UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (1/9/25): LA Sees Mass Destruction. What Went Wrong? PLUS Trump Wants to Take Back Panama Canal, Buy Greenland, and Add Canada to the US; Laken Riley Act, HR7, and More.

Episode Date: January 9, 2025

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Los Angeles Sees Mass Destruction Amid Wildfire Outbreak (1:19) Man Who Exploded Cybertruck in Vegas Allegedly Used Chat GPT to Plan Attack (11:06) Meta Says It's Making Content Changes Including Getting Rid of Fact-Checkers and Showing More Political Content (14:07) Trump Says He Wants to Buy Greenland, Regain Possession of Panama Canal, and Make Canada the 51st State (18:54) House Passes Laken Riley Act. Here's What It Says. (26:06) House Resolution 7 - What Is It? (28:49) Quick Hitters: President Carter's Funeral, Man Arrested with Machete at Capitol, Death Row Inmates Reject Biden's Clemency, Trump's Request to Postpone Sentencing Denied, Sam Altman Accused of Sexual Abuse By Sister, CNN on Trial for Defamation in Florida (31:13) 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

the NBA. Bet MGM authorized gaming partner of the NBA has your back all season long from tip off to the final buzzer. You're always taken care of with the sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with Ben MGM and no

matter your team, your favorite player or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about that MGM download the app today and discover why Ben MGM is your basketball home for the season raise your game to the next level this year with Ben MGM a

sports book worth a slam dunk and authorized gaming partner of the NBA that MGM dot com for terms and conditions must be 19 years of age or older to wager Ontario only please play responsibly if you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. VET MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, January 9th. Let's talk about some news. But first, I wanna start this episode by sending love to everyone impacted by the fires in Los Angeles. By now, I'm sure we've all heard at least

the general gist of what's going on, but thousands of people have lost their homes, their businesses, their livelihoods, and many, many more have been forced to evacuate. There are currently five separate fires and it just absolutely breaks my heart. To the firefighters and the other first responders who are quite literally putting their own lives at risk to save the livelihoods of others, thank you. You truly are some of the bravest people on this planet and we are standing with you in gratitude and solidarity. I have a lot of listeners in the Los Angeles area and there's a good chance that some of you were either directly impacted by this fire or have a

loved one that was and I just want to speak to you right now when I tell you that I am so sorry and I'm thinking of you. I know that there are no words that you know can make this situation better but I hope it at least helps a little bit to know that you are in my thoughts. For those that are not aware of the details surrounding these fires, let's talk about it. So this is going to be the first story of the day. As I said, there are currently five fires burning throughout Los Angeles. The Palisades Fire, the Eaton Fire, the Hearst Fire, the Lydia Fire, and the Sunset Fire. Of the five, the Palisades Fire is the biggest and the most destructive in LA County history,

and it's also expected to be the costliest fire in US history. The Palisades fire is 0% contained at this point. The only two fires that are somewhat contained are the Hearst fire, which is currently about 10% contained, and the Lydia fire, which is about 60% contained. Those are the two most northern fires. The other three, so the Palisades fire, the Sunset fire, and the Eaton fire, are 0% contained at this point. The Palisades fire has burned roughly 17,000 acres. The Sunset fire, which is the smallest of the five, has burned roughly 43 acres. And the Eaton fire, which is the second largest, has burned roughly 11,000 acres. Now there are a lot of factors that play into why these fires start and continue to grow

at incredibly fast rates. First of all, dry weather, low humidity, combine that with strong winds and you have a recipe for disaster. Yesterday, wind gusts were reaching 80 mph, though as of this morning winds have significantly died down. There is also a lot of brush in these areas, and on one hand, the brush has not been cleared in decades, but also, last year LA recorded the highest rainfall in a two year time span. What that means is that once all of that rain stopped and the dry conditions came about,

there was even more vegetation for these fires to feed on. On top of all of this, though, in addition to the weather-related conditions, California and LA specifically have some other issues. The LA Fire Department received a budget cut of about $17.5 million in June, which is about a 2% decrease from the previous year's budget. And I know there's been some controversy on social media over whether the LAFD actually saw a budget cut or whether it actually saw a budget increase. So let's go over the numbers.

