UNBIASED - Trump Ballot Eligibility Q&A (e.g. is an insurrection conviction required?), Judge Orders Release of Names in Epstein Case, Trump Asks SCOTUS Not to Intervene in Election Case, and More.

Episode Date: December 22, 2023

1. Q&A/DEEP DIVE: Answering questions about the Colorado Supreme Court decision regarding Trump's ballot ineligibility (Is An Insurrection Conviction Required? How Have Other State's Courts Ruled Re: Trump's Eligibility? Can Electors Vote for Trump Even If Not on Ballot? And More.) 2. QUICK HITTERS: Low Student Loan Repayment Following Pause (18:25); Trump Asks Supreme Court Not to Intervene in Election Interference Case (21:03); Judge Orders List of Names in Epstein Case Unsealed (23:16); Judge Rules Giuliani's Assets Can Be Sought Immediately, Giuliani Declares Bankruptcy (25:47); ACLU Sues Texas Over New Immigration Law (29:49).3. NOT EVERYTHING IS BAD: Good news of the week!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 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 and happy Friday. Also the last episode of the year. I will be giving myself a couple of weeks off to enjoy the holidays and the new year, but you can still keep up with me on social media. In the meantime, I won't be going completely ghost. You can follow me at Jordan is my lawyer on any social media platform. Today we will first be doing sort of a follow-up to the special report that was released on Wednesday. So I finished that episode by telling you if you had any questions, please submit them to me, and I will do a Q&A in the next episode. Today, the Q&A is sort of,

yes, it's a Q&A, but it's also a deep dive because I'll be going into a lot of detail and providing you with a lot of important information surrounding Trump's case out of Colorado. Then we'll do some quick hitters. So we'll talk about student loan repayment, a judge unsealing a list of the names associated with Jeffrey Epstein in that investigation. Donald Trump asking the Supreme Court not to intervene in the federal election interference case. Rudy Giuliani and everything that's going on with him, as well as a new lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging Texas's new immigration law. And of course, it's Friday. We will be finishing with Not Everything is Bad. I have two stories for you today that I'm really excited to share. Before we get into the stories,

let me remind you, please go ahead if you haven't already and leave me a review on whatever platform you listen if you love what you hear. me a review on whatever platform you listen if you love what you hear. And of course, sharing this show with people you know and your friends really helps get my name out there, helps me build my audience. And finally, as my legal disclaimer, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. So without further ado, let's get into today's stories. If you missed Wednesday's special report, you'll want to listen to that to get caught up. It's not necessarily a necessity, but it'll certainly give you some context. It's a 17-minute episode. I basically break down Colorado's Supreme Court ruling regarding Donald Trump's disqualification from the state's ballots. In this segment, though,

I'm going to answer some questions that you guys submitted following that episode so you have a well-rounded understanding of what's really going on. The first question comes from Andrew, and it says, the state of Colorado effectively convicted Trump guilty of a federal crime for charges that had not been brought federally. Could one argue that by doing this, the Colorado Supreme Court committed the crime they convicted him of? By convicting him of a federal crime for insurrection in an attempt to remove him from the ballot, they also removed the will of the people in an attempt to change or alter an election. Okay, so what I'm gathering here is the question is, Trump wasn't

federally convicted of insurrection, yet the Colorado court deemed him to have engaged in insurrection. So by doing that without a conviction, could the Colorado Supreme Court be convicted of interfering in an election? Okay, so no, because you can't charge a court with a crime. You just can't do that. I'll go more into insurrection in the next few questions. But just to answer this most simply, no, you cannot charge the Colorado Supreme Court with a crime. Question number two comes from Greg, and it says, my understanding is that Donald Trump has not been tried and convicted of insurrection. Is this a clear case of innocent until proven guilty? Seems Colorado has deemed Donald Trump guilty. So this is definitely a highlighted issue in the case, right? Shouldn't he be technically

innocent until proven guilty because he has not been proven guilty of insurrection in a court of law? And that is definitely something the Supreme Court will almost certainly consider if they hear this case. But there's multiple arguments at play here, and this is where you'll kind of see my legal analysis and legal backgrounds come into play. So what I want to do is talk about whether or not Donald Trump has to be convicted of insurrection in order to be disqualified under the disqualification clause,

