UNBIASED - What In The World Is Going on With Texas' Immigration Bill? Plus DOJ Sues Apple, Police Officers Sentenced for Torture, Neuralink Patient Plays Chess, Trump Case Updates, and More.

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

1. DEEP DIVE: Texas' Immigration Law (SB4); What's Going On?! (1:31)2. QUICK HITTERS: EPA Issues Final Rule Re: Car Emissions (13:50); NY Attorney General Opposes Trump's Request for Stay of Judgment (16:10); Fulton County Judge Allows Trump to Appeal Fani Willis Decision (20:33); Six Mississippi Police Officers Sentenced for Torture (22:53); DOJ Sues Apple (25:07); First Neuralink Patient Plays Chess Using Thoughts (26:12)3. ONE-LINERS (27:40)4. NOT EVERYTHING IS BAD: Good News of the Week (28:22)5. JORDAN'S ANNOUNCEMENT (33:13)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!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

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance,

call the Conax Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Friday, March 22nd. This episode was recorded yesterday around 5 p.m. Eastern time. Before we get into anything, I have an important announcement regarding some restructuring of the show's format that I'll be sharing with you at the end of this episode, so please stay tuned for that. Otherwise, Monday is going to come around and you are going to be one confused individual. Today's episode will start with a deep dive into Texas's SB4 and what's been going on with that. We'll then touch on some quick hitters and one-liners, and then we will, of course,

finish with everyone's favorite segment, which is not everything is bad. As your reminder, there are still about nine days left in that referral contest where you have a chance to win $200. So don't forget to get your submissions in before the end of the month. You can find the link to do that in this podcast episode's description. It'll take you straight to the webpage, submit your referrals there, and it's as simple as that. You can win $200 if you submit the most referrals. Finally, per usual, if you love the unbiased approach that this episode provides, you feel more informed after listening, please go ahead and show me some love by either leaving a review on your preferred

podcast platform, sharing this episode with your friends, or if you're on YouTube, go ahead and hit that thumbs up button. All of those things really mean a lot to me, so thank you in advance for that. Without further ado, let's jump in to today's stories, starting with Texas's SB4. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court cleared the way for a controversial immigration law out of Texas to take effect. Then, just a couple of hours later, the appeals court below, who had previously allowed the law to take effect, blocked the law from taking effect. So let's run through it. Here is everything you need to know. This law, for those who may not be familiar, it's, as I said, it's called SB sp4 but it's currently the toughest immigration measure enacted by a state in 2010 arizona enacted a similar law but a majority of that law ended

up getting struck down by the supreme court so currently yes this is the toughest state immigration measure you know throughout the country what it does is it gives state law enforcement officers the ability to arrest and prosecute migrants who are suspected of crossing the border illegally. So in other words, this law creates a new state crime that makes it illegal for a non-citizen of the United States or someone who's not a national of the United States to enter or attempt to enter the state of Texas directly from a foreign nation at any point along the border other than a lawful port of entry. For a first-time offender, it's a class B misdemeanor. For a second-time offender, it's a felony. Under the law, a person charged with this crime has to appear before a magistrate,

and at that time or any time thereafter, if the person agrees to it and has not previously been convicted, they're a first-time offender, the magistrate or judge can decide not to prosecute the case and instead dismiss the charge and issue an order that would require that person to return to the foreign nation which they came from. However, if that person, the charge isn't dismissed and that person is ultimately convicted of that charge, the law mandates that a judge has to enter an order that requires that person to return to the nation that they came from, and that is to take effect once that person completes their term of imprisonment. And included in that order, the law also mandates that the judge has to specify

the mode of transportation and the law enforcement officer or state agency, which is responsible for taking that person to a lawful port of entry for them to be sent back when the time comes. The law also says that in the event that the federal government determines that a person's immigration status is either pending or will be initiated at some point, it shall have no effect on the court. In other words, a court cannot abate the prosecution of an offense under the law just because of such a federal determination. And finally, the law specifies places where the law can't be enforced. So people who may have violated this law can't be arrested in these places. Public or private primary or secondary

schools, places of worship, healthcare facilities, and facilities that provide medical exams to sexual assault survivors. No individual can be arrested for violating this law in any of those places. So once this law was enacted, the Biden administration sued Texas. And essentially, the federal government's argument is that immigration policy is in the federal government's wheelhouse, not the state's. States don't make immigration laws. And therefore, this law is unconstitutional. Texas, on the other hand, cites to something called the State War Clause, which is also part of the

