UNBIASED - Title 42 Expires, The Durham Report, DeSantis Signs Anti-DEI Legislation, FL Teacher Investigated, and More.

Episode Date: May 16, 2023

1. Number of Migrants Attempting to Cross Mexico/U.S. Border Drops Following Title 42 Expiration (1:41)2. U.S. Attorney, John Durham, Releases Report on FBI's Probe Into Ties Between Donald Trump and Russia's Interference in 2016 Election (4:12)3. Supreme Court Changes it's Mind Regarding Alabama Inmate, Kenneth Smith's, Execution (13:30)4. Governor DeSantis Signs Anti-DEI Legislation Into Law (19:59)5. Florida Teacher Being Investigated After Showing Her Students Disney Movie Featuring Gay Character (25:49)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. 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 Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy Tuesday. I have five stories for you today. The first is going to be about a drop in the number of border crossings since the expiration of title 42, which was a bit unexpected. The second story is the announcement of the end of the probe of the FBI's investigation into Trump and Russia. The third story is an interesting turn of events in a Supreme Court execution case. The fourth story is recent legislation out of Florida that deals with

diversity and inclusion in the school system. And the last story is about a Florida teacher under investigation for showing her students a Disney movie that had a gay character in it. So a lot of good stories today, I must say, and I'm pretty excited for this episode. Before we jump into the stories, let me just remind you to please give me a review on whichever platform you listen. It really helps support my show. And of course, please share my show with your friends, family, colleagues, whoever you feel is an open-minded, rational individual that would appreciate nonpartisan news. So without further ado, let's jump right in. In a surprise turn of events, border crossings have dropped since the expiration of Title 42.

This is according to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who said that Border Patrol agents have seen a 50% drop in the number of migrants crossing the border since Thursday. He said that although Title 42 is still in its early days of expiration, there were 6,300 border encounters on Friday and 4,200 border encounters on Saturday, which is a 50% drop from what Border Patrol experienced the week prior. With that said, it's important to note that the week prior to Title 42's expiration, which is what these numbers are compared to, saw some of the largest numbers that they had ever seen. So when they say it's a 50% drop from what Border Patrol experienced the week before, yes, it's a drop. However, when you take

into consideration the height of the numbers from that week, it's not that crazy. However, it is surprising considering the expectation when Title 42 expired was that you were going to have this influx, this surge, if you will, of border crossing attempts. So according to Mayorkas, the drop is due to the criminal penalties for migrants who illegally enter the United States. Now it's a little bit different than what it was under Title 42. So under Title 42, officials could turn away migrants without an asylum process, but it didn't impose any penalties. Now, however, if migrants don't either schedule an immigration appointment or first seek protection

from the countries that they passed through on their way to the border, they're not allowed to try again for another five years. And that's even through on their way to the border, they're not allowed to try again for another five years. And that's even through legal means. So it's just an outright five-year ban. So let's say a migrant tries to cross now, they're turned away, they didn't seek an appointment, they didn't seek protection from the countries they passed through. Now, if they go to try again in six months or even four years through a legal route, they can't. So that is a main deterrent. And Mallorca said that this policy was very clearly communicated. So he thinks that that is what's contributing to the decrease in numbers. However, he did reiterate that it's still very

early. It's too early to tell whether we'll see a surge because that could very well happen now or in the near future. But for now, those numbers are lower than what they were the week prior to Title 42's expiration. So that's what I have for you on that story. Now let's move into the second story, which is that on Monday, U.S. Attorney John Durham, who was leading the investigation into possible FBI misconduct into the FBI's probe of ties between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign has announced the end of the investigation and he released a 316 page report detailing his findings of the probe. Now, I of course am not going to read you all 316 pages, but me being me always citing to my sources, If you guys do want to read it for yourself, it is linked on my website.

