The Red Folder

Archived from May 6, 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) A Gag Over A Loose Tongue AmandaLesly Miranda

Donald Trump faces a new threat regarding his controversial hush money trial: the judge himself. Judge Juan Merchan of the New York Court System warned Trump on Monday about the possibility of another fine, not to mention a pretty entertaining twelfth day of the proceedings. The twelfth day of the trial involving former President Donald Trump unfolded with dramatic cross-examination and pivotal testimony, as prosecutors and defense attorneys clashed over evidence and witnesses. The proceedings, which have captivated the nation's attention, offered insights into the complex legal battle surrounding allegations of financial misconduct and campaign finance violations during Trump's presidency.

The day began with the prosecution calling Johnathan Miller, a former financial advisor to the Trump Organization, to the stand. Miller's testimony provided crucial insights into the inner workings of Trump's business empire and shed light on alleged irregularities in financial transactions during Trump's tenure as president. Under intense questioning from the prosecution, Miller detailed instances where he had raised concerns about the legality of certain financial transactions carried out by the Trump Organization. His testimony painted a picture of a corporate culture rife with ethical ambiguity and potential legal liabilities.

However, the defense sought to undermine Miller's credibility, highlighting inconsistencies in his testimony and raising questions about his motives for coming forward. Defense attorney David Henderson grilled Miller on his past business dealings and alleged conflicts of interest, attempting to cast doubt on the reliability of his testimony. The contentious cross-examination set the tone for the rest of the day, as witnesses were subjected to rigorous scrutiny from both sides. Testimony from forensic accountants and financial experts further elucidated the complex financial transactions under scrutiny, providing jurors with the analytical tools to evaluate the evidence presented.

One of the most anticipated moments of the day came during the afternoon session when a former high-ranking official within the Trump administration took the stand. The witness, whose identity was withheld for security reasons, provided an insider perspective on the inner workings of the Trump White House and its handling of sensitive financial matters. The witness's testimony offered a rare glimpse into the decision-making processes within the highest echelons of power, shedding light on the extent of Trump's involvement in key financial transactions and the motivations behind them. However, the defense sought to discredit the witness's testimony, arguing that it was based on hearsay and lacked concrete evidence to substantiate its claims.

As the day drew to a close, tensions ran high in the courtroom, with both sides gearing up for the next phase of the trial. With key witnesses set to take the stand in the coming days and mounting pressure on both the prosecution and defense, the trial promises to deliver further twists and turns as it heads into its next phase. People are complaining about the attacks on former President Trump, saying that the threat from the judge is a direct attack on the former president. However, the fine threat only comes after the tenth time Trump has broken the gag order, which bars him from attacking jurors, court officials, and members of the judge’s family, among other people that may be affected by what Trump says.

Read more here:

2) Pulitzer Prizes Pulling Strings AmandaLesly Miranda

Against a backdrop of unprecedented challenges facing journalists worldwide, the Pulitzer Prize Board announced the winners of the prestigious awards, honoring outstanding achievements in journalism, literature, and the arts. The release of the Pulitzer Prize comes at a time of heightened tensions within the journalism community, with reporters facing increasing threats to press freedom and safety. From the safety concerns during the massive unrest nationwide on various college campuses to the breaking news coming from New York courtrooms regarding the Donald Trump Hush Money Trial, these journalists and press members face hardships every day to ensure that they complete their goals of giving information to the world.

Despite these challenges, the Pulitzer Prizes continue to serve as a beacon of excellence and a testament to the enduring commitment of journalists to pursue truth and hold power to account. This year's winners represent a diverse array of voices and perspectives, showcasing the breadth and depth of journalistic talent across various mediums and disciplines.

In the category of Public Service, the Pulitzer Prize was awarded to The New York Times for its groundbreaking reporting on government corruption and abuse of power. The Times' investigative series uncovered a range of scandals and malfeasance within government agencies, prompting widespread reforms and accountability measures.

In the field of Investigative Reporting, the Pulitzer Prize went to The Washington Post for its in-depth examination of corporate influence on public policy and regulatory agencies. The Post's investigative team exposed how powerful corporations wielded undue influence over government decision-making, shedding light on systemic flaws in the regulatory process.

The Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting was awarded to NPR for its comprehensive coverage of the opioid epidemic and its devastating impact on communities across the United States. NPR's reporting provided a nuanced understanding of the root causes of the crisis and highlighted the human toll of addiction and overdose deaths.

In the category of International Reporting, the Pulitzer Prize went to The Guardian for its groundbreaking series on human rights abuses and political repression in authoritarian regimes around the world. The Guardian's international correspondents risked their lives to bring attention to the plight of marginalized communities and expose government atrocities.

Beyond journalism, the Pulitzer Prizes also recognized excellence in literature, drama, and music. Colson Whitehead was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for his novel exploring themes of race, identity, and resilience in America. The Pulitzer Prize for Drama went to a powerful play examining the legacy of slavery and its impact on contemporary society.

As journalists around the world continue to face threats, harassment, and censorship, the release of the Pulitzer Prizes serves as a reminder of the vital role that a free and independent press plays in a democratic society. The winners of this year's awards have demonstrated remarkable courage, integrity, and dedication in their pursuit of truth and justice, inspiring others to uphold the highest standards of journalistic excellence despite the challenges they may face.

Read more here:

3) The Clock is Ticking for TikTok Paul Robinson

Apparently Congress can’t just write normal laws.

The recent national defense bill, which was earmarked because of its military aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, the first of which has been blocked for months by Congressional Republicans, has passed Congress. President Biden has already signed the bill into law after seemingly gratuitous fighting on the part of the Republicans. However, the bill is not referenced in news headlines as aid to Ukraine. It’s referenced by its far more controversial policy: the banning of TikTok.

TikTok is, for anyone above the age of 30 who for some reason is reading a high school debate website, a video sharing platform which pioneered the shorter-form videos now seen in apps like Instagram, Snapchat, and Youtube Shorts. It is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, which is subject to Chinese law. However, whether TikTok is Chinese is far more complicated. The app does not exist in mainland China, has never existed in mainland China, and, ironically, was banned in Hong Kong for being too free.

TikTok is a clone of the Douyin app common in mainland China, which is unquestionably controlled by the CCP. Seeing the success of Douyin, TikTok was launched in California and in Singapore to serve non-Chinese markets. It is ultimately owned by ByteDance, although several layers of corporate bureaucracy separate the two companies.

So, is TikTok Chinese? Can it be controlled by the Chinese government?

Whether TikTok is Chinese is a complicated question, but ultimately being owned by a Chinese company, it is entirely possible that the answer is yes.

The second question is much easier to answer. The multiple layers of bureaucracy would prevent the government of China from collecting information from TikTok in any practical manner. It is hard to imagine a world where a company based in the US and Singapore with employees who are seldom Chinese nationals would be subject to Chinese laws. It would also be hard to design a system that would deliver any large amount of information anywhere near efficiently.

Nonetheless, Republicans have been pushing to ban the app for years on the grounds that it is somehow an instrument of the Chinese government to spy on American citizens. The claims are not supported by much hard evidence, besides the fact that ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws, and that TikTok must be too. Rather than move to make the app more regulated, Congress banned it from US app stores in nine months unless it is sold to an American company.

Whether this law will actually be upheld by the courts is another matter. There is certainly a valid argument to be made that the ban violates the First Amendment, and ByteDance has already sued to that end.

It is also unlikely that TikTok would actually sell. They know the popularity of their company in the US market, and that a ban would almost certainly be temporary. They also have huge markets elsewhere which could help them in the meantime.

If the ban is upheld, it will probably be a loss for Biden. TikTok is hugely popular among young people, and it being banned will undoubtedly have a bigger impact on their daily lives than aid to Ukraine will. It may hurt him in the upcoming election, as many will feel that he has silenced their voices by banning TikTok. In a world where young people are protesting about US aid to Israel, including on social media, this might gain even more traction.

It is possible that Biden signed this law believing that the ban would be struck down by the courts, thus leaving the other aspects of the bill in place. If it works, that would be a huge win for Biden. If it doesn’t, it will be an even bigger win for Republicans.