In June, LA's mayor signed the City of LA's budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. The LAFD's total budget was $819,637,000. During the prior fiscal year, the LAFD's total budget was $837,191,000. That means that the budget cut from the prior fiscal year to this fiscal year was about $17.5 million. The LA department that saw a budget increase was the LAPD, not the LAFD. So just weeks ago on December 17th, the LA Fire Chief sent a

report to the city regarding the budget cut. And the report says in part, quote, the LAFD is facing unprecedented operational challenges due to the elimination of critical civilian positions and a $7 million reduction in overtime variable staffing hours. The reduction in V-hours has severely limited the department's capacity to prepare for, train for, and respond to large-scale emergencies including wildfires." One unit that was particularly impacted was the disaster response section, which oversees the department's heavy equipment used during disasters and the report says quote, the hours fund heavy equipment operators who make fire control lines around wildland fires, manage firefighting robotics, wildland fire road maintenance, post-fire

demolition services, and other all-hazard emergency services. Ultimately loss of funding impairs the department's ability to mitigate wildland fires and other hazards effectively." End quote. Now, despite that report, the LA Mayor Karen Bass has said that she is confident that the budget cuts did not have an impact on the LA FD's response to the wildfires this week. Another issue in California is the lack of adequate reservoirs in 2014, California introduced prop one which dedicated two point seven billion dollars For investments in water storage projects. The program was intended to either expand existing reservoirs Increase groundwater storage or build surface storage facilities in seven different locations across California

Ten years later not one of those projects has been completed. While construction has begun in two locations, completion of those first two projects is not scheduled until 2027 and 2028. The last of the projects is scheduled to finish in 2032. This to say that despite Prop 1 being introduced in 2014, the water storage projects have yet to come to fruition. Of the reservoirs that do exist, many were not adequately filled and firefighters ran out of water in the fire hydrants pretty early on. This actually started within the first day or day and a half of the Palisades fire. As of today though, officials are saying that they have quote, worked around some mitigations and that the water system is starting to stabilize, end quote. But aside from the factors that led to this devastating destruction,

there's another component that not many outside of California are thinking about, and that is the insurance of it all. So according to the most recent data from the California Department of Insurance, between 2020 and 2022. Insurance companies declined to renew 2.8 million homeowner policies in the state. That includes 531,000 in LA County. Insurance companies in California have been refusing to write new policies in areas that they consider to be at high risk for wildfires. And with the rising threat, these companies are pulling back on offering coverage in many areas. In fact, in the area hit hardest by the fires, the Pacific Palisades, State Farm just last year canceled 69% of its policies there. So to try to solve this problem,

California set up a plan called the California Fair Plan, which was meant to be a last resort for California residents but has seen demand skyrocket because of the lack of insurance or coverage from private insurers. To illustrate the demand, the Fair Plan's exposure for dwellings as of September was up 61% to 458 billion dollars from just a year earlier and triple where it stood only four years ago. Its exposure for commercial policies has risen even faster, nearly doubling to $26.6 billion as of September and up 464% in the last four years. The issue with fair policies though is that they have higher premiums than traditional private insurance and less coverage. So homeowners

are either just simply going without fire insurance, whether by choice, or because they were dropped by their insurer, or buying into this California fair plan and often having to buy additional coverage, what's called wraparound coverage, at an even higher cost. Now, a couple of weeks ago, the California Department of Insurance announced new regulations to try to give California homeowners that are in high-risk areas an alternative to California fare. And the regulations essentially require that insurers must write policies in fire-prone areas equal to at least 85% of their market share throughout the state. Also, insurance companies can now factor in the cost of reinsurance policies as part of their rate calculation. So reinsurance policies are policies that the insurance company

will buy from other firms to spread their risk. California was the only state that did not allow the cost of reinsurance to be part of the rate calculations. So these new regulations change that, but what that means, of course, is higher rates. And given the fact that these new regulations were only announced a couple of weeks ago, the effects have not yet been seen by California residents. And all of this is not even mentioning that if you have homeowners insurance that covers fires and you lost your home, insurance does not just replace your belongings and your home next week.

