is no law that mentions withdrawal for federal candidates, he cannot be taken off. So quite an opposite ruling there. The ruling out of the state Supreme Court was five to

two. The two dissenting justices wrote that by keeping Kennedy on Michigan's state ballot, quote, the secretary of state is improperly and needlessly denying the electorate a choice between persons who are actual candidates willing to serve if elected, end quote. And I will say on that, just so we're all on the same page, Kennedy is willing to serve if he's elected. It's just that at this point, he knows he won't be elected. So any ballot that has his name on it is just a detractor, mainly from Trump, according to him. So it's not that he's not willing to serve. It's just that it's impossible to serve at this point. Now, Kennedy is trying one more avenue. He has filed a lawsuit in federal court, which means that he'll have to go through the federal court system. So the district court, then the appellate circuit, then up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if need be.

An answer from the Supreme Court of the United States would be a final answer and would overrule the state Supreme Court's ruling. So we'll see what happens with that, but that's where that story stands as of now. Now let's move on to the debate. So last night, former President Trump and Vice President Harris squared off in their first and possibly only presidential debate. It was a bit more contentious at times than Trump's debate with Biden. And it seemed that despite the candidates' mics being turned off when they weren't speaking, because that was a big rule controversy leading up to the debate, their mics actually were turned back on when they tried to speak with an off mic. So they weren't really too strict about that rule.

The moderators, which were David Muir and Lindsay Davis of ABC News, fact-checked Trump a couple of times live on air, but notably didn't fact-check Harris. And as we'll see in just a second, both candidates did make their fair share of misleading and false claims. I do want to say before we get into it, let me just set your expectations now. I'm not going to be dispelling and or clarifying every single claim that was made in this debate. I will definitely do quite a few, but I can't personally cover every single one with a one day turnaround time. So if there is any claim in particular that you want the facts on,

and I don't cover it in this episode, I encourage you to try to look into it for yourself. And if you still don't know what's true and not true after, you know, trying to dig in, you can always reach out to me via email and I'll try to cover it in a later episode. But no, no guarantees there. With that out of the way, let's start with the first claim. And these are in no particular order. First, Harris said Trump's proposed tariffs, which she calls the Trump sales tax, would result in a roughly $4,000 annual tax increase for a middle-income family. What Harris was referring to

was Trump's proposal for at least a 10% tariff on most imports and at least a 60% tariff on Chinese imports. But her claim needs some context, so here's the deal. Tariffs are essentially taxes that are imposed on goods that come into our country, right? They can be good for promoting domestic production and domestic employment, but the costs of tariffs often impact the consumer by way of higher prices of not only the good being taxed, but also complementary goods. And on top of that, domestic producers tend to raise their prices at the same rates as importers, which just leads to overall higher prices. But how much would such a proposal affect us as consumers? The analyses contradict one another a

bit. So when a liberal think tank analyzed the annual cost for middle-income families with a 20% tariff on most imports, which is slightly higher than Trump's proposal, and a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, which is equivalent to Trump's proposal, it calculated about $3,900 annually per family. And that is the number Harris used last night. But a nonpartisan think tank analyzed the effects of a 10% tariff on most imports and a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, which is Trump's proposal. And it said the tariffs would result in a lower average after-tax income by about $1,800 per family. So different numbers depending on what data you look at,

but it's also worth noting that the added burden on American households due to these tariffs could be offset by tax cuts. So there's the context for you. Next one, Trump said he had virtually no inflation despite imposing tariffs. This also needs context. He did have inflation, but the inflation was considered healthy inflation, right? So in January 2017, when he took office, the consumer price index was roughly 242. The consumer price index represents the relative cost of a basket of common goods in that year. When Trump left office in January 2021, the index was at 261. This means that the consumer price index went up about 7.7% over four years, which is an average

of 1.9% annual inflation. Now the Fed considers 2% to be the goal. So 1.9% annual inflation. Now, the Fed considers 2% to be the goal. So 1.9% annually is a great target as far as inflation is concerned. But the point here is that he didn't have no inflation, like he said. Next one, Harris called the various state abortion bans Trump abortion bans and called Project 2025 Trump's Project 2025. When Harris says Trump abortion bans, she's referring to these abortion bans in the red states that have severely restricted abortion. It's kind of like how she calls the tariff proposal Trump's sales tax. But Trump didn't enact these abortion bans himself, right? What he did do is he returned the issue of abortion to the states, which is what led

to these bans. But they're not really his bans in the sense that he didn't enact them. Similarly with Project 2025, this is something I've talked about before, but it's not Trump's Project 2025. Yes, Trump is very well connected to many of the authors of Project 2025, as well as the Heritage Foundation, which is the organization leading Project 2025. But Trump himself is not a part of it. And he has said that many times.