because again, that is definitely something the Supreme Court is going to analyze. So one argument on one hand, the clause does not use the term convicted. The disqualification clause says engaged in insurrection or rebellion, not convicted of insurrection or rebellion. So textually speaking, the word conviction isn't even in the clause. But on top of that, I could also see an argument being made where at the time the disqualification clause was enacted, which was 1898, the federal law that we now have, which creates an offense for insurrection or rebellion, hadn't yet been enacted. It was enacted in 1948, roughly 50 years later. So one could argue that if we're looking to the framers' intent,

they couldn't have possibly intended the clause to require a conviction, because there was no federal crime of insurrection yet. So a conviction wouldn't have even been on their mind when they ratified the disqualification clause. Now, another thing that kind of ties into this conversation and could be used for the same argument, and then I'll get into the other argument where, you know, we could argue a conviction is required. But something else that's important to note is back in the 1800s, when the disqualification clause was enacted, while there wasn't a federal offense for insurrection or rebellion, there was something called the Second Confiscation Act. And what that did is it allowed the government to confiscate

the property of people who had committed insurrection or rebellion. So although those people weren't technically criminally convicted of insurrection or rebellion, they had committed it and that allowed the government to take their property. So it's very possible that when this disqualification clause was enacted, they didn't necessarily intend for a conviction, a criminal conviction, but rather just someone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion. Okay, so those are the arguments as to why a conviction wouldn't be required. And I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the lawyers on both sides here. On the flip side, let's now argue why a conviction would be required. Just because conviction isn't explicitly stated doesn't mean it's not required, right? Given that insurrection is now a federal

crime, it may not have been a federal crime back in 1898 when the Disqualification Clause was enacted, but it is now. Perhaps one argues that this is where due process comes into play. It is now a crime, and therefore, Donald Trump is owed due process as were guaranteed under the Constitution. And this is going to be another big issue in the case. Is Donald Trump being stripped of due process here because a court found that he engaged in insurrection or rebellion without a criminal conviction. One of the dissenting justices on the Colorado Supreme Court bench actually brought this up in his dissent, and it is definitely something the

Supreme Court will not take lightly should they hear the case. So that was a very complicated way to answer the original question, which is, isn't this a clear case of innocent until proven guilty, given that Donald Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection? But the reality is there's no straightforward way to answer this question because the law is so complex. You first have to determine in order to determine whether this is a case of innocent until proven guilty, if a conviction is even required. So that's why you have to run through all of those arguments, see what happens, let the Supreme Court figure out whether a conviction is required, and then go from there. Question number three, this comes from Josh. If Donald Trump's name is

left off the ballot, and if a Republican wins the state of Colorado, can the Republican electors then vote for Trump? It's been a long time since I took government class in high school, but I recall that we actually don't vote for the person, we vote on the electors. I guess what I'm asking is, can Donald Trump technically still get the electoral votes if a Republican wins Colorado and those electoral votes go to Donald Trump. So this is what's known as a faithless elector, an elector who votes for someone other than the elector they have pledged to vote for. There's actually 33 states plus Washington, D.C. that require an elector to take a pledge to vote for a particular candidate. So when one of those electors votes for a candidate

other than the one that they pledged to vote for. This is what's called a faithless elector. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. However, the state can void that elector or those electors votes and even sanction those electors, remove them from their positions, replace them. There's a lot that the state can do to avoid that happening. The Supreme Court actually weighed in on this in 2020 following the 2016 election. There were two cases that were brought to the Supreme Court following the 2016 election, one out of Washington state, the other out of Colorado. And here's what happened. In Washington, three of the electors violated their pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton. And in response, the state fined the electors $1,000 each. The electors challenged their fines in court, argued that the Constitution gives them the right

to vote however they want. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court's rationale was that nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from taking away an elector's voting discretion. And furthermore, state election laws reinforce that a state's elector would vote the same way as its citizens. So what the ruling said is, quote, electors are not free agents. They are to vote for the candidate whom the state's voters have chosen. End quote.

