UNBIASED - What We Know About the ICE Shooting, Google's Acknowledgment of Biden Admin Censorship, the Government's Potential Shutdown, Tylenol's 2017 Tweet About Use During Pregnancy, and More.

Episode Date: September 25, 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: What We Know About the Shooting at the Dallas ICE Field Office (0:36) Ryan Routh Found Guilty of Attempting to Assassinate President Trump; Stabs Himself After Verdict (5:58) Google Sends Letter to Congress Acknowledging Censorship Pressure Campaign By Biden Administration (10:44) Listener Q&A: Can California Ban Federal Agents from Wearing Face Coverings? Can the Federal Government Purchase Equity Stake in U.S. Businesses? (16:54) Looking Ahead: What to Expect If the Government Shuts Down Next Week (24:51) Quick Hitters: Former FBI Director James Comey Facing Possible Indictment, Two States to Carry Out Executions, Trump to Extend TikTok Deadline and Sign Order Clearing Path for New Deal, New Data Shows U.S. Economy Grew More than Previously Thought (29:44) Rumor Has It: Is the Trump/Epstein Statue Real? Did Trump Accidentally Post a Text Message Meant for AG Bondi? Are Migrants from Alligator Alcatraz Missing? Did Tylenol Say It Doesn't Recommend Its Products During Pregnancy? (32:37) 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

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, September 25th. Let's talk about some news. Real quick, before we dive into today's episode, I do just want to flag that there will be no episodes next week. I know I hate to do it. I hate it just as much as you. But I am taking some time off to go on a much needed family vacation. so there won't be an episode on Monday or Thursday, but I will be back with you the following Monday, which is the 6th. So now, without further ado, let's start today's episode talking about the shooting at the ice facility in Texas. It feels like we are starting way too many episodes lately talking about shootings. On Wednesday morning, a gunman fired multiple rounds of shots

at an ice field office in Dallas. Now, for clarity, an ice field office in Dallas. Now, for clarity, an ice field office is different from an ICE detention facility. So detention facilities are where detainees are held, sometimes short term, but usually for longer periods. And they're held there while they await immigration proceedings or deportation. A field office, on the other hand, is an administrative and operational hub for ICE officers. Some field offices, like the one in Dallas, have short-term holding areas to process individuals who were recently arrested. However, detainees are typically transferred from field offices to detention facilities for longer term detention. So again, this shooting happened at the ICE field office in Dallas, Texas. Unfortunately, the shooter who has now

been identified as 29-year-old Joshua Jan killed one detainee and critically injured two others before reportedly killing himself. It was originally reported that two detainees were killed, one was critically injured, but as of today, they had updated that announcement to say that one detainee was killed, two other detainees were critically injured. When asked about the identities of the victims, the special agent in charge of the ICE facility, said, quote, well, we're not releasing identities of any victims at this time. What I can confirm for you is no members of law enforcement.

were hurt during this attack, end quote. According to an individual who was near the facility waiting to attend a meeting inside that facility when the shooting occurred, the shots began around 6.10 a.m. And there were about 20 shots in a row. The DHS has since confirmed that the gunmen fired shots from a nearby rooftop and, quote, indiscriminately at the ice building, including at a van in the sally port where the victims were shot. end quote a sally port by the way is you guys have probably seen this at like jails so it's that entryway to a facility that's secured by gates basically a van will enter one gate which then closes before a second gate opens that's what a sally port is they're meant to prevent

detainees or inmates from escaping joshua yon the shooter was found dead at the scene we know that he was born and raised in texas he had one previous felony conviction In 2016, he pled guilty to delivering marijuana in an amount greater than a quarter ounce, but less than five pounds, which is a felony under Texas law. According to his brother, Yon previously did coding work but was not employed at the time of the shooting and had plans to move in with his parents in Oklahoma. His brother also told reporters that he last saw his brother two weeks earlier at their parents' house and that nothing seemed out of the ordinary. He noted that he didn't feel as if his brother was, quote, unquote, politically interested. And as far as his brother knew, Joshua Yon, quote, didn't have strong feelings about ICE. End quote.

