Podcasts about Acosta

Sometimes, small mistakes make for big excitement. Case in point: Marc Marquez, neglecting to disengage the rear holeshot device, sparks flying as the battle for first becomes an open question. See, there's something interesting about this track and the current set-up of MotoGP and it's got a lot to do with the tires. You might not see it on camera* but this track eats rubber for breakfast. Want to win? Then get in first, close it up and don't try to get away too far because you'll still have miles to go. Want to get from the back to the front? Well, you'll get exactly as far as your tires are willing to go...and then that's where you stay. So when Marc makes that come-back and starts leading the race, know that behind the easy-going facade there's some serious struggle going on. From rubber to bones, it ain't easy being number 1. But can he keep it up? And then there's Acosta, riding the KTM straight across the razor's edge with not an inch to budge. That's some real solid performance, right there. And if you want to know exactly how those overtakes work here, we should probably look at aero and the unexpected effects that riders have to calculate on the fly. Just goes to show you that no matter what changes, MotoGP is still a sport where the rider can make all the difference in the world. Well, Mat and Peter wouldn't want it any other way. So grab something nice to drink, turn up the volume and let's get into Aragon 2026! -----Want more? Visit our website or support us on Patreon. With big thanks as always to Brad Baloo from The Next Men and Gentleman's Dub Club for writing our theme song. Check out The Nextmen for more great music! And additional thanks to flowerhead, who's music you can find here. Oh, and a quick word in regards to sponsors: If you're interested in connecting with a really unique MotoGP audience — we're working with Smash Brand Group out of Sydney to manage partnerships. Curious? Just head to smashbrandgroup.com.au and get in touch!

(00:00:00) Can Marc Make a Comeback? Aragon Preview! (00:00:01) Welcome to MotoWeek (00:00:11) Host's Health and Upcoming Topics (00:00:53) Trackhouse and Tech3's Rider Announcements (00:04:40) Aragon Circuit Overview (00:08:47) Favorites: Martin, Marquez, and Acosta (00:16:59) Watch List: Bizzocchi, Alex Marquez, and Fernandez (00:24:50) Riders Under Pressure: Dalla Porta, Bagnaia, and Bastianini (00:30:41) Predictions for Sprint and Race (00:34:47) Closing Remarks and Future Episodes (00:35:36) Subscribe and Follow MotoWeek Aprilia dominated Silverstone, now MotoGP heads to one of Marc Marquez's best tracks. Will Marc take the fight back to Aprilia at Aragon? I preview the AragonGP, and make picks for the race!The Rundown:- There is a Silly Season show coming - really!- Aragon! My preview of Round 13 of the 2026 MotoGP Championship- The Track - dramatic, fast, and fun- The Favorites - Marc takes on Aprilia, but there is a potential wild card in the mix- The Watch List - Ai Ogura is out, but there are some other potential surprises in store- The Hot Seat - not just the usual suspects- Picks! For the Sprint and the MotoGP raceWho do you think will win in Aragon? 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!

One gun's going this way and one gun's going that way and this guy's like "what do you want from me?"...Nick and Justin step knee deep in the thickness of Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington's unsung actioner.Post show song: LICK THIS, a song from the recently released album HOMER 3 by The Lucky Nightsticks and Friends (Nunziata, Acosta, Robinson, Murphy).  By the way, you can donate to this show in the link if you have more money than sense. You can follow on Insta and on Twit. You can also write a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts!Theme music by Nick Nunziata and Steve Murphy and their many bands can be heard on Soundcloud.

