← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics (7/31/25): FBI Director Finds "Burn Bags" of Classified Documents, What We Know About the Manhattan Shooting, a New Senate Bill to Ban Insider Trading, and More.
00:43:51
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
Host
As many of you know, I recently took a week off to enjoy some time up north with my family and I had the most amazing time. But on that last day of the trip, I had a four hour drive to the airport, A three hour wait in the airport before my flight, a three hour flight home. And then to top it all off, my husband and I got in the wrong Uber when it was time to head home from the airport and we set ourselves back about another 30 minutes. It was a very long day and all I could think about that entire day was getting in my bed. Seriously, all day I was just daydreaming of the feeling of of hitting my sheets and finally being able to close my eyes. And I have Cozy Earth to thank for that. If I could give you one piece of advice, it would be to invest in good sheets. My Cozy Earth sheets have quite literally made my life better. I fall asleep in minutes. I wake up feeling so refreshed. The thing is, is their bamboo sheets are of course incredibly soft, but they're also temperature regulating so you sleep comfier and cooler. And here's the kicker. Not only do I have a 40% off discount code for you, but you But Cozy Earth actually lets you trial the sheets for 100 nights. If you don't love them after 100 sleeps, you can return them. You won't return them, I'm sure of that. But you can. So head to cozyearth.com and use my code UNBIASED for 40% off. And if you get a post purchase survey, make sure you let them know you heard about Cozy Earth right here. That's cozyearth.com code unbiased at checkout for 40% off. Because your bed should be more than a place to sleep. It should be your happy place. Co Cozy Earth makes that possible. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, July 31st. Let's talk about some news. Before we do, I just want to say thank you for being patient with me over the last couple of weeks. I took a vacation so I was off for a bit and I planned to return in full force. I was recharged, but then the day I got home I got hit with some crazy upper respiratory infection and and I was out for another week. So thank you for bearing with me. Hopefully I won't have to skip any more episodes for the foreseeable future. Don't forget that tomorrow I have a new newsletter going out. You can always subscribe to that newsletter by clicking the link in the Show Notes of each podcast episode. It's basically quick hitters in politics, pop culture, business, health and international news. So I cover a lot of genres, not just politics. I also throw some fun polls in there as well so that I can kind of see see how you guys are feeling about certain stories and issues and other readers can see how my readers are feeling about certain things. It's just a really great resource. And again, you can click the sign up link in the Show Notes, enter your email address and you are in. That is it. Now, without further ado, let's get into today's stories, starting with what we know about this terrible shooting in Manhattan. Earlier this week a gunman entered an office tower at 345 Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. He killed four people, including an off duty NYPD officer who was working as a private security detail, a security guard and two employees who worked in the building. The office tower that was targeted houses companies like Blackstone, one of the world's largest investment firms, Rudin Management, a real estate development and management firm, and the NFL headquarters. We now know based off of a note left by the gunman that the target was the NFL headquarters. He he did not quite make it there. We will talk about why the gunman has since been identified as Shane Tamara, a 27 year old former security guard from Las Vegas. Tamara had driven himself from Vegas to New York, arriving in New York shortly before the attack. Inside of his car police found a revolver, ammunition and prescription medications. He had legally purchased that semi automatic M4 style AR15 rifle and that he used in the shooting. He purchased it from his supervisor at the Las Vegas casino where he worked. He bought it for fourteen hundred dollars. He did have a Nevada concealed carry permit and had previously made at least one legal firearm purchase in Nevada. Surveillance footage shows the gunman entering, or I should say arriving at 345 Park Avenue around 6:25pm he he double parked his black BMW. He then entered the lobby carrying his rifle and wearing body armor. He then proceeded to fatally shoot a 36 year old off duty NYPD officer, an unarmed security guard who was in the lobby, and a senior executive at Blackstone who happened to be in the lobby at that time and he was actually trying to take cover behind a pillar when he was shot and killed. The gunman then headed upstairs and we'll talk about how he ended up where he did in a minute. But but that is where he killed a 27 year old associate at Rudin Management before Ultimately shooting himself around 6:33pm Only about five minutes after that attack began. The gunman had a documented history of mental illness, including two involuntary psychiatric holds in Nevada, one in 2022 and another in 2024. And he had reportedly become fixated on the idea that he suffered from cte, which is a degenerative brain condition connected to repeated head trauma. We hear of it a lot in the football world, especially in the NFL. The gunman only ever played high school football. He never reached the college or professional level. But he still did believe that he suffered from