Podcasts about Acosta

Contributor; Taylor Lynch, MD Educational Pearls: Thoracotomy  Thoracotomy is used in traumatic cardiac arrest to replace conventional CPR with direct access to the chest. Goals include identifying and controlling reversible causes of bleeding, prioritizing blood flow to the heart and brain, and performing open cardiac massage. Trauma categories Penetrating trauma: Gunshot wounds and stab wounds. Has a higher chance of survival because the injury may be localized and directly repairable. Cardiac stab wounds may have the highest survivability because the defect can be visualized, repaired, and treated with blood administration. Blunt trauma: Motor vehicle collisions and falls from height. Has a much lower chance of survival. Western guidelines EMS must witness the patient lose pulses. Penetrating trauma: CPR for less than 15 minutes. Blunt trauma: CPR for less than 10 minutes. Survival decreases to essentially zero beyond these time limits. Eastern guidelines Focus on the presence of signs of life in blunt or penetrating trauma. Signs of life may include: Pupillary response. Measurable blood pressure. Purposeful movement. Patient selection Thoracotomy should only be performed when the patient has a reasonable chance of survival. It is a highly morbid procedure with significant occupational risks, including needlestick injury. Appropriate patient selection and timing are essential. Procedure Begin on the left side of the chest. Cross-clamp the aorta to restrict blood flow below the heart and prioritize circulation to the heart and brain. Identify and repair visible sources of bleeding involving structures such as the heart or lungs. Perform open cardiac massage as the equivalent of CPR. ACLS medications may still be administered. References: Cothren CC, Moore EE. Emergency department thoracotomy for the critically injured patient: Objectives, indications, and outcomes. World J Emerg Surg. 2006;1:4. Published 2006 Mar 24. doi:10.1186/1749-7922-1-4 Rhee, Peter M. ; Acosta, Jose ; Bridgeman, Amy et al. / Survival after emergency department thoracotomy : Review of published data from the past 25 years. In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2000 ; Vol. 190, No. 3. pp. 288-298. Nunn, Andrew ; Prakash, Priya ; Inaba, Kenji et al. / Occupational exposure during emergency department thoracotomy : A prospective, multi-institution study. In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2018 ; Vol. 85, No. 1. pp. 78-84. Burlew CC, Moore EE, Moore FA, et al. Western Trauma Association critical decisions in trauma: resuscitative thoracotomy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(6):1359-1363. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318270d2df Seamon MJ, Haut ER, Van Arendonk K, et al. An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(1):159-173. doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000000648 Summarized by Steven Fujaros NREMT | Edited by Steven Fujaros & Ahmed Abdel-Hafiz, NREMT-P   Donate: https://emergencymedicalminute.org/donate/   Join our mailing list: http://eepurl.com/c9ouHf

20 07 2026 01 Noticiero Cardinal Movil Omar Acosta by ABC Color

Más opiniones en: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.ultimahora.com

Detención de Ernesto Ruffo

En este programa les tenemos preparados temas muy interesantes ¡No se lo pierdan! Un brote de diarrea por el parásito Cyclospora mantiene en alerta a Estados Unidos. La Dra. Marilú Acosta nos explica. ¿Celos, control o sufrimiento son señales de amor? El psicoterapeuta Mario Guerra presenta Esto no es amor y explica cómo reconocer relaciones tóxicas y construir vínculos más sanos. Las actrices Alicia Candelas y Gaby Castillejos presentan Nuestra Isla, el musical a capella que ha conquistado escenarios internacionales y que por primera vez llega a México. Jaafar Jackson, Anya Taylor-Joy, Annette Bening, Fátima Molina y los estrenos más esperados llegan con Stivi de Tivi, quien comparte las mejores recomendaciones de cine y series de la semana. ¿Los comentarios de Pedro Sola sobre los perros podrían tener consecuencias legales o están protegidos por la libertad de expresión? El abogado Rodrigo Guerra Wong analiza dónde termina una opinión y cuándo podría existir responsabilidad legal. Esto y más aquí en Tamara con Luz.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

