Podcasts about Attorney

The Rush Hour Podcast with Dave Neal – Morning Update Sponsored by Hers. Go to forhers.com/rushhour to get started today! It's another jam-packed morning on The Rush Hour. We break down the growing controversy after a Trump administration official celebrates Iran's World Cup elimination, sparking backlash over politics spilling into sports. Plus, Blake Lively is facing criticism after reportedly seeking $8 million in legal fees in her legal battle with Justin Baldoni, raising eyebrows as the courtroom drama continues. And in Washington, questions continue to mount over the botched Reflecting Pool renovation as the U.S. Attorney sidesteps questions about vandalism, accountability, and who's ultimately responsible for the costly mess. We've got all that and more, breaking down the biggest stories you need to know before your day gets started.

As Andrew puts it, Chief Justice John Roberts is “cherry-picking.” He's flying solo in this short edition of Main Justice (more to come with Mary in the next episode). Andrew gives a quick briefing on several of the Supreme Court's most consequential end-of-term rulings, starting with the decision not to hear an appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case. Andrew also touches on the Court's decision to uphold a Mississippi law to allow mail-in ballots that are sent by Election Day to be counted but saves his deepest analysis for two similar cases with opposing decisions: the firings of Lisa Cook and Rebecca Slaughter. While the Court ruled that the Trump administration must have cause to dismiss Cook from the Federal Reserve, it allowed the government to fire Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, a decision which Andrew calls deeply flawed showing the conservative majority's support for a “unitary executive.”  And finally, Andrew breaks down the Court's narrow decision to uphold birthright citizenship, and why the tight 5-4 split is the story. Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Employment attorney Ryan Stygar joins Nicole to hand us the playbook our employers hope they never find. He breaks down what "at-will employment" actually means and the exact moves to make the moment you get that dreaded out-of-nowhere email from HR. He also reveals everything that's negotiable in a severance package: the cash amount, COBRA coverage, equity vesting schedules, and non-disparagement clauses, and shares how he turned a $6,000 severance offer into over $60,000 for one client. Then Nicole and Ryan role-play a firing from both sides of the table — so you know exactly what to say and what never to say. They dig into the issues that disproportionately affect women at work: pregnancy discrimination (the number one form Ryan sees in his practice), his controversial-but-legally-sound advice to disclose your pregnancy early, what rights you have if you miscarry, and how return-to-office mandates are quietly being weaponized as stealth layoffs.  Plus: AI keystroke monitoring, non-competes in the current legal landscape, and the interview questions that are totally illegal — that you're probably being asked right now. Check out Nicole's financial literacy course ⁠The Money School⁠ Find a Financial Advisor or Financial Coach from Nicole's company ⁠Private Wealth Collective⁠ Watch video clips from the pod on ⁠Money Rehab's Instagram⁠ and ⁠Nicole Lapin's Instagram⁠  Get Ryan's book ⁠Get It in Writing⁠ Here's what Nicole covers with Ryan:  00:00 Are You Ready for Some Money Rehab?  02:01 Ryan's Path: From Firefighter to Workers' Rights Lawyer  02:52 Nicole Gets Let Go From CNN  03:44 Why HR Is Not Your Friend  05:34 The Right (and Wrong) Way to Fire Someone  06:41 It's Illegal to Fire Someone for Discussing Their Pay  08:44 Building Your Paper Trail From Day One  20:07 At-Will Employment, Explained  24:50 What to Do the Moment You Get That HR Email  26:31 Don't Sign Anything When You're Fired  29:14 Severance Is Negotiable  31:54 How Contingency Lawyers Can Help (Even When You're Broke)  33:38 What Else Is on the Table: COBRA, Equity, and Non-Disparagement Clauses  37:38 Role Play: Getting Fired (What Not to Do)  39:23 Role Play: Getting Laid Off (The Right Way to Handle It)  44:09 How a Good Employer Handles the Conversation  46:34 Freelancers and the 1099 vs. W-2 Trap  49:59 The Fear of Getting Blacklisted for Asserting Your Rights  50:19 Sexual Harassment: Who's Most at Risk and What to Do  52:44 Maternity Leave and Pregnancy Discrimination  55:28 Controversial Advice: Disclose Your Pregnancy Early  59:14 What to Get in Writing When You're Pregnant  01:02:16 Your Rights If You Miscarry  01:04:59 Return to Office as a Stealth Layoff Strategy  01:08:10 AI Tracking and Keystroke Monitoring  01:12:25 Non-Competes: What You Need to Know in 2026  01:17:09 Illegal Interview Questions (Role Play)  01:23:00 Ryan Stygar's Tip You Can Take Straight to the Bank All investing involves the risk of loss, including loss of principal. This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor or attorney before making any financial or legal decisions.