cte. He left two notes, one in his wallet and one that he left back in Las Vegas. These notes are currently still being investigated. They haven't been released to the public. We don't know if they will be released to the public, but law enforcement has shared some details. The first note, which was found in his wallet on his body was a handwritten note spread over three pages that directly blamed the NFL for allegedly suppressing information about cte. The note referenced former football player Terry Long, who suffered from CTE and later died by suicide, and asked that Tamara's own brain be studied after his death. In that note, he wrote in part, quote, you can't go against the NFL. They'll squash you. Study my brain, please. I'm sorry. End quote. The second note, which was found in Vegas, where he lived, was reportedly an apology to his parents because of the note found on his person. Investigators do believe that the NFL offices were his intended target. However, he took the wrong elevator bank. So, basically, in this building, there are different elevators that go to different floors. There are three different elevator banks, to be exact. This, the elevator bank for floors 33 to 45 was closest to where he had entered the building, and that's ultimately the elevator bank that he entered. However, the NFL headquarters is on the lower floors. So while he intended to target the NFL headquarters, he instead made his way towards other companies like Rudin Management, which is on the 33rd floor. Another thing is that these elevators have these keypads to call the elevator, where you actually type in the floor you want to go to, and it assigns you that elevate an elevator letter, and then that elevator will take you to that floor. So there are rumors that there was a lady coming from the basement who the gunman allegedly let walk by him, and she had pressed the 33rd floor on the keypad. And he reportedly entered the elevator and couldn't go anywhere other than the 33rd floor because there were no buttons inside. So. So that's supposedly how he ended up on the 33rd floor, which is where Rudin management is located. And that's where he ended up taking the life of a 27 year old associate and eventually his own life. That's pretty much what we know at this point. Like I said, law enforcement officials are still investigating, so perhaps we'll find out more in the coming days and weeks. Moving on to an executive order signed by the President last week that I did not get a chance to touch on in last week's episode, but it's one that a lot of you have had quite a questions about. This particular order is called Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets. As we've talked about in the past, an executive order is not a law, right? Instead, an executive order is a directive for agencies and departments within the executive branch. Typically, an executive order will have some sort of purpose and or policy and then a directive for the agencies or departments to carry out that purpose or policy. In this case, the purpose of the order is to address homelessness by targeting public safety, institution institutionalization and treatment based interventions. The Order is meant to confront what the Administration describes as, quote, endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations and violent attacks, end quote, that have made cities unsafe. The order references a reported all time high of 274,224 homeless individuals on a single during the last year of the previous administration and attributes this number to widespread drug addiction and mental illness among the homeless population. The Order claims that nearly two thirds of homeless individuals have used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine or opioids, and that a similar share suffer from mental health conditions. The Administration argues that federal and state governments have spent tens of billions of dollars on homelessness programs that have failed to address the root causes, those root causes being addiction and mental illness, and in turn have left cities and citizens vulnerable. The Order contends that placing homeless individuals in long term institutional settings through civil commitment is a humane and effective way to restore public order. So to implement this policy and this is where those directives come into play. Section 2. There's, there's six different sections we're going to talk about 2, 3, 4 and 5. Section 2 of the order instructs the Attorney General in consultation with the HHS Secretary, to pursue the reversal of federal or state judicial precedents and consent decrees that limit civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who are dangerous to either themselves or the public or are living on the streets and unable to care for themselves. In other words, the Attorney General and HHS Secretary are to try to reverse the prior court decisions and court agreements that make it harder to place people with serious mental illness into care. Now, just quickly, we're going to hear the term civil commitment a lot throughout this discussion, and I just want to clarify what civil commitment means. Civil commitment is legally placing a person with serious mental illness into a hospital or treatment facility, even if they don't want to go because they are considered to be a danger to themselves or others or or they are unable to care for themselves. So whenever you hear the order reference civil commitment, that is the concept it's referring to. The order also instructs the federal government to assist state and local governments through grants, technical guidance or other legal means in developing civil commitment and treatment standards. So think of programs like outpatient commitment