UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (2/13/25): Bribery Law on Pause, SAVE Act and Married Women, States Sue Over Disability Discrimination Law, FEMA Paying for 'Luxury' Hotels for Migrants, Kanye’s Super Bowl Ad & More.

Episode Date: February 13, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Trump Pauses Enforcement of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (0:21) Marc Fogel Released From Russian Prison Four Years After Arrest (4:47) States Sue Over Section 504; Here's What It Means for Americans With Disabilities (8:03) Four FEMA Employees Fired After DOGE Claims $59M Was Spent on 'Luxury Hotels' for Illegal Immigrants (15:33) DOJ Recommends All Charges Against NYC Mayor Eric Adams Be Dropped (19:32) Kanye West Airs Antisemitic Super Bowl Ad (21:47) Court Says CDC, FDA, and HHS Webpages Must Go Back Online After Executive Orders (23:56) Education Dept. Agrees to Temporarily Prohibit DOGE From Accessing Records After Being Sued (27:05) Senate Judiciary Democrats Request Second Patel Hearing After Accusing Him of Lying Under Oath (28:54) Quick Hitters: RFK Jr. Confirmed, FBI Finds News JFK Files, Trump's Order on Paper Straws, Trump Pardons Former Illinois Governor, Appeals Court Keeps Funding Freeze Pause in Place, Federal Buyout Offer Can Proceed, Bannon Pleads Guilty, Sotomayor Comments on Recent Judicial Threat, Inflation Jumps, Disney and Google Do Away With DEI Programs (31:36) Rumor Has It: Does the SAVE Act Ban Married Women From Voting? Is Trump Lifting the Death Penalty Moratorium to Execute Illegal Immigrants? Did Google Remove Black History Month and Pride Month from Calendar? (37:56) 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

You hear that? Ugh, paid. And done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, paying your bills could sound like this. Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month. Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card.

Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, February 13th, and today is actually Thursday, unlike on Monday when I told you it was Thursday and it definitely was not. So we do have a lot to talk about today. Let's just jump right in. Starting off with this executive order pausing enforcement

of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Keep in mind that the president, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to order the DOJ to not enforce laws. The president is technically the DOJ's boss, right? So in this situation, the president is saying, hey DOJ, we are not going to enforce the FCPA right now, except in special situations,

because the FCPA impedes the United States is foreign policy objectives by limiting American citizens and businesses as they conduct business in foreign countries. Now, the FCPA is an anti-bribery law that prohibits U.S. citizens and businesses from bribing foreign government officials to benefit their own business interests. Imprisonment for FCPA violations is actually not so common, but when it does occur, the sentences typically average around 30 months. Now, the law was originally enacted in 1977,

but even at the time of enactment, there was a bit of controversy surrounding it, and we'll get into the arguments for and against, but the law was actually pretty vaguely written at first, which gave prosecutors, and actually I shouldn't even say at first, it is vaguely written, which gave prosecutors a lot of

latitude over what to prosecute. And the law ended up getting amended in 1988 to raise the standard of proof for a finding of bribery. But aside from the vague text of the law, there were and are many arguments for and against it, and we'll start with the arguments in favor. So for one, the FCPA mostly deters foreign officials and businesses from engaging in corrupt business practices, and that's because American businesses are already subject to other anti-corruption laws here at home. So the FCPA doesn't affect them as much as it does foreign actors. Or I should say, it does affect them, but they're also subject to these other laws, whereas foreign actors are more so subject to this FCPA. Relatedly, proponents of the law argue that even if the law isn't used for American

businesses, it can and should be used as a retaliatory tool in trade wars with foreign countries. Third, the law helps to reduce the cost of doing business abroad because it gives US businesses a reason to refuse demands for informal payments to foreign entities. And then finally, the law holds businesses and other entities accountable by requiring them to keep records of transactions.

