POPULARITY
51 episodes with argued
19 episodes with argued
33 episodes with argued
19 episodes with argued
13 episodes with argued
5 episodes with argued
6 episodes with argued
3 episodes with argued
2 episodes with argued
CrossFit or Bodybuilding? High skill or raw strength? Today, Toby and Schalk defend their programs to the death. We dive into the stereotypes, the injury rates, and the real reason you aren't seeing the physique changes you want.Episode Highlights:00:00 - The ultimate showdown: Build vs. CrossFit07:44 - Who should absolutely never do CrossFit?23:00 - Why Schalk quit CrossFit to focus on aesthetics.37:50 - Defending the biggest stereotypes (Is CrossFit actually dangerous?).45:20 - What happens if you try to do both programs at once?51:55 - The only 3 exercises you need for the rest of your life.Link in bio to tune in.Ps: Whether you want to master high-level skills or build a resilient, aesthetic foundation, we have a program for you. Head over to www.theprocessprogramming.com to join Build or CrossFit today!
Episode 53: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony AlbenceAmericans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence, argued before Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Marjorie O. Rendell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 10, 2026. Argued by Allen Dickerson (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity Foundation) and Emily Burton (on behalf of the state of Delaware). Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: …Delaware administers perhaps the most staggeringly overbroad donor disclosure regime in the nation. It reaches any mention of a candidate for office—including an incumbent officeholder—in a public communication made sixty days before a general election. A mere $500.01 in aggregate spending triggers the reporting requirement. Once triggered, any speaker that falls into Delaware's regulatory maw must publish the name and address of every one of its donors giving more than $100, in aggregate, over a period of up to four years. Delaware makes no effort to connect the dots between an organization's donor and a reporting organization's often much later speech. There is no requirement that a donor earmark a contribution for a particular advertisement, for activity in Delaware, or even for ostensibly political purposes generally. There is no opportunity to opt out of funding regulated speech and thereby, through an act of unlikely prescience, proactively safeguard one's privacy. There is not even a requirement that a contribution be given with knowledge that an organization might engage in a paltry amount of political speech in Delaware at some point in the future. Delaware simply asserts that its voters need to know every donor to an organization that dips a toe into advocacy within its borders—in this case, thousands of individuals, across the nation and across multiple years… Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: Whether Appellants are likely to show that Delaware violates the First Amendment by requiring that any entity sponsoring any public communication that references a Delaware candidate near a Delaware election disclose all persons everywhere who donated more than $100 to that entity during a period up to four years; and Whether the equitable factors governing injunction requests favor First Amendment rights over First Amendment deprivations. Resources: Opening Brief for Appellants Brief for Appellees Reply Brief for Appellants District Court ruling Third Circuit docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.
In episode 373 of The Footballguys Fantasy Football Show, Dave Kluge and Dwain McFarland discuss some of the most polarizing players in fantasy football, providing the upside and downside case for each Download the 2026 Footballguys Rookie Guide: www.https://footballguys.com/rookieguide Email us at fantasyshow@footballguys.com!
Episode 52: Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al.Dinner Table Action, et al. v. Schneider, et al. argued before Judges Lara E. Montecalvo, O. Rogeriee Thompson, and Seth R. Aframe of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on July 29, 2026. Argued by Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Dinner Table Action) and Neal Katyal (on behalf of Equal Citizens) and Jonathan Bolton (on behalf of the State of Maine). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: A federal lawsuit seeks to stop a 2024 ballot initiative from placing limits on Mainers' free speech rights. The suit challenges Maine's newly enacted restrictions on contributions to independent expenditure groups, sometimes called “Super PACs.” The lawsuit also challenges requirements that force the disclosure of all donors who contribute toward independent expenditures, regardless of amount. Question 1, passed by voters in 2024, imposes a $5,000 limit on contributions to such groups. The measure, also known as the “Act to Limit Contributions to Political Action Committees That Make Independent Expenditures,” contradicts established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as numerous subsequent decisions by multiple federal courts of appeal. Thirty federal appellate judges have considered such limits, and all reached the same conclusion: contribution limits cannot be applied to independent expenditure groups. Meanwhile, the law's broad disclosure requirement threatens to chill the speech and damage the associational rights of donors who wish to maintain their privacy when participating in the political process. Under current law, donors contributing less than $50 to candidates or political committees can do so without public disclosure of their identity. The new law would force disclosure of all contributors to independent expenditures, regardless of amount, a change that multiple donors have specifically told the plaintiffs would stop them from participating in the political process. Statement of Issues, from Plaintiffs-Appellees' Response Brief: Whether the First Amendment bars Maine from infringing political speech rights by limiting independent donations for independent expenditures. Whether Maine can require disclosure of small dollar donors who donate towards independent expenditures. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants Equal Citizens, Cara Mccormick, Peter Mccormick, Richard A. Bennett Plaintiffs-Appellees' Response Brief Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants Equal Citizens, Cara Mccormick, Peter Mccormick, Richard A. Bennett District Court Order The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
DRWarner Bros.' Zaslav Offers $68 Million to Buy Summer Campnew January 2026 employment agreement$96M: Make-Whole RSU award to CEO Daivd Zaslav of 1,963,465 shares; after January 2 Follow-On Option award of 3,052,734 options because share price is downUnder a new employment agreement executed on June 12, 2025, Zaslav received a special award of 20,898,776 stock options with an exercise price of $10.16 (~$400M). Additionally, on January 2, 2026, he was granted 3,052,734 follow-on stock options with an exercise price of $28.51 (~$40M). To address the higher exercise price of these options compared to the initial grant, Zaslav received 1,963,465 restricted stock units on January 5, 2026 (~$56M).The Compensation Committee: 23 meetings in 2025*Paul A. Gould, 80, 18 years tenureGould and Zaslav worked closely together at Discovery, Inc. for nearly 15 years.David Zaslav took the helm as President and CEO of Discovery, Inc. in January 2007.Paul Gould joined the Discovery, Inc. Board of Directors shortly after, serving as an independent director from 2007 until the company merged with WarnerMedia.Both men belong to the tight-knit professional circle surrounding cable pioneer and billionaire John Malone.Paul Gould has a long history as a trusted director across Malone's web of companies, serving for years on the boards of Liberty Global and Liberty Latin America.David Zaslav has publicly and frequently cited John Malone as his primary professional mentor.Their shared ties to Malone are so closely linked that in 