Donald Trump's political problems are getting harder to ignore — and his options overseas may be shrinking just as fast. A brand-new Reuters/Ipsos poll has Trump's approval at just 33 percent, the lowest of his presidency, with 64 percent disapproving and a remarkable 80 percent of Americans now expecting the Iran war to drag on. Meanwhile, Trump's promised quick resolution with Iran looks increasingly elusive: the negotiating period has expired without a deal, the Strait of Hormuz remains a dangerous sticking point, and Trump is escalating his rhetoric even as his practical choices for ending the conflict appear increasingly limited. We'll look at a president boxed in abroad, battered in the polls at home, and running out of room to maneuver on both fronts. Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta may be pulling a trick from Johnny Carson's Carnac the Magnificent when it comes to predictions. Acosta recently guessed that President Trump would check out of the White House early, before his term is up. Acosta cited trump's issues with cognitive decline, a disasterous job on affordability and the possibility that the Democrats could sweep the midterm elections as reasons for Trump's growing frustration. Acosta also said a major event could force Trump out, like if he is caught overtly trying to steal the midterm elections. Military analysts think a big catastrophe forcing Trump out might not be far off if he continues with his Iran plans. We will put it to our Pulitzer Prize winning author and investigative journalist David Cay Johnston. Find David Cay Johnston: https://substack.com/@davidcayjohnston https://www.dcreport.org/ Christian nationalists are gaining more of a foothold in America with Trump‘s Religious Liberty task force and the promotion of laws that would force public schools to display the 10 Commandments in classrooms. Congressman Jared Huffman will drop by to talk about his new book “No Prophets: The Fight to Save Democracy from Christian Nationalism. The book is being released today. Find it here: https://www.amazon.com/No-Prophets-Democracy-Christian-Nationalism/dp/1324130482 For more on Congressman, Jared Huffman, please check out his sub stack: https://repjaredhuffman.substack.com/ The Mark Thompson Show 8/18/26 Today's Guests Links Prof. David Cay Johnston at RIT, Pulitzer Prize winning Author & Investigative Journalist https://bsky.app/profile/davidcayjohnston.bsky.social Congressman Jared Huffman https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2026-08-18/congressman-jared-huffman-fight-save-democracy-christian-nationalism https://huffman.house.gov/ https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324130482 The Rundown- 0:00 Welcome 10:08 Iran and Korea 27:18 David Cay Johnston 1:04:07 Comments 1:05:58 Trump to step down 1:12:05 Congressman Jared Huffman 1:37:51 Comments Patreon subscribers are the backbone of the show! If you'd like to help, here's our Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/themarkthompsonshow Maybe you're more into PayPal. https://www.paypal.com/donate/? The Mark Thompson Show has an official new Facebook page. Please join! Here's the link: https://m.facebook.com/TheMarkThompsonShow/ Show sponsors: coachellavalleycoffee.com - use code MarkT at check out to save 10%

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Kirkland & Ellis response treats the May 19, 2008 letter from the Southern District of Florida's First Assistant U.S. Attorney not as a good-faith summary, but as a document that actively distorts the historical record of the Epstein investigation. The firm argues that the letter is riddled with contradictions, misleading framing, and outright falsehoods that cannot be chalked up to sloppy drafting or innocent error. Rather than accurately recounting investigative decisions, the letter is portrayed as a post-hoc justification designed to sanitize prosecutorial conduct after the fact. Kirkland & Ellis makes clear that the document attempts to reshape reality—presenting disputed actions as settled facts and glossing over decisions that directly benefited Epstein.Critically, the response emphasizes that the letter's defects are not marginal or technical, but foundational, calling into question the integrity of the government's entire narrative. By systematically comparing the letter's assertions with what actually occurred, Kirkland & Ellis suggests that the misrepresentations were deliberate and strategic, intended to create a paper trail that could withstand scrutiny rather than reflect truth. The firm characterizes the letter as emblematic of how the Epstein case was managed from start to finish: facts were selectively presented, inconvenient details were omitted or reframed, and the official record was bent to support an outcome already decided. In this view, the May 19 letter is not merely inaccurate—it is itself evidence of how the Epstein investigation was manipulated and why accountability was avoided.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00013801.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

