UNBIASED - TikTok Ban, Boeing Overrides Security Footage, Whistleblower Found Dead, Trump Charges Dismissed, Florida Settles 'Don't Say Gay' Lawsuit, Aaron Rodgers Responds, and More.

Episode Date: March 15, 2024

1. DEEP DIVE: House Passes Bill to Ban Apps Controlled By Foreign Adversaries; Known As The 'TikTok Ban' (1:31)2. SHORT STORY: Boeing Whistleblower Found Dead in Car Amid Followed By Week of Boeing Mishaps; NTSB Says Boeing Overrode Security Footage From Alaska Airlines Door Repair (16:45)3. SHORT STORY: Former Special Counsel Robert Hur Testifies on Capitol Hill About Findings of Investigation Into President Biden's Handling of Classified Documents (25:17)4. QUICK HITTERS: Judge Dismisses Charges in Georgia Election Interference Case (30:27); Don Lemon Says Musk Cancelled X Partnership After Tense Interview (34:14); Florida Settles 'Don't Say Gay Lawsuit' (36:53); Aaron Rodgers Responds to Sandy Hook Conspiracy Accusations (41:25)5. ONE LINERS: Just the Headlines (43:20)6. NOT EVERYTHING IS BAD: Some Good News (44:42)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!ENTER REFERRAL CONTEST HERE (CHANCE TO WIN $200)! 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 March 15th, 2024. This episode was recorded last night around 5.30 p.m. Eastern Time. And boy, do I have an episode for you today. First, we're going to take a deep dive into this so-called TikTok ban. I'll then cover two short stories, one about Boeing and the whistleblower who was found dead over the weekend, the other about former special counsel Robert Herr's testimony on Capitol Hill. I have four quick hitters for you, a few one-liners, and then we'll finish, of course, because it's Friday with Not everything is bad. So full episode today. And an update

before we get into it, just on the contest side of things, for those that haven't heard, at the end of the month, I'm sending one of you a $200 gift card. It's going to whoever submits the most referrals on my website. So you can find the link in the podcast description or just go to jordanismylawyer.com slash referrals and submit them there. I will tell you the current winner has 13 referral submissions. So just keep that in mind. If you love what you hear today and you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead

and leave the show a review on whatever platform you listen on and be sure to share this show with your friends. Without further ado, let's jump right in because I'm not kidding. Today, I have quite the episode for you. The first story, the first deep dive, or the only deep dive, is about this TikTok ban. The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, more widely known as the TikTok ban. It passed the House on Wednesday in a bipartisan 352 to 65 vote. 50 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against the bill, which will now head to the Senate, where it's really unclear what the outcome will be. President Biden did say he would sign it into law if it passed both chambers. But let's talk about

what this bill encompasses, because this is one of those bills, every so often we see one of these bills that kind of gets taken with the social media wind and all of a sudden everyone's talking about it without fully understanding what it's all about. Luckily for you, I read the bill in its entirety. So how I would like to do this is first run through what the bill actually says, then discuss a little bit of the ownership structure of TikTok so that we can actually pinpoint where the issue actually lies. And then I actually want to talk about a similar situation we saw here in the United States in 2019 and 2020 that not many people know about. But as I said, very similar to what we're seeing now with TikTok. So first, what does this bill actually say? not many people know about, but as I said, very similar to what we're seeing now with TikTok.

So first, what does this bill actually say? What it says is that it is unlawful for any entity to distribute, maintain, or update a foreign adversary-controlled application within the United States. In other words, if this becomes law, app stores, as well as internet hosting services, are prohibited from offering apps that fall under the definition of a foreign adversary-controlled application and meet certain requirements. So before we get into that definition of foreign adversary-controlled application and what it means to be controlled by a foreign adversary, let's first look at the requirements a company must meet for this law to apply because it's not every single entity or app that's owned by a foreign adversary that app stores can't provide. So here are the requirements. One, the app or website has to allow users to create an account or a profile which can be used to generate, share, and view text, images, videos,

etc. Two, the app or website has to have more than 1 million active users as of at least two of the three months leading up to when the president signs the bill into law. Three, the app or website has to enable at least one user to generate or distribute content that can be viewed by other users of the platform and has to enable at least one user to view the content generated by other users. So essentially this is a long way of saying that if a foreign adversary owned entity has more than 1 million monthly users on its platform, allows its users to create profiles and share images, text videos, etc., and other users can view that content, that entity or application is covered under this bill, and the app stores and internet hosting services here in the United States