2012, Zaslav partnered with other high-level executives to donate $1 million to the Cable Center specifically to build and name the John Malone Theater.Paul Gould has served as a Managing Director and Executive Vice President at Allen & Company, a premium boutique investment bank deeply embedded in the media and entertainment ecosystem. Through this avenue, Gould and Zaslav connect in two ways:Financial Advisory: Allen & Company has a long history of providing valuation opinions, advisory services, and market analysis for major transactions initiated by Zaslav during his career.The Sun Valley Conference: Allen & Company famously hosts the annual "Summer Camp for Billionaires" in Sun Valley, Idaho. As a prominent media mogul, Zaslav is a regular, high-profile attendee at this event, which is organized by Gould's firm.Kenneth W. LoweKen Lowe is the former Chair/CEO of Scripps Networks Interactive (the former parent company of massive lifestyle brands like HGTV, Food Network, and ID).The Link: In 2018—four years before the Warner Bros. deal even closed—Zaslav orchestrated Discovery's $14.6 billion acquisition of Scripps Networks. As a direct result of that blockbuster cable industry consolidation, Lowe joined Discovery Inc.'s board of directors. He and Zaslav had already been working together closely at the board level for years before the legacy company expanded into WBD.The board of AT&TRichard W. FisherOutside of WBD, Zaslav's connection to Fisher is rooted in Fisher's previous role as a member of the Board of Directors for AT&T. When Zaslav was hammering out the complex transaction to spin WarnerMedia away from AT&T, Fisher was one of the crucial board leaders on the other side of the table who evaluated and signed off on the deal. As part of the closing agreement, Fisher was designated by AT&T to transition directly over to the new WBD board.Debra L. LeeDebra Lee was the longtime Chair/CEO of BET Networks (Black Entertainment Television) from 2006 to 2018.Zaslav and Lee have long-standing commitments to The Paley Center for Media, sharing space as members of its highly prestigious Board of Trustees. Additionally, Lee served on the board of AT&T, meaning she was part of the corporate governance team that initially approved Zaslav's pitch to merge Discovery with WarnerMedia.Geoffrey Y. YangJust like Richard Fisher and Debra Lee, Yang's primary pre-WBD connection to Zaslav comes down to AT&T. Yang sat on AT&T's board during the high-stakes dealmaking window. Because of his background in digital media and venture capital, he was designated by AT&T leadership to transition to the WBD board to help Zaslav steer the newly formed company's streaming and direct-to-consumer technology strategies.The board that ignores Say on Pay votesAt our 2025 Annual Meeting held on June 2, 2025, we held an advisory vote on executive compensation, or "Say on Pay" vote, and a majority of the votes cast by stockholders were cast against our executive compensation program.Our executive compensation program is designed to pay for performance and effectively balance executive and stockholder interests. The Committee considered the outcome of the "Say on Pay" vote from the 2025 Annual Meeting, and while it continues to believe that our executive compensation structure, which includes long-term agreements with each of our NEOs and delivers a significant majority of NEO compensation in performance-based vehicles, is effective in meeting our compensation objectives, it took note of the negative 2025 "Say on Pay" vote when making compensation decisions after the 2025 Annual Meeting.The Dodd-Frank Act: "The shareholder vote … shall not be binding on the issuer or the board of directors of an issuer, and may not be construed as overruling a decision by such issuer or board of directors”Special meeting vote 4/23/26: Say on Pay 83% no6/9 AGM: ShareholdersPaul A. Gould 52% noRichard W. Fisher 31% noDebra L. Lee 32% noKenneth W. Lowe 31% noGeoffrey Y. Yang 31% noZaslav 3% noSay on Pay 84% noStill on boardPaul A. GouldRichard W. FisherDebra L. LeeKenneth W. LoweGeoffrey Y. YangZaslavThe SEC: "The Say-on-Pay … votes are advisory rather than binding ... Unlike a binding vote, advisory votes do not require the company or its board of directors to take a specific action. The company's board of directors may consider advisory votes and may follow up with other communications or dialogue with shareholders as part of its deliberative process in making policy decisions."The workers for being poor1,378 to 1 CEO pay ratio.Andrew M. Cuomo Joins the OKX Board of DirectorsThe worldMen GreedThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) In February 2025, OKX pled guilty in a U.S. federal court to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business and violating anti-money laundering (AML) laws.The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revealed that despite OKX having an "official policy" banning U.S. users, the exchange actively pursued U.S. customers and generated hundreds of millions in fees from them.Internal logs showed OKX employees explicitly telling U.S. clients how to bypass the exchange's own blocks—even telling a customer to "just put a random country" during identity verification.The exchange was used to facilitate over $5 billion in suspicious transactions and criminal proceeds, resulting in a staggering $504 million penalty.TrumpTrump has normalized crypto. Is it the path to the next financial collapse?Jon Ossoff Rips RFK Jr.'s ‘Foolish' Cutback To Cyclosporiasis Monitoring: Sen. Jon Ossoff says a cyclosporiasis outbreak spreading nationwide could be harder to track because the Trump administration changed CDC surveillance last year. In a letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Ossoff argues that the CDC's FoodNet program (a public health network that monitors infections from multiple pathogens across CDC, USDA, FDA, and 10 states) stopped requiring monitoring cyclospora, and that the administration later made data collection optional at FoodNet sites for most pathogens (except Salmonella and E. coli).Elon Musk"ESG is the devil"A "scam" weaponized by "phony social justice warriors"Vivek RamaswamyThe author of Woke, Inc.founded an entire asset management firm (Strive) designed explicitly to offer "anti-woke" investment options that ignore ESG metrics in favor of pure profit.Ron DeSantisSpearheaded a massive legislative pushback against ESG in Florida, signing bills that banned state and local governments from using ESG factors when investing public funds or issuing bondsArgues ESG is a way to bypass voters and enforce a political agenda through corporate power.Peter ThielCalled ESG a "hate factory" used to control capital and punish companies that don't fall in line with mainstream corporate ideologyTariq Fancy (Former Head of Sustainable Investing at BlackRock)“Whistleblower”Called ESG a "dangerous placebo" that does nothing to actually fix the planet but allows Wall Street to charge higher fees while greenwashing their portfoliosMike PenceArgues that major Wall Street firms use ESG to enforce a radical left-wing agenda on everyday Americans, forcing companies to adopt policies that hurt the domestic energy sector.Glenn Hegar (Texas Comptroller)Created a blacklist of financial companies (including BlackRock) banned from doing business with the state of TexasCalled ESG an "opaque and perverse system" that violates fiduciary dutyAndy Puzder (Former CEO of CKE Restaurants/Hardee's and Carl's Jr.)Argued that forcing companies to focus on social goals instead of profits violates shareholder capitalism and ultimately hurts the economySenator Tom CottonAttacked ESG from a legal and regulatory standpoint. He led a group of Republican senators in warning top U.S. law firms that advising companies to cooperate on ESG goals could open them up to massive federal antitrust violationsSanjai Bhagat (Finance Professor, University of Colorado)Argues that ESG funds don't actually deliver higher returns and that companies in ESG portfolios often have worse compliance records for labor and environmental rules than standard companiesMenI