GLPs are everywhere right now — but do you actually know what they are or what they do? In this episode I break down the reality of GLP-1, what it is, how it works, and how your body already has the natural ability to activate it through a fasting-focused lifestyle. Whether you're considering the shot or just curious about how it all works, this episode gives you the full picture so you can make the best decision for your health and future. _____ Are you ready for real, compassionate support on your fasting journey from someone who has actually lived it? I've shed over 200 pounds through fasting and have maintained it through some of the hardest seasons of life. If you're tired of doing this alone, you don't have to anymore. Come find your people: The Fasting Support Club _____ REFERENCES Habener, J.F. (2004). The discovery of glucagon-like peptide 1. ScienceDirect — Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. Retrieved from sciencedirect.com Mass General Brigham Newsroom. (2025). Joel Habener receives Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences for contributions to GLP-1 medications. Retrieved from massgeneralbrigham.org Journal of Clinical Investigation. (2024). Joel Habener, Svetlana Mojsov, and Lotte Bjerre Knudsen awarded Lasker Prize for pioneering work on GLP-1. Retrieved from jci.org Eng, J. (1992). Discovery of exendin-4 in Gila monster venom. VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY. Referenced in: PlexusDx. (2026). History of GLP-1 drugs: Complete timeline from exenatide to tirzepatide. Retrieved from plexusdx.com Fella Health. (2025). What is GLP-1 lizard venom: Gila monster discovery to diabetes drugs. Retrieved from fellahealth.com U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2005). Approval of exenatide (Byetta) for type 2 diabetes. FDA Drug Approval Database. Acosta, A. & Ghusn, W. (2023). Semaglutide shown to be effective for weight loss in multicentre, one-year real-world study. European Congress on Obesity (ECO2023). Presented by Precision Medicine for Obesity Program, Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from eurekalert.org Mayo Clinic Press. (2026). Health benefits of semaglutide beyond weight loss. Retrieved from mcpress.mayoclinic.org National Institutes of Health / NCBI. (2024). Patient perceptions of Ozempic (semaglutide) for weight loss: Mixed methods analysis of online medication reviews. Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov National Institutes of Health / NCBI. (2024). Evaluation of pre-treatment assessment of semaglutide users: Balancing the benefits of weight loss vs. potential health consequences. Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Fung, J. (2016). The Obesity Code: Unlocking the secrets of weight loss. Greystone Books. Fung, J. (2025). The Hunger Code: Resetting your body's fat thermostat in the age of ultra-processed food. Greystone Books.

EPISODE DESCRIPTION In this episode, host Steve Tinnelly sits down with Ramona Acosta to discuss CAM University, a professional training and development program that guides community managers from obtaining their CMCA certification to maintaining it. CAM University leverages Tinnelly Law Group's legal and industry expertise in HOA Law to provide this one-of-a-kind program was designed with the MANAGER in mind. KEY POINTS First California edition of a prerequisite course that complies with state certification requirements Approved by CAMICB as a prerequisite course for the CMCA designation California education + national certification = personalized learning on topics like: Budgets and reserves Governance and legal issues HR management Meetings and operations Property maintenance Ethics and more Approved alternative to CAI's M100 California Edition Earn your CMCA with California based instruction in less time and at a lower cost Pass your exam with CMCA Study Group Maintain your CMCA with over 27 hours of on-demand CEUs Explore the CAM University virtual campus here: camuniversity.org ABOUT OUR GUESTS Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq. is the Managing Partner of Tinnelly Law Group. He is known for his exceptional writing, analytical and negotiation skills, and providing general counsel representation to many of the firm's larger HOA clients throughout the state. Mr. Tinnelly is very active within the community association industry and devotes a substantial amount of time to educating homeowners and industry professionals about the legal issues affecting California community associations. Read more Ramona Acosta, PCAM is the Director of Operations & Business Development for Tinnelly Law Group. Ms. Acosta directs and manages the firm's business development, marketing, public relations, and client relationship management efforts. Her success as a community manager and management company executive, coupled with her extensive knowledge of the California laws pertaining to HOAs, provides significant value to our clients and the professionals who manage them. Read more

