UNBIASED Politics (1/9/25): LA Sees Mass Destruction. What Went Wrong? PLUS Trump Wants to Take Back Panama Canal, Buy Greenland, and Add Canada to the US; Laken Riley Act, HR7, and More.
41:32 Share

This episode is brought to you by Cozy Earth. Going into 2025, I have a few top New Year's resolutions, things that I just really want to be better with in the new year. And one of those things is sleep. And I'll tell you why. I have noticed such a difference in my work product on days where I'm well rested versus days I didn't get, you know, I didn't sleep well the night before. Overall, I just have more motivation to put out good episodes. My story selection is better. I research better. My work product is just overall better. And I'm just so happy that I'm able to do that.

my number one tip to better sleep is the sheets that you sleep on. I didn't start investing in my sheets until recently, and it's been an absolute game changer sleep-wise. And I know it's not just me because I've heard from so many of you that you purchased Cozy Earth's sheets using my code and you're just as in love as I am.

If you want to get the same sheets I have, I have Cozy Earth's Bamboo Sheet Set. They are so incredibly soft and breathable. Not only do they have this cooling effect, but I swear it's like they get softer with every wash. So visit CozyEarth.com slash unbiased and use my exclusive 40% off code unbiased.

Cozy Earth Betting also has a 100-night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty, so you really can't go wrong. Again, head to CozyEarth.com slash unbiased and get 40% off with my code unbiased. If you get a post-purchase survey, say you heard about Cozy Earth from this podcast. A better year starts with better sleep. Wrap yourself in Cozy Earth. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis.

Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, January 9th. Let's talk about some news. But first, I want to start this episode by sending love to everyone impacted by the fires in Los Angeles. By now, I'm sure we've all heard at least the general gist.

of what's going on, but thousands of people have lost their homes, their businesses, their livelihoods, and many, many more have been forced to evacuate. There are currently five separate fires, and it just absolutely breaks my heart. To the firefighters and the other first responders who are quite literally putting

their own lives at risk to save the livelihoods of others, thank you. You truly are some of the bravest people on this planet and we are standing with you in gratitude and solidarity. I have a lot of listeners in the Los Angeles area and there's a good chance that some of you were either directly impacted by this fire or have a loved one that was and I just want to speak to you right now when I tell you that this

I am so sorry and I'm thinking of you. I know that there are no words that, you know, can make this situation better, but I hope it at least helps a little bit to know that you are in my thoughts.

For those that are not aware of the details surrounding these fires, let's talk about it. So this is going to be the first story of the day. As I said, there are currently five fires burning throughout Los Angeles. The Palisades Fire, the Eaton Fire, the Hearst Fire, the Lydia Fire, and the Sunset Fire. Of the five, the Palisades Fire is the biggest and the most destructive in LA County history, and it's also expected to be the costliest fire in US history.

The Palisades fire is 0% contained at this point. The only two fires that are somewhat contained are the Hearst fire, which is currently about 10% contained, and the Lydia fire, which is about 60% contained.

Those are the two most northern fires. The other three, so the Palisades Fire, the Sunset Fire, and the Eaton Fire, are 0% contained at this point. The Palisades Fire has burned roughly 17,000 acres. The Sunset Fire, which is the smallest of the five, has burned roughly 43 acres. And the Eaton Fire, which is the second largest, has burned roughly 11,000 acres.

Now, there are a lot of factors that play into why these fires start and continue to grow at incredibly fast rates.

First of all, dry weather, low humidity, combine that with strong winds, and you have a recipe for disaster. Yesterday, wind gusts were reaching 80 miles per hour, though as of this morning, winds have significantly died down. There is also a lot of brush in these areas, and on one hand, the brush has not been cleared in decades, but also, last year, LA recorded the highest rainfall in a two-year time span.

What that means is that once all of that rain stopped and the dry conditions came about, there was even more vegetation for these fires to feed on. On top of all of this, though, in addition to the weather-related conditions, California and LA specifically have some other issues.

The LA Fire Department received a budget cut of about $17.5 million in June, which is about a 2% decrease from the previous year's budget. And I know there's been some controversy on social media over whether the LAFD actually saw a budget cut or whether it actually saw a budget increase.

