Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Morning Run with Amy and TJ and iHeartRadio podcast. Hello everyone,
this is your Morning Run for Wednesday, July ninth.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'm Amy Roboch and I'm TJ.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Holmes and on the run this morning. The fear now
is that the death toll from the devastating Texas flooding
may actually more than double. The search continues today for
nearly two hundred missing people.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Also on the run this morning, President Trump making headlines
in his cabinet meeting yesterday, suggesting to reporters he may
take over both New York City and Washington, DC. Plus,
the Supreme Court announces a major ruling allowing Trump to
move forward with his mass firings of government employees.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Also on the run this morning, turns out artificial intelligence
isn't smarter than a federal judge who called out attorneys
for filing an AI generated error riddled document. Also, your
Sunday sermons may soon sound a little different. Churches can
now endorse political candid and it's without losing their tax
exempt status.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Two minutes and it was over. Diddy's defense team did
an about phase and decided not to push for an
expedited sentencing date. And we are just days away from
the Love Island USA finale in case you hadn't heard,
and teens as young as fourteen now able to hail
their own robotaxis in one city. There are some strings attached,
(01:24):
but curious how parents nationwide feel about this new plan.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Strings attached, but no driver attacked?
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Correct exactly?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Huh Yeah, We'll get into that one, folks, but we
do have to begin the run on this Wednesday. In Texas,
officials are now shifting from search and rescue to search
and recovery mode after the devastating flash flooding over the
fourth of July holiday weekend. The death toll has now
risen to at least one hundred and eleven people, but
the latest number of people missing has jumped to one
(01:54):
hundred and seventy three, with the Texas Governor Greg Abbott
saying that number could be even higher.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
That's right, and one hundred and sixty one of the
missing are from one single county, Kerr County, and many
of those unaccounted for they didn't register at a camp,
they didn't register at a hotel, so it's been extremely
difficult for officials to get an accurate count of the missing.
Hundreds of local state and federal emergency responders are now
beginning their sixth day of going through debris looking for
(02:21):
those who are still missing. And during a press conference
last night, members of the media press Texas officials about
their flood alert system, accusing them of ducking questions about
why nothing was done after that first National Weather Service
alert came through at one fourteen am, and that was
three hours before the catastrophic flooding.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
And the sheriff they're in Kern County, got a little
stern with reporters, telling them and I quote, as I've
told you several times, this is not my priority at
this time. There are three priorities. That's locating the people
out there, identifying and then notifying the next of kin.
That is what I am taking as my job as sheriff,
(03:00):
not what is it the thing robes they're telling what
should they have done to wake people up and how
they talk about sirens, but would those have done it?
Speaker 1 (03:08):
They were talking about why Kerk County officials weren't reacting
to those alerts coming over the alert system and starting
at one fourteen am. Why they didn't then go on
to Facebook. They didn't go on to try and reach
out to community members until the first nine one walls
nine to one to one calls came in, but most
of the official there say they didn't get the alerts.
(03:28):
Reception is spotty and also something really sad to think about.
We've talked about this kids having their cell phones taken
away from them at summer camps at schools. None of
those kids at that summer camp had their phones with
them because they were taken away as part of policy.
But had they had their phones with them, would some
of them have heard the emergency alerts go off. There's
so many, there's a lot of finger pointing going on,
(03:50):
and the Sheriff's just saying it's too soon for that.
Right now, we're still recovering bodies.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
H and that's true, but man, it's going to need
to happen real soon so we don't have to have
another tragedy like this. And the phone thing, I didn't
think about it to this moment, but it has been
huge for me and the other parents in New York
because they require some schools that my child gives up
your cell phone, so if something happens, a kid can't
even make a call to say help me. I take
(04:14):
some issue with that. And maybe in this case it
could have been a difference.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
I mean, I thought about you. The cell phones, Yes,
can be a distraction. I get that for teachers and
for school officials, but they certainly can be life saving
tools in moments of crises. Well, I'm sure that discussion
is going to continue. But next up on a run.
President Trump raise some eyebrows yesterday, that's one way of
putting it, by suggesting he wants to take over and
(04:37):
run New York City and Washington d C. He made
the comments at a cabinet meeting at the White House yesterday,
and a reporter asked him about the New York mayoral election,
which was upended when self described Democratic socialist Zorhan mom
Donnie won the Democratic primary.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
So the President responded by saying, and I quote, if
a communist gets elected to run New York, it can
never be the same. We have tremendous power at the
White House to run places when.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
We have to. Don't know what he's talking about, Huh,
don't know what that means.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I don't think anyone knows that federal.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Government takeover of a Nobody really knows, but he said it.