would be prohibited from offering it within the borders of this country. So now that we know that, what does it mean to be controlled by a foreign adversary? Well, first, who are our foreign adversaries? That's important, right? Title 10, section 4872, subsection D2 tells us. And the four adversaries are the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those are the four foreign adversaries to the United States. So now, what does it mean to be controlled by one of these foreign adversaries? A company controlled by a foreign adversary under this bill means that the company is either A, headquartered in, has its place of business in, or is organized under the laws of a foreign adversary country. B, controlled by a person who lives in a foreign

adversary country. C, has a foreign person or combination of foreign persons who directly own at least a 20% stake, or D, is controlled by a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign adversary country. Now, in a separate section of the bill, the bill includes a specific definition for foreign adversary controlled application. So this is not to be confused with the definition we just went over, which was, you know, controlled by a foreign adversary, because it applies specifically to apps. A foreign adversary controlled application has two definitions under this law. One, any platform that is operated specifically by either ByteDance, which is TikTok's parent company, TikTok, or any subsidiary or successor of ByteDance or TikTok, which is controlled by a foreign adversary. The second definition under the law, any company controlled

by a foreign adversary, which the president has determined to be a significant threat to the national security of the United States. And that second part of the definition is what has some people a little worried because one of the rumors going around right now is that if this bill becomes a law, the president can just deem any app to be a threat to national security and ban it. But listen, I can assure you that if it was that simple, the Republican and Democrat lawmakers would not be siding with each other on this bill. So to clarify, what the bill says is that the president can only ban an app which poses a threat to national security and at least 20% of that app is owned by a foreign adversary. So that is what the bill says. The one type of platform that the bill did specifically exclude is one in which its primary

purpose is to allow its users to post reviews. So product reviews, business reviews, travel reviews, etc. So even if a platform is controlled by a foreign adversary, so long as its primary purpose is reviews, it can actually still be offered to users here in the United States. Let's now discuss the divesture element of this bill. Basically, the bill offers an exemption to companies that divest within six months of the bill being signed into law. So if this bill becomes law, ByteDance and any other company that falls under the definitions set forth in this bill has six months from the day that the president signs the bill to sell the company to a company not controlled by a foreign adversary

or or or at least sell enough ownership to get the chinese owned portion of the company below 20 because that's the threshold set forth in the law and it doesn't necessarily have to be a company here in america that it sells to it just can't be controlled by one of those four countries that I mentioned previously. If the company sells within six months and the president then determines that there is no involvement from a foreign adversary, that platform can continue to be lawfully used here in the United States, or I should say lawfully provided here in the United States. However, if the company doesn't sell and an app store or an internet hosting service continues to offer it, that app store or internet hosting service would be facing a civil penalty of at maximum $5,000 multiplied by the number of users within the borders of the United States that have access

to it. Now you can imagine that would be a hefty fine for something like the Apple App Store, right? The bill does give platforms the right to challenge the law, and TikTok has already said that it will. So specifically, platforms have 165 days from the signing of the bill to file a challenge here in the United States. So that could obviously delay enforcement if this becomes a real thing. One final thing worth mentioning about the bill is that it actually allows United States users of any covered platforms under this bill to request all available data that that platform has on them. So between the time that the president signs this bill into law, just assuming he does for hypothetical purposes, and the six-month

deadline for the company to sell, any user here in the United States can actually request any and all data that that platform has on them and the platform has to provide it. Now obviously that assumes that the platform cooperates, but still it it's worth noting, because that's kind of one of the provisions or one of the aspects of the bill that's gotten buried under everything else. So one last thing I did want to say, because a lot of people have been wondering how the United States can force China to do something. Keep in mind that what this bill does is prohibit app stores from doing things, right? So it's not controlling the actions of China so much. It is indirectly, but the bill specifically targets app stores here in