Alex Acosta has spent years being framed as the singular architect of Jeffrey Epstein's extraordinary 2007 non-prosecution agreement, largely because he was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida when the deal was negotiated. There is certainly justification for holding Acosta responsible: the Justice Department's own Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that he made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea, participated in developing or approving the initial proposal, knew the terms of the NPA and ultimately approved it. OPR later criticized Acosta for exercising poor judgment, particularly because the agreement ended the federal investigation before significant investigative steps had been completed and contained several unusual provisions. But describing the entire episode simply as “Acosta's deal” risks obscuring the much larger institutional picture. The NPA was a federal agreement entered into by the United States Attorney's Office, and Acosta himself did not personally sign the document; Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafaña signed it on behalf of the U.S. Attorney. More importantly, the Epstein matter was not occurring in isolation from the Department of Justice hierarchy in Washington, and the negotiations and ultimate resolution became the subject of consultation and review beyond one prosecutor sitting in South Florida. Acosta therefore deserves scrutiny, but the historical shorthand that places the entire agreement at his feet can make a Department-wide failure look like the decision of one rogue U.S. attorney.That distinction matters because the Epstein NPA was an agreement made in the name of the federal government, not a private arrangement that Acosta could somehow manufacture outside the Justice Department. The documentary record shows that multiple federal prosecutors participated in developing, negotiating and implementing the resolution, while senior Justice Department officials were aware of the dispute surrounding the proposed federal prosecution. Acosta later portrayed himself as having faced pressure and consultation from above, and questions have long persisted about what Main Justice officials knew, what guidance they provided and why Washington never intervened to demand a federal prosecution despite an FBI investigation identifying numerous potential victims. What the public record supports most clearly is that Acosta approved the NPA and bears substantial responsibility for it; what it does not support is reducing the entire episode to Acosta alone while treating the rest of the Justice Department as uninvolved spectators. Even DOJ's own OPR investigation examined five federal prosecutors involved in the decision-making rather than treating Acosta as the sole actor. The more accurate way to understand the NPA is therefore as an institutional Justice Department resolution implemented through the Southern District of Florida, with Acosta occupying an important leadership role but operating within a much larger federal apparatus. Focusing exclusively on Acosta has had the convenient effect of concentrating accountability on one recognizable name while leaving much harder questions about Main Justice, departmental oversight and the federal government's collective decision to abandon its Epstein prosecution far less examined.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The conversation surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and possible ties to intelligence has existed for years because of the people he associated with, the way he operated and the extraordinary protection he appeared to receive. One of the biggest reasons for the speculation came from journalist Vicky Ward, who reported that Alexander Acosta allegedly told members of the Trump transition team that he had been instructed to back off Epstein because Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” That claim was never publicly confirmed by Acosta, but it immediately raised questions about whether Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement was connected to something bigger than ordinary prosecutorial discretion. Epstein also surrounded himself with politicians, billionaires, diplomats and powerful international figures while reportedly maintaining extensive surveillance systems inside some of his properties. Those circumstances fueled allegations that Epstein may have been collecting compromising information on influential people. The intelligence discussion was further intensified by Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, who had long been linked in reporting to various intelligence services, particularly Israeli intelligence, as well as Epstein's close relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

“It's very important that we expose this work early on, so that people from different cultures see ballet as a way of a career. But in the 1990s or 2000s, it was pretty much closed, we didn't have - even in school - a lot of black ballet dancers from which to choose from. But now, obviously, things have moved on. Now, diversity is at the top of every director's agenda… it's great that we've seen a big shift and we see the right kind of representation of the world as we have it today, on stage.”Michael Berkeley speaks to ballet star Carlos Acosta about his life and career.Born in 1973, Acosta grew up in a poor part of Havana, where he was the 11th child in a very large family.He began training at the National Ballet School of Cuba at 9 years old, and quickly rose to prominence. At 18, he became the youngest principal dancer at the English National Ballet.After gaining further international experience, Acosta joined the Royal Ballet in 1998 - making it his home for nearly two decades, and performing every major classical role. Such was his impact, in 2014 he received a CBE in Queen Elizabeth's honours list for services to ballet.Now the Director of Birmingham Royal Ballet, he's fostered some unexpected collaborations, including a show based on the music of the city's heavy rock legends Black Sabbath, as well as classics like Swan Lake and the Nutcracker.Thank you to the Private Passions team for their help in making this programme. The Interview brings you conversations with people shaping our world, from all over the world. The best interviews from the BBC, including episodes with Oscar-winning filmmaker Sir Christopher Nolan, music icon Chaka Khan, and artist Tracey Emin. You can listen on the BBC World Service on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 0800 GMT. Or you can listen to The Interview as a podcast, out three times a week on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts. Presenter: Michael Berkeley Producers: Ben Cooper and Clare Walker Editor: Damon RoseGet in touch with us on email TheInterview@bbc.co.uk and use the hashtag #TheInterviewBBC on social media.(Image: Carlos Acosta. Credit: Tolga Akmen/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)

