← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
May 21, 2026: Is the Government Prohibited From Ever Prosecuting Trump? Here's What You Need to Know About the Latest Portion of the Trump/IRS Settlement Agreement.
00:43:56
Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:02]
A
At dsw, we ask the important questions, like what shoes are you going to wear? Whether you're prepping for wedding season, festival season, or just planning the ultimate vacay, the right shoes can make or break an rsvp. So own the moment. You've got big plans and we've got just the shoes at the perfect price, of course. Get ready to get ready with designer Shoe Warehouse. Head to your DSW store or dsw.com today and let us surprise you.
- [00:30]
B
Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, May 21st. Let's talk about some news first. We, of course, have to talk about what remains to be the biggest news story of the week, and that is the settlement between Trump and the irs. Now, I want to start by talking about the word settlement because I've had a few people say on social media, you know, stop referring to it as a settlement. This is not a settlement. I don't know where that is coming from, but I do want to talk about it because in the law, a settlement is, is a voluntary agreement, right, that resolves a dispute between, between two opposing parties, or it doesn't have to be two opposing parties, but resolves a dispute between opposing parties and it happens outside of a full court trial. So let's say you sue your boss, okay? A settlement would be your boss, okay, agreeing to certain terms in exchange for you dismissing the suit. In this case, it was the IRS and the DOJ agreeing to apologize to Trump, set up this anti weaponization fund and release him from certain past tax related claims in exchange for the dismissal of the suit. Now, some people have said, well, the case was already dismissed by the judge because there was no merit to the lawsuit. So this actually is not a proper settlement. And that's not necessarily what happened here. So on Monday, we talked about how this lawsuit was on shaky footing from the get go, right? I've actually been talking about this since the lawsuit was filed back in February. Not only was there a question of whether a sitting president could sue the very agencies that he oversees, but there was also this question about whether the statute of limitations had run. And if you do want to hear more about those questions, you can go ahead and tune into Monday's episode. But essentially the judge here raised concerns about those issues and she specifically, she was more so concerned with the sitting president suing the agencies that he oversees. It presented a potential jurisdiction problem and that's really where most of her concern lied. So she had. She had both parties submit their reasons for why this case should be allowed to proceed. Despite those concerns, she set a deadline of May 22, I believe it was. Then the Trumps filed their voluntary dismissal before the parties went ahead and submitted their reasons why this lawsuit should proceed. So once the Trumps filed their voluntary dismissal, the judge issued an order that said, yeah, court rules allow a plaintiff to walk away from a lawsuit. Now, she again raised the same concerns that she had earlier about the jurisdiction issue, but the case was not dismissed because it was deemed to be without merit. The judge actually had not ruled on the merits at all. She raised concerns, but she had not issued a final ruling on the merits. In order to rule on the merits, you have to hear arguments from both sides, but that had not happened yet. So, yes, the judge dismissed this case on Monday because the Trumps had asked the court to dismiss it. That's different than saying, you know, the case was dismissed because there's no merit to, to the plaintiff's claims. Maybe there is no merit to the plaintiff's claims, but that's not what happened here. Okay, so that is that. Now let's back up a little bit because I actually want to walk through the timeline of what has taken place here because that will give you the full context as to the issues that were presented in this case and sort of why this lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. Back in February, Donald Trump, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. And the Trump Organization filed this lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against the IRS all over the leak of their private tax return information. And in April, the parties then filed this joint motion requesting a 90 day pause. They basically said, hey, we're going to try to settle this outside of court, so let's just pause the case for 90 days. And the judge said, yeah, no, no, no, we're not going to do that. Okay, I actually want you guys to go ahead and tell me whether the court can even hear this case because it may very well be outside of the court's jurisdiction. You. Due to the fact that the sitting president is suing the agencies that he oversees. So go ahead and get those briefs to me by like, actually it was May 20th, May 20th was the deadline, not the 22nd. It was the 20th. About a week before that deadline, a panel of court appointed legal experts, okay, these were experts appointed by the judge in this case to analyze the jurisdictional questions. That panel came to the determination that, that this matter was, quote, unprecedented. Okay, so the panel wrote, quote, a sitting press president seeks monetary damages for alleged harm to his personal interests from an executive agency that he controls that presents significant Article 3 subject matter jurisdiction concerns, end quote. So the panel essentially told the judge, yeah, there is a real question as to jurisdiction here, because normally a lawsuit requires two sides that are truly opposed to one another. But in this case, President Trump is suing agencies that he has authority over. That's not the same thing as the judge coming to her own determination. Okay. But it's certainly an analysis that the judge would have weighed pretty heavily had she gotten the opportunity to come to a decision. So that was about a week before the deadline for those briefs ordered by the judge. And, and then two days before the May 20 deadline, the Trumps filed that notice of voluntary dismissal. The dismissal that was filed invokes a federal rule of civil procedure that allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a