16 07 2026 04 Periodísticamente móvil Lilian Acosta by ABC Color

16 07 2026 02 Periodísticamente móvil Lilian Acosta by ABC Color

The missing Acosta emails refer to a nearly year-long gap in the inbox of Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, during the most critical stretch of the Jeffrey Epstein negotiations. According to reporting on a court filing by attorneys for Epstein survivor Courtney Wild, the DOJ had not turned over significant documents tied to the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and had not clearly disclosed that Acosta's inbox had a “data gap.” That gap reportedly ran from May 2007, when a draft federal indictment had been prepared, to April 2008, just before Epstein's state plea effectively ended the federal case. That timing matters because it overlapped with Epstein's legal team aggressively lobbying Acosta's office and senior DOJ officials to avoid a federal indictment and secure the state-based resolution instead.The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility said the gap did not affect Acosta's sent mail, found no evidence of intentional deletion, and attributed it most likely to a technological error. But that explanation has never erased the larger problem: the missing inbox material landed exactly where the historical record needed to be strongest. OPR later concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case through the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, but the missing emails left survivors' attorneys arguing that the government's record was incomplete at the very moment the most consequential decisions were being made. In plain terms, the emails matter because they could have shown what Acosta was receiving, who was influencing him, what pressure was being applied, and how much of the Epstein deal was driven by internal DOJ judgment versus external lobbying by Epstein's powerful defense machine.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Alex Acosta's role in the Epstein negotiations has always looked less like the story of a rogue prosecutor freelancing a sweetheart deal and more like the story of a disciplined DOJ operator who understood the temperature in the room and acted accordingly. As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Acosta was the public face attached to the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, but the negotiations unfolded inside a much larger federal machine, with pressure, involvement, and awareness reaching beyond his office. Epstein's legal team was stacked with former prosecutors, political insiders, and high-powered attorneys who knew exactly how to work the system, and Acosta did not respond like a prosecutor ready to burn the house down in pursuit of accountability. He responded like a company man: cautious, deferential, protective of institutional interests, and willing to accept a resolution that kept the matter contained rather than force a public reckoning.That is what makes Acosta's place in the Epstein story so important. He did not simply fail in a vacuum; he helped translate elite pressure into an official government outcome. The deal protected Epstein from a broader federal prosecution, kept victims in the dark, and allowed the DOJ to bury a case that should have exploded into national scandal years earlier. Acosta later suggested there were forces above his pay grade involved, but that only sharpened the picture: if he knew the case was bigger than him, then his job should have been to fight harder, not fold cleaner. Instead, he played the role institutions reward most often — the man who does not make trouble, does not embarrass powerful people, and does not force the Department to confront what it clearly did not want exposed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The missing Acosta emails refer to a nearly year-long gap in the inbox of Alexander Acosta, then the U.S. Attorney in Miami, during the most critical stretch of the Jeffrey Epstein negotiations. According to reporting on a court filing by attorneys for Epstein survivor Courtney Wild, the DOJ had not turned over significant documents tied to the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and had not clearly disclosed that Acosta's inbox had a “data gap.” That gap reportedly ran from May 2007, when a draft federal indictment had been prepared, to April 2008, just before Epstein's state plea effectively ended the federal case. That timing matters because it overlapped with Epstein's legal team aggressively lobbying Acosta's office and senior DOJ officials to avoid a federal indictment and secure the state-based resolution instead.The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility said the gap did not affect Acosta's sent mail, found no evidence of intentional deletion, and attributed it most likely to a technological error. But that explanation has never erased the larger problem: the missing inbox material landed exactly where the historical record needed to be strongest. OPR later concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” in resolving the case through the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, but the missing emails left survivors' attorneys arguing that the government's record was incomplete at the very moment the most consequential decisions were being made. In plain terms, the emails matter because they could have shown what Acosta was receiving, who was influencing him, what pressure was being applied, and how much of the Epstein deal was driven by internal DOJ judgment versus external lobbying by Epstein's powerful defense machine.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Alex Acosta's role in the Epstein negotiations has always looked less like the story of a rogue prosecutor freelancing a sweetheart deal and more like the story of a disciplined DOJ operator who understood the temperature in the room and acted accordingly. As U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Acosta was the public face attached to the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, but the negotiations unfolded inside a much larger federal machine, with pressure, involvement, and awareness reaching beyond his office. Epstein's legal team was stacked with former prosecutors, political insiders, and high-powered attorneys who knew exactly how to work the system, and Acosta did not respond like a prosecutor ready to burn the house down in pursuit of accountability. He responded like a company man: cautious, deferential, protective of institutional interests, and willing to accept a resolution that kept the matter contained rather than force a public reckoning.That is what makes Acosta's place in the Epstein story so important. He did not simply fail in a vacuum; he helped translate elite pressure into an official government outcome. The deal protected Epstein from a broader federal prosecution, kept victims in the dark, and allowed the DOJ to bury a case that should have exploded into national scandal years earlier. Acosta later suggested there were forces above his pay grade involved, but that only sharpened the picture: if he knew the case was bigger than him, then his job should have been to fight harder, not fold cleaner. Instead, he played the role institutions reward most often — the man who does not make trouble, does not embarrass powerful people, and does not force the Department to confront what it clearly did not want exposed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