the United States. So now that we've gone through the text of the bill, the one question that I've been asked the most is, does China even own the app? Because it's true that TikTok is duly headquarters in Singapore and LA, not China. However, ByteDance, which owns TikTok, is headquartered in Beijing. According to TikTok, its ownership looks like this. So 60% of ByteDance is owned by global investors like BlackRock and General Atlantic. 20% is owned by its employees. And the other 20% is owned by its founders, who are Chinese. So that 20% stake that's owned by the Chinese

founders would have to be diminished and sold off below that 20% threshold. Now, we obviously know that the worry from lawmakers here in the United States is national security. That's what they've all been talking about. But more specifically, the worry stems from particular Chinese laws. A 2014 Chinese counterintelligence law says that relevant organizations cannot refuse to provide evidence to the Chinese government when it comes to investigations into espionage. And that law was actually expanded in 2023 and didn't really provide a specific definition as to the expanded concept of espionage. And because of that, the United States and specifically the Library of Congress

has said that really any documents, data, materials, or items could be considered relevant to the People's Republic of China, you know, due to ambiguities in the law. On top of that, in 2017, China enacted a national intelligence law, which again says that any organization must assist or cooperate with state intelligence work. So because of these mandatory cooperation laws, because ByteDance is headquartered in Beijing and owned in part by Chinese individuals, the fear from some here in the United States is that ByteDance is subject to these laws and would have to cooperate with the Chinese government if the government requested data. Now, of course, China and TikTok CEO tell an entirely different story. They say China does not have access to TikTok's data

and has never requested access to TikTok's data. In fact, TikTok CEO has testified to Congress reiterating that same point and consistently pointing towards Project Texas, which is this project, for lack of a better word, in Texas, which would allegedly protect the data of American users by storing it on servers that are operated by an American contractor. Now, lawmakers here don't really trust that. They're kind of like, that's great, but how do we know for sure? However,

it's also important to note that lawmakers have yet to provide the public with any sort of hard evidence of China's influence or access. So at this point, it seems like it's either mere speculation or there's some sort of classified evidence out there that the public just hasn't been made aware of. the bill. Obviously, as I've stated, cite to national security issues. However, not everyone supports the bill, and those who are against it are focused more so on free speech issues, as well as the economic impact for small businesses and creators. Interestingly enough, though, and this is the last thing I wanted to touch on, in 2019 and 2020, we actually saw a very similar situation here in the United States with an LGBTQ dating app called Grindr. And not many people know about this. Not many people are talking about it. But basically in 2017, a Chinese gaming company called Beijing Kunlun Tech bought a majority stake in Grindr. And then in 2018, that same Chinese tech company acquired the rest of the company.

Following this, the United States government got worried about China's access to the data of American users, specifically citing the access to the data of American military members and government officials using the app. And the Committee on Foreign Investment here in the United States reached out to the Chinese tech company about their ownership being a national security risk and basically gave the company a deadline of June 2020 to sell. And ultimately, the reason that this didn't really turn into anything big is because the tech company didn't give the United States any problems. They sold the company

to an investment group here in the United States in March of 2020, and that was it. Obviously, TikTok is a little different, being that it's a much larger company, it's a much larger platform, and a sale would have further reaching implications compared to that of Grindr, but similar situation nonetheless. So I hope that this deep dive clarified things for you and answered most of your questions. The only takeaway I would say just to wrap this up with a bow is that TikTok isn't going anywhere in the short term. And when I say short term, I'm talking, you know, weeks, the next month. We all know how legal battles play out and the time it takes to resolve them. Even if TikTok didn't challenge the law, which they have said that they will, it would still be another six months before TikTok went anywhere, assuming TikTok opted against divesting, right?

Because if they choose to just keep doing what they're doing, this law wouldn't take effect for another six months. So with that, let's turn to short stories. The first one being all about Boeing, but we'll start with the whistleblower that was found dead. John Burnett, a longtime quality manager at Boeing, specifically for the 787 Dreamliner aircrafts, he later became a whistleblower. He was found dead in his car this past weekend from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Now, normally a story like this probably wouldn't make the podcast, but given what's been going on with Boeing lately, a lot of people have a lot of questions.