As for Yon's voting records, we know that he was a registered independent. And we know that he did vote in November, but we don't know who he voted for. At this point, his motive remains unclear. Nothing has been confirmed. But the FBI did say it's investigating the shooting as an act of target. violence. Investigators also said that the phrase anti-ice was handwritten on a bullet casing that was found at the scene, but that's about all we know at this point that could tie back to the shooter's motive. In response to that shooting, DHS Secretary Christine Nome called

for heightened security for ice facilities around the country and said the DHS would be hiring additional ICE officers. Nome also wrote in a post on X, quote, this vile attack was motivated by hatred for ice. For months, we've been warning politicians and the media to tone down their rhetoric about ICE law enforcement before someone was killed. The shooting must serve as a wake-up call to the far left that their rhetoric about ICE has consequences. Comparing ice day in and day out to the Nazi Gestapo and the secret, sorry, Nazi Gestapo, the secret police and slave patrols has consequences. The men and women of ICE are fathers and mothers, sons, and daughters. They get up every morning to try and make our community safer. Like everyone else, we just want to go home to our families

at night. The violence and dehumanization of these men and women who are simply enforcing the law must stop. We are praying for the victims and their families, end quote. A handful of other government officials, including President Trump, FBI director Cash Patel, Senator Ted Cruz, Vice President Vance, Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, and others have issued statements suggesting that the shooting was a politically motivated act of violence against ice. Just keep in mind, we don't definitively know the shooter's motive at this point. The FBI hasn't come out and confirmed anything. Once we do know more about that motive, I will let you know.

Moving on, Ryan Ruth, the man accused of attempting to assassinate President Trump at his Palm Beach Golf Club last year was found guilty on all charges on Tuesday. So to briefly catch everyone up to speed on September 15th of last year, Trump was playing Gulf in Palm Beach when a Secret Service agent saw a rifle barrel sticking out from a bush in the distance. The agent fired in that direction. The man initially was able to flee the scene, but he was later arrested nearby. That man was later identified as Ryan Ruth. Following his arrest, Ruth was indicted by a grand jury on charges that include attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, assaulting a federal

officer, felony possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Ruth pleaded not guilty to all charges, and he decided that he was going to represent himself at trial. This is despite not being a lawyer or having any kind of background in the law. Once the trial got underway earlier this month, he only called three witnesses before resting his case. His first witness was Marshall Hinshaw, who told the jury he had known Ruth for 20 years as a friend and a co-worker, and he testified that he would not expect Ruth to hurt anyone and that Ruth was a, quote-unquote, decent parent. Hinshaw also said Ruth was respected, took care of people, and was someone others looked up to. However, during cross-examination,

Hinshaw testified that he had actually stopped seeing Ruth regularly after 2017. The second witness was at well milson who was a longtime friend of ruth's son milson testified that he had never seen ruth as a violent person and when asked about ruth's involvement in the community milson said ruth did everything he could ruth's third witness was michael mcley a former marine sniper who was called as a firearms expert mcley said that when he test fired the weapon allegedly used for the assassination attempt which is a SKS-style rifle. It malfunctioned. And he said that the rifle routinely misfired, which he was testifying for the purpose of saying, you know, it routinely misfired. So it was likely that it would misfire again. And this gun wouldn't have actually assassinated Trump.

However, prosecutors noted that the routine misfiring could be attributed to tests that were done to recover the gun's obliterated serial number after the fact, implying that the gun would not have routinely misfired prior to Ruth's arrest. In total, Ruth's questioning took only three hours. All of his three witnesses were done in three hours. Prosecutors, on the other hand, spent seven days questioning 38 witnesses. Prosecutors alleged that Ruth spent weeks planning to kill Trump before the assassination attempt, whereas Ruth told jurors that he didn't intend to kill anyone that day.

He argued in his closing remarks, quote, it's hard for me to believe that a crime occurred if the trigger was never pulled. And quote, Ruth also highlighted the fact that he could see Trump from his position in the bushes and could have shot a secret service agent if he had intended to harm anyone, but he didn't intend to harm anyone, and therefore he should not be convicted. It only took the jury, which, by the way, the jury consisted of five men and seven women. It only took them two hours to deliberate and find Ruth guilty on all consequences. counts. During deliberations, the jury's only request was to again have a look at the rifle,

ammunition, and magazine that Ruth had used. Then once the verdict was read, that's when the most dramatic moment of the whole trial unfolded. And that's because Ruth took the pen that was on the desk that he was sitting at and tried to stab himself in the neck. Mind you, both of his children were present at the trial. And his daughter began yelling out for him not to do anything, telling him that she would help, quote, get him out. And quote, four marshals ended up intervening. They restrained him. They temporarily removed him from the courtroom.

