UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (1/6/25): Biden Blocks Oil Drilling and Steel Deal, Congress Certifies Election Results, Trump to be Sentenced Friday, Apple to Settle Secret Siri Recording Lawsuit, NYC's New Congestion Pricing, and More.

Episode Date: January 6, 2025

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Announcement for the New Season of UNBIASED Politics (0:00) Speaker Johnson is Re-Elected to Lead 119th Congress (3:22) Biden Blocks US Steel/Nippon Steel Merger (8:53) Biden Awards 19 Presidential Medals of Freedom (13:36) Apple to Settle Lawsuit Over Alleged Secret Siri Recordings (18:37) NYC Implements New Congestion Pricing (20:59) Congress Certifies 2024 Election Results (24:50) Biden Bans Future Oil/Gas Drilling Covering 625M Acres of Ocean (26:40) Quick Hitters: Surgeon General Releases Cancer/Alcohol Advisory, JetBlue Fined $2M for Late Flights, TikTok Ban Update, Trump to be Sentenced on Friday, United to Use Starlink on Flights, Ohio's New Law Charges for Police Camera Footage (30:14) Critical Thinking Segment (37:31) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. 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

TD Direct Investing offers live support. So whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, you can make your investing steps count. And if you're like me and think a TFSA stands for total fund savings adventure, maybe reach out to TD Direct Investing. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to unbiased. Today is Monday, January 6th, and this is your first news rundown of unbiased season four.

First things first, welcome back. I hope you all were able to enjoy your holiday and some time off from the news and politics generally, because I definitely did. And it was really, really nice to just sort of take that mental break. Second things second, and here's where I just have to rip the bandaid off,

unbiased is going back to two days a week. And I know many of you have come to rely on the show for your daily news, but right now, four days a week, it's just not possible for me. In all transparency, I bit off more than I could chew when I made the decision to go four days a week, it's just not possible for me. In all transparency, I bit off more than I could chew when I made the decision to go four days a week back in April, but I stuck to it and I told myself,

just finish out the year and get it done. I was incredibly burnt out, but I got it done. The thing is I do have other people involved in my business. So I have a manager, I have agents, I have an intern, but I don't have anyone on the production side of things, and I don't want to give up the writing component of the show because that's what I'm so good at, that's what makes the show what it is.

What that means though is that 90% of the research for each episode plus all of the editing and production of the show is entirely on me. So it's a full-time job and then some, and doing it four days a week leaves me with no time to do anything else. Those of you that have been around for a while know that when the show was twice a week I used to post a lot more on social media, I used to have a weekly newsletter, I used to be able to do other things outside of this podcast that have helped build the unbiased

platform to what it is today. But I just don't have that same time now. And I have some really exciting projects I'll be working on this year, some incredibly exciting opportunities, some things that I'll be bringing back into the mix that I haven't been able to do in a while. And I really just can't wait.

As for the format of the show, it'll stay the same. I mean, the episodes will be a little bit longer in duration because there's fewer episodes, so I'm gonna make them longer. They'll probably be closer to 40 minutes instead of 15 to 20 minutes, but the content will be the same. We'll still be doing deep dives,

we'll still be doing quick hitters, rumor has it, critical thinking, all of those segments that we all love, and the show will be released on Mondays and Thursdays. On Mondays, we'll cover everything that happened that Monday and over the weekend, including Friday. So same thing that I was doing Mondays when I was four days a week, same thing.

And then on Thursdays, we'll cover anything that happened Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. It'll work out really well, everything will make sense. And I know 99% of you are going to remain loyal listeners of the show Despite this schedule change, but I do just want to say a big thank you for working with me through these changes and staying by my side through the growth because I truly am just waking up every day and doing my best and You know making the decisions that I feel are the

best for the growth of this platform so I really just appreciate all of you trusting me with that and sticking with me it means a lot and now without further ado and for the first time this year let's get into today's stories starting with our weekend recap on Friday Speaker Johnson was re-elected to lead the 119th Congress, which is the Congress that began Friday, January 3rd at noon. So all of those new lawmakers that you voted for on November 5th were sworn in on January 3rd and have now officially taken their seats. Of course, with the start of a new session, a new speaker has to be elected. And remember, the reason that Speaker Johnson took the position of speaker in the first place is because former speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted. So the House at that point had to come together and vote for a new speaker in the middle of the

118th Congress, and that's when Johnson was voted in. That meant that Johnson would serve until the end of the 118th Congress, which he did, and on Friday, it was time for the House to decide who would lead in the 119th Congress. Speaker Johnson has been fairly well-liked on both sides, and I say that not to say that all Republicans

and all Democrats like him because that's certainly not the case. But in such a politically charged climate, it can be difficult to find a leader that enough people on both sides of the aisle are okay with. And that's what Speaker Johnson has been. Johnson is a pretty staunch Republican, but he's also not part of the hard right flank in Congress.