Barnett came forward in 2019 with other Boeing employees about issues within the company. Specifically, Barnett accused the company of prioritizing profits over quality and spoke about sort of subpar manufacturing problems. In fact, one of his statements to the New York Times read, quote, as a quality manager at Boeing, you're the last line of defense before a defect makes it out to the flying public, and I haven't seen a plane out of Charleston yet that I'd put my name on saying it's safe and airworthy, end quote. Two years before that New York Times article was published, though, Barnett had filed a whistleblower complaint against the company. In his complaint, he alleged that he had attempted to raise concerns about these manufacturing issues,

and he had been consistently ignored, and he was ultimately punished for continuing to flag them. That case was set for trial this June, and leading up to the trial, he had to sit for a deposition. That deposition was last week, the same week he was found dead. In fact, he didn't appear to one of the days of the deposition, and that's when he was found. A statement from his lawyers read, quote, John was in the midst of a deposition in his whistleblower retaliation case, which finally was nearing the end. He was in very good spirits and really looking forward to putting this phase of his life behind him and moving on. We didn't see any indication he would take his

own life. No one can believe it. We are all devastated. We need more information about what happened to John. The Charleston police need to investigate this fully and accurately and tell the public what they find out. No detail can be left unturned, end quote. So obviously it seems his lawyers are thinking, you know, he did not do this. Barnett was found, as I said, he was supposed to appear for the deposition. He had already, there was already at least one day that he had been deposed, but there was another day he didn't show up for. His coworker actually called the police asking them to conduct a welfare check at the local Holiday Inn where he was staying, and police found him in the driver's seat of a truck in the parking lot with a gunshot wound

to the head. And according to the police report, he was holding a gun in his hand, and there was a piece of paper next to him which looked like a note, but we don't have any details as to what that note entailed. The Charleston County Coroner's Office said that the wound appeared to be self-inflicted, but they're looking into it further to issue a formal cause of death. Barnett's family, you know, obviously is super sad, but they didn't seem as surprised as the lawyers. They said that they were aware he had been struggling mentally and physically in recent years, which both John Barnett and his family attributed to the toll that this case took

on him. However, his family did say that he was looking forward to having his day in court, and he hoped that his day in court would force Boeing to change its culture. His family also said that John Barnett had been dealing with PTSD and anxiety attacks as a result of the work environment at Boeing, and that's what they believe ultimately led to his death. Now, the reason Barnett's death is sparking some skepticism is obviously because of his role in the case, but also, and combined with the fact that the trial was coming up in June, but also because of the increased heat Boeing has been facing lately. And some of the things that have taken place both in the public eye as well as behind the scenes. So outside of this whistleblower case, things have kind of

spiraled for Boeing ever since that door plug flew off of the Alaska Airlines flight earlier this year. Just after that incident, an anonymous whistleblower from the company actually said, came forward and said, this was in fact Boeing's fault. Boeing is to blame for this incident. It's not the supplier Spirit Aerosystems who had also been sued. It's in fact Boeing. The whistleblower said it was Boeing that installed the piece that blew off and it was Boeing that failed to install four of the bolts when it delivered the plane. Then, just this week, the National Transportation Safety Board said that Boeing had overwritten the video footage of the door repair. Now, Boeing says there was no ill intent, but in a letter to the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board chair, Jennifer Homendy, wrote that the NTSB still lacks critical information about the chain of events that led to the incident. She wrote, quote, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft. A verbal request was made by our investigators for security camera footage to help obtain this information. However, they were informed the footage was overwritten. The absence of those records will complicate the NTSB's investigation moving forward. End quote. Boeing, though, says that it's customary to only keep security footage for 30 days, so given the fact that the plane in question was in the factory last year in September

and it delivered in October, it's not necessarily unusual practice to keep the footage as long as January, which is when the incident took place. In the last two weeks alone, Boeing planes have made headlines almost every day. It's hard to say whether these technical issues or just general issues have always been happening, And it's just now sort of starting to make the news because of the door plug incident, because we know that that's how the news cycle works when there's something hot, you know, all of a sudden there's tons of headlines, but nonetheless, let's recap it. And I will say, if you have flight anxiety, you may just want to skip ahead 30 seconds. This isn't, it's not, it's just not going to be great. So on March 4th, a Boeing 737 made an emergency landing in Texas. After just minutes into the