And that's because of the recording requirements that the law sets forth. Now for the arguments against. First, and this is also the main argument set forth in President Trump's executive order, the law limits American businesses' ability to be globally competitive due to fear of prosecution. Second, in developing countries,

these quote unquote informal payments might be required because their governments don't have the established financial institutions that would handle more formal payments like other more developed countries have. Consequently, the FCPA can restrict business opportunities in these less developed countries. And finally, and this goes back to what I said

about the burden of proof amendment, the wording of what constitutes a bribe in the act is vague. So enforcement agencies have a good amount of wiggle room in deciding when to issue fines and other penalties. A couple of things I wanna be clear about before we move on to the next story. Despite the executive order pausing enforcement of the law, the FCPA is still law, right? In other words, while the order directs the attorney general to pause enforcement and review current policies

under the FCPA for a period of 180 days, businesses can still be prosecuted down the road for violating the law. So two things are true here. One, the order stops new investigations from being opened, which means it's possible that businesses can now violate the FCPA without repercussions or penalties. And two, with the FCPA pause in effect, it does make it easier for American businesses to operate outside of the US, which could help bolster foreign economic relations.

Moving on to the release of Mark Fogel, who has been detained in Russia since 2021. Fogel is a 63-year-old American history teacher from Pennsylvania who has spent a portion of his career teaching abroad in places like Mexico, Malaysia, Colombia, Venezuela, and Russia. He actually taught at the Anglo-American School of Moscow in Russia since 2012. Outside of his career as a teacher though, he was also a former diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. So in August 2021, Fogle arrived in Russia, entered customs,

and while going through customs, was placed under arrest. Six ounces of medical marijuana was found in Fogle's luggage, which he was prescribed in the United States for back pain. Obviously, we know medical marijuana is legal in the United States, but in Russia, that's not the case. In June 2022, Fogle was convicted in a Russian court of drug trafficking and sentenced to 14 years in prison. But earlier this week on Tuesday, Fogle was finally released and sent back to the United States where his wife, two children, and 95-year-old mother had been waiting for him for the last

four years. Now, you might remember there was a big prisoner swap in July of last year which involved 24 prisoners. 16 prisoners held by Russia were released to Western countries, including the United States, and eight prisoners held in Western countries were released to Russia. Mark Fogel was not included in this swap, and this is in part because the United States had not officially designated him as wrongfully detained. Fogel did end up receiving the wrongfully

detained designation five months later in December. And if you're wondering what the definition of wrongful detention is, I will tell you. A wrongful detention is a situation where a U.S. national is detained abroad under circumstances deemed unjust or politically motivated. Such a designation prompts enhanced efforts to secure that person's release. You may remember Brittany Greiner was designated as wrongfully detained in May of 2022, 75 days after she was detained. She was detained at the same airport as Vogel after she was found with vape cartridges containing cannabis oil. In fact, Greiner being designated as wrongfully detained just 75 days after her detention and subsequently released is what led to a public petition calling for Vogel's wrongfully detained

designation and release. So like I said, he ultimately received that designation from the Biden administration in December and President Trump upon taking office appointed Steve Witkoff as a special envoy to negotiate Fogel's release and that release happened on Tuesday. In exchange, the US is apparently set to release Alexander Vanek, who pled guilty last year to conspiracy to launder money through a crypto exchange called BTC-E. The DOJ alleges that Vanek, who owned BTC-E, was instrumental in facilitating the transfer of more than $9 billion dollars for criminals across the world supporting drug trafficking rings, ransomware attacks, and the corruption of public officials. However, as of yesterday, he was still being held in a Florida prison.

All right, let's now talk about this lawsuit challenging section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This is one that came highly requested because people are worried that the striking down of this provision will allow for discrimination against those with disabilities. So Texas and 16 other states are suing the federal government over Section 504,

as well as a related final rule, and are asking the court to get rid of both on the basis that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional, and that Section 504 is also unconstitutional. But let's back up. So Section 504 is also unconstitutional. But let's back up. So Section 504 is a particular provision of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which was passed with bipartisan support

at the time of enactment. And the specific 504 provision within the Rehabilitation Act protects individuals from discrimination based on their disability. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as a whole is a lot more broad. As a whole, the law provides grants to states to assist people with disabilities. It allows for federal funds for states and nonprofits to construct and staff rehabilitation facilities. It requires affirmative action and non-discrimination in federal agency employment and much, much more.

Section 504, though, specifically, and this is the provision that's being challenged, prohibits discrimination based on disability in federal programs or programs that receive federal funds. Under Section 504, a disability is an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. And this definition is in line with the definition in the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. And keep in mind too that states have to comply with these laws, otherwise they risk losing federal funding.