All eyes were on a South Carolina courthouse today as 58-year-old Alex Murdaugh once again faces double murder charges for the shooting deaths of his wife and son. Murdaugh’s attorneys had him stand dramatically making the point his appearance as a convicted criminal could taint a potential jury pool. Hear how the new judge ruled on everything from what Murdaugh can wear in court, to a new DNA testing request, to a change of venue motion. Last month, the Supreme Court threw out Murdaugh’s 2023 double murder conviction after a court clerk unfairly tainted jurors during the trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

All eyes were on a South Carolina courthouse today as 58-year-old Alex Murdaugh once again faces double murder charges for the shooting deaths of his wife and son. Murdaugh’s attorneys had him stand dramatically making the point his appearance as a convicted criminal could taint a potential jury pool. Hear how the new judge ruled on everything from what Murdaugh can wear in court, to a new DNA testing request, to a change of venue motion. Last month, the Supreme Court threw out Murdaugh’s 2023 double murder conviction after a court clerk unfairly tainted jurors during the trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alex Murdaugh's attorneys have filed several motions including:DNA samples they hope to send to Othram regarding the unknown and unrelated male DNA found under Maggie's fingernailsA motion for a change of venueA motion to allow Alex to have a laptop to review case files Motion to wear street clothes in courtBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)

All eyes were on a South Carolina courthouse today as 58-year-old Alex Murdaugh once again faces double murder charges for the shooting deaths of his wife and son. Murdaugh’s attorneys had him stand dramatically making the point his appearance as a convicted criminal could taint a potential jury pool. Hear how the new judge ruled on everything from what Murdaugh can wear in court, to a new DNA testing request, to a change of venue motion. Last month, the Supreme Court threw out Murdaugh’s 2023 double murder conviction after a court clerk unfairly tainted jurors during the trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

☕ Rush Hour Podcast – Morning Episode Sponsored by Hers. Go to forhers.com/rushhour to get started today! The headlines are coming fast, and we're breaking down the biggest stories you need to know before your day gets started. ⚖️ Justice for Clayton: Major developments in the case as new legal updates continue to unfold. ☢️ Iran Escalates: After its war with the United States, new concerns emerge over Iran's renewed pursuit of a nuclear weapon and what it could mean for the region.

Attorney David Weinstein joins the show to break down the legal issues surrounding Terrion Arnold's arrest, discussing the allegations that he enlisted others to carry out an armed robbery and kidnapping in an attempt to recover stolen property, as well as why he was denied bond. Weinstein also weighs in on Brendan Sorsby's ongoing dispute with the NFL, explaining why the league's decision not to hold a supplemental draft leaves Sorsby with little leverage, despite his attorney continuing to speak publicly on the matter. The conversation also touches on Sorsby's underage gambling and the legal implications surrounding his case.

My conversation with Glenn starts at 32 mins today after news and clips Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous soul Subscribe to Glenn's Substack Glenn Kirschner is a former federal prosecutor with 30 years of trial experience.  He served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia for 24 years, rising to the position of Chief of the Homicide Section.  In that capacity, Glenn supervised 30 homicide prosecutors and oversaw all homicide grand jury investigations and prosecutions in Washington, DC. Prior to joining the DC U.S. Attorney's Office, Glenn served more than six years on active duty as an Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) prosecutor, trying court-martial cases and handling criminal appeals, including espionage and death penalty cases. Glenn tried hundreds of cases in his 30 years as a prosecutor, including more than 50 murder trials, multiple lengthy RICO trials and precedent-setting cases. Glenn's YouTube Channel Glenn's Podcast Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll  Buy Ava's Art  Subscribe to Piano Tuner Paul Paul Wesley on Substack Listen to Barry and Abigail Hummel Podcast Listen to Matty C Podcast and Substack