En Radar Z, David Ratón  o ‘RAT' Méndez y  Valerie  Acosta pertenecen al colectivo  ASILO RECORDS, el colectivo de jóvenes migrantes latinos en Madrid  utiliza el espíritu del hardcore para crear comunidad y apoyar causas sociales desde la autogestión. Ellos y ellas crean espacios seguros para la música extrema pero también hacen fiestas de R&B y de perreo, demostrando así que el hardcore no es un estilo ortodoxo sino una posición ante el mundo y un movimiento en evolución constante. Con el publicista José Luis Moro hemos realizado dos campañas  de publicidad difícil de vender: "Trabajar en verano es guay" En Lo imposible con el periodista cultural Bruno Galindo,  hemos revivido el viaje de Cortázar en las áreas de servicio y estipulado en La mesa de Verano cuántas páginas tiene un libro para ser considerado un tocho y  descubierto  un lugar donde se pueden dejar nuestras plantas mientras estamos de vacaciones estivales. 

The Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement was always a disgrace, but the unsealed Epstein files rip away the last remaining excuses and expose it for what it truly was: a calculated surrender by federal prosecutors dressed up as discretion. The NPA didn't just give Epstein a sweetheart deal, it rewrote the rules of accountability to benefit one man and the powerful people around him. By secretly immunizing unnamed co-conspirators, the agreement functioned less like a plea deal and more like a legal firewall for an entire network. Even before the new disclosures, the NPA stood out as an aberration in federal practice, negotiated in secrecy, hidden from victims, and enforced with almost religious devotion despite Epstein's repeated violations. What the unsealed internal emails now show is that this wasn't negligence or incompetence, it was intentional. Prosecutors knew the scope of Epstein's conduct was far broader than what the agreement covered, yet they deliberately constrained the case to preserve the deal. The NPA wasn't about conserving resources or securing justice, it was about containment. It ensured Epstein did minimal time, protected his associates from scrutiny, and insulated the DOJ from having to confront what a full investigation would uncover. That alone should have invalidated it. Instead, it was defended for years as if it were sacred text.The OIG interview with Alex Acosta, when read alongside the internal emails, makes the disgrace even more damning. Acosta's explanations shift, soften, and ultimately collapse under their own weight when confronted with contemporaneous records showing active resistance to broader prosecution. His attempts to frame the NPA as the best option under difficult circumstances don't survive contact with emails revealing prosecutors discussing how to keep victims in the dark and how to preserve Epstein's leverage. The unsealed records make clear that Acosta and his office weren't cornered, they were accommodating. They weren't overmatched, they were compliant. The NPA didn't just fail the victims procedurally, it betrayed them deliberately, stripping them of their rights while shielding Epstein's orbit from exposure. In light of these files, continuing to defend the NPA isn't just wrong, it's indefensible. It represents a moment where the DOJ chose institutional convenience and elite protection over justice, and then spent years pretending it was an unfortunate but reasonable compromise. The emails and OIG interview finally remove the ambiguity. This wasn't a bad deal that aged poorly. It was a bad deal from day one, designed to make a monster manageable rather than accountable, and it stands as one of the most corrosive failures of federal prosecution in modern history.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

