Trump Opening Arguments, TikTok Bill, SCOTUS Homelessness
2024-04-22 00:14:01
NPR's Up First is the news you need to start your day. The three biggest stories of the day, with reporting and analysis from NPR News — in 10 minutes. Available weekdays at 6:30 a.m. ET, with hosts Leila Fadel, Steve Inskeep, Michel Martin and A Martinez. Also available on Saturdays at 9 a.m. ET, with Ayesha Rascoe and Scott Simon. On Sundays, hear a longer exploration behind the headlines with Ayesha Rascoe on "The Sunday Story," available by 8 a.m. ET. Subscribe and listen, then support your local NPR station at donate.npr.org.<br><br><em>Support NPR's reporting by subscribing to Up First+ and unlock sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org/upfirst</em>
Opening arguments begin today in Manhattan, the people of the state of New York versus
Donald J. Trump.
The case goes back to the 2016 campaign.
It involves an adult film star, a tabloid publisher, and Trump's personal fixer.
I'm Michelle Martin.
That's A. Martinez, and this is Up First from NPR News.
As the House passed foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan over the weekend, it tucked
in a bill that threatens the future of TikTok in the U.S.
What if TikTok's Chinese-owned parent company refuses to sell?
And many cities say federal judges are too involved in setting policy around homeless
encampments.
It's led to endless litigation and paralysis at a time when we most desperately need action.
Today, the Supreme Court weighs whether people can be punished for sleeping outside.
Stay with us.
We've got all the news you need to start your day.
On the TED Radio Hour, MIT psychologist Sherry Turkle.
Her latest research into the intimate relationships people are having with chatbots.
Technologies that say, I care about you, I love you, I'm here for you, take care of me.
The pros and cons of artificial intimacy.
That's on the TED Radio Hour from NPR.
OK, so tell me if this sounds like you.
You love NPR's podcasts.
You wish they weren't interrupted by sponsor breaks like this one.
And you want to support NPR's mission of creating a more informed public.
If this does sound like you, then it's time to sign up for perks across more than 20 podcasts
with the NPR Plus Bundle.
Learn more at plus.npr.org.
Hey there, this is Felix Contreras, one of the co-hosts of Alt Latino, the podcast from
NPR Music, where we discuss Latinx culture, music and heritage with the artists that create
it.
Listen now to the Alt Latino podcast from NPR.
Opening statements start today in the New York criminal trial of former President Donald
Trump.
The case stems from the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, and it involves
Trump's former attorney and personal fixer, Michael Cohen, the publisher of the National
Enquirer, and adult film star Stormy Daniels.
NPR's Indra Bernstein has been covering the case, the trials about so-called hush money
and falsifying business records.
How do prosecutors want to set the table about what allegedly happened?
This trial is in many ways about the end of Donald Trump's life as a New Yorker, as he
is desperately trying to cross a kind of creaky bridge to become president.
In his old life, he was a real estate mogul, a tabloid celebrity, a kind of enfant terrible
or bad boy of the city's elite.
It has many of the kinds of characters that Trump surrounded himself with in New York,
lawyers with questionable associations, a porn star, a Playboy model, a tabloid publisher,
and the accountants and employees Trump surrounded himself with who were well-versed, as we've
come to learn, in the massaging of numbers and records.
All this officially got started last week.
What was learned then?
According to the DA, at the very beginning of the 2016 presidential campaign, so in August
of 2015, there was a meeting in Trump Tower between Trump, his personal attorney and Trump
organization vice president at the time, Michael Cohen, and the publisher of AMI, the group
that owned the National Enquirer, David Pecker.
And Pecker told Trump, according to the DA, that he would be his eyes and ears for negative
stories and if he saw them, he would implement a strategy of catch and kill.
Catch and kill, meaning that he'd buy the story and then just make it go away.
Yeah, the idea was that people would come to the National Enquirer with negative stories
about Trump and that Pecker basically would buy the rights to them and then deep six them.
