UNBIASED - The 'Epstein List', Supreme Court to Hear Disqualification Case, NRA Corruption Trial, Trump's Foreign Payments, and More.

Episode Date: January 9, 2024

1. The 'Epstein List' (1:08)2. Supreme Court to Hear Disqualification Clause Case and First Abortion Case Since Overturning Roe v. Wade (9:09)3. QUICK HITTERS: House Report Shows $7.8M Received By Trump Businesses from Foreign Governments, FDA Approves First Plan for Florida to Import Drugs from Canada at Lower Prices, NRA Corruption Trial Begins, U.S. Attempts First Lunar Landing in 50 Years (26:35)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 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 to the Unbiased Podcast. Formerly known as Jordan is my lawyer, still the same show you know and love, just with a slightly more fitting name. It's good to be back. I took a two-week break. You know, when you look at the news for a living, it's nice to just detox a bit, so that's what I did, but I'm back. I'm feeling refreshed. I'm ready to go. Today's episode, we'll be doing three segments. First, we're going to take a look at the Epstein list, as it's being called. Then we'll move into some

Supreme Court cases, specifically one dealing with abortion and one dealing with the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment. And our final segment will be quick hitters. We're talking about Trump's foreign payments, a Florida drug importation plan, the NRA corruption trial, and then this lunar landing attempt, which was the first attempt by the United States to land on the moon in about 50 years. This episode is being recorded at 2 p.m. on Monday, January 8th, so all of the information you hear is up to date as of then. Before we get into today's stories, let me just give you a quick reminder. If you like what you hear today, please go ahead and leave me a review on whatever platform you listen on and share the show with your friends. It really helps support my show and

helps other people understand why they should listen to unbiased, nonpartisan news. So without further ado, let's get into today's first story, which is this Epstein list. This is the story on everyone's lips, and before we get into it, I do want to mention a couple of things that I find to be important. Number one, where did this list come from? Well, I call it a list because everyone's calling it a list, but it's not really a list at all. So basically, in 2015, one of Epstein's accusers, her name is Virginia Giuffre, she sued Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation. And as a part of that lawsuit, there's tons of testimony and documents surrounding Giuffre's allegations. That testimony and those documents related to that lawsuit is what is now being

unsealed. And by the way, prior to this, other documents in that case had been unsealed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. The reason that this batch of documents is causing such a stir is because this batch contains about 250 records that were either previously partially redacted or entirely sealed. So everyone has been sort of anticipating the unsealing of these because we'll start to see names that maybe we haven't seen in the past. But, you know, the reason that I say this isn't really a list at all is because it's actually a batch of documents. It's gotten the name Epstein's List because there's a lot of names that we're finding out associated with the case. But it's really a batch of records and documents that we're first seeing for the first time. that this list, contrary to what some people were making it seem like, was an all-encompassing list of victims, state attorneys, investigators, journalists, witnesses, and yes, some of Jeffrey

Epstein's associates, some of those people who had sex with underage minors. But not even close to the 200 or 180 names that were being talked about were Jeffrey Epstein associates, right? Most of them fell into these other categories like victims, witnesses, investigators, journalists, so on and so forth. released since last Wednesday, we haven't really heard any incredibly shocking information or new information that we didn't really have an idea as to before. So with that said, more documents will be unsealed in the coming days, perhaps even later today after this episode has been recorded. But let's talk about what we know now, and then we'll get into, you know, we can always cover if more comes out, we can cover that on Friday's episode. Let's start with the A-listers. Prince Andrew, which came as no surprise, we already knew that he was involved in this case. He was said to have forced multiple underage girls

to have sex with him on various occasions. He allegedly participated in an underage orgy with some of these girls. Epstein's former butler in Florida testified in one of the documents that Prince Andrew received daily massages when he would spend weeks at a time at Epstein's house in Florida. And of course, massages often correlates to sexual activity, but not always. Now, some other people who allegedly had sex with underage girls, and I highlight allegedly because none of this has been proven in a court of law. All of this information is based on testimony from various people involved in the case, but some of these people who, again, allegedly

had sex with underage girls include Alan Dershowitz, which was Epstein's lawyer, Stephen Hawking. He is a very or was a very famous theoretical physicist and cosmologist, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. There was also former French modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, former computer scientist Marvin Minsky, and the Hyatt Hotel heir, Tom Pritzker. So then you have other people who were named in the documents at some point, but had no illegal activity associated with their names. Because remember, these names are exactly that. Someone could say in their testimony, you know, I've never met Leonardo DiCaprio,

and now all of a sudden Leonardo DiCaprio is involved in this list of names, even though in reality, there's nothing there, right? So just keep that in mind. So some of those people who were named but not necessarily tied to any illegal activity included former President Bill Clinton. His name was listed in the papers more than 70 times, though again, he was not implicated in anything illegal. The worst of the testimony associated with his name was a girl who recalled Jeffrey Epstein telling her that President Bill Clinton liked them young, referring to girls.

