← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
January 15, 2026: ICE Agents Have Absolute Immunity. True or False? PLUS State Dept. Suspends Visa Issuances, Clintons Refuse to Testify in Epstein Probe, Trump Announces New Health Plan, and More.
00:50:18
Loading summary
Transcript58 lines
- [00:00]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.
- [00:15]
Podcast Host
What do you have to lose?
- [00:16]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.
- [00:20]
Mint Mobile Terms Announcer
50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy See.
- [00:29]
Podcast Host
Terms Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, January 15th. Let's talk about some news first. As a quick heads up, there will be no episode on Monday because of the holiday.
- [00:48]
Podcast Co-Host
However, you can always subscribe to my sub stack to stay informed.
- [00:52]
Podcast Host
I have been posting some more articles there which will soon be behind a.
- [00:56]
Podcast Co-Host
Paywall, but for now it's free.
- [00:58]
Podcast Host
Um, and so the link to subscribe to the substack is in the episode description of this episode. It's in the episode description of every episode. So very easy to find. All right, let's start with today's news on Monday.
- [01:11]
Podcast Co-Host
We talked about the two transgender athlete.
- [01:14]
Podcast Host
Cases that were heard at the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
- [01:17]
Podcast Co-Host
And I essentially prepped you ahead of.
- [01:19]
Podcast Host
Oral arguments and told you what those cases were about and what arguments we could expect to hear from both sides. So, so if you want the full rundown of each of those cases, just be sure to tune into Monday's episode today. What I want to do is fill you in on the justices questions, concerns and reactions during those Tuesday arguments. That way we can talk about some potential rulings come the summertime when those decisions, you know, are ultimately released. So just as a quick refresher, both of these cases are about whether state laws that limit participation in women's and girls sports sports to biological women and girls violate the Equal Protection Clause of.
- [02:01]
Podcast Co-Host
The Constitution and or Title 9 of the Education Amendments.
- [02:07]
Podcast Host
So one of the two cases focuses primarily on the on the Equal Protection Clause. The other focuses primarily on Title 9, which is a federal law. The general consensus following oral arguments in both cases in is that the states.
- [02:23]
Podcast Co-Host
Are likely to prevail, meaning the laws.
- [02:25]
Podcast Host
Are likely to be upheld.
- [02:27]
Podcast Co-Host
But it's not clear at this point.
- [02:30]
Podcast Host
How broadly or how narrowly the court will rule. And what I mean by that is this the Justices do not have to issue this broad, sweeping ruling. If they rule in favor of the states. Right, they can issue a narrow ruling. So they don't have to say, like every law that draws distinctions based on transgender status is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and. And is lawful under Title 9. Instead, they could say something like, hey, when it comes to sports specifically, these kinds of laws do not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title nine. And that's the part that's unclear. How broad, how narrow, you know, how exactly are the Justices going to rule? So when it came to the Title 9 arguments specifically, several Justices brought up the Javits Amendment to Title 9, which specifically allows for sex classifications in sports based on biological sex. Remember that Title 9 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex when it comes to any educational program that receives federal funding, and that includes sports. But interestingly, the text of Title 9 didn't actually ever mention athletics. It. It wasn't until the Javits Amendment was enacted, two years after Title IX was enacted, that athletics, you know, was really discussed. And what the Javits Amendment said is basically. It basically clarified that while Title IX bans sex discrimination, the amendment also recognized the practicalities of sports, and it allowed for separate sports teams based on sex so long as both sexes had equal opportunities in athletics programs. So the regulations provided that if a school has a team for one sex and not the other, members of the excluded sex have to be allowed to try out for the team that is offered, unless the exception is if the sport is a contact sport. So it makes for an interesting question, because with the inclusion of the Javits Amendment, Title 9's text and regulations consider the separation of the sexes in certain circumstances, but also simultaneously prohibit sex discrimination. The law does not address how Title IX applies to transgender athletes specifically, and that is what the Justices are weighing. So, as I said, several Justices brought up the Javits Amendment and how it should be interpreted in. In this case, the Court's three liberal Justices seemed to acknowledge that the challengers in both of these cases face a difficult path. So their questions really focused on narrowing the potential impact of a Court's ruling, either by dismissing one case or by limiting the scope of any decision. Because, remember, the liberal Justices, and perhaps some of the conservative Justices, but mostly the liberal Justices, they want to avoid a broad, sweeping ruling that could have impacts far beyond sports. Right? And speaking of sports specifically, there was. There was broad agreement among the Justices that, at least in the two cases before the Court, there is no clear scientific consensus on the extent to which.
- [06:00]
Podcast Co-Host
Transgender girls and women might have a.