pay my employees $1,000 a month per child for day care. It's one of my ice cream company's best investments.A womanAll womenDEIMolly Moon Neitzelfounder and CEO of Molly Moon's Homemade Ice CreamHer business planwhich included living wages and free health insurance for everyone who worked at least 18 hours a weekMMC-suite promotions now come with three or more jobs - from the article: “When Target named Michael Fiddelke CEO in February 2026, the leadership changes he announced went beyond a standard promotion. Target eliminated its chief commercial officer role and consolidated merchandising authority into a single position, naming Cara Sylvester, previously chief guest experience officer, as the sole chief merchandising officer overseeing product development, assortment design, and partner collaborations.” - WHO DO YOU BLAME??AIIsn't “taking more jobs on” what the promise of AI has been? The article claims “Executives who excel in a specific function are increasingly entrusted with broader operating mandates spanning commercial, technology, operations, finance, or customer strategy” - but really, aren't we just admitting that marketing and sales can be done by a dopey robot?Executive ChairsAs the TOP boys realize they can offload their work by becoming Executive Chair (same salary, fewer hours, no responsibilities!), maybe the CEO class is realizing THEY can stop doing as much if they just give more jobs to underlings? It seems telling the prime example in the article is Target where Brian Cornell still lingers on the board like a boilPay committeesPay committees are handing out massive golden hellos, particularly to CFOs but all c-suite, and they can justify them by “rolling” pointless jobs into a single person, right? BoardsBoards aren't actually paying attention to executives anyway - the data suggests by and large boards in the US are either deferential to the executives (do whatever you want!) or entirely self dealing (highly connected horse trading jobs on other boards!). The result is an indifferent board to actual executive shakeups either way - and CEOs are using indifference to shake up the c-suitesGeneral Mills is recalling nearly 736,000 Pillsbury bread rolls over possible glass - WHO DO YOU BLAME??Public Responsibility Chair Jorge UribeEx “productivity” officer at P&G until he retired in 2015. MBA and bachelor's in “management engineering”, which confused our knowledge typing which pinged off “engineering” to give him Public Safety knowledge, but there's no ACTUAL EVIDENCE he did anything but sales/marketing10 year tenure - longer than the CEO, but not as long as…Longest tenured director and man on Public Responsibility committee Steve OdlandOdland is the CEO of the Conference Board, who does public policy and governance stuff - he was CEO of Office Depot and AutoZone, and came from food (Quaker Oats, Sara Lee)Been on the board 22 years!! Solid job if you can get itBut both Steve and Jorge are tagged as “deferential” in the data (this is an important gig for them), so maybe…CEO Jeff HarmeningWith General Mills since 1994, came from marketing, but was COO - maybe Jeff's job as a director at Toro Company made him too busy to notice the glass? Or, maybe it wasn't their fault at all…RFK Jr: It's not just Taco Bell lettuce and possible glass in Pillsbury rolls: Food and drink recall events reached a 6-year year-over-year high
In 1985, Datasoft released Alternate Reality: The City, an Atari 8-bit role playing game built almost entirely by one self-taught programmer working out of a shack in the Hawaiian backwoods. In this episode, we explore how Philip Price talked his way from a stolen tic tac toe login into a career reverse engineering hardware with no manuals to guide him. We trace how he envisioned an entire interconnected series exploring captivity and free will, and how a single publishing contract quietly dismantled that vision piece by piece. Our conversation also digs into the technical feats packed into 48 kilobytes of memory, and the public dispute over who really killed the series before it could finish. Join us as we step through the portal, survive the streets of Xebec's Demise, and reckon with the cost of building something too ambitious for the industry that published it, on today's trip down Memory Card Lane.Read transcript
This special Let's Be Clear compilation brings together the episodes that challenged perspectives, sparked honest debate, and kept people talking. Pastor Jamal Bryant sits down with Rev. Dr. Herman "Skip" Mason, Yahki Awakened, Dr. JP Foster, Pastor Justin Lester, Dr. Karri Bryant, Milan Harris, and Trishonna Helm_* for powerful conversations about faith, the Black Church, leadership, relationships, health, entrepreneurship, AI, and the issues shaping our communities today.Whether you agree with every perspective or not, each discussion invites us to think deeper and have the conversations that matter.Which conversation stayed with you the most? Share your thoughts in the comments, subscribe for more conversations on faith, culture, leadership, business, and relationships, and send this episode to someone who needs to hear.* Watch the Full Conversations HERE: Rev. Dr. Herman "Skip" Mason: https://youtu.be/pv4ag3ItaZA?si=hWc_MwPto5T-FynL Dr. JP Foster: https://youtu.be/pyOp9GmD_mc?si=QEcRPFZ1KuolDyiB Yahki Awakened: https://youtu.be/N619JiRDCl0?si=Z0tRwOJFVrxdY4nn Jamal Bryant (Solo): https://youtu.be/-oMlIGVELm0?si=0H3Ax8a8sEP2gN8d Pastor Justin Lester: https://youtu.be/7b6EEbz_6fY?si=SEVMqVIiure_dQPm Dr. Karri Bryant: https://youtu.be/fswtgRR2yxI?si=4dqlFnMPBhM6_HVQ Milan Harris: https://youtu.be/cqdUFHb4drw?si=mG-Zl1yh5jvmM9ib Trishonna Helm: https://youtu.be/A0AQ--_BhL8?si=JNuclyf7UmnjLpX5*DISCLAIMER:* This podcast is presented for educational, informational, and entertainment purposes only. The views and opinions expressed by guests are their own and are not intended to serve as medical, psychological, therapeutic, or professional advice.Dr. Jamal Bryant and The Jamal Bryant Podcast: Let's Be Clear do not claim to be licensed medical professionals, therapists, or physicians, and this content should not be used as a substitute for guidance from qualified healthcare, mental health, legal, or professional experts.We encourage viewers to conduct their own research and consult licensed professionals regarding any medical or health-related concerns.#LetsBeClear #JamalBryant #PodcastSpecial #BlackLeadership #CulturalConversations~~~~~~The Jamal Bryant Podcast "Let's Be Clear" is a conversation that rips off the bandaid to serious relevant issues in the community and around the country. It assesses the wounds and offers prescriptions of insight, understanding and direction. No punches are pulled, but jabs are thrown to hit right between the eyes of every listener. New Episode Drops every Thursday at 12pm est. at jamalbryant.orgJoin our Membership or Support our Channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yEY95beOqcUz5TUqxqVgQ/joinFollow or Subscribe on our socials ~https://www.facebook.com/jamalbryantpodcasthttps://www.instagram.com/jamalbryantpodcast/https://www.tiktok.com/@jamalbryantpodcast https://twitter.com/jamalbryantpod
What's on your mind?Most Dangerous Hotel on the East Coast Maney's realization Go ahead... Date at work!Best summer jobsRidiculous Lifetime movies 3 in the QCCan't Beat LauRen War of the Roses LauRen argued on the toiletTalk like your pet day Big Al tried to help and needed help, helping.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Send us your voice memo questions, thoughts or advice requests at the BLT Hotline: loveyouboys@bltpod.comB.L.T features Blake Pavey, Luke Kidgell & Tyler Cahill. New Episode Every Wednesday.Blake Pavey's Tour: https://blakepavey.com/Luke Kidgells Tour: https://www.lukekidgell.com/Tyler Cahill's music: https://linktr.ee/BlankFaceMelb
guest host Heidi Harris argued that the U.S. is not winning in Iran because Donald Trump underestimations of the enemy and misunderstanding of Iranian strategic motivations. These topics were discussed during the second hour of the program, specifically within segments five and six.