Now, there's also a little bit of discrepancy with this situation that happened with Vanity Fair and Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton actually wasn't involved in it, but one of the documents that was unsealed is a little bit misleading. So I do want to clear that up. Basically, Vanity Fair was going to publish an expose, if you will, in 2003 about Jeffrey Epstein. Two of his victims had gone to a reporter at Vanity Fair and told this reporter what was going on behind the scenes, and Vanity Fair was going to publish this piece. They never did, but basically, Jufri, who wasn't involved in the Vanity Fair piece, had testified as part of her later case, her 2015 case, that she had read somewhere that it was Bill Clinton who went to Vanity Fair and threatened them not to write the piece about Epstein. Now, of course, that's

the story that's circulating on social media now, but the actual reporter who had written that piece came out and said that Giuffre made a mistake. And then also the editor in chief at Vanity Fair came out and said, no, in fact, it was Jeffrey Epstein who came into the office. It was not Bill Clinton. So as to why the story was never published, that's a whole other thing. But it wasn't Bill Clinton who asked Vanity Fair to publish that story, despite what you may see on social media. So again, just one other thing I wanted to clear up. Other names that were in the documents but have no illegal activity tied to them include David Copperfield, the Pope, Cate Blanchett, Cameron Diaz, Bruce Willis, Naomi Campbell, George Lucas, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Donald Trump, Michael Jackson, and some others.

Now, at the time that I'm recording this episode, about 190 records and documents have been unsealed. In total, there's about 250. So over the course of the next week or however long it takes, we do expect another 50 to 60 documents to be unsealed. Perhaps more names will come to light, or perhaps more information on the more names will come to light, or perhaps more information on the existing names will come to light. But that is really what we know as of now. One final note that is incredibly important for me to mention before we jump off is just a reminder to not

trust everything you see on the internet. People are weird. They Photoshop things that, you know, they falsify things for whatever reason, and it looks really real. So shortly before these documents were unsealed, Aaron Rodgers had said on a podcast, he made a joke that Jimmy Kimmel was, you know, scared of this unsealing or release of these documents. Jimmy Kimmel then threatened legal action against Aaron Rodgers. But my point in saying this is that once the documents were unsealed, one of the pieces of testimony was actually photoshopped to say Jimmy Kimmel's name. And in fact, it was completely fabricated. So just make sure, you know, when you're looking into things like this, be cautious of what

you see. Always do additional research. That should just be, you know, the standard, the norm. Switching gears, let's talk about the Supreme Court. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted a few requests to hear some pretty important cases. I do want to talk about two of them. Perhaps the one that made more noise is the 14th Amendment disqualification case. The other case deals with abortion. Let's run through the abortion case first, and then we'll get into the disqualification case because I do have some questions that you submitted to me on Instagram that I would like to get to as well. So we'll keep this fairly short and to the point. The abortion case is out of Idaho. The reason that it's making news is because it's the first case dealing with abortion

that the Supreme Court has agreed to take on since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. Here's the issue. There is a federal law that you may have heard of. It's called EMTALA. It stands for the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. And basically, it requires that hospitals that receive Medicare funding, they have to act in certain ways when it comes to emergency situations, namely those situations that involve uninsured patients or maybe those patients that are unable to pay their bills. They still

have to be treated under EMTALA. The waters surrounding EMTALA became a bit muddied when the constitutional right to abortion was overturned in Dobbs. When Dobbs was decided, some states, as we know, criminalized the procedure of abortions unless there was some sort of need to save the life of the mother. But the Biden administration came in and they said, hey, wait a minute, EMTALA requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide stabilizing treatment to patients presenting with emergencies, and this includes pregnant women. So these states actually can't be that restrictive because EMTALA trumps state law. Now, of course, the supremacy clause in the Constitution tells us federal law always trumps state law. Now, of course, the supremacy clause in the Constitution tells us