- [06:02]
Podcast Host
Competitive advantage over biological girls and women. Some conservative justices suggested that the court should just avoid imposing a nationwide rule until we know more about the science. And that's why it's looking like yes. Although the states may prevail in these cases, we should probably expect a more narrow ruling now, again, based on the justice's questions alone, it's not totally clear how this is going to go, but there are a few options that we can talk about, and we'll take these one at a time. So option one is that the court avoids deciding the issue, at least when it comes to the equal protection clause, because as we talked about on Monday in Little versus Hecox, there is a question of mootness. Lindsay Hecox has said she no longer wants to compete in women's sports in Idaho, which raises the issue of whether she even still has a personal stake in the outcome of this case. If. If the majority of the justices decide the case is moot, they could just go ahead and dismiss it without ruling on whether Idaho's law is constitutional. That would mean no decision on the equal protection issue. However, even if that were to happen, the court would still have to decide the Title 9 issue in West Virginia vs. BPJ. Option two is that the courts rule very narrowly, so this would mean deciding only the specific legal questions in these cases or without setting a broad national rule or diving into similar bans in other states. So in Little vs. Hecox, the court might say Idaho's law specifically survives constitutional review and. And leave it at that and not. Not decide any other, you know, similar state law and the constitutionality of those laws. In West Virginia, the court could say something like, Title 9 allows for sex separated sports teams, or Title 9 doesn't clearly require the inclusion of transgender athletes. That would allow states to maintain flexibility in enacting laws like this. But it would also mean that there would be ongoing litigation across the multiple states that do have similar bans. A third option is that they let the state laws stand and mostly stay out of it by saying that these kinds of decisions are up to the states and that it's not really for the courts to get involved in. Now, this doesn't mean that. That the Supreme Court doesn't say anything at all. Right. It means that the Supreme Court would draw a legal boundary and then. And then kind of step back. So in Little, the court might say that laws separating sports teams based on biological sex should be reviewed under a more deferential standard, meaning courts should generally defer to state legislatures on athletic policy. And in West Virginia, the court might say that Title 9 doesn't require schools to allow transgender girls to compete on girls girls sports teams. Again, a ruling like that would leave the decision to the states. Each state could do whatever they wanted. Some states could impose bans, other states could not. It would be up to the states. Now, option four is that the court sets a clear national rule, not just about sports, but about how laws affecting transgender people are reviewed under the constitution. And this is the outcome that a lot of people are watching for. So in little, the court could use this case to answer a much bigger question. When a law treats transgender people differently, how closely should courts review it? And the court could hold that transgender status is entitled to heightened review, meaning states need strong evidence to justify, you know, these kinds of rules. Or the court could go the other way and say transgender status only receives minimal review, meaning courts generally defer to lawmakers. Unless a law is clearly irrational, a decision like that would have impacts far beyond sports. It would basically shape how courts evaluate laws affecting transgender people in all kinds of contexts. Going forward, then, in West Virginia, the court could pair that ruling in little with a clear answer on Title IX as well, either saying that excluding transgender girls from girls teams violates federal civil rights law or that it does not. Now, this, of course, would give the country a clear rule, but it would also be the court's most far reaching option, which is why a lot of legal experts, including myself, think that it is a much less likely avenue for the court to take than options 1, 2, or 3. And then finally, the fifth option is that the courts just kind of split the difference, and we get mixed rulings. So maybe little is dismissed and West Virginia is resolved narrowly under Title 9, or maybe Idaho's law is upheld and West Virginia is resolved narrowly. And that's pretty much the extent of it. This feels like something the court would do because it allows them to avoid a broad ruling while also, you know, still clarifying certain aspects of Title IX and leaving a lot of the policy making to the states. So there are certainly a handful of ways the court could go with these cases. Expect to get the court's decision closer to the summer. The court typically saves its more controversial decisions for last. So we're talking like, late June, early July. That's not to say that, you know, it won't be. These decisions won't be released sooner. It's just to say, most likely, they'll wait until the end of the term. And of course, Once the court does release its decisions, I will be here to fill you in. In some other news, the State Department announced that effective January 21, all visa issuances to visa applicants from 75 different countries will be paused. Those countries include, but are not limited to Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Bahamas, Barbados, Cuba, Egypt, Fiji, Morocco, St Lucia, Somalia and Yemen. The Department's press release reads, quote, president Trump has made clear that immigrants must be financially self sufficient and not be a financial burden to Americans. The Department of State is undergoing a full review of all policies, regulations and guidance to to ensure that immigrants from these high risk countries do not utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge. End quote On X the Department wrote, quote, the State Department will pause immigrant visa processing from 75 countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates. The freeze will remain active until the US can ensure that new migrants will not extract wealth from the American people. The pause impacts dozens of countries whose immigrants often become public charges on the United States upon arrival. We are working to ensure the generosity of the American people will no longer be abused. The Trump administration will always put America first and quote so here are a couple of things to note. Number one, visa applicants who are nationals of the affected countries. Those 75 countries can still submit visa applications and attend interviews and the Department will actually continue to schedule applicants for appointments. But while this pause is in place, no immigrant visas will be issued. Number two, those that are exempt from the pause include dual nationals applying with a valid passport of a country that is not one of the 75 countries listed in the notice. So as an example, if you if you are a national of Fiji, but you also have citizenship in Australia and you apply with a valid Australian passport, you are exempt despite Fiji being on the list of 75 countries. Three, the pause does not apply to current valid visas. If you are a national of one of these 75 countries and you have a current valid visa, it will remain valid. Valid visas are not currently being revoked. And then for and finally, the pause applies specifically to immigrant visa applicants. It does not apply to tourist visas or student visas. Tourists and student visas are non immigrant visas. They are temporary visas. So again, just to be clear, this suspension specifically applies to U.S. immigrant visas for foreigners that are wanting to live in the United States. Okay, let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about some updates to the ICE shooting in Minneapolis and and we will also talk about the Clintons refusing to testify in the Epstein probe and more. You know, I've been thinking about what I want 2026 to look like.
