UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (7/14/25): Epstein Saga Continues, ICE Raids at Cannabis Farms, FEMA's Delayed Response to Texas, and More.

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. 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: ICE Raids In Southern California (1:12) Lawmakers Visit Alligator Alcatraz; Give Conflicting Reports on What They Saw (4:57) New Report Details Secret Service Mistakes Leading Up to Trump's Assassination Attempt (10:57) FEMA's Response to Texas Delayed By New DHS Rule (13:46) DOJ Drops Charges for Doctor Accused of Throwing Away COVID Vaccines, Issuing Fake Vaccine Cards (18:08) The Epstein Saga Continues; Was There Really a "Client List?" Was the Jail Cell Footage Edited? (20:32) Can Trump Take Away Rosie O'Donnell's Citizenship or Takeover NYC and Washington D.C.? (31:57) Quick Hitters: New Tariffs on Mexico/EU, Trump Threatens 100% Tariffs on Russia, New NATO Deal to Send Weapons to Ukraine, Biden Defends Use of Autopen, Murder Rates Down Across U.S. (36:12) Critical Thinking Segment (38:09) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. 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

No frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, July 14th. Let's talk about some news. I can't even begin to tell you the technical difficulties that I was having before I got on the mic today. So if the sound sounds off or anything, okay,

just know I'm doing my best. Sometimes, you know, I like to think that I've learned a lot as far as technology and like recording and all of that goes, but sometimes it just, it gets the best of me. And and I don't know I don't know what else to do. Hopefully it sounds fine, but that's your fair warning. I do also want to let you know there will be no episode on Thursday. I'm actually taking a week off for the first time in I don't know how long, but because I'm taking a week off there won't be an episode Thursday. Next Monday, I'll be re-releasing an older episode,

which is all about the Supreme Court. It's always a hit, so be sure to tune into that. It's pretty much everything you could ever wanna know about the Supreme Court of the United States. Super, super, super informative. So again, no episode this Thursday. The Supreme Court episode will go out next Monday, and then I'll be back by the following Thursday,

and it'll be regularly scheduled programming. Now let's get into today's stories starting with these ICE raids that took place late last week in Southern California. On Thursday ICE agents conducted two raids at Cannabis Grow houses in Southern California both owned by the same company, a company called Glass House Farms. One of the raids in particular, which was located at a facility in Camarillo, California, has received a lot of attention from the media because of the clashes between protesters and federal agents. And I kind of touched, well now I'm getting

confused, I think I kind of touched on it in the last episode, maybe I'm getting it confused with the newsletter. Either way, I touched on it at some point. I just didn't go into great detail. So today I'll go into even more detail. I know a lot of you wrote in wanting to know if someone really died during the raid and how that happened. So I'll be sure to answer all of your questions. But basically during the raid, groups of people gathered outside the grow house to not only protest the raid, but also to ask questions about what was happening and who was being arrested. We know from footage that was taken at the scene

that at one point federal agents fired tear gas and crowd control munitions to break up the group of people. The FBI also reported that one man appeared to fire a gun at law enforcement just moments after the agents fired those smoke canisters at the crowd. There were no reported injuries from that incident, but the suspect was not caught, so the FBI is currently

offering $50,000 for any information that leads to the arrest of that individual. Between the two raids, federal agents arrested 323 people, 319 of whom are people that federal agents say are suspected of being in the country illegally, and the other four were US citizens who were arrested for assaulting or resisting officers. Rodney Scott, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, wrote on X that 10 minors were found at the facility who he says are all in the country illegally. Eight of those miners, he says, were unaccompanied and he noted that the facility is now under investigation for child labor violations. Now the claim about a man dying during the raids, that's true. One of the employees of Glasshouse Farms climbed onto the roof of the greenhouse and then fell about 30 feet to the ground. Immigration officials said in a statement the man was not in federal custody at the

time of the fall and that Customs and Border Protection immediately called for medical care but that the man died in the hospital two days later. As far as whether these raids were done lawfully, the answer is yes. We know that federal agents first obtained a criminal search warrant, which meant that they were authorized by court order to search the premises. And again, for a court to sign off on a criminal search warrant, federal agents have to show the court that there is reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that evidence of that crime is located at that specific place that is to be searched.

