UNBIASED - Trump’s New Fraud Whistleblower Program, Cornell Lawsuit Update, Ramaswamy Ad, and More.

Starting point is 00:00:02 Square knows that in hospitality, efficiency is everything. That's why their system lets you take payments. Track sales, handle inventory, manage staff, send invoices, and keep up with finances all in one place. Apply through orders with zero mistakes. Get the data you need and keep everything working together. So you're ready for whatever's next. Learn more about their customizable plans at squareup.com. Welcome back to unbiased politics.

Starting point is 00:00:28 It's Thursday, October 22nd. And today we're talking about just a few quick updates regarding the Cornell case. We'll also cover Trump's new anti-fraud program. The bulk of this episode, actually, or at least half of it, will be in quick hitters. We have a lot of quick hitters today. And this episode will be a little bit shorter than usual. Now, I'm going to be honest with you and tell you the reason why. So I originally was thinking, okay, I wasn't going to cover the protests in France and the

Starting point is 00:00:55 surrounding countries because, as I said, I don't typically cover those things unless there's some sort of significant United States involvement. However, I have received a ton of requests to talk about it and I really wanted to. But the more I was digging into it, the more complex and complicated it became. And although I was planning on, I had a whole write-up about it and I was planning on talking about it, but here's the thing about me. I don't put out content unless I am very confident in it and unless I understand it to the fullest extent. And if I can talk about it in the neutral, factual, and unbiased way possible. And I just didn't feel I was at that point with that story today. So we'll see how the weekend develops. Obviously, if people are still talking about it

Starting point is 00:01:41 come Monday. And if I have time in Monday's episode, I will throw it in there and talk about it. I just, the last thing I would ever want to do is put out content that I can't, you know, I just don't feel comfortable with. At the end of the day, it's always going to be content that I feel comfortable with. And I feel like I'm giving you what you deserve. So, it didn't make it into today's episode, and that's why today's episode is a little bit shorter, but nonetheless, we do have some things to talk about. So let's start with these Cornell updates, just a couple of notable updates. First, one of the men named as a defendant in Jane Doe's lawsuit has now been dropped from the case. His name is Arasio Petito. Now, Petito was not one of the seven

Starting point is 00:02:20 men that Jane Do accused of sexually assaulting her. He was named separately in this lawsuit because the complaint identified him as the president of Kai Phi. at the time of the alleged assault. And the lawsuit alleged that because of his position, he had certain responsibilities involving supervision and safety at the Pratt House. However, we now know that part of the lawsuit was incorrect. Petito had previously served as president of Kai Phi, but he was not the president when this alleged assault happened in October 2024.

Starting point is 00:02:48 So on Tuesday, the attorneys for Jane Doe and Petito agreed to dismiss the claims against Petito with prejudice. With prejudice means that the dismissal is final. Jane Doe can't bring those same. claims against Petito later. So Petito, again, was merely involved in this lawsuit because Jane Doe and her attorneys thought he was the president of the frat at the time of the alleged assault, but it turns out he was not. Now, one question I've seen is if she named the wrong president when the lawsuit was filed, can she now add whoever really was president at the time?

Starting point is 00:03:20 And the answer is most likely yes. So when you file a lawsuit, you are not locked into the defendants that you named when the lawsuit was filed. You can typically amend your filing. But also, there's something specific about this lawsuit that's worth talking about. When Jane Doe filed, she named Petito specifically because she and her attorneys were confident that's who the president was at the time. But they also sued several unidentified members of Kai Fai's executive board as John Doe's executive board. Now, you can do that if you don't know the identities of all of the people you want to sue.

