UNBIASED - Trump's New Indictment and Defense Strategies, Devon Archer's Testimony Re: Bidens and Burisma, First Federal Death Sentence Since 2019, School Shooting to be Reenacted, and More.

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

1. Breaking Down Donald Trump's New Indictment and Defense Strategies According to His Own Lawyers (2:32)2. No, Disney World is NOT Cutting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Programs, but its Governing District Is. Here's Why (22:28)3. Hunter Biden's Former Business Partner, Devon Archer's, Testimony Made Public Following Closed-Door Congressional Hearing (28:54)4. Robert Bowers Sentenced to Death for 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting, But Here's Why He Won't Be Executed Anytime Soon (36:09)5. Why a Reenactment of the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting is Taking Place on Friday, August 4th (37:15)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. Happy Friday. I hope you've had a great week. Let me set the scene for this episode. So the first half of the episode, I'm going to cover Donald Trump's indictment. I'm going to walk through the whole thing. So I'm going to talk about, you know, the setup of the indictment, what the charges are specifically from the U.S. code, as well as how the indictment interprets them, what the prosecution needs to prove for Donald Trump to ultimately be convicted on these charges. I'm going to run through the schemes that are alleged in the indictment. I'm going to

talk about Donald Trump's attorney's defense strategies as we know them as of now. So there's a lot of ground to cover just as far as the indictment goes, which is why this first half of the episode will be solely about the indictment. So the first 20 ish minutes will all be indictment related. The second half of the episode, I'm going to talk about the district that governs Disney that has said they are doing away with all DEI programs. And I also want to talk about why this doesn't include Disney, because I feel like there's a lot of misleading headlines swirling around. I'm also going to talk about Devin Archer's testimony as it relates to Hunter

Biden and Joe Biden, because that testimony was made public. So I went over all 141 pages for you. And then I will talk about Robert Bowers being sentenced to death. That is the first federal death sentence we have seen since 2019. And I will finish by talking about this reenactment that will be happening at Marjory Stoneman Douglas of the 2018 school shooting and why that's happening. So a lot of ground to cover this episode. Before we get into it, let me just remind you to please leave me a review on whatever platform you listen really helps support my show and it also just makes me happy and of course I always have to give you the reminder that yes

I am a lawyer no I am not your lawyer so without further ado let's get into today's stories. Donald Trump appeared in court on Thursday and pled not guilty to four counts related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Let's talk about the indictment. We're going to discuss the allegations in the indictment, the charges, what needs to be proven by prosecutors for Trump to actually be convicted of each charge, and how Donald Trump's attorneys plan to defend these charges. So first and foremost, in the simplest of terms, this indictment accuses Donald Trump of conspiring with others to obstruct the 2020 election certification process. Now, that certification process is, of course, where each state's slate of electors get together. Congress counts the electoral votes and they certify those

votes and declare the official winner of the election. Throughout this indictment, it is referred to as the election certification process, or just the certification process. So whenever I use those words, just know that I am talking about that official proceeding, and that is what this entire indictment surrounds. In total, there are four charges, and we'll walk through each of them, but just briefly, the first charge is conspiracy to defraud the United States. The second is conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. The third is very similar to the second in that it is an attempt to obstruct

an official proceeding. And the fourth charge is conspiracy against rights. So as I said, we're going to walk through each of these charges one at a time. First, we'll take on conspiracy to defraud the United States. That is actually the bulk of this indictment. So literally pages three through 42 are all in regard to this conspiracy to defraud the United States charge. This is a very broad law that the U.S. Code defines as two or more people that conspire to commit an offense against the United States or conspire to defraud the United States. In terms of the indictment, basically what the indictment says is that Donald Trump committed conspiracy to defraud the United States by lying in various ways to overturn the results of the election. Now, if we state this another way, what that means

is if the election would have been overturned on such false pretenses, the false pretenses that are alleged through this indictment, the government would have been a victim of fraud perpetrated by Trump and co-conspirators. So of course, we know the election wasn't overturned. But what this charge is saying is that if it was, then the United States would have been defrauded. So again, just keep in mind as we're going through all of this, I can't make this, you know, I can't reiterate this enough. This entire indictment surrounds the election certification process in which each state's electoral votes are counted and certified in front of Congress. Basically, this indictment talks about every single action he took in which the DOJ feels

