UNBIASED - September 17, 2024: Here's What P. Diddy's Indictment Alleges, Plus Border Encounters Down to Trump-Era Numbers, US Government Breaks $1T Interest Payment Record, and More.

Episode Date: September 17, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Why I'm Not Covering Chief Justice Roberts' Leaked Memo...Yet (0:45) Here's What You Need To Know About P. Diddy's Indictment (4:24) Quick Hitters: Ghislaine Maxwell's Conviction Upheld, NOAA Investigating RFK Jr., Meta Bans Russia State Media, Meta Introduces Teen Accounts, Senate to Vote on IVF Measure, US Government Breaks Interest Payment Record, Border Encounters Drop (10:02) Daily Critical Thinking Segment (14:58) 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 Tuesday, September 17th, and this is your daily news rundown. If you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and leave my show a review on whatever platform you listen,

share the show with your friends, and if you're watching on YouTube, please go ahead and hit that thumbs up button and subscribe to the channel if you're not already. All of those things greatly help me, so thank you very much. My news cycle ended a little early today, around 2 p.m. Eastern Time, so any noteworthy stories that broke after that will be covered in tomorrow's episode. And now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories. So after yesterday's episode, I did have some questions as to why I didn't cover the memo written by Chief Justice Roberts, which was apparently leaked to the New York Times. And here's why. The report of the leaked memo, as I said, it came from the New York Times. The New York Times is currently the only publication that's reported on its origins. And on top of that, the report or the article,

it didn't include the memo as an accessible attachment, meaning no one can access the actual memo, including myself. In fact, it's unclear whether the writers of the New York Times article even saw the memo themselves or whether they're just taking notes from insiders within the courthouse. So all there is to really talk about at this point is what the New York Times reported, which is what I consider to be hearsay. And I don't like to rely on just hearsay. One, I can't personally speak to the contents of the memo. And two, the article from the New York Times is very one-sided. And as you guys know, I like to review many, many, many sources from all different perspectives so that I can see what the other

side is saying, right? Especially if it's a situation where I can't access the document that's at the center of the story. So in this case, I only have the New York Times reporting on what they allegedly know from inside the courthouse. I don't know who their sources are. I don't know what they saw. I just don't know. So I'd rather hold off until I actually see it. That is my standard practice. Because here's the thing too, the main allegation in the article was that Chief Justice Roberts wrote this memo to other justices explaining why they should take up Trump's presidential immunity case and that the justices would likely overturn the appellate

court's ruling in the case based on this separation of powers analysis. Now, without seeing the actual memo, it's hard to say what Roberts' motive was, right? Because memos circulated between justices is a very normal practice. Basically, how the format of the court works is this. Each justice oversees certain appellate circuits. So when a case is appealed from a particular appellate court, it'll go to one of the nine justices. From there, the justice that's in charge of that circuit can refer the case to the full court and they'll all come together, you know, and make a decision on whether or not to hear the case. But the way that the New York Times spun it was almost as if Roberts was wielding his power as chief justice

to try to sway the other justices to side with him. So to report on the on, you know, the facts of a story like this, I really need to be able to see what the memo said and read it to you so that you can form your own opinions as to Robert's intent. For that reason, I'm not going to dive into this story until we know what was said. However, because I do always want you to be informed, if you do want to see what the New York Times had to say, I do have that link in the sources section of this episode. And I also have a piece linked from the Wall Street Journal, which clearly leans towards the other side of the story. So, you know, reading those two articles, maybe you can find somewhat of

a middle ground there. Again, that's in the sources section. You can find the link in this episode description or by going to jordanismylawyer.com. And the last thing I want to address before we get into P. Diddy's arrest last night, I've had many requests to discuss this ABC affidavit. If you know what I'm talking about, you know, but just so we're all on the same page, I'll be covering that story as part of the Rumor Has It segment in tomorrow's episode. So if you're looking for the facts behind that story, stay tuned for tomorrow's episode. With those things out of the way, let's move on to the big story from last night. P. Diddy was arrested at a Manhattan hotel and charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by force fraud or

coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Keep in mind, P. Diddy has recently been at the center of sex trafficking investigations, multiple civil lawsuits. He had his Miami and LA homes raided by law enforcement this past March. And in May, years old camera footage from a hotel in LA surfaced where P. Diddy is seen chasing his then girlfriend down the hall, beating her near the elevator. She's clearly trying to escape. And then he eventually forces her back into the hotel room. So he has been at the center of many investigations. But according to the indictment that was just unsealed this morning, following his arrest last night, P. Diddy, whose real name is Sean Combs, quote, abused, threatened and coerced women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires,

protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct, end quote. The indictment continues and reads, quote, Combs and other members and associates of the Combs enterprise wielded their power and prestige of Combs' role at the Combs business to intimidate, threaten, and lure female victims into Combs' orbit, often under the pretense of a romantic relationship. Combs then used force, threats of force, and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sex acts with male commercial sex workers that Combs referred to as, among other things, freak-offs. Freak-offs were elaborate and produced sex performances that Combs arranged, directed, masturbated during, and often electronically recorded. In arranging these freak-offs,

Combs, with the assistance of members and associates of the Combs enterprise, transported and caused to be transported commercial sex workers across state lines and internationally. Freak-offs occurred regularly, sometimes lasted multiple days, and often involved multiple commercial sex workers. During freak-offs, Combs distributed a variety of controlled substances to victims, in part to keep the victims obedient and compliant. Sometimes unbeknownst to the victims, Combs kept videos he filmed of victims engaging in sex acts with commercial sex workers. After freak-offs, Combs, so security staff, household staff,

personal assistants, as well as other employees, would often help facilitate these freak-offs by either arranging travel, booking hotel rooms, cleaning the hotel rooms after the fact, providing supplies like drugs, baby oil, lubricant, extra linens, embedding, and lighting. In fact, we found out through this indictment that during that March 2024 search by law enforcement, law enforcement found various supplies used in these freak-offs, including drugs and more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant. Continuing, the indictment reads, quote, Combs subjected victims to physical, emotional, and verbal abuse to cause the victims to engage in freak-offs. Combs maintained control over his victims through, among other things, physical violence, promises of career opportunities,

granting and threatening to withhold financial support, and by other coercive means, including tracking their whereabouts, dictating the victim's appearance, monitoring their medical records, controlling their housing, and supplying them with controlled substances. Combs also threatened victims' careers and livelihoods, including if they resisted participating in free golfs. End quote. I do have that full indictment linked for you in the sources section, but let's quickly touch on the specific charges at issue here. So as I said in the beginning of the story, we have racketeering, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution.

The federal definition of racketeering is a pattern of illegal activities that are carried out for profit and involve multiple people working together. So in this case, this illegal activity, it can be related to prostitution, it can be related to the distribution of drugs, it can be related to abuse, it can be related to a lot of things. And obviously, if he was working with those around him, you know, his employees, to carry out this activity time and time again, that meets the definition of racketeering. Next, sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. Under federal law, this is when a person knowingly in interstate or foreign commerce recruits, entices, harbors, transports,

or obtains a person knowing that means of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion will be used to cause that person to engage in a commercial sex act. So if he was out here threatening careers, livelihoods, whatever it is, in order to get people to participate, like the indictment alleges, that would meet this definition. And finally, transportation to engage in prostitution. This applies to anyone that knowingly transports any person in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent that that person engage in prostitution. So those are his charges and his attorney has said he will plead not guilty. I'll keep you updated there as more develops, but that is what we know at this point. Moving on to quick hitters, but staying on the topic of sex trafficking.