programs where a person is required to follow a treatment plan while they're integrating back into a community, or crisis stabilization programs or court ordered treatment plans, things of that nature. Section 3 of the Order outlines a coordinated effort among the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Transportation to reassess discretionary grant programs and prioritize funding for states and cities that enforce laws against open drug use, urban urban camping, loitering and squatting. The government is also to prioritize funding for jurisdictions that use civil commitment or assisted outpatient treatment to remove mentally ill or addicted individuals from the streets and prioritize funding for those jurisdictions that comply with the registration and local checking requirements of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification act, particularly in regard to homeless sexual sex offenders. The Attorney General is also to ensure that homeless individuals arrested for federal crimes are evaluated to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons eligible for civil commitment. And then finally, under Section 3, the Attorney General is ordered to use funds from the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Program to support homeless encampment removals in areas where either public safety is threatened or or local resources are inadequate. So if a jurisdiction doesn't have the means to adequately support homeless encampment removals, the Attorney General can use these funds from the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Program to help. Federal resources are also to be assessed to ensure that detainees with serious mental illness are not released due to a lack of bed space and prisons and reentry centers are required to create in custody housing release plans or with follow through requirements for released individuals. Moving on to section 4 of the order, section 4 is focused on shifting federal funding priorities in health and housing. Specifically, it instructs HHS Secretary to ensure that grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration fund only support evidence based substance use programs and not harm reduction or safe consumption efforts and that the order claims only facilitate illegal drug use. So, in other words, this is a shift in the types of substance use programs that can have funding. Funding for harm reduction and safe consumption efforts, which are strategies that are aimed at reducing the negative consequences of drug use without necessarily requiring people to stop using drugs, is now impermissible. So think things like needle exchange programs, supervised injection sites, things of that nature. Injection. Instead, the funding will be used for programs that are designed to stop drug use entirely. The order also directs the HHS to support outpatient treatment programs that help move individuals off the streets and out of public programs and into private housing and support networks. It directs the Attorney General to prioritize funding for expanding drug courts and mental health courts as alternatives to incarceration in situations where it supports public safety. And then finally, section 5 of the order increases accountability and imposes conditions on federal homelessness and housing programs. So the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development are to phase out support for quote, unquote housing first policies that don't prioritize treatment or self sufficiency. Instead, they are to increase competition for grant funding and raise performance standards for reducing homelessness and improving public safety. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is also instructed to require that people with substance use disorders or serious mental illness who are receiving federally funded housing assistance participate in treatment as a condition for continued assistance for recipients of federal funds who operate safe consumption sites, knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia or allow drug use or distribution on their property. The Attorney General is ordered to investigate potential violations of federal law enforcement and to bring civil or criminal actions as appropriate. And then finally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is to coordinate with the DOJ to freeze funding for those programs where necessary. The order also includes provisions to allow federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to prohibit housing sex offenders with unrelated children. And the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the HHS and doj, is ordered to revise regulations and allow or require recipients of homelessness funding to collect health related data from participants like mental health diagnoses, share the data with law enforcement when legally permissible, and use that data to connect individuals with medical care or public health services. Okay, let's take our first quick break here. When I come back, we'll talk about some more updates with the Epstein files and Ghislaine Maxwell, plus Emile Bove's confirmation and more. As summer winds down, I'm all about refreshing my wardrobe with staple pieces for the season ahead, and Quint nails it with their luxe essentials that feel effortless and look polished. The key is is these pieces are perfect for layering and mixing. So my favorite thing to do when I shop with Quint is get the basics like basic tees, basic jeans, basic sweaters. And then I accessorize those outfits with jewelry and a belt to make the outfit look more refined. Quintessential Quint has all of that too. They sell everything from clothing to jewelry to belts to bags, even home accessories. And I've heard from a