lawsuit if the defendant has not yet served an answer. So in this case, the Trump's filing said that because the defendants had not yet filed an answer, this dismissal was within their rights. And the judge said, yeah, the dismissal is within your rights. And, and went ahead and granted that dismissal. And just to quickly touch on the term settlement again, because that is the term I will be using throughout this discussion, you can still settle a case once it's been dismissed. Dismissal settlement can happen after dismissal. So that's. That's not an issue either. But now that we're all caught up there, let's talk about the terms of this particular settlement. We already covered the basics of the Anti Weaponization Fund on Monday, so I'm not really going to dive into the specifics of that too much, But I will answer some questions that I was not able to get to on Monday. The first question is, will the recipients of this fund be kept secret? Possibly. And I'll explain why I say possibly in a minute. But there are three sections of this settlement agreement that speak to potential confidentiality. So. So Section E under composition and operation of the Anti Weaponization Fund says, quote, on a quarterly basis or otherwise, as directed by the Attorney General, the Anti Weaponization Fund shall provide to the Attorney General a confidential written report that includes the names and address of each claimant who has received relief, and if so, the nature of such relief, end quote. But then the next section right under that says, quote, this, the DOJ or a third party contractor of the agency as designated by the Attorney General, may audit the claims submitted, end quote. Then when you skip ahead a little bit, Section F under limitations on claims says, quote, the Anti Weaponization Fund shall take reasonable steps to protect private personal and financial information submitted to them under this settlement agreement, end quote. So based on those sections, the recipient certainly wouldn't be automatically public. Their names would be reported confidentially to the Attorney General, and they could be reviewed in an audit. Now, let's say an inspector general audits the fund and goes ahead and writes a public report. That report could discuss the fund, how much money was paid, whether claims were properly handled, whether there were problems, etc. But. But individual recipient names could still be redacted for privacy reasons. Because keep in mind, as well, like, there are federal laws in place that prohibit the government from releasing personal information. The Privacy act, for example, prohibits agencies from disclosing personal records without, you know, an individual's consent. There are exceptions there, but generally speaking, the federal government can't just go ahead and disclose information about a person without that person's consent. Now, Blanche did speak to this briefly in his testimony on Tuesday, which we'll cover in more detail later in the episode. But basically, Senator Collins asked him whether the information related to the claims would be made public, and his response was, quote, there's privacy laws that exist, so I don't want to sit here today and say every scintilla of data collected will be released. But I mean, of course, of course, course there's accountability that the commission has a quarterly report that has to come to an Attorney General, which will certainly be public. There's a process that you all will get information, and there's a FOIA process. So I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded the basis and the amount will for sure be made public along the way, end quote. So he says, of course, he also says that that report to the Attorney General is going to be public, but obviously the actual settlement agreement, as I read to you, says that that's a confidential report. So a little bit of conflicting information here. We don't really know. Only time will tell here. That's just the reality of the situation. The other question I got was, is this fund taxpayer funded? Yes. In Monday's episode, I talked about how the money for the fund would be coming from the judgment fund. The judgment fund is funded by taxpayer dollars. Now, before we move on to the latest update regarding the addendum to the settlement, I do need to make a correction to the last episode. I think I said that the President will appoint the members who oversee the fund, but I actually misread the agreement. So the five members who oversee the fund, the. The commissioners will be appointed by the Attorney General. One of those members will be chosen in. In consultation with congressional leadership. The President can remove members with or without cause, but the Attorney General is who appoints them. Okay, now, let's talk about this addendum. So the addendum was filed yesterday, and I'm going to read you exactly what it says, and then I'm going to dumb it down a bit because there is way too much legalese in there for my liking. It is just. I mean, this is the law, but it's just too much. Okay, so here we go. This is what it says. Quote, the United States releases, waves, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs from and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for relief, whether presently known or unknown, that as of the effective date of the settlement agreement, have been or could have been asserted by defendants and against any of the plaintiffs or related or affiliated individuals or parties, including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates and subsidiaries, by reason of, with respect to, in connection with, or which arise out of One, any matters that were raised or could have been raised in the case of the pending agency claims, Two, lawfare and. Or weaponization, or three, any matters currently pending or that could be pending, including tax returns filed before the effective date before defendants or other agencies or departments. That was one sentence. Okay. And, you know, people ask me why I'm. I'm not a lawyer anymore. There you go. Anyway, this is basically a very broad release. So the government is essentially saying we're not only ending this lawsuit, we're also going to give up certain claims that we might have had against Trump, his sons, related people, trusts, affiliates, other related individuals, his daughters, businesses, parent companies, sister companies, subsidiaries. So