UNBIASED - Your Questions About Speaker Mike Johnson Answered, Rep. Bowman Pleads Guilty After Fire Alarm Pull, Meta Sued by 33 States, and Texas Sues Dept. of Homeland Security.

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

1. Rep. Jamaal Bowman Pleads Guilty After Pulling Fire Alarm (2:30)2. Meta Sued by 33 States for Allegedly Harming Youths' Health (4:06)3. Texas Sues Dept. of Homeland Security for Cutting Wire Fencing at Border (8:44)4. Here's What You Need to Know About Speaker Mike Johnson; His Personal Life, Political Life, Policies, Voting Record, and Proposed Agenda (12:07)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.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 Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased

news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. Happy whatever day it is today. What day is it? It's Friday. We're getting ready for the weekend. That's what we're doing. I hope you've had a great week so far. I have four stories for you today. We're doing it. We're doing things a little bit differently. You know, we always we got to keep it exciting around here, change it up a little bit. So the first three stories are actually going to be relatively short. I'm first going to talk about Jamal Bowman pleading guilty in regard to that fire alarm incident about a month ago. I'm then going to discuss this lawsuit against Meta that was filed by 33 different states

and what that alleges. And the third shorter story will be about Texas suing the Department of Homeland Security and what that whole lawsuit's about. Then I will finish the episode. The bulk of this episode will surround Mike Johnson, the new Speaker of the House, who he is, what he's all about, what policies he stands for, what his voting record looks like, what his agenda looks like, all kinds of things. So we'll finish with the discussion about the new Speaker, and that'll be today's four stories. I do want to remind you that tomorrow is Saturday, meaning my weekly newsletter will be going out. That newsletter, if you're not familiar with it, it's basically just another source of nonpartisan news for you. Think of it as an addition to what I already provide. So you can always subscribe to that through the link in the podcast description or just by going to jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. And then of course, as I always

remind you, the top two ways that you can always help me out if you appreciate the show and like what you hear, you can always leave me a review on whatever platform you listen on. That really helps. And then also sharing my show. So forwarding the show along to your friends and family, sharing the episode, or just sharing the show generally really helps me as well. And as my disclaimer, yes, I am a lawyer. No, I am not your lawyer. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. you might remember when the house was set to vote on the temporary funding measure last month and representative jamal bowman pulls the fire alarm in the cannon house office building he said it was just an accident he thought you know it was the way to exit the door you in the Cannon House office building. He said it was just an accident. He thought, you

know, it was the way to exit the door. You pull the lever, the door would open. He didn't realize it was a fire alarm. That was according to him. However, some oppositionists, so mostly Republicans, said that it was more of an intentional move to delay the vote and they wanted a full-on investigation into it. Well, he did get charged with one misdemeanor charge for falsely triggering a fire alarm, and he did plead guilty on Thursday. Him and the D.C. Attorney General's Office reached a deal where he would plead guilty to this misdemeanor charge, his sentencing would be deferred for three months, and in that time, he would serve this probationary period where, in addition to the probation, he would also pay a $1,000 fine and write an apology letter to the Capitol Police.

So long as he fulfills those terms of the agreement, the charge will be dropped once the three months are up. After pleading guilty, Bowman told reporters that the incident was embarrassing for him, but he's glad he's one step closer to putting it behind him. He apologized. He said that he hates the confusion that this has caused and acknowledged that Capitol Police and other resources had to be used to respond to the incident. So that's what's going on with Representative Jamal Bowman. Let's now talk about this lawsuit against Meta. 33 states have filed a lawsuit against

Meta, which of course owns both Instagram and Facebook. And this lawsuit is accusing Meta of profoundly altering the psychological and social realities of young Americans, causing sweeping damage to their mental and physical health through deceptive and unlawful conduct. So if we really get down to the meat of this lawsuit, the lawsuit alleges a four-part scheme. The first part of that scheme is creating this business model that's focused on maximizing young users' time on the apps through the development of its platform. The second part of the scheme is designing and deploying harmful and psychologically manipulative product features to induce the young user's compulsive and extended platform use. And they're doing this, according to the complaint, while falsely

assuring the public that its features are safe and suitable for young users. The third part of the alleged scheme is partially redacted, we can't see all of it, but it includes publishing misleading reports which boast a deceptively low incidence of user harms. And the fourth and final part of this alleged scheme is continuing to offer and downplaying these harmful features, despite a plethora of both internal and external research that show that these features harm the youth. Now, if we put this a little bit more simply, just get down to brass tacks, basically what this is saying is Meta gets these young users to spend as much time as possible on these apps. And the way that they do this is through these various features like

likes, algorithms, these facial filters that are causing body dysmorphia, the infinite scrolling feature, things like that. And because of this extended amount of time that is spent on the app, Meta makes more money because Meta makes all of its money from its ad sales. So Meta's whole business model is getting people to spend as much time as possible on the apps. Now, of course, adults spending time on the apps, adults can do whatever they want. They make their own decisions. But when it comes to minors, there's definitely more consequences for enticing minors in something like this than enticing adults. And so in addition to these deceptive practices, the lawsuit also accuses Meta of violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. And it says that Meta is unlawfully collecting personal data of these young users without ever getting parental permission, which is in violation of federal law.