And this will come into play in a minute. Now the government has been updating section 504 since it was enacted. And the most recent update was last year when the Biden administration added gender dysphoria to the list of disabilities covered under Section 504. The Department of Health and Human Services issued this final rule, which clarified and affirmed protections against sex discrimination, including sexual orientation and gender identity. The rule recognized disabilities that include gender dysphoria, HIV, various mental health conditions, ADHD, and more.

Following the issuance of this rule, these 17 states filed the lawsuit. As I stated previously, the states are claiming that this new rule goes beyond the scope of the administration's authority, it's arbitrary and capricious, it's unconstitutional, and Section 504 as a whole is also unconstitutional. And by the way, I do want to make note of the fact that a final rule is different than a law in that a law is enacted by Congress, a final rule is issued by the executive branch.

So a law applies to the entire country, whereas a final rule tells the government how to carry out a law. So let's start with the beyond the scope of authority argument. Both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act say that the term disability shall not include, quote, transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism,

voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments or other sexual behavior, end quote. Therefore, the states argue that by adding gender dysphoria to the list of disabilities covered under 504, the executive branch is trying to change the definition that Congress set forth in not only the Rehabilitation Act but also the ADA, and that it cannot do that since that goes beyond the scope of its authority. In other words, the executive branch does not have the authority to modify laws put in place by Congress.

The arbitrary and capricious argument comes from the APA, which we've talked about, the Administrative Procedure Act, which says in part that federal rules cannot be arbitrary and capricious. And if they are, they must be struck down. In other words, federal rules have to be justified in evidence and consider all important aspects of the problem, which it seeks to solve. However, the states argue that the administration failed to consider various important aspects of the new rule, such as the free speech and privacy issues related to gender identity policies like bathroom access, pronouns, and dress code, the financial impact on states having to implement these

policies, and the conflicting obligations between federal agencies, which prevent states from innovating or fully complying with the rules. And then now for the unconstitutional argument, we'll talk about first why the states say that the final rule is unconstitutional, and then we'll talk about why they say Section 504 as a whole is unconstitutional. They're both kind of related, but also a little different. The states argue that the final rule is unconstitutional because a federal agency has no power to act on its own without authority delegated by Congress. Congress must unambiguously specify the conditions that it

attaches to federal grants to states so that states are able to clearly understand the terms on which they accept federal funding. This is per the spending clause of the Constitution. However, what the states say is that because the final rule's new requirements cannot be understood from the plain language of the Rehabilitation Act, since they're two separate things, the rule unfairly surprises states with conditions they could not have knowingly agreed to and that this is a violation of the spending clause. And then finally, why is Section 504 as a whole unconstitutional? Well, the states say that the language of Section 504 applies broadly to all federal funds, not just funds related to disability programs, and that's unconstitutional. In other words, if

states don't comply with section 504, they risk losing all federal funding, not just 504 funding. They say this is a constitutional overreach. At this point, we don't have a response from the government, but we can anticipate that it'll argue the constitutionality of 504 and the lawfulness of the final rule

while also emphasizing its longstanding role in protecting individuals with disabilities from discrimination in federally funded programs. And related to that, I want to say this because I think this is important to put a lot of people's minds at ease. Even if Section 504 were to be struck down hypothetically, we still have the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is much more broad and provides many more protections for people with disabilities. For instance, Section 504 applies only to entities

that receive federal funds. The ADA applies to all state and local governments, including those that receive no federal assistance and applies to private businesses and local governments, including those that receive no federal assistance, and applies to private businesses and private employers. Furthermore, Section 504 protects only those with disabilities themselves from discrimination, whereas the ADA protects not only those with disabilities from discrimination, but also those who are known to have an association or relationship with someone with a disability from discrimination. So again, even if Section 504 is struck down, we have the ADA, which offers the same protection as Section 504 and more.

Let's take our first break here, and I will be right back. Okay, welcome back. Let's talk about these FEMA firings and the claim that FEMA paid $59 million to house illegal immigrants in luxury hotels in New York. This really could have gone into the rumor-hazard segment, but I figured we'd pair it with the firings, so we'll knock out both headlines in one story. The DHS released a statement on Tuesday saying FEMA fired four employees for quote, circumventing leadership to unilaterally make egregious payments for luxury New York City hotels for migrants."