As an attorney, I actually practiced in insurance defense. I know how these insurance companies work. Anyone who has ever filed a homeowners claim with their insurance company can definitely understand this. The insurance companies do not make it easy and when you take into account the fact that it's not just one house fire, right? You literally have neighbor entire neighborhoods and an entire city that were burnt to the ground. It just makes the situation so much worse. So the entire situation is just, it's really not a good one. As far as the economic impact, an initial estimate from AccuWeather puts the total cost

between $52 billion and $57 billion, which makes it the most expensive fire event in history, but those numbers are likely to go up even further once all of the damage is assessed. One last note I'll make about what's going on in LA right now. There are unfortunately some bad actors out there that like to prey on the misfortunes of other people, and at least 20 people have been arrested for looting or similar crimes in evacuation zones. Criminals and thieves know that these people are not going to be home because they have been evacuated and they take advantage of the situation. So to the people of LA, I am thinking of you. I am so sorry for what you're going through and all I can say is

that I hope the situation starts to improve immediately. There is no easy way to transition from that story, so let's just move along. Police say that the man behind the Tesla Cybertruck explosion in Las Vegas on New Year's Day used ChatGPT to plan the attack. As many of you probably know, on Wednesday, January 1st, a Cybertruck exploded just outside the entrance of the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas shortly after the driver of that Cybertruck fatally shot himself. The explosion injured several people standing nearby, and the driver has since been identified as 37-year-old Matthew Leibelsberger.

Leibelsberger was an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and was in the elite special forces for 18 years. Lievlsberger was an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and was in the elite special forces for 18 years. Most recently, Lievlsberger was listed as a remote and autonomous systems manager for the Army and was stationed in Germany but was on leave in Colorado Springs when he left for Nevada sometime after Christmas. According to his wife, Lievlesberger behavior changed after he returned from a tour in the Middle East, suffering from a traumatic brain injury in 2019. And in the days leading up to the attack, it is reported that Lievlesberger and his wife had gotten into an argument and he left their home the day after Christmas. On December 29th, he reportedly got

in touch with an old girlfriend. Out of the blue, he texted her, quote, I rented a cyber truck. It's the shit. I feel like Batman or Halo. Three days later is when he shot himself and set off the explosion outside of Trump International Hotel. The incident is still under investigation, but at this point, police are saying that Livelsberger used the AI platform ChatGPT to plan the attack. Investigations into Livelsberger's ChatGPT searches indicate he was specifically looking for information on explosive targets, the speed at which certain rounds of ammunition would travel, and whether fireworks were legal in Arizona. Kevin McMahill, sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said at a news

conference on Tuesday, quote, I think this is the first incident on US soil where ChachiPT is utilized to help an individual build a particular device. So absolutely it is a concerning moment for us. End quote. Authorities also said they discovered a six page document, which they have not released publicly, because some of that material may be classified information, and they're currently working with the Department of Defense to make that determination. However, Sheriff McMahill did read some of the excerpts found on Liblesberger's phone, which read in part, quote,

This was not a terrorist attack. It was a wake-up call. Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives? Why did I personally do it now? I needed to cleanse my mind of the brothers I've lost and relieve myself of the burden of the lives I took." End quote. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we will get into a lot more. Meta the parent company of Facebook has decided to follow in the footsteps of X

and replace its platform fact checkers with a user-based system known as Community Notes. So in 2016, Meta launched its initial fact checking system, which worked by running information on its platforms through independent third-party fact checkers. fact-checkers were certified through what's called the International Fact-Checking Network and in working with Meta, they were tasked with reviewing and rating the accuracy of stories and content. Each time a fact-checker rated a piece of content as false, Meta would do three things to that content.