Also during the 2016 election, but this time in Colorado, a Democratic elector did the same, violating his pledge to vote for Hillary Clinton, who had won the popular vote in the state. The elector had his vote voided, he was removed by state officials the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld Colorado's decision in a unanimous vote, relying on its prior decision in the case out of Washington. So yes, an elector could technically try to vote for Trump, even if Trump is not on the ballot or doesn't win, but that elector would very likely face penalties, lose his or her job, even have his or her vote voided, and therefore it wouldn't count anyway. Now, what's new about this year's election, if Trump isn't on the ballot, is that

an elector would be voting, hypothetically, would be voting for a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot in the first place, which hasn't really yet been litigated. And Justice Thomas actually brought up this point in the Colorado case back in 2020. What he said, he posed this hypothetical question as to how far an elector could go. And he said, what would happen if the elector decided to vote for Frodo Baggins, the Lord of the Rings character? And so this was definitely, you know, an idea. What if an elector were to vote for anyone that they wanted? And not that that question was necessarily answered, but that was certainly a concern that Justice Thomas raised. So in short, yes, an

elector could technically try to vote for Trump, but we know what Colorado does in these situations. They've done it in the past, void that electors vote and replace them with someone else. So that would likely happen in this situation too. Question number four, and I'm not sure who wrote this in. It was a Spotify response. But the question is, what was the basis of the lower court's insurrection determination? The lower court took into account, and by the way, the lower court is the court that heard this case before the Supreme Court, the one that determined he did in fact engage in insurrection. The lower court took into account what insurrection meant at the time

of ratification. So back in 1898, when this disqualification clause became a thing. And what the judge said in her ruling is this, quote, the court finds that an insurrection at the time of ratification of the 14th Amendment was understood to refer to any public use of force or threat or force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of law, end quote. And she says she derived this interpretation from historical examples of insurrection prior to the Civil War, dictionary definitions from before the Civil War, judicial opinions during the same time, and other authoritative legal sources, all of which are

cited too if you're interested in reading and learning a bit more. But based on those things, as well as the arguments that the judge heard at trial, the judge's ruling says, quote, the court holds that an insurrection, as used in the disqualification clause, is a public use of force or a threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States, end quote. And then the judge lays out the events on January 6th and why those events fall into this definition according to her judgment. She says, quote, thousands of individuals descended on the Capitol. Many of them were armed with weapons or had prepared for violence in other

ways, such as bringing gas masks, body armor, tactical vests, and pepper spray. The mob was coordinated and demonstrated a unity of purpose. The mob's purpose was to prevent execution of the Constitution so that Trump remained president. Specifically, the mob sought to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes as set out in the 12th Amendment and thereby prevent the peaceful transfer of power. End quote. So that's the insurrection aspect of the lower court's ruling. But the judge determined the definitions of insurrection and engagement separately. So technically, the judge could have found that insurrection existed, but that Trump didn't

engage in the insurrection, right? But in this case, she found that yes, an insurrection happened, and yes, Trump engaged. So let's quickly run through the basis of the engagement determination so we have a full understanding. The court found that the word engagement under the disqualification clause includes incitement to insurrection. And this is something that the judge actually kind of struggled with. She didn't really find the arguments on either side to be super helpful. And she wrote in her ruling, quote, the court does not endeavor to fully define the extent to which certain conduct may qualify as engagement under the disqualification clause. It is sufficient for the court's purposes to find

that engagement includes incitement, end quote. And incitement, according to the court, requires an active affirmative act. And further, the court found that a failure to act does not constitute engagement. So in other words, the judge found that Trump's actions on January 6th, promoting people to go to the Capitol, was an active affirmative act that fell under the engagement definition. Final question, and this question comes from Anna, and she wrote, can you possibly get into more detail about other states' Supreme Court decisions about Trump staying on the ballot? I know you talked about Florida, but what are the other states' opinions? So one thing I want to mention at the outset is that the Colorado case is only one of two cases to actually reach a state Supreme Court.

None of the other cases have made it that far, because remember that a state Supreme Court. None of the other cases have made it that far because remember that the state Supreme Court is the highest court in a state. So some of the other cases are either in the appeals court or even lower than that. So only two cases have made it to a state Supreme Court. But let's talk about the other states' decisions. So Florida, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Arizona all dismissed the lawsuits in those states. Basically, the reason was a lack of standing. The plaintiffs didn't have a right to sue. They didn't have a legal ground to stand on.