Notably, it is legal for licensed companies to grow cannabis in California, so the criminal search warrants were not related to the growing of cannabis. Instead, the warrants were related to illegally harboring and employing immigrants. Glass House posted on X after the raids, writing in part, quote, Yesterday, Glass House brands received immigration and naturalization warrants. As per the law, we verify that the warrants were valid and we complied. Workers were detained and we are assisting them to provide legal representation. Glasshouse has never knowingly violated applicable hiring practices and does not and has never employed

minors. End quote. So that's what we know about the ice raids that took place late last week in Southern California. Perhaps more will develop over the next few days, next few weeks, but that's what we know as of now. This next story is a bit of an update to last week's episode. So last week we talked about alligator Alcatraz, and as part of that story we talked about the fact that five Florida lawmakers went to visit the facility but were denied entry once they got there. Following that denial, the lawmakers actually sued Governor DeSantis, arguing that they were entitled

to an inspection under state law and that denying them that opportunity was illegal. And just so we're all on the same page, that state law says that elected officials have the right to inspect state institutions without prior notice. Seemingly in response to that lawsuit, the lawmakers were allowed on the premises and that tour took place on Saturday. Now we know that the lawmakers' original visit was due to concerns about the conditions at the detention center. Some detainees have described the conditions as

inhumane. Some reported having worms in their food, unsanitary confinement, medical neglect, and more. Some also stated that they sometimes go days without access to showers and necessary prescription medications and that at times air conditioners are shut off despite the high temperatures. So in response to those allegations DHS did say in a post on X, quote, It's shameful that the fake news media continues to peddle the false narrative of criminal illegal aliens convicted of rape, homicide and child sex crimes. ICE has higher detention centers than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens. All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities

to communicate with lawyers and their family members." So obviously we've been getting some conflicting stories, right? The detainees say one thing, DHS says another, so let's see what the lawmakers are saying after their visit. To no one's surprise, I'm sure the accounts of what they saw are very much along partisan lines. Florida Democratic Representative Angie Nixon told reporters quote, what stood out to me the most was going into the caged facility and witnessing where they housed over 32 grown men together with only three toilets and those toilets were the same places that the folks would get their water from and it was really appalling and disheartening to see. Not only that but the director of Florida's Department of Emergency

Management was very evasive in his questioning. We often asked who were the vendors and things like that, and they continually said, oh, you have to file a public records request. They were very evasive." Nixon also criticized the lack of transparency, saying, quote, we feel that they have a lot of things that they are hiding and look at the end of the day. This was simply a hyper curated, super sanitized field trip." Florida Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz similarly said, what we saw, the conditions that we saw inside this internment camp, which it is nothing less

than that description, were really appalling. When describing the conditions, Wasserman Schultz said, the only thing inside those cages are the bunk beds and there are three tiny toilets that are toilet units that have a sink attached to it. So they essentially drink that they get their drinking water and they brush their teeth where they poop, end quote. However, some lawmakers echoed the DHS is remarks, right? So Florida Republican Senator blaze in go in go Goliath said, quote, The rhetoric does not match the reality from what you guys have been hearing from I would say Democrats especially congressional Democrats it's actually a very well-run facility the idea that the

detainees are in there and they're in squalid conditions is just not accurate and quote notably the lawmakers said they were only allowed to see empty units in the facilities not that active living quarters and they were only allowed to see empty units in the facilities, not the active living quarters, and they were not able to speak to any of the detainees. Now if we look at correctional standards, right? So Florida model jail standards, for instance, require reasonable access to toilets, sinks, and drinking water with toilets and sinks at a ratio of one to every 12 inmates. Showers have to be available at least twice a week with showers typically allowed daily.