One, Meta would significantly reduce the content's distribution so that fewer people would see it. Two, Meta would notify people who previously shared that content that the information is false. And three, Meta would apply a warning label to the content that links to the fact checker's article, disproving the content's claims. What's interesting about this is that

on one of Meta's older blog posts about how these third party fact checkers work, Meta wrote in bold font, quote, "'We know this program is working and people find value in the warning screens we apply to content after a fact checking partner has rated it. We surveyed people who had seen these warning screens on platform and found that 74% of people thought they saw the right amount or were open to seeing more false information labels with 63% of people thinking they were applied fairly." Tuesday, Mehta wrote, quote, experts like everyone else have their own biases and

perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact check and how. Over time, we ended up with too much content being fact-checked that people would understand to be legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor." So in its effort to move away from its fact-checking tool, Meta is implementing a few changes. Number one, it's switching to a community notes model like the one that X uses. So instead of using third-party experts to fact-check content, the community notes model like the one that X uses. So instead of using third party experts to fact check content,

the community notes model has been designed to utilize input from meta users with a range of perspectives to help prevent biased ratings. Meta itself won't write community notes or decide which ones show up. Instead, the notes will be written and rated by contributing users. And instead of overlaying full screen false information warnings,

Meta will use a quote unquote less obtrusive label, indicating that there's additional information available for those who want to see it. The next change announced by Meta is that it will be limiting the processes where content gets removed. So previously Meta used automated systems to take down content violating guidelines, but they have since found that up to 20% of the content was taken down by mistake, which Meta says contributes to censorship on the platform. Meta announced that they will now only use these automated systems for illegal and high-severity violations like terrorism, child sexual

exploitation, drugs, fraud, and scams, but for less severe policy violations, another user must report an issue before Meta takes any action. Now Meta didn't specify what less severe policy violations are, so we don't really know what that means. However, Meta did also write, quote, We're getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity, and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate. It's not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress but not on our platforms. End quote. And then the third and final change

announced by Metta is how political content will be treated on the platform. Since 2021, Meta has worked to reduce the political content that people saw, but as Meta says, this was a pretty blunt approach. Meta writes, quote, we're going to start treating civic content from people and pages you follow on Facebook and presumably Instagram more like any other content in your feed and we will start ranking and showing you that content based on explicit signals like liking a piece of content and implicit signals like simply viewing the content that help us predict what's meaningful to people. We are also going to

recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see." End quote. Moving on, earlier this week at Donald Trump's pre-inauguration press conference, he made a few statements that prompted many of you to write in and ask that I provide some clarity. So let's clear up the three comments that have garnered the most virality. First, Trump said that he would rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. This prompted Mexico's president to then suggest renaming the United States Mexicana America. Obviously that suggestion

was a little more facetious than Trump's suggestion, but let's answer the question you've all been asking, which is can Trump change the name? The answer is that he can try and so can you actually any US citizen including Trump Obviously can propose a new name to the US Board on geographic names or the BGN But you have to provide a compelling reason to change it The BGN will then make a decision once tribal, county, and local governments, as well as state geographic names authority and appropriate land management agencies, have had the opportunity to provide recommendations of their own. The BGN will take into consideration two main criteria,

so the look at widespread use of a different name and historical or cultural concerns. So is the new name already commonly used by the public, and is the original name inaccurate or can it be viewed as derogatory or offensive? If the BGN ultimately recommends the change, then it's up to the Secretary of the Interior, not the President, to issue the final approval. The other option is Congress drafting a bill and getting it signed into law. In fact, after Trump's remarks, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said on a podcast that she was so fired up watching the press conference that she told her staff to immediately draft the legislation.