In Michigan, the Court of Appeals just ruled last week that it won't stop Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot. This ruling was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court this week. So the Michigan Supreme Court may very well hear this case, but we're not sure what will happen with it at this point. In Minnesota, and this is the case, Minnesota's case is the other one that made it to the state Supreme Court. The Minnesota Supreme Court just issued their ruling last month, and the court held that Minnesota's Republican Party can put anyone on its primary ballot because it is, quote, an internal party election to serve internal party purposes. But the court did say the challenge could be brought again in the context of the general election. So their whole rationale there is that because the primary is to determine the Republican candidate and that sort of exists within the Republican Party, that it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things until it gets to the general election in which the actual presidential candidate is determined.

And that is where we derive our president from, of course. And other states currently have cases still pending. A lot of states actually, including Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. There might be a few others as well, I believe in total, including all of the cases I just mentioned, there were about 27 cases brought challenging Trump's eligibility. So that answers your questions. And with that, let's take a quick break right here. When we come back, we'll hit on the quick hitters and one the years-long pause on loan repayments student loan repayments that is expired in october yet only 60 percent of borrowers made a monthly payment by mid-november

this means that 40 percent of borrowers did not make a payment when payments resumed so how does this number size up to the number of borrowers making payments make a payment when payments resumed. So how does this number size up to the number of borrowers making payments before the pause? Because that's really what we want to compare it to, right? According to the Department of Education, roughly 26% of borrowers who owed a payment in October 2019 had failed to make a payment by the middle of the next month. So what that means is that we saw about a 14% increase in those that did not make a payment as compared to the same time frame in 2019 before the pandemic, before the pause. In a blog post from the Department of Education, the U.S. Undersecretary of Education wrote, quote, while most borrowers have already made their first payment,

others will need more time. Some are confused or overwhelmed about their options. To give borrowers breathing room while they work student loan payments back into their monthly budgets, we created the 12-month on-ramp period. Until next September, borrowers will be protected from the harshest consequences of missed payments, such as delinquency, default, and mandatory collections. End quote. Notably, interest will still be accruing at this time. Also, the data from this October number left out the borrowers who did not owe a payment, either because they were still in school, they were in a grace period, or they had some other type of deferment or forbearance. The data also left out the borrowers who were recently retroactively granted a forbearance. This came from the Biden administration

and was due to billing mistakes or other loan servicing errors. The data did include, however, the roughly 3 million borrowers whose income is low enough that they owe $0 monthly payments under the Biden administration's new save plan. number that I gave you, which means that I believe, and I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe 27 million borrowers missed the October payment. So those 3 million who qualify for a $0 monthly payment isn't really a huge chunk of that number in the grand scheme of things, but it's at least good to know what data is being included and what's not. The second quick hitter I have for you is that Trump's legal team has asked the Supreme Court not to intervene in the federal election interference case. As we know, last week, Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to get involved and answer the

question of whether Donald Trump is immune from prosecution based on presidential immunity. Typically, what we would see happen is that the lower court issues their decision that Trump is not immune, which in this case happened about two weeks ago. It would then go to the appellate court. So Trump would appeal. Since he was the losing party, he would appeal to the appellate court. They would issue their decision. And then from there, whatever party was the losing party would appeal to the Supreme Court. That's the hierarchy. But here, Jack Smith didn't really want to waste any time with this case. So he asked the Supreme Court to get down to the bottom of it without waiting for see this case expedited. Their argument relies on precedent that says traditionally cases follow the typical appeals

process, that this is sort of an unprecedented move. His legal team also argued that a question of such historic and political weight justified a, quote, cautious and deliberative consideration, not a breakneck speed, end quote. Another argument that the Trump team put forth was based on the fact that Jack Smith, who won at the lower court level, right, because the decision was against Trump, he has no standing to request review at the Supreme Court because he won. Typically, it's the losing party who requests review, but in this case, it was Jack Smith who asked the Supreme Court to take a look at the case. From here, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not they will get involved.