Every cell has to contain a sink, a flushable toilet, a bunk and temperatures that are maintained within a normal comfort range. And cells with multiple inmates are required to have the minimum 40 square feet of floor space per inmate. The 2025 National Detention Standards, which regulate federal immigration detention,

outline many of the same standards, you know, as Florida's standards, but there are a few minor differences, like showers being available at least three times a week, and no overcrowding beyond a unit's design capacity without the legal approval of ICE, or enforcement and removal operations. Now, these are the US national standards which have remained virtually the

same since they were introduced in 2000. The changes we've seen over the past 25 years and across administrations have had little focus on the points of issue here. For example, the two changes made to the standards for 2025 were related to gender and sex definitions as well as language access, but not to the actual confinement standards. So as far as whether alligator alcatraz is in compliance with national standards, the reality is that we're hearing two different stories and unfortunately I am not on the ground to confirm. Government officials have said they are in full compliance with standards. Detainees and their families have implied they're not. So, you know, do we do we know the actual truth? Not really. With that being said,

it's worth noting that some of the complaints that have been made about the facility are actually within national standards, right? For example, lawmakers took issue with the fact that 32 men are together with only three toilets. That's a little less than one toilet for every 11 inmates. The detention center standards require a toilet ratio of one to every 12 inmates. Now that's not to say that the facility is fully in compliance with national standards, right? It may not be.

That's just to say that while things may be seen as unfair to some people, they still meet national standards. So that's what we know about what's going on at Alligator Alcatraz. Now we can move on to this new report on the attempted assassination of President Trump, which was which was released over the weekend. And I'll briefly talk about what the report says, but I do want to mention that it does rehash a lot of what was included in the preliminary report back in September. So there aren't really many new details,

which is why I'm not gonna spend too much time on this one. But for starters, the report says that senior Secret Service officials were aware of a classified potential threat to President Trump's life 10 days before the rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. However, that information was never passed on to field agents or to local law enforcement and those responsible for securing the event site. As far as the nature of the threat that Secret Service was informed of,

we don't exactly know. We just know the threat wasn't tied to a specific rally or a specific shooter, and therefore the Secret Service categorized the threat as non-imminent which meant that the message did not get sent down the chain of command. We know that the Secret Service's war room had denied a request from the Trump Protective Division for enhanced technology that would detect and neutralize any hostile drones and it appeared at least initially that Trump also wasn't going to get enhanced counter sniper coverage either. Those decisions were made based on limited resources because those assets had already been allocated

to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. The RNC was happening the same week as the Butler rally. The DNC was happening the following month. However, once senior officials in the Office of Protective Operations, which is a division within the Secret Service, became aware of that classified threat against Trump, they did bypass the Secret Service's war room and personally approved additional counter-Cyper resources. That new report notes that had it not been for that OPO intervention,

Trump would have likely been denied the counter snipers that ultimately neutralized the shooter in Butler, Pennsylvania. So in total, the report made eight major recommendations for the Secret Service, which included, proactively share threat intelligence across all levels and partners, improve communication and planning for events,

bolster training, especially for advanced teams, enhance resource allocation, including technical resources like drones and communications, expand interagency coordination and collaboration, develop measures that ensure consistent procedures across sites, strengthen internal communication protocols and introduce a system to monitor and enforce implementation and accountability. So that's the gist of the report, but again, a lot of it was just rehashing things we already knew.

Let's take our first quick break here. When we come back, we'll talk about FEMA's response in Texas and some news out of the DOJ. I'm just going to cut to the chase and tell you, I absolutely love ZocDoc. I've actually turned some of you onto it who have reached out to me telling me how grateful you are to have found it. So for those who haven't heard of ZocDoc, it's a free app and website where you can

search and compare high quality in-network doctors and click to instantly book an appointment. So you know how sometimes you'll put off booking an appointment because you just can't imagine fitting an appointment into your schedule or you you just don't wanna put the work into finding a doctor that's nearby who also has good ratings and takes your insurance. It's a lot of work. If that's you, don't feel bad because that was me until I found ZocDoc.

On ZocDoc, you can actually filter for doctors who take your insurance, are located nearby, are a good fit for whatever medical need you may have, and are highly rated by verified patients. Then once you find the right doctor, you can see their actual appointment openings, choose a time slot that works for you, click to instantly book an appointment right there.

