UNBIASED - September 18, 2024: What We Know About the ABC Whistleblower Affidavit, The Story Behind the Senate Blocking the IVF Bill, Pagers and Walkie-Talkies Detonate in Lebanon, and More.

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Senate Blocks Right to IVF Bill; Here's Why (0:48) Pagers and Walkie-Talkies Detonate in Lebanon (5:21) Quick Hitters: P. Diddy Appeals Bail Determination, Fed Makes Cut, Tupperware Files for Bankruptcy, DOJ Sues Ship Operators for More Than $100M (7:41) Rumor Has It: What We Know About the ABC Whistleblower Affidavit (9:05) Daily Critical Thinking Exercise (16:25) 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 18th, and this is your final news rundown of the week. I have two reminders for you. One is that there will be no episode tomorrow or Monday. Remember, starting next week, the podcast will be releasing only on Tuesdays and Thursdays,

but it's just temporary. Don't worry. The second reminder is that 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 whichever platform you listen on. Share this 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 subscribed already. All of those things really help me out, so thank you very much. And now without further ado, let's get into today's stories. In an update to yesterday's episode, the Senate failed to move the Right to IVF Act forward to a vote. Now, because the story was only featured as a quick hitter yesterday, I didn't really have a chance

to explain what's going on here, so let's do that now. Within the last eight months or so, IVF has really become more of a political fight than it was before, and each side, Republicans and Democrats, are kind of playing with one another a bit. So it really picked up when the Alabama Supreme Court issued that decision earlier this year about embryos. That's the decision we spoke briefly about yesterday. That decision was in February. In May, Senate Republicans introduced their own IVF bill called the IVF Protection Act. And it was very short and simple, but basically it said that in order for states to continue to receive federal funding, a state cannot prohibit IVF

services and has to ensure that no unit of local government in the state prohibits IVF services. While creating that condition for funding, the bill also said that no individual or organization can be compelled to provide IVF services. So under the Republicans' bill, a state couldn't prohibit IVF services, but also couldn't force IVF services. Now that bill didn't get anywhere because Democrats quickly voiced their disapproval. They, you know, questioned the scope of the bill and also its enforcement mechanism. That next month in June, Senate Democrats introduced the Right to IVF Act. Essentially, under this bill, the right to IVF would have been federally enshrined, right? It would have been protected under federal law,

but it also went a bit further. So on top of establishing that federal right for patients, the bill would have also established a federal right for providers to offer IVF services and for insurers to cover IVF services. It would have expanded fertility treatment and counseling to members of the military and veterans, regardless of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, infertility diagnosis, or marital status. It gave the Secretary of Defense the role of establishing fertility preservation procedures following illness or injury of a military member, and much, much more. And actually, the vast majority of that bill deals with IVF rights within the military. The argument from Democrats at the time was, you know, we really need to federally protect IVF because we've already seen a few states try to come after it. The Supreme Court overturned Roe

v. Wade, and there are threats to the IVF process, which countless Americans rely on to reproduce. The Republicans, on the other hand, contested the bill. And their argument was, one, this is all political. It's just because it's an election year. This is a political issue. Democrats are just trying to instill fear in the American people that this right to IVF may go away. Two, Republicans said the bill is too broad and goes too far. And three, particularly those Republicans who stand by the life begins at conception argument, they take issue with the fact that under this bill, embryos could be discarded and thrown out as part of the IVF process. So the vote ended up being 48 to 47 back in June to block the bill, meaning it wouldn't go to a full vote. And all but two Republicans voted against all Democrats. Keep in mind, with this type of

vote in the Senate, it's called a cloture vote. And a cloture vote essentially allows a bill to actually go to a vote for passage. So first is the cloture vote. If it passes that, then the Senate will actually vote on whether to pass the bill. And a cloture vote requires 60 votes, not just a simple majority. So those 48 votes weren't able to get past the cloture vote because although it was a simple majority, it wasn't that required 60. So the bill doesn't pass the cloture vote back in June. And then yesterday, months after that first vote in June, Senate Democrats again called for a cloture vote to get that right to IVF bill pushed forward to a vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer cited the Republicans' recent voice of

support of IVF for this new vote, but when it came time, it again failed 51 to 44. So again, this has really become more of a political game than anything. Democrats are essentially using it as a way to call out Republicans for saying they support IVF, but then they won't back a bill that does exactly that. Whereas Republicans are arguing that they do support IVF, but they just don't support the lengths that the Democrats are trying to go to protect it. So that's the deal there. And that's why the bill didn't pass that cloture vote in the Senate yesterday. Now for this next story, I don't typically cover international news, but many of you wanted to hear about this pager incident in Lebanon. So let's talk about what we know because today there were reports of more explosions. Yesterday, news broke that at least 12 people

were killed and nearly 2,800 others were injured in Lebanon after multiple pager devices exploded out of nowhere. Then today, dozens of walkie-talkies exploded, killing at least nine and injuring at least 100 others. So these devices, the pagers and walkie-talkies, belonged to members of Hezbollah, which is a Shia Muslim political organization in Lebanon. Hezbollah is very much against Israel. Israel is very much against Hezbollah in this fight. So yesterday morning, an Israeli security agency issued this statement saying that it had foiled an assassination attempt by Hezbollah against a former senior military official in Israel. Within hours of that announcement, hundreds of pagers detonated in