So in total, there's 54 counts because most of these counts stem from various state laws. So as an example, Arizona will have its own deceptive and unfair practices law, whereas California has its own unfair and deceptive practices law, things like that. But in addition to that, there's also this federal law violation, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. So 54 total counts. As far as damages go, each state is asking kind of for their own set of damages. So depending on the state, it ranges from disgorgement,

which is something we're seeing in this Trump civil fraud trial in New York, which is basically any, you know, you got to pay back any profits you made through illegal activity. So this lawsuit is saying, you know, any profit that Meta has turned through these deceptive practices, they need to pay back. And then in addition to that, you have civil penalties per violation. So $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 per violation of law, permanent injunctions, which of course means Meta has to permanently stop this behavior. And these states are also asking for declarations, which essentially is just asking the court to declare certain behavior unlawful. So that's what the damages portion of the lawsuit looks like.

And in addition to this lawsuit, Meta is also being sued by nine other states in their own individual lawsuits, very similar lawsuits. It's just that these states decided to file in state court rather than federally, and these states include Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. One more lawsuit I want to mention is this lawsuit that Texas is filing against the Department of Homeland Security. So Texas is suing over the cutting of wire fencing at the border. So basically, you know, the Rio Grande separates Mexico and Texas, and on the Texas side of that, they had installed this wire fencing so that people couldn't enter Texas from crossing the river. And the Department of Homeland Security

and Border Patrol has gone in and cut that fencing. Texas's Attorney General Ken Paxton argues that Texas has the sovereign right to put up border barriers to prevent the entry of illegal aliens, which is, of course, their justification for putting up this wire fencing in the first place. Texas further argues that the cutting of the wire amounts to an illegal conversion of state property as well as trespassing. And in addition to that, that the Biden administration actually lacks the statutory authority to destroy and seize this border infrastructure, which belongs to the state of Texas. So the lawsuit goes into all of these various dates and times at which Border Patrol has come in and cut the wire and also includes the number of migrants that were allowed, you know, through into Texas each

time wire was cut. As examples, the lawsuit says, and I quote, that on September 27th, CBP officials cut wire near Eagle Pass, Texas at 2.47 p.m., allowing 94 aliens through the hole. September 28th, CBP officials cut wire near Eagle Pass at 7.23 a.m., allowing 72 aliens through the hole. September 28th, CBP officials cut wire near Eagle Pass at 7.23 a.m., allowing 72 aliens through the hole. That same day, September 28th at 10.04 a.m., CBP officials cut wire allowing 32 aliens through the hole, and so on and so forth through the present day. In total, there are six counts, which include conversion and trespass to chattels. Conversion and trespass to chattels are very similar. They both deal with the wrongful exercise of control over another person's property, in this case, of course, Texas's property. But the difference

between the two is that there's a different level of interference. So with conversion, the level of interference from the person wrongfully exercising control over the property, it's more than the Biden administration to stop cutting the wire both now as well as indefinitely. And Texas is also asking the court for a declaration that the destruction and the taking of the wire fencing is unlawful. So very similar to what we just talked about in Meta, a declaration is just asking the court to declare certain behavior is unlawful. So those are the damages that Texas is seeking. Now let's take our little 10 second intermission. And when we come back, we will talk all about Speaker Johnson. on wednesday the house finally elected a speaker speaker mike johnson he was elected after three weeks without one and four different gop nominees but let's talk about how we got here who mike johnson is both a little bit about his personal life as well as his political life.