It's a total game changer. So stop putting off those doctor's appointments and go to zocdoc.com slash unbiased to find and instantly book a top rated doctor today. That's zocdoc.com slash unbiased, zocdoc.com slash unbiased. Welcome back. Let's talk about what's going on with FEMA. A lot of questions still about FEMA's response

to the Texas flooding, including claims that DHS secretary Noam failed to deploy FEMA aid for more than 72 hours after the floods and FEMA not answering calls from thousands of flood survivors. So let's take this one claim at a time starting with the deployment of FEMA aid. Per a CNN report, DHS Secretary Noem did not authorize FEMA urban search and rescue teams until July 7th, which would have been three days after the floods. DHS initially called CNN's reporting a fake news lie, but it has since been verified that

FEMA deployment was delayed because of a new rule, and Nome has since defended the decision to implement that new rule. So let's talk about it. First, a little bit about how FEMA works and what FEMA is. So FEMA is a disaster response agency within the DHS. It's led by the DHS and therefore overseen by DHS Secretary Noem. Last month, Noem issued this memo requiring any FEMA contract, grant, or expenditure over $100,000 to receive her personal approval before moving forward. And the goal of that new rule was to save costs.

But naturally, because these types of expenditures needed to now wait for Gnome's approval, the effect was that emergency assistance would sometimes take longer than it otherwise would because bids and contracts can't be finalized until Gnome signs off on them. The DHS has asked for up to five business days to approve all requests that come through.

So that's what happened in Texas. Per a DHS report on the FEMA response in Texas, Nome did not authorize FEMA teams until Monday, which was about three days after the floods. This delay was directly tied to that new policy that requires Nome's sign off. Notably, the DHS clarified that this approval requirement only applied to FEMA expenditures and that other DHS search and rescue assets like the Coast Guard and Border Patrol

units, those were made available immediately without requiring a signature. FEMA reportedly told CNN that the FEMA response to the floods has been limited and said that by last Monday night, 86 FEMA staffers were present in Texas. By Tuesday night, 311 staffers were present. For context, back in October when Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina, FEMA reported within two weeks of that hurricane that it had more than a thousand FEMA staff on the ground. In responding to the inquiries about the delayed response in Texas, the DHS said, quote, FEMA is shifting from bloated,

DC-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force that empowers state actors to provide relief for their citizens, end quote. Now onto the claim about FEMA not answering phone calls. So internal FEMA documents that were reviewed by the New York Times reportedly show that FEMA failed to answer thousands of calls made to its disaster assistance line after the flooding. A person familiar with the matter who reportedly spoke to the Times anonymously said that this was because the agency had fired hundreds of contractors at call centers within FEMA. FEMA reportedly laid off these contractors on July 5th upon expiration of their company's contracts

with FEMA. Secretary Noem didn't renew those contracts until Thursday, July 10th, which meant that between July 6th and July 10th, FEMA had less staff at these call centers than it otherwise would have. According to the Times reporting on July 5th, which was one day after the floods, there were 3,027 calls into FEMA. The agency answered 3,018 of those calls. On July 6th, two days after the floods,

there were 2,363 calls. Only 846 of those calls were answered. That's about a 36% answer rate. Then on July 7th, the agency received 16,419 calls, yet answered 2,613. That's about a 16% answer rate. To compare, when Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina, FEMA received a lot more calls, about 900,000 during the peak week, and answered about 53% of those calls. Now we're switching gears a little bit. We're moving to the DOJ, which will eventually segue

us into the Epstein saga. But for now, let's talk about the DOJ dropping charges against a doctor who was accused of throwing away COVID vaccines, giving children saline shots instead of the COVID vaccine, and selling fake vaccination cards. In announcing the decision to drop the charges, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, quote, Dr. Moore gave his patients a choice when the federal government refused to do so. He did not deserve the years in prison he was facing. It ends today." The doctor in question here is Dr. Michael Kirk Moore. He's actually a plastic surgeon in Utah, and in 2023, he and three others were charged with conspiracy to defraud the government, conspiracy to convert, sell, convey, and dispose of government property, and aiding and abetting.