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's former partner in crime, had her sex crimes upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today. Maxwell had asked the appellate court to overturn her conviction and her 20-year prison sentence for recruiting and grooming underage girls, arguing she was immunized by a 2007 non-prosecution agreement between federal prosecutors and Epstein. Maxwell's attorney argued that the non-prosecution agreement covered her and Epstein because she was made a quote-unquote proxy for Epstein. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is investigating RFK Jr. after the resurfacing of a decades-old incident in which Kennedy allegedly drove a dead whale's head across state lines. The investigation comes after a 2012 interview of Kennedy's daughter resurfaced in which she said that years prior,

her dad had cut the head off of a whale that washed up on shore in Massachusetts and then tied it to the roof of their minivan to take it home. Kennedy says this investigation is politically motivated and a weaponization of the government because it came, quote unquote, right after his decision to suspend his campaign and endorse Trump. Kennedy also noted that the investigation comes 15 years past the statute of limitations. In some social media news, Meta announced today that it is banning Russia state media outlets from its social media platforms, this includes Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, citing deceptive tactics to amplify Moscow propaganda. One of the Russian outlets said in response to the ban, quote, Meta is a deeply politicized organization. We will continue our work in countries where we are present, and this decision will not affect our work, end quote. Speaking of Meta, the company

also announced the launch of accounts specifically designed for teenagers. These new accounts, called teen accounts, will be automatic for all Instagram users under the age of 18, whether old or new users. By default, all teen users will have their page set to private, will only be allowed to message people they follow, and users younger than 16 will need parent permission to change any account settings. Teen accounts will also be placed in sleep mode between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and parents will have a new tool that allows them to see who their child has recently been messaging. These new changes are taking effect immediately for new teen users and may take up to 60 days for existing teen users. The Senate is set to vote today for the second time on whether to

vote on legislation that would establish a nationwide right to IVF. The push for the legislation came mostly from Democrats after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law. All but two Republicans voted against the bill when it was first introduced in June, saying that there was no need for it because IVF remains legal. However, since then, Trump has said that he fully supports federal protections for IVF, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with the bill this time around. Keep in mind, though, that the vote today, or the vote that's at least scheduled for today, isn't whether to pass the bill, but rather whether

to bring the bill to a vote. And for the first time, the United States government has paid more than $1 trillion in annual interest payments for its $35.3 trillion national debt. This is the first time the government has paid more than a trillion dollars in interest in a single year. This is up 30% from the same period one year ago and part of a projected $1.158 trillion in payments for the full year. According to CNBC, subtracting the interest the government earns on its investments, net interest payments have totaled $843 billion, which is higher than any other category except Social Security and Medicare. And finally, Customs and Border Protection announced yesterday that the total number of those taken into custody at the U.S.-Mexico border remains on track to be the lowest annual figure

since the end of the Trump administration. This is despite a slight uptick in apprehensions during the month of August. Border Patrol agents recorded roughly 58,000 apprehensions between lawful ports of entry last month, which is less than half the number from August of last year. This is also down from the peak of 250,000 monthly encounters in December 2023. This drop is in large part because of Biden's June proclamation restricting asylum at the border. And finally, critical thinking. Let's go back to the right to IVF quick hitter. We'll keep this one short and simple. I want you to think through the pros and cons of granting

federal protections to a right that currently exists. So specifically when it comes to the IVF example, any woman can access IVF treatments currently so long as they can afford it or they have insurance that will cover it. There are no laws that currently restrict it. Now, I want you, what I want you to do is think through the pros and cons of establishing a federal right to IVF. Why might federal protections be necessary and or unnecessary? And then bonus points if you can think of other otherwise legal actions that aren't necessarily enshrined in the Constitution or federal law, but maybe should or should not be federally protected. That is what I have for you today. Don't forget that tomorrow's episode will be audio only, and there will be no episode on Thursday. That means that Rumor Has It will be

featured in tomorrow's episode instead of Thursday. Have a great night, and I will talk to you tomorrow.