few friends that their duvet covers are really great, so I've been eyeing those too. The best part about Quint though is everything is well priced. Their lightweight cotton cashmere link stitch dolman sweater is something that I've been eyeing for the fall. It's only $40. Cashmere for $40 is incredible. Elevate your fall wardrobe essentials with quince. Go to quince.comunbiased for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's qu n c.comunbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quins.comunbiased if you run an e commerce business, you know the best way to be successful is to keep your customers happy. And one way to keep your customers happy is by building trust with them one package at a time. And that's why I love shipstation. I used to use Shipstation when I had a cookie company and it made it so easy to to ship my orders nationwide because with Ship Station you can actually sync orders from everywhere you sell into one dashboard and replace manual tasks with custom automations to reduce shipping errors. I personally loved how easy it was to automate shipping tasks and manage orders in this one simple dashboard. And then when it was time to print labels, it was literally just the click of a button. It made things so seamless. And not only does Shipstation take the hassle out of the shipping process, but it also offers incredible discounts. Up to 88% off you can UPS DHL Express and USPS rates and up to 90% off FedEx rates. Better shipping rates means happier customers because they're not surprised with a crazy shipping rate at checkout. When shoppers choose to buy your products, turn them into loyal customers with cheaper, faster and better shipping. Go to shipstation.com and use code unbiased to sign up for your free trial. There's no credit card or contract required and you can Cancel Anytime. That's shipstation.com code Unbiased. Welcome back. Senate Democrats are attempting to use a decades old federal statute in an effort to compel the DOJ and FBI to release all documents and information related to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates and any alleged clients. So, led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and joined by all five Democrats on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the lawmaker sent a formal request to the DOJ and FBI and citing the Rule of five. Now, the rule of five is a legal provision that allows a minority of committee members to compel executive agencies to produce documents without needing the committee chair's approval. The relevant language of the statute says that an executive agency, on request of the Committee on Governmental affairs of the Senate or any of its five members shall submit any information requested of it request relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate committee. The statute does not require a vote or the consent of the committee chair, making it a pretty powerful but rarely used tool for minority party oversight. So this rule is especially helpful in situations where the chairman of a committee and or the majority of committee members are Democrats and the minority are Republicans or vice versa. In this case, the five minority members are Democrats and are asking for materials related to the federal criminal prosecution of Epstein with redactions to protect victims identities. They've given the DOJ and FBI a deadline of August 15 and warned that a failure to comply could lead to legal action. Now, let's say the DOJ and FBI say no, no, no, we're not turning over these documents. Maybe they argue that the request interferes with an ongoing investigation or it violates confidentiality protections. Or maybe they say it exceeds the scope of the committee's jurisdiction. In that case, Senate Democrats could file a lawsuit in an attempt to enforce the statute and it would be up to the courts to decide whether the DOJ and FBI have to comply with the committee's rule of five request. If a lawsuit were filed, Senate Democrats would likely argue that the unambiguous language of the statute obligates executive agencies to comply with requests from any five committee members. And also they would probably highlight that oversight is a core, core congressional function. Right? The DOJ or FBI, on the other hand, might argue that the law, although clear, has to be read in conjunction with, or I shouldn't say the law, I should say the rule. The rule has to be read in conjunction with things like executive privileges, investigatory discretion, especially in cases that involve national security or grand jury secrecy or individual privacy. So we'll have to see how this goes. It's all going to depend on how the DOJ and FBI respond to this request. Just to give you a few relatively recent examples of the rule of five in use. In 2017, Democrats tried to force the release of documents related to the leasing of the old Post office building in D.C. which became the site of a Trump hotel. And in 2001, Democrats under former President George W. Bush attempted to compel documents about the 2000 census. The 2017 request eventually ended up in a lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed as moot. And. And the 2001 request was partially granted, but the committee wasn't given access to all requested documents. So again, we'll have to see what happens with this request. All right, and now onto the second and last Epstein related update for this episode, though this one actually revolves around Ghislaine Maxwell, not Epstein himself. In last week's episode, we talked about various Epstein related updates, and one of those updates was that the House Oversight Committee had voted to subpoena Maxwell to to get her sworn testimony about her involvement in Epstein's cases