Starting point is 00:03:55 So theoretically, if Jane Doe's attorneys figure out who the actual Kai Phi president was in October 2024, and they feel that the fact support claims against that person, they could potentially seek to identify him as one of those John Doe executive board defendants or amend the complaint to add him by name. And again, that's because New York has a process that allows someone to initially sue an unknown defendant as a John Doe and then replace that placeholder with the person's actual name once they figure out who it is, assuming the legal requirements are met. So that's the first update is that the man that Jane Doe thought was the Kai Fai

Starting point is 00:04:35 president has been dismissed from the case. The second update is that last week, Jane Doe sent a letter to the leaders of Cornell's faculty Senate, as they're considering this no-confidence resolution that we've been talking about. And in that letter, Jane Doe described something she says, the then-president of her sorority told her, after having a conversation with Cornell's president, Michael Kotlakov, in November 2024. So according to Jane Doe, the sorority president told Jane Doe that Kotlakov's initial response

Starting point is 00:05:06 when she discussed the alleged assault with him was along the lines of, why did she wait so long to report it? And Jane Doe says the sorority president interpreted that question as Kotlakov casting doubt on Jane Doe's account. And Jane Doe wrote in her letter that hearing about this exchange left her feeling unsupported and disbelieved and made her less confident that Cornell's administration could handle what happened with the sensitivity and fairness that she expected. On Tuesday, though, Cornell disputed Jane Doe's account of what Kotlokov was asking. Cornell says that Kotlokov never asked why it took so long for the alleged assault to be reported

Starting point is 00:05:47 and was instead asking why other people who knew about the allegations hadn't reported them sooner. Cornell's dean of faculty, Chris Schaefer, sent an email to faculty senators this week, saying he had obtained an account from another university official who was present for that conversation between Kotlikov and the sorority president. And according to that person, Kotlakov was asking why bystanders hadn't reported the alleged assault through Cornell's anonymous tip line sooner, particularly because allegations about, what happened were apparently already circulating on social media. So Cornell's faculty Senate, which we've talked about, is weighing this no confidence vote, right? So Jane Doe sent this letter

Starting point is 00:06:28 to the faculty senate to say basically her position that the administration is not suited to handle sexual assault allegations on campus, whereas Cornell's staff wrote the response letter to say, that's not how this went down. So Cornell's faculty senate, will now have to weigh those two accounts as they consider this no confidence resolution. They are expected to vote on the no confidence resolution on October 28th. And remember, even if the faculty senate votes no confidence, that doesn't automatically change anything. It doesn't remove Kotlakov or anyone from their position. It's just the faculty formally saying that they no longer have confidence in the administration's

Starting point is 00:07:08 ability to address what the resolution says is the ongoing crisis surrounding sexual assault at Cornell. Now, that's not to say changes wouldn't happen. if the, if they ultimately voted no confidence. It's just to say that a no confidence vote wouldn't require changes. All right, moving on. President Trump and Vice President Vance announced a new $25 million whistleblower program this week that will pay people to report certain types of fraud of the federal government.

Starting point is 00:07:35 So if you know someone's defrauding a federal program, you can submit that information to the DOJ. And if that tip ultimately leads to criminal charges, you could get a cash reward. Now, just to be clear, there are already several federal whistleblower programs, paying people to report fraud of the government isn't new. What's new about this program is that you can potentially get paid a lot earlier than you would under these already existing programs. So, for example, one of the biggest existing whistleblower programs involves the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows a private person who knows someone's defrauding the federal government to file what's called a Ketam lawsuit, essentially on behalf of the government. The Justice Department

Starting point is 00:08:12 can then decide whether it wants to get involved. And if the case is successful, the government and the government gets money back, the government can pay that whistleblower a portion of the money recovered, typically somewhere between 15 and 30 percent depending on the case. The government has actually recovered billions of dollars through False Claims Act cases over the years. But in False Claims Act cases, the whistleblower doesn't get paid until the case is completely resolved and the government actually recovers money from that defendant. That can obviously take years, right? Not only does there have to be a conviction or a judgment or whatever, but also appeals, like the case has to be fully resolved. Under this program, the DOJ would pay the

Starting point is 00:08:52 whistle lower once criminal charges have been filed and unsealed, which happens a lot earlier in the judicial process than a conviction, a judgment, recovery, et cetera. So the person you reported doesn't have to be found guilty before you can potentially receive money under this program. Your information just has to help the Justice Department get to the point where criminal charges can be brought. So that's the biggest difference between the new program. and programs that already exist. This new program is called the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program or WIP, and it is officially up and running.