NotiMundo A La Carta - Alberto Acosta Burneo, El mercado de valores enfrenta una reforma decisiva en la Asamblea Nacional, ¿alertas? by FM Mundo 98.1

Guadalupe Acosta se encuentra en una encrucijada política decisiva tras las recientes resoluciones del Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE). En una entrevista reveladora con Luis Cárdenas, el dirigente de la organización "Somos México" abordó las controversias sobre su registro, las críticas por nepotismo y su estrategia para enfrentar las próximas elecciones. La incertidumbre rodea el futuro de su movimiento, mientras el tiempo corre para definir su identidad antes de los comicios.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The MotoGP Team-Sport-Manufaturer contract has been signed, and it is officially Silly Season time! I discuss high-profile signings of Marquez, Acosta, and Bagnaia, then preview the DutchTT in Assen!The Rundown:- The MotoGP-not-a-Concorde-Agreement has been signed - time for Silly Season to start- Marc Marquez - two more years at Ducati - can he add to his legend?- Pedro Acosta - Ducati scores the biggest prize of Silly Season- Pecco Bagnaia - extra-long deal makes Aprilia...the VR46 Factory Team?- A spec Moto3 Class? Yamaha taking over in 2028, and their MotoGP team will benefit- Assen! My Preview of the DutchTT- The Favorites - Ducati is surging- The Watch List - Is Aprilia regrouping?- The Hot Seat - KTM riders (mostly) looking for a ride- The Picks! For the DutchTT Sprint and MotoGP raceWho do you think will win in Assen? Let me know! Find all of the latest episodes at Motoweek.net, follow on Bluesky and Instagram – and you can support the show on Patreon!Thanks for listening!

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Ducati posle prvog pokušaja građenja megatima sa Marquezom i Bagnaijom, nastavlja da piše svoju novu istoriju, za svoj trkački tim, svoju fabriku, svoju robnu marku. Šta dalje za Pecca, a i KTM? Kada stiže u Bolonju Red Bull?IGRAJ I OSVOJI PUT NA TRKU F1 Red Bull TryOuts: https://www.redbull.com/rs-sr/projects/red-bull-tryouts

Ducati posle prvog pokušaja građenja megatima sa Marquezom i Bagnaijom, nastavlja da piše svoju novu istoriju, za svoj trkački tim, svoju fabriku, svoju robnu marku. Šta dalje za Pecca, a i KTM? Kada stiže u Bolonju Red Bull?IGRAJ I OSVOJI PUT NA TRKU F1 Red Bull TryOuts: https://www.redbull.com/rs-sr/projects/red-bull-tryouts

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Sensitive Content Notice: This episode discusses brain donation and postmortem tissue research. Our goal at PMSF is to provide clear, transparent information so families can better understand all areas of research. While we approach this sensitive topic with care and compassion, we recognize this episode may not be suitable for everyone. In this episode, Dr. Lauren speaks with Dr. Alyicia Halladay (Chief Science Officer at the Autism Science Foundation) and Lilliam Acosta (Outreach Manager at Autism BrainNet) about Autism BrainNet, a program funded by the Simons Foundation that supports autism research through the gift of brain donation. Together, they address common questions and misconceptions and discuss how postmortem brain tissue can help advance research in Phelan-McDermid syndrome.To learn more about Autism BrainNet: https://www.autismbrainnet.org/You can also sign up for the Autism BrainNet newsletter here:https://www.autismbrainnet.org/newsletter/