the government is agreeing that it is forever prohibited from bringing any claims against Trump and the aforementioned people and entities that it could have brought and at any point before this settlement was reached, even if the government does not currently know about claims and finds out about them later. What I want to be clear about, though, is that this does not apply to future acts. Right? This applies only to claims or matters that existed or pending or could have been brought as of the settlement date date, whether known or not. So let's say, hypothetically, it's 2030, and the IRS tries to go after Trump, the Trump Organization, or one of the aforementioned people or entities over a tax issue tied to a 2021 federal tax return. Per this release, Trump's lawyers would almost certainly argue the IRS cannot do that because the release specifically covers tax returns filed before the settlement date of May 18, 2026. But let's say, hypothetically, it's 2030, and the IRS tries to go after Trump, the Trump Organization, or one of the aforementioned people or entities over a tax issue tied to a 2027 return, that is fair game because that would be future conduct and not a claim that existed or could have existed when this settlement was signed. Okay, so I want to take our first break here. I want to give you some time to just, like, digest everything that we just talked about. I feel like it was a lot of legal, you know, just legal things. When we come back, we'll finish this discussion. I have a viral video that a lot of you sent me. I want to talk about it. So there's still more to discuss. Spring is here. We're outside again. We're moving more. We're taking advantage of the nice weather. It's the perfect excuse to upgrade your everyday go to's with Bombas. Now that I'm in my postpartum era, I am making more of an effort to go on long walks. And BOMBA socks have been a game changer. There is nothing worse, okay, than when you're walking and your socks start to fall from your ankles and slowly but surely make their way down to the arch of your foot. I hate that. And BOMBA socks do not do this because they are specifically designed not to. And not only that, but they're cushioned where you need it and they are sweat wicking. Now, maybe you're saying, well, Jordan, socks are great, but I'm looking for more than just socks. And that's perfect, too. Bombas isn't just a sock company. They also make T shirts, underwear, sandals, socks, slides. Bombus is really out here just trying to make everything we put on our body as comfortable as possible. And if that's not commendable enough, for every item you buy, Bombas donates an essential clothing item to someone facing housing insecurity. So head over to bombus.comunbiased and use code UNBIASED for 20% off your first purchase. That's B A S.comunbiased code UNBIASED at checkout. As you guys know, I love a cozy set. And not even just sets. Anything cozy or comfy, that is my game. But if it's a set, it kind of just. It's like an added bonus because you feel even more put together than you otherwise would because you're actually wearing a matching outfit despite being really comfy. And the coziest of all sets is the brushed bamboo jogger set from Cozy Earth. You guys know I'm obsessed with the viscose bamboo material that Cozy Earth uses in a lot of its products. And that's what this is. But it's not only is it cozy, it's also quality. I love when you order something and it comes and you can just tell that something is going to last a while by the way that it feels. That's exactly what the brushed bamboo jogger set feels like. And another great thing about Cozy Earth is they stand by everything they make. So there's a 30 day return policy on all of their products, there's a lifetime warranty on all of their clothes and it's a stress free return process if something isn't right. So this Memorial Day, give yourself the kind of comfort that lives with you all day, not just the moment you get home. Just Cozy Earth's brushed bamboo jogger set and lake house clogs are designed to keep you cozy, comfortable and actually relaxed all season long. Comfort lives here. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code UNBIASED for up to 30% off, but only for a limited time. This exclusive offer runs from May 18th through June 1st, so don't wait. That's code unbiasedozyearth.com for up to 30% off. And if you see a post purchase survey mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. I've told you guys this before, but my go to outfit is something that doesn't require much effort yet still looks put together, right? So maybe it's a comfy loungewear set, maybe it's a basic T shirt with jeans or better yet a basic tee with linen pants. Because linen pants are super, super comfortable. And the key to this effortless yet put together look and just trust me on this because I'm, I'm a pro at this point is accessorizing. In order to look put together in a basic comfy outfit, you have to accessorize. And and Quint makes that really easy. Because not only does Quint have all of the basic yet elevated pieces you could ever imagine, but Quint also has accessories. It really is the definition of a one stop shop. I love it so much. And as if convenience alone wasn't amazing enough, Quince's prices are incredible. Their linen pants, dresses and tops start at 30. And this goes for guys clothes too by the way. Incredible prices. I personally love Quince's linen. The fabric is such great quality. The fit is exactly what I want when I wear linen. Right. It's not too loose, it's not too structured. It's just right. When I saw the price of their linen, I seriously did a double take because I'm so used to high quality linen being so expensive. And that's just not the case with Quince. So refresh your every day with luxury. You'll actually use head to quince.comunbiased for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comunbiased for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comunbiased welcome back. What I want to do now is address this viral video because a ton of you sent it to me, and I want to provide some added context. So a former DOJ pardon attorney who goes by Lawyer Oryer on social media posted this video. And I want you to really listen to what she's explaining. And then once it's done, I'll discuss it and I will say the objective claims that she makes are true. However, there's important context to add as well. So here it is.