was an attempt to obstruct the election certification process. So basically, what I want to do is run through the questions of who, what, how, and why. First, let's start with why. So the indictment says that Donald Trump's reason in doing everything that the indictment alleges was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election. How? The indictment says by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the election certification process. Who? Well, not only is Donald Trump involved in this, but six co-conspirators. Now, the indictment doesn't list these co-conspirators by name, but based on the information given, people have speculated as to who these individuals

are. So first we have co-conspirator number one, which the indictment describes as an attorney who was willing to spread false claims and pursue strategies that Trump's re-election campaign attorneys would not. Now, speculative claims say this is Rudy Giuliani, who is Trump's former attorney and also the former mayor of New York City. Co-conspirator two is described as an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the vice president's role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct said proceeding. According to one of Donald Trump's attorneys, John Loro, this is John Eastman, another former Trump lawyer. Co-conspirator number three is described as an attorney who made unfounded claims of election fraud that Trump had allegedly acknowledged to others sounded crazy, but then publicly amplified the disinformation. Speculative claims say that this is Sidney Powell, another Trump attorney. The fourth

co-conspirator is described as a DOJ official who worked on civil matters and attempted to use the DOJ's power to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with false claims of election fraud. This is said to be Jeffrey Clark. Co-conspirator number five is an attorney who helped plan and attempted to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. This is said to be Kenneth Chesebro. And finally, co-conspirator number six is described as a political consultant who helped implement the aforementioned plan. So that fraudulent slate of electors plan. And it's unclear at this time who co-conspirator number six is, but that is what the description is.

So we've answered why, how, and who, and now we will finish with what. So in this what segment, we're going to just go through basically all of these schemes that are set forth in the indictment. Just remember that all of this is allegedly. So I may not say allegedly five million times, but I want you to know that in an indictment, everything is alleged, right? There's nothing proven yet to a jury. He hasn't been convicted of anything. So this is all allegedly. So just keep that in mind. The first scheme is that Donald Trump allegedly tried to persuade officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote, dismiss electors, and cause the ascertainment of a voting by illegitimate electors in his favor. The second scheme pertains to the fraudulent slates of

electors. I just want to clear up before we dive into this. I am going to refer to these slates of electors as fraudulent slates of electors because that is what the indictment refers to these slates of electors as. For fairness purposes, I want to note that Donald Trump's attorneys are calling this an alternate slate of electors. They say that an alternate slate of electors is completely constitutional and it was previously used by President Kennedy in the 1960 election against Nixon. But just know that when I use the word fraudulent slate of electors, I'm using that word because that is quite literally what the indictment says. So with that note, let's talk about what the indictment says. The indictment

says that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators created fraudulent slates of electors in seven states, specifically Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington. And when he or they created these fraudulent slates of electors, they had these electors follow the same procedures that the legitimate slates of electors were to follow. So in other words, the fraudulent electors met on the day appointed by law in which electors were supposed to meet, they cast votes as electors were supposed to do, and they signed certificates representing that they were legitimate electors when they were in fact not. These quote-unquote false certificates were then sent to the vice president

and other officials at Donald Trump's direction to be counted at the certification proceeding on January 6th. According to the indictment, these fraudulent slates of electors were just one component to his scheme to overturning the election. The third scheme that the indictment alleges is that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators had a member of the DOJ, who is said to be Jeffrey Clark, send letters to seven states, those seven states that I just mentioned previously, which falsely claimed that the DOJ found significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome. The letters informed these states that the fraudulent electors were a valid alternative to the legitimate electors and urged these respective state legislatures to get together and create an opportunity to choose

the fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors. So basically what this is saying is that that letter sent by this DOJ official was improper. It was an attempt to defraud the United States. The fourth scheme set forth in this indictment, so remember there are five total, the fourth scheme is that Donald Trump allegedly attempted to get Vice President Pence to use his role to alter the election results by trying to convince him to use Trump's elector slate rather than the legitimate electoral votes or send the legitimate electoral votes to state legislatures for review rather than counting them. The indictment then says when that attempt failed on January 6th, Donald Trump and his co-conspirators told false claims of election fraud to gathered supporters and told

them that Vice President Pence had the authority to and might change the results. He then directed that gathering of supporters to the Capitol to put pressure on Pence and obstruct the certification proceeding. Finally, the fifth scheme set forth in this indictment is that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators exploited the disruption at the Capitol by doubling down on claims of election fraud. And just as a note, all of those five schemes I basically paraphrased for you. So I went over the indictment myself. I read through it in its entirety, and I basically boiled everything down to paragraphs or bullet points that I felt were relevant to really understand what's going on here.