- [14:56]
Podcast Co-Host
And sure I have the usual goals like reading more, taking more me time, getting in the gym more, etc. But I have decided that I need 2026 to be the year of Comfy and fortunately I know just who to turn to for that. That is Bombas.
- [15:12]
Podcast Host
They are going to help me bring.
- [15:13]
Podcast Co-Host
Serious comfort to my everyday go tos and look.
- [15:17]
Podcast Host
You know comfier doesn't necessarily mean dressing.
- [15:19]
Podcast Co-Host
Down more or buying more loungewear.
- [15:22]
Podcast Host
Comfy starts with the basics.
- [15:23]
Podcast Co-Host
The socks, the underwear, the T shirts. For instance, I want to get in the gym more in the new year.
- [15:29]
Podcast Host
But good socks are key for a good gym session.
- [15:32]
Podcast Co-Host
You want cushion, you want durability, you.
- [15:34]
Podcast Host
Want something that'll wick the sweat away.
- [15:36]
Podcast Co-Host
So a good base is key and you can count on Bombas for that. Even when it comes to footwear, Bombas has you covered. I don't know about you, but when I'm doing my spring cleaning around the house I I will be wearing my Sherpa Sunday slippers that feel like walking on clouds. They make cleaning just a little more enjoyable, you know, and I can't recommend them enough. Head over to bombus.comunbiased and use code UNBIASED for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B A S.comUnbiased code UNBIASED at checkout this new year, nothing hits like home cooking. HelloFresh is bringing back the joy of the kitchen with recipes that feel good and taste delicious day after day, night after night.
- [16:20]
Podcast Host
One of my favorite parts of the.
- [16:21]
Podcast Co-Host
Holiday season is the home cooked meals. And honestly, I I dread letting go of those once the holidays are over.
- [16:29]
Podcast Host
But I also realize once the holidays are over, that's when we're all kind.
- [16:33]
Podcast Co-Host
Of getting back to our busy routines and we find ourselves with a lot less time. But that's exactly why HelloFresh is great, because HelloFresh still lets you bring people.
- [16:42]
Podcast Host
Together with meals that are simple.
- [16:44]
Podcast Co-Host
So simple being the keyword, HelloFresh offers more than 100 delicious recipes each week, from seasonal go to to global dishes like the Rigatoni with beef and Zucchini.
- [16:56]
Podcast Host
Ragu, which I love.
- [16:57]
Podcast Co-Host
And if you're trying to stay healthier in the new year, HelloFresh has more than 35 high protein weekly recipes including new Mediterranean and GLP1 friendly options. HelloFresh makes my life a little bit easier and I know it can do the same for you. So go to hellofresh.comunbiased10fm to get 10 free meals plus a free Zwilling knife. A $144.99 value on your third box.
- [17:26]
Podcast Host
Offer valid while supplies last free meals.
- [17:28]
Podcast Co-Host
Applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's hellofresh.com unbiased10fm as an unbiased 10.
- [17:38]
Podcast Host
Free meals instead of new year new.
- [17:41]
Cozy Earth Advertiser
Me I'm over here saying New Year New sheets because let me tell you, I just recently got my hands on a new Cozy Earth bedding product and I have been in heaven. And as you can probably hear I've been a little sick lately. So I've been spending some extra time in my bed and I've never been so happy to have Cozy Earth sheets. I've told you guys before that I've always had the Cozy Earth Bamboo sheet set, but I recently upgraded and got the bamboo duvet cover as well and it is an absolute game changer. And the pattern I got, I love it. It's the Bamboo Deluxe Bedding Bundle in Classic Stripe in Ebony. It's a limited edition colorway. It's part of their new Baja Bedding, which is it's actually their first collection to have a complete matching set. So matching sheets and duvet cover to a matching quilt and coverlet and it's incredible and it's inspired by the colors and textures of the Baja California landscape. So it's the perfect set to create your own, you know, resort inspired haven at home. And Cozy Earth also offers a 100 night sleep trial so you can try them out and if you don't love them, which I do not foresee being the case, but if that is the case, you can return them hassle free. Start the new year off right and give your home the luxury it deserves and make home the best part of Life. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code UNBIASED for up to 20% off. And if you get a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. Refresh your routines with comfort that makes every day feel like a new year.