With these charges, he as well as the three defendants, faced up to 35 years in prison. The indictment accused the defendants of destroying more than $28,000 worth of government-provided COVID vaccine doses, providing fake vaccination cards in exchange for cash or donations to specified charitable organizations, and offering parents the ability to swap the COVID vaccine with saline. So kids would believe they were getting the COVID shot when they were really just getting a saline shot. As we know, an indictment is not evidence of guilt, right?

Once an indictment is returned by a grand jury, the case still has to go to trial where a jury will ultimately decide whether the defendants are guilty of the crimes that are alleged in that indictment. In this case, jury selection for the trial actually started last Monday. But now that the charges have been dropped against Dr. Moore, the trial against Dr. Moore will not go forward. Interestingly, of the defendants, Moore had pled not guilty to these charges along with one other defendant defendant and the two of them were set to go to trial together. We don't know if

the charges against the other defendant will also be dropped. We just know the charges against Dr. Moore have been dropped. So it's possible the other doctor still goes to trial. We just don't know at this point. As for the other two defendants that were named in the indictment, one entered into a plea agreement for a misdemeanor charge. The other entered into a pre-trial diversion agreement with the government. And again, same story. We don't know if the charges against those other two defendants will also be dropped. We just know at this point the charges against that one doctor have been dropped. Okay, now for the Epstein saga.

As we know, last week the DOJ and FBI released a memo saying that after an exhaustive investigation, they found no client list for Jeffrey Epstein, no credible evidence that Epstein had blackmailed prominent individuals, and that Epstein had in fact died by suicide. That memo reads in part, quote, to ensure that the review was thorough, the FBI conducted digital searches of its databases, hard drives, and network drives, as well as physical searches of squad areas, locked cabinets, desks, closets and other areas where responsive material may have been stored. These searches uncovered a significant amount of material, including more than 300

gigabytes of data and physical evidence. End quote. The memo went on to say that a lot of the information that the agencies found would never be shared with the public, even if the case had gone to trial because it's sealed to protect the victims. Now, this memo has caused a bit of an uproar on both sides of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans both have expressed disappointment with the memo. We'll talk about why. For those less familiar with this case, there are a few theories. Well, I'm sure you know who Jeffrey Epstein is and what he's accused of, but there are a few theories around Jeffrey Epstein and how he died. The most prominent theory is that Epstein was murdered to stop him from implicating,

whether it be government officials, celebrities, other high-profile individuals who were involved in his crimes. In other words, the theory is, or the most prominent theory celebrities, other high profile individuals who were involved in his crimes. In other words, the theory is, or the most prominent theory is, some high profile person or a group of high profile people who didn't wanna be exposed had him killed in prison. Many people, including people now in the administration, have perpetuated these theories and implied,

at least in the past, that the government is hiding something. Current FBI Director Cash Patel and current FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino are two of the people that previously questioned what happened with Epstein's death and suggested he was actually murdered. But since joining the administration and in light of this new memo, both are now publicly saying Epstein died by suicide. Keep in mind too that when the Trump administration

took over, they emphasized that transparency was the central goal to the release of the information related to Epstein. Attorney General Bondi even invited 15 conservative influencers to the White House to receive binders containing phase one of the Epstein files. And with that came this expectation for phase two. But now with this memo, we're learning that

the administration won't be releasing any additional information. One of the biggest points of contention with the memo's release is that Attorney General Pam Bondi had previously implied that Epstein's client list does exist. In an interview with Fox News back in February, Bondi was asked whether the DOJ will really release

the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. And Bondi responded, quote, "'It's sitting on my desk right now to review,' end quote." Now that response of course conflicts with the conclusion shared in the memo, which was that no client list exists. So a lot of people have a lot of questions. Last week in a cabinet meeting, Bondi addressed her comment in

that Fox News interview and said that her remarks were just referring to the very large file on Epstein, not a specific client list. Press Secretary Caroline Levitt similarly addressed Bondi's previous statement saying, quote, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. That's what the Attorney General was referring to and I'll let her speak for that. But again, when it comes to the FBI and the DOJ, they are more than committed to ensuring

that bad people are put behind bars." End quote. Meanwhile, while the public seems to be frustrated by the memo's conclusion, there's reportedly some contention within the White House as well. Allegedly, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino is considering resigning over this whole thing.

