UNBIASED - Trump Files Arguments in Ballot Disqualification Case, January 6th Documents Allegedly Deleted Before GOP Takeover, SCOTUS Rules in Biden's Favor in Border Case, and More.

Episode Date: January 23, 2024

1. DEEP DIVE: Donald Trump Files Brief with Supreme Court in Ballot Disqualification Case; The Arguments He'll Rely on (1:25)2. QUICK HITTERS: Judge Implies Trump's Federal Election Interference Trial Will Have Delayed Start (19:25); New Report Shows January 6 Documents Were Deleted and Encrypted Before GOP Took Over (21:20); Alec Baldwin Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter (22:20); Netanyahu Rejects Hamas' Proposal to Free Hostages (23:56)3. ONE LINERS *New Segment*(25:26)4. SCOTUS: Supreme Court Says Biden Admin Can Cut Razor Wire at US/Mexico Border, Agrees to Hear Death Row Case, Rejects Devon Archer Appeal (26:39)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Watch this episode on YouTube.Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. I'm your host, Jordan, and I hope you enjoy the show. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is January 23rd, 2024. This episode was recorded yesterday on the 22nd at about 5 p.m. Eastern time. And today I have four segments for you. So one is a new one. I would love your thoughts at the end of the episode. But we're first going to do a deep dive, which we're used to. Today, specifically, the deep dive is into Donald Trump's brief that he

filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday in the ballot disqualification case. Then we'll get into quick hitters, then the new segment called one-liners, and we'll finish with some happenings out of the Supreme Court. I'm still looking for a name for this segment, but you guys love when I talk about the Supreme Court, so I know this is a segment that's going to stick. But they released some orders on Monday, so one case involving the border. They rejected some cases. They rejected some cases, they accepted some cases. So I do want to talk about all of those. And that'll be today's episode. Before we get into the episode, let me give you the reminder I give every episode, which is just that if you love what you hear and you haven't already, please go ahead and leave my show a

review, whether it's on your favorite podcast platform that you always listen to me on, or you just go ahead and give me a thumbs up on YouTube. That's always great too. Let's get into today's stories, shall we? Number one being that Donald Trump filed his brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday in the ballot disqualification case. Now, I didn't get a chance to cover this story on Friday's episode for a few reasons. One being that it's 60 pages. I couldn't have reviewed it and written out everything I needed to say in time for the episode, but also because this is such an important case, just in the sense that it's uncharted territory. And I think it's really important for people to understand what's going on from a legal perspective, because a lot of people are so quick to take sides on this issue without even really understanding the legal basis or the legal

arguments on either side. And my whole goal with this platform is to make everyone as informed as possible. So that is exactly what I'm going to do. Now, I do want to start out by just clarifying what a brief is versus the actual appeal because the Colorado Supreme Court gave Donald Trump until January 4th to appeal the case. He filed his petition for writ of certiorari on January 3rd, which is the actual request for the court to hear the case. And then the court granted that petition

and that's when the briefs come in. So the briefs don't get filed until the court actually agrees to hear a case. Now the brief and the appeal are a little bit different in the sense that the petition for writ of certiorari, which is the request for the court to hear the case, really lays out all of the reasons why the court should hear the case. In this case, Trump's legal team argued that the issues presented are of exceptional importance and they urgently require the court's resolution. So that's ultimately, you know, the court agreed. But the brief is different in the sense that the brief lays out all of the arguments that are going to be set forth by each side. So there's been a lot

of speculation as to what, you know, which arguments is Trump going to present? What are they going to focus on? And now we actually know. Now the other side, Anderson, has until January 31st to file their reply brief. So we don't know exactly what they're going to say in response to everything Trump set forth in his brief. But we do have an idea just based on how the Colorado Supreme Court ruled. So you'll notice throughout this discussion, I'll talk about Trump's arguments, but then how the Colorado Supreme Court ruled differently on each of the respective points. So the first argument from Trump is that the president is not an officer of the respective points. So the first argument from Trump is that the president is not an officer of the United States. The second argument is that Trump did not engage