Now, that's not to say that when and if the bill is drafted and introduced it will pass After all it would still have to clear the Senate's 60 vote filibuster threshold, but who knows notably if the name is Ultimately changed other countries would not have to recognize the change It would only apply to the United States The next comment that Trump made was about taking control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He said we need both for economic security. So Greenland has been part of Denmark for roughly 600 years, though it did achieve self-rule status in 2009. Trump's comments about needing Greenland for national security likely stem from the fact that Greenland is home to a large US military base and Greenland's location between Russia, Europe, and the US is advantageous for trade and defense purposes.

Now, Trump also said he wanted to purchase Greenland during his first administration, but Greenland wasn't into it then and still to this day, Greenland's prime minister says the island is not for sale. As far as the Panama Canal goes, Panama has had full control of the Panama Canal since 1999. President Jimmy Carter signed a treaty in 1977 which guaranteed that Panama would regain control of the Panama Canal after 1999 and at that point the U.S. would cease to control the canal for the first time since 1903. Trump claims that this is one of the biggest mistakes that President Carter made and that we need

to take it back since China now controls the canal. This is a claim that the Panama Canal authority chief denies. Since Trump's remarks, Panama's president has continued to affirm that the canal is theirs. Now assuming that the president of Panama was to reverse course and was willing to give up the control of the canal, returning control to the US would likely require a new treaty. Now, when it came time for questioning, Trump was asked whether he could assure the world that he would not use military or economic coercion in reference to his comments about gaining control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, and Trump responded that he could not provide that assurance.

The third remark prompting questions is Trump's comment about Canada becoming the 51st state. So at Tuesday's conference, Trump was asked if he was serious about making Canada the 51st state, and in another question, if he would be willing to use military force to obtain Canada. He assured reporters that he would not use military force but would consider economic force such as tariffs and importing less from Canada. He said the U.S. doesn't really need Canadian imports anyway. Canadian leadership though has continuously stated that they are not interested in joining the United States and would work against it Now what's what's interesting here?

So politico did a little analysis about Canada becoming the 51st state and I wanted to share it with you It's a little bit of a brain jog What this analysis found is that one of the immediate political implications of Canada becoming part of the US is that the Democrats would benefit significantly. That's because Canada is a much more liberal country than the US, but let's look at it a bit deeper. Canada would essentially be a massive blue state in the United States that would add a couple of blue seats to the Senate, about a dozen blue seats to the House, and create a large democratic advantage in the Electoral College.

And Politico ran the following numbers. So in the Senate, each state always gets two seats, so that would be two blue states for Canada. That wouldn't really change things. It would just kind of shrink the current Republican majority by a little bit. The breakdown would be 53 Republicans and 49 Democrats. Currently there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats. In the House, that's where it gets a little interesting. If the House stayed

at 435 seats, reapportionment would give Canada 45 seats. And what that means is 31 states would lose seats to Canada. California would lose 6, Texas would lose 4, Florida would lose 3, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina would each lose two, and about a dozen other states would lose one seat. Now because of redistricting, it's impossible to know which seats would flip red to blue or would just stay blue, and also yes, most of Canada's seats would be blue but not every single one of them. So we don't know exactly how adding Canada as the 51st state would modify the current congressional makeup, but it's certainly interesting to think

about. As for the Electoral College with Canada's hypothetical 47 electoral votes, assuming those votes would be Democrat, Democrats would go into an election with 253 seats. Republicans would have 202 and there would be 85 up for grabs. The Democratic nominee would need just 18 electoral votes to get to 271, which 271 would be the new winning threshold with Canada as part of the US. That would require a minimum of just two battleground states for Democrats while Republicans would need to win at least five. Now again, the odds of Canada actually joining the

United States as the 51st state, it's not going to happen. But things like this just kind of get the brain going. All right, let's take our second break of the day. When we come back, we are going to talk about two highly requested stories out of Congress, plus some quick hitters. Moving on to some news out of Congress, the House passed the Lake and Riley Act on Tuesday, which will now be voted on in the Senate. The Lake and Riley Act is of course named after the 22-year-old Georgia nursing school student who was tragically murdered by a Venezuelan immigrant living in the country illegally.