"Domestic abuse doesn't always look the way people think it does." The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 273 with Benny Gold features Amanda Lee, Founder & CEO of The Lee Consultants (TLC), former prosecutor, civil litigator, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, and certified trauma-informed coach. For years, Amanda built a successful legal career while privately enduring an abusive marriage. Today, she has transformed that experience into a mission to help high-achieving professionals recognize abuse, reclaim their confidence, and safely move forward. Through The Lee Consultants, Amanda provides confidential coaching, workplace education, and trauma-informed support for professionals whose success often masks the challenges they're facing behind closed doors. In this conversation, we discuss Amanda's journey from prosecutor to entrepreneur, the misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, why so many accomplished professionals suffer in silence, and how lawyers, leaders, and employers can better recognize and support those in need. This is a powerful conversation about resilience, healing, leadership, and using your own story to help others find theirs. This episode presented by CallRail. Integrated into your case management system, CallRail helps law firms capture every call, respond faster, spot high-value leads instantly, and drive growth. Join over 3,000 law firms using CallRail to follow up faster, land bigger cases, and grow smarter. Start your free trial: https://www.callrail.com/legal-services?utm_medium=influencer&utm_source=lawyer-stories

Todd Blanche lacks the impartiality and integrity to be US Attorney General.In this episode, Senators Whitehouse and Blumenthal discuss the nomination of Todd Blanche to the role of our nation's top prosecutor. From his botched handling of the Epstein files, to his weaponization of the Justice Department as Acting AG, Blanche has a pattern of placing his loyalty to President Trump above his duty to our country. As two former state Attorneys General and U.S. Attorneys, the Senators discuss the principles and morals that should define this role, the importance of an independent Judiciary, and more.Follow ⁠⁠⁠Senator Whitehouse⁠⁠⁠ ⁠on⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for all the latest updates on Making the Case.

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

The PIMCON Lineup Keeps Growing! Get a preview of the insights, strategies, and stories you'll see this year at the PIMCON stage. Customer acquisition costs keep rising, private equity keeps entering the market, and direct-to-consumer advertising gets more expensive every year. The firms finding new growth opportunities are building systems their competitors can't easily replicate. Anthony Lopez and Ilana Reeser have helped transform Your Insurance Attorney into a 300-person firm with 50 attorneys operating across multiple states. Anthony serves as CEO, leading the firm's technology and operational strategy, while Ilana has built a nationwide referral ecosystem that now generates hundreds of cases each month. In this episode, Anthony and Ilana share how they created a scalable growth engine by combining a structured B2B referral network with proprietary AI technology. They discuss the metrics they use to evaluate profitability, the systems required to manage high-volume referrals, and why strong partner relationships have become a competitive advantage in today's legal market. They also reveal how their custom AI platform is reshaping intake, case management, and operational efficiency across the firm. On this episode, you'll learn: Why B2B referral networks create a more scalable growth channel than relying exclusively on direct-to-consumer marketing. How nationwide referral partnerships generate hundreds of cases per month while strengthening reciprocal relationships. The kept CAC metric that reveals whether a marketing channel is actually profitable. How custom AI technology automates intake, client communication, and case management workflows. Unlock the exact strategies to scale your firm by heading over to pimcon.org and securing your tickets for PIMCON 2026. Like what you hear? Hit Subscribe! We do this every week.  For more resources on how to dominate your market, visit us at Rankings.io. Subscribe to our newsletter and get the freshest news every Monday: newsletter.rankings.io Get Social! Personal Injury Mastermind w/ Chris Dreyer powered by Rankings.io is on Instagram | YouTube | TikTok