and potentially to identify other individuals involved. This is the latest on that front. So on Tuesday, Maxwell's attorney sent a letter to the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, essentially saying that Maxwell is willing to testify, but only if several conditions are met. And those conditions are as follows. A grant of formal immunity, meaning she can't be prosecuted for the things that she says the testimony takes place somewhere other than her prison, where she's at, that the questions are provided in advance, and that the testimony is scheduled for after the resolution of her pending Supreme Court petition and her forthcoming habeas petition, which would ultimately be months from now. Maxwell's attorney presented an alternative option, though, and that is clemency. So the letter reads in part, quote, of course, in the alternative, if Ms. Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing and eager to testify openly and honestly in public before Congress in Washington, D.C. end quote. And of course, clemency, whether that would be a full pardon, a partial pardon, or a commutation, would mean that Maxwell would either go free from prison or receive a shorter sentence in exchange for her testimony. But keep in mind, clemency can only be granted by the President and not by Congress. Now, before we go any further with this story, I do briefly want to touch on Maxwell's Supreme Court petition, because I kind of just briefly skimmed over it while we were going over those conditions. Maxwell has taken her case to the Supreme Court. Okay, so she's trying to get her conviction overturned. She is arguing that she was unjustly prosecuted and that a prior plea deal made by Epstein actually protected her from prosecution. Now, the Supreme Court has not made a decision on that. The latest in the the latest there is that the Supreme Court has decided to review her petition at their conference at the end of September. So at that September conference, the justices will decide whether they will grant or deny her appeal, meaning whether they will consider it or not consider it. So we'll likely get another update on that front in October, but that's it for now. Now to get back to the actual subpoena from the House Oversight Committee and Maxwell's proposed conditions. Some of you might be wondering how Maxwell even has the ability to request conditions when a subpoena legally requires someone to testify. It's true that a subpoena requires a person to testify, and if they don't testify, they'll face contempt charges. But there's also a little bit of nuance here, and that's because in this case, Maxwell, she would sit for a deposition to satisfy the subpoena and not, you know, violate it, but she would likely invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer the questions that she's asked if her proposed conditions are not met. And we know this because her lawyer said that she would do this in the letter that he wrote to the committee. So the incentive for the committee in granting her proposed conditions is that she would actually answer the questions that they ask of her and not just plead the Fifth for everything. Now, some of you might also be wondering, well, how can she invoke the Fifth Amendment, which prevents people from self incrimination if she's already already been convicted and sentenced? Because she's currently seeking post conviction relief, she's trying to get her conviction overturned. Any testimony that she provides now could compromise those efforts, and she definitely does not want to do that. So she would just plead the Fifth for those reasons. Maxwell's attorney says that Maxwell will invoke the Fifth Amendment and decline to answer the committee's questions if she's not granted these proposed conditions. At this point, we don't have an official response from the House Oversight Committee, but we do know that at least some of the committee members do not support Maxwell setting her own terms. We also know that a spokesperson for the Oversight Committee said the committee will respond to Maxwell's attorney soon, but that it won't consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony. So we'll have to see what happens there. All right, let's talk about Emil Bove's Confirmation as some of you may know, Emil Beauvai was just confirmed by the Senate this week for a lifetime judicial appointment in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. His confirmation was a controversial one, and a lot of you actually requested that I talk about this one, so let's do that. First, I want to talk about who he is. Emil Bobe is currently a top DOJ official and an attorney within the doj. Previously, though, he served as co chief of the Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit in New York. He left that role to join Trump's personal legal team, and in September 2023, he served as defense counsel in three of Trump's criminal cases, including the New York State hush money case, the federal classified documents case, and the federal election interference case related to January 6th. Then, when Trump took office in January, Bove was appointed Acting Deputy Attorney General and served in that position until Todd Blanche was confirmed in March. Once Blanche was confirmed, Bovet then became the principal Associate Attorney General within the doj. In May, Trump nominated Bovet to serve as a Judge in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the US Virgin Islands. In June, Bovet appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing, and on Tuesday, the Senate voted to confirm Bove for that position or for that seat. I should say in in a 50 to 49 vote, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition, Bovet's confirmation