UNBIASED (7/11/24): AOC'S IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES, SAVE ACT EXPLAINED, BIDEN POLLS HARRIS/TRUMP MATCHUP

Episode Format:

1. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Justices Thomas and Alito; What Must a Justice Disclose? Who Governs the Justices? (0:37)
2. Congressional SAVE Act Controversy Explained; Can Noncitizens Vote in Federal and State Elections? (9:12)
3. Quick Hitters: US Intelligence Uncovers Russian Assassination Plan, US Military to Dismantle Gaza Aid Pier "Soon," Biden's Campaign Polls Harris/Trump Matchup, Jobless Claims Fall, Inflation Continues to Drop, and House Fails to Hold AG Garland in 'Inherent Contempt' (12:02)
4. NEW: Question of the Day (15:17)

If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!

Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok: @jordanismylawyer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0:00 Intro
0:37 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Justices Thomas and Alito
9:12 Congressional SAVE Act Controversy Explained
12:02 Quick Hitters
15:17 Question of the Day (15:17)

[Zack-Hates-Youtube]

Hottest Lawyer on YouTube. Great actually unbiased news reporting with succinct breakdowns in a timely matter.
The others who are unbiased are usually a few days behind and the ones who are on top of the news are usually biased.
Just found your channel today and very much enjoy your non take on the news.
We gotta get you on Timcast IRL.

[timlee]

But doesn’t the save act push a bit further by requiring proof of citizenship?

[jamesharmer]

You're doing a great job. I appreciate your unbiased neutral approach. THANK YOU!

[jimbtv]

Existing law that excludes non-citizens from voting in federal and/or state elections is meaningless, unless we have a means to prove the status of the voter. Straight from the bill, S.4292, "To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 TO REQUIRE PROOF OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP (emphasis my own) to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes". Simply dismissing this bill as a duplication of an existing law (NVRA 1993) does not serve to educate your viewership. The issue has always been about providing PROOF of citizenship.

[bryaneck]

A company I worked for did not allow gifts to sales employees over a certain amout. That would seem to be fair to require this of all three branches of government as well. Really like your show and think the question of the day idea is wonderful.

[Mortiel]

Regarding whether gifts disclosures should be required and failing to do so merits impeachment, I think the first baseline would need to be established is whether ethics violations of public officials should merit impeachment.

If yes, then yes, gifts should be disclosed and failure to do so should be impeachable. This would see the majority of Congress impeached, mind you.

If no, then no, gifts do not need to be disclosed. Because why bother when literally all of the federal officials are doing it, right?

Personally, I world prefer we start treating ethical violations as impeachable for all public officials... But the key is that it needs to be applied to _all_ public officials. Not just two conservative justices because a progressive in Congress is mad about recent court rulings. Pelosi, Schumer, et al that could be, at best, considered "ethically dubious" should all be impeached and required to defend themselves in court for things like insider trading and campaign finance violations.

That will never happen, however.

[mannyfit]

To answer the question, I do not think AOC's Articles of Impeachment can hold much any water. As someone already stated, AOC was also given gifts. It's basically, "Do as I say, not as I do."

[chipsdad]

Yes Failure to report any financial benefit as a Supreme court Justice or a politician should be a very serious offense.

[veganwolf]

Yes, I think not disclosing gifts should be an impeachable defense, but I also believe in due process. The justices should receive advance notice of the change in the law.

[michaelcavalier]

EVERY politician receives “gifts.” Some are insignificant. Some make our Congress members rich. In this case, no laws were broken, no favors granted.

[KevinCGleason]

As to your question, No, because failure to disclose gifts, of itself, is neither a crime, nor a compromising event in the absence of some connection to an actual conflict.

[amandafisherlmtcptpn]

Thank you for clarifying the SAVE Act. Trying to find non-embellished stories is challenging now a days

[stevencloud]

So when do we FINALLY get to see ALL the legislative branches financials? They have give us the run around for more than 10 years now. Wasn't the Dodds Frank act supposed to fix this ?

[perry]

Hi Jordan, I fully support any attempt at unbiased news reporting as I believe there is very little of it around. Good luck. I want you to be aware that the reason that the Speaker of the house has introduced legislation requiring proof of citizenship is because although it is required that only citizens can vote, the only requirement to enforce that is for the voter to check a box that they are citizens. In this day and time there is way too much room for abuse today to trust everyone being honest on that form. I agree that we should prove we are citizens when we vote when we know we have millions of noncitizens that will try.

[TheGatman]

Can you please explain how we prove only Americans are voting? We know it’s the law but how do we currently enforce it?

[aaronriedel]

Yes and no to your question. If I'm out for dinner with an official and I pick up the tab then....no. If I gift a house or car then....yes. There should be a $ limit for reporting.

[ADR-jm]

Another great report! Specifically, in answer to your last question, I believe it is a matter of scale. Investigating de minimis gifts are a waste of time and nobody is in the business to get a trinket. That being said, vacations, private jet travel, luxury accommodations, and magnanimous gifts would certainly fall under a category that would require disclosure. If nothing else, to make sure that the judge is not giving undue consideration to those providing it.

[jtavernit]

To answer your question of the day, I think it should be illegal for ALL federal employees to accept gifts over say $500. If they do, they should be fired or impeached (including the President).

[kenscott]

I just yesterday discovered your refreshingly balanced and professional treatment of numerous current events and legal questions. I am very impressed! Keep up the good work.
I'm not a lawyer but I have a question about the Trump-Bragg hush-money case that I hoped you might address. In short, I think the entire matter should collapse due to statute of limitations prohibitions.

I observed that Bragg's 3/30/2023 indictment date of Trump (and the associated statute of limitations thus defined) reaches back far enough in time to capture the 2017 financial payments contained in the indictment (the 34 falsified records counts) but it does NOT reach back far enough in time to capture any pre-election conduct (important since interfering in the election is the fulcrum upon which the entire matter rotates and upon which the upgrade of the falsified records charges was based). It's confusing because the unindicted pre-election unlawful conduct (or at least the intent to commit such) was basically prosecuted "by reference" during the trial. But it seems that if the DA set out to establish such conduct he should still have been constrained by the statute of limitations timeframes and apparently wasn't. How can this prosecution rely on actions/intentions (even as underlying or predicate crimes) that fall before (ie outside) the period allowed by the statute of limitations? Why was the NY election law 17-152 not an indicted charge since it is clearly critical to the whole matter?
Thank in advance!

[johnriccobono]

I have always advised some "To think about what they are thinking about"?
J.R.