And he has worked with Democrats on some measures, which the hard right flank actually doesn't like. But this is all to say that he has navigated the position decently in most lawmakers' eyes. Now, like I said, that doesn't mean you're going to have all Democrats voting for him, and they didn't. In fact, no Democrat voted for him. All Democrats voted for Hakeem Jeffries. In fact, no Democrat voted for him. All Democrats voted

for Hakeem Jeffries. But Democrats also know that they could have a speaker worse than Johnson. Johnson, at least, like I said, works across the aisle. With that said, Johnson's bid for reelection was a little bit questionable because of how he handled the most recent government spending fight. So let's talk a little bit about that. The government was set to shut down on December 20th if Congress did not pass what's called a temporary stopgap measure, which keeps the government funded temporarily and avoids a shutdown.

To do this, most of the time, you have to get Republican and Democrat lawmakers to agree on how they're going to keep the government funded and that mainly revolves around what conditions and add-ons they're going to include in that stopgap measure. It's not a particularly easy feat and given the slim margins in the House, if you want to avoid a government shutdown, you either need every single Republican on board, or you need to work across the aisle. So Johnson worked across the aisle a couple of weeks ago to get the stopgap measure passed

because there are a few Republicans that are part of the hard right flank that make it difficult to pass certain pieces of legislation. But Johnson working across the aisle, although it kept the government funded and open, only angered the right flank more. I mean, this is exactly why McCarthy was ousted, right? Because McCarthy worked across the aisle to keep the government funded. So when it came time for Johnson's vote, it wasn't clear he was going to win. There were 434 members voting, which meant Johnson needed a simple majority of 218. All 215 Democrats voted for Hakeem Jeffries, which meant that Johnson couldn't really lose

many Republican votes. And during the first round of voting, three Republican lawmakers voted for other candidates, and six Republicans chose not to cast a vote when their names were called. This meant that Johnson was going to lose. At this point, Johnson leaves the chamber and meets with the three lawmakers that voted against him. And when they come back into the chamber, two of those lawmakers changed their vote to Johnson. Now, we don't know what was said during that conversation, but we do know that those two detractors switching their votes brought Johnson to that 218 number that he needed to win. So Speaker Johnson will remain Speaker of the House until January 3rd

of 2027 when the 119th Congress ends, unless of course something happens in the interim and he's ousted or steps down. The House Minority Leader is Democrat Hakeem Jeffries. He has served as the House Minority Leader since 2023. He was re-elected this past Friday. In a statement leading up to the Speaker vote, Johnson wrote out three commitments. So those commitments include one, creating a working group comprised of independent, uncorrupted experts to work with DOJ and House committees on implementing recommended government and spending reforms to protect the American taxpayer. Two, task that working group

with reviewing existing audits of federal agencies and entities created by Congress and issuing a report to Johnson's office for public release, and 3. Request House committees undertake aggressive authorizations and appropriations reviews to expose irresponsible or illegal practices and hold agencies and individuals accountable that have weaponized the government against the American people. Johnson wrote, quote, If we want to restore fiscal responsibility, we must start by being transparent about the dollars that are being spent, address the issues we find, and then hold those accountable who have misspent funds." In some other news, and also on Friday, President Biden blocked the $14 billion proposed deal for

Nippon's deal of Japan to purchase U.S. Steel. This is something both President Biden and Trump have voiced opposition to. But US Steel and Nippon Steel are very unhappy with Biden's decision to block the sale. And they have now filed a couple of lawsuits over it. So here's a little bit of background. US Steel is the third largest steel producer in the United States.