federal law always trumps state law. So that's where that idea comes from. And just to kind of clarify the difference here as to what EMTALA, you know, what would EMTALA do versus this Idaho law? What EMTALA considers an emergency is a much lower threshold than what some of these state laws consider to be an emergency for the purposes of allowing an abortion. So the Biden administration is trying to say, look, because EMTALA trumps the state law, the mother's life doesn't have to be in danger to allow for an abortion like some of these state laws say. EMTALA allows for an abortion in other emergency situations too. Situations where a mother isn't necessarily at the risk of losing her life, but might

experience some other adverse health effects. Now, the other side of this and what the Idaho State Legislature argues is that EMTALA actually never mentions abortion, much less a requirement for hospitals to perform them. They see this as a reach by the federal government. The federal government is reaching. That's how they see it. The Idaho legislature says EMTALA was simply enacted to ensure that hospital emergency rooms treat those patients who are poor or uninsured. It was never meant to impose a federal standard of care for patients. The Biden administration, on the other hand, says this isn't true. Instead, the administration argues that this EMTALA

requires Medicare-funded hospitals to provide whatever treatment is required in order to stabilize a patient's medical condition, and nothing in the law limits that treatment to treatment permitted by state law. So the case goes to federal district court. Remember, that's the lowest court. And the federal judge agrees with the Biden administration and prohibits Idaho's law from taking effect to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA. Idaho appeals that ruling. And sometimes what will happen at this point when a ruling gets appealed is that the appellate court will actually put the lower court's ruling on hold while it makes its own decision, right? But here, the appellate court said, no, no, no, we're not going to put it on hold. We'll hear the issue. We'll come to our own decision. But in the meantime,

the lower court's ruling stands and the law simply just cannot take effect to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA. So the state of Idaho and its legislature go to the Supreme Court and they said, hey, can you guys either freeze the lower court's ruling while this case is going through the appeals process, or alternatively, can you fast track this case so we can get a final answer from you guys as soon as possible? Now, as of last week, the Supreme Court hadn't determined whether they were going to hear the case, but then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is another appellate court in the United States, ruled in a similar case, different case but similar issue, that EMTALA does not supersede abortion laws in Texas. So that ruling is actually what made the Supreme Court decide to hear this case out of Idaho, because whenever there are conflicting rulings out of different appellate courts, the Supreme Court will often intervene and settle the disputes, if you will, between the courts because the Supreme Court has the ultimate say. So even though the Ninth Circuit

hasn't yet ruled in the Idaho case, the Supreme Court is actually getting ahead of it and stepping in to answer this question. And that question is, does EMTALA trump state law so as to prohibit the criminalization of abortions in certain emergency situations. So that is what we're looking at there. Now let's take a look at the disqualification case and answer some questions stemming from that. Rather than starting at the very beginning of this case, because I know a lot of you are already familiar from my last couple of episodes, I'm instead just going, if you don't know a lot about it, go ahead and listen to my last episode before the break, December 22nd.

That'll answer all of your questions as far as the procedural history of the case and some of the issues that are involved here. But basically, the main issue is whether the disqualification clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits Donald Trump from appearing on the Colorado ballot.

Now, as we know, the Colorado Supreme Court held that Donald Trump could not appear on the state's ballot. Maine also held that Trump could not appear on the state's ballot. But other states like Michigan kept Trump on the state ballot. Florida, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Arizona have all dismissed similar cases, which in turn keeps Trump on the ballot in those states. So remember what I said before, when there are conflicting rulings out of different circuits, the Supreme Court will intervene and they'll settle the debate. The Supreme Court set oral arguments for February 8th and their decision will come sometime after that. Now, one thing I want to point out is that the Supreme Court can go a few different ways with this. What do I mean by that? The first thing that the court has to do

before they even get to the questions of whether, you know, the disqualification clause prevents Trump from appearing on the ballot, or whether Trump engaged in insurrection, or whether the disqualification clause even applies to the presidency. Before they get to any of those questions that involve the actual merits of the case, they have to answer the question of whether the challengers even have legal standing to sue. In other words, can voters challenge a candidate's eligibility? Or is this something only a fellow candidate can do? Because that's actually what Florida said. Florida said a voter can't challenge this,

has to be done by a fellow candidate. If the court answers this question in the negative and says that the challengers don't have the requisite standing, this case is done and they won't even get to the merits of the case. Now that doesn't necessarily mean Trump is good to go, he gets off scot-free. Another case could be brought challenging Trump's eligibility where standing exists. And then you have this whole issue all over again. But let's suppose for purposes of a full scope explanation that challengers do have standing to sue and the court moves on to the merits of the case. Now, you might envision some clear-cut response from the Supreme Court, but there is a very good chance it is not that clear-cut. It's most likely not going to be a situation where the court is just like, yep, the Colorado Supreme Court got it right.