- [19:44]
C
Hey, everybody. I have some news, and it's not good. The Justice Department's settlement with Donald Trump is even worse than we knew. It turns out there was a secret part of the agreement that was hidden from us when it was announced yesterday. I just reviewed it, and I am struggling to find words to tell you how catastrophic and corrupt it is. I'm Liz Oyer, the former pardon attorney for the Department of Justice. Here's the deal. Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as acting attorney general, signed this one page document right here. It's called a release of claims. And here's what it does. It signs away all claims against Donald Trump on behalf of the United States. In other words, it says that Trump cannot be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States government in the future. That includes any government agency, the Justice Department, the IRS, etc. In effect, this will end the ongoing audits of Trump and his companies. But that's not all. It forfeits our right to collect any taxes owed by Trump and his businesses. It waives our right to try to reclaim the money he stole from taxpayers. It gives up our right to sue him for damages or to pursue, really any legal recourse whatsoever and against Donald Trump. And it binds the United States forever, meaning it applies even after Trump and Blanche leave office. And it's actually even worse than that because it's not limited to just Donald Trump. It also signs away all of our claims against his companies, his family members, and his associates. This is a staggering betrayal of the public trust. Even compared to other bad acts by this administration, this one stands out as especially unforgivably corrupt.
- [21:23]
B
All right, so like I said, her broad reading is supported by the language of the release. Right. But there are important caveats. And I also just want to say I feel like I have to say this. I wish I didn't, but I feel like I have to say this whenever I add context to things. I feel as though sometimes some people take it as discreditation when that's not at all what I'm doing. My goal is not to discredit at all. I've said her. Her objective claims in this video are true. My goal is to be as precise as possible about what we know, because that's ultimately how we become the most informed. Right? We have to have all of the context. And I just want you to be as informed as possible. I understand there's some people out there that just don't want the context. That's okay. But I know, you know, 99% of you listening do very much want the context. And that's what I'm here to do.
- [22:18]
C
So.
- [22:18]
B
So let's do it. We'll go claim by claim, and we will stick to the objective claims that are made.
- [22:24]
C
And here's what it does. It signs away all claims against Donald Trump on behalf of the United States.
- [22:30]
B
This is true with the context that it signs away all claims against Trump on behalf of the United States for claims or matters that either existed, were pending, or could have been brought as of the settlement date May 18, 2026. It does not sign away claims for actions taken after May 18, 2026.
- [22:51]
C
In other words, it says that Trump cannot be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States government in the future.
- [22:58]
B
Again, true, the agreement does say that Trump cannot be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States government in the future. But again, it doesn't insulate him from liability for future acts. It's saying he can't be investigated, audited, or sued by the United States government in the future for acts prior to the settlement date of May 18, 2026.
- [23:21]
C
That includes any government agency, the Justice Department, the IRS, et cetera.
- [23:25]
B
This is also true. The agreement applies to the federal government as a whole, the United States specifically. That includes any government agency, including but not limited to the DOJ and irs.
- [23:37]
C
In effect, this will end the ongoing audits of Trump and his companies.
- [23:41]
B
True, this will end all ongoing audits of Trump and his companies.
- [23:45]
C
But that's not all. It forfeits our right to collect any taxes owed by Trump and his businesses.
- [23:51]
B
It is true that it forfeits our right to collect any taxes owed by Trump and his businesses. Assuming there are taxes owed, it waives
- [23:59]
C
our right to try to reclaim the money he stole from taxpayers.
- [24:02]
B
Now, this one would only be true if there were unpaid taxes, penalties, or other money that he owed the government that we would otherwise be able to recover. I'm not aware of a final public finding that Donald Trump personally stole money from taxpayers through his federal tax returns. But if that were to be true, or it's found to be true at a later date, then, yes, the agreement waves are right to try to reclaim that money. Now, there has been a tax fraud conviction involving the Trump Organization in New York. However, that assessed fine is still very much recoverable because that was a state, state case, not a federal case. This agreement only bars the United States. State prosecutors are not bound by this agreement, so they can still reclaim any penalties assessed as a result of a failure to pay taxes.
- [24:53]
C
It gives up our right to sue him for damages or to pursue, really any legal recourse whatsoever against Donald Trump.
- [25:00]
B
Again, true. For claims or matters that either existed, were pending, or could have been brought as of May 18, 2026, he would still be on the hook for any acts taken after that date.