So let's go over the numbers. In June, LA's mayor signed the city of LA's budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. The LAFD's total budget was $819,637,000. During the prior fiscal year, the LAFD's total budget was $837,191,000. That means that the budget cut from the prior fiscal year to this fiscal year was about $17.5 million.

The LA department that saw a budget increase was the LAPD, not the LAFD. So just weeks ago on December 17th, the LA Fire Chief sent a report to the city regarding the budget cut. And the report says in part, quote,

End quote. One unit that was particularly impacted was the disaster response section, which oversees the department's heavy emergency

equipment used during disasters, and the report says, quote, "...V-Hours fund heavy equipment operators who make fire control lines around wildland fires, manage firefighting robotics, wildland fire road maintenance, post-fire demolition services, and other all-hazard emergency services. Ultimately, loss of funding impairs the department's ability to mitigate wildland fires and other hazards effectively."

End quote. Now, despite that report, the LA Mayor Karen Bass has said that she is confident that the budget cuts did not have an impact on the LAFD's response to the wildfires this week.

Another issue in California is the lack of adequate reservoirs. In 2014, California introduced Prop 1, which dedicated $2.7 billion for investments in water storage projects. The program was intended to either expand existing reservoirs, increase groundwater storage, or build surface storage facilities in seven different locations across California. Ten years later, not one of those projects has been completed.

While construction has begun in two locations, completion of those first two projects is not scheduled until 2027 and 2028. The last of the projects is scheduled to finish in 2032. This to say that despite Prop 1 being introduced in 2014, the water storage projects have yet to come to fruition.

Of the reservoirs that do exist, many were not adequately filled, and firefighters ran out of water in the fire hydrants pretty early on. This actually started within the first day or day and a half of the Palisades fire. As of today, though, officials are saying that they have, quote, "...worked around some mitigations and that the water system is starting to stabilize."

End quote. But aside from the factors that led to this devastating destruction, there's another component that not many outside of California are thinking about, and that is the insurance of it all. So according to the most recent data from the California Department of Insurance, between 2020 and 2022, insurance companies declined to renew 2.5%

million homeowner policies in the state. That includes 531,000 in LA County. Insurance companies in California have been refusing to write new policies in areas that they consider to be at high risk for wildfires. And with the rising threat, these companies are

pulling back on offering coverage in many areas. In fact, in the area hit hardest by the fires, the Pacific Palisades, State Farm just last year canceled 69% of its policies there. So to try to solve this problem, California set up a plan called the California Fair Plan, which was meant to be a last resort for California residents, but has seen demand skyrocket because of the lack of insurance or coverage from private insurers.

To illustrate the demand, the fair plan's exposure for dwellings as of September was up 61% to $458 billion from just a year earlier and triple where it stood only four years ago. Its exposure for commercial policies has risen even faster, nearly doubling to $26.6 billion as of September and up 464% in the last four years.

The issue with fare policies, though, is that they have higher premiums than traditional private insurance and less coverage. So homeowners are either just simply going without fire insurance, whether by choice or because they were dropped by their insurer, or buying into this California fare plan and often having to buy additional coverage, what's called wraparound coverage, at an even higher cost.

Now, a couple of weeks ago, the California Department of Insurance announced new regulations to try to give California homeowners that are in high-risk areas an alternative to California fare. And the regulations essentially require that insurers must write policies in fire-prone areas equal to at least 85% of their market share throughout the state.

Also, insurance companies can now factor in the cost of reinsurance policies as part of their rate calculation. So reinsurance policies are policies that the insurance company will buy from other firms to spread their risk.

California was the only state that did not allow the cost of reinsurance to be part of the rate calculations. So these new regulations change that. But what that means, of course, is higher rates. And given the fact that these new regulations were only announced a couple of weeks ago, the effects have not yet been seen by California residents.

And all of this is not even mentioning that if you have homeowners insurance that covers fires and you lost your home, insurance does not just replace your belongings and your home next week. As an attorney, I actually practiced in insurance defense. I know how these insurance companies work. Anyone who has ever filed a homeowners claim with their insurance company can definitely understand this.

The insurance companies do not make it easy. And when you take into account the fact that it's not just one house fire, right? You literally have entire neighborhoods and an entire city that were burnt to the ground. It just makes the situation so much worse. So...