in insurrection. The third is that Section 3 should only be enforced through Congress's chosen methods of enforcement. The fourth argument is that Section 3 cannot be used to deny Trump access to the ballot. And I should also mention Section 3 is the disqualification clause. The disqualification clause is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And then the fifth and final argument that Trump sets forth in his brief is that the Colorado Supreme Court violated the Elector's Clause in the Colorado Election Code. And this is an argument that hasn't really been talked about as much, but I do want to go over it just so we're all aware. So let's start from the top. The first argument is that the president is not an officer of the United States. Now this argument stems from the actual text of

the disqualification clause, right? Because what the disqualification clause says is that no person shall hold any office who previously took an oath to support the constitution either as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states and later engages in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution or provides aid or comfort to those thereof so obviously donald trump is not a member of Congress, so he has to fall into that officer of the United States category in order for the disqualification clause to even apply to him. When it comes to this argument, Trump says he is not an officer of the United States,

and he cites two, three other provisions in the Constitution that refer to officers. And in each of those provisions, or each of those clauses, the president is excluded and or separate from the word officers, meaning that the president is not an officer himself because if he were, then the terms would have been used interchangeably, but they're not. So therefore, the clause can't apply to him. The first provision or the first clause that the brief cites to is the appointments clause. What the appointments clause says is that the constitution requires the president to appoint ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, justices of the Supreme Court,

and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for. Similarly, the commissions clause requires the president to quote, commission all the officers of the United States. So what Trump's brief says is that the president does not and cannot appoint or commission himself, and therefore he cannot qualify as an officer when the constitution draws a clear distinction between the officers of the United States and the president who appoints and commissions them. The brief also touches on a third clause, the impeachment clause. What the impeachment clause says is, quote, the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and

conviction of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. So Trump argues that if the president and vice president were also considered officers, the clause would instead say the president, vice president, and all other civil officers of the United States, but it doesn't. It says the president, vice president, and all civil officers. Therefore, what Trump says is the drafters of the United States, but it doesn't. It says the president, vice president, and all civil officers. Therefore, what Trump says is the drafters of the constitution didn't intend to classify the president as an officer. Otherwise, they would have worded it differently. Then the brief goes into Supreme Court precedent. So first it focuses on the constitutional provisions, and then it talks about precedent. And it says specifically in 2010, there was a case called Free Enterprise Fund versus Public Company Accounting Oversight

Board. And in that case, the Supreme Court noted that the officers of the United States include only appointed officials, not elected officials. And the president is, of course, an elected official. So again, Trump says, I can't possibly be an officer of the United States. Now, of course, it must be mentioned that the Colorado Supreme Court held that the president is an officer of the United States. And the court gave a lot of reasons, but a couple of those reasons cited back to America's founding when people like Alexander Hamilton, in writing the Federalist Papers, said that the president would be, quote, an officer elected by the people. The Colorado Supreme Court also cited to some 19th century presidents who were described as or called themselves the chief executive officer of the United States. So all of this to say both sides have their arguments on this issue.

The second argument that Trump puts forth is about insurrection, right? So more specifically that Trump did not engage in insurrection. The Colorado Supreme Court found that one does not need to actively participate in an insurrection in order to engage in it. And in finding that cited again to some historical examples. So one being that Attorney General Stanberry gave an opinion on the meeting of Engage back when the 14th Amendment was actually being debated. And the court also relied on Chief Justice Marshall's interpretation back in 1807. So Attorney General Stanberry said that a person can engage in an insurrection or rebellion without having actually levied war or taken arms.

Similarly, Chief Justice Marshall ruled back in 1807 that all people who perform in any part, however minute, however remote from the scene of action, in the assembling of men for the purpose of effecting treason are to be considered traitors. So the Colorado Supreme Court took these examples and others and found that even though Trump didn't participate in the insurrection, he wasn't at the Capitol, he engaged in it through his words and conduct on January 6th. However, Trump on the other hand says absolutely not. Trump says his words on January 6th called for peaceful and patriotic protests and respect for the law and order. He says he never told his supporters to enter the Capitol. And on the day of January 6th,

he sent tweets instructing his supporters to remain peaceful. He released a video telling the crowd to go home. And so his brief says, quote, calling for peace, patriotism, respect for law and order, and directing the Secretary of Defense to do what needs to be done to protect That's Trump's second argument. Trump's third argument deals with Congress's enforcement of Section 3. Now, what the debate here is, is whether courts have the ability to enforce Section 3. And again, Section 3 is the disqualification clause. Trump, of course, says it's up to Congress to enforce Section 3, not the courts. However, the Colorado Supreme Court said it was well within their authority to enforce it.