- [25:10]
C
And it binds the United States forever, meaning it applies even after Trump and Blanche leave office.
- [25:17]
B
True, for claims or matters that either existed or pending or could have been brought as of May 18, 2026, you would still be on the hook for any acts taken after that date.
- [25:26]
C
And it's actually even worse than that because it's not limited to just Donald Trump. It also signs away all of our claims against his country, companies, his family members, and his associates.
- [25:36]
B
True. This agreement signs away all of the government's claims against his companies, his family members, and his associates for actions taken before May 18, 2026. So, again, just to be very clear, the objective claims that she made are true. However, those little caveats are important because I do want you to understand the full scope of what this means. Now, there are a few pretty important outstanding questions, and because this will almost certainly be challenged in the courts, a court will answer some of those questions. Specifically, the court is going to have to look at the legality of precluding the entire federal government, even though the underlying lawsuit was against specific federal defendants and not every single agency across the federal government. The court's going to have to look at whether the agreement precludes the federal government from pursuing civil and criminal cases or if it's just civil cases. Since the case at hand would was a civil case, the court's going to look at whether the or. I can't say definitively the court will look at. But one of the potential things the court will look at is whether the federal government can be, quote, unquote, forever barred. Another potential issue is whether the DOJ even has the authority to waive the federal government's ability to audit, examine, collect or pursue tax claims involving past returns, especially on behalf of other agencies like the irs. There's also a question as to whether the DOJ has the authority to protect not just the plaintiffs in this case, but also Trump's company's family members and associates. And then, of course, you have the question of whether there are conflicts of interest here. Given the fact that the sitting president oversees the agencies he entered into this agreement with and the fact that the acting attorney general who signed off on this agreement was the president's former personal attorney, both of those raised the possibility of a conflict that a court might have to seriously take a look at. Okay, now let's quickly talk about this lawsuit that was filed yesterday challenging the new Anti Weaponization fund because it is the first lawsuit of its kind. So this is a lawsuit filed by two police officers who were present at the Capitol on January 6th. Plaintiff Harry Dunn served from 2008 until his retirement in 2023. And plaintiff Daniel Hodges is an active officer of the Metropolitan Police Department. He's been there since 2014. They are suing President Trump, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson. Why? Well, obviously, the president is the president. He was involved in this lawsuit and a party to the settlement. Acting Attorney General Blanche is the one who signed off on the creation of the fund. And he would be the one appointing the five commissioners. And then Treasury Secretary Besant would be the one who oversees the transfer of the 1.7 sex7 $1.776 billion to the fund. There are four main legal challenges in the lawsuit, plus a declaratory judgment count, which we'll talk about in a minute. But the first count claims that the creation of the Anti Weaponization fund violates federal law, specifically the Administrative Procedure act, because the DOJ allegedly had no statutory authority to create a new federal payout program, create a commission to run it, recognize new lawfare or weaponization claims, or transfer federal money to claimants. The Second one claims that funding the fund through the judgment fund is illegal because, according to the plaintiffs, the judgment fund can only be used to pay real judgments or legitimate settlements against the United States. And. And they argue that Trump's lawsuit against the IRS was not the kind of valid adversarial case that could lawfully be settled this way. The third count claims that the fund violates the 14th Amendment because it could be used to pay debts or obligations connected to January 6th defendants. So there's the section of the 14th amendment. It's a lesser known section, but it's a post second Civil War provision, and it says that the United States cannot pay any debt or obligation that was incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States. And the plaintiffs here are arguing that this provision bars the federal government from providing any compensation to anyone charged in connection with January 6th. And then the fourth count is this backup argument that says that even if the Administrative Procedure act doesn't apply, Blanche and Bessant still still acted beyond their legal authority by creating and funding the program. And then, as I mentioned, the lawsuit also seeks what's called declaratory judgment, which is basically asking the court to declare that certain things are illegal. So this includes things like the actual creation of the fund and then Blanche and Bessant's certification of the payment for the fund. And in addition to that, the plaintiffs are asking the court to dissolve or set aside the fund, as well as reverse any transfer that might have already happened and block any payments from being made. So from here, the government will have to respond, which will most likely be in the form of a motion to dismiss. And then the court will have to decide whether the plaintiffs have the requisite standing to, you know, bring this lawsuit in the first place, and also whether the plaintiff's claims are plausible on their face. If both of those questions are answered in the affirmative, this lawsuit can proceed. But if either of those questions are answered in the negative, the lawsuit will be dismissed. Keep in mind, though, this is the first lawsuit challenging the fund, if it's most likely not the last. So I'm