End quote. Those fired included FEMA's chief financial officer, two program analysts, and a grant specialist. By the way, you know how we've talked about the fact that within each executive department there are various agencies? That is why the DHS released this statement despite the firings taking place within FEMA because FEMA is an agency within the DHS. Now the DHS's statement came after Elon Musk wrote on X, quote, the Doge team just discovered that FEMA sent $59 million last week to luxury hotels in New York City to house illegal migrants. Sending this money violated the law and is in gross insubordination to the president's executive order, presumably referring to the order titled Protecting the

American People Against Invasion. So here's what you need to know. FEMA partners with CBP, Customs and Border Protection, another agency within the DHS, to administer what's called the Shelter and Services Program. The Shelter and Services Program was created in 2023. It provides financial support to provide shelter and related activities to illegal immigrants after they are released from DHS custody. In other words, migrants released from DHS custody are sent to various states like New York, and this Shelter and Services Program is meant to reimburse the states for the costs that they incur in providing shelter and services to the migrants. The stated purpose of the program is to support the CBP in the, quote, safe, orderly and humane release of non-citizen migrants from short-term holding facilities. End quote. Last fiscal year, Congress appropriated $650 million for the program. And an important note to make here is this.

While FEMA is involved in administering this program, FEMA's funding is separate from the funds appropriated to the Shelter and Services Program, two different appropriations. Here's where it gets a little less clear. The states don't tell us exactly what hotels they are housing immigrants in, so it's difficult to verify the luxury component of this claim. We do know a few of the hotels though just from reporting over the last few years, specifically in New York. We know that these hotels include the Roosevelt Hotel, the Roe Hotel, the Watson Hotel, and the Stewart Hotel. All four-star hotels except the Watson Hotel which is a

three-star hotel. We also know that currently New York is sheltering roughly 64,000 migrants, but these shelters range from yes hotels, but also to converted warehouses and tents. Since all of this unfolded earlier this week, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander said the federal government seized more than $80 million from city accounts, money which he says was given to the city to house migrants. He also said most of the people being housed were registered with the federal government when they crossed the border and in many cases were sent to New York City by the federal government.

He said New York City stepped up to provide shelter and services and that the city is owed the money that was seized. He also said the shelter and services program has a $12.50 per night cap on hotel and shelter prices. And he says, obviously New York City has paid much more than the 12.50 per night cap for just the tents in nearby parks, let alone for the hotels. He did not specify what that amount was though. According to him, this is more

reason for them needing the seized funds. As I said, we don't know exactly how much was paid for the nightly raid at these hotels, but this is the information that is available to us as of now. Let's move on to some more New York City news, which is that the DOJ has recommended all charges be dropped against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. So Eric Adams is the mayor of New York City. He has been since 2022. He was recently indicted in September on charges of bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and two charges related to soliciting campaign contributions from foreign officials. And I actually talked about his charges more back when he was indicted. So if you're interested in hearing more about that, you can check out my September 26th

episode. But Adams pled guilty to all of the charges against him, which by the way, all stem from allegations that he sought and accepted things of value like luxury travel and illegal campaign contributions from wealthy foreign business people and at least one Turkish government official who was allegedly trying to gain influence over him. Nonetheless, according to the new DOJ memo, the acting deputy attorney general has directed that all pending charges against Adams be dismissed without prejudice. Without prejudice meaning the charges can be brought again one day if officials or prosecutors

decide to do so. This is different than with prejudice, which would bar those charges from ever being brought again. According to the memo, the dismissal is warranted for two reasons. One, because the timing of the charges and more recent public actions by the former U.S. attorney responsible for initiating the case have threatened the integrity of the proceedings. And two, because the pending prosecution has restricted Adams' ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the Biden administration. To elaborate on that first reason, the memo says it cannot be ignored that Mayor Adams

criticized the prior administration's immigration policies before the charges were filed, and the former U.S. attorney's public actions, which are not specified, created appearances of impropriety which have also improperly interfered with Adam's campaign in the 2025 mayoral election. Notably, the memo also says the DOJ reached this decision without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based. Moreover, the directive, quote, in no way calls into question the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case. End quote.

Moving on to Kanye West, who bought ad slots on local news stations to air during the Super Bowl which directed people to his website, Yeezy.com. When users got to the website, they were surprised to find only one item for sale, a sweatshirt with a swastika on it. So the ad which aired around 9.30 p.m. Eastern time on local Fox stations in LA, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Atlanta showed West sitting in a dentist chair. He says, what's up guys?