Lebanon, some in Syria, and immediately eyes were focused on Israel. As of today, three U.S. officials have said that Israel is responsible for blowing up the pagers carried by Hezbollah members, citing concern that Israel's quote-unquote secret operation might have been discovered. So some analysts are looking into how Hezbollah got the pagers in the first place because that might shed light on whether the devices were tampered with in any way to allow for these explosions, meaning maybe somewhere along, you know, the supply chain these pagers were wired to explode on command. Other experts are speculating that the radio system was hacked, possibly through a doctored code, saying that the batteries of the pagers could have been triggered to overheat,

which would have ultimately caused the batteries to explode. Another theory that was voiced by a Brussels-based military and political analyst is that because of the sanctions Hezbollah faces from the U.S., the EU, and their allies, these pagers were likely with a third party and sat in a port for three months awaiting clearance. So Hezbollah suspects that it was during those three months that the pagers were just sitting there that Israel managed to plant explosives in the devices. Alongside these theories, though, it is important to note that as of now, the exact mechanism that was used in these explosions is unclear, and Israel's military said it won't be commenting.

So that's what we know as of now. Moving on to quick hitters, starting with an update to yesterday's episode, and potentially by the time you're listening to this, there may be another update that I wasn't able to catch, but P. Diddy was ordered to be held without bail yesterday on his sex trafficking and racketeering charges. Diddy appealed the judge's decision, and an appeal hearing is scheduled for 3.30 p.m. today, so we'll know sometime after 3.30 this afternoon whether Diddy has to remain in custody without bail or whether bail will be set. The Fed is expected to make a rate cut today, perhaps again by the time you're listening to this, it already has, but some are anticipating

a quarter point rate cut while others are anticipating a half point rate cut. We'll have to see what the Fed decides to do there. Tupperware Brands filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last night, and this move really isn't too much of a surprise considering last month Tupperware did flag potential bankruptcy risk due to liquidity constraints. And finally, the DOJ is seeking more than $100 million from the two corporations that owned and operated the container ship that took down Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge in March. According to the new lawsuit, the two companies, quote, sent an ill-prepared crew on an objectively unseaworthy vessel to navigate the United States waterways. They did so to reap the benefit of conducting business in American ports,

yet they cut corners in ways that risked lives and infrastructure. End quote. Take back your free time with PC Express Online grocery delivery and pickup. Score in-store promos, PC Optimum points, and more free time. And still get groceries. Shop now at pcexpress.ca. So now for today's Rumor Has It segment, we're going to focus on just one rumor, the number one rumor from this week. This is the one that you've all been asking me to address. Here it is. Rumor has it that according to a new whistleblower affidavit, ABC provided the debate questions to Harris prior to the debate. Unfortunately, I'm not able to give a definitively true or false answer to this rumor because nothing has been verified at this point.

But what I can do is run through all of the facts on all of the sides so that you can not only be informed as to what the rumor's all about, but also form your own opinion and thoughts as to what happened here. So this rumor started when an account posted screenshots of an alleged ABC whistleblower's affidavit to X. Now, for those unfamiliar with an affidavit, it's a sworn statement of truth. You write out all of these statements and then you swear to their truth in front of a notary who notarizes it. And in doing so, you subject yourself to the penalties of perjury if you're found to have lied on that affidavit.

First, we'll go over what the affidavit says and then we'll go over what the affidavit says, and then we'll go over ABC's response. According to these screenshots, this affidavit was written on September 9th, 2024, which is one day before the presidential debate on ABC. And the affidavit says that this person who wrote it, whose name is redacted, has worked at ABC News for over 10 years in various technical and administrative positions, and has, quote, observed significant transformations in the nature of news reporting at the organization and suggests a shift from unbiased reporting to a model influenced by external factors, end quote. The affidavit then continues, quote, for the record, I do not endorse Donald Trump in his capacity as candidate for president of the United States.