sure we'll have a lot of lawsuits to talk through in the coming weeks and months. Let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about Blanche's testimony, as well as the shooting at the San Diego mosque. And then we'll finish with quick hitters and critical thinking. One thing about me is that I don't love to cook. I've always been more of a baker. I will bake some cookies any day of the week. But cooking a meal, I don't know, it's just, it's never been my thing. At the same time though, I know that I can't order in every night and I do realize the importance of cooking. So I did decide to get some help, something that would just kind of give me the motivation to whip up some meals in the kitchen. And that's where HelloFresh comes in. HelloFresh is a meal kit delivery service that sends pre portioned fresh ingredients and very important step by step recipes straight to your door. Okay, so let's say you want to make a delicious roasted garlic and zucchini flatbread for dinner one night next week. And the pre portioned ingredients for this flatbread will literally show up at your door along with a recipe card that tells you exactly how to make it. And what I love about HelloFresh is they always offer the most interesting recipes and feature all kinds of different cuisines. So they actually offer more than 80 global recipes every month. Vietnamese, Moroccan, Italian, Chinese, Mexican, the list goes on. I love that. Even though, you know, not all of us are professionals in the kitchen, it is hard to deny the fact that nothing hits like home cooking. So make home cooking a lot easier and go to hellofresh.comunbiased10fm now to get 10 free meals. Free meals applied as a discount on the first box. New subscribers only, varies by plan. That's HelloFresh.comUnbiased10FM as in Unbiased 10 Free
- [32:57]
D
Meals Insurance isn't one size fits all. That's why customers have enjoyed Progressive's Name youe Price Tool for years. Now, with the name youe Price Tool, you tell them what you want to pay and they'll show you options that fit your budget. So whether you're picking out your first policy or just looking for something that works better for you and your family, they make it easy to see your options. Visit progressive.com, find a rate that works for you with a name, your price tool, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law.
- [33:29]
B
Thank you to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode. When we think of things that we need to protect, we tend to think of our health, our cars, even our phones. But what about our homes? I mean, considering it's probably your biggest investment, you would think that that would be the first thing that you think of when it comes to things we want to protect. Right? That's where HomeServe comes in. Regular homeowners insurance usually doesn't cover a lot of the day to day wear and tear. Things like plumbing failures, H VAC breakdowns, electrical issues, those are things that you're usually on your own for. But for as little as $4.99 a month, HomeServe can help with home serve. It's really simple. You just choose a plan for your needs and budget and when something goes wrong on your plan, you just call their 24.7hotline and start the repair process. I'll never forget the cold showers I had to take when our water heater went out a few years ago. And now that I know about HomeServe, I wish I had known about it then. Help protect your home systems and your wallet with home serve against covered repairs. Plans start at just $4.99 a month. Go to homeserve.com to find the plan that's right for you. That's homeserve.com not available everywhere. Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month. Your first year terms apply on covered repairs. Welcome back. One more story related to the Trump IRS settlement. And then I pointed promise we will move on. On Tuesday, Acting Attorney General Blanche testified before a Senate Appropriations committee. That testimony was supposed to be related to the DOJ's 2027 budget request, which was $41.2 billion, about a 13% increase from the previous year. But for a good portion of the hearing, senators questioned him on this new anti weaponization fund and the Trump IRS settlement. So, so let's talk about just a few notable moments from the hearing. We're obviously not going to cover the whole thing, but I do want to touch on some some highlights. Overall, Blanche's stance was that yes, this is, you know, the fund is unusual, but it's not unprecedented. He repeatedly compared the fund to the Keepsigl case, which we talked about on Monday. As I said on Monday, the Keepsakel case is what the DOJ is comparing this fund to. There are certainly similarities and differences, though the two are not as similar as the administration is making them out to be. If you want to hear more on that analysis, go ahead and tune into Monday's episode. Multiple senators on both sides of the aisle pointed to the biggest difference between this fund and the Keepsakel fund, which is that the Keepsigl settlement was approved by a federal court. This one was not. So Senator Chris Van Hollen, he's a Democrat from Maryland, he was pretty confrontational on this point. He said, quote, I think you know full well that the Keepsakel settlement was was approved by a judge, including payments to people not originally parties to the lawsuit. No federal judge has approved this fund, have they, Mr. Attorney General? End quote. And Blanche acknowledged that no federal judge had approved this new program. But he said he didn't think that made a major difference because in his view, the court in Keep Seagull did not handle the actual administration of the money. It was a commission that handled the administration of the money, similar to the commission which with this new anti weaponization fund. Van Hollen called Blanche's comparison to Keep Siegel, quote, incredibly deceptive, end quote. Senator Chris Coons, he is a Democrat from Delaware. He also challenged the Keep Siegel comparison. He asked whether Keep Siegel involved a president suing his own government and settling before a judge could review or approve it. Blanche said no, but argued that what he was comparing in Keep Siegel is the structure of, of the commission, not the underlying lawsuit. Senator Van Hollen also pressed Blanche on whether January six defendants, especially people accused or convicted of assaulting police officers, could be eligible for the fund. Blanche responded that anybody in the country can apply if they believe they were a victim of weaponization. He said he expected rules to be created by the commission. He didn't know what they would be, but he did not commit to categorically excluding. Excluding January 6th defendants. Then Senator Coons asked whether anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer would be barred from receiving money. Blanche again declined to make that commitment. He said anybody can apply, and the commissioners will be the ones that set the rules. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, she questioned the legal basis for using the Treasury's judgment fund to pay claims that had not yet been brought, especially where the fund was created from the settlement of a different case. And her question was basically, you know, has the DOJ ever used the judgment fund this way before to pay future claims based on the settlement of an unrelated case? And Blanche said the answer to that question was yes. He again pointed to the Keep Seagull settlement, saying that that case also involved a fund. It applied to claims that had not been brought yet and had a claims process to distribute money. He acknowledged the Trump fund was, quote, unquote, unusual, but he said it was not unprecedented. Collins then asked how the commission would decide who is eligible and how much money they would get. Blanche said people would voluntary, voluntarily apply if they believe they were victims of weaponization. And then it would be up to the five commissioners to review the claims. And the relief could range from a formal apology to monetary compensation. Notably, after that exchange, Collins said she did not support the proposed fund. She cited the fact that no court had approved the settlement agreement. And I do have that full testimony linked for you in the sources section for this episode, which you can always find in the show notes. Okay, final story of the day. Right after I finished recording Monday's episode, news broke of a shooting at a mosque in San Diego. Since then, we have learned a lot about the incident, the victims and the suspects. So let's walk through what we know. We know that On Monday at 9:42am local time, police received a 911 call from the mother of one of the perpetrators. The mother told 911 operators that her son was missing, that he was suicidal, and that several of her firearms were missing. She told operators that he was driving a white 2018 BMW X1 and was last seen wearing camo exactly two hours later at 11:43am local time. And as police were actually trying to talk with the mother to figure out where her son might be, they had reached out to the high school that he went to, warning them that he, you know, he might be going there. They were in talks with the mom figuring out where her son might be when police received reports about a shooting at the Islamic center of San Diego. It's also the largest mosque in San Diego County. Outside the mosque, a security guard named Amin Abdullah was the first to be targeted. He engaged the shooters. He actually struck one of the shooters in gunfire, but he unfortunately died. He was able to radio to the people inside the building to lock down the building because actually inside the building were teachers and about 140 students. San Diego Police Chief Scott Wall said the shooter then entered the mosque after killing Abdullah and moved room to room. However, the shooters were lured out of the building by two men who were in the parking lot. Those men had already called 91 1. They the two men were unfortunately killed by the shooters, but they were able to contact 91 1. One of the men was a teacher named Nadir Awad. The other was a handyman and caretaker named Mansoor Kaziha. Kazia had worked at the mosque since it was built in the 80s. Police arrived on scene about four minutes after they received the call about the shooter. They arrived on scene at about 11:47am that's when they found the three men in the parking lot. And at the same time, they were getting reports of more gunfire a couple of blocks away. The suspects ended up driving, you know, a short distance from the mosque and they actually carried out this drive by shooting nearby. A landscaper was in someone's yard and they shot at him. Luckily he's okay, but they shot at him and then, and then fleed that scene around 11:48am Shortly after that, the shooters were found dead inside the white BMW about 0.3 miles away from the mosque. Police say that one of the gunmen had shot the other one twice in the head while they were both in the car and then shot himself. Police have since identified the suspects as 17 year old Kane Clark and 18 year old Caleb Vazquez. Clark was from San Diego. He had lived there his whole life. He was a student and wrestler at James Madison High School. But according to the school district, he had been taking classes online since 2021. He was also just weeks away from graduating. Neighbors told a local news outlet that they had seen Clark just a few hours before the shooting and, you know, he waved at them as he got into his car that day. They also described Clark's family as good neighbors. Social media accounts belonging to Clark allegedly included references to school shootings, Nazi imagery, and a Confederate flag. Vasquez was from Chula Vista, where he had also lived for years. Neighbors also described his family as nice and said they had been part of the neighborhood for a long time. Chula Vista police reportedly had contact with Vasquez in 2025, though, after someone who knew him expressed concerns that he was interested in extremist ideology and mass casualty attacks. In executing search warrants, investigators have recovered more than 30 guns, ammunition, tactical gear, and, and what's being called a manifesto. Mark Remily, the special agent in charge of the FBI in San Diego, said the manifesto outlines hatred towards many races and