I spent like all the money for the commercial on these new teeth, so once again, I had to shoot it on an iPhone. Go to Yeezy.com. Now, last year he had a very similar commercial, but last year Yeezy.com actually featured his Yeezy apparel. This year was a much different situation. Allegedly, when the local TV stations reviewed the ad, the website was selling various Yeezy sweatshirts and sweatpants.

No swastikas on the site at all. However, shortly after the ad was aired, the website was apparently flipped and all the products were deleted and replaced with a single item which was the swastika sweatshirt. The store remained online for more than 24 hours following the airing of the ad. Shopify, the company hosting the site, shut it down on Tuesday saying in a statement quote, all merchants are responsible for following the rules of our platform. This merchant did not engage in authentic commerce practices and violated our terms, so we removed them from Shopify. End quote. Now, the airing of the ad followed days of West posting over and over again on X before

his account was ultimately deactivated on Monday. Some of West's posts included him calling himself a Nazi, calling Hitler quote-unquote so fresh. He wrote, I love Hitler. What now bitches? He also wrote, some of my best friends are Jewish and I don't trust any of them. But aside from his comments about Hitler and Jewish people, he also wrote a post defending P. Diddy, asked President Trump to free P. Diddy, talked about his dominion over his wife, and much more. His last post on X was Sunday, just hours after his Super Bowl ad ran, when he wrote, quote, I'm logging out of Twitter. I appreciate Elon for allowing me to vent. It has been very cathartic to use the world as a sounding board. Moving on, according to a new court order, the Trump

administration must restore all public health websites that were taken offline as a result of Trump's in the past, but just as a reminder, these orders clarified that the government is to recognize only two sexes, male and female, and further that the government is to use the word sex instead of gender on federal documents, federal websites, etc. The orders also did things like define terms related to gender identity, but one of the effects of these orders was that the federal government essentially took down any web pages that discussed sexual orientation and gender identity to either one, get rid of them completely, or two, rework them so they were in

compliance with the directives in the orders. So some of the web pages may ultimately have been restored at some point but with different language and other web pages may have just been taken down permanently. Just depends on the purpose of the particular web page. Some of the affected sites were from the CDC and FDA, which contained information relating to HIV, contraceptives, and clinical trial diversity initiatives. Specific information taken down from the CDC included a fact sheet about HIV and transgender people, a lesson on building supportive school environments for transgender and non-binary

kids, details on National Transgender HIV Testing Day, government surveys showing transgender students suffer a higher rate of depression and other problems, as well as contraceptive guidance. In the wake of these webpages being taken down, a grassroots organization called Doctors for America sued various government agencies, arguing that the removal and modification of these webpages and datasets affects their ability to treat patients and conduct research, and that these actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Under the APA, matters of official record must be made available to people properly and directly concerned, and the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act is to provide public accessibility to federal documents. Accordingly, Doctors for America asked the court to temporarily prevent the CDC, FDA, and HHS from removing or modifying webpages and to order these agencies to restore the webpages

that have been taken down or changed. The court granted that request, finding that Doctors for America members, as well as the general public, would be harmed by the removal of information, while at the same time the federal agencies would face minimal burden in restoring the webpages. This order from the court is temporary, which means that once the court actually hears arguments on the merits of the case, the court will issue a more final decision as to whether these pages can be taken down or whether they have to be left up. And then of course from there, the losing party can appeal the decision and the issue can continue up through the court system. Speaking of lawsuits though,

the education department has agreed to prevent DOJ from accessing department records after being sued by the University of California Student Association. As we know DOJ has been attempting to, and in some cases succeeding in gaining access to certain department records. DOJ says its goal is to identify waste, misuse, and fraud within these departments and suggest spending cuts accordingly.

Obviously, we've talked a lot about the Treasury Department lately and those records, but this lawsuit was filed after DOJ gained access to Education Department records. The lawsuit alleges that the Education Department unlawfully disclosed sensitive personal and financial information of federal student loan borrowers to DOGE and that this data sharing violates the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 as well as the Internal Revenue Code. So the Federal Privacy Act is a law that protects individuals' personal records held by federal agencies. It restricts how the agencies can share personal information without an individual's consent. It grants individuals the right to access and correct their records held by agencies.