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

This episode, concept illustrator Fernando Acosta is here to talk all things Disney+ Percy Jackson and the Olympians! Discussion topics may include: finding the right look for Thalia's tree, the process behind concept art, illustrating Polyphemus' island, the brilliance of Production Designer Dan Hennah, and taking inspiration from the books as you go.Check out Fernando's work on Percy & more here: https://www.facosta.com/#/percy-jackson/Check us out on Patreon to submit questions for future interviews and to get exclusive episodes, cut material, art previews, and more! https://www.patreon.com/MonsterDonutPodcastHave a question? Want to contribute your own analysis? Feel like arguing? Email monsterdonutpodcast@gmail.com.Come say hi and check out the sketches Phoebe made this episode on Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok! @PJOPod on all platforms.Find our new Monster Donut merch here!: https://www.redbubble.com/people/monsterdonut/explore.More information on the show can be found at https://www.monsterdonutpodcast.com/THEME SONG:"The Mask of Sorokin," music and arrangement by Dan CordeGuitars - Dan CordeBass - Quinten MetkeDrums - Todd CummingsRecorded, mixed, & mastered by Todd CummingsOUTRO MUSIC:"Shadow Run," music and arrangement by Dan CordeGuitars - Dan CordeBass - Quinten MetkeDrums - Todd CummingsRecorded, mixed, & mastered by Todd Cummings Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories we covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. Jim Geraghty was on vacation, so we heard from very capable guest hosts, including Jim's National Review colleague, Charlie Cooke. This week Charlie and Greg discuss three stories that suggest many on the left are […]

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Pedro Acosta joins us for Chapter 405 of Gypsy Tales.From winning the Moto3 World Championship as a rookie to becoming one of the biggest stars in MotoGP, Pedro Acosta sits down for an in-depth conversation about his journey, the pressure of being compared to Marc Márquez, life inside the MotoGP paddock, racing for KTM, and what it takes to compete at the highest level of motorcycle racing. Pedro is one of the most exciting talents motorcycle racing has seen in years, and this conversation gives a rare look at the person behind the helmet.00:00:00 Intro00:04:53 Welcome Pedro Acosta to Gypsy Tales00:09:54 Inside the Barcelona MotoGP Weekend00:24:05 First Laps on a MotoGP Bike00:28:06 How Quickly Tires Fade in MotoGP00:34:23 MotoGP without Phillip Island?00:36:54 Pedro's Isle of Man TT Ambitions00:40:08 The Growth of MotoGP00:43:16 From Nothing to MotoGP Racer00:47:13 Falling in Love with the Motorcycle00:52:49 Pedro Almost Didn't Make it00:59:40 Work Ethic over Talent?01:02:15 Pedro Acosta's Impossible Last to First Victory01:09:22 Motocross Made Pedro a better MotoGP Racer01:22:50 Pedro Acosta's Love for Supercross01:26:14 Pedro's Respect for Marc Marquez01:32:01 Pedro Acosta on the Marc Marquez Comparisons01:37:12 Pecco VS Marquez: Teammate Rivalry01:42:40 The Wins That Got Away01:51:03 The Highs and Lows with KTM01:58:50 Pedro Acosta's Closest Shot at Victory in 202602:02:53 Alex Marquez HORROR Crash... Catalunya MotoGP02:06:22 Are MotoGP Restarts Too Dangerous?02:07:51 The Next MotoGP Dynasty02:13:45 2026 MotoGP Championship Predictions02:20:18 Where the KTM beats Ducati02:24:06 MotoGP Bikes Will Never Be Better02:26:35 Success Hasn't Changed Pedro Acosta02:34:28 The Feeling of Supporting Family02:40:13 Pedro Acosta Loves a Good Party02:45:57 Pedro's Ultimate Career Goals02:51:35 The Pressure Created By MotoGP Media02:54:40 Pedro Acosta Behind the Wheel of a Rally Car02:55:59 Pedro's Obsession with Motocross03:00:50 ClosingIf you enjoyed this episode, make sure to like, subscribe, and leave a comment with who you'd like to see on the podcast next.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories we covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. Jim Geraghty was on vacation, so we heard from very capable guest hosts, including Jim's National Review colleague, Charlie Cooke. This week Charlie and Greg discuss three stories that suggest many on the left are losing their grip on reality, including Jim Acosta's absurd analysis of Trump's name being removed from the John F. Kennedy Center, the left's meltdown over Elon Musk becoming the world's first trillionaire, a new poll highlighting the huge partisan divide over patriotism, and NBA Finals MVP Jalen Brunson wishing he still paid taxes in Texas.First, they cover the left's obsession over the removal of President Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall and called it “a sign that humankind can stand up against tyranny.”Next, they rip Democrats for their hysterical reaction following the SpaceX IPO, with the likes of Bernie Sanders and Ellizabeth Warren rushing to demand wealth taxes as soon as Musk crossed the trillion-dollar mark. Charlie condems the left's tendency towards punishing success and stifling ambition. Then, they comment on a new NBC poll on American patriotism showing the stark difference in responses between Republicans and Democrats. Pride in America among Democrats seems to be largely dependent upon the occupant of the White House. As an immigrant who is now a U.S. citizen, Charlie explains how disgraceful that thinking is. Finally, Charlie and Greg delight in a clip of NBA Finals MVP Jalen Brunson, who after delivering the New York Knicks their first championship in 53 years, admitted, “I miss the Texas taxes.” Texas does not tax personal income, while New York has one of the nation's highest tax burdens.Please visit our great sponsors:BetterHelpYou don't have to say yes to everything this summer. Find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLNoble GoldDownload the free investor kit. No pressure. No obligation. Just the information.  https://noblegoldinvestments.com/3mlFast Growing TreesBetter plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Wild pig hunting may be great sport, but the grim reality is that feral swine are one of the most destructive biological forces in the American South--and Jody Acosta and team are deep in the frontline trenches fighting them. Constantly. As Delta Wildlife's Nuisance and Invasive Species Program Manager, Acosta is helping landowners combat millions of dollars in agricultural losses. From Delta culture to the hard realities of modern conservation, Acosta shares stories from the field, lessons learned the hard way, why this ongoing fight matters more than most people realize, winning strategies, biggest surprises, how--and why--rules of engagement continually evolve.    Visit the Legendary Brands That Make MOJO's Duck Season Somewhere Podcast Possible: MOJO Outdoors  Alberta Professional Outfitters Society Benelli Shotguns Bow and Arrow Outdoors Create the X Habitat Management App Ducks Unlimited  Flash Back Decoys GetDucks.com Migra Ammunitions onX Maps  Use code GetDucks25 to save 25% Sitka Gear SoundGear Use code GetDucks20 to save 25% Tom Beckbe USHuntList.com   Like what you heard? Let us know! • Tap Subscribe so you never miss an episode. • Drop a rating—it's like a high-five in the duck blind. • Leave a quick comment: What hit home? What made you laugh? What hunt did it remind you of? • Share this episode with a buddy who lives for duck season.   Want to partner? Have or know a story to share? Contact: Ramsey Russell ramsey@getducks.com