But here's the thing. Folks didn't stop there. He said then, quote,
new York City will run properly. We're going to bring
New York back. And oh no, no, no, no, no. He
didn't stop there either. He called out politicians in New York,
not just New York City, but also in New York
State and other crooked things going on in New York,
(05:30):
saying we're going to straighten out New York and maybe
we'll have to straighten it out from Washington. We're going
to do something for New York. I can't tell you
what yet. So we're going to make New York great again.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Huh that is a I mean, he's not comforting. That's alarming,
but it's also right in line. That's so it's on brand.
It's on brand, all right. Even though this is this
is also interesting. Even though he was specifically asked about
New York, the President took the opportunity to re up
a previously expressed desire for the federal government do take
over Washington d C, saying we could run d C.
(06:04):
We're looking at DC. We don't want crime in DC.
We would run it so good, we would run it
so properly. We're thinking about doing it to be honest
with you. Uh, okay, DC runs in case you didn't know,
but I'm sure you do as an autonomous district. But
Congress still controls its budget and its laws. It also
(06:24):
doesn't get to vote, which is a big sticking issue
with folks living in DC.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I just came up with another podcast idea for us,
and it's just to have you read Donald Trump quotes.
You get into a thing and you kind of starting
depression a little bit.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Yeah, did you notice I kind of went there? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I did.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
I like that, So, okay, I liked it all right.
We'll continue on the run here now and continuing to
talk about Trump. An administration had a big victory in court.
Not just any court. This was the Supreme Court, and
the justices rule President Trump can temporarily move forward with
his executive order for mass layoffs of federal workers and
(07:00):
to restructure federal agencies.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
The ruling lifts an injunction on Trump's executive order that
was issued by a lower California court. The Justices saying
this the government is likely to succeed on its argument
that the executive order and memorandum are lawful. They did, however, though,
point out the Justices wanted folks to know they were
not expressing views on the restructuring plans themselves.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Yeah, decision here means Trump can now begin to overhaul
twenty one federal agencies and departments. There was only one
justice who provided a written dissent in this case, Justice
Katanji Brown Jackson, who wrote this decision is not only
truly unfortunate, but also uberistic and senseless.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
I like how she got to the point very quickly
and effectively. The labor unions, nonprofit organizations, the cities and
counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Washington, who were
all a part of this case, called the Supreme Court's
decision a disappointment and said that that decision has dealt
a serious blow to our democracy and put services that
(08:01):
the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Can we get to my favorite seword of the day.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Yes, let's do it.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
This is my favorite, absolutely my favorite story of the day.
And it was only a matter of time, wasn't it ropes?
But a federal judge has reprimanded to attorneys in a
high profile case for submitting legal documents to the court
that were generated by a I This is a challenge
of it. What we talk about it on college campuses.
(08:28):
How are you going to police this emails? I'm sure
some of you recognize when it's AI generated and somebody
didn't really write it. We knew this was going to
be an issue, but in a legal case.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
That you're paying attorneys to actually use their own legal
expertise and minds for Yeah. So the judge is Nina
Wang of the US District Court in Denver, and she
presided over the defamation case against My Pillow founder Mike Lindell.
Judge Wang said two of Lindell's attorneys violated court rules
when they filed a motion that had about thirty erroneous
(09:00):
citations in it thirty. The high number of errors prompted
the judge to ask the attorneys directly, Hey, is your
motion generated using generative artificial intelligence?
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
And this is when it gets good, because the attorneys
then give a series of what can only be described
as the dog ate my homework type answers. First, the
lead attorney said he had delegated the task of checking
over the paperwork to another attorney, but then he followed
that up by saying they didn't initially use AI but rather,
and I quote, I did an outline for myself and
(09:34):
I drafted a motion and then we ran it through AI.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
So then the judge followed up and asked if he'd
checked the info after putting it through AI, to which
the attorney responded that he had not personally checked the motion.
The lawyers also told the judge that the motion whoopsie
was filed accidentally.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Yeah, but the final version they said was the right
one also had a ton of errors in that one
as well. So the judge I completely called BS not
buying any of this, cited the attorney's contradictory statements and
lack of corroborating evidence for finding both of them three
thousand dollars. She expressed disappointment of having to do something
like this, but they just wouldn't own up to it.