Kenneth Starr's email to Mark Filip wasn't just a lawyer whining about aggressive prosecutors—it was a calculated appeal to the very power center that ultimately let Epstein walk. Starr complained bitterly that the Florida team was digging too hard and treating Epstein like an actual criminal instead of the elite figure his defense team believed he was. What Starr was really doing was pressuring Filip—one of the highest-ranking officials in the Department of Justice—to step in and shut down a legitimate investigation. And the troubling part is that the email landed exactly where Epstein's legal machine wanted it: at the top of Main Justice, the same place that would go on to bless the non-prosecution agreement. The narrative that Alex Acosta “acted alone” collapses under the weight of communications like this. Starr wasn't appealing to Acosta. He was appealing above him—because that's where the real decision-making power sat.Filip's role in all this is even more damning when you consider the final outcome. DOJ headquarters didn't just look the other way—they authorized the sweetheart deal. They were the backstop that allowed Epstein's legal team to bypass federal prosecutors who wanted to charge Epstein with crimes carrying real prison time. Filip didn't just receive the email; Main Justice effectively delivered what Epstein's lawyers asked for. The infamous non-prosecution agreement wasn't Acosta freelancing—it was Washington signing off. The email illustrates how Epstein's team successfully moved the fight out of Florida and into D.C., where connections, prestige, and pressure carried far more weight than the testimony of dozens of abused children. Filip and Main Justice weren't bystanders—they were the reason the deal happened.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.22_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Kenneth Starr's email to Mark Filip wasn't just a lawyer whining about aggressive prosecutors—it was a calculated appeal to the very power center that ultimately let Epstein walk. Starr complained bitterly that the Florida team was digging too hard and treating Epstein like an actual criminal instead of the elite figure his defense team believed he was. What Starr was really doing was pressuring Filip—one of the highest-ranking officials in the Department of Justice—to step in and shut down a legitimate investigation. And the troubling part is that the email landed exactly where Epstein's legal machine wanted it: at the top of Main Justice, the same place that would go on to bless the non-prosecution agreement. The narrative that Alex Acosta “acted alone” collapses under the weight of communications like this. Starr wasn't appealing to Acosta. He was appealing above him—because that's where the real decision-making power sat.Filip's role in all this is even more damning when you consider the final outcome. DOJ headquarters didn't just look the other way—they authorized the sweetheart deal. They were the backstop that allowed Epstein's legal team to bypass federal prosecutors who wanted to charge Epstein with crimes carrying real prison time. Filip didn't just receive the email; Main Justice effectively delivered what Epstein's lawyers asked for. The infamous non-prosecution agreement wasn't Acosta freelancing—it was Washington signing off. The email illustrates how Epstein's team successfully moved the fight out of Florida and into D.C., where connections, prestige, and pressure carried far more weight than the testimony of dozens of abused children. Filip and Main Justice weren't bystanders—they were the reason the deal happened.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.22_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Há palavras que o poder aprendeu a tolerar: sustentabilidade, transição, economia verde. Ele as repete em cúpulas climáticas, as imprime em relatórios corporativos e as financia com mercados de carbono. Enquanto isso, a Amazônia arde. No oitavo episódio da série Utopias Amazônicas: Conversas com os Autores, o LatitudeCast recebe o economista e ativista equatoriano Alberto Acosta. Ex-ministro de Energia e Minas e ex-presidente da Assembleia Constitinte do Equador — onde contribuiu para inscrever, pela primeira vez na história, os Direitos da Natureza em uma Constituição —, Acosta é autor de uma das obras mais influentes do pensamento latino-americano contemporâneo: O Bem Viver: uma oportunidade para imaginar outros mundos. No livro Utopias Amazônicas, Acosta assina o ensaio “A Amazônia na armadilha do progresso: violência, resistência, transformações, utopias”, abrindo seu texto com o anjo da história de Walter Benjamin para mostrar que o progresso não é uma promessa, mas uma catástrofe que acumula ruínas. Conversamos sobre a ilusão do desenvolvimento sustentável, o extrativismo que sobrevivera a governos neoliberais e progressistas, a violência como condição estrutural do capital, a proposta Waorani e Kichwa do Kawsak Sacha (Selva Viva) e a urgência de "yasunizar" o mundo para desmercantilizar a vida. Utopia não é um sonho distante. É a coragem de incomodar o poder, abandonar a religião do crescimento econômico e construir alternativas reais de existência em harmonia com a Terra.