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

The Joe Piscopo Show 6-24-26 Joe Piscopo's guest host this morning is Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Master's in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of the new book "Panama Red" 36:23- John McLaughlin, CEO of McLaughlin & Associates and pollster for President Donald Trump Topic: Overview of the primary results in New York and elsewhere 49:57- Salena Zito, reporter for the Washington Examiner and the Washington Post, and the author of "Butler" Topic: 59:29- Jim Hanson, President of World Strat and Former Green Beret Topic: Latest in Iran peace negotiations 1:11:33- Josh Appel, policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute Topic: Mamdani's endorsed candidates and the impact they will have on New York 1:25:32- John Ashbrook, Host of the "Ruthless" podcast Topic: News of the day 1:36:30- Sen. Jim Banks, Republican from Indiana Topic: Iran and the fight over nuclear weapons 2:00:57- Mark Caputo, White House reporter for Axios Topic: Latest from the Trump White House 2:12:27- Larry O'Connor, host of "O'Connor & Company," heard weekdays from 3-6 a.m. On AM 970 The Answer Topic: News of the daySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode, we are breaking down the 2026 state legislative season and how the landscape affecting nonprofit advocacy is shifting across the country. We are recording this in mid-June, and while most states have wrapped up for the year, not all have, so you are going to want to look at your state to get a sense of what's enacted, what's moving, and what's dead. What we're seeing this year is not just incremental change, but a rapid expansion of state-level regulation over campaign finance, ballot measures, voter access, and increasingly, what we are calling foreign influence laws or national security-style frameworks applied to civil society.   Attorneys for this episode Maggie Ellinger-Locke Susan Finkle Sourlis Natalie Ossenfort   Shownotes Overview ·      This year, 46 states plus DC held legislative sessions. ·      We tracked roughly 1,000 bills that could impact nonprofit advocacy. ·      Of those bills that have now become law, almost half relate to state campaign finance and / or ballot measure processes. ·      Perhaps the biggest story of the 2026 legislative session is the expansion of laws that borrow concepts from national security and apply them to nonprofit advocacy. New Campaign Finance Laws ·      Louisiana increased the threshold triggering disclosure for certain campaign contributions. ·      West Virginia now not only prevents the public disclosure of certain contributor information, but also created a new criminal penalty for violations of the disclosure prohibition. ·      Kansas eliminated the requirement for political committees to disclose the names of vendors when reporting disbursements New Ballot Measure Procedures ·      Ballot measure legislation accounted for 20% of the bills we monitored, about 350 pieces of legislation. Here, we saw 22 laws enacted across 13 states plus DC. ·      Both Wisconsin and Utah now require signature gatherers to be at least 18 y.o. ·      New York now requires legislators to draft questions at an 8th grade reading level or below, and Maryland did something similar. ·      South Dakota eliminated the requirement to place ballot measures on a separate ballot from candidate elections. ·      In Missouri, voters will decide this August whether to approve a change to that state's ballot measure procedures. Currently, in order to pass, measures need a simple statewide majority, but under Amendment 4, a majority in all eight of the state's congressional districts would be required. New Lobbying and Ethics Laws ·      This type of legislation constituted about 13% of all bills we tracked. ·      In Minnesota, certain lobbying communications conveyed to the public must now include a disclaimer to identify the lobbying principal, who is responsible for the communication. Laws Related to Law Enforcement Presence at the Polls and Voting ·      Legislation was enacted in California, Maryland, New Mexico, and Connecticut to restrict law enforcement presence at the polls. ·      The new Connecticut law also removed the statutory list of reasons required to vote absentee, effectively allowing no-excuse absentee voting. It also permits 17-year-olds who will be 18 by election day to vote early or by absentee ballot. ·      Kansas moved up the deadline for early voting. ·      Mississippi now requires ballot counting to be finalized on the night of the election.