So let's talk a little bit about what this law says. First and foremost, the general gist is that it lays the groundwork for when the Attorney General is required to detain aliens. And just a quick note here, I'm using the word aliens because that is the word the bill uses. I know some people take issue with that word, but aliens is the word used throughout the entirety of the bill. And just so we're all on the same page, the federal definition of the word alien is an individual who does not have US citizenship and is not a US national. The reason that this bill focuses on detention of aliens is because Lake and Riley's murderer, Jose Ibarra, was previously charged with crimes in New

York City and Athens, Georgia. Instead of detaining him then, Ibarra was released and was able to go ahead and kill Laken Reilly. So the whole purpose of this law is to say that when an alien commits certain crimes, they must be detained. Per the text of this bill, the Attorney General would be required to detain any alien who is inadmissible in the United States either because they're present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, they failed to attend a removal proceeding, or because they lack the proper documentation, and is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts

which constitute the essential elements of either burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. So it's not necessarily violent crimes. Again, the crimes listed are burglary, theft, larceny, and shoplifting. The bill then says that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer for said alien, and if that alien is not otherwise detained by federal, state, or local officials, DHS shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien. Furthermore, states are allowed to sue the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security if they do not abide by these requirements and they either fail to detain said alien or after detainment make the decision to release.

Those lawsuits are permissible so long as the failure to act results in some sort of harm to the state or its residents. So the bill passed the house on a 264 to 159 vote and as I stated it will now head to the senate which will take up the issue tomorrow. Staying on the topic of Congress, a few of you wrote into me wanting me to discuss House Resolution 7, which is titled, Recognizing the Importance to Access to Comprehensive, High-Quality, Life-Affirming Medical Care for Women of All Ages. At the outset, I want to highlight the fact that this is a resolution, this is not a bill. A simple resolution merely expresses the opinion of a chamber of congress, in this case the house, whereas a bill is a piece of legislation, signed off on by the president and it's enacted

as a law of this country. A simple resolution simply requires the simple majority of whatever chamber is introducing the resolution, whereas a bill requires the simple majority of both chambers of congress plus the president's signature. Nonetheless, the resolution if passed would affirm the House of Representatives support for, women nationwide to have access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, life-affirming,

high-quality healthcare and recognizes the high standards established by pro-women's healthcare centers consortium as standards worth implementing nationwide." The next obvious question is what are pro-women's health care centers or PWHCs? PWHCs are part of the pro-life movement and they take an approach to medical management for women which, quote, counters the push for abortion. These centers care for women in ways that do not include providing abortions.

These centers provide women with clothing, food, housing, baby needs. They provide counseling services and perinatal hospice and infant loss support, abortion healing, well woman exams like cervical cancer screenings, STD testings, mammograms, prenatal care. So pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, miscarriage support kits, abortion pill reversals, pap smears, things like that. They also provide postpartum checkups and fertility education as well as infertility

consultation. So in short, PWHCs are centers that provide women medical care for just about everything except abortions. So again, to be clear, this resolution, if passed, would say that the House of Representatives supports PWHCs and recognizes that the standards of care established by PWHCs are standards worth implementing nationwide, but this is not a law, this does not apply to anyone in the US, this does not create new standards for anyone in the US or any health facility in the US,

this simply expresses an opinion of the House of Representatives. And now let's finish with some quick hitters. President Jimmy Carter was honored today at a state funeral at Washington National Cathedral in Washington, DC. Carter was the 39th president who died on December 29th at 100 years old. President Biden delivered the eulogy, but President George W. Bush, President Obama, and President-elect Trump were also in attendance, marking the first time all living presidents were in the same room since 2018, when they were all together for the funeral of President George H.W. Bush. Meanwhile, yesterday, while President Carter was lying in