Remember, Bongino is one of those guys that promoted alternate theories about Epstein's death prior to working in the administration. But do keep in mind that Dan Bongino himself has not come out and said anything about resigning. So far, everything we're hearing about this potential resignation stems from reports from various anonymous sources.

In light of this public backlash against the administration, President Trump has come to Attorney General Bondi's defense. Most recently over the weekend, Trump wrote a lengthy post on Truth Social, which read in part, quote, What's going on with my boys and in some cases, gals? They're all going after Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who is doing a fantastic job. We're on one team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a perfect administration, the talk of the world, and selfish people are trying to hurt it,

all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it's Epstein over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the losers of the Biden administration? They created the Epstein files just like they created the fake Hillary Clinton dossier that they used on me and now my so-called friends are playing right into their hands. Why didn't these radical left lunatics release the Epstein files? If there was anything in there that could have hurt the MAGA movement, why didn't they

use it? Let Pam Bondi do her job, she's great. One year ago, our country was dead, now it's the hottest country anywhere in the world. Let's keep it that way and not waste time and energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about." End quote. Okay, let's take our second quick break here. When I come back, we'll finish the Epstein story

by talking about the truth behind Epstein's so-called client list, as well as the video of Epstein's jail cell. Welcome back. Okay, so some final notes I wanna add to the Epstein story before we move on. A lot of you asked two questions in particular. One, does a client list actually exist?

Two, did the administration edit the video of Epstein's cell before they released it? So we'll start with the client list actually exist? Two, did the administration edit the video of Epstein's cell before they released it? So we'll start with the client list. Some of you mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell's trial and the list of names that were released as part of her trial. And you wanted to know if that list was the same as the client list that's being talked about now. The answer is no. I'll explain the difference. One of Epstein's victims had filed a defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, and in 2024, as part of that lawsuit, roughly 950 pages of court documents were unsealed and made public. Those documents named between 150 and 180 individuals, but those individuals were not

just clients. These were victims, witnesses, Epstein's staff, Epstein's associates, pretty much anyone that ever had anything to do with Epstein's case. In those documents, we know that certain high profile figures were mentioned, but again, inclusion in those documents doesn't necessarily mean someone committed a crime.

So that's why the names released as part of Ghislaine Maxwell's case are very different from what we're talking about here when we talk about this quote unquote client list. So what are we talking about here? Well, for one, there's never been official confirmation of a quote unquote client list. What there has been confirmation of is a so-called black book.

And this was a personal address book that was recovered by the FBI back in 2008. The book contains more than a thousand names including Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, tons more, like I said more than a thousand names. However, again this book may have just functioned essentially as a contact list. We don't know that it was used as anything else. It included the names and numbers of more than a thousand people, but it didn't indicate the nature of Epstein's relationships with any of these people or imply any involvement in any crimes.

It basically looked like a phone book. So still, there's never been any confirmation that an actual quote unquote client list exists. Now onto the claim that the administration edited the footage it released of Epstein's jail cell. So along with its memo, the DOJ released what it called raw surveillance footage of Epstein's jail cell from the night of his death. The footage was meant to show that no one entered Epstein's cell the night of his death and therefore his death could have only been a suicide.

The video consists of about 11 hours of 24-7 surveillance taken by a video camera that was outside Epstein's cell. But upon its release, a lot of people were quick to notice that there's this one minute gap in the footage around midnight. Pam Bondi explained the gap as a simple routine system reset. She said, quote, what we learned from the Bureau of Prisons is that every night the video is reset and every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well showing that a minute is missing every night." End quote. Meanwhile, an investigation into the metadata of the video file shows that the files had been edited using Adobe Premiere Pro, had been compiled from at least two separate clips, and had been saved multiple times in the month