will restore a Republican majority for the Third Circuit. There's also another vacancy on the Third Circuit, by the way. President Trump has nominated a judge named Jennifer Mascot for that seat, but she has not yet been confirmed. Now, it's true that Bove's confirmation has been controversial, and we, and we have seen a decent amount of opposition. For example, when the Senate advanced his confirmation in July, more than 900 former DOJ employees from both parties signed a letter accusing Bovet of undermining the integrity of the department. I also talked on the podcast at the end of June about the whistleblower allegations. A former DOJ lawyer turned whistleblower came forward with allegations that Bovet had told DOJ lawyers that they should just ignore court orders that interfere with deportations. Bovet denied those claims at his confirmation hearing. When he was asked about them, he said he never advised anyone to violate a court order. Another situation that's raised some concerns and fueled the controversy is an audio recording that was obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee from a whistleblower that runs contrary to some of Bovet's testimony at his confirmation hearing. Now, of course, if he is found to have lied at his confirmation hearing. That would be lying under oath. That is illegal. But that audio recording is from a private video conference call at the DOJ in February in which Bove reportedly discussed his handling of the dismissed charges against Mayor Eric Adams. So for all of those reasons, the nomination and subsequent confirmation of Beauvais has been seen as a controversial one. From here, Bovet will have to receive his commission, take the judicial oath. After those formalities, he'll become an active judge for the Third Circuit. And then once he begins serving as a judge on the Third Circuit, he has to step down from his role as principal associate Deputy Attorney general at the DoJ. All right, next story. In last week's episode, we talked about the Trump administration's accusations against the Obama administration related to Russian election interference. Since then, though, FBI Director Cash Patel reportedly found burn bags of related documents within the FBI that he has since turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And an ex CIA official has accused Tulsi Gabbard and the White House of lying. So we'll talk about both of these updates, starting with the first one. First of all, what is a burn bag? A burn bag is a thick, usually double layered paper or synthetic bag that's designed to hold classified documents, notes, memos, materials until they can be burned or shredded beyond recovery. Burning, as the burn bag name implies, is the preferred method of destroying classified documents because the materials can't be reassembled, right? Maybe they could if they were simply shredded. Burning makes that a lot more difficult. Also, sometimes there are materials that can't be shredded, like tapes or other bulky physical materials. Notably, there are other methods of destruction like cross cut shredders, disintegrators, pulverizers. We're specifically talking about burn bags here. Government offices like the CIA, nsa, FBI and Department of Defense use these burn bags for day to day destruction of sensitive files, memos, drafts, things that are no longer needed but are still considered confidential, secret or top secret. And you can't be, you know, people can't get their hands on those. So FBI Director Kash Patel reportedly found multiple burn bags containing thousands of documents related to the recent accusations against the Obama administration at the FBI headquarters in a previously undisclosed Sensitive Compartment Information Facility. In those burn bags, the FBI reportedly found a classified appendix to former former Special Counsel John Durham's final report, which was actually declassified this morning and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review. For context, the Durham report was a 300 page report done by former Special Counsel John Durham detailing the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russia's involvement in in the 2016 presidential election and Trump's campaign. So it was the appendix to that report that the FBI now says was found in burn bags. The now declassified appendix reportedly includes information suggesting that the FBI plan to amplify collusion claims before launching its probe into potential Russian election interference. And just as a kind of like a psa, we'll probably start to hear some claims about this declassified Durham appendix very soon. In fact, just this morning, Fox News put out an article about alleged ties to the Soros Foundation. I am personally going to hold off on reporting on the contact contents of the appendix until we know a little bit more. We don't know much at all at this point about its actual contents. So, you know, perhaps once the Senate committee reviews the documents that it just received today, it might release them to the public, but that's not guaranteed. And I'm not saying I'm going to wait until it's made public to report on it. I just want to wait until we have a few more sources talking about it. And we know a little bit more because it was just declassified this morning. We don't know much. On a related note, ex CIA official Susan Miller accused Tulsi Gabbard and the White House of lying about the intel on Russian interference. Notably, Miller led the team that produced the report about Russia's actions during the 2016 election. And she said, quote, the Director of National Intelligence and the White House are lying again. We definitely had the intel to show with high probability that the specific goal of the Russians was to get Trump