That'll include some discussion about his voting record, his policies, his proposed agenda, and we'll also kind of talk a little bit about what effects his speakership could have on the House. If you've been listening to my episodes over the last few weeks, you are all caught up, you know what's been going on, you know what the House has been through over the last few weeks. But my most recent episode on October 24th left off on the GOP voting Jim Jordan out and in the midst of voting in a new nominee. So there were nine candidates in the running the last time I talked about this. And on Tuesday, the GOP nominated Representative Tom Emmer. But within a few hours Tom Emmer dropped. So same storyline, not enough votes, because remember, just because you have a majority of

your party for the nomination doesn't mean you're going to be able to sway all of those who voted against you when it comes to a full floor vote in the House to get the required 217, give or take. So Emmer knows he doesn't have that, and he drops out. Then five representatives launch new bids because the GOP has to come up with a new nominee, right? So we have Byron Donalds, who ran the round before. He's from Florida. Chuck Fleischman from Tennessee. That was his first time running. Mark Green, also from Tennessee, also first time running. Roger Williams from Texas, and Mike Johnson from Louisiana, who ends up getting the nomination.

The GOP conference holds three rounds of voting. So the first round, Chuck Fleischman is eliminated. The second round, Roger Williams is eliminated and Mark Green drops out. And the third round was down to Johnson and Donalds. The final vote, meaning the final round, was 128 for Johnson and only 29 for Donalds. In fact, former Speaker McCarthy received more votes than Donalds in that round. And no, McCarthy was not running for the nomination, but you don't have to be a potential nominee to get votes. So in that final round, as I said, Johnson got 128 votes, Donald's got 29

votes, and McCarthy got 43 votes. So Johnson, having won the majority for the nomination, takes it to the full floor for a vote and gets all 220 Republican votes for the win. And he missed out on one because the one was not there. He was not voting gets all 220 Republican votes for the win. And he missed out on one because the one was not there. He was not voting. But 220 Republican votes for the win, and he is now the new speaker. So who is Mike Johnson? Well, for starters, he is one of the least experienced people in recent years to serve as speaker when you consider factors like the amount of time spent in Congress, the time spent just generally in politics, things like that. He was elected to the House in 2016, which means he has spent seven years in Congress so far. The last Speaker to have spent less than seven years in Congress before taking the Speaker position was Speaker Carlisle in the 80s, who had only been in Congress for six

years. So in comparing him to all the other previous speakers, he is not so experienced. And here's the other thing. On a related note, a lot of people have said they've never even heard of him before this. And truthfully, that is probably what helped him win. Because if you think about it, the representatives like Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, and Tom Emmer, they had made names for themselves within their party. They all had leadership positions, and they had their own enemies because of that within the party who wouldn't vote for them. Johnson, though, being kind of an under-the-radar guy, he hasn't really had the opportunity to make any enemies that would strongly oppose him like the

other nominees did. So that, in a sense, probably helped him get this nomination. Mike Johnson, as a person, he's very religious. He comes from a traditional Christian household, as does his wife. Him and his wife actually have a podcast together called Truth Be Told, where he's described as a congressman and constitutional law attorney. His wife, Kelly, is described as a licensed pastoral counselor and educator. they have four kids at least one of the children is a christian student leader at his college and johnson himself is one of four kids too he grew up in shreveport louisiana he started his career as a lawyer where he really focused his career on defending religious freedom and more generally or more broadly constitutional law and he was a pretty big opponent of same-sex marriage when he was practicing as a lawyer. He was a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund prior to serving in Congress. And while there, he was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. He successfully defended Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban before the Supreme Court in 2004.

Of course, that was before same-sex marriage was held to be constitutional. But he also had described homosexuality as inherently unnatural, and he has just never been an advocate for same-sex marriage. He more recently opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, which we'll talk a little bit about in a minute once we get to his more recent voting record. But along similar LGBTQ lines, he also expressly opposes gender-affirming care. And as far as abortion goes, he has authored various bills attempting to restrict abortion access like the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, the Second Chance at Life Act, and the Protect the Unborn Act. As I said, his focus while practicing law was on constitutional law, which does signal that he is

an originalist. So what I mean by that is originalists favor interpreting the Constitution in the way that it was written. He does support ending American military aid to Ukraine. He voted against certifying the 2020 election, along with 147 other Republicans. led an amicus brief that was submitted to the Supreme Court in support of a lawsuit out of Texas contesting the election results. So let me dive a little bit deeper into that so there's no confusion. There was this lawsuit following the 2020 election that was filed by Texas, so Texas's attorney general, challenging the legality of mail-in ballots in the 2020 election. So this was not a lawsuit filed by Congress members. This was a lawsuit filed by Texas. But as we sometimes see, people can file, and by people I mean whether that's politicians or Congress members or just lay people, can file amicus briefs, which is basically briefs in support of one of the parties to the lawsuit.