For Donald Trump to be convicted of this charge, the DOJ will have to prove that Donald Trump took at least one overt act or, in other words, a clear step towards the scheme when he called Georgia's secretary of state asking him to quote unquote find more votes, that would be enough to convict him because that would be considered an overt step towards attempting to overturn the election. Now, notably, if the jury finds that Donald Trump did all of this in good faith, like, yes, maybe he made that call to Georgia's secretary of state asking him to find more votes, but they felt that Donald Trump truly believed that something was wrong with the voting system in Georgia, then that's not you can't convict him on this charge because he didn't have the requisite mental state to actually defraud the

United States. So once I get to the defense strategy, this will make a little bit more sense, but just keep that in mind. So that's the first charge. And again, the first charge makes up the bulk of the indictment, so the rest of the charges aren't so detailed. The second charge is conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. And the third charge is actually very similar. But first, let's talk about this one. The U.S. Code defines this charge as conspiring to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding or attempting to do so. So when we're talking about this charge in relation to the indictment, basically what

the indictment is saying is that Donald Trump conspired to corruptly obstruct and impede the January 6th congressional proceeding where, you know, these election results are counted and certified. corrupt intent. That means that Donald Trump didn't believe in the idea that he was setting forth and that he was setting forth the idea of election fraud for corrupt purposes, meaning he did it to obstruct a government function rather than a truth-seeking function. So let me try to put this in another way. In order for prosecutors to prove corrupt intent, they have to show that Donald Trump thought that these election results were legitimate, but told everyone else and set forth this idea that it was actually illegitimate. And the reason that he was setting forth this idea that it was illegitimate, despite believing it was legitimate, was to obstruct a government function and not to seek out the truth, as he has said this entire time that he was trying to do. So that's the second charge. The third charge, which is

very similar to the second, it's attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. It's just like the charge we just talked about, but it lacks the conspiracy element and adds attempt. So instead of conspiring to do so, you're attempting to do so in this charge. The fourth and final charge is conspiracy against rights. The U.S. Code defines defines this as when two or more people conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, district, etc. in the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights secured to them by the Constitution or laws of the United States. So when we put this in terms of the indictment, basically what the indictment says is that this was a conspiracy against our right to vote, the people of the United States, their right to vote and to have their vote counted. This was actually a law that was passed after the Civil War to protect the new rights of those that had

been formerly enslaved. And the statute really is broad enough to cover anything from hate crimes to police brutality to now, as we're seeing it, against Donald Trump. To convict Donald Trump of this charge, what prosecutors are going to have to show is that he specifically intended to deprive voters of their right to vote, to deprive voters of the right to have their vote counted, or deprive voters of their right to a fair election. To prove this, prosecutors are going to need to present evidence that shows Donald Trump knew his claims of fraud were false. So again, we go back to this idea that in order to convict Donald Trump of

these charges, the prosecutors are going to have to show that Donald Trump actually thought that the results of the election were legitimate, but just put forth these false claims of fraud. So basically, once this gets to a jury, if a jury feels that Donald Trump legitimately thought in his own head that the election was stolen, he can't be convicted. So that is going to be a crucial element of this case. Now, let's talk a little bit about how Trump's attorneys plan to defend this. So obviously, you know, along with what I was just saying, one of the defenses they're going to set forth is that he truly believed that this election was stolen. He was not making up these false claims.

But one of Trump's lawyers, John Loro, he indicated that these charges would be defended mostly on free speech grounds. So what he said is that Trump was engaging in political speech and therefore it was protected by the First Amendment and it cannot be criminalized. And in talking to NPR, he gave a similar message. He said that this is a straightforward defense because Donald Trump had every right to advocate for a position that he believed in. And what he said was free speech encompasses political advocacy, which often involves acting on that free speech. Now, on the flip side of this, prosecutors are going to argue that this wasn't speech. This was conduct. His actions and all of these schemes set forth in

the indictment was conduct, and conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. So that's going to be the most likely fight that plays out between the defense attorneys and the prosecutors, but there's also another defense. So another defense that Trump's attorneys will set forth is that, again, like I said, Trump was petitioning for the truth. And in talking about this defense strategy with NPR, what John Loro said is that even at the end, when Donald Trump asked Pence to pause the voting, he asked that it be sent back to the states so that the states, in exercising their truth-seeking function, could either audit or recertify.