Jordan is my lawyer.com. However, I am going to read you just a little excerpt of it as I typically do, but let's first talk about who John Durham is. And then we'll talk a little bit about the crossfire hurricane investigation, which is the code name that was given to the investigation that the FBI was leading. And then we'll dive into the findings of the report. So John Durham is a lawyer. He's known for handling high profile sensitive investigations

into both Democratic and Republican administrations. And here are some of the investigations that he's been involved with. So in 1999, he was appointed to investigate corruption surrounding the use of FBI informants in Boston. that he's been involved with. So in 1999, he was appointed to investigate corruption surrounding the use of FBI informants in Boston. He was then later appointed to investigate the CIA's destruction of videotapes of detainee interrogations in 2008. And then in 2009, he was appointed to lead the Department of Justice's investigation into the legality of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the torture

of detainees. In 2017, he became a prosecutor for the Justice Department, specifically the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut. He was appointed by the Trump administration. During that time is when he was appointed to serve as special counsel in the matter at hand, the matter that we are discussing in this story. He resigned from that position in 2021 when the Biden administration took over, but he remained as special counsel in this particular matter. So now let's talk about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Again, like I said, that was the code name that was given to the investigation that was undertaken by the FBI in 2016 that looked into potential links between Russian officials and associates of Donald Trump and whether those individuals associated with his presidential campaign were coordinating with the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the presidential election. So the FBI's investigation was officially opened on July 31st, 2016. It was then taken over by the special counsel investigation, and that special counsel investigation took place between 2017 and 2019, which ended with the Mueller report,

which you may remember. So that's where special counsel Robert Mueller concluded that Russian interference occurred and that there were substantial links between the Russians and the Trump campaign, but that the evidence available to the investigators didn't establish that the Trump campaign had necessarily conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. So following that Mueller report, in 2019, Attorney General Barr appointed John Durham as the special attorney to the Attorney General to specifically conduct a preliminary review into certain matters related to the 2016 presidential election campaigns. And this was meant to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the matter. So the following questions were some of which were to be analyzed in the

investigation by attorney Durham. And I'm going to simplify the questions because the way that they're set forth in the report is quite confusing. There's just a lot of verbiage there, a lot of unnecessary language. So to simplify, some of the questions were the following. One, was there adequate predication for the FBI to open the Crossfire Hurricane investigation? Two, was the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation consistent with how the FBI handled other intelligence it had received in the past concerning attempts by foreign interests to influence the Clinton and other campaigns. So in other words, did the FBI treat this information fairly? Third, did the FBI properly consider other highly significant intelligence it received at virtually the same time, which related to a purported

Clinton campaign to vilify Donald Trump. So those were just some of the questions that were to be answered in this investigation done by attorney Durham. Again, if you want to review all of the questions, there's only three or four more, but I do have the full report linked for you on my website. Now let's get into the findings of the report. So in short, the report basically concluded that the FBI should have never launched its investigation into connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. And it cites two comparisons of how the FBI handled investigations concerning Hillary Clinton versus how it handled the investigations concerning

Donald Trump. And what the report says is in part, it says, quote, unlike the FBI opening a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry, issued any taskings, employed any analytical personnel, or produced any analytical products in connection with this information, end quote. And that specifically referenced highly significant intelligence that the FBI received from a, quote, trusted foreign source pointing to a Clinton campaign plan to vilify Trump by tying him to Vladimir

Putin so as to divert attention from her own concerns relating to her use of a private email server, end quote. So basically what the report is saying is that the FBI also received highly significant intelligence pertaining to Hillary Clinton's campaign and her attempts to vilify Donald Trump to take the attention off of her and her emails. But yet the FBI did nothing with that information and did the most with Donald Trump's information. So that's what it says in regard to that. Now, I'm going to read just a summarized excerpt of the report that will help you understand the report in its entirety without necessarily having to read all 316 pages. So what it says is this, based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the department and the FBI

failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained a crossfire hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for special counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was a significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents. The department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the

motivations of those providing them, even when, at about the same time, the director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence. In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. We therefore believe it is important to

examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions. So that's the short excerpt I wanted to read to you. Now, obviously, the report goes into much, much, much more detail surrounding each piece of evidence, each leak, each person that, you know, tipped off the FBI to something, one thing or another. It goes into a lot of information. I mean, after all, this was a four-year investigation, so there was a lot that was looked into and analyzed. So I do recommend if you want to know more specifically what, you know, what it found, definitely read that on my website. But those are the findings in short.