The intent of this affidavit is to address concerns regarding perceived biases within news reporting within my employer's debate that will be hosted on September 10th, 2024. End quote. The affidavit then goes on to address various observations and concerns by this person, including observations on debate communication, concerns regarding journalistic integrity, and the internal organization climate. But the portion of the affidavit that's catching the most attention is the section titled Observations Pertaining to Debate Fairness. The affidavit reads, quote, I have noted specific instances related to the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris that raise concerns about procedural fairness. The specific instances of perceived bias are as follows. The Harris campaign received particular accommodations,

including but not limited to the providing of a podium significantly smaller than that used by Donald Trump and assurances regarding split screen television views that would favorably impact Kamala Harris's appearance relative to Trump. It was agreed that Donald Trump would be subjected to fact checking during the debate while Kamala Harris would not face comparable scrutiny. This was widely known throughout the company that Donald Trump would be fact checked. In fact, various people were assigned to fact check observations it was perceived candidate Trump would make during the debate. In fact, Harris campaign required assurances that Donald Trump would be fact checked. This was done via multiple communications with the Harris campaign,

whereas the Trump campaign was not included in the negotiations. To my understanding, any rules, negotiations and conversations pertaining to the debate should have had both the Trump and Harris campaign involved. The Harris campaign had numerous more calls regarding the debate rules without the Trump campaign aware or on the call. The Harris campaign was provided with sample questions that, while not the exact questions, covered similar topics that would appear during the debate. Furthermore, the Harris campaign imposed restrictions on the scope of questioning, including no questions regarding the perceived health of President Joe Biden, no inquiries related to her tenure as Attorney General in San Francisco, and no questions concerning her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces

allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and who may be involved in her administration if elected, end quote. And per usual, I do have the link to those screenshots in the sources section of this episode if you want to check it out for yourself. Now, the affiant also noted at the end of the affidavit that he or she signed and notarized it on September 9th to ensure that the allegations were formally documented prior to the debate. The affiant also said that he or she sent a certified letter and FedEx package containing a copy of the affidavit to themselves that would remain unopened for any future investigations. The affiant said that he or she sent a certified letter to Speaker Johnson to establish a record that correspondence was sent before the debate and has

quote, secretly recorded several conversations that will prove that the Harris campaign insisted upon not only the fact-checking of Donald Trump, but also insisted on what questions were not to be asked under any circumstances or else the Harris campaign would decline to participate in the debate, end quote. I do also want to note that there is a lot redacted in this affidavit that would lead us to verify the affidavit's authenticity, right? So the name of the whistleblower, certain statements within the affidavit, the notary's signature, the notary's stamp, and all of these are sort of blacked out. So because of this, the authenticity of the affidavit has not yet been verified. And when I say redacted, what I mean is that it would appear

as if, for instance, there is a notary's signature, but it's mostly blacked out so you can't tell who actually signed it. As for ABC, the network's statement came out on Monday night and it didn't address any of the specific claims made in the affidavit. Instead, the network said, quote, ABC News followed the debate rules that both campaigns agreed on and clearly state no topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates, end quote. A spokesperson from ABC News later told the Daily Beast publication, quote, absolutely not. Harris was not given any questions before the debate, end quote. As for the Harris campaign, it has declined to comment. Speaker Johnson was also asked for comment, but he has not responded.

So obviously we're all wondering like how will we know if this story is true or false, right? Because the whistleblower could identify themselves or ABC could come out with a more adamant denial, but I would venture to guess that we won't really know unless either legal action is taken or the whistleblower decides to release these recorded conversations that he or she says that they have, right? And even that wouldn't really be definitive proof because you'd still have to prove the authenticity of those conversations. But the reason that the whistleblower mentioned sending a letter to Speaker Johnson is because Congress can actually get involved, and if warranted, Congress can subpoena not only ABC's testimony, but also the whistleblower's testimony.

And that testimony would obviously be under oath. So that would really be our best bet at sourcing the truth. That is what we know about the rumor at this point. Now, there was another rumor running alongside this story that the person who wrote the affidavit died in a car crash. That's false. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the ones that shared this. She tweeted, quote, the ABC whistleblower who claimed Kamala Harris was given debate questions

ahead of the debate has died in a car crash, according to news reports. End quote. Greene later tweeted, quote, the story appears to be false and I'm glad to hear it. End quote. So as I said, that rumor is in fact not true. To close out this episode, let's continue on with the story for today's critical thinking segment. First, let's continue on with the story for today's critical thinking segment. First, let's think about the allegations within the affidavit, specifically that Harris was given a smaller podium, the TV split screen, sample questions in advance, off-limits questions, and assurances that Trump would be fact-checked. Maybe you take issue with them, maybe you don't. But either way, why do you or don't you? Answer why. Why do you

feel this way? And if you don't take issue with allegations, for the sake of the hypothetical, let's assume this affidavit is true, would you still not have an issue if the roles were reversed? If instead the affidavit alleged that it was the Trump campaign that had more involvement in the debate prep than the Harris campaign, why or why not? Now, on the other side, if you do take issue with the allegations in the affidavit, would you also take issue if the affidavit alleged the opposite? So same thing, that let's say the affidavit alleged it was the Trump campaign that had more involvement in the debate prep than the Harris campaign. Would you have the same issues with these allegations? And maybe for purposes of this hypothetical, it's easier to assume, let's say that the

presidential candidates hypothetically had a debate on Fox News and this whistleblower affidavit came out from an employee at Fox News and they were alleging the exact opposite. I want you to compare how you feel about this situation and how you would feel about that hypothetical. That is what I have for you today. Remember, no episode tomorrow or Monday. Have a fantastic weekend, and I will talk to you again on Tuesday.