[SS1] [ME2]  Foreign Influence Laws ·      We made note of 89 such bills filed across 26 states and 12 laws enacted across seven states. ·      Florida enacted a domestic terrorist organization (DTO) designation framework that will allow the state to designate certain groups as terrorist organizations and then criminalize any support those groups receive from that point forward. ·      In Indiana, a new law authorizes the designation of domestic groups and individuals as "affiliates" of federally designated foreign terrorist organizations. The same law creates new investigatory powers for the state AG. ·      Other foreign influence laws we saw enacted this session come out of Alabama, Iowa, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, all of which seek to curb the flow of money into elections from overseas. Takeaways & Reminders ·      Many of the most significant experiments in regulating nonprofit advocacy are now occurring at the state level. ·      Compliance teams should continue to update and refine their review processes to ensure any obligations that could be triggered by state-specific rules are being met. ·      Remember that states differ on when and whether a ballot measure committee must register, what counts as a contribution or expenditure, when disclaimers are required, and what donor disclosure rules apply. These rules are in active evolution. ·      When it comes to foreign influence or terrorist designation laws, states are increasingly willing to experiment with new regulatory frameworks. ·      It is critical to stay informed about developments in your state and remain vigilant to ensure your nonprofit is flexing its advocacy might to the fullest extent possible under the law.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Watch the YouTube version of this episode HERETyson sits down with Darren Wurz to unpack what actually works when it comes to employee pay, bonuses, raises, and profitability inside a growing law firm. After appearing on Darren's Lawyer Millionaire podcast, Tyson knew this conversation needed to get in front of Maximum Lawyer listeners, especially the owners wrestling with labor costs as their biggest expense. He shares the stories, numbers, and mindset shifts that moved his firm from emotional, one‑off raises and complex bonus schemes to a simpler, more intentional compensation strategy that serves both people and profit.You will learn:How Tyson handled an 80% raise demand during COVID.Why automatic annual raises can backfire.How he replaced complex bonuses with higher salaries.How KPIs and job scorecards drive who earns more.How “non‑billable” roles are still tied to profit.The labor % Tyson targets to avoid bloat.Why he avoids full salary transparency in the firm.How AI is reshaping roles and headcount decisions.How an AI‑driven case management system boosted profit and morale.Tyson breaks down how his firm now uses job scorecards with a simple funnel of questions, starting with the purpose of the role, the top competencies, the key outcomes, and finally the numbers that prove success, to set clear KPIs for every seat. He explains why he prefers a lean team of A‑players, why labor savings from AI often get reinvested into higher salaries for remaining team members, and how he wrestles with the tension between not wanting to “replace people with AI” and making the right call for the business. He and Darren also get candid about raise requests that end in resignations, employees comparing salaries, and why your firm culture and compensation philosophy have to be aligned if you want to avoid long‑term resentment.If you are a law firm owner who wants to pay your people fairly, protect your margins, and make smart decisions about AI and staffing, Tyson's approach will help you move from guessing and reacting to using simple frameworks and numbers to drive compensation.Highlights0:23 – Tyson's background, PI firm, and “profit on purpose” theme for the year3:40 – The first raise request from an early employee and what he learned from it6:20 – The COVID‑era 80% raise demand and why he refused it12:10 – Scrapping a complex bonus system and moving to higher base salaries16:45 – Using job scorecards and KPIs to decide who actually earns more21:05 – Rethinking “billable vs. non‑billable” and tying every role to profit24:30 – Targeting ~38% labor costs and avoiding overstaffed, low‑profit firms29:15 – Why Tyson doesn't share everyone's salaries internally and the resentment risk34:20 – How AI is shrinking parts of multiple roles and the hard calls that follow47:10 – Increasing salaries when headcount drops and keeping A‑players happy52:30 – Why fewer KPIs are better and how to pick the ones that matter56:40 – What Tyson is reading now and how it shapes his leadership lensIf this episode helps you think differently about pay, raises, and AI in your firm, hit subscribe for more practical conversations on building a profitable, people‑first law practice, and share it with another lawyer who is tired of guessing on compensation.