of May before eventually being released last week. Of course, these findings are fueling these theories that the government intentionally removed that one-minute gap in the video and that this footage actually isn't raw, like the administration said. However, we've heard from a lot of video forensics experts and editors that, you know, they're kind of cautioning us that it's not clear what exactly was changed and that the metadata doesn't prove deceptive manipulation. Some say the video may have simply been processed for public release using available software,

you know, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. Another expert has actually called these headlines surrounding this storyline misleading. He says quote, here's what the average person doesn't know and here's what I haven't seen any news site actually talk about. To cut down on the file size of a video that's literally being recorded 24 seven for years,

many of these security cameras record in a proprietary format that you could never play back on normal software. Not only that, but because they're running forever, the files aren't indefinitely large. The files have to stop every X amount of minutes. I don't know if it's every 10 minutes or every 10 hours, but every security system that I've ever dealt with creates individual video files based on a certain amount of time. Now if you just want to play back the footage, you have the hardware to do it right there.

But if you want to share the footage, you usually have to open up their proprietary software and you have to export each one of those video clips one by one." He then goes on to discuss the missing minute in the clip. He says, quote, the other thing that people are suspicious of is this one missing minute. Pam Bondi says that this camera apparently loses one minute every 24 hours based on the way the camera resets or something like that. I haven't run into that problem personally with the security cameras I've used, but I will tell you that I have never in my life used a security system that worked perfectly.

Every time I use a security system, it is an absolute nightmare and there are glitches and missing clips and it just never works correctly. So that actually sounds somewhat plausible to me." End quote. That expert also went on to say, he's not here to say that he's certain the footage isn't doctored or that the administration isn't lying at all. He just wanted to explain that based on his knowledge,

there are plausible explanations for the editing of the footage and for the missing minute. So I wanted to be sure to share that take with you as well because I think a lot of the things we're hearing about is just that the clips were edited or the footage was doctoredored but we're not really being given an explanation along with that claim and that's the closest I've got. So hopefully we'll get a little more clarity on all of this as the situation

unfolds a bit more but that's what we know as of now. I know a lot of you had a lot of questions about that story so hopefully I was able to answer most of them or at least try my best to. All right, now what I want to do is this. Over the last week or so, I've received a lot of questions about some of Trump's recent remarks, including his threats to take away Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship and to take over New York City and Washington DC. You guys want to know if either of these things are permissible or legally allowed, so let's talk about it. Starting with Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship. I'm sure most of you know who Rosie O'Donnell is

But for those that don't she's an American talk show host. She's a comedian She's an actress very much a democrat very much doesn't like trump hasn't liked trump for a long time Some say even before he got into politics, they don't like each other In fact in January O'Donnell moved to ireland in large part because of trump taking office So within the last week or so O'Donnell's been posting on social media denouncing Trump and the various actions that are being taken by his administration, including the passage of the recent One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Trump then took to social media himself

to write, quote, because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interest of our great country, I'm giving serious consideration to taking away her citizenship. She is a threat to humanity and should remain in the wonderful country of Ireland if they want her. God bless America." And quote. O'Donnell then responded with her own post on Instagram writing, quote, the president of the USA has always hated the fact that I see him for who he is. A criminal con man, sexual abusing liar out to harm our nation to serve himself this is why I moved to Ireland he is a dangerous old soulless man with dementia who lacks empathy compassion and basic humanity I stand in direct opposition of

all he represents so do millions of others you're gonna deport all who stand against her evil tendencies you're a bad joke who can't form a coherent sentence and quote okay so can Trump revoke O'Donnell's citizenship? The answer is no. Yes, she moved to Ireland, but she is still a U.S. citizen by birth. She was born here in New York. She cannot have her citizenship revoked. The president does not possess the authority to revoke citizenship from a native-born U.S. citizen. That is per the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot strip citizenship without the person's consent,

and according to the State Department, citizens can relinquish their U.S. nationality, but it has to be voluntarily. And I know maybe some of you will bring up this birthright citizenship order because we did briefly talk about how Rosie O'Donnell has birthright citizenship, but the fact is even if, let's just say hypothetically, she was born here and let's just say both of her parents were not legal citizens of the United States or permanent residents, still President Trump's birthright citizenship order does not apply retroactively. So that would not be a route that the president could take either. So the