Starting point is 00:09:25 The Treasury Department is putting up $25 million toward the program, which will be used to fund these whistleblower rewards. And the DOJ's National Fraud Enforcement Division is the part of the government actually running the program. Under the program, anyone can submit a tip. You can submit a tip, I can submit a tip, your grandma can submit a tip, anyone. But there are requirements. The information has to be truthful and complete. It typically has to be something you either know firsthand or uncovered yourself.

Starting point is 00:09:53 You have to cooperate with investigators. And most importantly, your information ultimately has to lead to criminal charges. Now, this program does not apply to every type of fraud. It really covers two categories. The first is fraud involving federal health care programs or other crimes involving the health care industry. And the second is fraud involving programs or benefits run by certain. federal agencies, things like unemployment benefits, student aid, veterans benefits, housing assistance,

Starting point is 00:10:21 SBA loans, defense department contracts, things like that. The DOJ specifically says that this program applies to fraud on programs or benefits administered by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the HHS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, or the Small Business Administration. DOJ, though, also says the program will place a particular emphasis on submissions involving hospice, home health care, daycare, and special services fraud. So let's say someone is billing Medicare for home health visits that never happened. That would get priority. Let's say someone is submitting false claims to a federally funded child care program.

Starting point is 00:11:07 That would get priority. If you know someone is collecting unemployment benefits but isn't unemployed that would still qualify, but it wouldn't necessarily. take priority, meaning you could be waiting longer for investigators to look into it and ultimately bring charges. An example of something that wouldn't be covered by this is tax fraud. If you know someone is cheating on their taxes and you wanted to report it, you would report it through a different whistleblower program because the IRS already has its own. Now, under the rules of this new program, the reward is currently between $10,000 and $30,000 for a qualifying tip. And I do just want to add here that when this was announced on Tuesday, Trump said that whistleblowers would get a 1%

Starting point is 00:11:45 commission based on the amount of fraud they uncover. He said that people could potentially make millions of dollars. He said there would be no limit on the rewards. But if you read the Justice Department's actual rules, that isn't really what they say. So the DOJ says the reward will be between $10,000 and $30,000 and that the DOJ has the discretion to decide whether somebody qualifies and how much that person receives. So there's no explicit mention of a 1% commission in the rules currently posted by the DOJ. Now, the DOJ can, of course, always revise the rules to match what Trump said, but that's not the case as of now. The basic eligibility criteria as outlined by the DOJ are as follows. Number one, participation must be voluntary. Two, truthful and complete original

Starting point is 00:12:29 information must be provided in writing. Three, information must pertain to defined subject matter areas. Four, full cooperation is required. Five, information must be provided by individuals who did not actively participate in the fraud. And six, information must lead to criminal charges in the programmatic areas outlined. There are also some safeguards built into this. One, you can't just send them something you saw online. You have to be providing original information. Two, if you knowingly provide false information, not only can you be kicked out of the program, but you could potentially face criminal charges yourself for making false statements. Three, you typically can't get a reward if you were involved in the fraud that you're reporting. And four,

Starting point is 00:13:13 while you can submit information anonymously through an attorney if you wish to do so, if you do actually want to collect the money that you're awarded, the DOJ does say that you do have to tell them who you are. So again, what sets this new program apart from other existing programs is the payout time frame. Now, the DOJ wrote on this program's website, quote, the fraud division's rewards program rewards whistleblowers at a much earlier stage of a prosecution and does not require the matter to result in large fines or forfeiture. These early stage rewards aim to encourage prompt disclosure of information by giving whistleblowers more certainty about the amount and timing of a possible reward payment while still leaving whistleblowers eligible

Starting point is 00:13:55 for potentially larger rewards should their tips ultimately lead to large financial penalties are forfeiture, end quote. So that last part may be related to that 1% commission that Trump was referring to, but again, the DOJ hasn't said anything specific about an additional commission at this point besides obviously what I just read you. Now, let's talk about the arguments on both sides of this. So the administration's argument is that the federal government spends money through thousands of different federal programs and investigators can't possibly see every fraudulent scheme themselves, but people on the inside may know things the government would never otherwise find out. So giving those people a financial incentive to come forward could help uncover more fraud

Starting point is 00:14:39 and ultimately save taxpayers more money than the government ultimately spends on the rewards. Critics, though, are worried about the opposite incentive, that once you start paying people for tips, you could get people submitting false or politically motivated accusations just because they want the money. But the DOJ's answer to that is getting a tip doesn't automatically mean the person gets a payout. The information still has to meet the program's requirements and ultimately help lead prosecutors to criminal charges. And of course, if someone does submit false information knowingly, they could also face criminal charges themselves. Let's get started on some quick hitters. We have quite a few today.