flight, one of the engines caught fire. Three days later on March 7th, a Boeing plane that took off from San Francisco and was headed to Japan was diverted to LA because one of the tires fell off after takeoff. On March 8th, the very next day, another Boeing plane that was landing in Houston went off a runway when it was trying to land and slid into the grass. On March 11th, a Boeing 777 suffered a mid-air fuel leak and had to be diverted. And that same day, and perhaps the worst of all incidents, took place on a Boeing 787 when flying from Australia to New Zealand. The plane dropped out of nowhere, causing 13 passengers to go to the hospital upon landing, 37 others were hurt. Passengers said that the plane quite literally just dropped out of the air

out of nowhere and then started to nosedive before eventually leveling out. The airline said the plane had experienced technical issues that, quote, caused a strong movement, end quote. Now, of course, some of those things, not necessarily Boeing's fault, but then on March 12th, the FAA announced some findings of their investigation into the Boeing 737 MAX 9, which is the type of plane that experienced the door blowout. And what that, that investigation was launched, of course, back in January after this incident happened. But the FAA said this week that Boeing failed 33 of the audit's 89 sections and that regulators found 97 examples of the company's alleged noncompliance with its best practices.

And of course, on top of this, the DOJ is also in the midst of a criminal investigation into Boeing. So that is your Boeing recap. You're caught up with all things Boeing. Let's move on to former special counsel Robert Herr's recent testimony. Former special counsel Robert Herr's recent testimony. Former special counsel Robert Herr, that is the special counsel that just released the report regarding his findings of his investigation into President Biden's handling of classified documents. He testified on Capitol Hill this week about his report. And as we know, special counsel Herr did not recommend criminal charges over Biden's handling of documents. And that was because he cited the fact that he did not believe the

prosecution would be able to prove Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the burden of proof given various factors like his age and his forgetfulness. And I want to make this clear because I think this is important, right? What Herr found is there was evidence that Biden willfully retained classified materials in violation of the law, but that the evidence didn't rise to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. And of course, when you weigh whether evidence rises to the burden, you know, the burden of proof, you take into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. And that's what will ultimately tell you whether there's a good or bad chance of conviction. That is what special counsel Hur weighed here and ultimately

led him to say, no, not a good chance of a conviction. Now, if you want more on that report, go ahead and listen to my February 9th episode. I covered it there, but this is going to touch on some highlights from his testimony. During the testimony, both Republicans and Democrats had their critiques. Republicans focused on Biden's memory, the idea of a two-tier justice system, and. And also, they were sort of questioning why charges wouldn't be recommended given the evidence of willful retention. Democrats, on the other hand, criticized her for his comments on Biden's memory issues. Some Democrats even accused her of trying to assist Trump in his reelection campaign by tarnishing Biden's name. So let's go through

some of the comments that were made by some representatives. Republican Representative Scott Fitzgerald cited to the Webster's Dictionary's definition of senile, which Fitzgerald read as exhibiting a decline of cognitive ability, such as memory associated with old age. The representative then asked, quote, Mr. Herr, based on your report, did you find that the president was senile? Herr responded, quote, I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report, end quote. Democrat Representative Pramila Jayapal said, quote, this lengthy, expensive investigation resulted in a complete exoneration of President Joe Biden for every document you

discussed in your report. You found insufficient evidence that the president violated any laws about possession or retention of classified documents, end quote. Her responded, quote, I need to go back and make sure that I take note of a word that you used, exoneration. That is not a word that is used in my report, and that is not a part of my task as prosecutor, end quote. Jayapal rebutted, quote, you exonerated him. Herr replied, quote, I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report, end quote. Democrat Representative Hank Johnson implied that Herr is helping to get Trump reelected. He asked, quote, and you're doing everything you can to get President Trump reelected so that you can get appointed as a federal judge or perhaps another position in the DOJ.