During the third hour of The Charlie James Show on Monday, June 8, 2026, guest host Heidi Harris examined domestic and strategic angles of the conflict with Iran before transitioning to local politics. Harris began by analyzing the stark political divide over the war, noting that Donald Trump's base defends the military efforts while the left condemns his actions. She then reiterated her stance that the U.S. is not winning the Iran war because Trump fundamentally misunderstands the enemy, a point that sparked listener call-ins focused on the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. The hour concluded with a shift to local affairs, featuring an interview with Joe Deal, a candidate running for Greenville County Council District 17.
In a recorded jailhouse call, Richard Allen asked his own father how much longer he could stay lucid. That call was excluded from trial. The jury that convicted him on a 130-year sentence never heard it. But three judges at the Indiana Court of Appeals are now reading the full record — including the calls the jury didn't get and the confessions that don't match the forensic evidence.Allen told a prison psychiatrist he shot Abby Williams and Libby German. The medical examiner determined they were killed with a blade. The State played one jailhouse call for the jury and excluded two others. The voluntariness of Allen's statements is now a question three judges have to answer, and the excluded calls speak directly to his mental state when those statements were made.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins Tony Brueski to walk through what the selective admission of Allen's calls means at the appellate level. He also addresses the alternative suspect whose interview was allegedly recorded over by investigators — weapon never collected, phone never searched — and the van timeline the defense says FBI cell data and surveillance footage contradict.Indiana's response brief met most of these challenges with procedural objections rather than factual engagement. Filed wrong. Argued too late. Harmless error. The defense has formally requested oral arguments. Indiana has not. Meanwhile, the search warrant that produced the .40-caliber pistol faces de novo review — no deference owed to the trial judge. If it fails, the weapon is gone from any future proceeding.Allen sits in an Oklahoma prison more than a thousand miles from Indiana. Three judges are reading. A decision is coming.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #DelphiAppeal #AbbyAndLibby #BobMotta #IndianaCourtOfAppeals #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #JailhouseCalls #HarmlessError
The Delphi defense identified an alternative suspect. According to the appeal, that suspect's interview was recorded over by investigators. His weapon was never collected. His phone was never searched. Those aren't things that happen by accident in a case where two girls were found dead and a community spent years waiting for answers. And now three judges at the Indiana Court of Appeals are looking at the full record — including what investigators did and didn't do with the leads that didn't point toward Richard Allen.Defense attorney Bob Motta walks through the significance of the recorded-over interview with Tony Brueski. He explains why it lands harder in an appeal than it did at trial — because the appellate standard asks whether the outcome was reliable, and investigative gaps that were hand-waved in front of a jury look different when judges are reading transcripts and measuring the record against constitutional standards.Motta also gets into the confession problem. Allen told a prison psychiatrist he shot the victims. The medical examiner said they were killed with a blade. The State is relying on confessions that don't match the forensic evidence, from a man whose own jailhouse call to his father — asking how much longer he could stay lucid — was excluded from the jury.Indiana's response brief answered most of the defense's factual challenges with procedural objections, not substantive ones. Filed wrong. Argued too late. The defense has now requested oral arguments. Indiana hasn't. If the search warrant fails under the de novo review, the .40-caliber pistol is gone from the case permanently. Three judges are sitting on the full record. A decision is coming.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #DelphiAppeal #IndianaCourtOfAppeals #AbbyAndLibby #BobMotta #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #AlternativeSuspect #SearchWarrant
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.ryandawson.orgFull music video for paid subscribers. ALL music videos for PrimeLol at these noobs talking about “ow IQ antisemitism.” This coming from the idiot who thinks dinosaurs lived with people, who supported super Zionist Laura Loomer for congress, thinks the US should have a Catholic monarchy and praised Hitler, Stalin and Epstein. Argued adults f*****g 14 ye…
Episode 51: Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of JusticePerkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026. Argued by Paul Clement (on behalf of the Law Firm Appellees), Abbe Lowell (on behalf of Appellee Mark Zaid), and Abhishek Kambli (on behalf of the federal government).Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP: One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes “dishonest and dangerous” and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, “settled” with the President. But Perkins, followed by Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman, sued to defend themselves and their clients. Four different district judges recognized the President's executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same.The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Yet here, the President did not hide his intent to punish Perkins for its expression and that of its clients. He openly declared that he targeted Perkins because it represented his “failed” opponent in the 2016 election, challenged election laws alongside so-called “activist donors,” and brought purportedly “partisan lawsuits,” including “against the Trump Administration.” The President designed the Order to do more than just damage Perkins; he intended to intimidate the bar into submission.Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo. This case concerns an unconstitutional policy enacted to do just that. Shortly after taking office, the President issued a memorandum (the Presidential Memorandum) targeting the security clearances of a sprawling group of his perceived enemies, their lawyers, and their family members. As interpreted by the relevant agencies, the Presidential Memorandum constituted a directive to disregard then-existing procedures and institute a blanket revocation of the security clearances of those it named. Appellant Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who has represented government whistleblowers, is among those whose clearances were revoked...Rather than contesting whether they retaliated against Mr. Zaid or deprived him of the processes to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations, Appellants double down on the extraordinary position that their unlawful actions are entirely insulated from judicial review.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP: Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Whether Perkins is entitled to summary judgment on the additional ground (raised but not reached below) that Sections 1, 3, and 5 violate the separation of powers.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: Whether a court may review a policy providing for the revocation of a group of security clearances without process or individualized review.Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.Resources: Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLPBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings for the law firms' cases)Brief of Appellee Mark ZaidBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings in the appeal of Mark Zaid v. Executive Office of the President)