The entire situation is just, it's really not a good one. As far as the economic impact, an initial estimate from AccuWeather puts the total cost between $52 billion and $57 billion, which makes it the most expensive fire event in history. But those numbers are likely to go up even further once all of the damage is assessed.

One last note I'll make about what's going on in LA right now. There are unfortunately some bad actors out there that like to prey on the misfortunes of other people. And at least 20 people have been arrested for looting or similar crimes in evacuation zones.

Criminals and thieves know that these people are not going to be home because they have been evacuated and they take advantage of the situation. So to the people of LA, I am thinking of you. I am so sorry for what you're going through. And all I can say is that I hope the situation starts to improve immediately.

There is no easy way to transition from that story, so let's just move along. Police say that the man behind the Tesla Cybertruck explosion in Las Vegas on New Year's Day used chat GPT to plan the attack. As many of you probably know, on Wednesday, January 1st, a Cybertruck exploded just outside the entrance of the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas shortly after the driver of that Cybertruck fatally shot himself.

The explosion injured several people standing nearby, and the driver has since been identified as 37-year-old Matthew Leibelsberger. Leibelsberger was an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan and was in the elite special forces for 18 years. Most recently, Leibelsberger was listed as a remote and autonomous systems manager for the Army and was stationed in Germany but was on leave in Colorado Springs when he left for Nevada sometime after Christmas.

According to his wife, Livelsberger behavior changed after he returned from a tour in the Middle East, suffering from a traumatic brain injury in 2019. And in the days leading up to the attack, it is reported that Livelsberger and his wife had gotten into an argument and he left their home the day after Christmas. On December 29th, he reportedly got in touch with an old girlfriend. Out of the blue, he texted her, quote, "'I rented a Cybertruck. It's the shit. I feel like Batman or Halo.'"

Three days later is when he shot himself and set off the explosion outside of Trump International Hotel. The incident is still under investigation, but at this point, police are saying that Livelsberger used the AI platform ChatGPT to plan the attack. Investigations into Livelsberger's ChatGPT searches indicate he was specifically looking for information on explosive targets, the speed,

at which certain rounds of ammunition would travel and whether fireworks were legal in Arizona. Kevin McMayhill, sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, said at a news conference on Tuesday, quote, I think this is the first incident on U.S. soil where chat GPT is utilized to help an individual build a particular device. So absolutely, it is a concerning moment for us.

Authorities also said they discovered a six-page document, which they have not released publicly because some of that material may be classified information and they're currently working with the Department of Defense to make that determination. However, Sheriff McMayhill did read some of the excerpts found on Leibelsberger's phone, which read in part, quote,

Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we will get into a lot more.

This episode is brought to you by Quince. I don't know about you, but after the holidays, I'm just kind of in a rut. I live for the holiday season, so once it's over, I really kind of have to make this active effort to pep up my mood every day. And something that I personally love to do is treat myself to a little something. You know, I just spent the holiday season buying things for everyone else, and sometimes I just want a little something for myself. But I don't know about you, but I just want to make this active effort to pep up my mood every day.

But at the same time, I don't want to spend a fortune. And that's why I love Quince. With Quince, you can treat yourself to everyday luxury, but at an affordable price. So I have Quince's Mongolian cashmere sweater, which starts at $50. Yes, cashmere starting at $50. I will never be over it. And

The cashmere sweater is honestly something that I think everyone should just have in their closet as a staple. I also have the Mongolian cashmere mock neck sweater, which I love just as much, but that's for when the weather starts to get a little nicer and you can actually go outside sleeveless. I've also been eyeing the Mongolian cashmere fisherman quarter zip sweater, which I think is so cute.

But whatever you're looking for, all of their items are 50 to 80% less than similar brands. So treat yourself this winter without the luxury price tag. Go to quince.com slash unbiased for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. That is q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash unbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. quince.com slash unbiased.

The NFL playoffs are better with FanDuel because right now new customers can bet $5 and get $200 in bonus bets. Guaranteed. That's $200 in bonus bets. Win or lose. FanDuel, an official sportsbook partner of the NFL. 21 plus and present in select states. First online real money wager only. $5 first deposit required. Bonus issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets which expire seven days after receipt. Restricted.

Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has decided to follow in the footsteps of X and replace its platform fact-checkers with a user-based system known as Community Notes. So in 2016, Meta launched its initial fact-checking system, which worked by running information on its platforms through independent third-party fact-checkers. These fact-checkers were certified through what's called the International Fact-Checking Network.

And in working with Meta, they were tasked with reviewing and rating the accuracy of stories and content.

Each time a fact checker rated a piece of content as false, Meta would do three things to that content. One, Meta would significantly reduce the content's distribution so that fewer people would see it. Two, Meta would notify people who previously shared that content that the information is false. And three, Meta would apply a warning label to the content that links to the fact checker's article disproving the content's claims.

What's interesting about this is that on one of Meta's older blog posts about how these third-party fact-checkers work, Meta wrote in bold font, quote,

We surveyed people who had seen these warning screens on platform and found that 74% of people thought they saw the right amount or were open to seeing more false information labels, with 63% of people thinking they were applied fairly. End quote. But Meta has now significantly changed its tune. So in a statement on Tuesday, Meta wrote, quote,

Experts, like everyone else, have their own biases and perspectives. This showed up in the choices some made about what to fact-check and how. Over time, we ended up with too much content being fact-checked that people would understand to be legitimate political speech and debate. Our system then attached real consequences in the form of intrusive labels and reduced distribution. A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor."

End quote. So in its effort to move away from its fact-checking tool, Meta is implementing a few changes. Number one, it's switching to a community notes model like the one that X uses. So instead of using third-party experts to fact-check quotes,

Content, the community notes model has been designed to utilize input from meta users with a range of perspectives to help prevent biased ratings. Meta itself won't write community notes or decide which ones show up. Instead, the notes will be written and rated by contributing users.

And instead of overlaying full screen false information warnings, meta will use a quote unquote less obtrusive label, indicating that there's additional information available for those who want to see it.

The next change announced by Meta is that it will be limiting the processes where content gets removed. So previously, Meta used automated systems to take down content violating guidelines, but they have since found that up to 20% of the content was taken down by mistake, which Meta says contributes to censorship on the platform. Meta announced that they will now only use these automated systems for illegal and high severity violations,

like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud, and scams. But for less severe policy violations, another user must report an issue before Meta takes any action. Now, Meta didn't specify what less severe policy violations are, so we don't really know what that means. However, Meta did also write, quote, we're getting rid of a number of restrictions on topics like immigration, gender identity, and gender that are the subject of frequent political discourse and debate.

It's not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms, end quote. And then the third and final change announced by Meta is how political content will be treated on the platform. Since 2021, Meta has worked to reduce the political content that people saw. But as Meta says, this was a pretty blunt approach. Meta writes, quote, we're going to start treating civic content from people and pages you follow on Facebook, end

and presumably Instagram, more like any other content in your feed. And we will start ranking and showing you that content based on explicit signals, like liking a piece of content, and implicit signals, like simply viewing the content, that help us predict what's meaningful to people. We are also going to recommend more political content based on these personalized signals and are expanding the options people have to control how much of this content they see."

Moving on, earlier this week at Donald Trump's pre-inauguration press conference, he made a few statements that prompted many of you to write in and ask that I provide some clarity. So let's clear up the three comments that have garnered the most virality.

First, Trump said that he would rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. This prompted Mexico's president to then suggest renaming the United States Mexicana America. Obviously, that suggestion was a little more facetious than Trump's suggestion. But let's answer the question you've all been asking, which is, can Trump change the name? The answer is that he can try. And so can you, actually. Any...

Any U.S. citizen, including Trump, obviously, can propose a new name to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, or the BGN, but you have to provide a compelling reason to change it. The BGN will then make a decision once tribal, county, and local governments, as well as state geographic names authority and appropriate land management agencies, have had the opportunity to provide recommendations of their own.

The BGN will take into consideration two main criteria. So the look at widespread use of a different name and historical or cultural concerns. So is the new name already commonly used by the public? And is the original name inaccurate or can it be viewed as derogatory or offensive?