Constitution, and it gives states the power to defend themselves, but only if that state is, quote, actually invaded or in such imminent danger. Otherwise, if a state is not actually invaded or in imminent danger, states have to get the consent of Congress to enact such laws. But what Texas says is that it has been actually invaded specifically by Mexican cartels who are causing harm within the state, and therefore Texas has a right to enact laws such as SB4 to defend its territory. Now, of course, that begs the question, what does actually invaded mean, right? Because at the time the Constitution was written, invasion may have looked a little different. So that'll likely be a question that the Supreme

Court has to address at some point in the future. But currently, for purposes of this story, we're not worried about that. When the Biden administration filed this lawsuit in Texas, the district court sided with the administration and they blocked the law from taking effect. Texas then goes and appeals this to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And when it appealed, it asked the court for what's called a stay pending appeal. If that request would have been granted, the stay would essentially put the district court's ruling on hold. So it would stay the district court's ruling until the appeal plays out. In other words, while the appeal was playing

out and until the appellate court rendered a final decision on the merits, Texas would be able to enforce the law. But they didn't do that. The court didn't do that right away. As with most requests of a court, the court has to usually take some time to consider some things. Specifically, when it comes to requests for stays, the court has to apply certain factors and determine whether the stay is warranted. So what the appellate court did here is it said, okay, while we consider whether we're going to grant Texas's stay request, we're going to issue an administrative stay. Now, an administrative stay is different than a stay pending appeal

in the sense that it's much more temporary, but it still has the same effect. So the effect of the administrative stay was that Texas was allowed to enforce the law while the court considered Texas's more permanent stay request. When the appellate court did this, the Biden administration took it to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. And something a lot of people don't know about the Supreme Court, I mean, if you listen to my Supreme Court episode, you know this, but a lot of people don't know that each justice on the bench is assigned to a particular circuit court of appeals. So whenever a case comes up on appeal to the Supreme Court, there is one particular justice

that decides what to do with the case based on the appellate circuit that it came from. And the justice can either, when they get a case, they can either make a decision on the matter themselves or they can refer it to the rest of the court. In this case, Justice Alito is the one who oversees the Fifth Circuit, so when this came to him, what he did was he issued a temporary stay on the appellate court's ruling, effectively reinstating the district court's ruling and blocking the law, while Alito referred it to the rest of the court for all of the justices to come together and make a decision on it. And keep in mind, it's not that the justices had to make a decision on the merits of this case. It's that the justices had to determine

whether the appellate court's administrative stay was warranted. So the stay that was put in place while they considered the other stay request. And what the court said on Tuesday was, we are not going to get involved. It was a six to three decision. The majority found that the court should not intervene with administrative stays. They said it would be different if we were reviewing a stay pending appeal, but we're not. And given the temporary nature of the administrative stay, we are going to let the appellate court figure it out. But the court also said, if the appellate court takes too long to determine whether they're going to grant Texas's stay request, the Biden administration can come

back to us. And at that point, we will treat it as a stay pending appeal and we'll review it. That's a non-issue at this point, because as we'll talk about in a minute, the appellate court in Texas actually scheduled arguments on the stay pending appeal almost immediately following the Supreme Court's ruling. Now, I do also want to note that three of the justices dissented from the majority's ruling. So, Justices Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson dissented. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson wrote a dissent together, and they wrote that the court's order, quote, invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement, end quote. Justice Kagan wrote that the court's order, quote, upends the federal state balance of power that

has existed for over a century, in which the national government has had exclusive authority over entry and removal of non-citizens, end quote. So the Supreme Court's majority rules that the court's not getting involved, the administrative stay can stand, and Texas can start enforcing the law. But then, as I said just a couple of hours later, the appellate court below decided to reverse their administrative stay and block the law from taking effect for the time being. The court also at that time set arguments for the following morning at 11 a.m. And those arguments went forward as planned on Wednesday. And we should have a decision pretty soon from the appellate court as to whether this

more permanent stay is granted. But here is here. Here's what oral arguments looked like. So we already know that the arguments we already are familiar with arguments on each side of this because we went over that. But the parties argued in front of a three judge panel. Two of those judges asked questions. One of the judges didn't speak at all of the two judges that spoke. One was leaning one way. The other seemed to be leaning the other way. But actually, what I want to do, let's talk about the judges that heard the case. So one of the three is Judge Irma Carrillo-Ramirez. She's a Biden appointee. She's the one who did not speak during the arguments. Then there's Judge Andrew Oldham, who's an appointee of President Trump. And the third judge is Judge Priscilla Richmond, who is an appointee of President George W. Bush.