It's also the 24th largest steel producer in the world. It's based in Pittsburgh and it is a publicly traded company. However, since its founding, its business model has changed a bit. Nowadays, U.S. Steel doesn't produce the steel that's being used in America's infrastructure or military equipment. Instead, its largest market is automotive steel. Since 2011 and until 2021, U.S. Steel was losing money every year, but then it started to turn things around by cutting costs, getting rid of older facilities,

and investing in new technology. Nonetheless, it was reviewing buyout offers. So first, a mining company called Cleveland Cliffs submitted a buyout offer of 7 billion in 2023. That was turned down, but it's important for the story. Then Nippon Steel, the Japanese company, offered almost 15 billion. And as part of that proposal, Nippon Steel pledged

to invest almost 3 billion in US Steel's United States facilities, including its facilities in Pennsylvania and Indiana. This investment, according to US Steel, would have been essential for the United States to remain economically competitive and to keep workers employed in the domestic production of steel.

Nonetheless, President Biden blocked it. Why? So the administration says that the decision protects U.S. interests, it safeguards our national security, and it helps preserve our domestic steel industry. And in a statement, President Biden said in part, quote, "'We need major U.S. companies

representing the major share of US steelmaking capacity to keep leading the fight on behalf of America's national interests. As a committee of national security and trade experts across the executive branch determined, this acquisition would place one of America's largest steel producers under foreign control and create risk for our national security

and our critical supply chains. So that is why I am taking action to block this deal." And then incoming President Trump wrote on True Social Today, quote, Why would they want to sell US Steel now when tariffs will make it a much more profitable and valuable company? Wouldn't it be nice to have US Steel once the greatest company in the world lead the change towards greatness again? It can all happen very quickly."

End quote. So again, U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel wanted this deal to happen. Therefore, once President Biden blocked it, they went ahead and filed two different lawsuits, one against the Biden administration and another against Cleveland Cliffs, that first company that submitted a buyout offer to US Steel.

And the lawsuit essentially, again, the lawsuit against the administration essentially says that the committee that conducted this review failed to conduct a good faith review when it came to the conclusion that the murder came with national security risks. The Steel companies say that the administration knew the decision it was going to make all along before the committee even completed its review and that the committee prioritized politics over national security.

Essentially, the steel companies are asking a federal court to set aside the presidential order blocking the merger and order the committee to conduct a new review on an expedited basis. Now a new review wouldn't really change anything because like we've talked about, Trump has also voiced opposition to the sale so even if a new review is conducted, Trump could go ahead and block it. The second suit, the suit against Cleveland Cliffs, accuses Cleveland Cliffs of conspiring to prevent the sale. So US Steel and Nippon Steel say, Cleveland Cliffs took part in an illegal campaign

to monopolize critical domestic steel markets. Now it's worth noting that while these are two separate lawsuits, they are related in a sense because Nippon Steel and US Steel are basically saying that Biden's decision is not the result of the committee's review, but rather the result of the pressure applied by Cleveland Cliffs, who they say wanted this sale to fail because they would then potentially get another go at a buyout.

So from here, it'll be up to the federal appeals court to take a look at each of these cases and decide what to do and whether to nullify President Biden's order. Let's take our first break here to hear from our sponsors who make this show possible, and when we return, we'll talk about a lot more. On to another story from the weekend related to the president. President Biden awarded some Presidential Medals of Freedom, 19 to be exact. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is considered to be the government's highest civilian honor and is awarded by the president to recognize a lifetime of significant

achievements in the arts, public service, science, or other fields. Now, the Medal of Freedom was created in 1945 by President Harry S. Truman. He established it near the end of World War II to honor civilians who performed deserving acts of service to the United States, but where none of the existing awards were appropriate. The award has continued to evolve regarding who is eligible and it was renamed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963 as the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Today, the Presidential Medal of Freedom allows the President to recognize, quote, any person who has made an especially meritorious contribution to one, the security or national interests of the United States, two, world peace,

or three, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors, end quote. There is no formal procedure for nominating and selecting recipients of the Medal of Freedom, and the president can award the medal to any person that is recommended to the president or any person selected by the president upon his initiative, so long as they meet those few things that we talked about.

So on Saturday, President Biden awarded the medal to 19 different individuals. And I'll briefly review who each recipient is and do a quick little sentence to give you an idea of who they are. Jose Andres, he's a Spanish American celebrity chef who founded the World Kitchen, which provides relief to communities affected by natural disasters and conflict around the world. Gaza being one of those places during the Israeli Hamas war. Bono, he is an Irish singer-songwriter, part of the band U2, an activist against AIDS and poverty. Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and senator from New York, also the first woman nominated for president by a major United States political party.