Isn't that correct? End quote. Herr laughed and said, quote, Congressman, I have no such aspirations, I can assure you. And I can tell you that partisan politics had no place whatsoever in my work. End quote. Republican Representative Jeff Van Drew said, quote, these two reports are the culmination in my mind of the DOJ's two standards and an example, again, of the Justice Department being weaponized against conservatives, end quote. Democrats cited to the findings of Trump's handling of classified documents so as to show the difference between the

two. So Representative Ted Lieu asked, quote, Did you find that President Biden directed his lawyer to lie to the FBI? And also asked, Did you find that President Biden directed his personal assistant to move boxes of documents to hide them from the FBI? Obviously, talking about some of Trump's alleged actions with with his classified documents, her answered both of those questions in the negative as they pertain to President Biden. So look, Republicans spent a lot of time asking questions trying to paint Biden in a bad light. Democrats spent a lot of time asking questions to paint Trump in a bad light. And I guess what I have to say to that is, are we surprised? That's what you should know about former special counsel Herrst testimony let's now move on to quick hitters the first quick hitter is in regard to this ruling out of georgia in the

election interference indictment so the fulton county judge overseeing the georgia election interference case dismissed six of the 41 charges in the indictment against Trump and his co-defendants. Now, only three of those six charges were against Trump himself, which brings his total charges in this particular case down to 10. But let's talk about what this ruling means and, you know, why did Judge McAfee rule the way that he did? And I will also say we should be getting a ruling on the Fonny Willis situation soon. So stay tuned for that. He said two weeks, about two weeks ago, so perhaps Friday. But anyway, the particular charges that were dismissed here relate to the solicitation

of a violation of oath by a public officer. Basically, as a public officer, you take an oath when you're sworn in and you have a duty to uphold that oath. Otherwise, if you don't, you could be charged with violating an oath of a public officer. However, when an outsider tries to persuade a public officer to violate their oath, that outsider can be charged with solicitation of a violation of oath. In this case, what the indictment alleges is that Donald Trump and a few other co-defendants pressured members of the Georgia legislature to unlawfully appoint presidential electors. And one of Trump's charges specifically deals with that call that he made.

It's now a famous call, very well known, with Mark Meadows to Georgia's Secretary of State talking about finding more votes. The indictment says that that was solicitation as well. Now, in order to bring these charges, the state has to sufficiently allege the underlying felony that was solicited. It's not enough to just say, oh, these defendants violated the federal or state constitution. No. Instead, the state has to show which specific portions of the constitution were violated. And there's a couple of reasons for that. But in this case, the judge ruled that the state did not sufficiently do that and therefore dismissed the six related charges. What the judge said in his ruling in part is this, quote, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes,

but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e. the underlying felony. They do not give the defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently as the defendants could have violated the constit defenses intelligently, as the defendants could have violated the constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways. End quote. The judge did leave open the opportunity for the charges to be refiled and, you know, refiled and pledged with more specificity. So we'll see if the state decides to do that. Obviously, as I just said a couple of minutes ago, we're close to getting that ruling regarding Fannie Willis's disqualification. So that could also affect the refiling if, if any, right?

One final note that I want to mention is that if the charges are refiled, double jeopardy does not apply here because the defendants have yet to be tried so double jeopardy only comes into play if a defendant is tried then that defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime in the same jurisdiction but in this case this hasn't gone to trial yet no one's been tried so it would not you know double jeopardy wouldn't be an issue the evidence of these conversations behind the charges, so the conversations with the legislature members or the Secretary of State, those conversations can still be used as evidence at trial. The second quick hitter, Don Lemon, a former CNN news anchor, announced Wednesday that

he was supposed to start a show on X called The Don Lemon Show, but that Elon Musk had called it off following an interview that Musk allegedly didn't like. So Lemon posted a video to X this week saying, quote, Elon Musk is mad at me, end quote. He went on to explain that Musk apparently wasn't happy with an interview between the two of them, and because of that, Lemon will no longer have a show on X. And it wasn't Lemon's choosing, it was Musk who decided to cancel the partnership. Instead, Lemon will no longer have a show on X. And it wasn't Lemon's choosing, it was Musk who decided to cancel the partnership. Instead, Lemon will now host a show on YouTube. He further explained that the reason he wanted to do a show on X in the first place is because he believes in free speech. And he felt that interviewing Elon Musk was one of the best people to interview

because of his belief in free speech. But Lemon said, apparently free speech doesn't apply when it comes to questions about Musk from people like me. While Lemon did say that the interview was tense at times, that's all he really gave. He didn't give details of the interview because obviously this is a business, right? People got to tune into the YouTube to find out. So that episode will be live on YouTube on Monday, and maybe we'll figure out why it was so tense once that's out. But in response, the X business account addressed Lemon's video. They said, quote, X is a platform that champions free speech, and we're proud to provide an open environment for diverse voices and perspectives.