short answer here is no Separately during a cabinet meeting last week President Trump made comments about a federal takeover of New York City and DC The suggestion was in response to a reporter's question about New York City's upcoming mayoral election Trump said quote if a communist gets elected to run New York It can never be the same but we have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to. We could run DC. I mean, we're looking at DC. We don't want crime in DC. We want the city to run well." End quote. So when talking about a takeover of New York City, there's no legal authority that allows the president to just take over a city, right? The 10th Amendment of the Constitution specifically reserves any powers that are not

expressly reserved for the federal government to the states. And what this would mean is that the state of New York has control over its cities. It's not the federal government doesn't have control over cities. And reserving these powers for the states or to the states was the framers way to ensure that the states maintained adequate power and couldn't be taken over by the federal government. Now Washington DC is a slightly different situation because it's not a state, it's a federal district, so it wouldn't fall under the Tenth Amendment per se. However, Congress did pass something called the Home Rule Act in 1973 and that granted DC residents the right to elect their own mayor and

city council. So while Congress still retains oversight over DC, the president can't unilaterally gain control over the city's government. Unless of course Congress were to repeal the Home Act, then potentially presidential control becomes possible. Okay now it's time for some quick hitters. President Trump announced 30% tariffs on goods from the EU and Mexico starting August 1st. The EU president said the EU remains ready to continue working towards an agreement by August 1st but at the same time will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if necessary. Mexico's president called it an unfair deal and

said that she disagrees with it. Speaking of tariffs, President Trump today threatened 100% tariffs on Russia if there's no deal to end the war in Ukraine in the next 50 days. The announcement came during an Oval Office meeting meant to discuss weapons to Ukraine. During that meeting, Trump alongside the NATO Secretary General said the US has made a deal with NATO where the US is going to be sending Ukraine weapons through NATO and NATO is going to be paying for them. Trump said quote, we're not buying it, but we will manufacture it and they're going to be paying for it. End quote. The NATO secretary general called the

deal quote unquote really big and said this is quote Europeans stepping up. End quote. Former president Biden spoke to the New York Times about his use of the auto pen in granting clemency to various individuals during his final days in office. Biden denied claims that his aides acted without his knowledge and using the auto pen, saying quote, I made every decision. End quote. Biden also told the Times that he did utilize the auto pen

when granting clemency because there were so many of them. Biden and Biden's aides have said that Biden did not approve every individual categorical clemency, but he did hold extensive discussions on the matter before signing off on the criteria for them. And finally, murder rates are down so far in 2025 by at least 14 percent nationwide. New York City saw the lowest number of shootings and murders in recorded history for the first half of the year. Baltimore recorded its lowest number of murders in more than 50 years. And LA is on track for its lowest annual homicide rate in nearly 60 years.

And now it's time to end the episode with some critical thinking. This segment is never meant to be too complex. It's just meant to be a challenge to get you thinking twice about your opinions and to ask yourself why you feel the way that you do about certain things for today's segment? Let's revisit the Epstein files The first question is this? Republicans have long accused Democrats of covering up Epstein's connections while Democrats accuse Trump and his allies of now doing the same But if both sides are disappointed with the latest memo from the FBI and DOJ, what does that say about how each side has used the Epstein case politically? Do you

think it speaks to both parties using Epstein more as a political weapon than a case of justice for the victims? And when I say both political parties, I mean the leaders of those political parties, right? Do you think, I mean the leaders of those political parties, right? Do you think it speaks to the leaders of the political parties and the administrations using Epstein more as a political weapon than a case of justice for victims? And why or why not? Why do you feel that way? Second is this. If Epstein's death was really a suicide, why do you think both Democratic and Republican administrations have had such a hard time quieting the theories surrounding it? Is it a failure of transparency? Is it a failure of trust

in institutions? Is it something else? If it really was a suicide, what can the administration do to quell these other theories? Think about that. That's what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. As always, don't forget about the upcoming podcast schedule. No episode this Thursday, the Supreme Court episode on Monday,

and then I'll be back the following Thursday. Have a fantastic next week and a half, and I'll talk to you next Thursday