But he was brought back in a few minutes later, this time with shackles on because he had to be, you know, he had to finish and hear his sentencing date. Notably, his white shirt that he was wearing did not show any signs of blood. And that's because, according to a source, the pen that Ruth had access to is specifically designed not to injure. so it likely only left bruises or marks on his neck and didn't do any real damage. His sentencing date was set for December 18th, and he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. In some other news, Google is admitting to Congress that the Biden administration pressured YouTube to censor COVID misinformation.

Now, a lot of you had questions about this and asked me to talk about it, so I will, of course, but I do want to say at the outset that this isn't really anything new. I mean, it's new that Google is joining the censorship train, but we've actually known that the Biden administration pressured companies like META specifically to censor certain information that it deemed to be quote unquote misinformation about the pandemic. And we know this because META CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Congress that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor certain content related to the pandemic. In fact, there was a whole lawsuit about it that went to the Supreme Court. it last year, basically a handful of states sued the administration over its social media pressure tactics. Ultimately, the justices ended up dismissing the suit because they found that the states lacked the requisite standing to sue because the states themselves didn't suffer any concrete

injury from the censorship. So all this to say that the pressure campaigns by the Biden administration aren't really new news, but the Google portion of it is new. So we'll talk about that. Earlier this week, Attorneys for Alphabet, which is the parent company of Google, YouTube, Waymo, and more than 200 other companies, sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee admitting that the Biden administration pressured YouTube to censor certain information related to the pandemic. Keep in mind that this letter was sent in response to two subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee. The first subpoena was sent back in February of 2023. The second subpoena was sent more recently in March of this year. In both of those subpoenas, the committee asked for all evidence that might suggest that the Biden administration attempted to unlawfully censor the media. It's unclear to what extent Alphabet responded to and cooperated with that first subpoena from 2023. But here's what we know from this new letter. It reads in part, quote, senior Biden administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the company regarding certain

user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies. While the company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden administration officials continue to press the company to remove non-violative user-generated content. As online platforms, including Alphabet, grappled with these decisions, the administration's officials, including President Biden, created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding information. It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden administration, attempts to dictate how the company moderates

content and the company has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds. The letter then later goes on to say, quote, the company, meaning alphabet, has transparently evolved its policy framework related to COVID-19 to ensure space for further debate and discussion on the platform. YouTube never had community guidelines prohibiting discussions of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. As publicly announced in 2023, YouTube ended several COVID-19 content policies. As of December 2024, YouTube retired the remaining standalone COVID-19 policies and allowed discussion of various treatments for COVID-19. Health authorities have changed their guidance over time and Alphabet's policies have evolved as well, while the reliance on

health authorities in this context was well-intentioned, the company recognized it should never come at the expense of public debate on important issues. The company terminated channels for repeatedly violating its community guidelines on elections integrity through 2023 and COVID-19 content through 2024. Today, YouTube's community guidelines allow for a wider range of content regarding COVID-19 and elections integrity. Reflecting the company's commitment to free expression, YouTube will will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect. End quote. Now, a couple of things I want to point out here. So for one,

if you read Alphabet's letter compared to Mehta's letter that it had previously sent Congress, Alphabet's letter was not nearly as clear as META's letter was last year. Zuckerberg, on behalf of META, very clearly stated that the White House repeatedly pressured Facebook for months to take down certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and that White House officials expressed a lot of frustration when META didn't agree. Alphabet's letter wasn't as detailed as Meda's letter. The other thing is that Alphabet acknowledged that the Biden administration pressured it to censor certain COVID-19 content, but then the letter eventually started talking about election integrity censorship too. You heard me go over that.

However, Alphabet didn't go as far as to attribute the election integrity censorship to the Biden administration. So it's unclear where that fits into all of this. It's unclear whether the election integrity censorship was something that, you know, YouTube did on its own or whether that's part of this whole thing where they're, you know, saying the Biden administration pressured them to censor it. It's just not clear from this letter. Perhaps the House Judiciary Committee will subpoena Alphabet CEO. And that way he testifies in front of, you know, the committee.