The Don Lemon Show is welcome to publish its content on X without censorship, as we believe in providing a platform for creators to scale their work and connect with new communities. However, like any enterprise, we reserve the right to make decisions about our business partnerships. And after careful consideration, X decided not to enter into a commercial partnership with the show. End quote. This tweet then triggered, of course, comments from ex-users asking why. One specific ex-user tweeted or posted any specific

reasons, question mark, and Elon himself responded and wrote, quote, his approach was basically just CNN but on social media, which doesn't work, as evidenced by the fact that CNN is dying. And instead of it being the real Don Lemon, it was really just Jeff Zucker talking through Don so it lacked authenticity. All this said, Lemon, Zucker are, of course, welcome to build their viewership on this platform along with everyone else. End quote. And again, if you are interested to know what that interview consisted of, it will be on YouTube on Monday, and that is called the Don Lemon Show. The third quick hitter is a settlement out of Florida between the state of Florida and LGBTQ advocates who settled a lawsuit over the parental rights in education law. You may know the parental rights in education law as the don't say gay law, which is what

critics haven't named it. But I've reported on this law many times in the past. Florida was sued over the law and it went up on appeal. And that's where the settlement comes into play. I'll get into that in a minute. But basically, critics nicknamed this law the Don't Say Gay Law, but it never anywhere explicitly says that, you know, people can't say gay. However, the law was vague.

And so the challengers of the law were basically saying we're scared to do anything because we don't know specifically, you know, what's not allowed. So that was sort of the main issue here. Teachers weren't sure what they could and couldn't do. Staff members weren't sure. So LGBTQ advocates sued and on appeal, the court had the parties negotiate a settlement. And the settlement left the law intact. So the law is still very much there. Florida did not have to repeal it, but it changed and or clarified some things. So here are some of the things that will change. Previously, there were some books that featured LGBTQ characters that were removed from school

libraries. Those books will now be returned, but depending on the content of the book, there are still restrictions. So for instance, maybe a teacher can't read it out loud to a class. In addition to this, there were some anti-bullying programs that will resume. These are programs that specifically address anti-LGBTQ bullying that schools sort of felt like could violate the law, so they stopped them, but now those can come back. In one county, teachers can go back to designating their classrooms as LGBTQ safe spaces with a sticker on the door. Previously, they took the stickers off, you know, thinking they were violating the law. Those can go back on. After school, gay-straight alliances had canceled meetings in the past

because, again, they felt like those could potentially be against the law. Those are now allowed under the settlement. Most notably, though, the settlement makes clear that, one, students and teachers can say the words gay and trans in school, whether that be in everyday conversations, school speeches, etc. Saying the word isn't going to violate the law. Two, that K through third grade classrooms are prohibited from instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity. And three, after third grade, any discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity. And three, after third grade, any discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity has to be age appropriate. However, I will say, you know, a copy of the settlement isn't publicly available, so at least not yet. So we don't know if and how

age appropriate was defined, but those are just the terms that we got from the parties involved. So really what the settlement did is clarify provisions of the law so that it wasn't as vague as it was before. What's interesting is that both sides claimed victory following the settlement. So apparently both sides felt good about it. Governor DeSantis's office wrote in a news release, quote, today the office of Governor Ron DeSantis announces a major win against the activists who sought to stop Florida's efforts to keep radical gender and sexual ideology out of the classrooms of public school children in kindergarten through third grade. Frequently carrying water for the activists, the media wrote countless stories lying about the intent, design, and application

of the law. The activists carry these same lies into the courtroom, thankfully to no avail. Their judicial activism has failed. Today's mutually agreed settlement ensures that the law will remain intact, and it is expected that the case will be dismissed by the court imminently. End quote. Equality Florida wrote a similar statement expressing happiness with the settlement. It wrote that it is celebrating the settlement as a landmark achievement, writing, quote, Equality Florida celebrates a landmark achievement