Our job here is done. You know, we're going to affirm their decision. We're done. The issue is just too complex. Instead, the case could actually go a lot of different ways. So let's look at some of those possibilities. So yeah, sure, the court could say, hey, we're going to affirm the Colorado Supreme Court decision. That's it. They got it right. We're done here. But again, not likely. Something else

the court could do is they could say, we're not even going to dive into whether this was an insurrection because we don't even think the disqualification clause applies to the presidency and therefore Trump isn't barred from the ballot. Because remember, that's a big question here. The lower court in Colorado said, yes, Trump engaged in insurrection, but the clause doesn't apply to the presidency, and therefore he can't be barred from the ballot. But then the Colorado Supreme Court came in and said, no, no, no, this clause does apply to the presidency, and therefore he is barred from the ballot. So that's one way the court could rule. Now, a third possibility is that the court takes a due process approach. The court could say, hey, look, the Colorado Supreme Court placed too much weight on unreliable evidence,

or that there wasn't enough evidence to meet the legal standard. So perhaps the Colorado Supreme Court needs to go back and revisit this issue and do things differently and in line with what we suggest. A fourth possibility is actually diving into the questions of whether the actions rose to the level of an insurrection and consequently, if the clause applies to the presidency, whether he is in fact barred from holding office again. Because remember, the Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution. When we have constitutional conflict, the Supreme Court comes in and gives us an interpretation that we must proceed with. Given the fact that there are so many questions surrounding the clause, maybe the Supreme Court finds it's in their best interest

to give us an interpretation and tell us, hey, here is what the clause meant by insurrection. Here are the offices that the clause is intended to apply to. Take this direction and make your decision accordingly. But at the same time, perhaps the court wants to involve themselves as little as possible ahead of the election. They don't want to come off as partisan one way or the other. They don't want to possibly be looked at as interfering in the election. So it's also very possible that they sidestep an in-depth analysis and just stick to bare bones issues like standing or due process and not even get into the real meat and potatoes of this issue.

All of this to say, it can go a lot of different ways. And that's not even an exhaustive list of the different potential rulings we could get. So now let's get into some questions because the number one question that you guys asked me on Instagram was how will this ruling affect the decisions in other states like Maine? And along similar lines, how does this ruling affect states that have yet to make a decision? So let's get into it. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, right? They have the ultimate say. Whatever they decide, all other courts have to abide by. So if the court finds that Trump is not barred from appearing on the ballot because the clause doesn't apply to the presidency or because he didn't engage in insurrection, all states have to allow Trump on the ballot.

Even states like Maine that have said otherwise, because again, the Supreme Court makes the rules. Now, let's say the Supreme Court rules this is a state issue. It's up to the individual states to make their election rules and determine who appears on the ballot. Then the states could each do what they wanted. Now, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would do that because that would make a bit of a mess, but anything is possible. Ultimately, what you need to know is that the Supreme Court makes the rules for all of the other states, and all states have to abide by the direction that the Supreme Court gives them. Question number two, would this automatically overturn the other states' decisions, or could they force Trump to go through the appeals process for each state? Well, again, any states that have

issued rulings that conflict in any way with a ruling out of the Supreme Court would be overturned. Once the Supreme Court rules, Trump wouldn't have to go through any other litigation in any other state unless the Supreme Court left this as a state-by-state issue. In that case, yes, this issue would be litigated in each state, but if the Supreme Court rules one way or the other, you know, either yes, he can be on the ballot or no, he can't, the states have to follow that. Question number three, if the Supreme Court finds that he can be removed, does that disqualify him from all ballots? Again, it depends. This is sort of what I just said. If the Supreme Court finds that he must be removed, then yes, he would be disqualified from all ballots. But if the Supreme Court finds that a state can remove him, and it's up to the states to make their election

rules, then it would be a state-by-state basis. They wouldn't necessarily have can remove him and it's up to the states to make their election rules, then it would be a state-by-state basis. They wouldn't necessarily have to remove him, but they could. Again, that seems like a bit of a mess. I'm not sure the Supreme Court wants to do that. Question number four, will the state of Maine be involved in oral arguments or only the state of Colorado? Well, Maine can file a supporting brief for Colorado. They can support their position, but oral arguments will be between the parties directly involved in this case. The only way that that would change is if Maine's Supreme Court issued a decision in the next week or two, and that decision was appealed and consolidated with the Colorado case. But most likely what will happen, especially because this case is on such a