Episodio 363 de Máximo Desempeño con el futbolista profesional, Felipe Acosta.Felipe es el futbolista al revés. No creció con hambre sino con privilegios, y cuando dijo que quería ser profesional le respondieron que para qué, si no lo necesitaba, que el fútbol no era para los gomelos. Se empeñó igual. Y lo que siguió fueron doce años durísimos: equipos que no pagaban, jugar sin salario, lesiones que él mismo agravó por no saber parar.En esta conversación no hablamos de mentalidad ganadora. Hablamos de lo contrario: de cómo la disciplina y la terquedad que le enseñaron como virtudes fueron también lo que lo rompió, y de cómo tuvo que desarmar la creencia que lo había movido toda la vida —que valía por lo que rendía. Hablamos de los ocho meses sin equipo que resultaron ser lo mejor que le pasó, y de una pregunta que le hago sin anestesia: si su paz de hoy es real, o es una nueva armadura.Si alguna vez sentiste que vales por lo que haces bien, este episodio es para ti.Cambia cómo ves. Todo lo demás sigue.

The article describes a heated confrontation between journalists at a Substack party following the White House Correspondents' Dinner, where tensions escalated over coverage related to Jeffrey Epstein. Former CNN journalist Jim Acosta and independent reporter Michael Tracey clashed after Acosta accused Tracey of aggressively confronting and “bullying” Epstein investigator Julie K. Brown. Tracey later claimed on social media that Acosta challenged him to a fight, allegedly telling him to “step outside,” and said he would have followed through if security hadn't intervened.The situation spiraled further online, with Tracey continuing to taunt Acosta and even inviting him to meet outside a hotel to continue the altercation. Acosta pushed back, accusing Tracey of harassing behavior toward Brown and saying multiple people, including security, had to step in to protect her. Brown herself supported that account, stating that Tracey had been yelling at her and physically blocking her from leaving the event, and credited Acosta and others for interveningto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Step outside': Journalists almost come to blows over EpsteinBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

En este programa les tenemos preparados temas muy interesantes ¡No se lo pierdan! Series, películas y entrevistas exclusivas. Stivi de Tivi trae las recomendaciones de la semana con La Banda, Soy Luna, Un Hijo Propio y La Negociación. ¿Preguntar por el historial sexual de tu pareja genera confianza o problemas? Irene Moreno habla sobre límites, honestidad y qué información realmente importa en una relación. En el Día Mundial contra la Hepatitis, la Dra. Marilú Acosta nos explica por qué esta enfermedad puede pasar desapercibida durante años, cómo detectarla a tiempo y qué medidas ayudan a prevenirla. Esto y más aquí en Tamara con Luz.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Los temas del "cafecito informativo" de este lunes 27 de julio de 2026: El corralito financiero ahogó el turismo en Cuba Llevan más de dos meses sin salario en una sala de concierto Una plaga de chinches azota La Habana Proyección de ‘Amigos' y conversación con Iván Acosta

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:The boys discuss the President's cedy performance at the White House Correspondents dinner, the left rooting against Ameirca, and Chinese fighting robots. 