And then maybe we find out more then. But this is as much as we know so far. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll do a little list. in our Q&A and talk about a potential government shutdown. The kids are back in school, summer vacations have come to an end. It's officially the start of cozy season, which means it's time to slide into some bombas. You've heard me talk about bombas before. They make incredibly cozy socks, but also slippers, t-shirts, and underwear. However, the socks are

really special to me because my husband goes through socks like no one I've ever seen. I've talked about this before. His bomba socks are the only ones that stand the test of time. Now, for the fall season, Bombas has, I don't want to say special socks, but they kind of are special socks because they're made with special materials that make them extra cozy for fall. So, for instance, they have a marina wool blend sock, which keeps you warm when it's chilly, but cool when it's hot. That's what marina wool does. So they're ideal for the fall season.

They also have rag socks, which are made with rag wool. Rag wool is what makes their socks extra thick and cozy. Now, the best part about Bombas is for every item you buy. Bombus donates one to someone experiencing homelessness. So head over to bombus.com slash unbiased and use code unbiased for 20% off your first purchase. That's BOMBAS.com slash unbiased code unbiased at checkout. While other money managers are holding, Dynamic is hunting. Seeing past the horizon, investing beyond the benchmark, because your money can't grow if it doesn't move.

Learn more at dynamic.ca slash active. Dynamic, actively different. Welcome back. I figured for this next segment, I could answer a couple of your recent questions that you've submitted to me via Instagram DMs that don't necessarily fit into a story, but I still want to give you guys an answer.

So the first question is what's going on with California's new ban on federal agents wearing masks? Does California have the authority to do that? So we'll take this in two parts. the first part. First, this past weekend, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 627, which is also known as the No Secret Police Act. And what it does is it prohibits most law enforcement agents from wearing facial coverings while executing their duties in the state. So the law makes it a crime for law enforcement officers at the local state and federal level to wear

facial coverings while performing their duties. The bill defines facial covering as any opaque mask, garment, helmet, headgear, or other item that conceals or obscures the facial identity of an individual, including but not limited to a balaclaba, tactical mask, gator, ski mask, and any similar type of facial covering or face shielding item. Notably, the definition does not include translucent or clear face shields that leave an officer's identity visible, medical, or protective masks and equipment for disease or hazardous environments, underwater breathing apparatus, motorcycle helmets for safe vehicle operation, and it also doesn't include protective eyewear against retinal weapons or lasers. And interestingly, the law, which is set to take effect

January 1st, specifically includes the California Highway Patrol. It's unclear why, but it does. So that's the law. Now for part two, does California have the authority to do this? Does California have the authority to regulate federal agents. And it seems like the answer is no, but it's not entirely clear. So here's what we know. Federal agents can be required to follow general state and local laws that don't significantly impact their ability to carry out their work. This means, you know, they have to follow the speed limit. They have to follow traffic laws. They have to stop at red lights, etc. Assuming they're not, you know, on a chase or actually working, right? But it becomes a different situation when you're banning what they can do when they're carrying out their duties.

Courts have consistently stated that states cannot interfere with or control the operations of federal officers acting under federal authority. And while California does have a constitutional authority to regulate conduct of law enforcement officers within its borders to protect health, safety, and transparency, it doesn't necessarily have the authority to enforce those laws against federal officers acting in their official capacity. Now, if California can somehow argue that this all goes back to health, safety, and transparency and that, you know, this should be kind of an exception to the rule, that's where we kind of get into a gray area. So this is going to be something the courts have to figure out. And it's worth mentioning the DHS has already said that it won't

comply with this law. It's called it unconstitutional. And I would imagine the DHS challenges the law or the Trump administration challenges the law. And then from there, the courts will have to sort it out. The next question is, what's the deal with the government's equity stake in U.S. companies? Can the government involve themselves in U.S. businesses like this? So this is a question that's come up a lot because of two recent announcements, specifically. specifically. The first big announcement came last month when the White House said that it was purchasing a 10% stake in Intel. And a month prior to that, the Department of Defense took a 15% equity stake in a rare earth miner company called MP Materials. Then the most recent announcement