Starting point is 00:15:16 Vivek Bromiswami's campaign is getting attention for a controversial new ad featuring the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent in the Ohio government. race, Amy Acton. In the one-minute ad, Acton's mother, Donna Arthur, calls her daughter a liar, disputes part of the difficult childhood Acton has described publicly, and says Acton needs help. Ramosami's campaign has since confirmed that it produced the ad. It says Arthur was not paid to participate, and it plans to spend about $4 million promoting it. Acton says the ad is exploiting an extremely painful part of her childhood. Now, Acton and her brother were removed from their mother's custody when Acton was 12 after her stepfather was arrested and later indicted on a charge of raping her. Her stepfather pleaded not guilty and then failed to appear in court and did remain a fugitive

Starting point is 00:16:07 for years until he died. So the case never went to trial. Acton says she has not seen her mother since 1978 and accused Ramosami of using someone she was removed from because of abuse and neglect to attack her politically. Ramosami's campaign, meanwhile, says questions about Acton's truthfulness are fair game and has defended running it. The Pentagon has given the DHS permission to test a military developed weapon commonly called a heat ray for possible use at the southern border. The system, which is officially called the active denial system, shoots an invisible beam of electromagnetic energy that heats the surface of a person's skin and creates a burning sensation

Starting point is 00:16:47 designed to make them move away. It can reach up to a thousand meters or 0.62 miles. Defense Secretary Hegseth approved a seven-month loan of one system, but the authorization is only for testing and developing potential tactics at this point. The DHS hasn't yet decided to deploy it, nor hasn't received authorization to do so. As far as effects on the target, the beam penetrates about 164th of an inch into the skin, and the burning sensation is supposed to stop once someone moves out of the beam. However, prolonged or improper exposure can cause actual burns. During prior testing, there were at least two incidents that required

Starting point is 00:17:26 medical attention, one in 1999, another in 2007. Both involved second-degree burns linked to procedural errors. Russia finally released U.S. citizen Stephen Hubbard, a retired teacher from Michigan, who was imprisoned in Russia for more than four years. Russian prosecutors accused Hubbard of signing a contract with the Ukrainian military after Russia invaded in 2022 and fighting alongside Ukrainian enforces before he was captured. He was later sentenced to nearly seven years in prison. President Trump says he asked Putin to release Hubbard during a phone call last week, that the United States did not give Russia anything in return and that there was no prisoner swap. Hubbard, who is 74 years old, has since been reunited with his family. And New Mexico's attorney general is suing two of Jeffrey

Starting point is 00:18:12 Epstein's longtime advisors, accusing them of helping him carry out and cover up his sex trafficking operation. The two men, attorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn, also oversee Epstein's estate, and the lawsuit is trying to stop them from receiving money from his trust. Epstein's will left $50 million to Indyke and $25 million to Kahn. Both men deny knowing about or taking part in Epstein's abuse and told Congress earlier this year they would have cut ties with him if they knew what was happening. This is separate, by the way, from New Mexico's ongoing criminal investigation into Epstein's former Zorro Ranch near Sanofay. Let's take a break here. When we come back, we'll do some more quick hitters. Like I said, we have a lot today. And then we'll finish with critical thinking. Welcome back. Continuing with quick hitters, the Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration's emergency request to immediately enforce new restrictions on gender transition related care for transgender inmates in federal prisons. The Bureau of Prisons policy would limit hormone therapy, surgeries, and certain accommodations while continuing to allow psychiatric and other mental health treatment.