They can always decline to hear it now. Let's say they do decline to hear it now. They can let it play out in the appellate court, which is set for oral arguments on January 9th, and then perhaps hear an appeal after that. So once the appellate court, which is set for oral arguments on January 9th, and then perhaps hear an appeal after that. So once the appellate court renders their decision, whatever party loses can then petition the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, and perhaps the Supreme Court agrees to hear it then if they don't now. The third quick hitter is that a federal judge has ordered the unsealing of documents naming people involved with Jeffrey Epstein and the

Epstein investigation. Now, I want to clear the air with this story because I think the assumption in a lot of people is that this list of names is primarily his associates, Jeffrey Epstein's associates, when it's not. There are some associates named, but it's certainly not the majority of them. So let's talk about this a little bit. These documents, first of all, are part of a settled lawsuit, which alleged that Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated the abuse of one of Epstein's victims. As I said, that lawsuit was settled. And following the settlement in 2017, the judge indicated in multiple different hearings in 2021 and 2022 that the names in the case would

not remain sealed indefinitely. So we knew this was coming, we just didn't know when until now. So what will the list entail? While this document does contain roughly 180 names, most of the names belong to either victims, investigators, or journalists who covered the case. Yes, some are associates, but again, like I said, not the majority. Some names have already been unsealed by another court in the past. A good number of the people have already been identified in the press or the public. And also, not all names on the list are going to be unsealed.

But most of those people who are having their names remain sealed are victims who don't want to be identified. So that's what we're looking at in the grand scheme of things. I just don't want you to think this is going to be a list of 150, 180 people that, you know, were associates of Jeffrey Epstein because that's just not the reality. Now, the judge's order did allow for a two-week delay for anyone whose name is on the list and wants to appeal the judge's order and get their names sealed. But as of now, the list will be unsealed on January 1st. If you want to get an idea of who is on this list, I do have the order linked for you in the sources, which you can always find in the podcast description. It doesn't have the names of the individuals, of course, because the names are still under

seal, but it does provide a description of each person's involvement and what justifies the unsealing or why they'll remain under seal. So you can get a feel for the number of associates that are on the list versus, you know, the number of victims, so on and so forth. Next, if you're subscribed to my newsletter, you know that a federal jury awarded two Georgia election workers $148 million because of Rudy Giuliani's defamatory statements and infliction of emotional distress. Now, the final terms of the deal ended up being $146 million for the actual verdict and roughly $230,000 for attorney's fees. In this case, where the defendant doesn't necessarily have the cash to pay the full

judgment, the plaintiffs can go after his assets and wages, and this also includes future wages. Typically, the women would have to wait 30 days to claim his assets in other states. But in this case, the judge ruled that the women could start collecting as early as this past Wednesday. The judge's rationale was that Rudy Giuliani has a history of being sort of uncooperative in litigation and concealing his assets. So she feared he would do the same as the appeals process plays out. The judge's order said in part,

quote, notably, though he, meaning Giuliani, speaks publicly about this case, Giuliani has never denied that he has taken steps to hide his assets from judgment creditors and has offered no affirmative pledge that he will take no steps to do so, including in the next 30 days. End quote. Giuliani's attorneys argued that if he had intentions of absconding with or fraudulently transferring assets, he has had ample time to do it or he has ample time to do it, but the judge did not agree. I do quickly want to address the news that the women filed another lawsuit against him the other day because some of you had questions about that and why they would do that. The reason that that lawsuit women filed another lawsuit against him the other day because some of you had questions about that and why they would do that. The reason that that lawsuit was filed was to prevent him

from making any defamatory statements in the future and doubling down on his claims that these women had committed ballot fraud. This new suit is more of a precautionary measure to prevent him from making more harmful statements in the future. It's not necessarily for more money. And this is turning into a deep dive, but that's okay. Some of you were also wondering how the judge could find him liable and not the jury. In some cases, the judge does determine guilt, and then the jury is responsible for the penalty phase of the trial. In this case, the judge entered what's called a default judgment against Giuliani. So sometimes if a party isn't complying in a case, whether it's ignoring document requests or failing to file a motion by a certain deadline or, you know,

delaying the case in any way, the opposing party can request what's called a default judgment against that person. And that is what happened here. So Giuliani wasn't complying with discovery requests. He was causing some delays in the case. And the judge entered a default judgment against him. Essentially, what that means is he was found liable for the allegations against him by way of not complying in the case.