And it allows lawsuits against the government if personal information is disclosed unlawfully. The Internal Revenue Code is a set of laws that govern federal tax regulations, including privacy protections for taxpayer information and restrictions on unauthorized disclosures. The agreement reached earlier this week between the Education Department and the Student Association means DOJ personnel will not be able to access Education Department databases until February 17th, at which point the court will make its own decision on the matter. So let's take our second and final break of the episode here. When we come back, we still have one more story to get to, a bunch of quick hitters

and rumor has it. And now for some news about Cash Patel, Trump's nominee for FBI director. Patel has been accused of lying under oath at his recent confirmation hearing. A letter was sent by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, which requests an additional hearing to be scheduled with Patel to address issues including the recent removals and reassignments of FBI staff, what the writers of the letter call misleading testimony during Patel's initial hearing, as well as Patel's grand jury testimony in Trump's classified documents case.

The letter specifically details two statements made by Patel at his confirmation hearing, which the writers of the letter say were false. The first statement stemmed from the so-called J6 Prison Choir, which is a group of January 6 defendants imprisoned in the DC jail who recorded a charity song called Justice for All. Senator Durbin said during Patel's hearing, the performers on this J6 choir were the rioters who were in prison. Patel responded, quote, I'm not aware of that sir, I didn't have anything to do with the recording. End quote. The letter says that Patel's response directly contradicts Patel's numerous

prior public statements regarding the recording, having acknowledged previously that he was well aware the choir was made up of, quote, imprisoned January 6th insurrectionists and has taken credit for the record's production, end quote. The letter cites to a clip from Steve Bannon's podcast, which Patel was a guest on, and in that clip Patel says, quote, the January six prisoners sing the national anthem every night for 700 straight plus nights from the jails themselves. So what we thought would be cool is if we captured that audio and of course have the greatest president, president Donald J. Trump recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Then we went to a studio and recorded it, mastered it and digitized it and put it out as a song. End

quote. The letter also cites to multiple other instances where Patel seemingly acknowledges his role in the recording and production of the song. The second statement that is deemed to be false in the letter was in response to Senator Durbin asking Patel if he knew a man named Stuart Peters, host of the Stu Peters show. Patel responded, quote, not off the top of my head. However, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee say this is obviously false, given Patel's appearance on Mr. Peters' podcast on eight different occasions. Consequently, in light of both of these responses, Senate Judiciary Democrats have accused Patel of lying under oath and have requested a second hearing. Lying under oath is of course a crime. It's also worth

noting that for a statement to be considered perjury, it has to be material to the case and affect the result of the case. As of now, Patel has not responded to the allegations, but his spokesperson has called the claims second-hand gossip. And now it's time for some quick hitters. RFK Jr. was confirmed by the Senate today to serve as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Senators ultimately voted at 52 to 48 to confirm him, with all Republicans except Mitch McConnell voting in his favor. All Democrats and Mitch McConnell voted against him. And if you do want to hear more about Kennedy and his policies and his background and just a little more about him generally, I recommend tuning into my November 18th episode. And speaking of the Kennedys, the FBI has apparently uncovered thousands of previously

unaccounted for documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The discovery allegedly came during an agency review following President Trump's recent executive order to move closer to declassifying information about the deaths of JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr. JFK was assassinated in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald. However, there are theories that the assassination was an inside job and that Oswald either wasn't the actual shooter or that Oswald did not act alone. Oswald was killed before he could be tried. Earlier this week, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at doing away

with paper straws. The order directs the federal government to stop purchasing paper straws, ensure they are no longer provided in federal buildings, and requires the development of a national strategy to end the use of paper straws within 45 days. That plan is intended to, quote, alleviate the forced use of paper straws nationwide. And speaking of presidential actions, President Trump pardoned former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich earlier this week. Blagojevich spent eight years in prison on 18 corruption charges for, among other things, trying to sell or trade former President Obama's former Senate seat. Trump commuted Blagojevich's sentence during his first administration, which is

why he only served eight years of his 14-year prison sentence, but Trump granted him a full pardon earlier this week, which completely wipes away the conviction and restores any rights that he may have lost as a result of that conviction. Earlier this week, a court rejected an appeal from the Trump administration to lift a lower court order, which puts his federal funding freeze on hold. In rejecting the appeal, the court wrote that the administration failed to provide specifics about the potential harm caused by halting the freeze on federal payments for grants, loans, and other programs. This means the administration's federal funding freeze will remain on hold

and funds will continue to be dispersed. And in a separate case, this one related to the federal buyout offer or that fork in the road offer, a judge has ruled that the buyout offer can continue. In the ruling, the judge said that the labor unions that filed the lawsuit challenging the buyout offer lacked the legal ability to do so because they are not directly impacted by the offer. The judge wrote that they allege the directive subjects them to upstream effects, including a diversion of resources, to answer members' questions about the directive, a potential loss of membership, and possible reputational harm. However, this is not sufficient.

Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist for the first seven months of the first Trump administration, has pled guilty to defrauding donors who donated to the We Build the Wall, an online fundraiser for Trump's border wall project during his first term. According to prosecutors, the fundraiser promised 100% of the donations would fund the wall along the southern border, but Bannon sent more than $100,000 to the president of the donations would fund the wall along the southern border, but Bannon sent more than $100,000 to the president of the fundraiser by laundering it through third-party entities. In exchange for his guilty plea, he will not see jail time but will instead serve a three-year conditional discharge sentence, which means during those three years he cannot serve as a director

of a charity or fundraiser for a non-profit. After those three years, if he abides by the conditions, the charges against him will be dismissed. Justice Sotomayor, one of the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court bench, spoke this week about the recent questions surrounding what would happen if the administration failed to abide by court orders. Without mentioning anyone by name, Justice Sotomayor said that she has faith in the US court system, that court decisions stand whether one particular person chooses to abide by them, and that even if someone chooses not to abide by court orders, court decisions will be respected by someone at some point, presumably referring to someone within the administration even if it's not the president. She noted that there have been times in the past where the power of the judiciary has been tested, but by and large, we have been a country who has

understood that the rule of law has helped us maintain our democracy. And the Department of Labor announced that inflation rose to 3% in January, 1% above the Fed's target and 0.1% above where economists expected inflation to be. 3% is the highest rate for the last six months, and the department noted that the uptick in prices last month was wide-ranging, from car insurance, to airfare, to medicine, to other basics. Grocery prices rose 0.5% over the month,

compared with 0.3% in December, and egg prices rose more than 15% amid egg shortages. This is the biggest monthly increase in the last 10 years. Disney is the latest company to announce the revocation and modifications of its DEI policies. The company has revised its content disclaimers that once warned viewers that the content they were about to watch contains negative depictions

and or mistreatment of peoples or culture. Now the warning says that the program is presented as originally created and may contain stereotypes or negative depictions. Disney is also phasing out its Reimagine Tomorrow initiative, which was launched in 2022 to amplify underrepresented voices. Now, the initiative's website redirects to Disney's inclusion page, which outlines other company-led diversity efforts. The company is also shifting how executives are evaluated, moving away from diversity and inclusion and instead focusing on talent strategy, which will measure how well executives uphold company values while driving business success.

And on a related note, another company that has withdrawn its DEI policies is Google. Google executives spoke on Wednesday about the company's decision to shut down its diversity initiatives, and Google's former head of diversity confirmed that the company was doing away with its DEI training programs and instead updating broader training programs that have DEI content. She said, quote,

what's not changing is we've always hired the best person for the job. And now it's time for my weekly Rumor Hazard segment where I either confirm, dispel, or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you. Rumor has it that the SAVE Act will take away the right to vote for married women who have changed their last names. This is false, but let's add context.

The SAVE Act, otherwise known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, was first introduced last year. And what it would do is require people to provide documentary proof of US citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Currently, you do have to be a US citizen to vote in federal elections, but per Supreme Court precedent, you don't have to show documentary proof of such. It's enough to just attest to your citizenship under penalty of perjury. Consequently, not all states require documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. However, this proposed law would change that. If the SAVE Act is passed, voters would need to show proof of citizenship with a document that meets the requirements of

real ID in order for a state to accept and process a voter's registration application for federal elections. Specifically, for federal elections, state elections are different. Now, this could be a passport or another form of government-issued ID, so long as it's presented with either a birth certificate or a similar document like a naturalization certificate. Now, since this bill has been introduced, there have been a lot of questions surrounding what this would mean for married women who changed their last names.