- [19:16]
Podcast Host
Welcome back. Now for some more updates to the ice shooting in Minneapolis. Just as a quick heads up for those of you that might not be caught up on all of my recent episodes last Thursday so one week ago I initially covered this story and told you everything that was known at the time about the shooting. Then on Monday I gave you some updates and I talked through the rights of US citizens when it comes to ice encounters. Today I'm going to give you a few more updates and just talk about some things that have developed since Monday's episode. So if you're not fully caught up on this story, I would recommend starting with last Thursday's episode and then working your way up to today's episode. Today, we'll talk about absolute immunity versus qualified immunity and what we've learned about Renee Good's connection to ICE and what the DHS has said about the agent that it claims suffered internal bleeding. So, following the shooting, Vice President Vance held a press conference where he said a few things. But one of those things was, quote, the precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action that is a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job, end quote. That quote has triggered a lot of questions for good reason. A lot of you have written into me asking what absolute immunity is and whether this agent is actually entitled to it. So, first, absolute immunity gives certain federal officials complete protection from civil lawsuits for damages that arise when they are acting within the scope of their official duties. If an official has absolute immunity for a specific function, you cannot sue them for money damages over that conduct. Now, the thing about absolute immunity is that it only applies to specific roles and actions. So the President has absolute immunity for official acts taken while in office. Judges have absolute immunity for actions taken in their role as a judge. Prosecutors have absolute immunity for certain actions that are directly tied to prosecuting a case, like deciding whether to bring charges or presenting a case in court. And then legislators have, have or lawmakers have absolute immunity for legislative acts like voting, debating legislation, their work on committees, etc. But notice how that list did not include federal law enforcement officers. That's because federal law enforcement officers, such as ICE agents, are not protected by absolute immunity. What they are protected by is something called qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is another form of immunity, but it does not stretch as far as absolute immunity. So qualified immunity protects most federal officials from civil lawsuits unless they violated a clearly established law or constitutional rights that the officer reasonably would have known. So, in other words, in order to circumvent qualified immunity and sue a federal officer like an ICE agent for conduct committed within the scope of their official duties, the plaintiff, the person suing, has to establish that the law was sufficiently clear at the time of the incident and that the officer violated that law. So to be clear, ICE agents are not protected by absolute immunity. Like Vance said, they are protected by qualified immunity. It's important to understand, though, that these immunities only apply to civil lawsuits. For money damages, not to criminal prosecutions. Federal officials can still face criminal charges in theory, because immunity in civil court doesn't automatically shield them from criminal law. However, in order for someone to face criminal charges, a prosecuting body with proper jurisdiction has to bring criminal charges for federal crimes. The prosecuting body that would have the jurisdiction to bring criminal charges against this ICE agent would be the doj. And so far, the DOJ has said that it sees no basis to open its own criminal civil rights investigation into goods killing. Now, that doesn't mean criminal liability is impossible. It just means, as of right now, the DOJ is not moving forward on a federal criminal case tied to civil rights violations. Specifically, another federal criminal law could theoretically apply here. But whether or not those charges are filed is up to the doj. And many of you might be wondering, well, you know, couldn't Minnesota bring state criminal charges against the agent? And it could. But if a state charges a federal official, that federal official could try to move the case to federal court by arguing that federal law governs their actions and that they were acting within their official federal duties. And the case would most likely get moved to federal court, because in assessing whether a case like this gets moved, the judge asks questions like, you know, was the defendant acting as a federal officer? Was the officer's conduct tied to official federal duties? Is the defendant claiming a police plausible federal offense? If the answer to those questions is yes, the case goes to federal court. Hypothetically, if again, this all is based on the hypothetical that Minnesota files state criminal charges, If Minnesota were to file state criminal charges and the ICE agent filed a motion to move the case to federal court, it would likely get moved to federal court. And if it got moved to federal court, the charges would most likely be dropped. And given the DOJ's current stance on prosecution, so the answer is yes, Minnesota could bring state charges against the agent, but it likely wouldn't result in prosecution at the end of the day. Now, the other legal controversy is this. Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, or bca, has said that they have been blocked from investigating the case and that the FBI has taken over the investigation. This led to a lot of questions about which agency should be conducting the investigation. And per federal law, the FBI has the right to investigate any potential federal law violations nationwide. However, the state law enforcement agency also has the right to investigate potential state law violations. Because of this, and because typically, the more manpower, the better when it comes to criminal investigations, which we often see the FBI working with state and local law enforcement agencies in this Case, though the FBI has taken sole leadership over the case. And it does have the lawful authority to do that, because here's the thing. So the FBI can't demand the BCA to stop investigating. What the FBI can do is, is control access to things like federal property, federal personnel, and federal evidence. So the FBI legally controls federal agents, federal investigative files, federal weapons, federal body cameras, federal vehicles, federal forensic testing, as well as internal federal use of force reviews. So the FBI is under no obligation to share that material with state investigators. And what that means is by controlling all of those things and effectively leaving the BCA without access, the BCA can't realistically conduct its own independent investigation. It could try to investigate. It would just be very difficult because there's no access to the federal agent, there's no access to the federal weapon, there's no access to the forensic results, there's no access to the internal reports. And that's why the BCA stepped back. It's not that the BCA was ordered to step back. It's because it can't conduct a full investigation without cooperation from the FBI. And this lack of cooperation, by