So, then in October of 2016, right before election day, not long after the Access Hollywood
tape became public, the campaign is in a panic.
Michael Cohen ends up paying Stormy Daniels out of his own pocket to keep her quiet.
And then when Trump reimburses him, it's entered as, quote, a legal retainer 34 times, which
is the basis for the 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Okay.
Now, how will Trump defend himself?
He and his team have already been for months, if not years, trying to tear down Cohen's
credibility.
Cohen has, after all, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and lying to banks and more recently
said that he didn't even tell the truth when he was being sentenced for those crimes.
And Trump said in the courthouse hallway last week, he was doing what Cohen, his lawyer,
told him to do.
Trump has said it was his family he was trying to keep in the dark, not the electorate.
All it takes is one juror to hold a reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction in this case.
All right.
Who do we think the first witness will be?
So we aren't sure because the DA isn't giving names in advance for fear Trump will disparage
the witnesses, but most likely the National Enquirer's David Pecker.
Unlike Cohen, Pecker is not a convicted liar and he has a role at the very beginning of
this drama.
The one about the real estate mogul who wanted to be president, his lawyer, the porn star
and some questionable payments.
All right.
NPR's Andrew Bernstein.
Thanks a lot.
Thank you.
TikTok is facing what might be its biggest threat yet here in the U.S.
Yeah, that's because the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Saturday that could lead to
the social media company's ban in the United States.
And because it's part of the foreign aid package to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, which also
passed over the weekend, it's on the fast track to President Biden's desk.
NPR Tech correspondent Bobby Allen is covering this story and is with us now to tell us more
about it.
Good morning, Bobby.
Good morning, Michelle.
So how did this bill come about in the first place?
Well, TikTok was really caught off guard.
It was attached to a large package of aid for Israel and Ukraine.
The House tried to pass this once before and it didn't advance in the Senate.
But this time it is all but guaranteed to become law.
The way it came about, though, kind of tucked into this foreign aid package really sparked
some criticism on social media.
Let's just say, Michelle, some people just thought it was very sneaky.
Now, we've heard a number of lawmakers express real alarm about TikTok.
I mean, some calling it a spy balloon in Americans' phones.
So just if you could just set the rhetoric aside for a minute.
What are the fears about?
Yeah.
Well, the concern is that China at any time can ask ByteDance, TikTok's owner, for access
to Americans' data and could spy on U.S. citizens.
Or China could put their finger on the scale and influence what Americans see on their
TikTok feeds, especially worrying ahead of a presidential election.
Here's how Florida Republican Kat Kamik framed this bill when it first passed in the House
last month.
We aren't infringing on constitutionally protected speech or growing the size of government.
All we're saying is break up with the Chinese Communist Party.
Yeah, and that's something that's become a refrain in Washington.
It's worth pointing out, though, that the Chinese Communist Party does not control TikTok
or its parent company.
But under the country's intelligence laws, TikTok would be legally bound to supply information
on you or me or anyone else on TikTok whenever the government asks.
For another perspective, here's North Carolina Republican Dan Bishop from last month's debate.
America confronts a great challenge in China, and it will not prevail by becoming more like it.
You know, how can the U.S. condemn authoritarian regimes for shutting down social media sites
when here we are trying to do the very same thing?
Overall, though, Michelle, there really is bipartisan support for cracking down on TikTok.
So next up is the Senate.
A vote could come tomorrow, and President Biden has signaled he plans to sign it.
What happens then?
Well, once Biden signs it, ByteDance will have a year to sell the company.
If it's not sold by then, it will become illegal in the U.S. for TikTok to be carried by any
web hosting services.
Apple and Google will have to remove it from their app stores, which in effect would be
a nationwide ban.
Now, TikTok is gearing up to take this to court.
The company sees this as the suppression of free speech.
Bottom line, though, Michelle, TikTok will not be disappearing from our phones anytime soon.
And Bobby, before I let you go, how likely is it that TikTok finds a buyer?
That is the big question, but there's two things to consider here.
The price and TikTok's algorithm.