is it came, I think, this week or over the weekend, is that the White House is seeking an equity stake in a mining company called Lithium Americas, which is actually a Canadian company. Now, specifically lithium Americas is renegotiating the terms of a $2.2 billion loan from the Department of Energy for its Thacker Pass mine in Nevada. As part of that renegotiation, the White House has proposed taking an equity stake. It's unclear what percentage the White House is seeking, but that's that. With Intel, the White House paid $433 million for its 9.9% stake. And by the way, something worth clearing up to is that it's not the White House itself that's directly buying equity, right? I just use White House as a general term for the executive branch.

Equity purchases like this are typically done through agencies like the Treasury Department, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and they're done through either the Defense Production Act or the Chips Act. So the White House will announce the purchase or authorize the purchase, but the actual transaction runs through an agency. So now for part two of the question, which is can the government involve themselves in U.S. businesses like this? And the answer is yes. The U.S. government has historically bought stakes in private companies, though it's usually done to bail out companies, to keep companies afloat. So as examples, during the 2008 financial crisis, the Treasury bought equity stakes in multiple major U.S. banks, Citigroup, Bank of America,

J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo. This was done to recapitalize the banks and sort of stabilize the financial sector amid the crisis, but the government did eventually sell those shares back to the private sector. In 2009, the government took an equity stake in GM and Chrysler to keep those afloat. In fact, at one point, the Treasury owned about 61 percent of GM. And post 9-11, and during the pandemic, the government purchased equity in airlines to keep them solvent. So what we're seeing now is essentially, and by the way, it's not always purchasing equity stake. Sometimes it's done through loans. Okay. So there's two ways to really that the government really does this. But what we're seeing now is essentially a strategic policy shift where the equity is being used

proactively rather than just reactively to secure supply chains and things like chips, rare earths, and lithium, all things that have to do with national security and geopolitical significance, right? And that's what we saw in July. when the Department of Defense took that 15% stake in MP Materials. MP Materials is the largest US producer of rare earths. And rare earths are critical not only for defense technologies like fighter jets, missiles and radars, but also certain products like electric cars, phones, et cetera. And currently China is dominating rare earth mining and processing. China actually controls about 60 to 70% of mining and 80 to 90% of refining globally.

So the U.S. government saw this dependence as a strategic vulnerability, especially considering our rising tensions with China, and justified the equity stake in MP materials as a national security move. This is the same thing that we're seeing now with lithium Americas. And actually, the Intel move was similar. So Intel is the largest chip maker in the U.S. So the goal in purchasing an equity stake was to promote domestic chip production and not have to rely as much on countries like Taiwan. on in South Korea. So yes, the government can and historically has owned pieces of U.S. companies. But what we're seeing now, again, is a shift from mainly reactive emergency bailouts to now proactive measures to strengthen certain industries before a crisis happens. So that's

how that works. Okay. What I want to do now, since I won't be releasing any episodes next week, is talk about what to expect if the government shuts down. As of now, the government is set to shut down at midnight on September 30th if Congress cannot pass a bill to maintain funding and keep the government running. Congress is also out of town this week. So lawmakers aren't coming back to work until September 29th, which gives them less than 48 hours to figure this out once they come back unless they decide to come back early, but who knows if they'll do that. So if Congress can't pass a stopgap measure by midnight on September 30th to keep the government temporarily funded, the government will shut down until a bill is passed. What does that mean? Well, if the government

shuts down, some federal employees, essential employees, will have to work without pay. This includes TSA officers, air traffic controllers, customs officers, service members, prison staff, FEMA workers, etc. Then there are other federal employees that are furloughed, meaning their sent home and they're prohibited from working. These are non-essential employees. And this includes those with the National Park Service, NASA employees, EPA employees, etc. Typically, essential and non-essential employees will receive back pay once the government resumes operations. Now, Social Security, SNAP, and Veterans Affairs benefits will all continue to be distributed. Those don't stop just because the government shuts down. However, there could be slowdowns.