En este episodio conversamos con Marco Acosta, candidato a doctorado en Economía por la Universidad de Indiana, quien nos comparte cómo la inteligencia artificial y las nuevas tecnologías están cambiando la forma en que aprendemos, enseñamos y nos preparamos para el mercado laboral. Durante la entrevista hablamos sobre: El impacto de la inteligencia artificial en …

Our featured guests are Stadium Man Tarri Haina and Orlando Acosta of Gourmet Wood Products. Joining us as special guest co-hosts are Doug Scheiding and Chef Ray Sheehan for conversations about baseball road trips, ballpark experiences, premium cooking wood, and great barbecue on episode 353. Tarri Haina, known throughout the baseball community as Stadium Man, is one of baseball's most passionate ballpark travelers. He's known for documenting his visits to Major League Baseball stadiums, sharing travel tips, unique stadium experiences, and celebrating baseball culture through social media and appearances on baseball podcasts. He has become a recognizable voice among fans who pursue the dream of visiting every MLB ballpark.  Joining Jeff for this discussion is guest co-host Doug Scheiding. Orlando Acosta is a barbecue professional and brand representative for Gourmet Wood Products, a family-owned company that has been producing premium hardwood cooking fuel since 1982. Based in Texas, the company specializes in kiln-dried cooking wood for restaurants, competition barbecue teams, and backyard pitmasters. Orlando's passion is educating cooks on how the right wood can elevate barbecue by improving flavor, consistency, and fire management. Joining us for this discussion is guest co-host Chef Ray Sheehan.  Go to https://www.gourmetwood.com/ for more information We recommend you go to Rogue Cookers website, https://roguecookers.com/ for award-winning rubs, Chef Ray Sheehan's website, https://www.raysheehan.com/ for award-winning saucess, rubs, and cookbooks, Baseball BBQ, https://baseballbbq.com for special grilling tools and accessories, Magnechef https://magnechef.com/ for excellent and unique barbecue gloves,  Mantis BBQ, https://mantisbbq.com/ to purchase their outstanding sauces with a portion of the proceeds being donated to the Kidney Project, and for exceptional sauces, Elda's Kitchen https://eldaskitchen.com/ To team up against prostate cancer go to https://fansforthecure.org/ for Fans for the Cure, and to subscribe to Bill Chuck's newsletter, Billy-Ball go to  https://billchuck.substack.com/    We conclude the show with the song, Baseball Always Brings You Home from the musician, Dave Dresser and the poet, Shel Krakofsky. If you would like to contact the show, we would love to hear from you. Call the show:  (516) 855-8214 Email:  baseballandbbq@gmail.com Twitter:  @baseballandbbq Instagram:  baseballandbarbecue YouTube:  baseball and bbq Website:  https//baseballandbbq.weebly.com Facebook:  baseball and bbq         Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sean Calvert previews all the betting angles in the key Second Round matches at the ATP Kitzbuhel and ATP Estoril tournaments. Court conditions, player props, betting trends, best bets and value plays are analyzed and evaluated. All your ATP match predictions for Tuesday are right here. 00:00 Sean Previews Round 2 Matches 01:02 ATP Kitzbuhel Conditions 01:32 Jurij Rodionov vs. Tomas Martin Etcheverry 05:40 Alexander Bublik vs. Facundo Diaz Acosta 11:02 ATP Estoril Conditions 11:42 Pedro Martinez vs. Luciano Darderi 17:26 Alejandro Tabilo vs. Tiago Torres

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

Detención de Ernesto Ruffo

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.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.

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.

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

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

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 […]

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

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

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. 

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.