Starting point is 00:19:16 A federal judge blocked the policy earlier this year, finding that the administration likely acted unlawfully when it changed longstanding prison medical practices, and an appeals court refused to lift that order. The administration then took it to the Supreme Court asking it to lift the lower court order, but the Supreme Court also declined to do so. The court did not explain its decision, but justices Thomas and Alito said they would have allowed the policy to take effect. So the effect of this decision is that the policy remains blocked as the lawsuit continues. use through the appeals process. And in some more Supreme Court news, the Trump administration is asking the court to let it restart border wall and related construction in the Big Bend region of West Texas after a federal judge temporarily blocked the project earlier this month. The lower court judge ruled that the DHS likely exceeded its authority when it used special waivers to bypass

Starting point is 00:20:09 dozens of environmental and other laws because Congress only authorized that waiver power for areas of high illegal entry, and Big Bend has had the lowest rate of migrant apprehensions along the southern border. The administration argues Congress gave DHS broad authority to waive those laws and says leaving a roughly 300 mile gap in border infrastructure could create a new route for smugglers and illegal crossings. It's asking the Supreme Court both to pause the lower court's order so construction can resume and to take up the case itself. One interesting part about this case is that it skips the appeals court. So under the federal border wall law that's involved here, the lower court ruling can go directly to the Supreme Court for review. A hazardous chemical leak in Toledo, Ohio

Starting point is 00:20:55 forced nearly a thousand people to evacuate Tuesday night and tens of thousands more to shelter in place. Officials say the leak came from a 5,500 gallon tank containing a flammable industrial chemical used in coatings. The Ohio EPA says it happened because of an error while the material was being transferred. Emergency crews initially stayed back because of concerns the tank would explode while federal and state agencies monitored the air. By Wednesday evening, conditions had apparently improved enough that officials lifted the three-mile shelter and place order and reduced the evacuation zone from one mile to half a mile. The investigation and cleanup are still ongoing. Officials have not yet said when everyone who was evacuated will be allowed to return home. A judge has ordered META

Starting point is 00:21:40 to pay the state of New Mexico $25 billion after a jury found the company liable for more than 43 million violations of the state's consumer protection laws tied largely to Facebook's handling of user privacy. The case focused on claims that Facebook misled users about how their data was protected after information from roughly 87 million profiles was harvested and used for political targeting. New Mexico was the only state to take the case to trial after 48 other states reached an $18 billion settlement with META earlier this. year. Meta argues the state did not prove that New Mexicans were actually harmed by the statements at issue and says the penalty is unconstitutional and far too high. Meta is expected to

Starting point is 00:22:20 appeal, which means the final amount could still be reduced or overturned. The Interior Department has officially submitted final plans for President Trump's proposed Triumphal Arch in Washington, D.C., and the National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled to review them on November 5th. The proposed 25-story monument would sit on National Park Service land near Arlington National Cemetery and would include a golden-winged statue on top holding a torch with an eternal flame. The latest plans include updated traffic and lighting designs, including changes made after an FAA safety review. If ultimately approved, the National Park Service says construction is expected to take roughly two to three years. Cybersecurity researchers say AI helped uncover two critical flaws

Starting point is 00:23:05 in a programming language called PHP that's used by roughly 70% of websites. The vulnerabilities could allow a hacker to take control of an affected web server or access sensitive data without needing to log in first. Researchers say the underlying bugs had existed in PHP for years, but newer AI tools help security teams figure out how they could actually be exploited. Emergency patches were released Wednesday, and some government and private websites were temporarily taken offline while they were updated. cybersecurity agencies are now urging organizations that use PHP to update immediately, while ordinary internet users don't really have anything they need to do themselves.

Starting point is 00:23:45 A federal judge is temporarily restricting part of the Trump administration's effort to investigate suspected non-citizen voting after raising concerns that the data DHS is relying on could mistakenly identify U.S. citizens as potential non-citizens. The administration has been reviewing voter registration data and in some cases sending Homeland Security investigators to interview people. people believed to potentially be non-citizens who registered or voted. But the judge said the government's data is incomplete and known to sometimes slag people who are actually citizens. So just to be clear here, the judge is not stopping the administration from investigating potential cases of illegal voting altogether, but rather limiting certain in-person investigative actions like interviews when there's information suggesting that the person being investigated might not actually be a U.S. citizen. This order applies in nine states, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, and is currently set to remain in effect through the midterm elections.