Same with air travel. Air travel continues. But again, there could be delays or disruptions. The White House has also said, or I guess it should say, it's also told agencies to prepare for mass layoffs in the event of a shutdown. In the memo, the Office of Management and Budget is directing federal agencies to begin drafting, quote unquote, reduction in force plans for programs whose funding will lapse if Congress fails to meet its deadline. so that's also something we're looking at too in the event of a government shutdown now a couple of things to note here when congress does come back and it attempts to avoid a shutdown the stopgap measure will have to pass both the house and the senate in the house they'll need a simple majority to pass a bill but in the senate they'll actually need 60 of 100 votes and that's because funding bills require at

least 60 votes to pass in the Senate. So that means that even if every Republican supports the bill, it still needs the support of at least seven Democrats in the Senate. What the holdup is is basically Republicans want Congress to pass a short-term funding bill without any add-ons. This is standard procedure, actually. It's known as a clean continuing resolution where they just basically keep the government funded at current levels and they don't add anything onto it. Democrats, on the other hand, they want add-ons. They want certain health care provisions. that they say are essential and they want to restore cuts to Medicaid made by the one big beautiful bill. So they're trying to sort of tack on these additions to the continuing resolution, which

the Republicans disagree with. That's the hold up. Now, as far as the additions that Democrats are trying to make, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Democrats' health care proposals alone would cost $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. And while Democrats have said that they're willing to negotiate with Republicans and that, you know, their package should be seen as an opening offer and not necessarily a set of red lines. Republicans are opposed to any add-ons at all. So they're not willing to negotiate at all. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, he's a Republican. He said on Friday, quote, if Democrats want to shut down the government, they have the power to do so. But if they think they are going to gain political points from shutting down the government over

a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution, something they voted for 13 times under the Biden administration, I would strongly urge them to think again, end quote. Originally, or I guess I should say, as of about a week ago, Democratic leaders were supposed to meet with the president to talk about how to move forward since Democrats are saying Republicans have been unwilling to negotiate. But as of Tuesday morning, the president said he would not be meeting with Democratic leaders. He posted a truth social in part, quote, after reviewing the details of the unsurious and ridiculous demands being made by the minority

radical left Democrats in return for their votes to keep our thriving country open, I have decided that no meeting with their congressional leaders could possibly be productive, end quote. So hopefully now, even though I won't have episodes out next week, you'll still feel like you're in the know if the government ends up shutting down. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll do quick hitters and rumor has it. We have a lot of rumors to cover today. Hit pause on whatever you're listening to and hit play on your next adventure. This fall get double points on every qualified stay. Life's the trip. Make the most of it at Best Western. Visit BestWestern.com for complete terms and conditions. Welcome back. Let's do a few quick

hitters. Former FBI director James Comey could potentially soon be indicted by the DOJ, though Attorney General Bondi and some other federal prosecutors have reportedly expressed concerns over seeking an Now, the case against Comey focuses on whether he made false statements during his congressional testimony involving the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. And under federal law, prosecutors have five years to bring charges, which expires on Tuesday. According to people familiar with discussions, President Trump has taken issue with the fact that federal prosecutors were so willing to bring multiple criminal cases against him while he was out of office and that his DOJ should be bringing the best case it can when it comes to his.

political opponents and then let the court decide the rest. Trump told reporters over the weekend, quote, I just want people to act and we want to act fast. If they're not guilty, that's fine. If they are guilty or if they should be charged, they should be charged and we have to do it now. End quote. So again, like I said, we could see that indictment as soon as today, but the deadline to file those charges would be Tuesday. Two executions are scheduled to take place in two states tonight. Alabama is set to execute Jeffrey West for the 1997 murder of a mother of two during the robbery of a gas station where she worked. Texas is set to execute Blaine Milam for the 2008 murder of his girlfriend's 13-month-old baby in what Milam and the baby's mother

described as an exorcism. Alabama will execute West using nitrogen gas, which is a relatively new method of execution, and Texas will use the lethal injection. And speaking, of executions, the Pentagon is reportedly planning to seek President Trump's approval to authorize the execution of the former army major who was convicted of carrying out the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood. That shooting left 13 people dead and 32 injured. If that's approved, it would be the first U.S. military execution in more than 60 years. President Trump is expected to sign an executive order today that will clear the way for the completion of a TikTok deal. The deal will reportedly consist of selling TikTok's U.S. assets to a variety of mostly American investors.