religions. He didn't provide details about what was in the, in the writings, but he said it did not uniquely target Muslims or the Islamic center of San Diego. He said, quote, they definitely had a broad hatred towards a lot of folks, end quote. And that, quote, these subjects didn't discriminate on who they hated, end quote. Three senior law enforcement officials have also said there's, there's this 75 page document they found that was posted online. That document expresses anti Islamic, anti Semitic and anti LGBTQ views and details their motivations. Though that document is still being authenticated. I believe the authors of this document describe a man who carried out a mass shooting at a New Zealand mosque as a hero. And so that is the 75 page document that was found online. In the car found at the scene, though investigators say they found what they're calling possible anti Islamic writings. So that's what we know about that. I'm sure more will come to light in the coming days. But that is. That is the story there. Let's do a few quick hitters. The House passed a bipartisan housing affordable affordability bill called the 21st Century Road to Housing act in a 396 to 13 vote. And this is a bill that's meant to address high housing costs by encouraging more home construction, easing some regulations for builders and manufactured housing, and restricting large institutional investors from buying more single family homes. One of the biggest debates is over corporate landlords and build to rent homes. The House version of the bill would generally block groups that already own more than 350 single family homes from buying more existing homes and but it removed a stricter Senate provision that would have forced some large landlords to sell newly built rental homes after seven years. The Trump administration's EPA is proposing to roll back parts of a Biden era drinking water rule for pfas, also known as Forever Chemicals. The proposal would eliminate limits on four types of pfas Gen X, pfa, pfa, H xs, PFNA and pfbs, while keeping limits on two of the most common types, PFOA and pfos, but giving water systems more time to comply. EPA officials say the change is meant to create a more legally durable rule and give water utilities more flexibility. Critics, though, argue that it weakens public health protections for chemicals that are linked to serious health risks. The proposal is expected to go through a public comment period before becoming final. Federal prosecutors in Miami have indicted former Cuban President Raul Castro and five others in connection with the 1996 shoot down of two unarmed planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, which was a Miami based Cuban exile group. The charges include conspiracy to kill U S Nationals, four counts of murder and aircraft destruction stemming from an incident that killed four people while Castro was Cuba's defense minister. All right, now, unfortunately I cannot squeeze rumor has it into today's episode, but we will do some critical thinking. And you already know for today's critical thinking segment, we are going back to the Trump IRS settlement. We spent way too much time talking about it in today's episode to not revisit it. So that's what we're going to do. As a reminder, this segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It is just meant to challenge you a little bit and potentially get you thinking deeper about why you feel the way that you do. So my first question is this. How broad is too broad? Because you know, settlements often include releases. That is normal when two sides settle a lawsuit, they usually agree that, you know, certain claims are over and can't be brought again. But at what point does a release become too broad? I mean, there's obviously, you know, we talked about a lot that we talked about, what this protects, what it doesn't protect, how it, how it shields Trump and other individuals, how it doesn't shield Trump and other individuals. You know, what agencies this applies to. So think about this settlement and the terms of this settlement and, and where you draw the line. And if you think the release is acceptable, why, what, what's the, what's the justification? And if you think it's too broad, what specifically makes it too broad? Is it the number of people covered? Is it the agencies covered? Is it the unknown claims? And is it the fact that it could, could bind future administrations? At what point does a settlement release cross over from acceptable to unacceptable? And then my second and final question, that was a, the first question was a long one. So this is my last question for you. What standard should apply to politically sensitive settlements? Because this settlement, as we talked about, was not approved by the court in a way that people might assume. And in ordinary civil cases, parties can often settle privately and voluntarily dismiss the case without a judge reviewing or approving every term. But should the standard be different when the settlement involves the federal government or, you know, taxpayer dollars or future federal claims or a sitting president? Should there be some kind of independent court review before an agreement like this takes effect? And if your answer is yes, what should the standard be? If your answer is no, what's your justification? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. I hope you have a fantastic. What is it? It's Thursday, so I hope you have a fantastic holiday weekend. That reminds me, no episode on Monday. It is a holiday. I also need a break sometimes. So there will be no episode on Monday. But I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you again on Thursday.
- [49:19]
C
Stitch Fix. Stop shopping. Get styled a plus on the outfit. Ms. Turner, you are about to slay parent teacher conferences. Oh, these just the most perfect fitting
- [49:28]
B
jeans my stylist sent me. Oh, hello you who didn't set one foot in a mall and still looks amazing.
- [49:35]
C
Just share your size, style and budget and your stylist set sends personalized looks right to your door. Stitch Fix, get started today@stitch fix.com to my stylist, this look is dedicated to you. Thank you. Thank you.