If the BGN ultimately recommends the change, then it's up to the Secretary of the Interior, not the President, to issue the final approval. The other option is Congress drafting a bill and getting it signed into law. In fact, after Trump's remarks, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene said on a podcast that she was so fired up watching the press conference that she told her staff to immediately draft the legislation.

Now, that's not to say that when and if the bill is drafted and introduced, it will pass. After all, it would still have to clear the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold, but who knows? Notably, if the name is ultimately changed, other countries would not have to recognize the change. It would only apply to the United States.

The next comment that Trump made was about taking control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He said, we need both for economic security. So Greenland has been part of Denmark for roughly 600 years, though it did achieve self-rule status in 2009. Trump's

comments about needing Greenland for national security likely stem from the fact that Greenland is home to a large U.S. military base and Greenland's location between Russia, Europe, and the U.S. is advantageous for trade and defense purposes. Now, Trump also said he wanted to purchase Greenland during his first administration, but Greenland wasn't into it then, and still to this day, Greenland's prime minister says the island is not for sale.

As far as the Panama Canal goes, Panama has had full control of the Panama Canal since 1999. President Jimmy Carter signed a treaty in 1977 which guaranteed that Panama would regain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, and at that point, the U.S. would cease to control the canal for the first time since 1903.

Trump claims that this is one of the biggest mistakes that President Carter made and that we need to take it back since China now controls the canal. This is a claim that the Panama Canal authority chief denies. Since Trump's remarks, Panama's president has continued to affirm that the canal is theirs. Now, assuming that the president of Panama was to reverse course and was willing to give up the control of the canal, returning control to the U.S. would likely require a new treaty.

Now, when it came time for questioning, Trump was asked whether he could assure the world that he would not use military or economic coercion in reference to his comments about gaining control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. And Trump responded that he could not provide that assurance. The third remark prompting questions is Trump's comment about Canada becoming the 51st state.

So at Tuesday's conference, Trump was asked if he was serious about making Canada the 51st state, and in another question, if he would be willing to use military force to obtain Canada. He assured reporters that he would not use military force, but would consider economic force, such as tariffs and importing less from Canada. He said the U.S. doesn't really need Canadian imports anyway.

Canadian leadership, though, has continuously stated that they are not interested in joining the United States and would work against it. Now, what's interesting here, so Politico did a little analysis about Canada becoming the 51st state, and I wanted to share it with you. It's a little bit of a brain jog.

What this analysis found is that one of the immediate political implications of Canada becoming part of the U.S. is that the Democrats would benefit significantly. That's because Canada is a much more liberal country than the U.S., but let's look at it a bit deeper. Canada would essentially be a massive blue state in the United States that would add a couple of blue seats to the Senate, about a dozen blue seats to the House, and

and create a large democratic advantage in the electoral college and politico ran the following numbers so in the senate each state always gets two seats so that would be two blue states for canada that wouldn't really change things it would just kind of shrink the current republican majority majority by a little bit the breakdown would be 53 republicans and 49 democrats currently there are 53 republicans and 47 democrats in the house that's where it gets a little interesting

If the House stayed at 435 seats, reapportionment would give Canada 45 seats. And what that means is 31 states would lose seats to Canada. California would lose six. Texas would lose four. Florida would lose three.

New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina would each lose two, and about a dozen other states would lose one seat. Now, because of redistricting, it's impossible to know which seats would flip red to blue or would just stay blue. And also, yes, most of Canada's seats would be blue, but not every single one of them. So we don't know exactly how adding Canada as the 51st state would modify the current congressional makeup, but it's certainly interesting to think about.

As for the Electoral College, with Canada's hypothetical 47 electoral votes, assuming those votes would be Democrat, Democrats would go into an election with 253 seats. Republicans would have 202, and there would be 85 up for grabs. The Democratic nominee would need just 18 electoral votes to get to 271, which 271 would be the new winning threshold with Canada as part of the U.S.,

That would require a minimum of just two battleground states for Democrats, while Republicans would need to win at least five. Now, again, the odds of Canada actually joining the United States as the 51st state, it's not going to happen. But things like this just kind of get the brain going. All right, let's take our second break of the day. When we come back, we are going to talk about two highly requested stories out of Congress, plus some quick hitters.