The president is also expected to extend the pause on enforcing the TikTok ban by another 120 days so that paperwork and regulatory approvals can go forward and the deal can be completed. And new government data released today shows that the economy grew faster than previously thought in the second quarter of 2025. The growth rate was revised upward to 3.8% annualized, exceeding a 3% initial estimate. In other words, the economy is doing better than many had thought in recent months, in part because people are spending more. And now it's time for my weekly rumor has it segment where I address recent rumors submitted by all of you and either confirm them, dispel them, and or add context. We have four today. First one, rumor has it that a statue of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump holding hands,

was erected outside the National Mall. This is true. On Tuesday, a statue of President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein holding hands while standing on their own pedestals was put up outside the National Mall in D.C. by an anonymous group that calls itself The secret handshake. The statue is titled Best Friends Forever, and it was 12 feet tall and apparently made out of foam, resin, wood, and wire. It was also accompanied by three plaques that contain verbatim lines,

from Trump's alleged 50th birthday letter to Epstein. However, on Wednesday, around 5.30 in the morning, the statue was removed by the U.S. Park police. Now, when it comes to temporary displays like this one, private citizens can obtain what's called a First Amendment demonstration permit to erect temporary displays on federal land. They just can't be permanent displays. In this case, the group that put up the statue had lawfully obtained a permit that last through Sunday. Typically, the permit has to be honored for its full duration. The park service can

only remove an installation before the permit expires if one, it poses safety risks. Two, it causes damage to federal property. Three, it violates the specific terms of the permit. Four, there was criminal activity or incitement of violence associated with the installation. Or five, the removal was due to a certain time, place, and manner restriction and not about the content itself. So unless one of those exceptions was present, then technically the National Park Service or U.S. Park Police should have left the statue up until Sunday. If the installation was taken down without a valid lawful justification, then the group that installed it, they could sue the administration.

Now, it's unclear if they will, but they would have a legal basis to do so. however, it would probably cost them more than they would get out of it. If they did sue, they wouldn't get much. Either a court would just order the administration to put the statue back up until, you know, Sunday, or the court would just simply declare the administration's actions unlawful, and that would be the end of it. But yes, the rumor that a statue of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump holding hands was erected outside the national mall is true. Next one. Rumor has it that Trump accidentally posted a private text message meant for.

for Attorney General Bondi to Truth Social. I cannot definitively confirm or dispel this one, but I can tell you what we know. On Saturday, Trump posted to Truth Social, quote, Pam, I have reviewed over 30 statements in posts saying that, essentially, same old story as last time, all talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Schifty Schiff, Letitia? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. Then we almost put a Democrat-supported U.S. attorney in Virginia with a real.

really bad Republican passed, a woke rhino who is never going to do his job. That's why two of the worst Democrat or Dem senators pushed him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit and that we had no case. No, I fired him and there is a great case. And many lawyers and legal pundits say so. Lindsay Halligan is a really good lawyer and likes you a lot. We can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing. be served now, President DJT, end quote. Shortly after that message was posted, social media users almost immediately began to speculate that the message was never intended for social media and that it was instead meant to be a private message to Attorney General Bondi. Now, it's important to keep

in mind that obviously the only one that knows for sure whether this message was truly meant for Bondi or not is President Trump himself, likely Attorney General Bondi, and maybe some other insiders. Anything else is just mere speculation. So what we can do is we can, we can analyze some things. If we look at the language that was used in the message, certain pronouns are used like you, we, and our, right? This seems to indicate the message was directed at a specific person, specifically attorney general Bondi, rather than a broader general audience. As an example, Trump wrote, quote, Lindsay Halligan is a really good lawyer and likes you a lot. If this were directed at Bondy, it makes sense to be phrased that way. But if it was meant to be a social media post,

it would probably say something like Lindsay Halligan is a really good lawyer and likes Attorney General Pam Bondi a lot. And then of course, there's the fact that the message starts with Pam. It's addressed to Pam, as if the message is intended for Pam and Pam only. So three sources, close to the administration, as well as several senior officials at the DOJ and the White House, spoke to Rolling Stone, and they said that they were surprised by the message. They told the Rolling Stone that the message resembled how Trump typically texts, but they also noted that how Trump text is similar to how he writes on truth social. It's also worth mentioning that the post has since been deleted, and about an hour after the original post, Trump wrote in a second truth social post,