So here's where the debate dates back to. We're talking all the way back in the 1800s. Chief Justice Chase, back in 1869, ruled that congressional legislation is the only way Section 3 can be enforced, and that state and federal courts are powerless to enforce Section 3 without congressional enforcement legislation. However, prior to that, when Chief Justice Chase wasn't a chief justice yet, he was just a circuit court judge, he had issued a decision saying the opposite, that courts could act on section three without congressional legislation. Now, obviously the Supreme Court takes precedence, right? So the argument relying

on Chief Justice Chase's second ruling when he was actually chief justice is definitely the stronger argument if we're talking about precedent. But these conflicting rulings have really been one element of the debate as to whether Section 3 can be enforced without congressional legislation because Section 3 has rarely ever been enforced, so no one really knows what to do. So this is going to be another important question for the Supreme Court to answer when they ultimately decide this case. Is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment self-executing, meaning it doesn't require an act of Congress to enforce, or is it not self-executing? It does require congressional legislation to enforce. So that will be a very important question. Trump's fourth argument is that Section 3 cannot be used to deny Trump or anyone else access to the ballot. Part one of this argument is that the disqualification clause prohibits holding office specifically,

but the clause does not prohibit running for office or being elected to office. What Trump says is that anyone can run for or be elected to office because one, nothing in the disqualification clause prohibits it. The disqualification clause specifically prohibits holding office. And two, because Congress has the power to remove a Section 3 disqualification. It wouldn't have been necessary, in Trump's eyes, to grant Congress this power if an individual was prohibited from running in the first place. There would have never been a need for Congress to remove a Section 3 disqualification. Part two of the fourth argument is that only

allowing quote-unquote qualified candidates to appear on a state's primary ballot is a violation of both the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent. This argument stems from the fact that in 1995, the Supreme Court heard a case called U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. And in that case, the Supreme Court held that states are essentially powerless in adding to or altering the Constitution's qualifications or eligibility criteria for federal offices, and that states are equally powerless to exclude federal candidates from a ballot based on state-created qualifications or eligibility criteria not included in the Constitution. So what Trump says is that the Colorado Supreme Court decision violates this precedent by implementing essentially a new qualification

for the presidency, one that's not included in the Constitution. Colorado is, with their ruling, is essentially requiring that a president be qualified under Section 3, not only on the date that he holds office, but also on the dates of the primary and general elections. And that's just not a qualification set forth in the Constitution, per Donald Trump and his lawyers. As we know, the Colorado Supreme Court held differently. When it came to this issue, the Colorado Supreme Court held differently. When it came to this issue,

the Colorado Supreme Court cited to a California case, which refused to put a 27-year-old on the ballot. You have to be 35 per the constitution. A Colorado case, which excluded a naturalized citizen. And an Illinois case, which excluded a 31-year-old from the presidential ballot. And the reason that the court cited cited these cases is because they said, all of these states were able to exclude a candidate from the ballot based on not meeting qualifications, so we can do that too. Those cases that were cited to are obviously a little bit different because those cases deal with actual qualifications

that are expressly set forth in the Constitution, whereas this one doesn't so much. But Colorado also relies on the idea that nothing in the Constitution expressly precludes states from limiting access to the presidential ballot. Now, the fifth and final argument in Trump's brief is that the Colorado Supreme Court violated the Elector's Clause in Colorado's electors code. I would say again that this argument is the one that's gotten the least amount of attention, but this argument stems from the fact that the legislators in each state are responsible for

making their state's election rules, and that is per the elections clause in the constitution. It's not up to the judiciary. It's expressly reserved for the legislatures in each state. So we saw something similar in a recent Supreme Court case. It was actually last term. It was called Moore v. Harper. In that case, the state Supreme Court in North Carolina was trying to tell the legislature how they were to draw their congressional districting maps. And the state legislature argued that the