Description: The trial is over. The conviction is on paper. And yet, inside that courtroom at sentencing, Kouri Richins' defense team argued as if the fight was nowhere close to finished.Defense attorney Wendy Lewis opened by addressing what the court couldn't ignore — the absence of remorse. Her answer was direct: Richins can't express remorse for something she maintains she didn't do. Lewis also told the judge this was the first time in her career that she'd watched a client she genuinely believed to be innocent walk out of a courtroom convicted. Whether that lands as heartfelt conviction or strategic positioning, it was a moment that stopped the room.The defense's sharpest shots were aimed at the prosecution's sentencing memorandum. Lewis and Nester called it a "character assassination" — an attempt to define Richins through information that was never tested at trial. Lewis pushed back hard: sentence her on the convictions, not on a narrative the state built outside of evidence. "They do not know Kouri Richins," she said. Attorney Nester echoed that, asking the judge to look at who Richins actually is — not the monster portrayed by both the prosecution and the victim's family.The defense made a pointed statistical argument against life without parole. Of the 72 people serving that sentence in Utah, only five killed a spouse. Lewis argued the maximum penalty is reserved for serial killers and child murderers, not this case, and that the state's trial evidence never reached the threshold required to justify it.Richins' mother wrote a letter, read aloud in court, calling her daughter incapable of murder and asking — from one mother to anyone listening — for a sentence that includes the possibility of parole.Attorney Nester confirmed the defense intends to appeal. So no, this isn't over. Not by a long shot.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KouriRichins #Sentencing #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #UtahCrime #FentanylMurder #CourtTV #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #JusticeForEric
Episode 50: The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue ServiceThe Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the federal government). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech website: The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye's lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association. The IRS has admitted that it does not need these donor records, and it issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in similar contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires doing so for 501(c)(3)s. The lawsuit claims that Buckeye's work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye's supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause...A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That's the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson's ruling that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review. Statement of Issues, from the Appellee's Brief:Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)'s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.”Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page (contains all documents)Opening Brief for the AppellantAppellee's BriefSixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory ReviewInstitute for Free Speech Blog Post, “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
During the first hour of the April 27, 2026, broadcast, Charlie James argued that the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner serves as definitive proof that radical left ideology and rhetoric have become dangerously violent and normalized. He detailed how suspect Cole Tomas Allen exploited security gaps by checking into a hotel room as a registered guest, allowing him to bypass external checkpoints with multiple weapons. James also took aim at "liberal teachers" who he claims are lamenting the suspect's failure rather than condemning the violence, further fueling a toxic political climate. Finally, the segment questioned how Allen knew exactly where to strike, noting that while the event is an annual tradition, the suspect likely targeted the Hilton because it was a matter of public record that the President and political elite would be gathered in the ballroom that night.
From the beginning of creation, to when He walked among us, to where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, Jesus has gone by many names: King of Kings, Emmanuel, Lion of Judah, Prince of Peace, Savior, Lamb of God, Redeemer.People have talked about Him for thousands of years.Preached about Him.Debated Him.Argued over Him.But after all of that, one question still remains:Do we actually know who Jesus is?--------Sign up for Pillars: A 12 Week Discipleship JourneyBuilding Saints who are STRONG, SMART, and STABLE.https://weareoneyouth.com/pillars--------Text the We Are One Hotline for prayer needs and all things We Are One: 844-641-8147For bibles, prayer requests, giving, and more, click the link below to get connected!https://weareoneyouth.com/famIf you just accepted Jesus, if you have a prayer request, or you want to know more about us, CLICK THIS LINK! https://weareoneyouth.com/fam
Send us Fan MailIn this episode we was meant to do an Underrated or Overrated episode about recently retired former Arsenal player Aaron Ramsey, But we just ended up arguing over football instead and decided to release it as an episode....I blame Ball And Banter members Cig and Wingz personally!Support the showBall And Banter Website:https://ballandbanter.buzzsprout.comBall And Banter Instagram Page:https://Instagram.com/ball_and_banterBall And Banter YouTube channel:https://youtube.com/channel/UC_d9jnnTdxAoReNZUkW8xDw
Episode 48: Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).Case Summary, adapted from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee Media Matters:When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged.MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters' articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content.The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA.Musk's company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X's terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA.The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed.Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee MMFA:Whether the district court had jurisdiction.Whether Media Matters has a cause of action.Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking.Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities. Resources: Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for AmericaBrief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al.CourtListener DocketDistrict Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
From the beginning of creation, to when He walked among us, to where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, Jesus has gone by many names: King of Kings, Emmanuel, Lion of Judah, Prince of Peace, Savior, Lamb of God, Redeemer.People have talked about Him for thousands of years.Preached about Him.Debated Him.Argued over Him.But after all of that, one question still remains:Do we actually know who Jesus is?--------Sign up for Pillars: A 12 Week Discipleship JourneyBuilding Saints who are STRONG, SMART, and STABLE.https://weareoneyouth.com/pillars--------Text the We Are One Hotline for prayer needs and all things We Are One: 844-641-8147For bibles, prayer requests, giving, and more, click the link below to get connected!https://weareoneyouth.com/famIf you just accepted Jesus, if you have a prayer request, or you want to know more about us, CLICK THIS LINK! https://weareoneyouth.com/fam
Episode 47: Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials). Case Summary, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee's right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge… “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article's link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring' a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.” “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.” Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge's interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate.Resources: Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees' Brief Appellees' En Banc Brief Appellants' En Banc Supplemental Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
From the beginning of creation, to when He walked among us, to where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, Jesus has gone by many names: King of Kings, Emmanuel, Lion of Judah, Prince of Peace, Savior, Lamb of God, Redeemer.People have talked about Him for thousands of years.Preached about Him.Debated Him.Argued over Him.But after all of that, one question still remains:Do we actually know who Jesus is?--------Sign up for Pillars: A 12 Week Discipleship JourneyBuilding Saints who are STRONG, SMART, and STABLE.https://weareoneyouth.com/pillars--------Text the We Are One Hotline for prayer needs and all things We Are One: 844-641-8147For bibles, prayer requests, giving, and more, click the link below to get connected!https://weareoneyouth.com/famIf you just accepted Jesus, if you have a prayer request, or you want to know more about us, CLICK THIS LINK! https://weareoneyouth.com/fam
'WE ARGUED, HE CALLED ME A FAT B*****' -SHANE FURY NOT HOLDING BACK ON BROTHER TYSON, JOSHUA, ITAUMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Gio returned from his golf trip a day late following airport delays, leading into a discussion on Team USA facing Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic championship tonight. Gio argued the event lacks Olympic-level intensity due to MLB pitch counts, followed by news on CBS and the NFL renegotiating their TV deal. Jerry's update featured Venezuela's win over Italy, Carlos Mendoza's mixed feelings on Nolan McLean starting, and Chris Russo's critique of the WBC being on FS1. After hearing from Rick Pitino ahead of the tournament, the hour closed with Gio noticing a garlic scent in the studio.