Real estate attorneys can be massive deal killers if you don't know how to navigate them—even in non-attorney states. In today's episode, I'm breaking down exactly how to navigate the seller's attorney so you can protect your deals and keep your real estate business moving forward.  

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

The Joe Piscopo Show 6-23-26 Joe Piscopo is broadcasting live from the offices of Times Square Alliance overlooking Times Square in celebration of America's 250th Anniversary. 27:49- Dr. Carlos Campo, President and CEO of Museum of the Bible Topic: Museum of the Bible 40:40- Jeff Coltin, Editor-in-Chief of City & State New York Topic: Primary Day in New York 56:21- John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice network Topic: Primaries today; Three non-citizens admit to knowingly voting in federal elections despite ineligibility; Vandalism of reflecting pool; Other news of the day 1:05:27- Tom Harris, President of Times Square Alliance Topic: Broadcasting from Times Square Alliance; Upcoming events in Times Square 1:14:01- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Iran peace talks in Switzerland 1:28:49- David Fischer, CEO of Landmark Capital Topic: Why now you should roll over a portion of your 401(k) and/or IRA into an IRA with physical gold and silver- PART 4 1:40:05- Arthur Aidala, former Brooklyn Prosecutor, star criminal defense attorney, and host of "The Arthur Aidala Power Hour" weeknights at 6 p.m. on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Broadcast from Times Square tonight 1:51:02- Mike Connors, Attorney at Law at Connors & Sullivan and host of "Ask the Lawyer," airing Saturdays at 6 p.m. and Sundays at 11 a.m. on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Broadcasting from Times Square; America's 250th Anniversary 2:06:03- Arthur Lih, Inventor & CEO of LifeVac and the author of "Sorry, Can't is a Lie" Topic: America's 250th; Portions of the proceeds of Patriots, Pasta, & Piscopo going to Equal First Aid 2:19:28- Chef Glenn Rolnick, Culinary Director of Carmine's Topic: What's on the menu for Patriots, Pasta, & Piscopo tomorrow nightSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Senate Democrats are already war-gaming scenarios involving ballot seizures, armed federal agents at polling places, voter intimidation, and election interference ahead of the 2026 midterms.But constitutional law professor and former federal prosecutor Kim Wehle says those preparations may not be enough.In this conversation, Matt Robison and Kim Wehle examine the real risks facing the 2026 elections, the limits of existing legal safeguards, the role of state prosecutors, what the Supreme Court may do next, and why she believes Americans need to start thinking differently about defending democracy.Kim Wehle is an ABC News legal contributor, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, former Associate Independent Counsel in the Whitewater investigation, and author of How to Read the Constitution—and Why, What You Need to Know About Voting—and Why, and Pardon Power.Chapters00:00 Introduction: Is America Prepared?02:14 Senate Democrats' Election Defense Plan04:48 Why Kim Wehle Isn't Optimistic07:15 Voting Rights, Gerrymandering & Mail Ballots10:00 Trump's "Election Integrity Army"12:00 "We're Already There"15:20 Federal Agents at Polling Places?17:00 Could Troops Be Deployed?20:00 Why Denial Is Dangerous22:00 Fighting Back Without Fear24:00 Lessons from the Declaration of Independence27:00 What Citizens Can Do Right Now30:00 Election Protection Efforts Explained34:00 Why Lower Courts Still Matter37:15 The State Prosecution Theory40:00 Can States Go After Trump Officials?45:00 Mail Ballots and Postal Service Concerns47:45 Supreme Court Postal Service Ruling52:00 Supreme Court Cases to Watch53:30 Birthright Citizenship Case55:00 Final ThoughtsFollow Kim WehleKim's Substack:https://kimwehle.substack.comFollow Worth KnowingSubstack:https://worthknowing.substack.comYouTube:https://www.youtube.com/@worthknowing-mattrobisonTopics2026 Midterms, Election Protection, Kim Wehle, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, Voting Rights, Mail Ballots, Democracy, Trump Administration, Rule of Law, Federal Courts, Election Interference, Voting Access, State Prosecutors, Election Security, Constitutional Crisis#KimWehle #Midterms2026 #ElectionProtection #Democracy #Constitution #RuleOfLaw #VotingRights #BirthrightCitizenship #SupremeCourt #WorthKnowing #MattRobison