So again, Trump's attorneys are really going to focus on this truth-seeking function and the fact that he lacked the criminal intent necessary for these crimes. And one of the ways that Donald Trump's attorney said he was going to prove that Donald Trump lacked the criminal intent necessary is that Donald Trump was relying on the opinion of his counsel when he asked Mike Pence to declare him the winner of the election and that that counsel told him the request was lawful and constitutional. And therefore, you know, Donald Trump had every right to rely on the advice of counsel. On the flip side of that, there's the argument that he also had attorneys that were saying, no, that's not a legitimate way to seek this out. So that's, of course, what the prosecutors

are going to argue. But in sum, that is their defense strategy as of now. Now, of course, you know, they're going to take their time in reviewing all of the allegations set forth in the indictment and figure out how they really want to defend this case. They're really going to narrow down their tactics and figure out the best strategy for them. But in these very beginning stages, that is what Trump's attorney had to say about how they're going to defend this. So that is everything you need to know about Donald Trump's indictment. So again, he pled not guilty to all four counts. His next hearing was scheduled for August 28th, and this is before a judge in Washington, D.C., so he will be back in Washington, D.C. for that hearing on August 28th. And then at

some point, whether that be at that hearing or some point thereafter, they will set a date for trial. Special Counsel Jack Smith's office is trying to expedite the trial, but Trump's attorneys are trying to put off the trial so that he can partake in all of the election debates and everything like that. So I know that that was a lot. We're going to take a quick 10 second break. But when we get back, I have a few more stories that I know you're going to enjoy just as much. so you may have seen some headlines about this about the district that now governs disney cutting their diversity equity and inclusion programs but the reason i want to touch on this is because of course it is a news story. It is worth talking about. But the headlines that are swirling are somewhat misleading. And unless you know all of the

background of the things that Disney has been through in the last few months, it might not make a lot of sense. So first and foremost, I want to make clear that just because the district governing Disney cut its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs doesn't mean Disney has to cut their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. So a lot of the headlines that I saw made it sound like Disney has to do away with these programs or Disney did away with these programs by way of the district, and that's not how it works. So to fully understand this, we kind of have to walk back a few steps. I do have a episode where I talk about this whole battle between Disney and DeSantis, but let's just

quickly recap what happened leading up to this. So Florida enacted this law called Parental Rights in Education, and opponents call it the Don't Say Gay Law. Well, Disney originally didn't speak up, you know, they didn't speak out about the law, but they received some backlash from their employees. So the CEO comes out and makes a statement about the law and how Florida should have never enacted this law. Well, this sparks a battle between Disney and DeSantis, Florida's governor.

Something else to note though, is that since 1967, Disney has been governed by this district called the Reedy Creek Improvement District. And it's a special taxing district created for Disney World that acted just like a county government. And with this special purpose district, Disney essentially took over responsibility for providing services like power, water, roads, things of that nature. But they were able to do this without having to deal with the quote unquote legal red tape. And this is because the Disney brothers who had started Disneyland in California had dealt

with all of this legal red tape over in Anaheim. And so when they expanded and they came to Florida and they found that Florida was the right place for their next location, they made an effort to work with the Florida legislature and find a way that they could avoid all of these legalities. And so in creating this district for them, the Florida legislature obviously agreed. They gave them this new district. And not only were they avoiding legal red tape, but they also avoided paying taxes for services that benefited the broader public. Now, one thing about the Reedy Creek Improvement District is that it worked under a landowner

election process. What this meant was that Disney, as the largest landowner in the district, had the majority say in the district's board. So it was really kind of self-governing. It was self-governing. And this district allowed Disney to govern its own properties and even levy extra taxes on top of what local governments charge. And over time, as the area started to populate, Reedy Creek Improvement District wasn't just overseeing Disney. So today, there are roughly 19 landowners within the district, though Disney is still the largest by far. So now that you know that bit of background, during this ongoing battle between DeSantis and Disney, DeSantis decides he's going to introduce and sign into law this bill called House Bill