(10:15):
She said, there was literally no other explanation you all
have put forward other than AI that was acceptable.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
I mean, and then Lindell lost. By the way, can
you imagine you're paying these attorneys who are just running
their documents through AI.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Wonder why he lost?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
That is so so disturbing and perhaps even a cost
for appeal for Lindell because your attorneys completely did not
do what they were supposed to do.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
And we mentioned high profile. Was high profile because he
had gone out there, he's a big Trump supporter and
had cited some saying some defamatory things about the election
had been rigged. Went to court and lost. I think
the judgment was two plus million dollars. He has to pay,
So he lost with these attorneys who were.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Ai in it.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
That is so disturbing. There's nothing else to say. Favorite
store days, My goodness.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
All right?
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Next up on our run, preachers can now endorse politicians
from the pulpit without fear of losing their church's tax
exempt status. In a major shift of the rules, the
IRS is now conceding that US tax code permits religious
groups to be involved in politics.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah, for decades, this thing called the Johnson Amendment in
US tax code was interpreted to ban churches from endorsing
political candidates. Now, all of us, even if you don't
know the Johnson Amendment, you do understand that there are
churches there are certain things that cannot endorse or you
lose your tax exempt status. But this is now a
major change. Why does it come about now?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Well, yeah, you.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Could probably guess a lawsuit group of broadcasters and churches sued,
claiming the rules violated their First Amendment.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Rights, and so a part of settling that suit, the
IRS now says that a pastor or a church is
not intervening or participating in a campaign by simply speaking
to its congregation through customary channels. I believe they said
the court said you should look at it like this.
It's kind of like a family discussing politics, and so
it's the same type of setting. So it's not anything
(12:10):
that would force you to lose your taxis am status
if you're just talking among close parishioners and family members
about what you think about politics and politicians.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
They've been arguing about this for years. Some thought, of
course the church should be allowed to do this, and
they haven't really been enforcing it necessarily. There are plenty
of times pastors and how many meetings do you see
with Okay, yeah, there you go, all right, folk, stay
with us here on this Wednesday morning, Ron when we
come back. Sean Diddy Combs had another day in court yesterday.
It only lasted two minutes. Also, somebody else has been
(12:40):
bounced from the villa. But it's not necessarily controversy this
time and your teenager hailing a cab that nobody's driving.
We continue our run on this Wednesday now with Sean
did He. Combs and his legal team had a change
(13:02):
of heart yesterday and decided not to push for an
expedited sentencing. After did He was convicted of two counts
against him last week. His defense told the judge soon
after that they wanted to have his sentencing moved up
from the suggested October third date.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
But at a virtual court hearing yesterday that lasted all
of two minutes, did He said he now does not
want to move up the sentencing date and instead agreed
to keep it as is. That was October third. Combs
avoided guilty verdicts on the most serious charges against him,
but his two convictions for transportation to engage in prostitution
carry a maximum sentence of ten years for each count.
(13:38):
He's expected to get less than that, but we say
expected to. The judge can do whatever he chooses, despite
the recommendations from the prosecution or the ask from the defense.
We will find out in a couple months.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
All right. We continue on the run now.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
If you have not yet caught up on the latest
villa exit on Love Island. Please know we are about
to spoil it for you.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Now.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
We're going to talk as slowly as we can and
give you enough of a heads up to turn this
down if you need to, whatever needs to happen. But yes,
we can tell you there are five couples remaining on
the island in just a few days until the July
thirteenth finale of the hit Peacock Show. It's almost offensive
to call it a hit now, it is a phenomenon.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
It's a juggernaut. Right last night it was up to
America to vote one couple off the villa or out
of the villa. In America apparently wasn't feeling Taylor and Clark.
So this is probably the first ouster that's made headlines
that wasn't controversial, because there have been a couple of
those in recent days. But this show, in its second
(14:42):
week already had a billion downloads. This is its seventh season,
and now everyone's writing about it, and perhaps the controversies
did fuel some of the interest in the show. Unfortunately,
we do see that happening, but people are interested and
they are watching.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
Two race related exits that happened randomly after the first.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Night, And the question is should the should Peacock, Should
the show's producers do more vetting of some of these
folks behind the scenes before they get on the show,
or should people be less obsessed about being woke? I
mean that those are the two camps saying everyone's going
over board and trying to find and dig up dirt
on folks from ten years ago. These folks are already young,
(15:23):
so we're talking about early teens mistakes. Is this should
this rise to the level? I mean, I think it's
a good thing to be talking about some of these
issues that maybe some people are unaware they are ignorant about.