Judge Richmond made the point that this power that Texas is trying to assert is not a power that's historically been exercised by the states. Of course, Texas's attorney rebutted that with the argument that Texas has the right to defend itself. Judge Oldham, on the other hand, he was a little skeptical about whether the Biden administration could show what it needed to show in order to continue blocking the law. So basically for the Biden administration to prevail here and persuade the court to reject Texas's request for a stay, the Biden administration has to show that the entire law is likely invalid. And Judge Oldham wasn't exactly feeling as if the Biden administration was able to show that the entire law was likely invalid. So he questioned the attorney about that. Now, as I said, as of now, we don't have a decision yet. But my guess is it'll be two to one. I'd imagine Judge Ramirez sides with the Biden administration, Judge Oldham sides with Texas,

and then Judge Richmond will be the swing vote. But either way, two to one is my call. And again, just so we're on the same page and so you know what's going on when that decision does eventually get released, because it could be today. If Texas's request is granted, Texas can start enforcing the law while the appeal plays out and until the appellate court makes a final decision on the merits of the case. If the stay is denied, though, if Texas's request is denied, Texas will not be able to enforce this law while the appeal plays out. And this is all assuming, by the way, that the appellate court's ruling, whatever it is, doesn't get overturned by the Supreme Court down the road. Because keep in mind, once the appellate court makes a decision

on the stay request, the losing party can then bring this right back to the Supreme Court and ask them to review it. The Supreme Court doesn't have to review it, but the losing party can certainly ask. And one final note that I want to make is once the appellate court makes a final determination on the merits of the case, which will likely be around May because this case is set for arguments in April, the losing party, whoever that ends up being, will almost certainly appeal this case to the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court will definitely be seeing this case again in some sort of capacity. Now let's get into quick hitters. The first one is about this new final rule out of the Biden administration regarding car emissions.

So the EPA announced a final rule this week, which is intended to cut car emissions in half between 2027 and 2032. The rule is said to be the highest profile rule of four different regulations being released over the next few weeks. However, the rule is slightly less strict than the original proposal that the EPA put out last year. So before I talk about the numbers in the rule, I do want to just give you some context and kind of let you know where the emissions numbers currently sit, or at least where they sat in the last few years, and also where the numbers were 50 years ago, so the numbers actually mean something to you. So model year 2021 light

duty vehicles, so sedans, SUVs, trucks, passenger cars, were emitting on average 348 grams of tailpipe emissions per mile. 50 years ago in 1975, light-duty vehicles were emitting around 681 grams per mile. So within 50 years, that number has been cut in half. But what the new rule would do, starting in 2027, is cut emissions again in half in just five years. The rule says that model year 2027 light-duty vehicles are required to hit an industry-wide target of 170 grams of emissions per mile. By model year 2032, the target is 85 grams per mile. And for each model year, the targets drop about 17 grams per mile in order to achieve that 85 number at the end.

So for example, the target goes from 170 grams per mile for model year 2027 to 153 grams per mile for model year 2028, then 136 grams per mile for model year 2029 and 119 grams per mile for model year 2030, so on and so forth until you get to 85 grams per mile in 2032. And as a final note, the rule also addresses limits for medium duty vehicles, which is bigger trucks and vans, and calls for a reduction from 461 grams per mile in 2027 to 274 grams per mile in 2032. So not quite a 50% reduction, but close. Quick hitter number two, New York's Attorney General Letitia James filed a letter to the court on Wednesday opposing Trump's request earlier this week to stay enforcement of the