Imagine what's possible when learning doesn't get in the way of life. At Capella University, our game-changing FlexPath learning format lets you set your own deadlines so you can learn at a time and pace that works for you. It's an education you can tailor to your schedule. That means you don't have to put your life on hold to pursue your professional goals. Instead, enjoy learning your way and earn your degree without missing a beat. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella.edu.

Moving on to some news out of Congress, the House passed the Lake and Riley Act on Tuesday, which will now be voted on in the Senate. The Lake and Riley Act is of course named after the 22-year-old Georgia nursing school student who was tragically murdered by a Venezuelan immigrant living in the country illegally. So let's talk a little bit about what this law says. The

First and foremost, the general gist is that it lays the groundwork for when the Attorney General is required to detain aliens. And just a quick note here, I'm using the word aliens because that is the word the bill uses. I know some people take issue with that word, but aliens is the word used throughout the entirety of the bill.

And just so we're all on the same page, the federal definition of the word alien is an individual who does not have U.S. citizenship and is not a U.S. national. The reason that this bill focuses on detention of aliens is because Lake and Riley's murderer, Jose Ibarra, was previously charged with crimes in New York City and Athens, Georgia. Instead of detainment,

him then, Ibarra was released and was able to go ahead and kill Lake and Riley. So the whole purpose of this law is to say that when an alien commits certain crimes, they must be detained.

Per the text of this bill, the Attorney General would be required to detain any alien who is inadmissible in the United States, either because they're present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, they failed to attend a removal proceeding, or because they lack the proper documentation.

and is charged with, arrested for, convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of either burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. So it's not necessarily violent crimes. Again, the crimes listed are burglary, theft, larceny, and shoplifting.

The bill then says that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer for said alien, and if that alien is not otherwise detained by federal, state, or local officials, DHS shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien. Furthermore, states are allowed to sue the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security if they

if they do not abide by these requirements and they either fail to detain said alien or after detainment make the decision to release. Those lawsuits are permissible so long as the failure to act results in some sort of harm to the state or its residents. So the bill passed the House on a 264 to 159 vote, and as I stated, it will now head to the Senate, which will take up the issue tomorrow.

Staying on the topic of Congress, a few of you wrote into me wanting me to discuss House Resolution 7, which is titled, "...recognizing the importance to access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages."

At the outset, I want to highlight the fact that this is a resolution, this is not a bill. A simple resolution merely expresses the opinion of a chamber of Congress, in this case, the House, whereas a bill is a piece of legislation signed off on by the president and it's enacted as a law of this country. A simple resolution simply requires the simple majority of whatever chamber is introducing the resolution, whereas a bill requires the simple majority of both chambers of Congress plus the president's signature.

Nonetheless, the resolution, if passed, would affirm the House of Representatives support for, quote, women nationwide to have access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, life-affirming, high-quality health care and recognizes the high standards established by pro-women's health care centers consortium as standards worth implementing nationwide, end quote. So the next obvious question is, what are pro-women's health care centers or PWHCs? PWHCs

pwhcs are part of the pro-life movement and they take an approach to medical management for women which quote counters the push for abortion so these centers care for women in ways that do not include providing abortions these centers provide women with clothing food housing baby needs

They provide counseling services and perinatal hospice and infant loss support, abortion healing, well woman exams like cervical cancer screenings, STD testings, mammograms, prenatal care. So pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, miscarriage tests.

support kits, abortion pill reversals, pap smears, things like that. They also provide postpartum checkups and fertility education, as well as infertility consultation. So in short, PWHCs are centers that provide women medical care for just about everything except abortions.

So again, to be clear, this resolution, if passed, would say that the House of Representatives supports PWHCs and recognizes that the standards of care established by PWHCs are standards worth implementing nationwide. But this is not a law. This does not apply to anyone in the U.S. This does not create new standards for anyone in the U.S. or any health facility in the U.S. This simply expresses an opinion of the House of Representatives.

And now let's finish with some quick hitters. President Jimmy Carter was honored today at a state funeral at Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. Carter was the 39th president who died on December 29th at 100 years old.

President Biden delivered the eulogy, but President George W. Bush, President Obama, and President-elect Trump were also in attendance, marking the first time all living presidents were in the same room since 2018 when they were all together for the funeral of President George H.W. Bush.