the way, has so far resulted in the resignation of six DOJ prosecutors. Something else I want you to keep in mind is that the DOJ plays a different role than the FBI. The FBI conducts investigations and gathers evidence. The DOJ decides whether the evidence is sufficient to bring federal charges. And. And it oversees civil rights enforcement. So even though the FBI is continuing to investigate this case, as of now, the doj, as of now, says that it sees no basis to open a civil rights investigation at this time. And that decision falls within the DOJ's prosecutorial discretion. There is no court or private party that can force the DOJ to bring charges or force the DOJ to open a civil rights prosecution. It is up to the DOJ and. And only the doj. Another update for you. Some new information is shedding light on Renee Good's participation in ICE monitoring efforts. So for the sake of transparency, I have not personally reviewed these documents because they have not yet been released to the public. But per a new CNN report, the documents in question were reportedly distributed at a December school board meeting. Now, Good is a member of this school board. It is the school board of her son's school. The documents that were circulated reportedly encourage parents to track ICE behavior and direct the parents to outside training. From what we know, again Based on CNN's report, one of those documents appears to be a message to parents dated December 16, that starts with, quote, thank you to families who have been on ICE watch helping to protect their neighbors, end quote. The message then links to a separate training document with guides on getting whistles to alert neighbors to ICE raids, as well as contact information for a school parent offering, quote, unquote, non cooperation training. Another guide linked to in the training document reportedly stressed non violent responses to ICE agents while also encouraging a refusal to comply with demands, requests and orders. It suggests, quote, unquote, creative tactics, noting that, quote, crowds, props, traffic and noise can make detentions difficult. Sometimes ICE vehicles can't move. Whoops. End quote. Now again, I have not personally reviewed these documents. I'm just sharing with you what this new CNN exclusive report found. From what's been reported, there were no descriptions of violent disobedience tactics. However, the DHS has made clear that this school association is at the center of the DHS review into the incident, which is why I feel the need to include it as an update. And then finally, just to quickly address the claim of internal bleeding, the DHS has said that the ICE agent who shot Good suffered internal bleeding in his torso when he was hit by her vehicle. The DHS has not provided proof of this claim. We do know that the agent was treated at the hospital following the incident. We know that he was released later that day. But that is all the public knows for sure at this point. Point. Okay, moving on to the next story. Bill and Hillary Clinton refused to testify before Congress in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. And the committee chairman is now proceeding with contempt charges against them. So the committee subpoenaed both Clintons in August of last year for scheduled in person depositions this past Monday and Tuesday. Neither of them showed up to those in person depositions. In a new letter, though, to committee Chairman James Comer, the Clintons are explaining themselves. So they write in part, quote, chairman Comer this past year has seen our government engage in unprecedented acts, including against our own citizens. Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences for us. Now is that time, end quote. The letter then continues. Quote, a legal analysis prepared by two law firms and provided to you yesterday makes clear that your subpoenas are inviolate when they are used against us, yet were silent when the sitting president, when the sitting president took the same position as a former president barely more than three years ago. We have tried to give you the little information we have. We've done so because Mr. Epstein's crimes were horrific. If the government didn't do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work. There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics. You accepted the least from those who know the most, but demand the most from those who know the least. To say you can't complete your work without speaking to us is simply bizarre, end quote. What's interesting, though, is that the Clintons also wrote towards the end of their letter. They said, quote, we are prepared to make our case to your 45 committee members and if need be more, end quote. So I'm not entirely sure what they meant by that, considering they didn't show up for their deposition. I don't know if that means they're not willing to testify about Epstein, but they're willing to make their case as to why the subpoenas are invalid. Or perhaps maybe it means they are willing to testify at a later date. I don't know. I'm not really sure what to make of that line, but figured I would mention it. Now. Of course, Republican lawmakers argue that in person testimony is necessary for fully evaluating Bill Clinton's relationship specifically with Epstein. I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of them together. They definitely had some sort of relationship. We just don't know the extent of that relationship. However, both Clintons continue to deny wrongdoing. It's also worth noting there's no public evidence directly tying Hillary to Epstein, just Bill. And it's worth noting no witnesses or Epstein victims have accused Bill Clinton of misconduct. So in response to Clinton's. The Clinton's refusal to comply with these subpoenas, Republicans on the committee did announce that they would move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against both Bill and Hillary. Comer says he will begin contempt proceedings next week. So how this works is this. If. If Congress subpoenas you, you. You have to show up. You have to comply with the investigation. If you don't comply, if you don't show up, the committee that is conducting the investigation in this case, the Oversight Committee will vote to hold you in contempt of Congress. If the full House chamber then votes to approve it, Congress will refer the matter to the DoJ, and the DoJ will decide whether to prosecute. If the DoJ prosecutes and wins, criminal contempt of Congress carries a penalty of a fine, up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison. The most recent people we saw prosecuted and convicted were were Steve Bannon in 2022 and Peter Navarro. In 2023, both were found guilty and sentenced to jail, and that was because they refused to comply with a January 6th committee subpoena. Attorney General Garland was also found in contempt. That was in 2024, but the DOJ did not prosecute him. So we'll have to see what happens. Basically, the next update here is going to be, you know, what is, what is the committee, and what does the House decide to do with this? If the committee votes to hold them both in contempt and it'll go to the full House, we'll have to see what the full House does and then it'll go to the doj. So there's still a few steps to take here. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll finish the episode with one more story and then we'll do Quick Hitters, Rumor has It, and Critical thinking.