$464 million judgment or reduce the allowable bond amount. So James argued a variety of things in her letter, but we'll touch on three of those arguments. The first argument was a procedural one. When a party files a motion or a brief with the court, the opposing party can file a response. And then the original party that filed the motion or brief can file a reply to the response. But then that's it. That's as much of a say as each party gets. In this case, James argued that Trump set forth his arguments as to the bond amount being practically impossible in a reply, and therefore she did not have an opportunity to respond. So she says this was an improper procedural move by Trump and therefore

the court shouldn't consider it. Her second argument lies in the fact that the expert insurance witness who testified on Trump's behalf during trial and submitted a sworn affidavit on behalf of Trump's Monday filing didn't disclose in the sworn affidavit that he was an expert witness for Trump at trial. And then piling onto that argument, she also says that this particular witness has a financial interest in the outcome of the case due to the fact that he makes a commission from the Trump organization. And because of that, the court should not consider his sworn statements to be reliable. Finally, she argued that the argument Trump made about the full bond amount being impossible to post is based on the false premise that he has to obtain a single bond from a single surety for the entire amount. Rather, she says,

he can sever the judgment amount and obtain multiple bonds from multiple sureties. Moreover, she says, this isn't the first time that a defendant has been required to post high judgment amounts, and this situation with Trump should be no different. She cited two multiple billion dollar judgments, which were bonded on appeal from companies like Sony, Apple, Samsung, Carnegie Mellon, and Oracle. And she says in the alternative, though, if he can't post a bond, he can hand over some of his property to the court. So she says for all of these reasons and more, this court should deny

Trump's motion for a stay of the judgment pending appeal in full and require that the full judgment amount be posted. Trump's lawyers then responded to this letter with a letter of their own on Thursday. And Trump's lawyers wrote that James's arguments that Trump can secure multiple smaller bonds or hand over property to the court is illogical, unconstitutional, impractical, and unjust. The letter reads in part, quote, It would be completely illogical and the definition of an unconstitutional excessive fine and a taking to require defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a fire sale, in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, end quote. And that, of course, is not referring to the Supreme Court of the United States, but rather

the Supreme Court of New York, which, as I've explained before, the Supreme Court of New York is actually a lower level court in New York. New York has it a little bit backwards. One final thing about this case, you may have seen Thursday the news that New York's attorney general filed the judgment with Westchester County, which means that she's making a move towards seizing Trump's assets. But just know that when you get a judgment against a defendant, the next step is to file that judgment with whatever court has jurisdiction over the defendant's properties or assets in the event that you need to go over or in the event you need to go after them. So the filing of the judgment just means that James is

putting the court on notice that the judgment was issued and she may at some point, perhaps once the deadline expires on the 25th of this month, start going after Trump's properties in the respective counties. The judgment was already filed in New York City and Florida, and Westchester County was the latest one that was just filed on Thursday, or at least the news broke on Thursday. The third quick hitter is some other Trump legal battle news. The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case gave the green light to an immediate appeal of his decision regarding District Attorney Fonny Willis. In Tuesday's episode, I mentioned that the judge had ruled on the potential disqualification

of District Attorney Fonny Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade over their romantic relationship and then the alleged financial conflict of interest that arose as a result of that relationship. Ultimately, Judge McAfee found that the defendants were unable to prove an actual conflict of interest, but did cause an appearance of impropriety. And because of that, the judge ruled that Willis could continue to prosecute the case so long as Wade stepped down. And Wade did in fact step down later that day, so Willis plans on staying on the case. However, despite Trump and his co-defendants wanting to appeal this ruling, there are certain rules in Georgia surrounding non-final decisions.

And non-final decisions are decisions in a case that don't resolve the whole case. They're little decisions that take place throughout the course of the proceeding, but still leave other issues to be litigated. And under Georgia state law, to appeal a non-final decision such as this one, what you have to do is you have to get the judge to sign off and certify an immediate review. And that is what Judge McAfee did. So he signed off on that certificate, paving the way for the defendants to appeal this decision. From here, the defendants now have 10 days to file

their appeal. And once that appeal is filed, the Georgia Court of Appeals then has 45 days to decide whether it'll hear the appeal. If it doesn't want to hear the appeal, Willis will stay on the case. If it does hear the appeal and it affirms McAf to hear the appeal, Willis will stay on the case. If it does hear the appeal and it affirms McAfee's decision, obviously Willis stays. If it hears the appeal and overrules McAfee's decision, that would mean that a new prosecutor would have to be chosen to take over the case. And in that case, it could take weeks, it could take months, and it could potentially have the effect of delaying the trial, which in this case, the trial actually has not been set yet. The DA did previously offer an August 5th start date, but there's no