Starting point is 00:24:44 The administration does have an opportunity to appeal before the order takes effect tomorrow afternoon. And in a separate lawsuit, a group of Democrats is suing the Trump administration, accusing it of improperly pressuring states over how they manage voter rolls just days before the midterm elections. The lawsuit filed by the DNC, Democratic campaign committees, and several lawmakers is asking a federal judge to block what they describe as efforts to force states to remove certain voters, set aside some ballots, and threaten election officials with prosecution. The dispute centers largely on the administration's push to identify possible non-citizens on state voter rolls. The DOJ says it's enforcing federal election law and trying to make sure only eligible voters are registered, while Democrats and some state officials argue the federal government is over-sense. stepping its authority and relying on flawed data that can mistakenly flag U.S. citizens. Nearly one million people with Medicare Advantage plans through United Health Care and Humana will need to choose new coverage for 2027 because their current plans are being discontinued.

Starting point is 00:25:44 United Healthcare says the changes will affect about 390,000 members, while Humana says roughly 600,000 people, about 8% of its Medicare Advantage membership, are currently enrolled in plans that won't be offered next year. The people affected will now have the option to choose. another Medicare Advantage plan that's available where they live or move back to original Medicare. The pullback is part of a broader shift happening across Medicare Advantage as insurers deal with higher than expected medical costs and increased use of health care. The USDA has confirmed New World Screw Worm in an elk in Pecos County, Texas, marking the first confirmed case in U.S. wildlife during the current outbreak.

Starting point is 00:26:25 The female elk was on a game ranch and was harvested by a hunter who reported it after noticing signs of infestation. A sample was then tested and confirmed at a federal laboratory in Texas. Now, New World Screw Worm is a parasitic fly whose larva can enter an animal through an open wound or other body opening and then feed on living tissue. It can infect livestock, wildlife, pets, and in rare cases, humans. This was a parasite that was eradicated from the United States decades ago, but it's been moving north through Central America and Mexico in recent years, and it was detected again in a U.S. animal in June. That was when U.S. officials confirmed a case in a calf in Texas.

Starting point is 00:27:06 But this new elk is getting particular attention because finding the parasite in wildlife can make it harder to track and therefore contain than cases involving livestock. For humans, the CDC has said the risk in the United States remains very low and there have been no reported locally acquired human cases during the current outbreak. And in an update to last week's Starlink Star Shields, Story, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Hegeseth are both denying that the Trump administration ordered recent restrictions on Ukraine's access to SpaceX's satellite internet services, instead suggesting that any limits were a decision for Elon Musk and SpaceX. This issue

Starting point is 00:27:45 centers on Starlink and Star Shield, which is a more military-focused version of the technology that Ukraine has relied on for things like battlefield communications, drones, other military operations. And as we talked about on Monday. The controversy started after Ukraine reported that some of those services had been slowed or restricted. But the Wall Street Journal later reported that Elon Musk ordered a slowdown of Star Shield and CBS News reported that Musk made the decision after speaking with administration officials. Rubio, though, says the White House did not order it and wasn't aware of the decision beforehand, arguing that SpaceX is a private company operating under contractual terms. Hegeseth made a similar argument saying the Pentagon did not issue any directive and that Starlink

Starting point is 00:28:27 ultimately has the ability to enforce its own terms of service. As for Musk, he has previously said Star Shield is owned and controlled by the U.S. government and that restrictions on its use are decided by the military and ultimately the president. So this disagreement is now prompting scrutiny in Congress with some lawmakers asking the Pentagon to investigate exactly what happened here and who was responsible. Virginia State Senator Luis Lucas has been indicted in a federal case, accusing her of helping run an illegal marijuana operation with members of her family. Prosecutors say 82-year-old Lucas and six other people were part of what they call the Lucas Enterprise, which allegedly bought and sold more than 100 kilograms of marijuana and then laundered the money from those sales.