Episode 46: Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. argued before Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy, and Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on March 17, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Utah Political Watch) and Daniel Vitagliano (on behalf of Utah legislative officials). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: Bryan Schott, a journalist with 25 years of experience covering Utah politics, is fighting back after being denied press credentials under a newly revised policy that appears designed to silence independent reporting. Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed suit on behalf of Schott and his outlet, Utah Political Watch (UPW), against Utah legislative officials who denied Schott's application for press credentials. The denial came after the Utah Legislature changed its credentialing rules in November 2024 to exclude “blogs, independent media outlets or freelance media,” a change made just weeks after Schott inquired about obtaining credentials for the 2025 session. Despite receiving press credentials every year they were offered since at least 2013, Schott, a recipient of the National Press Foundation's Election Journalism Fellowship and Utah's Best Newspaper Reporter award, was denied access for the 2025 legislative session. The denial followed Schott's hard-hitting coverage of Senate President Stuart Adams. Schott was blocked from covering key events, including the House GOP's legislative priorities announcement and the governor's monthly press conference. Additionally, without credentials, he cannot attend the legislative session itself or daily leadership meetings, participate in Friday media availabilities with the Speaker, or access areas of the Capitol reserved for press coverage. Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: Are any of the following allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging First Amendment violations for viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, prior restraint and unconstitutional vagueness? A government media credentialing policy that expressly excludes “independent media” from receiving media credentials constitutes viewpoint discrimination against independent voices; A media credentialing policy that uses subjective and vague terms such as “established reputable news organization,” and “blogs, independent media and other freelance media” affords too much discretion to government officials issuing credentials; Government officials apply criteria not included in the written credentialing policy, including requiring institutional ownership and editorial control; or, A media credentialing policy was revised and applied inconsistently to deny credentials and access to a single reporter who had gotten under the skin of elected officials. Should a preliminary injunction issue to prevent the defendants from denying media credentials based on the viewpoint expressed? Resources: Appellants' Opening Brief Appellees' Response Brief Our Client's Story blog Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Arthur Herman discusses the Scottish Enlightenment and the philosophical origins of "common sense," highlighting the influence of Thomas Reid, who argued that all humans share a basic set of perceptions that allow for shared judgments and the construction of relationships.
Today's story follows our familiar friends, the Fox and Crocodile. When the two new friends have a disagreement, their friend, the Butterfly, helps them forgive each other. Narrated By: Thomas JonesWritten By: Laila WeirWelcome to Snuggle! The best kid's story-telling podcast. Enter a cozy world of imagination perfect for bedtime, quiet time, or any time you want to embark on an enchanting adventure. Our cozy stories present a wide selection of calming tales for not just kids and toddlers, but for the whole family too! Enjoy some relaxing family time every day, when the children can parents can snuggle up together and venture into imaginative worlds, fairy tales, and other heartwarming stories. Develop deeper connections when you make Snuggle stories a routine at bedtime or anytime!Learn more at slumberstudios.com/snuggleTo enjoy ad-free listening and exclusive bonus episodes, start your 7-day free trial of Snuggle Premium: https://snuggle.supercast.com/
Justice Scalia and the Unitary Executive Theory. Reflecting on Justice Antonin Scalia's legacy, Professor John Yoodetails the concept of the unitary executive. Scalia powerfully argued that the Constitution vests all executive power directly in the president, warning that independent agencies fragment federal authority, diminish democratic accountability, and disrupt the essential separation of powers. #151910 BOOK OF MINES
Guest: Michael Vorenberg. Vorenberg discusses Richard Henry Dana's "Grasp of War" speech, which argued the war could not end until the victor secured guarantees against future conflict. This philosophy, demanding the enemy be held down, contrasted sharply with Lincoln's "let 'em up easy" wrestling metaphor, fueling Congressional debates over reconstruction.1888 GAR MERRIMAC FLOAT
Guest: David Davenport. Davenport discusses FDR and LBJ, who argued government must actively create opportunity through programs like the New Deal and Great Society to ensure fair results.