It's one of the most popular apps in the world, so it's going to be really expensive to buy,
maybe more than $100 billion.
That limits potential buyers and the algorithm.
China must approve the selling of this algorithm, and China said it will not be doing that.
So there's a real question here.
What are you even buying if you are trying to buy TikTok, right?
To buy a social media app without the algorithm is like trying to buy Coca-Cola without its
secret recipe.
Who would want to do that?
I don't know.
Who would?
That is NPR's Bobby Allen.
Bobby, thank you.
Hey, thanks so much.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court takes up homelessness, specifically the question of whether people
can be punished for sleeping outside.
The decision could have a big impact on a quarter of a million people estimated to be
living in tents and cars, and the city's struggling to manage this.
NPR's Jennifer Ludden joins us now to explain.
Jennifer, we've reported on how cities and counties all over the country are trying to
figure out what to do about the growing number of tent encampments.
So how did this issue get to the Supreme Court?
Well, it started with two court cases out west in Boise, Idaho, and then in the small
city of Grants Pass, Oregon.
In both, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that if there is no shelter space available,
then to fine or jail somebody for sleeping on public land is cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment.
Now, the Supreme Court declined to take up the Boise case back in 2019, but it did agree
to hear an appeal from Grants Pass, and a slew of other cities and states, led by both
Democrats and Republicans, also urged the justices to hear today's case.
All right.
So why do Grants Pass and other places say that it should not be considered cruel and
unusual to fine and jail homeless people if there's no place to shelter them?
For one thing, they say camping restrictions are commonplace across the U.S., and they're
needed because sprawling homeless encampments, either tents or people living in cars, are
a threat to public health and safety, especially for those living in them.
But also there are people suffering mental health episodes and drug overdoses in public.
But cities say these court decisions have really tied their hands when they try to keep
these spaces open and safe for everyone.
Thea N. A. Evangelist is the lawyer for Grants Pass, and she says the Ninth Circuit's rulings
have spawned dozens of lawsuits, and they've turned federal judges into micromanagers of
local homelessness policy.
It is doing more harm than good to put this issue before the courts to solve, and it's
led to endless litigation and paralysis at a time when we most desperately need action.
Cities also say they just need more clarity to tackle this really complex problem.
For example, what exactly constitutes adequate shelter?
And what if there is a bed open, but someone refuses to go?
All right, so what's then the argument on behalf of the unhoused people living outside?
They say Grants Pass rules were more aggressive than most places, that people could be
ticketed and fined for sleeping with a blanket or a pillow in any public space at any time,
and that the city's real goal was to push people out of town.
Ed Johnson of the Oregon Law Center represents homeless people in the Grants Pass case.
He says the city effectively targeted not just their conduct, but their very status
of being homeless, which courts have said is not allowed.
Punishing someone for doing something they have no control over, no ability to not do,
is not going to end that status.
In fact, not only does criminalization not work, it makes matters worse.
And advocates say that's because it's even harder for someone to get housing if they
have a criminal record or debt from fines.
Johnson also says it's expensive to police and jail people, and it can divert money away
from solving the bigger problem with things like more affordable housing.
All right.
So that makes me think, then, what about the overall problem?
Right.
More than a quarter of a million people are living outside right now, and whichever way
this court decides, it is not likely to change that.
Many places just don't have enough shelter beds, and they don't have enough permanent
affordable housing.
That severe shortage and sky-high rents is fueling homelessness.
But even where cities are building more housing, it is going to take years.
That is NPR's Jennifer Ludden.
Jennifer, thanks.
Thank you.
And that's a first for Monday, April 22nd.
I'm A. Martinez.
And I'm Michelle Martin.
Your next listen is Consider This from NPR.
For the last 60 years, a transportation revolution has largely passed America by.
A recent visit from Japan's prime minister put the spotlight on bullet train projects
around the country, including Texas.
What will it take to bring high-speed rail to the U.S.?
Listen now on the Consider This feed.
v1.0.0.260408-1-a910ba6_os