official scheduled date yet. Quick hitter number four is that six former Mississippi police officers were sentenced this week for their role in the torture of two men last year. According to prosecutors, the six officers went to a home in Braxton, Mississippi on the night of January 24th, 2023, after a neighbor reported seeing suspicious behavior and several black men staying at the house of a white woman. When the officers arrived, they kicked down the door, handcuffed the men, and that is when the torture ensued. According to court documents from the DOJ, the two men who were in the house were told to get naked and were subsequently tased 17 times while having racial slurs yelled at them. The officers forced the men to ingest liquids, fired their guns multiple times as a

fear tactic, and at one point, one officer tried to put a dildo into one of the men's mouths. Towards the end of this whole encounter, one officer removed a bullet from his gun, put the gun into one of the men's mouths, and pulled the trigger. Now, the gun obviously didn't fire because the officer had removed the bullet, but then the officer intended to dry fire a second time. This time, the gun discharged, leaving the man bleeding on the floor with a shattered jaw. At this point, what did the officers do? Instead of providing aid, the officers left the gun at the scene. They destroyed surveillance video, the spent shell casings, and taser cartridges.

And they also submitted false drug evidence to a crime lab. They filed a false police report. And they charged one victim with crimes that he didn't commit, all as a cover. Last August, all six officers pled guilty to federal charges of conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and obstruction of justice. The officers' sentences ranged from 17 to 40 years, with the last one being sentenced on Thursday or the last two being sentenced on Thursday. And one of the officers received a noticeably longer sentence of 40 years than the others because he was actually facing separate charges from a similar incident in 2022.

Quick hitter number five, the DOJ and 16 state attorneys general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple yesterday alleging that Apple has created an illegal monopoly in smartphones that restricts competitors and hinders innovation. This lawsuit follows a 2020 House report that actually found that Apple, Meta, Google, and Amazon hold monopoly power, and since that report was issued, the DOJ has sued all of those entities except for Apple until now. Apple responded to the lawsuit writing in part, quote, this lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect

from Apple, where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it. End quote. The sixth and final quick hitter is kind of crazy, and honestly, it could probably go into the not everything is bad segment, but I'm throwing it into quick hitters because I have two good news stories for you today. The first Neuralink patient is now playing chess solely by thinking about the moves he wants to make in the game. I originally reported on Neuralink back in September when

it had announced that it opened the registration for human trials, but Neuralink is Elon Musk's neurotechnology company that implants a chip into the brain to give them the ability to control a computer just by thinking. And the first person to receive a Neuralink implant was in January. His name is Nolan Arbaugh. He's 29 years old, and he was paralyzed from the shoulders down after a diving incident that happened years ago. But on Wednesday, Neuralink live-streamed this video of Arbaugh playing a chess game on the computer, and he was moving the chess pieces by

thinking about where he wanted them to go. And then by thinking about it, the cursor would move, and the cursor would move the pieces on this computer. Arbaugh said that he's played a video game called Civilization VI for up to eight hours straight with his implant, a game which he had previously given up because of his disability. Arbaugh said that while the Neuralink technology isn't yet perfect and said that he has run into some issues, he also said that it has changed his life. A few one-liners. The Fed announced on Wednesday that it would hold interest rates steady, but said that it expects three cuts by the end of the year. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell says she's considering holding a public hearing

on what's been called the TikTok bill before the Senate eventually holds a vote on it. President Biden announced the forgiveness of loans for roughly 78,000 public service workers, and doctors at a hospital in Massachusetts completed the world's first transplant of a pig's genetically edited kidney into a 62-year-old man. Pretty crazy stuff. Now into not everything is bad, everyone's favorite segment, some good news for you. The first story is almost six months old, actually, but I just came across it for the first time this week and it made me cry. So naturally, you know, I was like, if I'm crying, you guys need to cry. I had to include it in today's segment. Important to this story is a little fact about

college football scholarships. The NCAA limits schools to a certain number of scholarships per team per year, depending on that school's division. So D1 FBS schools are limited to 85 scholarships per team per year. And that's actually the most a school can have, 85. But anyway, Eastern Michigan University is one of those schools that gets 85 scholarships. And the school had given out all 85 of its scholarships ahead of the upcoming season, but before the season started, Zach Conte walked onto the team as an offensive lineman. Unfortunately for Conte, he was going to have to pay his full tuition himself, which is about $7,000 each semester, but he wanted to play.