This episode's a wild ride. We've got a Census Bureau rep calling up a guy with some, uh, interesting questions. We're talking about zebras, computers, and slow cookers - but it's not just small talk. Our caller's got some unique perspectives on life, from the meaning of "hammer time" to the importance of not pleasing everyone. It's a conversation that's equal parts humorous and thought-provoking. Join us as we explore the unexpected twists and turns of this chat.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In Episode 385, the crew is back with a packed show! We kick things off by celebrating the Patriots heading to the Super Bowl and joking about the "MAGA influencers" on the panel. Then, things get heated as we dive into a raw debate about Kobe Bryant's legacy—asking if he's truly Top 2 or if the "fake love" after his passing has inflated his ranking. We also break down the hit Netflix series His & Hers, discussing the insane plot twists, Jon Bernthal's performance, and that shocking ending. Plus, we analyze CJ Stroud's playoff struggles, reminisce on the "Booty Talk" Hall of Fame (Jada Fire vs. Pinky), and roast the city of Houston for shutting down over a fake snowstorm. ( Excuse our audio issue!) Follow the crew: @ThePourHorsemen @ShyThugg | @HardbodyKiotti | @Phi1TheDon | @LebronaldPalmer I @yo.dj.silk I @armourie.official Production Crew @TheJohnSims | @1Kharyy Shot at @TheHiveHouston Hurt At Work? Contact our partners at https://crockett.law for all of your legal needs. @bankonbriantx is ready to help. Join our Patreon for more exclusive content: https://www.patreon.com/thepourhorsemen. By supporting us, you're not just a listener but a valued part of our community. Use our Code POUR at Bluechew.com for your discount. Follow The Pour Horsemen on Instagram @thepourhorsemen and email at thepourhorsemen@gmail.com. Chapters: 00:00 - Intro 01:28 - Patriots Heading to the Super Bowl and MAGA 03:36 - Seahawks & That Super Bowl Loss Discussion 07:13 - Rams vs. Seahawks game 11:23 - CJ Stroud & The Psychology of Pressure 16:05 - The "Racist" Boston Sports Debate 26:40 - Kobe Bryant: The "Fake Love" 36:20 - Netflix's His & Hers: The Review (SPOILERS) 41:55 - His & Hers, the "angry" letter, 47:25 - TV Recommendations 50:04 - The Hall of Fame 52:54 - The Houston Snow Storm That Wasn't 55:00 - Outro
January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark First Amendment speech clause case. While the podcast normally airs current oral arguments, we thought that it would be interesting to spotlight the oral arguments in this landmark case during month of its anniversary.Episode 44: Buckley v. ValeoJames L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975 and decided on January 30, 1976. Argued by Ralph K. Winter, Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett, and (on behalf of James L. Buckley) and Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of Francis R. Valeo). Case Background [from the Federal Election Commission]:On January 2, 1975, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, Eugene McCarthy, Presidential candidate and former Senator from Minnesota, and several others. The defendants included Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the newly formed Federal Election Commission, and the Commission itself. The plaintiffs charged that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), under which the Commission was formed, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act were unconstitutional on a number of grounds.On January 24, 1975, pursuant to Section 437h(a) of the FECA, the district court certified the constitutional questions in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 15, 1975, the appeals court rendered a decision upholding almost all of the substantive provisions of the FECA with respect to contributions, expenditures and disclosure. The court also sustained the constitutionality of the method of appointing the Commission.On September 19, 1975, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which reached its decision on January 30, 1976. Questions Presented, from the Appellants' Brief: 1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on expenditures by political candidates and organizations are constitutional?2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitation imposed by FECA on expenditures by any person relative to a clearly identified candidate are constitutional?3. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on contributions to political candidates and organizations are constitutional?4. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the disclosure requirements imposed on political candidates, organizations and individuals by FECA are constitutional?5. Did the courts below correctly conclude that the public financing provisions of FECA and Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code are constitutional?6. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the method provided by FECA for appointing members of the Federal Election Commission is constitutional?7. Did the Court of Appeals properly decline to decide whether certain powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA are constitutional?8. Are the powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA constitutional?Resources: Supreme Court OpinionInstitute for Free Speech AnalysisC-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 1C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 2C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 3The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
It took two days for everything to blow up, and it's all thanks to 'The Price Is Right'. Chicago’s best morning radio show now has a podcast! Don’t forget to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts and remember that the conversation always lives on the Q101 Facebook page. Brian & Kenzie are live every morning from 6a-10a on Q101. Subscribe to our channel HERE: https://www.youtube.com/@Q101 Like Q101 on Facebook HERE: https://www.facebook.com/q101chicago Follow Q101 on Twitter HERE: https://twitter.com/Q101Chicago Follow Q101 on Instagram HERE: https://www.instagram.com/q101chicago/?hl=en Follow Q101 on TikTok HERE: https://www.tiktok.com/@q101chicago?lang=enSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Please don't be a fake marine on the internet.
Episode 43: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of National Republican Senatorial Committee), Sarah M. Harris (on behalf of the federal respondents in support of petitioners), Roman Martinez (Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae defending the law), and Marc Elias (Counsel for Intervenor-Respondents DNC, DSCC, and DCCC). Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d). In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called “coordinated party expenditure limits” stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising (“party coordinated communications”), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (Colorado II). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II, this Court “has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation,” that “tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court,” and that relevant facts have “changed, most notably with 2014 amendments” to the limits and “the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees.” App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought “any new assessment of the validity of the limits” remained the Supreme Court's “province, not ours.” App.14a-15a. The question presented is: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. Resources: Brief for the Petitioners NRSC Brief for the Respondents FEC Supreme Court Docket Sixth Circuit Oral Argument Audio Institute for Free Speech SCOTUS Amicus Brief Campaign Regulations Are Unconstitutional, by Bradley A. Smith, The Wall Street Journal The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Episode 42: First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. PlatkinFirst Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. Argued by Erin Morrow Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General (on behalf of First Choice Women's Resource Centers), and Sundeep Subramanian Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General of New Jersey (on behalf of the state of New Jersey). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: First Choice Women's Resource Centers is a Christian medical nonprofit serving pregnant women, new mothers, and fathers. The Attorney General of New Jersey has specifically singled out this organization due to its religious beliefs and pro-life stance. New Jersey thus issued a sweeping and unjustified subpoena, demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit. This places a heavy burden on the organization, forcing it to allocate its limited resources to comply or face legal consequences. Despite this, the Attorney General has not provided any concrete evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such intrusive measures. Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?Resources: Brief for Petitioner First Choice Women's Resource Center Brief for Respondent Matthew Platkin Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief Supreme Court Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
Episode 41: Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al.Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al. argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 2, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia (on behalf of Stephen and Bethany Scaer) and Steven A. Bolton (on behalf of the City of Nashua, NH). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: Should a city be able to pick and choose whose messages are “worthy” to appear on its public “Citizen Flag Pole?” The City of Nashua thinks so—but a federal lawsuit aims to change that. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy S. McCandless filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of Bethany and Stephen Scaer (pronounced “scare”), two Nashua residents whose flag requests have been denied. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Nashua's policy governing the use of its Citizen Flag Pole. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nashua city officials from denying flag applications based on viewpoint and from enforcing parts of its flag policy that limit acceptable flags. Nashua residents have long used the Citizen Flag Pole to fly flags representing various causes and heritages. However, after a 2022 Supreme Court decision protecting speech in such forums, Nashua officials hastily implemented a new policy to take control over the messages expressed. Under the policy, residents can apply to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole in front of City Hall. However, the policy states that any message “will be allowed only if it is in harmony with city policies and messages that the city wishes to express and endorse.” The Scaers have had multiple flag requests denied, including most recently the Pine Tree Flag to commemorate the Battle of Bunker Hill. The city provided no explanation beyond stating their flags were “not in harmony” with the city's message. The lawsuit argues that Nashua's policy violates the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech, creating an unconstitutional prior restraint, and being impermissibly vague and overbroad. Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiffs-Appellants Opening Brief: Whether governments may avoid First Amendment limits in regulating speech by adopting it as government speech, without acquiring any property interest or permanent possessory interest over that private speech? Whether a government speaks or merely regulates private speech when it uses its final approval authority to permit or to prohibit the display of certain messages on government property, without shaping or altering the content of those messages? Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the City of Nashua's policies and practices regarding flags displayed on its Citizen Flag Pole and flag-raising ceremonies conducted on its City Hall Plaza constitute viewpoint discrimination, or are vague, overbroad, or effect a prior restraint on speech? Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against those policies and practices? Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) Plaintiffs-Appellants Stephen and Bethany Scaer's Opening Brief Brief For Defendants-Appellee, City Of Nashua, New Hampshire The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
What happens when an AI won't agree with your interpretation of Scripture? In this dramatic retelling, I walk through a late-night study session where the AI pushed back, argued, and refused to move on 1 Corinthians 11. This is the story of that debate—and what it reveals about hermeneutics, truth, and the future of Bible study.