Trump's actual platform or agenda is called Agenda 47. And that is his. And it can be found on his website. Agenda 47 is different than Project 2025 and not nearly as extreme. Take back your free time with PC Express Online grocery delivery and pickup. as extreme. Next, Trump said that between 10 and 21 million people, maybe more, have crossed the border during the Biden-Harris administration. The number that he was referring to is encounters at the border. So data from the border shows that between February 2021 and July 2024, there were roughly 10 million border encounters. Now, encounters are different than crossings in that people can be turned away. So 10 million encounters

doesn't mean 10 million crossings. However, not included in that 10 million number are those that were able to completely evade Border Patrol, right, and cross over undetected. Those individuals are obviously not accounted for. figure is about 1.7 million. But even assuming that number is accurate, that would still be far less than the 21 million, maybe more number referenced by Trump in the debate last night. Next one, Harris said if Trump took office, he would be immune from any. And you know what? Let me just back up to that last one for just one quick second. What Trump said is that it wasn't between 10 and 21 million. What he said is that 10 million is what was reported, but he thinks that it's more like 21 million, maybe more. So that was his claim specifically, and that is the context that you need to know. Next one, Harris said if Trump took office, he would be immune from any misconduct while serving as president per the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump versus

the United States. This also needs context. What the Supreme Court said is that actions stemming from core constitutional powers of the president are completely immune from criminal prosecution. Official acts of the president, which are different, are presumptively immune, and unofficial acts have no immunity at all. So it's not that Trump could just take office and do whatever he wanted and be, you know, completely immune from prosecution. However, he would be immune, as would any president, when it comes to actions stemming from core constitutional powers and presumptively immune from those official acts and of course no immunity for unofficial acts. Next one, Trump said migrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating people's pet dogs and cats. Both the city manager and local police

have said there has been no evidence of this claim. The police department saying that they have not received any such reports of any pets being stolen or eaten for that matter. The claim originated from someone on Facebook who said they were a local resident in Springfield and shared a story about a neighbor's daughter's friend who allegedly had their dog stolen and eaten. But again, there have been no credible reports of this. There was a Springfield resident that spoke up at a local public meeting recently, and there's video of this, that told city commissioners that the Haitian migrants specifically are, quote, in the park grabbing up ducks by their neck and cutting their head off and eating them,

end quote. So that's the extent of what we know there, but there's no actual evidence of pets being killed and eaten. Next one, Trump claimed inflation was at the highest it's ever been under the Biden administration. That is false. It's true that the 9.1% inflation rate in June 2022 was the highest inflation rate in about 40 years, but inflation was higher in 1980 when it hit close to 15% and in 1917 when it was near 18%. Next one, Harris claimed Trump left the Biden administration with the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. This is false. It's true that in April of 2020, the unemployment rate rose to 14.8% because of the pandemic. And this was the highest rate since 1939. But by the time Trump left office in January 2021 and handed things over to Biden, the unemployment rate was back down to

6.4%, which is far lower than what the employment rate was during the Great Depression. Next one, Trump stated every legal scholar, Democrat or Republican wanted the issue of abortion brought back to the states after Roe versus Wade. I've covered this before. This needs context. The reality is some legal scholars wanted it brought back to the states. Others wanted it enshrined in federal law. So it's not that everyone wanted the issue returned to the states. What Trump is referring to here is that many legal scholars, including former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is very much supportive of the right to abortion, felt that the legal basis, the legal principle which Roe v. Wade was based on was flawed. Ginsburg specifically felt that deciding Roe based on privacy, which the court did, would subject the issue to vulnerabilities.