So when he wasn't playing football, he would take up random jobs to make ends meet. He worked in landscaping at one point. He was ripping out flooring at one point. He even donated blood to make extra money. And he was doing all of this while at the same time his mom was fighting a kidney disease and was in need of a transplant. Conti's teammates started to realize that Conti was coming in to practice straight from work. And because most of the team isn't working while they're playing football, they finally decided to ask him about it. And that's when he opened up about a situation. One of Conti's teammates and a fellow offensive lineman, Brian Dooley, wanted to help. So Dooley went home, he sat down with his parents, and he told them the situation.

And together, Dooley, his mom, who's a nurse, and his dad, who's a truck driver, decided that they would pay Dooley's way for his final season at EMU so that Dooley could give his scholarship to Conte, and that is what he did. When Dooley was asked about his act of kindness, he said, quote, I think it's just the beginning. If people see what I've done, they might take it to a whole new level. I wish I could do more. To me, it wasn't that big of a deal what I did. I was just doing it for one of my brothers, so hopefully I can do a lot more now. End quote. I have the chills even just telling this story. But the second story is just as good. The second one is also another act of human kindness and made me cry too when I first saw it.

James is the name of a security guard at Providence College in Rhode Island. He works four overnight shifts a week. And according to the students there, he's that guy who just always greets everyone with a smile. He welcomes conversation. It doesn't matter what time of the night it is. Kids will be pulling overnighters in the library, and he's always there to talk. And in talking with James, one of the students, Brandon Riker, found out that James hadn't been able to go back and visit his family in his home country of Nigeria for the last five years. And so Brandon

decided without telling James that he was going to start a GoFundMe that would go towards buying James a ticket to Nigeria, and then anything left over would pay for James's food and lodging while he was there. But before Brandon knew it, all of a sudden, the GoFundMe had reached $30,000. And the best part of this story is when Brandon and some other students surprised James with the plane ticket and the leftover money. So in the video, which I do have linked for you, Brandon starts by saying, they're in this room together, and Brandon starts by saying, where do I start? And he spoke about how everyone at the school

can attest to how great James is and how he's like family to them. And he went on to explain the GoFundMe, and he said, quote, we started a GoFundMe to take care of our own because that's what we do here at PC. As long as I've been here, they've done that for me.

We do that for each other. So now we're doing it for you. You're part of the family. So our gift to you is a trip to Nigeria. And as he finishes saying this, another student hands James the envelope containing the plane ticket and the check that had the leftover money in. Before James could even open the envelope, he fell to the floor and he covered his face first and then he just fell to the floor and he was just laying on the floor.

And while he's laying on the floor, all the kids are yelling, I love you. Not yelling, but they're all, you know, saying I love you to James. And it was just the sweetest moment. And like I said, I do have videos behind each of these stories today linked on my website. So if you're interested in watching them, which I highly recommend you do, it is guaranteed. They're both guaranteed to make you smile. Just click the sources link in the podcast description, scroll all the way down to the bottom of that page, and that's where you'll find the videos. Now for the important announcement about the show's restructuring. On Monday, I will be testing

out a new format for the show. Instead of two shows per week, we're going daily, basically four episodes a week. Here's how it'll work. Monday, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays will be short 15-minute episodes catching you up on that day's news. The episodes will release at 5, 5.30 Eastern time. That way, at the end of the day, you can get an unbiased rundown of what you need to know from the day in 15 minutes. No episode on Thursday, but Friday will be a deep dive into the top one or two stories from the week. So I know how much you all love deep dives. I don't want to do away with deep dives completely. So what I've decided is that Friday's episode will be a little longer, probably around 20-25 minutes, but it'll focus specifically on one or two stories

that I touched on earlier in the week that you want more of, and it'll provide you with that additional depth and context that I give you, but, you know, regular outlets don't give you. So with that being said, if there's a story on one of the shorter episodes next week, send me a message, either email or Instagram DM, and let me know that you want to hear more about that story, and I'll gather all of the input and put together Friday's episode based on what you want to hear. So like I said, I'll take the top one or two stories and I'll deep dive. Then once the week is over, depending on how we all feel about it at the end of next week,

that schedule will either continue on or we'll go back to this original format Tuesday and Friday. But I have a feeling you're all going to really, really like the structure next week. So I'm almost positive that's how we'll be doing things going forward. But I hope that sounds good because it sounds good to me. Hope that sounds good to you. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here and I will talk to you next week.