- [35:52]
Cozy Earth Advertiser
Back in 2020, when I started a cookie company, I learned very fast that order fulfillment and shipping can make or break your success, especially when it comes to fresh, you know, delicious cookies that are being shipped across the country. And shipstation is what I used to manage this, and it was a total lifesaver. With Shipstation, everything you need to manage getting orders to customers is in one place. So ShipStation compares rates across all major global carriers, USPS, UPS, and FedEx, including your own discounted rates if you have them, to find you the best shipping option on every order, with discounts up to 90% off. And if you already have negotiated carrier rates, you can bring them with you. ShipStation lets you keep your discounts while adding ShipStation's automation and intelligent features to make your life even easier. I can't express just how easy shipstation makes order fulfillment. Before Shipstation, I was spending hours trying tracking the orders, making sure the cookies were being delivered when they were supposed to, following up with customers. And then once I got shipstation, I was able to cut that time in half and just focus on scaling the business, which, let's be real, is the most critical when it comes to making a business successful. Try shipstation, free for 60 days with full access to all features. No credit card required. Go to shipstation.com and use code UNBIASED for 60 days for free. 60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That's shipstation.com codeunbiased shipstation.com codeunbiased some of.
- [37:34]
Podcast Host
Us like to kick off the new year with a nice little wardrobe refresh Right.
- [37:37]
Podcast Co-Host
I know it can't just be me. Quint has you covered with luxe essentials that feel effortless but look polished. They're perfect for layering, mixing and building.
- [37:45]
Podcast Host
A wardrobe that lasts. Which is why I I love it so much. Quint has all the staples covered too.
- [37:51]
Podcast Co-Host
From soft Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like designer pieces without that markup to 100% silk tops and skirts for easy dressing up to perfectly cut denim for everyday wear. Their wardrobe essentials are crafted to last season after season. I have been loving my Mongolian cashmere crew neck sweater. I have it in beige and navy and then also my Australian merino wool half zip sweater.
- [38:17]
Podcast Host
Both styles are so good and look so chic.
- [38:19]
Podcast Co-Host
And I think the next piece I'm going to buy is the Mongolian cashmere funnel neck sweater. I seriously cannot say enough good things about their Mongolian cashmere.
- [38:26]
Podcast Host
It feels so high quality. It's so soft.
- [38:29]
Podcast Co-Host
It's amazing. So refresh your wardrobe with Quint.
- [38:32]
Podcast Host
Don't wait.
- [38:33]
Podcast Co-Host
Go to quint.comunbiased for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's q I n c.comunbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.comunbiased welcome back.