Perhaps that's a good thing, but certainly the hate has
been over the top and completely uncaullifable.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
Well said, something made me and we could talk about
this later in another episode. I'll be talking about Love
Island with this idea that how.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
What was it?
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Could it have been a good thing to leave people
on the show who have made these awful mistakes because
a lot of young people are watching this and are
learning some lessons and maybe, oh wait, I didn't think
that was bad or whatever made? Could there have been
something to letting them stay on the show something redemptive
about that. Even I don't know, but.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
That is the discussion to be had. I think it's
an interesting one, indeed, because kids are watching and they
could be learning.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Last leg here kids riding driverless car.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
You're okay with that? Would you let your teen do it? Well?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Robo taxi company Weimo am I saying they're right, Yes, Weimo.
It's announced it is offering accounts to teenagers as young
as fourteen years old.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Wow, that's just about a year and a half for Sabine.
How do you feel about that?
Speaker 3 (16:31):
I'll put her in an uber right now. I don't
care well.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
The new program launched in Phoenix yesterday. Here's how it works.
Parents have to invite their teens to set up an account,
and then their teen's account is paired with their parents' account.
Once they're paired and activated, the teen on his or
her own can hail rides using the app.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
All right, So previously riders had to be eighteen to
have an account. Weimo says teens can share their trip
status with their parents for real time updates on the ride,
and parents will receive all the ride receipts. The hope
is to expand the teen program to markets outside of
Phoenix in the very near future.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Now, Waimo says, right, this is crazy to me. It
provides more than two hundred and fifty thousand driverless trips
a week. And they're in Phoenix, San Francisco, La Atlanta,
and Austin. And next year you'll see robot taxis in
Miami and DC. And the company has already applied for
a permit to operate. I love this autonomously with a
train specialist behind the wheel in Manhattan. So there's a
(17:29):
person behind the wheel in Manhattan. This is what they want,
but the car is still driving itself. What we've talked
about this How would this work in Manhattan with the
with the bicyclists, with the pedestrians, with the buses, with
the taxis driving like they own the streets. How could
you possibly have an automated driverless taxi in New York City?
Speaker 3 (17:50):
How do you have a specialist behind the wheel of
a driverless car.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
You're already implying as a failsafe in case something happens,
but like you have seconds to like sometimes millisecond, one
was sitting there.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Why don't they just drive a damn car?
Speaker 1 (18:04):
It's it's something that I think New York is. It's funny.
We haven't seen it yet. I don't know if we
will see it. That'll be interesting to see if I
can't imagine how that would work in Manhattan.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
You know what, our attitude right now we should hear
from the Dali Lama right now because our attitude and
his quote that you pulled for today needs to apply
to us right now. We should be we should be embarrassed. So, folks,
here is our quote of the day that apparently Robot
and I absolutely need to take dark here.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
It is choose to be optimistic. It feels better, Dalai Lama.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
It's that simple. It's that simple.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
We told Joe his birthday was on Sunday during nineties
cities plans to live into one hundred and thirty. But
he has, of course countless quotes, and Rope decided to
dedicate this week to all Dalai Lama quotes, and that
is a very good one. Is very simple. Yes, being
optimistic is a.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Choice, it is.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
You know what.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
That's it's so funny, it kay, when I was sitting there,
It's never gonna happen. That is so true. In the moment,
we all find ourselves going into a negative cycle. Remind
yourself today you can stop it. You can stop that
train of thought and say, what would the Dali Lama say?
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Somebody got up today thinking man today is gonna suck.
What if you got up said man today is going
to rock and I Am going to crush this day.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
It is that simple, yep, And you can you can
have the negative thought, acknowledge it and say I'm going
to switch that. I'm gonna say the opposite because I'm
going to choose to be optimistic because it feels better.
Ain't that the truth?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So those driverless taxis, you do your thing, things are
gonna be awesome in New York and everywhere.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I feel better already and we hope you do too.
So thank you for running with us everyone.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
I'm Amy Robots and I'm DJ Holmes Yelsen
Morning Run with Amy and TJ and iHeartRadio podcast. Hello everyone,
this is your Morning Run for Wednesday, July ninth.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I'm Amy Roboch and I'm TJ.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
Holmes and on the run this morning. The fear now
is that the death toll from the devastating Texas flooding
may actually more than double. The search continues today for
nearly two hundred missing people.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Also on the run this morning, President Trump making headlines
in his cabinet meeting yesterday, suggesting to reporters he may
take over both New York City and Washington, DC. Plus,
the Supreme Court announces a major ruling allowing Trump to
move forward with his mass firings of government employees.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Also on the run this morning, turns out artificial intelligence
isn't smarter than a federal judge who called out attorneys
for filing an AI generated error riddled document. Also, your
Sunday sermons may soon sound a little different. Churches can
now endorse political candid and it's without losing their tax
exempt status.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Two minutes and it was over. Diddy's defense team did
an about phase and decided not to push for an
expedited sentencing date. And we are just days away from
the Love Island USA finale in case you hadn't heard,
and teens as young as fourteen now able to hail
their own robotaxis in one city. There are some strings attached,
(01:24):
but curious how parents nationwide feel about this new plan.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Strings attached, but no driver attacked?
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Correct exactly?
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Huh Yeah, We'll get into that one, folks, but we
do have to begin the run on this Wednesday. In Texas,
officials are now shifting from search and rescue to search
and recovery mode after the devastating flash flooding over the
fourth of July holiday weekend. The death toll has now
risen to at least one hundred and eleven people, but
the latest number of people missing has jumped to one
(01:54):
hundred and seventy three, with the Texas Governor Greg Abbott
saying that number could be even higher.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
That's right, and one hundred and sixty one of the
missing are from one single county, Kerr County, and many
of those unaccounted for they didn't register at a camp,
they didn't register at a hotel, so it's been extremely
difficult for officials to get an accurate count of the missing.
Hundreds of local state and federal emergency responders are now
beginning their sixth day of going through debris looking for
(02:21):
those who are still missing. And during a press conference
last night, members of the media press Texas officials about
their flood alert system, accusing them of ducking questions about
why nothing was done after that first National Weather Service
alert came through at one fourteen am, and that was
three hours before the catastrophic flooding.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
And the sheriff they're in Kern County, got a little
stern with reporters, telling them and I quote, as I've
told you several times, this is not my priority at
this time. There are three priorities. That's locating the people
out there, identifying and then notifying the next of kin.
That is what I am taking as my job as sheriff,
(03:00):
not what is it the thing robes they're telling what
should they have done to wake people up and how
they talk about sirens, but would those have done it?
Speaker 1 (03:08):
They were talking about why Kerk County officials weren't reacting
to those alerts coming over the alert system and starting
at one fourteen am. Why they didn't then go on
to Facebook. They didn't go on to try and reach
out to community members until the first nine one walls
nine to one to one calls came in, but most
of the official there say they didn't get the alerts.
(03:28):
Reception is spotty and also something really sad to think about.
We've talked about this kids having their cell phones taken
away from them at summer camps at schools. None of
those kids at that summer camp had their phones with
them because they were taken away as part of policy.
But had they had their phones with them, would some
of them have heard the emergency alerts go off. There's
so many, there's a lot of finger pointing going on,
(03:50):
and the Sheriff's just saying it's too soon for that.
Right now, we're still recovering bodies.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
H and that's true, but man, it's going to need
to happen real soon so we don't have to have
another tragedy like this. And the phone thing, I didn't
think about it to this moment, but it has been
huge for me and the other parents in New York
because they require some schools that my child gives up
your cell phone, so if something happens, a kid can't
even make a call to say help me. I take
(04:14):
some issue with that. And maybe in this case it
could have been a difference.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
I mean, I thought about you. The cell phones, Yes,
can be a distraction. I get that for teachers and
for school officials, but they certainly can be life saving
tools in moments of crises. Well, I'm sure that discussion
is going to continue. But next up on a run.
President Trump raise some eyebrows yesterday, that's one way of
putting it, by suggesting he wants to take over and
(04:37):
run New York City and Washington d C. He made
the comments at a cabinet meeting at the White House yesterday,
and a reporter asked him about the New York mayoral election,
which was upended when self described Democratic socialist Zorhan mom
Donnie won the Democratic primary.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
So the President responded by saying, and I quote, if
a communist gets elected to run New York, it can
never be the same. We have tremendous power at the
White House to run places when.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
We have to. Don't know what he's talking about, Huh,
don't know what that means.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
I don't think anyone knows that federal.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Government takeover of a Nobody really knows, but he said it.
But here's the thing. Folks didn't stop there. He said then, quote,
new York City will run properly. We're going to bring
New York back. And oh no, no, no, no, no. He
didn't stop there either. He called out politicians in New York,
not just New York City, but also in New York
State and other crooked things going on in New York,
(05:30):
saying we're going to straighten out New York and maybe
we'll have to straighten it out from Washington. We're going
to do something for New York. I can't tell you
what yet. So we're going to make New York great again.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Huh that is a I mean, he's not comforting. That's alarming,
but it's also right in line. That's so it's on brand.
It's on brand, all right. Even though this is this
is also interesting. Even though he was specifically asked about
New York, the President took the opportunity to re up
a previously expressed desire for the federal government do take
over Washington d C, saying we could run d C.
(06:04):
We're looking at DC. We don't want crime in DC.
We would run it so good, we would run it
so properly. We're thinking about doing it to be honest
with you. Uh, okay, DC runs in case you didn't know,
but I'm sure you do as an autonomous district. But
Congress still controls its budget and its laws. It also
(06:24):
doesn't get to vote, which is a big sticking issue
with folks living in DC.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
I just came up with another podcast idea for us,
and it's just to have you read Donald Trump quotes.
You get into a thing and you kind of starting
depression a little bit.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Yeah, did you notice I kind of went there? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I did.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
I like that, So, okay, I liked it all right.
We'll continue on the run here now and continuing to
talk about Trump. An administration had a big victory in court.
Not just any court. This was the Supreme Court, and
the justices rule President Trump can temporarily move forward with
his executive order for mass layoffs of federal workers and
(07:00):
to restructure federal agencies.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
The ruling lifts an injunction on Trump's executive order that
was issued by a lower California court. The Justices saying
this the government is likely to succeed on its argument
that the executive order and memorandum are lawful. They did, however, though,
point out the Justices wanted folks to know they were
not expressing views on the restructuring plans themselves.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Yeah, decision here means Trump can now begin to overhaul
twenty one federal agencies and departments. There was only one
justice who provided a written dissent in this case, Justice
Katanji Brown Jackson, who wrote this decision is not only
truly unfortunate, but also uberistic and senseless.
Speaker 1 (07:39):
I like how she got to the point very quickly
and effectively. The labor unions, nonprofit organizations, the cities and
counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas, and Washington, who were
all a part of this case, called the Supreme Court's
decision a disappointment and said that that decision has dealt
a serious blow to our democracy and put services that
(08:01):
the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Can we get to my favorite seword of the day.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Yes, let's do it.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
This is my favorite, absolutely my favorite story of the day.
And it was only a matter of time, wasn't it ropes?
But a federal judge has reprimanded to attorneys in a
high profile case for submitting legal documents to the court
that were generated by a I This is a challenge
of it. What we talk about it on college campuses.
(08:28):
How are you going to police this emails? I'm sure
some of you recognize when it's AI generated and somebody
didn't really write it. We knew this was going to
be an issue, but in a legal case.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
That you're paying attorneys to actually use their own legal
expertise and minds for Yeah. So the judge is Nina
Wang of the US District Court in Denver, and she
presided over the defamation case against My Pillow founder Mike Lindell.
Judge Wang said two of Lindell's attorneys violated court rules
when they filed a motion that had about thirty erroneous
(09:00):
citations in it thirty. The high number of errors prompted
the judge to ask the attorneys directly, Hey, is your
motion generated using generative artificial intelligence?
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
And this is when it gets good, because the attorneys
then give a series of what can only be described
as the dog ate my homework type answers. First, the
lead attorney said he had delegated the task of checking
over the paperwork to another attorney, but then he followed
that up by saying they didn't initially use AI but rather,
and I quote, I did an outline for myself and
(09:34):
I drafted a motion and then we ran it through AI.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
So then the judge followed up and asked if he'd
checked the info after putting it through AI, to which
the attorney responded that he had not personally checked the motion.
The lawyers also told the judge that the motion whoopsie
was filed accidentally.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Yeah, but the final version they said was the right
one also had a ton of errors in that one
as well. So the judge I completely called BS not
buying any of this, cited the attorney's contradictory statements and
lack of corroborating evidence for finding both of them three
thousand dollars. She expressed disappointment of having to do something
like this, but they just wouldn't own up to it.
(10:15):
She said, there was literally no other explanation you all
have put forward other than AI that was acceptable.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
I mean, and then Lindell lost. By the way, can
you imagine you're paying these attorneys who are just running
their documents through AI.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Wonder why he lost?
Speaker 1 (10:30):
That is so so disturbing and perhaps even a cost
for appeal for Lindell because your attorneys completely did not
do what they were supposed to do.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
And we mentioned high profile. Was high profile because he
had gone out there, he's a big Trump supporter and
had cited some saying some defamatory things about the election
had been rigged. Went to court and lost. I think
the judgment was two plus million dollars. He has to pay,
So he lost with these attorneys who were.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
Ai in it.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
That is so disturbing. There's nothing else to say. Favorite
store days, My goodness.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
All right?
Speaker 1 (11:01):
Next up on our run, preachers can now endorse politicians
from the pulpit without fear of losing their church's tax
exempt status. In a major shift of the rules, the
IRS is now conceding that US tax code permits religious
groups to be involved in politics.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah, for decades, this thing called the Johnson Amendment in
US tax code was interpreted to ban churches from endorsing
political candidates. Now, all of us, even if you don't
know the Johnson Amendment, you do understand that there are
churches there are certain things that cannot endorse or you
lose your tax exempt status. But this is now a
major change. Why does it come about now?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Well, yeah, you.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Could probably guess a lawsuit group of broadcasters and churches sued,
claiming the rules violated their First Amendment.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Rights, and so a part of settling that suit, the
IRS now says that a pastor or a church is
not intervening or participating in a campaign by simply speaking
to its congregation through customary channels. I believe they said
the court said you should look at it like this.
It's kind of like a family discussing politics, and so
it's the same type of setting. So it's not anything
(12:10):
that would force you to lose your taxis am status
if you're just talking among close parishioners and family members
about what you think about politics and politicians.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
They've been arguing about this for years. Some thought, of
course the church should be allowed to do this, and
they haven't really been enforcing it necessarily. There are plenty
of times pastors and how many meetings do you see
with Okay, yeah, there you go, all right, folk, stay
with us here on this Wednesday morning, Ron when we
come back. Sean Diddy Combs had another day in court yesterday.
It only lasted two minutes. Also, somebody else has been
(12:40):
bounced from the villa. But it's not necessarily controversy this
time and your teenager hailing a cab that nobody's driving.
We continue our run on this Wednesday now with Sean
did He. Combs and his legal team had a change
(13:02):
of heart yesterday and decided not to push for an
expedited sentencing. After did He was convicted of two counts
against him last week. His defense told the judge soon
after that they wanted to have his sentencing moved up
from the suggested October third date.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
But at a virtual court hearing yesterday that lasted all
of two minutes, did He said he now does not
want to move up the sentencing date and instead agreed
to keep it as is. That was October third. Combs
avoided guilty verdicts on the most serious charges against him,
but his two convictions for transportation to engage in prostitution
carry a maximum sentence of ten years for each count.
(13:38):
He's expected to get less than that, but we say
expected to. The judge can do whatever he chooses, despite
the recommendations from the prosecution or the ask from the defense.
We will find out in a couple months.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
All right. We continue on the run now.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
If you have not yet caught up on the latest
villa exit on Love Island. Please know we are about
to spoil it for you.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Now.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
We're going to talk as slowly as we can and
give you enough of a heads up to turn this
down if you need to, whatever needs to happen. But yes,
we can tell you there are five couples remaining on
the island in just a few days until the July
thirteenth finale of the hit Peacock Show. It's almost offensive
to call it a hit now, it is a phenomenon.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
It's a juggernaut. Right last night it was up to
America to vote one couple off the villa or out
of the villa. In America apparently wasn't feeling Taylor and Clark.
So this is probably the first ouster that's made headlines
that wasn't controversial, because there have been a couple of
those in recent days. But this show, in its second
(14:42):
week already had a billion downloads. This is its seventh season,
and now everyone's writing about it, and perhaps the controversies
did fuel some of the interest in the show. Unfortunately,
we do see that happening, but people are interested and
they are watching.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
Two race related exits that happened randomly after the first.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Night, And the question is should the should Peacock, Should
the show's producers do more vetting of some of these
folks behind the scenes before they get on the show,
or should people be less obsessed about being woke? I
mean that those are the two camps saying everyone's going
over board and trying to find and dig up dirt
on folks from ten years ago. These folks are already young,
(15:23):
so we're talking about early teens mistakes. Is this should
this rise to the level? I mean, I think it's
a good thing to be talking about some of these
issues that maybe some people are unaware they are ignorant about.
Perhaps that's a good thing, but certainly the hate has
been over the top and completely uncaullifable.
Speaker 3 (15:41):
Well said, something made me and we could talk about
this later in another episode. I'll be talking about Love
Island with this idea that how.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
What was it?
Speaker 3 (15:49):
Could it have been a good thing to leave people
on the show who have made these awful mistakes because
a lot of young people are watching this and are
learning some lessons and maybe, oh wait, I didn't think
that was bad or whatever made? Could there have been
something to letting them stay on the show something redemptive
about that. Even I don't know, but.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
That is the discussion to be had. I think it's
an interesting one, indeed, because kids are watching and they
could be learning.
Speaker 3 (16:14):
Last leg here kids riding driverless car.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
You're okay with that? Would you let your teen do it? Well?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Robo taxi company Weimo am I saying they're right, Yes, Weimo.
It's announced it is offering accounts to teenagers as young
as fourteen years old.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
Wow, that's just about a year and a half for Sabine.
How do you feel about that?
Speaker 3 (16:31):
I'll put her in an uber right now. I don't
care well.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
The new program launched in Phoenix yesterday. Here's how it works.
Parents have to invite their teens to set up an account,
and then their teen's account is paired with their parents' account.
Once they're paired and activated, the teen on his or
her own can hail rides using the app.
Speaker 3 (16:51):
All right, So previously riders had to be eighteen to
have an account. Weimo says teens can share their trip
status with their parents for real time updates on the ride,
and parents will receive all the ride receipts. The hope
is to expand the teen program to markets outside of
Phoenix in the very near future.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Now, Waimo says, right, this is crazy to me. It
provides more than two hundred and fifty thousand driverless trips
a week. And they're in Phoenix, San Francisco, La Atlanta,
and Austin. And next year you'll see robot taxis in
Miami and DC. And the company has already applied for
a permit to operate. I love this autonomously with a
train specialist behind the wheel in Manhattan. So there's a
(17:29):
person behind the wheel in Manhattan. This is what they want,
but the car is still driving itself. What we've talked
about this How would this work in Manhattan with the
with the bicyclists, with the pedestrians, with the buses, with
the taxis driving like they own the streets. How could
you possibly have an automated driverless taxi in New York City?
Speaker 3 (17:50):
How do you have a specialist behind the wheel of
a driverless car.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
You're already implying as a failsafe in case something happens,
but like you have seconds to like sometimes millisecond, one
was sitting there.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Why don't they just drive a damn car?
Speaker 1 (18:04):
It's it's something that I think New York is. It's funny.
We haven't seen it yet. I don't know if we
will see it. That'll be interesting to see if I
can't imagine how that would work in Manhattan.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
You know what, our attitude right now we should hear
from the Dali Lama right now because our attitude and
his quote that you pulled for today needs to apply
to us right now. We should be we should be embarrassed. So, folks,
here is our quote of the day that apparently Robot
and I absolutely need to take dark here.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
It is choose to be optimistic. It feels better, Dalai Lama.
Speaker 2 (18:36):
It's that simple. It's that simple.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
We told Joe his birthday was on Sunday during nineties
cities plans to live into one hundred and thirty. But
he has, of course countless quotes, and Rope decided to
dedicate this week to all Dalai Lama quotes, and that
is a very good one. Is very simple. Yes, being
optimistic is a.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
Choice, it is.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
You know what.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
That's it's so funny, it kay, when I was sitting there,
It's never gonna happen. That is so true. In the moment,
we all find ourselves going into a negative cycle. Remind
yourself today you can stop it. You can stop that
train of thought and say, what would the Dali Lama say?
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Somebody got up today thinking man today is gonna suck.
What if you got up said man today is going
to rock and I Am going to crush this day.
Speaker 1 (19:17):
It is that simple, yep, And you can you can
have the negative thought, acknowledge it and say I'm going
to switch that. I'm gonna say the opposite because I'm
going to choose to be optimistic because it feels better.
Ain't that the truth?
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So those driverless taxis, you do your thing, things are
gonna be awesome in New York and everywhere.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I feel better already and we hope you do too.
So thank you for running with us everyone.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
I'm Amy Robots and I'm DJ Holmes Yelsen
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.