Michael J. Fox, a well-known actor who is diagnosed with Parkinson's disease at age 29 and has become a leading voice for research on the disease through his foundation. Tim Gill, he founded and sold the tech company Quark and then moved to concentrate on charity work aimed at LGBTQ rights and advocacy. Jane Goodall, she is a scientist and activist known for her breakthrough work on studying primates and human evolution. Irvin Johnson, AKA Magic Johnson,

he's a five time NBA champion and was a huge basketball star. Off the court, he is now an entrepreneur and philanthropist who supports underserved communities through his Magic Johnson Foundation. Ralph Lauren is a fashion designer whose clothes have been described as a favorite of Jill Biden's throughout her time as first lady. Lionel Messi, the most decorated player in professional soccer history and serves as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador. Now, Messi did not attend the ceremony. He said that he had

a scheduling conflict. He wrote a letter to the president saying he wasn't able to make it but that he hopes to meet the president in the near future. William Nye, aka Bill Nye the Science Guy, who since ending his popular children's show has become a climate policy advocate. David Rubenstein, the billionaire co-founder of the Carlyle Group, who has donated to support the restoration of historic landmarks and the country's cultural institutions. George Soros. Soros is a billionaire and democratic mega donor. He's an ally of Biden and a big supporter of liberal causes. George Stevens Jr., an award-winning writer, director, author, and playwright. His work focuses on preserving American cinematic heritage. Denzel Washington,

an actor, director, and producer who served as the national spokesman for the Boys and Girls Club of America for over 25 years. He was actually selected for this award by President Biden in 2022, but he missed that ceremony because he had COVID at the time. And then finally, Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue, the leading architect behind the annual Met Gala fundraiser, the chief content officer of Conde Nast, and a philanthropist. Four medals were also awarded posthumously. So George W. Romney, who served as a three term Republican governor of Michigan and as President Nixon's housing secretary, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, former senator and attorney general for his work combating racial

segregation and addressing poverty and inequality in the country. Ashton Carter, a former secretary of defense, and Fannie Lou Hamer, she founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and laid the groundwork for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. All right, so we're still on this weekend recap. Let's now move on to some legal news. Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit that claimed its Siri voice assistant violated users' privacy.

Note here though, this settlement does still have to be approved by a judge before its final. The lawsuit at the center of the settlement alleges that Apple was infringing on users' privacy by recording users' conversations with Siri and then sharing this information with third- party advertisers. Two plaintiffs claimed that they mentioned

Air Jordan sneakers and Olive Garden restaurants and then later received targeted ads for those products. Another plaintiff alleged that he had received ads for a brand name surgical treatment after discussing it in a private conversation with his doctor. Again, that settlement is for $95 million. If approved, most of the money will go to Siri users that are based in the United States and

owned an Apple Siri enabled device between September 17th, 2014 and December 31st, 2024. The settlement is only for those impacted by the alleged wrongdoings, so to claim, one has to swear under oath that they experienced Siri activating unintentionally and had private conversations recorded. If the $95 million is approved, Apple will pay up to $20 each to Siri users, and each Siri user is limited to five devices. The rest of the settlement will go to the legal teams. It's worth noting that if these allegations are true, Apple more than likely violated federal wiretapping laws as well as other laws that are designed to protect people's privacy. However, it would likely take a separate DOJ investigation to get down to the bottom of that because by

settling this lawsuit, Apple kind of avoids that discovery process. Apple has maintained that these allegations are false, and an Apple spokesperson made a statement alluding to their reasons for settling by saying, quote, Siri data has never been used to build marketing profiles, and it has never been sold to anyone for any purpose. Apple settled this case to avoid additional litigation so we can move forward from concerns about third-party grading that we already addressed in 2019. We use Siri data to improve Siri, and we are constantly developing technologies to make Siri even more private." End quote. And now for some state-side news. Congestion pricing in New York City went into effect on Sunday, and it's causing

a lot of controversy. Before we get into the arguments on both sides, let's talk about how this works. Most drivers will be charged via their EZPass, which is an electronic toll collection system, but anyone without an EZPass will receive a bill in the mail to the vehicle's registered owner. And those who don't have an EZPass and instead receive these bills by mail will actually have to pay a higher rate than those with an EZPass. Most drivers with an EZPass will pay $9 to enter Manhattan south of Central Park on weekdays between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. and on weekends between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. During off hours, the toll will be reduced to $2.25 for most vehicles. And these prices do vary by vehicle type. So motorcycles are charged less and