9B. And what it did is it revoked Disney's self-governance. And how it did that was by renaming the Reedy Creek Improvement District to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. And now, rather than using that landowner election process, the board of the new district would be appointed by Governor DeSantis. So now the entire board of this Central Florida Tourism Oversight District that oversees Disney and governs Disney is now completely made up of a board appointed by the governor. So that should give you a ton of context in understanding what's happening here. The new board is the one that did away with DEI programs. This doesn't include companies within the district. This is just the state-run district

itself. So the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board released this statement on Tuesday explaining their decision to dissolve all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the district. The statement cited to this internal investigation into the former Reedy Creek Improvement District policies. And the statement claimed that the diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives set forth during the tenure of Reedy Creek Improvement District were illegal and un-American. So the statement specifically referenced two programs that were run by the Reedy Creek Improvement District called the Minority Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. And what this internal investigation

found was that these programs apparently gave contracts specifically to minorities and women and rewarded these contracts, which the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board says is unacceptable. Specifically, their statement said, quote, The Reedy Creek Improvement District routinely awarded contracts to businesses on the basis of the owner's race and gender. Throughout the program, the Reedy Creek Improvement District instituted gender and racial quotas to ensure that contractors met a certain threshold of diversity. In order to meet these quotas, it is estimated that the district had to pay millions of dollars more in order to find businesses who could comply. After entering into a contract,

Reedy Creek employees aggressively monitored contractors' racial and gender practices, wasting taxpayer dollars. So here's the thing, and I want to make it clear, this announcement specifically pertains to the new Central Florida Oversight Tourism District, not Disney itself. Now let's talk about the testimony from Devin Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, who gave closed door testimony to the House Oversight Committee on Monday. And that testimony transcript is now publicly available. And this is what we know from it. If I had to sum up the entire 141 page testimony, I would say this. I would say Archer testified to the fact that Hunter Biden used his dad's role as vice president, his dad's power as vice president, to leverage his own position within Burisma Holdings during his time on the to jog your memory, Burisma is this find outside financing for international expansion and it

seems that hunter biden's role was due to his his father's position in washington dc like they almost had him on the board because it it could help them at least that's what archer's testimony seems to point to so the questions then dove dove into Hunter Biden using his dad as leverage. And what Devin Archer said is that, yes, it's fair to say the value Hunter Biden brought to Burisma was his dad. And having this unique understanding of Washington, D.C. and how it operates enabled them to raise more capital. And adding on to that same idea, Archer said that there was particular objectives Burisma was trying to accomplish,

and a lot of it was about opening doors in Washington, D.C. And having those doors opened sent the right signals for Burisma to carry on its business and be successful. He clarified that Joe Biden didn't have any involvement with Burisma, but did say that he thinks Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn't have the brand attached to it, meaning Joe Biden's brand, or Hunter Biden's brand, because it allowed for Burisma to remain in the news cycle, which preserved them from a longevity standpoint. Devin Archer also said that at one dinner at the Four Seasons in Dubai, the CEO of Burisma and chief financial officer of Burisma asked Hunter Biden to call Washington, D.C. to see if it could help with some of the pressures Burisma was facing from the prosecutor in Ukraine

because Ukraine or the prosecutor in Ukraine had been investigating Burisma and was putting pressure on it. And so I guess these executives, you know, on the board asked Hunter Biden to call D.C. and see if D.C. could help with some of this pressure. But Archer said it wasn't this like direct request, like, hey, can your dad help? But rather this more, he called it an amorphous, can we get help in DC kind of request. Archer also specifically testified to a few times that he was present for where Hunter had called his dad and put him on speakerphone and said that there was probably around 20 other times that this had happened that Archer knew of but wasn't necessarily present for and also testified to a few times where Joe Biden had attended some dinners with Devin Archer,

Hunter Biden, and others involved in the Burisma company, but was pretty consistent in his testimony saying that all that was ever talked about on these phone calls or when Joe Biden was present was just like niceties. How's the weather? How are things going? How's the fishing? Things like that. Then there was this rumor that because Ukraine's prosecutor was investigating Burisma. Burisma's CEO had given or had bribed Joe Biden with $5 million to help get Ukraine's prosecutor fired. And so that was brought up in this hearing. And the members of the committee asked Devin Archer if he would disagree with that conclusion that Joe Biden was bribed by Burisma's CEO with the $5 million to help get Ukraine's prosecutor fired, to which Archer said, yes, he would disagree. So while Joe Biden was public

about his disapproval of Ukraine's prosecutor, and he did successfully pressure Ukraine to ultimately fire its prosecutor, Archer was not aware, or at least he said he was not aware of any payments that were made to Joe Biden for his help and said that any such statement from Burisma's CEO regarding any payment to Joe Biden could have been just boasting or exaggerating to give this impression of access just like D.C. politicians do. And then, you know, closing out the hearing, he was asked if Hunter Biden ever told him that he could get his dad to change U.S. policy. Archer said no. He was asked if he was aware of Hunter Biden ever asking his dad to change foreign policy. Archer said no. So that's the bulk of it. Again, to sum up, according to Devin Archer, Hunter Biden used his dad as this power pawn

or like to create value for himself on the Burisma board, but never actually discussed business dealings. As expected, Republicans and Democrats are split on what to take away from this testimony. The House Oversight Committee, which is largely Republican, said in a statement on its website, quote, Devin Archer's testimony today confirms Joe Biden lied to the American people when he said he had no knowledge about his son's business dealings and was not involved. Joe Biden was the quote unquote brand that his son sold around the world to enrich the Biden family. Why did Joe Biden lie to the