elections clause gives the legislature sole authority when it comes to election-related matters, and the court can't intervene at all. This case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which held that the elections clause doesn't give the legislature this absolute authority with no bounds, right? And that the state courts can jump in for the purposes of checks and balances because that's why we have checks and balances. But the court said state courts don't have free reign to go beyond the ordinary bounds of judicial review. Courts can't overstep. And Trump says that's exactly what's happening here. Colorado courts have overstepped. So there's one provision of the Colorado election code at issue here. And what that provision says

is that the state judiciary, so the state court, can intervene in ballot disputes when a person charged with a duty, in this case, the secretary of state who makes the ballot, puts the candidates on the ballot, has committed or is about to commit a wrongful act. Now, the Colorado Supreme Court said that if the Secretary of State includes Trump on the ballot and he's not constitutionally qualified, then that would be committing a wrongful act. And in which case, if a wrongful act is about to be committed, we have the right to step in per the election code. But Donald Trump says no. He says the Colorado Supreme Court effectively created a wrongful act in order to give them the opportunity to step in. But one, there was no wrongful act in the first place.

And two, the court has overstepped. Even if they were allowed to get involved by way of the state's election code, they have gone above and beyond and outside those ordinary bounds by completely removing him from the ballot. So those are Trump's five arguments. And just for transparency purposes, Trump's brief was about 60 pages, as I said. So I summed it up the best I could. I hit on the points that I think are most important to know, but just know that I didn't include every single component of each argument. I also want to note that the arguments on both sides are good, solid arguments. I think people tend to assume, because of confirmation bias that the arguments on the side that they support are the better arguments, the more rational arguments, the arguments that make more sense. And then the arguments on the opposing side are dumb and illogical and irrational.

But here's the reality. We're talking about a case that's in front of the Supreme Court. These lawyers know what they're doing. These lawyers are not going to pose frivolous, illogical arguments to the justices. So don't just discount one side or discredit one side because you want it to go a certain way. Realize that this is high level stuff. The arguments on both sides are valid and both sides have points that could make sense. And after all, that is the job of a lawyer, right? You take a law or you take a statute or you take a rule and you interpret it in a way that makes sense for you, and it's open for interpretation. So just know that both sides have their arguments that make sense. Don't just discount one side because you don't like that

side. That just doesn't make sense. Let's move on to quick hitters. Number one, in a new six-page order, the judge overseeing the federal criminal election interference case against Donald Trump indicated that the March 4th trial date is unlikely to hold. This isn't surprising, but it's worth providing some context. Here is how this played out. This case is currently being appealed. Donald Trump is challenging it based on presidential immunity. So while the appeal is playing out, the court paused all of the deadlines in the case because she's like, there's no point in letting this case move forward until we get a decision from the higher ups. But despite the deadlines being paused, the government was continuing to file motions and produce some discovery documents.

So Donald Trump tried to argue that the government should be held in contempt because the government's continuing to file documents, even though the court has ordered the proceedings to be paused. Now, whenever a party wants to hold the other party in contempt, they'll file what's called a motion to show cause as to why that party shouldn't be held in contempt. So that is what Donald Trump filed, and the judge just ruled on that motion. And in that motion, what she said is that pausing the deadline for a filing is not the same thing as affirmatively prohibiting the filing. So therefore, the government's actions weren't prohibited prohibited per se, and she wasn't going to hold the government in contempt. However, the judge did say that nothing else should be filed going forward without asking the court's permission. Now, the idea that the March 4th trial date is unlikely to hold, it wasn't explicitly stated, but the idea is that because nothing is being

actively filed and everything is paused, the trial date of March 4th is unrealistic at this point. Quick hitter number two. A new report alleges that shortly before the GOP took over the House majority in 2022, more than 100 files relating to January 6th were either deleted or password encrypted. In a new interview with Fox News, Representative Barry Loudermilk, who serves as the chairman of the House Administration Committee's Oversight Subcommittee, said the select committee that was investigating January 6th was supposed to turn over four terabytes of archived data, but only turned over two terabytes. So Loudermilk said that this is what sparked the

hiring of a digital forensics team. And when they did their digging, they discovered 117 files that were either deleted or encrypted on January 1st, 2023. Now the GOP took over the house majority on January 3rd. So just two days later, Loudermilk said that most of the recovered files are password protected, which prevent them from determining what they contain, but he said that he has requested the passwords from the former House January 6th Committee Chairman Benny Thompson, and of course those documents that were deleted, those won't be able to be recovered. Quick hitter number three. Alec Baldwin was indicted by a New Mexico grand jury on Friday on one charge of involuntary manslaughter. I really only have a couple of things I want to mention about this story. I guess three things, one being that this charge stems from the shooting