National Review Senior Editor Charles C.W. Cooke, who hosts the Charles C.W. Cooke Podcast, fills in for Jim on the Tuesday 3 Martini Lunch. Join Charlie and Greg as they discuss Jim Acosta's absurd analysis of Trump's name being removed from the John F. Kennedy Center, Virgina's attack on our Second Amendment rights, the UK's new social media ban for children, and the elusive details of the U.S.-Iran peace deal. First, they cover the left's obsession over the removal of President Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall and called it “a sign that humankind can stand up against tyranny.” Charlie and Greg laugh at Acosta's delusional take. Next, Charlie and Greg rip Virginia officials for arguing that its citizens do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, despite protections in both the U.S. Constitution and Virginia's constitution. The argument comes as part of the state's defense of sweeping new gun-control measures. Charlie also dismantles the claim that Second Amendment protections apply only to organized militia service.Then, they slam the UK's newest laws banning several social media sites for children under 16. The ban includes platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, and X. However far-left site Bluesky is conspicuously exempt. Charlie and Greg agree kids should not be on social media, but government control is not the solution. Finally, Charlie and Greg express their dismay with the lack of details regarding the U.S.-Iran peace deal. Trump says the war is over and markets are rallying, but the specifics of the deal have still yet to be released. Please visit our great sponsors:Fast Growing TreesBetter plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.BetterHelpYou don't have to say yes to everything this summer. Find support in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLBrooklyn BeddingGet 30% off sitewide Brooklyn Bedding with promo code 3ML at https://BrooklynBedding.comNew episodes every weekday.