state at the Capitol, a man carrying a machete and three other knives was arrested trying to enter the Capitol building. Forty-four-year-old Mel Horne of Washington, D.C., entered the north doors of the Capitol Visitor Center but was stopped at security when officers spotted the machete in his bag during his screening. Officers then located three other knives and he was arrested on multiple counts of carrying a dangerous weapon. Two of the 37 federal death row inmates whose sentences were commuted to life in prison without parole last month by President Biden have rejected clemency.

Shannon Ogofsky and Len Davis are refusing to sign their paperwork and requesting a federal court block the change to their sentences. They argue that accepting their commutations would remove the heightened scrutiny that death penalty appeals receive. In other words, if they stay on death row, their appeals will be looked at with a closer eye than they would be if they were serving life sentences, and they are constitutionally entitled to that heightened scrutiny. Ogofsky is on death row for murdering an Oklahoma Bank president in 1989 before stealing $71,000 from the bank. He was originally sentenced to life in prison but was later convicted of killing a fellow inmate by stomping him to death and was sentenced to death as a result. As for Davis, Davis was found guilty in 1994 for murdering Kim

Groves, a woman who had filed a complaint against him as a police officer, on allegations that he beat a teenager in her neighborhood. So for both of those individuals, it'll now be up to the court to determine whether they will remain on death row. New York's highest court rejected Trump's request to postpone tomorrow's sentencing date in the falsification of business records case. That means tomorrow's sentencing will go forward, but as we discussed, the judge will not sentence Trump to any jail time, probation, or issue any fines. Instead, Trump will receive a sentence of unconditional discharge, which means the

conviction will remain on his record, but he won't receive any punishment. Trump likely won't be present at tomorrow's hearing either because the judge did say that he didn't have to be. And Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, is facing a lawsuit from his sister, Anne, accusing him of repeatedly sexually abusing her when she was a minor. Now 31 years old, Anne Altman says the abuse started when she was three years old and that the abuse included her brother performing sex acts on her, including rape, sexual assault, molestation, sodomy, and battery. Anne Altman has made similar claims on social media for years, but Sam Altman has denied these claims. In a statement posted to X, Sam wrote on

behalf of himself, his mom, and his two younger brothers. That statement details alleged mental health challenges that Annie suffers, and that the Altman family has tried to support her in many ways over the years, including by getting her medical help, paying her bills, providing her with monthly financial support, helping her find employment opportunities, and offering to buy her a house through a trust. He says that despite this, Annie continues to demand more money and has made hurtful and entirely untrue claims about the entire family, but especially Sam.

The family asks for compassion and understanding as they figure out how to navigate this situation. And finally, CNN is on trial this week after it was accused of defaming a Navy veteran involved in rescuing Afghans when the US withdrew in 2021. Zachary Young is blaming CNN for destroying his business when the network displayed his face on screen during a story that discussed a black market in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover. Young was in the business of helping organizations like Audible and Bloomberg get more than a dozen people out of Afghanistan. However, he says when CNN showed his picture as part of a CNN story

that talked about a black market where Afghans were being charged $10,000 or more to get family members out of danger, it crippled his business. Young says that the segment implied some sort of criminality when he was doing nothing wrong and never took money from any Afghans. Instead, he would seek out sponsors and raise money to get Afghans out. CNN has defended its side by saying Young's case merely amounts to defamation by implication and that Young had never been accused of nefarious acts. That is what I have for you today. I know I didn't do Rumor Hazard this week, but that's only because

I opted to address the rumors within each story. So the most requested rumors this week had to do with Trump's comments about Panama, Greenland, and Canada, and then also whether the LAFD did in fact see a budget cut or a budget increase this fiscal year. So I address both of those within the stories. Thank you for being here. As always, have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.