fast track, the justices will hear arguments from the parties directly involved in the Colorado case specifically, they'll read any supporting briefs that are filed by anyone else, and then they'll apply the rationale of whatever decision they come to to Maine and whatever other states are possibly appealing to the Supreme Court. So that's how that would work. Question number five, how can a state prohibit a person from holding office under the 14th if it's federal law? So this case is a little bit confusing because while all of this is based on federal law, right, because the disqualification clause is part of the constitution, ultimately states make their own election rules. Article 1,

Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the legislatures of each state the function of prescribing the times, places, and manner of elections. So the short answer to this question is that there is an argument that the states should be individually responsible for determining who's on their ballot, but I could also see a world in which the Supreme Court says, eh, this particular issue isn't a state decision. We're going to settle this. Question number six, how can the 14th Amendment apply if Trump was never convicted? This is another popular question. If you want more on this, go ahead and listen to my December 22nd episode. I do go into detail about

whether a conviction is required, what the arguments for or what the arguments are on both sides. But I do just want to note that this particular issue was not litigated too much in the Colorado case. The parties did not dispute whether a conviction was required. That's not to say it won't be addressed at the Supreme Court level, but this issue didn't play a big role in the lower proceedings of this case. So question number seven is why is the Supreme Court holding oral arguments? Why not just issue an order? Not only is this the fairest way to do it so both parties can present their case, especially when it's a case of this magnitude. But more so, it's an opportunity for the justices to ask questions. Because this case is so complex, the issues presented are so unprecedented, the judges are going to want the opportunity to

ask each side their questions. And that's more so what oral arguments are for. So parties in these cases actually submit their briefs ahead of time. The judges read them ahead of time so they know what arguments these parties are going to bring. Oral arguments is more so a time for these parties to get in front of the justices and the justices to ask any questions that they have. Final question number eight, when can we expect a ruling? Colorado's primary is set for March 5th. Maine's primary is also set for March 5th. So I think we'll have a ruling before then.

But basically what will happen is the court hears oral arguments in a couple of cases each week. They then hold conferences on Friday. They discuss the cases. They ultimately come to their decision within weeks or months. They determine who's going to write the opinion, who's going to write the dissent, and they go from there. So what this means is that in this case, they'll hear oral arguments on February 8th.

The next conference is February 16th. And perhaps they issue a decision within that three-week time frame before March 5th. If, for whatever reason, the court doesn't issue a ruling before March 5th, Trump will be on the ballot for the primary and then the decision would come sometime, you know, before the court recesses at the end of June. But here's why I would expect a ruling before March 5th. If the court waits until after the primaries and their decision either leaves it to the states to determine ballot eligibility or removes him from the ballot entirely, it would mess everything up because primaries would possibly have to be conducted again. And I just don't see the Supreme Court wanting to mess with that. So that's why I think we'll see a decision before the primaries on

March 5th. Let's now get into some quick hitters. Quick hitter number one, Trump's foreign payments. Last week, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a report that accused Trump of receiving at least $7.8 million in foreign payments to his various properties during his presidency. Now, this 156-page report, it's titled White House for Sale, How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump, and it relies on court order documents from Trump's accounting firms. Basically, what the report lays out is various payments made to four different Trump properties, two in New York, one in D.C., one in Vegas, from more than 20 different foreign governments or

government-owned entities. According to the allegations, China spent the most, which is $5.6 million, at Trump Tower in New York and Trump International Hotels in both D.C. and Vegas. Saudi Arabia spent around $615,000. Qatar spent around $446,000. And the numbers go down from there. The controversy stems from two places. One being that the emoluments clause prevents presidents from accepting foreign payments. And this is something that's been a topic of discussion since Donald Trump announced his run

for the presidency because he really was the first businessman with, you know, such a large portfolio to run for president. So naturally, the emoluments clause was discussed even then. The other component to this is that House Republicans are, of course, investigating President Biden over potential foreign payments he may have received while he was vice president. So Democrats see this as hypocrisy. Now, some House Republicans have countered by saying that the two situations are vastly different. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer being one of them, he said in a statement, quote, former President Trump has legit businesses, but the Bidens do not. The Bidens and their associates made over 24 million by cashing in on the Biden name in China, Russia, Ukraine,