then bigger vehicles like trucks and buses are charged more. That $9 rate applies to your typical passenger car. This is an initiative that New York has been working on for a while. I believe the first time I ever talked about it on this podcast was in 2023. And it was supposed to go into effect this summer, but in June, Governor Hockel put the program on pause. It's thought, given the timing, that the pause on the program was political because she stopped it over the summer when there was just a few months until the election, and then it was brought back right after the election in November. So she says that politics weren't at play. She was just taking some time to rethink the pricing component of the program, but

other people believe otherwise. She did change the pricing though, so when she brought back the plan, most cars would be charged at nine dollars, which is what we're seeing now. Previously under the original plan, most cars were going to be charged $15. So now let's talk about some of the arguments on both sides. The city says that this new tax is an attempt to relieve city congestion by deterring people from driving and instead encouraging people to use other transportation methods such as mass transit or you know, aka the subway. The city also says the fees will raise money for the MTA,

the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. And then these fees can then be used to fix and improve the public transit infrastructure. Advocates also say that decreased traffic will improve air quality. Some hope that the measure will also reduce the number of traffic fatalities in the city, mainly pedestrians.

On the other side, critics, including incoming President Trump, argue that congestion pricing is a burdensome tax on people who have to drive to work in Manhattan and don't have mass transit options available. These critics also question why there's no exemption for first responders. fact that the subways currently are not safe. Critics are questioning why the city is encouraging residents to ride the subways and they're citing to the corruption of the MTA and are already anticipating an increase in subway rates now that the city is pushing more people to the subway. And then finally, there's the argument that many of those that work in the city and commute in for work because they can't afford to live in the city can't afford a

nine dollar fee and those are the ones that are subject to the fee whereas those that live in Manhattan and probably won't be subject to this fee on a daily basis because they're less likely to drive are actually more likely to be able to afford it but aren't the ones having to pay it. So many Manhattan residents have filed a class action lawsuit. The state of New Jersey also filed a lawsuit on behalf of its commuters, but a federal judge denied New Jersey's request for an injunction on Friday, which prompted or gave way for this program to take effect on Sunday. So while the program is currently in effect as we sit here today, it does still face some

obstacles including the pending lawsuits as well as incoming President Trump, who as I said is against this program. And now for some news from today. So we're done with the weekend recap. Let's move on. Today is January 6th, and that means that the 2024 election results were certified by Congress. January 6th is the day every four years that election results are certified. Unless January 6th falls on a weekend, then Congress can temporarily change the date by law. But today being January 6 means that lawmakers in both the House and the Senate got together for a joint session at 1 p.m. Eastern Time to tally the electoral votes from the 50 states plus DC and the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, who also serves as the President of the Senate, read aloud these electoral votes and Congress counted each state's

results to affirm Trump's victory. What's interesting about today's certification is that VP Harris is the one that read aloud the electoral votes and she also happens to be the losing candidate in this election. What's also different about this election certification is that this is the first certification since the passing of the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022. So the Reform Act was passed in the wake of January 6, 2021 and changed a few things about the certification process. For one, it made it more difficult for members of Congress to challenge a state's electors. Previously, just one member of the House and one Senator were needed to raise an objection. Now 20% of each chamber has to raise an objection.

The Reform Act also clarified that the VP's role in presiding over the joint session of Congress is in fact ceremonial. So now that the election results have been certified, Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th, and that is when he will officially become president again. Let's take our second and final break of this episode, and when we come back, we'll talk about Biden blocking oil drilling, some quick hitters, and critical thinking. In some other today news, President Biden announced that he would ban oil and gas drilling in 625 million acres of federal

waters. Let's talk about it. First and foremost, this was an environmental protection move from Biden. That was his rationale. So he cited to the deep water horizon spill and the irreversible damage that drilling off the coasts can cause. In the president's statement, he wrote in part, quote, we do not need to choose between protecting the environment and growing our economy or between keeping our ocean healthy or coastlines resilient and the food they produce secure and keeping energy prices low. Those are false choices. Protecting America's coasts and ocean is the right thing to do and will help communities and the economy to flourish for generations to come. End quote. So let's briefly

talk about how the president was able to issue the ban and what effects it might have. The president used his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. This was enacted back in 1953 and it lays out basically how our government handles the outer continental shelf of the United States. But one of the provisions specifically allows the president to prohibit leasing activities for certain areas of the outer continental shelf. So that's where this authority is coming from. Because remember, for these oil and gas companies to drill in federal waters, they have to obtain leases from the government.