Meanwhile, yesterday, while President Carter was lying in state at the Capitol, a man carrying a machete and three other knives was arrested trying to enter the Capitol building. 44-year-old Mel Horn of Washington, D.C. entered the north doors of the Capitol Visitor Center but was stopped at security when officers spotted the machete in his bag during his screening. Officers then located three other knives, and he was arrested on multiple counts of carrying a dangerous weapon.

Two of the 37 federal death row inmates whose sentences were commuted to life in prison without parole last month by President Biden have rejected clemency. Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis are refusing to sign their paperwork and requesting a federal court block the

the change to their sentences. They argue that accepting their commutations would remove the heightened scrutiny that death penalty appeals receive. In other words, if they stay on death row, their appeals will be looked at with a closer eye than they would be if they were serving life sentences, and they are constitutionally entitled to that heightened scrutiny.

Agofsky is on death row for murdering an Oklahoma bank president in 1989 before stealing $71,000 from the bank. He was originally sentenced to life in prison but was later convicted of killing a fellow inmate by stomping him to death and was sentenced to death as a result.

As for Davis, Davis was found guilty in 1994 for murdering Kim Groves, a woman who had filed a complaint against him as a police officer on allegations that he beat a teenager in her neighborhood. So for both of those individuals, it'll now be up to the court to determine whether they will remain on death row.

New York's highest court rejected Trump's request to postpone tomorrow's sentencing date in the falsification of business records case. That means tomorrow's sentencing will go forward, but as we discussed, the judge will not sentence Trump to any jail time, probation, or issue any fines. Instead, Trump will receive a sentence of unconditional discharge, which means the conviction will remain on his record, but he won't receive any punishment. Trump likely won't be present at

at tomorrow's hearing either because the judge did say that he didn't have to be. And Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, is facing a lawsuit from his sister, Ann, accusing him of repeatedly sexually abusing her when she was a minor. Now 31 years old, Ann Altman says the abuse started when she was three years old and that the abuse included her brother performing sex acts on her, including rape, sexual assault, molestation, sodomy, and battery.

Ann Altman has made similar claims on social media for years, but Sam Altman has denied these claims. In a statement posted to X, Sam wrote on behalf of himself, his mom, and his two younger brothers. That statement details alleged mental health challenges that Annie suffers, and

and that the Altman family has tried to support her in many ways over the years, including by getting her medical help, paying her bills, providing her with monthly financial support, helping her find employment opportunities, and offering to buy her a house through a trust. He says that despite this, Annie continues to demand more money and has made hurtful and entirely untrue claims about the entire family, but especially Sam. The family asks for compassion and understanding as they figure out how to navigate this situation."

And finally, CNN is on trial this week after it was accused of defaming a Navy veteran involved in rescuing Afghans when the U.S. withdrew in 2021. Zachary Young is blaming CNN for destroying his business when the network displayed his face on screen during a story that discussed a black market in smuggling out Afghans for high fees at the time of the Taliban takeover.

Young was in the business of helping organizations like Audible and Bloomberg get more than a dozen people out of Afghanistan. However, he says when CNN showed his picture as part of a CNN story that talked about a black market where Afghans were being charged,

ten thousand dollars or more to get family members out of danger it crippled his business young says that the segment implied some sort of criminality when he was doing nothing wrong and never took money from any afghans instead he would seek out sponsors and raise money to get afghans out cnn has defended its side by saying young's case merely amounts to defamation by implication and that young had never been accused of nefarious acts

That is what I have for you today. I know I didn't do rumor has it this week, but that's only because I opted to address the rumors within each story. So the most requested rumors this week had to do with Trump's comments about Panama, Greenland, and Canada, and then also whether the LAFD did in fact see a budget cut or a budget increase this fiscal year. So I addressed both of those within the stories. Thank you for being here as always. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday.

Hey, I'm Ryan Reynolds. Recently, I asked Mint Mobile's legal team if big wireless companies are allowed to raise prices due to inflation. They said yes. And then when I asked if raising prices technically violates those onerous two-year contracts, they said, what the f*** are you talking about, you insane Hollywood a**hole?

So to recap, we're cutting the price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month to just $15 a month. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront payment equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds lower above 40 gigabytes per details.