American people? It begs the question, what else is he hiding? And the statement goes on to say that the House committee will continue to follow the money trail and interview witnesses. On the other hand, Representative Dan Goldman of New York, he is the lone Democrat on the committee. He said it had nothing to do with business and that is the sum and substance of what the testimony was. So the question becomes, how much longer are we going to go on this fishing expedition? There is no evidence connecting President Biden to anything related to Hunter Biden. If you are interested in reading the testimony for yourself, which I always encourage you guys to do, you certainly

don't have to, but it definitely helps gain context, I do have that testimony linked on my website. You can always find my sources to every episode by either clicking in the podcast description where it says sources are linked here, or you can just go to jordanismylawyer.com, find this episode, scroll down to the sources section, and there they are. So if you would like to read the testimony section and there they are so if you would like to read the testimony for yourself you are certainly more than welcome on wednesday a federal jury voted to sentence robert bowers to death for killing 11 people at the tree of life synagogue

in pittsburgh in 2018 this actually marks the first federal death sentence since 2019 and the first time since President Biden took office that federal prosecutors have successfully sought the death penalty. On Thursday is when the judge officially accepted the jury's vote. That's just kind of a formality. And that's when the sentence was entered. However, despite the sentence, the federal government currently has a moratorium on federal executions. It has since 2021. So it's not clear how long it will take him to actually be executed. But we know that death row inmates, it takes a long time generally. The average wait time on death row is about 20 years, so this moratorium will likely push that even further. And the last, the final story of this episode, this reenactment of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting. So today, Friday, August 4th, there

is going to be a reenactment of the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. This is definitely not something we see. So let's talk about it. What's going on? Why is this happening? Basically, what's going to happen is ballistic experts are going to fire up to 139 shots at the high school using an identical AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle from the same exact locations where each shot was fired. And these bullets will be caught in some kind of safety device. They're not just going to like tear up the school, even though it actually doesn't matter because this building is getting torn down anyway. Nonetheless, while these ballistics experts are firing their shots, technicians are going to stand outside the building and record the sound of gunfire. This is why. The sheriff's deputy that

was on site at the time of the shooting is actually being accused of failing in his duty to protect the students. And this is being brought in a civil lawsuit by the victim's families. But basically, the reason that they're doing this reenactment is because the deputy says he didn't hear all of the shots and he couldn't pinpoint where they were coming from because of the echoes. So he actually made the decision not to go into the building. He says that he got within feet of the building's door and drew his gun, but then he backed away and stood next to the adjacent building for about 40 minutes while making radio calls the entire time. But he says he would have charged into the building if he knew where the shooter was, but he just couldn't figure it out and didn't want to risk it, I guess. The families of the victims, on the other hand, say that the officer knew of the

shooter's location, but retreated only out of cowardice and in violation of his duty to protect their loved ones. So the point of the reenactment is to determine what the officer heard when the gunfire was happening, and the families essentially want to disprove his claims that he couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. Now, the next step, once this reenactment takes place, the judge is going to have to determine whether the sound recording fairly and accurately depicts what the officer heard, because only then, only if she finds that it does, can it be admitted into the trial and the jury can hear it.

Because if this sound recording doesn't fairly and accurately represent what the officer heard, then of course there's no point in presenting it to the jury. So that's the next step from there. The judge did say once the reenactment takes place and she has an opportunity to hear the audio recording, she will then make a determination as to whether it's admissible or not. So I touched on this briefly just a minute ago, but the building where the shooting happened was this three-story building with a bunch of classrooms in it, and it was detached from the school's main building. And it hasn't been used since then. So it's basically still been standing for the sole purpose of evidence, both in the

case against the shooter and in these cases against the officer. So as of Friday, once this reenactment is over, the school district is actually going to start demolishing the building. And that will be the end of its time. So that concludes this episode. I hope you enjoyed it. Don't forget to leave me a review, share the show with your friends, have a great weekend, and I will talk to you on Tuesday.