Despite these findings, Durham didn't recommend any new charges be brought against anyone. He didn't recommend any policy changes even, saying that the answer is not the creation of new rules, but a renewed fidelity to the old. In an interesting turn of events, the Supreme Court had to reverse course on an execution matter. So this is an interesting situation. In November of last year, the Supreme Court of the United States

allowed Kenneth Smith's execution to proceed. And that night, state officials attempted to execute him, but failed. And now the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed course on its prior decision. So Kenneth Smith was convicted of killing Darlene Sennett in 1989. He and an accomplice were hired by her husband, who happened to be a Christian minister of all things, and Darlene was stabbed multiple times and beaten with a blunt object, according to reports. Darlene's husband ultimately committed suicide, but Kenneth Smith and his accomplice were both sentenced to death. Smith's accomplice was executed in 2010, and Smith was set to be executed last November, but it didn't happen. So this is how the sequence of events goes. Last August,

Smith files this lawsuit alleging that Alabama's execution protocol would subject him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. And this claim was based on problems that Alabama officials had encountered in the past when executing inmates. The lawsuit wasn't to challenge the death penalty itself, but rather he wanted to use an alternative method of execution, specifically nitrogen hypoxia. Now, nitrogen hypoxia has already been approved by Alabama's legislature, but it's never been used. Smith says that nitrogen hypoxia would substantially reduce the risk of aborted executions or pain. Nitrogen hypoxia is essentially where they place a mask

over the inmate's face and nitrogen gas is fed through the mask, and it ultimately deprives the body of oxygen, then May goes unconscious and dies. It's a colorless, odorless gas, and on its face, it seems to be a pretty painless method of execution. Ultimately, the cause of death is asphyxiation, but compared to the other methods of execution, it is said, although it hasn't been tested or attempted, it's said to be one of the least painful ways to go. So he files this lawsuit and he says, I want to be executed by way of nitrogen hypoxia, not, not lethal injection. Well, the judge dismisses the lawsuit, but on the day of his execution, November 17th, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals revives the case. And they say, okay, you know what? We'll give this a shot. You can

file an amended complaint. And in the meantime, we'll stay your execution. Well, the state of Alabama immediately appeals this decision to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court the same day allows the execution to go forward. They said, we're not going to hear this case, but his execution cannot be stayed. But they didn't actually address the issue of choosing nitrogen hypoxia over lethal injection. They just lifted the stay that the appellate court had put in place. So the execution is attempted that night and Alabama correction officials can't place the line. So whenever an inmate is executed

via the lethal injection, they have to find either a central line or an intravenous line that, you know, the lethal injection can flow through, but they couldn't find a line. So they call off the execution at 11 PM. And at this point, Smith is like, I tried to tell you this is cruel and unusual. I need to be executed another way. And he wins the case at the lower level. And the court in ruling this way said that because the state had approved use of nitrogen gas as a means of execution, Smith can choose that method if he wants. Well, the state of Alabama then petitions the Supreme Court of the United States again, saying that even though the legislature approved the use of nitrogen gas, the state hasn't yet finalized the protocols and therefore it's not readily available to use. And the state

cites to Supreme Court precedent from a 2015 case that said if an inmate wants to challenge a method of execution, that inmate has to show that not only is there a feasible alternative, but that feasible alternative can be readily implemented. And the state of Alabama says in this case, it can't be readily implemented because we don't have a protocol yet. But on Monday, just yesterday, the Supreme Court said, no, listen, we're not going to review this case. We're not going to grant certiorari, but we are going to let the lower court ruling stand. And he can choose nitrogen hypoxia if he wants to. The two dissenting justices in this decision were Justice Thomas and Justice Salido.

And what they said is this. They said, quote, when the question is whether the Eighth Amendment requires a state to replace its chosen method with an alternative method in executing a plaintiff, it is simply irrelevant, without more, that the state's statute authorizes the use of the alternative method that is to take place sometime in the indefinite future. End quote. In other words, what they're saying is this doesn't only boil down to whether there's a feasible alternative. We also have to ask whether the feasible alternative can be readily implemented, and in this case it can't, and therefore he doesn't have the choice. But nonetheless, the majority said no, the lower court's ruling stands, and now

his execution date will be rescheduled, and he will be executed by nitrogen hypoxia, which means the state of Alabama is going to have to get their protocol down before that can happen. But it'll be interesting to see, you know, what happens. Not only is this case interesting because he filed this lawsuit saying it was cruel and unusual and, you know, Alabama's had all these problems. The Supreme Court lets it go forward and his execution is botched. What are the chances? And then he gets to go again to say, look, I told you so essentially, and now he's allowed to choose. So very interesting situation and it'll be the first execution that happens by way of nitrogen hypoxia. So that'll be interesting