Some say that the SAVE Act could stop married women from voting. So first, I want to clarify that this bill does not explicitly say anything about barring married women from voting. These claims are instead rooted in concerns about how the barriers to voting that may come from this bill could disproportionately impact married women or anyone who has changed their last name. And these claims stem from the fact that if you are not providing a passport as proof of citizenship and instead you're providing a government-issued photo ID, your photo ID

has to be shown with a document like a birth certificate. And the bill explicitly states that the birth certificate must include the applicant's full name, date of birth, and place of birth. So for a married woman who changes her last name, her birth certificate would obviously not show her new name that matches her current government-issued photo ID, and that is where a problem could arise.

However, it's also important to note that the bill does not explicitly say that the name on your birth certificate and the name on your government-issued photo ID have to match to count. If the names on these two things don't match, one might have to provide additional documentation. And the reason that this is the presumed fix is because there are existing government processes where you can show your birth certificate as ID and typically if necessary, a married woman who has changed her last name can use a copy of her marriage certificate to account for the discrepancy in her last name. So potentially that is what would happen here as well. Now of

course the bill hasn't been passed so we don't know for sure how this would play out and what processes would be used in the case of a married woman who changed her last name and doesn't have a passport. But I wanna be very clear about the fact that the claim that this ban or this bill will ban married women from being able to register to vote is false. Please don't forget that a woman's right to vote is in the constitution,

which means that for that to ever go away, there would have to be a new constitutional amendment revoking the 19th Amendment, which dare I say impossible, I won't say impossible, but would be very close to impossible. So what can we expect from here? The bill passed the House in the previous congressional session with support from five Democrats and 216 Republicans, but because that session has since ended, the bill would have to pass the House again before advancing to the Senate where it would have to pass the filibuster before being voted on. So as the bill advances through Congress, I will update you accordingly. Rumor has it that President Trump is ending the

death penalty moratorium so it can be used for illegal immigrants. Let's add context here because it seems like two storylines are being fused into one. Yes, President Trump ended the death penalty moratorium which was imposed by President Biden. However, the administration has not said anything that would suggest this move was done for the purpose of putting illegal immigrants to death. In fact, President Trump ending the moratorium is no surprise. He was the first president since 2003 to resume federal executions during his first administration, all people who had been on death row for years. When President Biden took office, he put a pause on the executions. And then as we know, during his final weeks in office, he commuted the death sentences of all but three death row inmates. So currently there are only

three inmates on death row, the Boston Marathon bomber, a man who killed nine at a historically black church in Charleston, and a man who killed 11 at a synagogue in Pennsylvania. So yes, it is true that President Trump lifted the pause on executions that was put in place by Biden. The other storyline is that the Florida legislature is considering an immigration package this week that would require illegal immigrants convicted of capital offenses to automatically be sentenced to death. Capital offenses being first degree murder, sexual battery on a child under the age of 12, and capital drug trafficking. Currently, anyone convicted of a capital offense in Florida

is eligible for the death penalty, but it's not an automatic death sentence. They either get death or life without parole, whatever the judge or jury decides. With this new proposal, though, illegal immigrants convicted of capital offenses would automatically be sentenced to death. The same proposal, by the way, also requires illegal immigrants who are found to be gang members receive the maximum sentence for the crimes they're convicted of. Keep in mind, though, that in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Woodson that mandatory automatic death sentences are unconstitutional. In that case, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made death penalty mandatory

for all convicted first-degree murderersers and the Supreme Court struck it down. So it's unclear whether this proposal would stand if it were ultimately passed and signed into law. The Supreme Court would either have to overturn Woodson or issue a ruling that says the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment, doesn't apply to non-citizens. And same goes for the federal level too. If the federal government wanted to impose automatic death sentences on illegal immigrants, the Supreme Court would have to either overturn Woodson or find that the Eighth Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens.

Currently, the Eighth Amendment does apply to non-citizens. Finally, rumor has it that Google removed Pride Month, Black History Month, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and others from its calendar app. This is true, however, Google says the change was made in the middle of last year. In a statement, Google said, quote, maintaining hundreds of moments manually

and consistently globally wasn't scalable or sustainable. So in mid 2024, we've returned to showing only public holidays and national observances from timeanddate.com globally, while allowing users to manually add other important moments." End quote. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here.

As always, have a fantastic weekend and we will talk again on Monday.