She felt it should have been more cemented as a gender equality issue instead. She also felt that the court shouldn't have made such a sweepingly broad decision like it did because the issue in Roe versus Wade was actually much more specific. So she felt that by sort of, you know, not necessarily sticking to the issue at hand and issuing this broad sweeping decision, it launched a more aggressive anti-abortion campaign and it actually went against what pro-choice individuals were trying to achieve. But it's not accurate to say that all legal scholars felt abortion should be an issue for the states. That's just not true. Next one, Harris implied that her proposed $50,000 tax deduction for new small

businesses will help everyone, quote, pursue their ambitions, end quote. However, it is important to note that the only new small businesses that would be able to benefit from this tax deduction are those businesses that have actually turned a profit. That's because you have to have taxable income to deduct against. So this tax deduction wouldn't necessarily help all business owners get off the ground from the get-go and quote-unquote pursue their ambitions. You have to make a profit first before you can claim this deduction. Second to last one, Trump claimed that some states allow abortions in the eighth and ninth month and even after birth,

calling those specifically executions. We've covered this claim before, but killing a baby after birth is called infanticide. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states. There is not one state where you can kill a baby after it's born. There are states that do allow late-term abortions in the seventh, eighth, and ninth months, but not after birth. Again, that would be infanticide. New Jersey, Vermont, Oregon, Colorado, and New Mexico are some of the states that have no time limit on abortions. Trump specifically has previously referred to, and he did this last night, to former governor of Virginia, who Trump said that a baby would be born and they would essentially decide what to do with it once it was born. Here's what the former governor of Virginia said in 2019. He said, quote, third trimester abortions are done in cases where there

may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. End quote. Those comments came as he discussed a bill in Virginia that loosened restrictions on late-term abortions. So that is the statement that Trump often refers to. And finally, Harris claimed that as of yesterday, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone

or any war zone around the world, which she says is the first time this century. As we know, United States service members are currently stationed in the Middle East and have come under fire repeatedly just in the last few months. Last month, eight service members were treated for traumatic brain injuries and smoke inhalation after a drone strike in Syria. In January, three United States soldiers were killed and dozens more injured at a small outpost in Jordan. And that same month, two Navy SEALs died after going missing at sea trying to seize lethal aid being transported from Iran to Yemen. So there are certainly US service members in combat zones. That concludes the fact check segment of this episode. As I said in the beginning, I'm not going to be able to get

to everything, but I try to get to the ones that I felt you would want to hear about the most. Now let's move on to some quick hitters. We'll start with that SpaceX mission I was talking about a couple of weeks ago. It ended up launching early Tuesday morning. This is the one that's the first attempt at a private commercial spacewalk. So it launched early yesterday morning from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. As of this morning, the spacecraft had completed six orbits of Earth at about 1,400 kilometers, which is the furthest humans have traveled in space since the Apollo program more than 50 years ago. Throughout the day today, it performed four burns to lower itself to a lower orbit in preparation for tomorrow's spacewalk. P. Diddy was ordered by a Michigan judge to pay $100 million over an alleged

sexual assault at a 1997 party. A 51-year-old man who's currently in prison himself was awarded $100 million after Diddy failed to show up to court. The man says that Diddy urged him to have sex with multiple women at a party and that he passed out after drinking a glass of alcohol given to him by Diddy, and when he woke up, Diddy said he did it to him. The man who launched these accusations has quite the record himself, mainly criminal sexual conduct and kidnapping, which are completely unrelated to Diddy. And it's worth mentioning that the reason he obtained the $100 million judgment is simply because Diddy didn't show up to court. It's not because the evidence

was proven by a preponderance of the evidence. This is what's called a default judgment. So because he didn't show up, he got a judgment against him. So there's a good likelihood this gets overturned on appeal or at the very least gets significantly reduced. Today's report from the Labor Department shows inflation has hit a three-year low. The consumer price index rose 2.5% in August from a year earlier, which is down from 2.9% in July. Remember, that target is 1.9%, so due to the drop,

we may see a quarter-point interest rate cut from the Fed next week. Speaker Johnson announced today, despite a vote being scheduled, there would actually be no vote on the GOP's continuing resolution for government funding. In making the announcement, Johnson seemed to imply that the pull of the vote was due to division within the GOP party. He said, quote, no vote today. We are having thoughtful conversations, family conversations within the Republican conference, and I believe we will get there, end quote. Those were the quick hitters. And as I mentioned at the beginning of this episode, there is no critical thinking segment today,

but that will return tomorrow along with the segment we all know and love, Rumor Has It, where I, again, clear up some recent rumors. Thanks so much for being with me today. Have a great night, and I will talk to you tomorrow.