Starting point is 00:29:10 They also accused Lucas of using her position as chair of the Virginia Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee to protect the business from scrutiny and influence legislation that could financially benefit it. Lucas surrendered to authorities today and has denied wrongdoing. Her legal team called the case a circus, and she has previously argued that the investigation was politically motivated. She wrote in a statement today, quote, today the FBI, the DOJ, and the full weight of the federal government have been wielded against an 82-year-old grandmother. I grew up under Jim Crow. I've seen what happens when people in power try to silence those who stand up to them. I'm not new to this.

Starting point is 00:29:46 I'm true to this. I will not be intimidated. I will not be bullied, and I will not back down. end quote. The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell again last week with initial jobless claims dropping to 194,000, one of the lowest levels in nearly six decades and below what economists were expecting. Claims have now been at or below 200,000 for six straight weeks, which suggests companies are still laying off relatively few workers. The labor market right now is being described as low, hire, low fire, where employees are holding on to the workers they already have,

Starting point is 00:30:20 while overall hiring remains fairly slow. Continuing unemployment claims actually increased slightly to about 1.73 million and the unemployment rate was 4.2% in September. So the latest numbers point to a labor market that remains stable even though job growth itself has cooled. A new documentary from Swamp Watch studios alleges the late Senator Lindsey Graham paid three male escorts for sex. Three men interviewed for the film say Graham paid them for sexual encounters and one says he was 17 at the time. The documentary presents their accounts firsthand and frames them in the context of Graham's longtime opposition to a number of LGBTQ plus rights measures while he was in office. Graham died earlier this year, so he can't respond to these new accusations himself, but he repeatedly denied rumors about his sexuality while he was alive, saying publicly that he was not gay. And Representative Ilhan Omar says she plans to move out of her DC home after federal agents searched it earlier this month as part of an investigation into possible fraud involving her families.

Starting point is 00:31:20 immigration paperwork. Omar says the raid made her address widely known and because of threats she and her family already received she no longer feels safe living there. She also says agents spent four to five hours searching the home and took 17 items including phones and notebooks. Omar continues to deny any wrongdoing and argues the investigation is politically motivated. All right. No rumor has it today. We will of course finish with critical thinking. I will say I formulated these questions anticipating that we were going to cover the protests in France and Europe. So if you are not familiar with the story, you may not be able to answer them. They are pretty general questions, though. They're more about media literacy,

Starting point is 00:32:01 really, that they are about the protests. So perhaps you can apply these same questions to something else that's going on in the news. You'll see what I mean as we go through them. So today's critical thinking question is this. When you are watching videos of these protests online, how do you know whether what you are seeing is is actually representative of the whole situation? And how can you make sure that you're getting the full picture? Because what we're seeing with these protests is a really good example of how the algorithm is rarely going to show you the full picture, right? So you might be scrolling on your feed and you might see multiple videos of students

Starting point is 00:32:41 who are peacefully demanding more teachers. someone else might scroll on their feed and see a video of hundreds of Palestinian flags. Someone else might scroll and see people setting buildings on fire and breaking store windows. And depending on which one of those videos you see, you could walk away with an idea about what these protests are about, whereas someone else could walk away with a completely different idea based on the videos that they saw. So the question is, at what point is a video that's real, right? it's totally real. At what point does that real video become misleading because it leaves out all of the context around it? And what questions is the most important? What questions should you be

Starting point is 00:33:24 asking yourself when you see one of these viral videos to make sure you are understanding the full picture? That's what I have for you. Thank you so much for being here. I apologize that this episode is a little bit short. I apologize. I did not cover the protests. I hope to do so on on Monday because I have done a lot of research so far. But yeah, I just, again, like it's always going to come down to what I feel comfortable with. I want to feel really, really good about my work product and what I provide to you. And if I don't feel 110% comfortable with that work product, I won't put it out. So that's the deal with that.

Starting point is 00:34:01 I hope you have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you again on Monday. Got PC optimum points. Visit Shoppers Drug Mart for the bonus redemption event and get more. more for your points. Friday, October 23rd to Wednesday, October 28th, valid in-store and online.

UNBIASED - Trump’s New Fraud Whistleblower Program, Cornell Lawsuit Update, Ramaswamy Ad, and More.

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.