quote, Pam Bondi is doing a great job as Attorney General of the United States. She is very careful, very smart, loves our country, but needs a tough prosecutor. in the Eastern District of Virginia, like my recommendation, Lindsay Halligan, to get things moving. What we don't need is a Democrat endorsed, quote unquote, Republican. I will be nominating Lindsay Halligan to be the United States attorney in this very important part of our great country. She will be fair, smart, and will provide desperately needed justice for all, end quote. And that message, of course, you know, if we go back to analyzing the language, it uses pronouns that would seem to match what one would write in writing a message intended for the

general public. So while I can't definitively confirm the truth or falsity of this rumor, that is what we know and what we can speculate. Next one. Rumor has it that immigrants held at Alligator Alcatraz are now missing. Again, unfortunately, this is another one that I can neither confirm nor to spell, but I can tell you what we know. A rumor recently started circulating within certain news outlets and Reddit users that hundreds of immigrants being detained at Alligator Alcatraz in Florida have since vanished. This claim seems to have originated from an article in the Miami Herald, which reads in part, quote, as of the end of August, the whereabouts of two-thirds of more than 1,800 men detained at Alligator Alcatraz during the month of July,

could not be determined by the Miami Herald. The Herald had obtained the names from two detainee rosters. Around 800 detainees showed no record on ICE's online database. More than 450 listed no location and only instructed the user to call ICE for details. A vague notation that attorneys said could mean that a detainee is still being processed in the middle of a transfer between two sites or about to be deported. End quote. So that's what the Miami Herald wrote in its write-up. And it's worth mentioning that the news coverage on this has been slim to none. So I'm not sure if that speaks to a lack of merit or it speaks to a lack of awareness. But either way, don't have much information on this. The only other outlets that have covered this story

outside of the Miami Herald is an outlet called the Esquire and then an outlet called Democracy Now. And both the Esquire and Democracy Now only cited information that was, you know, published by the Miami Herald. So again, just not much available here. What I will add to this story is that Alligator Alcatraz was just ordered closed by a judge a few weeks ago. So ICE has been in the process of transferring the migrants to other facilities, but again, that's the extent of what we know at this point. All right, last one. Rumor has it that the Tylenol X account said it doesn't recommend taking Tylenol when pregnant. It's true that Tylenol's X account tweeted this, but we are lacking the full picture. So let's talk about what we know. In 2017, Tylenol tweeted,

quote, sometimes the best headache relief is getting outside. After all, brisk air is still fresh air. end quote. Another ex-user then replied to that post, but their reply has since been deleted, so we don't know what it said. All we know is that Tylenol responded to that user's reply and wrote, quote, we actually don't recommend using any of our products while pregnant. Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns today. End quote. So yes, it is true that Tylenol said, it doesn't recommend using any of its products while pregnant. But again, we don't know the full context because we don't know what that ex-user said. Now, of course, this resurface tweet has generated a lot of discussion in light of the FDA's recent announcement about Tylenol and

autism. So the fact-checking site, Snopes, reached out to Tylenol's parent company for additional clarification. And in response, the parent company said, quote, we do not make recommendations on taking any medications in pregnancy because that is the job of a health care provider. This eight-year-old consumer response is incomplete and did not address our full guidance on the safe use of Tylenol, which has not changed and is as follows. Acetaminopin is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women as needed throughout their entire pregnancy. Our products are safe and effective when used as directed on the product label, and we recommend pregnant women do not take any over-the-counter medication, including

acetaminopin, without talking to their doctor first. end quote. So yes, that rumor is true. That is what we know at this point. Okay, I think I'm going to skip critical thinking today, but I do want to give you just a few reminders before I sign off for the week. Number one, again, I won't be releasing episodes next week, but I will be with you the following Monday. And two, I do have a new newsletter going out tomorrow morning at 6 a.m. So be sure to subscribe to that. If you're interested in getting quick hitters sent to your inbox every Tuesday and Friday. It's quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business, health, and international news. And you can always sign up using the link in the show notes. It's completely

free. I just need your email address. So with that, I hope you have a great next week. And I will talk to you again on The Six.