elected. At the same time, we found no two way collusion between Trump or his team with Russians at that time, end quote. And that's pretty much in line with what we talked about. Marco Rubio said right back when the Senate released its investigative report back in 2020, Rubio said the same thing. Russia wanted to get Trump elected, but there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. So those are the updates on the Russian election interference allegations. We'll take our second and final break here. When I come back, we'll talk about the stock trading bill and then finish with quick hitters, rumor has it, and critical thinking on WhatsApp, no one can see or hear your personal messages. Whether it's a voice call message or sending a password to WhatsApp, it's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat or trading those late night voice messages, that could basically become a podcast. Your personal messages stay between you, your friends and your family. No one else, not even us. WhatsApp message privately with everyone. This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply welcome back. All right, quickly, before we get into quick hitters, let's talk about this stock trading band that just passed a Senate committee this week. First, we got to go back to 2023, when Republican Senator Josh Hawley and a Democrat, Senator Christian Gillibrand, introduced the bipartisan concept of banning stock ownership and trades by legislators, executive officials, spouses and dependents. Notably, the president was not included at that stage. But this year, Senator Hawley reintroduced the bill and negotiated an exception expanded version with Democrats which included the President and Vice President. And interestingly, Hawley's reintroduced bill was originally this year when he reintroduced it called the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning securities and Investments, or the Pelosi act for short, named after Nancy Pelosi. But he later changed the name to to the Honest act to win support from Democrats because he knew he had opposition from some Republicans and and he needed to get as many Democrats on board as he could. And as I said a second ago, the president and Vice President were included in the revised version of the bill. This was another attempt to win support from Democrats. Notably, though, presidential divestiture would be, under the text of the bill, delayed until next term, so not until 2029. It does not apply to this current presidential term. As the bill is currently written, a purchase ban would take effect immediately upon the bill's enactment. Asset sales would have to occur within 90 days of enactment and for officials already in office before enactment. So today divestment deadlines would be tied to the beginning of their next term. So the president and Vice President, like I said, would have to divest by 2029, and then members of Congress would have a similar grace period extending to their next term. Start this week in an 8 to 7 vote, the bill passed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental affairs, which, with all Democrats joining Senator Hawley to advance it now from here, the Senate Majority Leader would have to agree to bring the bill to the floor. And it's unclear at this point whether Republican leadership is willing to do that. So this bill may not even go anywhere. It just passed the Senate committee this week. That's, that's kind of like one of the initial steps before it can go to the full Senate for debate and for a vote. After it passed the committee this week, President Trump called Hawley a second tier senator, Senator saying quote, I don't think real Republicans want to see their president who has had unprecedented success targeted because of the whims of a second tier senator named Josh Hawley, end quote. Hawley later said he and the president had a, quote, unquote good chat after the call out and said that the president even affirmed his support for a, quote, ban on stock trading for people like Nancy Pelosi, end quote. Time for some quick hitters, just a few today. President Trump is expected to sign an executive order today that will expand on his Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition. The order will reportedly re establish the Presidential Fitness Test, which was first introduced by President Johnson in 1966 and later abandoned by President Obama in 2012. The order will reportedly aim to create school based programs that reward excellence in physical education and develop criteria for a presidential Fitness award. The test will be administered by HHS Secretary Kennedy. Former Vice President Harris announced yesterday that she will not run for California governor this election, but so far she has not ruled out another presidential run in 2028. Harris also announced she has a new memoir coming out on September 23rd called 107 days, which signifies the 107 day duration of her presidential campaign. Brown University says it will pay $50 million in grants over the next 10 years to the state's workforce development organizations in order to restore more than $500 million in frozen funds. The funds had been on hold while the Trump administration investigated the university's DEI policies and alleged anti Semitism on campus. So per the deal, Brown will pay the $50 million in grants and do away with DEI policies on campus, while the administration will unfreeze federal funds, reinstate the university's eligibility for future future federal funds, and close all ongoing investigations into the school. Like I said, just a few quick hitters today. But make sure you sign up for that newsletter using the link in the show notes. You'll have about 25 more quick hitters hitting your inbox