- [38:56]
Podcast Host
Let's talk about what we know about this new health plan announced by President Trump today. First and foremost, it is important to keep in mind that nothing can really take shape without Congress. So as part of the president's announcement today, he did call on Congress to enact what he is calling the Great Health Care Plan. According to the White House, the Great Health Care Plan is a comprehensive plan to lower drug prices, lower insurance premiums, hold big insurance companies accountable, and minimize. Sorry, not minimize, maximize price transparency. So essentially, each of those four pillars make up this great healthcare plan plan framework. And that's what President Trump announced today. So we'll take each of those pillars one at a time. When it comes to lowering drug prices, the administration wants to make it so Americans pay no more for certain prescription drugs than people in other developed countries pay for the same drugs. Basically, other countries negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, which keeps prices lower. The Great Health Care Plan would lock in a rule saying that drug companies have to offer the United States their lowest international price for certain medications. And this is what the administration has called most favored nation pricing. I'm sure you've heard that phrase before. But here's the thing. The plan specifically says it calls for codifying most favored nation Deals and to codify means to put it into law. So the President is basically saying, hey Congress, we need you to change the law governing drug pricing and explicitly authorize international reference pricing and decide which drugs are covered and how these prices are calculated. Because the President can encourage drug companies to lower prices, and we have seen him do that. The President can also negotiate voluntary deals through executive orders. But locking in a rule that forces drug companies to match international prices would require Congress to step in and change the law. The second prong of lowering drug prices, so we're still on that first pillar, calls on the fda, not Congress. So the second prong is making more pharmaceutical drugs available over the counter. Whether a drug is prescription only or over the counter is primarily controlled by the fda. So the President is essentially calling on the FDA to use its existing authority to approve more over the counter drugs that have been deemed to be safe. Then the second pillar of this plan is lowering insurance premiums. And to do this, the administration wants to stop sending certain federal subsidy payments directly to insurance companies and instead send that money directly to eligible Americans so that Americans can choose their own insurance. The argument there is that insurance companies receive billions, you know, in taxpayer subsidies that don't necessarily lower premiums, but by giving the money directly to the people, consumers would have more control and insurers would have to compete for their business. Also, part of lowering insurance premiums is funding, is a proposal, I should say, to fund a cost sharing reduction program for, for health care plans. So in health insurance, cost sharing is what you pay when you use care, right? Think things like deductibles, co pays, co insurance. A cost sharing reduction lowers those out of pocket costs for people with certain Obamacare plans. And these are mainly lower income enrollees. So right now, the federal government helps reduce out of pocket costs for certain Obamacare enrollees. But the administration is arguing that the way that it's been funded has been a bit messy. And insurers often raise premiums to compensate, which then drives up costs overall. So the new plan wants to explicitly fund the cost sharing reduction program. Again, pay insurers directly, directly for lowering out of pocket costs and prevent insurers from raising premiums to make up the difference. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this would save taxpayers about $36 billion and lower premiums for the most common Obamacare plans by over 10%. The third pillar of the plan is holding insurance companies more accountable. The plan, quote, ends the days of insurance companies using complexity to make it difficult for Americans to hold them account, hold them to account by creating the plan plain English insurance standard and requiring insurance companies to prominently post the profits they take out of the premiums, as well as information on the frequency with which they deny care, end quote. So not only is the goal here to make it easier for people to compare and understand plans, but also to understand how the insurance companies are using their money. And again, this is something that would require an act of Congress not only because insurance disclosure requirements are already set by law, but creating a new, you know, nationwide standard that dictates how these insurance companies have to explain coverage goes beyond existing regulatory authority. So agencies like, you know, the HHS can, can clarify the existing disclosures and what the existing disclosures mean, but they can't invent a new legal standard without Congress. And the same thing with publishing profits and, and publishing claim denial rates and wait times. Yes, insurance companies already have to report some data to, to regulators, but current law doesn't require them to publicly post these other things. So Congress would have to step in and, and require that. And then finally, the fourth pillar is maximizing price transparency in healthcare. So the plan would require any healthcare provider or insurer who accepts Medicare or Medicaid to post pricing and fees in their place of business and make sure that insurance companies are complying with price transparency requirements. Now here's the thing with that. Some price transparency rules already exist and the administration can enforce or strengthen those through, you know, existing authority. But if the plan is trying to require all providers and insurers that take Medicare or Medicaid, not just hospitals, to post prices in specific ways and lock those rules in permanently, that would also likely require Congress. So again, that's why the President was clear about calling on Congress to act. Because while he can announce this new framework, you know, in order for the framework to be fully implemented or even halfway implemented, Congress needs to pass some new laws. Just as a quick final note, the the framework did not include anything about the extension of subsidies, which I know people are, are kind of waiting on Congress to act on. But this new framework did not mention that. Now for a few quick hitters. President Trump signed a bill on Wednesday that overturned Obama era limits on higher fat milk options. So the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids act allows schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to now serve whole milk and 2% milk, along with the skim and low fat milks that were required since 2012. The law also allows schools to serve non dairy milk that meets the nutritional standards of milk and requires schools to offer a non dairy milk alternative if kids provide a note from their parents saying they have have a dietary restriction. Previously only doctor's notes were allowed, but now notes from parents are sufficient. Per this new law, the Secret Service placed an agent on administrative leave after an undercover reporter recorded him on video discussing sensitive parts of his duties. So the videos show the agent telling a woman who he was on a date with about protective formations, shift schedules, travel plans and real time locations. The agent also detailed how the Vice President is physically surrounded. The agent described multiple daily shift changes, advanced security procedures, future travel plans and shared some pictures from Air