Jase and Missy team up for a lively retelling of the sweet, slightly improvised “Footloose moment” she and Cole pulled off during their mother–son dance at his wedding. Missy discovers a hidden family heirloom that makes the perfect wedding gift, and takes a moving look at how the Mia Moo Fund quietly saved a National Guard family during the government shutdown. She and Al also open up about the importance of mentorship, the powerful spiritual breakthroughs she's witnessed, and why being a Titus 2 woman still matters today. In this episode: James 1, verse 19; Acts 2, verses 42–47; Titus 2, verses 3–5 “Unashamed” Episode 1216 is sponsored by: Stand firm for values that matter. Join the fight today at https://www.frc.org/unashamed https://cozyearth.com/unashamed — Get up to 40% off when you use our link or code UNASHAMED! https://bravebooks.com/unashamed — Get 20% off AND get Missy's book “Because You're My Family” and Jep and Jessica's book “Dear Valor” free with code UNASHAMED https://on.auraframes.com/UNASHAMED — Get $45 off Aura's best-selling Carver Mat frames by using promo code UNASHAMED at checkout! https://andrewandtodd.com or call 888-888-1172 — These guys are the real deal. Get trusted mortgage guidance and expertise from someone who shares your values! http://unashamedforhillsdale.com/ — Sign up now for free, and join the Unashamed hosts every Friday for Unashamed Academy Powered by Hillsdale College Check out At Home with Phil Robertson, nearly 800 episodes of Phil's unfiltered wisdom, humor, and biblical truth, available for free for the first time! Get it on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, and anywhere you listen to podcasts! https://open.spotify.com/show/3LY8eJ4ZBZHmsImGoDNK2l Listen to Not Yet Now with Zach Dasher on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or anywhere you get podcasts. Chapters: 00:00-07:45 Al & Missy throw Jase right under the bus 07:46-12:40 Jase gives Zach a new unflattering nickname 12:41-17:59 The Robertsons show up for each other in a big way 18:00-26:00 The importance of fine china in a marriage 26:01-31:23 Jase & Missy are loving being empty nesters 31:24-39:30 When Christian's start dancing anything could happen 39:31-47:15 Missy gets political for a moment 47:15-55:31 The importance of mentorship — Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Episode 40: Associated Press v. Tayor Budowich, et al.Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, et al. argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on November 24, 2025. Argued by Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Attorney General of the United States (on behalf of Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of the Associated Press). Case Background, from the Memorandum and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint. Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press: Under the First Amendment, the government may not coerce the press and public into using state-preferred language, or punish those who do not comply. The government violated those basic principles when it excluded the AP from the White House press pool and from events open to the White House press corps based solely on the government's dislike of the term Gulf of Mexico. The White House also took this action without notice to the AP, content-neutral guidelines, or an opportunity for the AP to be heard, violating its Fifth Amendment rights. The questions presented are: whether the District Court correctly entered a preliminary injunction ordering the government to immediately rescind this access ban, pursuant to the First Amendment; and whether the Fifth Amendment also prevents such targeting in the absence of due process. Resources: Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on the original panel circuit argument Statement of the Issues District Court Memorandum and Order Court Listener Docket Brief for the AppellantsBrief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org
As the Cold War set in (1948), George Kennan urged MacArthur to halt progressive liberalization policies. Kennan argued that extensive democratization risked communist subversion, emphasizing the need for a strong, stable, anti-communist Japan. This marked a major shift, recognizing Japan, rather than China, as the crucial strategic anchor for American foreign policy in Asia.
Yesterday, Benjamin Gutman made his first appearance on the biggest stage possible. In his role as solicitor general of Oregon, Gutman argued in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition of a dozen states that sued over the president’s signature tariff trade strategy. The states argued the U.S. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose and collect taxes under the U.S. Constitution. Gutman joins us to talk about the experience.
Episode 39: Fellers v. KelleyFellers, et al. v. Kelley, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman and Senior Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch and Jeffrey R. Howard in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 5, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of Kyle Fellers, et al.) and Jonathan Shirley (on behalf of Marcy Kelley, et al.). Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech case page:A silent protest in support of girls' sports led Bow officials to censor XX wristbands, threaten arrests and ban dissenters from school grounds. Now, three parents and a grandfather are fighting back against the officials who trampled on their First Amendment rights—and the policies those officials weaponized to do it. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleges that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by forcing them to remove “XX” wristbands, and then banning them from school grounds. The plaintiffs wore the wristbands to silently protest government officials allowing a biological male to play on the opposing girls' soccer team. School officials, along with a police officer, confronted the parents during the game, demanding that they remove the wristbands or leave. The referee also temporarily stopped the game and said that the game would be over if the remaining plaintiff did not remove his wristband. Two of the plaintiffs were later sent no-trespass notices excluding them from future games. The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the school from enforcing its unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring the display of XX wristbands or displaying signs in the parking lot in support of protecting women's sports at Bow school sporting events Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief:Does a blanket ban on so-called “exclusionary” speech by adults at school events open to the public discriminate against speech based on its content and viewpoint? Do public school officials illegally discriminate against speech based on viewpoint by banning adult spectators at school sporting events from wearing XX-wristbands conveying an “exclusionary” message, when those same officials permit adult spectators to display a Pride Flag because the message is “inclusionary?” Is the First Amendment's protection of speech by adult spectators in a limited public forum, such as a public-school extracurricular sporting event, subject to the same legal test for the protection of student speech in schools set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines and its progeny? Can the passive display of an XX-wristband by parents watching a school sporting event in which a trans-identified student is playing “reasonably be understood as directly assaulting those who identify as transgender women?” Did the district court correctly find that the XX-wristbands' message would be likely to injure transgender students when the record lacks evidence of such phenomena? Did the district court err by denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction?Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief Defendant-Appellees' Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.
Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