in the morning. Okay, it's time for Rumor has It, my weekly segment where I do my best to confirm, dispel and or add context to recent rumors submitted by all of you. Rumor has it that the United states will burn $9.7 million worth of contraceptives. This is true. Let's add some context. There's a stockpile of contraceptives worth $9.7 million that's been being held in a warehouse in Belgium since the United States froze foreign aid back in January. This stockpile of contraceptives consists mostly of long lasting forms of birth control. IUDs, rod implants, birth control injections, birth control pills. And they were intended for girls and women in low income countries, particularly in Sub Saharan Africa. The US State Department has confirmed they intend to burn this supply. The burning will cost the government approximately $167,000. Notably, the state Department has said that a limited number of commodities have been approved for disposal and that no HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed. The Department has also declined offers from the United nations and certain reproductive organizations to buy or ship the supplies as an alternative to destroying them. So why is the State Department doing this? Well, it really comes down to the administration shift away from providing foreign assistance through USAID as well as the administration's opposition to international abortion related support. We know that the US Is reeling in foreign aid efforts and even though the contraceptives were already purchased, it it would actually be costly to actually distribute them. And that funding has largely been cut. Nonetheless, it leaves us with the question of why the State Department is choosing to destroy them rather than sell them when offers have been made. And the U.S. state Department has cited two U.S. policies that it says prohibits the government from providing funding to foreign organizations that offer abortion related assistance. So there's the Mexico City policy and the Kemp Kasten amendment. The Mexico City policy bans US Family planning funding for international groups that provide abortions. This is a policy that Trump reinstated in January after Obama overturned it in 2009. The Kemp Kaskin Amendment was originally enacted back in 1985 and it says that no US funds can be given to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. In practice, we see this amendment used by presidents along party lines to withhold funding for the UN Population Fund, which is an agency focused on global population and reproductive health. Now, some of you might be listening and wondering how those two policies apply apply to this situation since we're talking about contraceptives and not funding. And it's true that contraceptives are not what we think of when we think of, you know, funding. Right. However, presumably the Trump administration is still looking at these contraceptives as a benefit for these foreign organizations and using the Mexico City policy and kem cask and amendment as justification for not accepting distribution offers. So to finish up this discussion, yes, the State Department has plans to burn $9.7 million worth of contraceptives. Whether they will actually be burned remains to be seen because we are seeing some efforts to stop it. The Belgium government, for one, which is where the products are currently being held, has said that they've made appeals to the US Embassy in Brussels in hopes of protecting the contraceptives. The products are due to be shipped to France to be burned. So there's also been some lawmakers in France that are lobbying their government not to participate in the destruction. And then here in the U.S. two Democratic senators have introduce legislation that would prevent foreign assistance commodities like food and medical devices from being destroyed or wasted. So only time will tell, but it is in the plans for these contraceptives to be burned. Let's finish with some critical thinking for those that might be new here. This segment is not meant to be too complex. It is not meant to stump you. It's just to get you thinking deeper about a particular issue or story and to give you an opportunity to challenge your own beliefs or opinions. For today, I want to think about what we just discussed in the Rumor has It segment. So the first question I have for you related to that story is this. When an administration decides whether to destroy previously purchased commodities, what factors do you believe the administration should consider in making that decision? In other words, what factors should influence whether an administration creates waste and destruction or instead finds an alternate course of action that allows the products to be used or resold? And then should US Foreign aid decisions be guided more by the affiliations of recipient organizations or by the potential impact of the aid itself on public health and humanitarian outcomes? And why? And does your view on that change depending on what the foreign aid is and if so, again, why? That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here. Don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter. The link is in the show Notes. Have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you again on Monday. Did you know using your browser in incognito mode doesn't actually protect your privacy? Take back your privacy with IPVanish VPN. Just one tap and all your data, passwords, communications, browsing history and more will be instantly protected. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. Use IPVanish on all your devices, anytime you go online, at home and especially on public Wi fi. Get ipvanish now for 70% off a yearly plan with this exclusive offer@ipvanish.com audio.