on the set of Rust, which I'm sure you remember. The second thing is this is a charge for involuntary manslaughter, which we have talked about before. charge for involuntary manslaughter, which we have talked about before. Remember, involuntary manslaughter does not require intent. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another person through either recklessness or criminal negligence, but not with intent. It is much different than murder in that way. The third thing I want to point out is that you might remember the prosecutors had charged Alec Baldwin with

involuntary manslaughter months ago, but they then dropped the charges and said that they were going to, they dropped the charges because of new information. And they said they were going to present that new information to a grand jury, which they did. And now the grand jury has indicted him on one count of involuntary manslaughter again. I feel there's some confusion with double jeopardy that I just want to clear up. Double jeopardy applies to prosecutions. So you can't be tried and or prosecuted twice for the same crime. But Baldwin hasn't been prosecuted yet. He's only been charged. So double jeopardy doesn't apply here. It would be different if he was charged, the trial started, the charge was dropped, and then the charge was brought again. But that's not what happened here. It was a charge, the charge was

dropped, and the charge was brought again without any sort of prosecution. So double jeopardy is not an issue here. The fourth and final quick hitter is that Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected a proposal by Hamas to release its hostages on the conditions that Israel withdraws completely from Gaza, releases the Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, and leaves Hamas in control of Gaza. Netanyahu said in a statement on Sunday in part, quote, I work on this around the clock, but to be clear, I reject outright the terms of surrender of the monsters of Hamas. If we agree to this, our soldiers fell in vain. If we agree to this, we will not be able to guarantee the security of our citizens. End quote.

Netanyahu has some support in this, but he also has a lot of pushback. Families of the hostages want their relatives brought home. Some of them even showed up at a parliamentary committee session on Monday demanding that the lawmakers do more to free their relatives. The hostages and missing families forum also protested outside of Netanyahu's home on Sunday. So there's definitely a bit of unrest. But others, although they want the hostages freed, they don't necessarily want to let Hamas remain in control of Gaza. And they don't want Israel to give up on the fight because they feel it's only a matter of time before Hamas tries to attack them again. So that is what's going on with Netanyahu and Hamas. Now let's get into one-liners. This is

a new segment I'm trying out because I want to get you as much news as possible, but there's some stories that I don't necessarily have much to say or I just feel that the headline conveys enough, but it's very possible you think that this segment is pointless and you never want to hear it again and that's okay too. I base my content for the most part on your preferences, so just let me know how you feel about it and I'll either keep it or do away with it. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis suspended his presidential campaign ahead of the New Hampshire primary and endorsed Trump. Martin Luther King Jr.'s youngest son, Dexter King, died on Monday after a battle with prostate cancer. Two Navy SEALs who went missing off the coast of Somalia earlier this month following the nighttime raid of an Iranian ship were presumed dead by the U.S. military on Monday. The Biden

administration forgave another $5 billion in student debt for roughly 74,000 borrowers. The bulk of those borrowers are public service workers. And Japan became the fifth country to land a spacecraft on the moon on Friday. However, its moon lander is losing power as we speak, but nonetheless, fifth country to do so. Those are my one-liners for you. And now let's finish with the Supreme Court docket. Monday was an order release day for the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that orders are different than opinions in the way that justices don't have to give a reason as to why they decided an issue one way or the other. They don't have to publicize who voted, you know, in favor of a decision or against a decision. Orders are

just very different that way. They can, they can publish. Sometimes we'll see orders that are a few pages in which maybe a dissenting justice wants to explain why he didn't agree or something. But for the most part, they're pretty vague. The first order we will talk about is the order dealing with the border. In a five to four vote on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration can remove the razor wire at a portion of the United States-Mexico border in Texas. So here's the backstory. Texas put up razor wire fencing at a portion of its border in order to prevent migrants from crossing over. Border patrol agents cut it down. Texas sued. Texas says that the government was