as well because it's been a while since the United States has seen any new method of execution be implemented, right? For the longest time, it's been lethal injection or electric chair. Firing squad had a short little stint there, but it hasn't been used in forever. So it's been a long time since a new method has been introduced. So with that, let's get into our last two stories, which both come out of Florida. The first is that on Monday, Governor DeSantis signed legislation that in part bars Florida state universities from spending state or federal funds to promote, support, or maintain any programs that advocate for diversity, equity,

and inclusion, or promote or engage in political or social activism. Now, where does that language come from? Because it's heavy language. There was a lot that I just said, but where does that come from? So Florida has this law called Florida Educational Equity Act, and it prohibits any sort of discrimination in the educational system based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or even marital status. So let's run through a few examples of what this law prohibits. So for one, admission criteria to a program or a course in the state of Florida cannot have the effect of redistricting access based on a person's race, color, sex, etc. Another example is that all public education classes

must be available to all students without regard to a person's race, color, sex, etc. Another example, the last example I'll give, is that it's considered discrimination to subject students to instruction that supports, promotes, advances, or compels the student to believe that members of one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex. By that same token, it's also considered discrimination to subject students to instruction that supports, promotes, advances, or compels the student to believe that a person's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined because of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex.

So those are just a few examples to give you the general gist of the FEEA, which is the acronym for the law. But basically what this new legislation says, the one that Governor DeSantis just signed into law on Monday, is that a state university or associated organization cannot spend any funds for programs or campus activities that violate the FEEA. Now, at a news conference on Monday, when DeSantis was asked about this new legislation, he said, quote, this is better viewed as standing for discrimination, exclusion, and indoctrination,

and that has no place in our public institutions. If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to UC Berkeley. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but for us, with our tax dollars, we want to focus on the classical mission of what a university is supposed to be. What this does is reorient our universities back to their traditional mission, and part of a traditional mission is to treat people as individuals, not to try to divvy them up based

on any type of superficial characteristics, end quote. And you know, the story got me thinking that I think a critical question arises when the need or desire for legislation like this comes about, because the issue may not lie with the actual lessons that are taught or the concepts that are being taught per se, but the issue may lie with how it's being taught, right? Because when you're in school, particularly elementary through middle school, even into high school, you're under this belief that what you learn in school is always the truth, that teachers teach the truth.

They teach the facts. You don't realize at that young age that even teachers have their own views. They have their own opinions. And these views and opinions are instilled into lessons. I didn't realize this until I got to law school. When I got to law school, I was finally able to differentiate between the opinions of my professors and the actual facts that, you know, happened throughout history. But I think the problem again is that when certain concepts are taught, depending on who the concepts are taught by, you're not going to always get all aspects of that concept. Rather, you're only going to get the aspects that your teacher finds to be important. And that's going to vary depending

on who your teacher is. So I think the important question to ask ourselves is, is it the lesson or is it the way the lesson is being taught? If each teacher had a nonpartisan curriculum that they had to follow, would that help fix the divide between what each side wants? Just something that I was thinking about and I would absolutely love your input on, so I made that issue this week's Spotify poll. So every episode I put a new poll on Spotify. Unfortunately, I don't have a way to ask my Apple listeners, but for you guys that listen on Spotify every week, I'll do a poll. Sometimes it's, you know, what was your favorite story from the episode? Other times it's more of a specific question. And this week I asked you

guys a question about that issue in particular. So definitely give your, give your input on that. And also please note that these laws that I'm referencing in this story, specifically SB 266 and HB 931, do much more than what I just went over. I just went over the highlights that the news media and outlets are focused on. So as always, I do have both of these laws linked on my website, as well as the bill summaries, which are typically much easier to review than the actual legislation. So take advantage of that and read through it to see what other things that these laws do. Because sometimes it's easy to read the

headlines and say, oh my gosh, this law just prohibited the critical race theory major in colleges. But when you actually read it, yes, it may do that indirectly, but it actually does a lot more than just that. So I always encourage that. Now, another piece of news out of Florida is that a fifth grade teacher is under investigation by the Florida Department of Education after she showed her students a Disney movie called Strange World, which is a 2022 animated movie that features a gay character. This investigation stems from Florida's HB 1557, which bans the instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity in grades K through 12. Strange World was released by Disney last year. It tells