Kazakhstan, and Romania. No goods or services were provided other than access, end quote. So that's sort of where the Republicans draw the line between the two situations. But again, Democrats say, you know, this is hypocritical. One final thing I want to mention before we jump to the next story is that since 2016, Trump has actually had three lawsuits filed against him over allegations that he violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause. And again, same thing related to payments by foreign governments for services at various Trump-owned properties. These lawsuits were dismissed in 2021 when the Supreme Court said they don't matter. Trump's no longer president, so it's not an issue. But all of this to say that this new report isn't really anything quote-unquote new in the sense that he's had similar allegations

brought against him in the past. And as I said, this has been a topic of discussion since he announced his run for presidency all those years ago. Quick hitter number two, the Florida drug importation plan. So the FDA for the first time approved a two-year plan allowing Florida to import certain prescription drugs from Canada at a lower price than in the United States. Other states like Colorado, North Dakota, and Vermont have also created their own drug importation plans, but they will of course have to get FDA approval as well. Now before Florida can start distributing Canadian drugs, it must first send the FDA details on the medications that it plans to import.

Florida has to ensure that the medications aren't counterfeit or ineffective, and Florida will also have to relabel those medications once they're imported to be consistent with FDA-approved labeling. This isn't an exhaustive list. Florida also has other obligations that it has to comply with, like sending the FDA a quarterly report that identifies things like cost savings and potential safety issues and basically just shows the FDA, you know, cost savings are significant. There's no added risk of exposure to unsafe or ineffective drugs. The purpose here is, of course, to get drug prices down, given that drug prices in the

United States are 3.2 to 4.3 times higher on average when compared to other countries like the UK, Japan, and Canada. But pharmaceutical companies here in the United States obviously are not happy and almost guaranteed to challenge any plans that the FDA approves, including Florida's. So despite the FDA approval, it's not something that's going to take effect immediately. This is something that will take time. Quick hitter number three is the NRA corruption trial. Monday marked the start of a long-anticipated civil trial against the National Rifle Association, otherwise known as the NRA. This lawsuit was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2020. Basically, James accused the NRA of both corruption and fraud. More specifically, that NRA senior management misappropriated more than $64 million to fund various personal expenses

like private jets, fancy meals, and family trips to the Bahamas. Now, on Friday, only a few days before the trial began, the former CEO and the man at the center of a lot of the allegations, his name is Wayne LaPierre, he actually resigned from his position citing health reasons. Then one day later, one of the defendants who was a former official of the NRA, Joshua Powell, he settled and his settlement required him to admit wrongdoing, pay $100,000 and testify against his co-defendants in the trial. Now, the fourth and final quick hitter I have for you is this attempt by the United States to put its first lander on the moon in more than 50 years. This happened on Monday, and the flight was carrying a lot of things, but it included ashes of hundreds of people, including three Star Trek actors and hair samples from JFK, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George Washington. Now, unfortunately, about nine hours into the launch,

it became apparent that the spacecraft might not make it to its lunar destination, but the Peregrine 1 moon lander launched from Florida at around 2 a.m. local time. It started to experience some issues when it wasn't able to achieve a stable sun-pointing direction because without the sunlight to charge its solar panels, the spacecraft would eventually lose power. After some time, the team at Astrobotic Technology was actually able to get the spacecraft pointed at the sun, but the root of the problem turned out to be a bigger issue. In an update posted to X, Astrobotic wrote, quote, unfortunately, it appears the failure within the propulsion system is causing a critical loss of propellant. The team is working to try to stabilize this loss, but given the situation, we have prioritized

maximizing the science and data we can capture, end quote. Aside from the human remains, the spacecraft also contained five payloads, which were going to try to locate water molecules on the moon, measure radiation and gases around the lander, and also evaluate the lunar exosphere, which is the thin layer of gases on the moon's surface. A lesser known fact about this mission is that the White House actually convened a last-minute meeting over the weekend because Navajo Indians asked that this flight be delayed. Now, the reason was that the moon holds a very sacred place in Navajo cosmology, and the idea of transforming it into, quote, a resting place for human remains is deeply

disturbing and unacceptable, end quote. The government ultimately allowed the flight to proceed, but it seems like the Native Americans don't have anything to worry about after all, considering this flight likely is not making it to the moon. That is what I have for you today. Thank you for being here. I hope you enjoyed my new video format. If you're watching on YouTube, please don't forget to leave me that review if you haven't already. As always, share the show with your friends friends and I will talk to you on Friday.