Force Two while on board with the Vice president. The ACLU of Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government, including ICE and cbp, challenging what the ACLU calls, quote, suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests and racial profiling of Minnesotans. The lawsuit argues that thousands of federal agents deployed in Minnesota have been stopping and detaining people without warrants or probable cause, including some US Citizens, and targeting Somali and Latino residents without justification. The ACLU says that this conduct violates constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and unequal treatment under the law. Mortgage rates have fallen to the Lowest level In more than three years the 30 year fixed rate mortgage averaged 6.06% as of today, according to Freddie Mac's weekly report support. Last January, the 30 year rate averaged 7.04%. The HHS announced it was canceling nearly $2 billion in federal grants that support mental health and substance use programs across the country. But then within 24 hours, HHS officials said the grant terminations are being reversed and restored. The grants, which are managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, reportedly affected about 2000 programs nationwide. Lawmakers from both parties and provider groups were quick to criticize the termination of grants which may have played a role in the grants being reinstated. And President Trump said in a Truth Social Post today that he would invoke the Insurrection act if Minnesota state officials did not stop, quote, unquote, insurrectionists from attacking ICE agents. So as a reminder, the Insurrection act says that the President can deploy US Troops during certain circumstances. Number one, if a state legislature or state governor requests the help of the federal government to address insurrection happening in the state number two, to address state level insurrections that are impractical to address through state law enforcement or number three, to address threats to constitutional rights that occur in the presence of of insurrection, violence or civil unrest. And the most relevant portion of the law for this particular situation would be the part that says the President can deploy troops to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy in a state that opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. Typically, okay, the federal government is not allowed to use the military for domestic law enforcement, but the Insurrection act is the exception. Now, invoking the Insurrection act is something Trump has said that he would do multiple times since taking office. He has yet to do it. So if he were to invoke the act, he would almost certainly face legal challenges from the state of Minnesota. Okay, now it's time for Rumor has It. This is my weekly segment where I address rumors submitted by all of you and and I do my best to either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. First one rumor has it that President Trump referred to himself as the acting president of Venezuela. Let's add some context. Over the weekend, President Trump shared an image on social media that appeared to show a Wikipedia page listing him as the acting president of Venezuela. The key word there is appeared because the image that he shared was fake. It was a made up screenshot of a Wikipedia page that looked real but wasn't real. So just to be clear, Trump's actual Wikipedia page never listed him as the acting president of Venezuela. But yes, he did share the image of the fake Wikipedia page to social media. Rumor has it the Vice President Vance said ICE will start going door to door. This is true. In a January 7 Fox News interview, Jesse Waters asked Vance, quote, are we getting these illegals out fast enough? And Vice President Vance responded, quote, we always want to get them out faster. A lot of the ICE agents that we have hired in the past six months, they're not even done with training. So all of the big investments that we've made in border security, what we've done is actually gotten two and a half million illegal aliens out without any of the really big marquee things that we've been working on. That was just simple willpower. And the President of the United States coming in and saying, this is done. I think we're going to see those deportation numbers ramp up as we get more and more people online working for ice, going door to door and making sure that if you're an illegal alien, you've got to get out of this country and if you want to come back, apply through the proper channels, end quote. Now, it's unclear exactly what Vance meant by that, but remember what we talked about last episode. If an ICE agent were to come to your door and wants to come inside, you do not have to let them in unless they have a judicial warrant or an arrest warrant. If law enforcement, this goes for ICE agents. This goes for police officers, whatever. If they have an arrest warrant, they are legally allowed to enter the home of the person on the warrant if they believe the person is inside. If law enforcement has a judicial warrant, they are allowed to enter your home. But an administrative warrant of removal or deportation, also known as a Form I205, does not allow officers to enter a home without your consent. So just keep that in mind. Last one. Rumor has it that the FBI searched the home of a Washington Post reporter. This is true. FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natenson as part of an investigation into a Maryland government contractor that's been accused of taking home classified intelligence reports. The search warrant for Nathanson's home was linked to the criminal case of Aurelio Perez Lugones. Perez Lugones was once a government contractor with a top secret clearance who is now suspected of moving classified material to his car and home. We know that the FBI seized a cell phone and a Garmin watch from Natenton's home, but we don't exactly know what her connection is to the defendant. The FBI did tell her she is not the target of the investigation. And finally, let's finish with critical thinking for today's segment. We are going to revisit absolute and qualified immunity. And, and today I just have some questions for everyone. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, sometimes in this segment, I like to separate it between, you know, I'll ask supporters of something, certain questions, I'll ask opponents other questions. But today this is just a, this is just three general questions to get everyone thinking. So the first question is this. What risks might exist if federal law enforcement officers did have absolute immunity? Okay, so we talked about how federal law enforcement officers have qualified immunity. Not absolute. But what risks might exist if those federal law enforcements, law enforcement officers did have absolute immunity. And then on the flip side, what risks might exist if they had no immunity at all? The next question is, given that cross criminal charges require a prosecutor to act, what are the benefits of that discretion and what are the potential downsides? And then finally, last question. How do you feel about requiring more transparency around why prosecutors decline to bring charges? Do you think more transparency would build trust or could it possibly interfere with the justice system? That's what I have for you today. Remember, there is no episode on Monday because of the holiday. It is also the national championship game for college football. So go Canes. But make sure that you are subscribed to my substack so you can stay informed because I will still be posting there. Thank you so much for being here as always and I will talk to you again next week. Week.
- [55:29]
Progressive Insurance Advertiser
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice. Make another smart choice with Auto Quote Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy.