The Red Folder

Archived from May 27, 2024. 

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Domestic Stories

3 key domestic stories for the week:

1) Trump Never Swam, He Sunk Ruhaan Sood 

2 testimonies, 2 hours. That’s how long Trump’s defense lasted. It’s horrible in comparison to over 22 unique sources and testimonies laid from the New York prosecution. Trump himself never testified. As the incumbent Republican nominee for 2024, all eyes are now on him. This comes into even brighter focus as news agencies such as ABC and CNN News have invited both Biden and Trump to debate, with the first on June 27th. Both agreed. 


In his current hush money trial, this may be the only time Trump will ever appear in front of a jury. Trump hardliners argue that his presidential immunity still stands or that Trump IS not guilty. Michael Cohen, the former president's attorney, was attacked for his waning credibility and if his actions were even verifiable. This gives Trump the leverage he could use to win- but the truth is, did he even have a chance from the start?

Currently, only 38% of Americans view President Joe Biden as “favorable”, which may indicate to some that the odds are in favor of Mr. Trump. It’s been realized that Trump can still run for president even as a felon, but even though there is no constitutional limit to his candidacy, having a potential conviction under his belt comes with its own consequences.  The U.S. Constitution doesn’t limit “felons” from becoming a president. Trump can still run, but when we look at his actual chances, that’s when it becomes a problem.


40% percent of Americans believe that Trump will be “definitely convicted” and it’s now beginning to be more apparent. Perhaps the most “uncivilized" testimony of the trial was when adult film actor Stormy Daniels took the stand to act and explain every single detail about her and Trump’s affair. Daniels also admitted to the fact that she was given over $130,000 by Cohen to keep her mouth shut about it. This is by far, the most defining moment for the case.  The jury may find that with her sworn statement, and rudely visual representation of the encounter, Trump is in hot water. 


In the legality, Trump refused to testify against the incident and left the courtroom with a fist in the air. While his hopes may be high, the case could turn into his demise. In the case the former president is convicted, it is unlikely he will spend any time in a cell. Out of 10,000 business record fraud cases, only around 10% were served with prison time. While technically, if he is found guilty on every single count, it would be over 136 years of time in prison, that will most likely never prevail. The closing arguments and finale of the case will occur this week and now, with no testimonies, no arguments, and no defense, his dream of making America great again and keeping himself out of prison is already sinking.


Clearly, the resolution from this trial will ultimately dictate the future of America.


Read more here: 

2) The Tortured Tariffs Department: Biden’s Trade Policy Daniel Song 

Call it what you want, but President Biden’s trade policy continues the shift from the US’s free trade policies to a more protectionist trade stance. Despite the vast majority of Biden’s policies being starkly different from Trump’s, one area where they share some significant similarities is their tariff policies, especially with China. For example, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on foreign steel, and Biden largely preserved Trump’s tariffs on various industrial exports such as steel and aluminum from China. In fact, Biden is taking things one step further, announcing a slate of new and expanded tariffs targeting China. The most notable of which are:

Biden's decision to impose these tariffs is driven by three key goals. Firstly, the administration aims to bolster the US clean energy industry by making imports more costly, countering Chinese subsidies in this sector. This move aligns with the investments made by the 2021 Inflation Reduction Act in US manufacturing capabilities. Secondly, the tariffs seek to lessen reliance on China and foreign suppliers in general, thereby reducing the US's vulnerability to supply chain shocks and geopolitical threats to clean energy materials such as EVs, lithium-ion batteries, and other products. Thirdly, the tariffs could enhance the US's technological competitiveness by decreasing the likelihood of China being the first to achieve technical or commercial breakthroughs in various battery technologies, which could give China an edge over the US. 

Experts hold varying views on the consequences of these tariffs. Joseph Webster, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, suggests that in the short term, higher US tariffs will redirect certain clean energy products to other markets, including China’s domestic market, potentially yielding greater environmental benefits for both countries. In the long run, the tariffs could offer climate benefits by reducing US vulnerabilities to the Chinese government’s economic coercion tactics. However, Webster also warns that China's status as the largest exporter of lithium-ion batteries to the United States means that increased tariffs on these batteries could impede US efforts to decarbonize the energy grid. Conversely, critics argue that Biden’s tariff policies will not significantly safeguard US national security and could instead raise costs and lead to job losses. The Tax Foundation estimates that both Biden and Trump’s tariff policies would boost revenue by $73.9 billion but result in a combined 195,000 job losses over 10 years.