But if the president blocks those leases, then they can't drill. Now, one thing I wanna mention at the outset is that this ban will not impact any areas where the United States is currently drilling, but does have an impact on where US companies are able to explore in the future. There are three areas that are blocked

by this presidential order, and they are as follows. The entire Eastern U.S. Atlantic coast and eastern Gulf of Mexico, 334 million acres. There are currently no active oil and natural gas leases in federal waters off the eastern Atlantic coast. Florida specifically has been opposed to drilling off of its coast, and Trump's administration actually issued a previous withdrawal in the southern portion of this area, but the difference is that Trump's withdrawal had an expiration date in 2032,

whereas this new ban makes the withdrawal permanent. The withdrawal also blocks drilling in nearly 250 million acres of federal waters off the West Coast of the United States, and again, no active leases there either, and California, like Florida, has also adamantly opposed drilling off of its coast. And then finally, the withdrawal blocks drilling

in 44 million acres of the Northern Bering Sea, which is up by Alaska. Now, a few of you asked, can President Trump reverse this ban? Does he have the authority to do so? And the answer isn't clear. If this were an executive order signed by the president, then yes, Trump could come in and do away with it pretty easily and quickly.

But the authority that Biden used comes from a provision of the law that allows a president to permanently take parts of the Outer Continental Shelf off the table for leasing activities and does not specify a way for a future president to undo that action. So it's not clear what could happen is oil and gas companies could sue and challenge the issuance of the presidential order and the authority it's based upon or Trump could try to reverse the order with his own order and then he would get sued by some environmental groups and in either case the courts would have to figure it out. But the avenue of the courts, that's really the only clear avenue as of now when we think about whether Biden's ban is reversible. Now let's move on to some quick hitters. On Friday, the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released a new advisory called the

Surgeon General's Advisory on Alcohol and Cancer Risk. In it, he includes a series of recommendations to increase awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer, including updating the warning label on alcoholic beverages. The surgeon general noted that the direct link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk is well established for at least seven types of cancer, those being cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, liver, mouth, throat, and voice box.

He stated that the type of alcohol consumed is irrelevant and that for certain cancers, evidence shows the risk of developing cancer may start to increase around one or fewer drinks per day. However, he also notes that an individual's risk of developing cancer due to alcohol consumption is determined by a multitude of factors, including biological, environmental, social, and economic factors. If you would like to read that advisory,

I do of course have it linked for you in the sources section of this episode. The Department of Transportation announced a $2 million penalty against JetBlue for operating multiple chronically delayed flights. This is the first time an airline has been fined for doing so. The Department of Transportation's press release states that its investigation uncovered that JetBlue operated four chronically delayed flights at least 145 times between June 2022 and November 2023. Each flight was chronically delayed for five straight months in a row or more. Despite DOT warning JetBlue about the chronic delays on its flight between JFK Airport and

Raleigh Airport, the airline continued to operate chronically delayed flights, specifically between Fort Lauderdale and Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and JFK, and Fort Lauderdale and Connecticut. The DOT's order requires JetBlue cease and desist its chronically delayed flights and pay the $2 million penalty of which 1 million will go to the US Treasury and 1 million will compensate JetBlue passengers that were affected by previously delayed flights

covered in the order or future cancellations or delays of three hours or more within the next year. A quick little update on the TikTok ban, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case on Friday, but in the lead up to those arguments, various people, including the parties involved in the lawsuit, of course, have been filing briefs with the court. So the parties involved in the suit have to file briefs that are required by the court, but then other people or entities that have an interest in the matter, they can also file briefs just to try to convince the court

one way or the other. So right after Christmas, Trump's attorney filed a brief with the court, asking the court to pause the ban beyond the January 19th deadline to give Trump time to, quote, "'Pursue a political resolution "'to the questions at issue in the case. End quote.