the story of a family of explorers, and it features, again, Disney's first ever out gay character. So according to the teacher, who is a first year teacher, she showed her students this movie following a day of standardized testing to give them a brain break, but also wanted to show them a movie that was related to the things that they were learning about in school, and she felt that this was a good option. So she made a TikTok video about all of this so she could tell her side of the story. I linked the TikTok video on my website so you can go ahead and watch that if you want, but I'm going to break down everything she said. So she says that on the day in question, the class was made up of half of her students and half of another teacher's students, which are called split students. And she was told by her mentors and fellow teachers that the method

of approval when it comes to showing movies to your students was obtaining a signed parental permission slip from the parents. And she says she did this. She's had it since the beginning of the year. And from what I gathered, it's not a new permission slip for every movie, but rather a permission slip at the beginning of the year that allows them to watch PG rated movies. And the teacher says that she only had one objection from one parent, and that objection was to not show the Buzz Lightyear movie, but that that student whose parents objected was no longer in her class anymore. So as far as she was concerned, she didn't have any objections.

The reason that she was turned in was because one of the split students that was in her class that day was the daughter of a school board member. And she says that that particular school board member is, quote, currently on a rampage to get every form of representation out of our schools, end quote. And the school board member reports her to the Department of Education for indoctrination. The teacher says that the reason she chose this movie is because it was related to the curriculum, that her students were learning about earth systems and ecosystems and how plants, humans, and animals all interact with each other. And her thought process was, quote,

this movie is perfect. What better way to showcase all these standards along with huge lessons, overcoming differences, spreading kindness, communication, and chasing your dreams, a lot of which is part of Florida's best standards in schools. And the movie is about a family of explorers. So they're, you know, exploring the earth and the ecosystem or whatever. So she just thought it fit in well with what she was teaching. The parent that reported her says that it's not the teacher's job to impose their beliefs upon a child, whether it's religious, sexual orientation, gender identity, any of the above. Allowing movies such as this assist teachers in opening a door for conversations that have no place in our classrooms. Barbie says that her showing the movie to her students had nothing to do with the LGBTQ

message, but she actually has had plenty of students approach her so far this year telling her they're part of the LGBTQ community. And she says, great, that's good for you. Like, I'm here to support you, but I'm not here to teach you about it. But she says that she does find it ironic that the LGBTQ aspect of the movie that she showed her children had a total scene time of just over two minutes. And it was only a few lines out of the movie that she showed her children had a total scene time of just over two minutes. And it was only a few lines out of the movie where the character was saying that they had a crush on someone of the same sex. Yet the parents in the movie, which is a heterosexual

couple, kiss many times throughout the movie. And that was never brought up as an issue. But yet it's an issue that the character is just voicing a crush on someone of the same sex. So the investigation is currently in step three of a seven-step process, which takes place whenever a teacher has a complaint filed and the process is meant to determine if a teacher who committed misconduct should receive any sort of discipline against their certificate. So how it works is that a complaint is filed and then it'll be determined whether a case should be opened. Obviously, if a case doesn't need to be opened, it's done there. But if it is determined that a

case should be opened, which is what happened in this case, then an investigation will take place. And that's step three. And at the investigation phase, which is where this case currently is, the victims and witnesses can be interviewed this case currently is, the victims and witnesses can be interviewed and the teacher is given an opportunity to provide an explanation. From here, legal counsel, so an attorney, will review the findings of the investigation and determine if, you know, there's cause to take action against the teacher's certificate. The burden of proof at that point is clear and convincing evidence. So any decision to recommend a finding a probable cause against a teacher's certificate must be supported by clear

and convincing evidence that misconduct occurred and violated a statute or rule. In this case, obviously that statute would be House Bill 1557. At that point, the commissioner will review the findings and determine if there's probable cause. If probable cause is found, the teacher at a maximum can have their certificate suspended or revoked. The teacher would have an opportunity to appeal the decision, but that's what the process looks like from this point forward. So I'll keep you updated should there be more developments, but I thought this was an interesting story to bring to your attention. But that's the end of this episode. Don't forget to check out the sources on my website and please share this episode with the ones that you love and I will talk to you on Friday.