So they're not actually a party to the lawsuit themselves. They're just submitting a brief in support of that party's position. So in this case, 125 House Republicans submitted this amicus brief backing or supporting Texas's position in this lawsuit. This also didn't end up going anywhere. It was never heard because the Supreme Court determined that Texas lacked standing to challenge what they were trying to challenge. But nonetheless, just to kind of give you an idea of where he stands on this, he did lead that brief in support of Texas's position. He was one of 175 House Republicans that voted against a commission to investigate the January 6th

incident at the Capitol. However, he has dissented when it comes to certain issues surrounding January 6th. As an example, he rejected the Republican National Committee's assertion that January 6th amounted to, unquote legitimate political discourse. And what Johnson said is this. He said, quote, I think it was inartfully worded. I think what the RNC was trying to say is there is obviously political discourse that goes on every day and went on January 6th, but violence clearly is not. Continuing by saying, clearly we have no tolerance whatsoever for the people that broke the law on January 6th to breach the Capitol and do damage to the people's house, end quote. So essentially what he's saying there is, I don't agree with the Republican National Committee that

January 6th amounted to just legitimate political discourse. Violence is not that. And so he did take a stance on that that kind of dissented from a lot of other Republicans. Violence is not that. And so he did take a stance on that that kind of dissented from a lot of other Republicans. He is a big supporter of former President Trump. He defended Trump in Trump's impeachment hearings, and he was actually then put on Trump's defense team for the impeachment trial in the Senate. In 2016, he pledged to support limits in Congress. At the time, he said that he would co-sponsor and vote for term limits of three House terms, yet he himself is currently in his fourth term.

So, you know, not that that says anything about that. Maybe he still would support that, but he has currently surpassed that. Now, let's go through his more recent voting record. So those were sort of just some policies that he stands with. I now want to talk about his actual voting record. Just keep in mind, I won't touch on every single bill he's voted on. Not even close, actually. There are tons of different policies and different pieces of legislation that Mike Johnson has been a part of. So I'm really just trying to focus this episode on hot topics, hot issues that I think the general American public cares about. With that said, I have included a link to his voting record in the sources section

for this episode, which you can always find in the description of each episode. There's a link there. So if you have any, you know, specific piece of legislation you want to know how he voted on, definitely feel free to look into that there. He voted against removing McCarthy as Speaker. He voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government temporarily funded. He voted in favor of the Limit Save Grow Act, which avoided the default. He voted in favor of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which prohibits school athletic programs from allowing those who are assigned male sex at birth from competing in sports programs for women and girls in school. He voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, which I had briefly touched on before.

The Respect for Marriage Act gives statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. You may remember when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there was this sort of fear that the Supreme Court would come for other issues as well. So Congress introduced this Respect for Marriage Act, which solidified the legality of same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. And so he voted against that. What he said was the bill was superfluous because the Supreme Court had already guaranteed same-sex rights. So there was no need to vote in favor of this Respect for Marriage Act. He voted against the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which protects the ability to access contraceptives. He voted against the Pump for Nursing Mothers Act, which expands workplace protections for female employees that need to express breast milk at work. Along somewhat

similar lines, he voted against the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination against pregnant women. He voted in favor of establishing June 19th as Juneteenth National Independence Day. And he voted against the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, which established new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties. So as I said, that's obviously not an exhaustive list of the legislation that he has voted for or against. So if there's any particular legislation that I didn't mention and you want to know how he voted, I do have that link for you. Now let's move on to his agenda.

Prior to him winning the nomination, he put forth this roadmap that kind of gave the House an idea as to what they could expect if he won the nomination and won the speakership. And the letter that he sent to his colleagues starts by saying this, Dear friends, we all agree the urgency of this hour demands that the next Speaker of the House must present a specific plan for bold, decisive action that will engage our members in productive work as one successful team, advance our key principles and legislative priorities, and allow us to demonstrate good governance. Governing well will ensure that we meet the unprecedented challenges of today

and expand our majority next year. We must take action right away. I would begin by proposing the following immediate steps concerning our unfinished appropriations bills and our schedule for the remainder of Congress. So then the letter starts talking about appropriations, and this is kind of interesting because he proposes another stopgap measure, which the hardline Republicans were against when McCarthy was speaker. And that was actually the reason that McCarthy was ousted. Yet in this case, it seems that the hardline Republicans are willing to give Speaker Johnson a chance with a stopgap measure.