Across the aisle, Biden’s 2024 election opponent, Republican Donald Trump, has proposed a 10% "across the board" tariff on all imports from all foreign countries and a special 60% tariff on imports from China. This policy has been criticized by economists, who forecast that the tariffs would reduce after-tax incomes by 3.5% for lower-income Americans and cost a typical household $1,700 in increased taxes every year.

As the 2024 election draws closer, the outcome of the election will have a substantial impact on US trade and tariff policy toward China.

Read more here: 


3) Uvalde’s Fight for Justice Lindsey Zhao

*TW* mentions of gun violence


Gun violence has penetrated every aspect of American society. Through a shocking lack of gun control from the highest offices in America, we’ve created a culture where mass shootings are normalized, brushed off, and ignored. “Thoughts and prayers” didn't do much when police officers stood outside Robb Elementary school for 77 minutes in 2022 and let nineteen fourth graders and two teachers die in their classrooms. They won’t now. 


The families of schoolchildren shot in the 2022 Uvalde massacre, where an 18 year old gunman killed 21 people with an AR-15 style rifle purchased as soon as he was legally able to, understand the importance of forcing companies to action. 


This past Friday (May 24, 2024), they collectively filed two lawsuits charging Instagram, a manufacturer of semi-automatic rifles, and the popular video game Call of Duty’s publisher of helping to train and equip the gunman that committed the shooting. In the aftermath of the shooting, the US Justice Department report thoroughly rebuked the Uvalde Police Department for their failure to observe the protocols when there is a mass shooting, and for the utter breakdown in command that occurred. 


Now, parents are looking to the root of the problem. At the same time that they wanted to sue the Texas DPS officers that waited outside the scene of the shooting for far too long, they’re suing three other entities. But while the Texas DPS case ended in a $2 million settlement and promises of better training, these cases have already ended up in actual court. 


The case against both Activision, the publisher of Call of Duty, and Meta, Instagram’s parent company, was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday. The lawsuit against Daniel Defense, the manufacturer of the AR-15 the gunman used in Uvalde, was filed in Uvalde District court that same day. Both are being classified as ‘wrongful death lawsuits’. 


Attorneys, including the representative for the 19 Uvalde families Josh Koskoff, claim that these three companies profit off insecure adolescent boys, and encourage them to commit violent acts by expanding the market for weapons and pushing violent content. 


“...[the gunman] was targeted and cultivated online by Instagram, Activision and Daniel Defense. This three-headed monster knowingly exposed him to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as a tool to solve his problems and trained him to use it…”


The lawsuits contend that the gunman, who was fatally shot on site by members of the US Border Patrol Tactical Unit, downloaded CoD: Modern Warfare, as it’s popularly shortened, in November 2021, and had been playing various versions of the game since fifteen. They allege that Instagram created a connection between the game’s promotion of guns and the gun company itself by failing to prevent people from posting pictures with semi-automatic weapons, claiming they valued their profit and attention more than safety. 


“The Uvalde shooting was horrendous and heartbreaking in every way, and we express our deepest sympathies to the families and communities who remain impacted by this senseless act of violence. Millions of people around the world enjoy video games without turning to horrific acts."


That provides little comfort to the families trying to find justice for their children. Still, the subtleties of the case could prove pivotal. For instance, Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protects platforms from civil lawsuits like these if they come from posts made by users (essentially, that a platform can’t be held accountable for their users’ posts). However, the primary issue in this case is Instagram’s targeted advertising, which makes things more complicated. 


Stanford’s Brainstorm Lab found that video games don’t necessarily cause violent acts, and other lawsuits targeting video game manufacturers have failed in the past. It will be difficult for Koskoff to prove that Call of Duty specifically drove the gunman to violence.


On the last entity they’re charging, things may look a little more optimistic. Koskoff has previously won a $73 million settlement for the families of Sandy Hook from gun manufacturer Remington. 


If they succeed, these lawsuits could be the first of their kind to link firearm marketing tactics on social media and video games to actions of mass shooters. As yet another eventful occurrence in the fight against gun violence in America, these families may be an all-important part of making sure it succeeds. 


Read More Here: 


The Equality in Forensics News Brief is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:

 

Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.