In other words, once Trump is inaugurated, he wants to try to work out a deal to keep TikTok. But if the ban takes effect on January 19th, like it's currently supposed to, Trump would not have that opportunity because he has no presidential power until the following day. So he is asking the court to pause the ban past the January 19th deadline. Then more recently on Friday, the Biden DOJ filed its own brief asking the court to reject Trump's request. So the DOJ basically argued that granting Trump's request

would equate to a temporary injunction, which can only be granted if ByteDance and or TikTok have established that there is a likelihood they will win this case on the merits. And the DOJ says TikTok and ByteDance have or TikTok have established that there is a likelihood they will win this case on the merits. And the DOJ says TikTok and ByteDance have been unable to do that. And therefore in injunction, like the one Trump is requesting,

cannot be granted. So I will keep you posted as more develops there. And once arguments do take place on Friday, we'll do a deep dive as to how the justices are leaning that will of course be in Monday's episode. And speaking of this coming Friday, Trump will be sentenced in the falsification of business records case. Judge Mershawn, the judge who has overseen this case from the beginning, released an order on Friday stating that there is no legal impediment to sentencing and therefore sentencing will

go forward on Friday in the interest of bringing finality to the matter. However, as I have said from the very beginning, it is now clear that Trump will not get jail time. Mershon wrote in his order, quote, while the court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the court's inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction, but one the people, aka the state of New York, concede they no longer

view as a practicable recommendation, as such in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the presidential things up, a sentence of unconditional discharge means that the conviction will stay on Trump's record, assuming it doesn't get overturned on appeal, but he will not face prison time, he will not get a fine, he won't get probation, he doesn't really face any sentence at all. In some less political news, but news nonetheless, United Airlines flights will have access to Elon Musk's Starlink satellite internet network starting in the spring. United says it will start testing Starlink in February for in-flight Wi-Fi, and its first commercial flight with Starlink on board will launch shortly thereafter. United plans to outfit its two-cabin regional fleet by the end of 2025 and have its first

mainline Starlink-enabled plane in the air by the end of the year. The goal is to eventually have Starlink available on every United flight. Currently, there are a few airlines that have Starlink. So the semi-private charter firm JSX, that includes complimentary Starlink Wi-Fi and its fleet of 46 planes. And in September, Hawaiian Airlines also announced that it would offer Starlink free to all travelers

on Airbus operated flights between the Hawaiian islands and the continental US, Asia and Oceania. The last quick hitter is interesting and will take us into our critical thinking segment. Ohio's governor signed into law a bill that allows police departments to charge the public for the release of camera footage from its officers. So this includes dash cam footage,

body cam footage or surveillance footage. In his statement, the governor said, No law enforcement agency should ever have to choose between diverting resources for officers on the street to move them to administrative tasks like lengthy video redaction reviews for which agencies receive no compensation. And this is especially so for when the request compensation and this is especially so for when the requester of the video is a private company So the governor compared this new legislation to the payments that are associated with duplicating public records, while noting that this fee is not mandatory, but up to the discretion of the agency. So under this law, agencies don't have to charge for camera footage, but if they do charge, they can charge up to $750.

So on that note, let's take a look at the video. So this is the video of the video. So under this law, agencies don't have to charge for camera footage, but if they do charge, they can charge up to $750. So on that note, let's get into critical thinking. A few things come to mind here when I think about this bill, and this is just to give you some ideas to get you thinking about it. On one hand, like the governor said, you have to take into account the time and resources that the department spends preparing the footage for its release, doing those redaction reviews. The same argument is made for public records or incorporating a business with the state.

You have to pay a fee to compensate the state or agency for its time. Notably though, $750 is a much higher rate than we typically see for other public records. You also have to take into account the fact that yes, some private companies and honestly nowadays, some social media users and content creators use this type of footage for monetary gain.

On the other hand, you have to weigh the public's right to records or citizens right to their own records because it's one thing if, you know, let's just say Celebrity X gets a DUI and you wanna see the body cam footage or a tabloid wants to see the body cam footage. That's an entirely different situation than if you yourself were involved in,

let's say a car accident, there's body cam footage of it and you want that footage for purposes of your case. That is something that directly affects you. So it begs the question, should you have to pay in the former situation but not the latter? Should you have to pay in both situations? Or should you just not have to pay at all?

Whatever your answer is, what is your rationale? And if you think that you shouldn't have to pay for police footage, then ask yourself, why would we not have to pay for police footage, but have to pay for other types of public records? What's the difference there in your eyes? Remember, this critical thinking exercise is just a way to jog our brains and get us thinking a little bit because in a world where we're

constantly told how and what to think, it's important to think for ourselves every now and then. That is what I have for you today. I am so happy to be back. Thank you for being here and I will talk to you again on Thursday.