not only illegally destroying state property, but was also undermining security in order to assist migrants in crossing the border. The Biden administration's argument, on the other hand, stems from the supremacy clause, which says that federal law trumps state law, always. And because the federal government is solely responsible for immigration policy, Texas cannot implement their own immigration policy, federal policy Trump's. So this case goes up on appeal and ultimately the fifth circuit court of appeals issues an injunction, which prevents the Biden administration from removing the razor wire while this case was playing out. So the Biden administration then goes to the Supreme Court and they say, hey, guys, we need you to overturn this injunction

as soon as possible because the injunction is prohibiting us from doing our job. And the Supreme Court agreed, or at least a majority of justices did. So again, orders are different than opinions in that justices don't have to give a reason, and they did not give a reason here, but this order did specify how the justices voted. Specifically, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett, and Chief Justice Roberts voted in favor of the Biden administration, whereas Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh said that they would have denied the administration's request. I want to be clear, this ruling or this order, I should say, does not mean the case is over. What this means is that the Biden administration can remove the razor wire immediately, but the appeals court will still hear

the merits of the case, it'll make its decision, and it could then get appealed to the Supreme Court. Obviously, it's up to the Supreme Court to say whether they want to hear the case on the merits or not, but this order that we're talking about today only applies to the ability to cut the razor wire while this case is playing out. Next, the Supreme Court decided to take up a case involving a man on death row named Richard Glossop.

This is actually the second time Richard Glossop. This is actually the second time Richard Glossop has been before the Supreme Court. The first time was eight years ago when the Supreme Court temporarily blocked his execution and two others' executions so that it could take up a challenge to Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. But now the Supreme Court is actually hearing the merits of Glossop's conviction. And what's interesting here is that the attorney general of Oklahoma, because of prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error, end quote. So here's what happened, and I've actually talked about Glossop's conviction before because he was sentenced to death in 1997 for the murder of Barry Van Treese. Van Treese was the owner of a motel

where Glossop worked as the manager, and it's undisputed that Glossop did not kill Van Treese. Van Treese was the owner of a motel where Glossop worked as the manager, and it's undisputed that Glossop did not kill Van Treese. Justin Sneed killed Van Treese. Sneed was a handyman at the motel. However, Sneed told jurors that Glossop paid him $10,000 to kill Van Treese, and in exchange for that testimony, prosecutors told Sneed he would not get the death penalty. So he was more than happy to testify against Glossop. Now, Sneed's testimony was the only evidence implicating Glossop, and yet he still received a guilty conviction and a death sentence. Meanwhile, Sneed also testified at that same trial that he himself had never been treated

by a psychiatrist, when in fact, he had been treated for bipolar disorder and he had been prescribed lithium at one point. Now, that alone does not indicate that Sneed was lying about Glossop paying him off, but as part of Glossop's petition to the Supreme Court, he says he recently obtained new information that the prosecutors knew that Sneed was giving false testimony regarding psychiatric treatment. So the prosecutors knew that Sneed was giving false testimony regarding psychiatric treatment. So the prosecutors had prosecutorial notes from the time of the trial that indicate they knew Sneed was lying on the stand. Legally, this is a big no-no. It's enough to overturn a conviction if it's found to be true. Over the years, Glossop has received nine

execution dates. All have been set aside for one reason or another. He's had a final meal, not once, not twice, but three different times. So now the merits of his case will go to the Supreme Court, who will decide if his conviction will get overturned. Another case that the Supreme Court decided to hear deals with the Rio Grande. About 10 years ago, Texas sued Mexico, alleging that New Mexico had violated a 1938 agreement to divide the river's waters among Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. And finally, in 2022, Texas and New Mexico reached a settlement. But the federal government, who had previously joined in on the lawsuit in support of Texas, objected to the settlement.

So now the Supreme Court is going to decide whether the settlement can proceed. A case that the Supreme Court declined to hear on Monday is that of Devin Archer. So the Supreme Court turned away an appeal brought by Hunter Biden's former business partner, Devin Archer, who was convicted and sentenced to one year and a day for his role in defrauding the corporate arm of a Native American tribe. That case had nothing to do with Hunter Biden, by the way. They were business partners in a separate venture. The Supreme Court's denial of this appeal means that Archer's conviction will stand and he will have to serve that sentence. That is what I have for

you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a great week and I will talk to you on Friday.