in the fight for LGBTQ plus rights in Florida by announcing a historic settlement in the challenge against the don't say gay or trans law. This agreement successfully dismantles the most harmful impacts of the law, ensuring it cannot be wielded as a tool of discrimination against LGBTQ plus students, educators, and families, end quote. And the fourth and final quick hitter is about some accusations against New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and how he's defending himself. Aaron Rodgers was accused by CNN on Wednesday of sharing conspiracy theories around the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting in private conversations. Now, we know that Alex Jones notoriously got in trouble for this billion

dollar judgment, I believe it was, for spreading these conspiracy theories. So this is a big deal from a legal perspective, something Aaron Rodgers definitely doesn't want. But basically, the accusations came after RFK Jr. announced his shortlist for vice president picks, and Aaron Rodgers was one of them. CNN reported that Rodgers has engaged in conspiracy theories about the shooting in conversations with two people, including CNN's Pamela Brown in May of 2013. Brown said Rodgers had claimed the shooting was a government inside job that the media was intentionally ignoring. Another source who CNN says it granted anonymity to says Rogers claimed Sandy Hook never happened and that the children were actors. Naturally,

Rogers wrote a response out. He put his response on X on Thursday, and he wrote, quote, As I'm on the record saying in the past, what happened in Sandy Hook was an absolute tragedy. I am not and have never been of the opinion that the events did not take place. Again, I hope that we learn from this and other tragedies to identify the signs that will allow us to prevent the unnecessary loss of life. My thoughts and prayers continue to remain with the families affected, along with the entire Sandy Hook community, end quote. And on a related, different but related note, RFK Jr. is said to be announcing his VP pick at the end of this month.

That takes us to one-liners. We'll start off with number one, which is that Representative Matt Gaetz has been subpoenaed to sit for a deposition in a defamation lawsuit, which stems from a girl alleging he had sex with her when she was underage at 17 years old. of documents from prosecutors in Donald Trump's criminal hush money case, prosecutors told a judge on Thursday that they would not be opposed to a 30-day delay in the trial that is currently set to begin on March 25th. A federal judge in California struck down a state law prohibiting the purchase of more than one gun in a 30-day period. After testifying behind closed doors, Hunter Biden has declined to attend a public hearing on March 20th, where he would have to testify again. Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday that if the House keeps the majority next year, they may change the rules governing how to oust a speaker, which currently only requires one member to trigger a vote. Senate Majority

Leader Chuck Schumer called for new elections in Israel during a floor speech on Thursday in which he criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu's handling of the war. And this takes us into not everything is bad, the best segment of the week. The company winning the gold medal this week is Ford Motors. Former U.S. Marine Tyler Vargas Andrews was helping to evacuate people from the Kabul airport in Afghanistan in 2021 when a suicide bomber exploded a device killing 170 Afghans and 13 United States service members. Tyler was lucky to survive, but unfortunately, he lost his right arm and his left leg. So far, he's needed 45 surgeries to repair his injuries, but once he was finally able to get out of the hospital, he bought his dream truck, which was a Code Red

2023 Ford F-150 Raptor. Tyler said it was a gift he had bought for himself for not dying. Fast forward to this past Thanksgiving, he was sitting in traffic, traffic was stopped, he was with his girlfriend. Out of nowhere, a black Nissan is coming up behind him, going really fast, not stopping, and he had no choice, he was stuck in traffic, so the car just slams into his truck. It's estimated that the car was going about 75 miles an hour. His truck was totaled, and he posted about the accident to his Instagram, making light of the situation. He wrote, quote, we are very beat up and we will be in and out of the hospital the next few weeks or months,

but we are alive, fortunately. Closest I've come to dying in a while, with a laughing emoji. So Tyler, having garnered some fans over the years, he had gotten more than 900 comments on this post and his followers, they went to work. They started tagging Ford, tagging Ford's various entities and dealerships until Ford actually noticed. And Ford decided to replace Tyler's truck with a brand new 2024 F-150 Raptor R. So a completely new model, really cool car. And they even invited him to the Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and he got to meet Bill Ford, who showed up as a

surprise. So Tyler posted a picture of his new car on Instagram and he wrote, quote, wow, what a day yesterday was. It almost feels made up. Try to be a good human and affect change positively in a world where you can. End quote. And that was just a summary of his post. He wrote a long thing thanking Ford and Bill Ford, and it was really nice. So that is what I have for you today. It's about time my voice is like going on me. I've been talking for way too long, but thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Tuesday.