And that may sound crazy to you, but that is just the way court rules work. Default judgments are just a thing. As a final note, Giuliani filed for bankruptcy in New York yesterday, which was expected to happen. But by filing, he can now ask the bankruptcy court to excuse his debt to the women. That doesn't mean it'll happen. It just means that he can. In his bankruptcy filing, he reported debts between $100 and $500 million, assets up to $10 million, nearly a million in unpaid taxes, hundreds of thousands owed to lawyers and accountants, and multiple other lawsuits pending against him. Giuliani's political advisor issued a statement following the filing, which said, quote, this filing should surprise no one. No person could have reasonably believed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be able to pay such a high punitive amount. Chapter 11 will afford Mayor Giuliani the opportunity and time

to pursue an appeal while providing transparency for his finances under the supervision of the bankruptcy court to ensure all creditors are treated equally and fairly throughout this process, end quote. And the fifth and final quick hitter, as expected, the ACLU has sued the state of Texas over its new immigration law, also known as SB4. If you listened to Tuesday's episode, you know that SB4 is a new law that allows law enforcement to arrest migrants who cross the border between lawful ports of entry, and it also gives judges and magistrates the authority to remove those migrants back to the country they entered from, which is almost always Mexico. The ACLU said that they were going to be filing a lawsuit once this law was signed.

The law was signed on Monday, and they followed through filing the lawsuit earlier this week. The lawsuit argues that SB4 is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law. What does this mean? Well, we have something in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause, and it basically says that the federal Constitution takes precedence over state laws and state constitutions. It prohibits states from getting in the way of, you know, the federal government exercising its powers under the Constitution, and it prevents states from taking over any function that exclusively belongs to the government.

In this case, what the complaint says is that immigration is up to the federal government, which the Supreme Court has held in the past. The Supreme Court has held that immigration is, you know, it's in the hands of the federal government. And so what the complaint says is Texas cannot assume the federal government's function of managing immigration. And that's the basis of the lawsuit in a nutshell. You're more than welcome to read it. It's in the sources section. It's only about 20 pages, but that's what you need to know. And finally, let's get to not everything is bad. My favorite segment where I just leave you feeling a little bit lighter going into the weekend, especially now going into the holidays and just reminding you that

not everything is bad in the world. The first one is a personal one, and it's one that you guys helped me out with. I was finally able to give my landscaper Joe the money that we raised for him. He came to do the work around my house on Thursday, just yesterday, and I was able to gift him with the donations. He was so appreciative. He was so thankful. And I really just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for helping him and covering the cost of his stolen tools and helping him out this holiday season. It really, really meant a lot. The second not everything is bad story I have for you comes from TikTok. I have said it before and I'll say it again. TikTok can definitely be a negative place, but it can also bring some good too. This teacher, she teaches at a Title I school in Las Vegas,

which is basically the school of more than 3,000 kids who qualify for free and reduced lunch because they come from low-income families. And the school has this program called Wishmas, which they started about 10 years ago. And it's where the students can share a holiday gift that they want and the reason why they want it. And then the school's teacher and staff will try to fulfill as many wishes as they can using their own money. This year, one of the teachers took to TikTok to share about Wishmas and read some of the wishes from her kids because she was seriously just like moved from the wishes because they weren't, I mean, these are coming from kids who are in need of a lot of things and some of the wishes were looking out for other people or just really sweet, innocent wishes. And so she was crying in this video, just saying how moved she was by the wishes. And she posted this video to TikTok, read some of the wishes, which

were things like a pair of black slippers to keep my feet warm. One student wished for everyone else's wishes to come true. One student wanted a big bag of peanut M&Ms. One student wished for everyone else's wishes to come true. One student wanted a big bag of peanut M&Ms. One student wanted a Dutch Bros gift card because it makes their day better. And the teacher added different ways to donate on her profile, whether that was through an Amazon wishlist or just Venmo, you could donate some money. And within hours, people had fulfilled more than 300 items on the Amazon wish list alone. And that wasn't that's not even including the monetary donations on Venmo. The principal of the school said that by the time the final donations are tallied and distributed,

she thinks that all 1100 kids who submitted a wish will have their wish fulfilled. So I thought that that was really sweet. And that is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I just want to wish you a happy holidays and an even happier and more prosperous new year. I feel so blessed to have you guys here as part of this community.

I'm so thankful for the support you guys have given me this year. And I am so excited to see what 2024 brings. All the love to you. And I will talk to you soon.