So this is what Speaker Johnson a chance with a stopgap measure. So this is what Speaker Johnson said. In the interest of time, I would propose that we seek consensus to discharge the last two appropriations bills, HHS and Education and Commerce, Justice and Science, from the Appropriations Committee. We should also create a new working group to address member concerns with the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bills. As all of this is being completed, if another stopgap measure is needed to extend government funding beyond the November 17th deadline, I would propose a measure that expires on January 15th or April 15th based on what can

obtain conference consensus. Meanwhile, I would suggest the following calendar adjustments for considering appropriations on the House floor. And then he kind of gets into a week-by-week breakdown of what appropriations would be considered when. So as an example, this week, the week of October 23rd, they would start with energy and water. Next week, the week of October 30th, they would do legislative branch, interior and environment, and THUD. And then the week of November 6th, a couple of more, and the week of November 13th, a couple of more, until you reach that expiration period for the current temporary stopgap measure. So the interesting part, as I said, is that the more hardline Republicans, like Representative Matt Representative Matt Gates is giving Speaker Johnson a chance with a potential stopgap measure. Gates indicated that

he is open to a quote unquote bridge to prevent a shutdown after Johnson laid out his plan on Wednesday to pass individual funding bills and possibly, you know, a stopgap measure if needed. What Gates said is, quote, I don't like governing by continuing resolution, but Kevin McCarthy wanted to govern by continuing resolution to get us to the next continuing resolution. I think Mike Johnson has a lot more credibility that a bridge would be a bridge to single subject spending bills, not a bridge to just the old ways of Washington that empowered McCarthy's lobbyist donors, end quote. Then you have Representative Tim Burchett, who was also one of the eight

Republicans that voted to remove McCarthy. He didn't commit to supporting a continuing resolution, but he did say he recognizes that Speaker Johnson is in sort of a tight situation. There's only three weeks to go. He said, quote, it's a little extraordinary this go around. He's in a precarious situation, but I'm not saying that I'll vote for it, end quote. So it is interesting to see that some of these more hardline Republicans are open to a potential continuing resolution if Speaker Johnson thinks it's necessary. But aside from the appropriations, the second page of Speaker Johnson's letter then addresses the following, like this next year, what we can expect until December of 2024. And it first starts with October and November. And the first, you know, number one priority is to pass Chairman McCaul's

resolution condemning Hamas, which the House did. On Wednesday, that resolution passed with significant bipartisan support. It was a 4-12-10 vote, and it basically condemns Hamas's actions. It stands in support of Israel's self-defense. It calls for Hamas to cease its violent attacks and return the hostages. Also included in the October-November proposed itinerary is reach consensus for a legislative blueprint through the end of the 118th Congress, pass all appropriations bills, and begin negotiating with the White House and the Senate, begin conference negotiations with the Senate on fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, so on and so forth. So then December, January, February, March, April, May, June, July is really just negotiating on more appropriations bills and pieces of

legislation. Then in August, the proposed plan says that they won't break. So the House won't break for the district work period unless all 12 appropriations bills for the next fiscal year have passed the House. Now, that's obviously an attempt to avoid what we're seeing currently, but that is what the proposed plan says. As far as how Mike Johnson's speakership will affect the House, I'm obviously not a psychic. I can't tell you. What I can tell you is it'll take shape relatively quickly because of the state of politics right now. And I'll explain what I mean by that. But obviously, if, you know, if all Republicans voted for him, which they did, the support is there right now, right? But because he is sort of this lower level legislator, now is his time in

the spotlight, which means now is the time people will really start to form their opinions about him, just like they did about, you know, the other nominees that they didn't vote for. So I don't know how much weight can be given to the fact that all Republicans voted in his favor, because that's really going to take shape in the next four weeks or so. And it can go one of two ways. He'll either unite the party or he'll drive the party even further apart. Because as we've seen, you have the more hardline Republicans and then you have the more moderate Republicans, and they're both kind of at odds with each other. If Mike Johnson's too far right, it's possible that the more moderate Republicans actually start working with the Democrats. However, it's also possible that if he's able to tow this fine line, you know, he can get all the all of

the Republicans to work together and unite the party. Again, it's something we won't know the effects of until his speakership starts to really take shape. But as I said, we'll see this relatively quickly because of the current state of affairs. Congress has to figure out the funding for the government rather quickly. I mean, it doesn't have to, but again, that'll kind of signify where we're going in the House. And then there's also this $100 billion foreign aid package that'll need to get sorted out as well. So all of this to say we should have a better idea of what the next year will look like within the next three to four weeks. So that is what I have for you on Speaker Johnson. Now I tried to give you as much information as I could

while also kind of providing you with a launching pad. So if you had any questions during this episode, obviously I always encourage you to research yourself. I've always been a supporter of doing your own research. I will always be an advocate of doing your own research. However, if you do have a particular question that you would like to submit to me, I do have a contact form on my website, jordanismylawyer.com. You can submit it there and I will do my best to get back to you. I'll do my best to find the answer to your question. So that's always an option. I do want to say thank you so much for being here. As always, I appreciate you more than you know. I hope you have a great

weekend and I will talk to you on Tuesday.