It was a pleasure to speak with Jessica and listen as she shared  all that she experienced as a high school drop out and single mother with a husband behind bars.   This major turning point in her life,  motivated her to complete her GED as well as complete college and law school, with honors, in order to help those similarly unfamiliar with the way the criminal justice system works.  When you hear the compelling stories about both  Jessica and her mother, you'll say, 'the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.'   Both women have been working tirelessly for decades in order to educate victims and their family members,  as well as inform  society to be more compassionate and aware and to update the parole and probation system. Resilience is one of the words that Jessica uses over and over again when describing her mother Maria who is originally from  Stockholm, Sweden.  Jessica also describes her mom as "a pioneer in her field." Very early on in the AIDS epidemic, Maria was involved with helping patients and their families maneuver the scary waters of a frightening disease.  While in graduate school, Maria brought her days old daughter Jessica with her to class.  Jessica went where ever her mother took her, to HIV/Aids conferences, seminars, etc. "She showed us"  says Jessica, when referring to her mother, "by her actions, not her words, on how to live life." Jessica was adamant about how her mom had a "show them, don't tell them" philosophy about life. In other words, Maria was an  example by her actions, not her words. Jessica reflects, "I never once saw my mom give up." Again, the parallels between mother and daughter are striking, Maria working with HIV/AIDS patients and Jessica with people in prison. Again, those whose lives were turned upside down, found a smart, caring and devoted women to make a difference in these unfortunate individuals lives. When Kim Kardashian West wanted tutoring in law once aware of wrongfully incarcerated first time offenders, she went to Jessica Jackson for help.  On November 29, 2019, USA Today wrote "Kim Kardashian West came on board with the campaign after she heard about Alice Marie Johnson, a grandmother who had served 21 years of a life sentence for her first-ever drug conviction, and was moved to help. Kardashian West was instrumental in convincing Trump to grant Johnson clemency. "  That's just one of thousands of cases that Jackson has had overturned and continues to fight in order to get families back together under one roof. Both of these women with all that they have accomplished and continue  to accomplish is living proof that if you set your mind to something, anything and everything is possible. As Maria said to her daughter "you can do anything, you can achieve anything, if you work hard enough."    REFORM Alliance Mission Statement: REFORM Alliance aims to transform probation and parole by changing laws, systems and culture to create real pathways to work and wellbeing. A justice system that holds people accountable and redirects back to work and wellbeing leads to stronger families and safer communities. Instead of keeping people trapped in a revolving door from probation/parole to prison — which costs taxpayers billions of dollars — we're working to move people from the justice system into stability.  History REFORM's story starts with the unjust re-imprisonment of recording artist Meek Mill. The shocking two-to-four year sentence he received for popping a wheelie spurred the international #FreeMeek movement, which led to release on bail and eventually his freedom. Although Meek had the resources and public platform to fight his case, his case is only one of millions. The vast majority of people trapped in the system don't get their stories told, or have the resources to fight back. On January 23, 2019, a world-class group of philanthropists and activists came together to launch the REFORM Alliance to change this REFORM Alliance 1675 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, NY 10019-5820 If you would like to learn more about how to support REFORM, please contact us at development@reformalliance.com. #cut50-Co founder along with Van JonesAn organization designed to cut prison populations, but also wipe out the stigmas associated with being incarcerated because of the current criminal justice system. The family  member behind bars is not the only one negatively affected. COO/CAO Reform Alliance; Fmr. Mayor & Council Member City of Mill Valley; WEF Young Global Leader; Co-founder of #cut50; Human Rights Attorney "Should Have Listened To My Mother" is an ongoing conversation about mothers/female role models and the roles they play in our lives. Jackie's guests are open and honest and answer the question, are you who you are today because of, or in spite of, your mother and so much more. You'll be amazed at what the responses are.Gina Kunadian wrote this 5 Star review on Apple Podcast:SHLTMM TESTIMONIAL GINA KUNADIAN JUNE 18, 2024“A Heartfelt and Insightful Exploration of Maternal Love”Jackie Tantillo's “Should Have Listened To My Mother” Podcast is a treasure and it's clear why it's a 2023 People's Choice Podcast Award Nominee. This show delves into the profound impact mother and maternal role models have on our lives through personal stories and reflections.Each episode offers a chance to learn how different individuals have been shaped by their mothers' actions and words. Jackie skillfully guides these conversations, revealing why guests with similar backgrounds have forged different paths.This podcast is a collection of timeless stories that highlight the powerful role of maternal figures in our society. Whether your mother influenced you positively or you thrived despite challenges, this show resonates deeply.I highly recommend “Should Have Listened To My Mother” Podcast for its insightful, heartfelt and enriching content.Gina Kunadian"Should Have Listened To My Mother" would not be possible without the generosity, sincerity and insight from my guests. In 2018/2019, in getting ready to launch my podcast, so many were willing to give their time and share their personal stories of their relationship with their mother, for better or worse and what they learned from that maternal relationship. Some of my guests include Nationally and Internationally recognized authors, Journalists, Columbia University Professors, Health Practitioners, Scientists, Artists, Attorneys, Baritone Singer, Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist, Activists, Freighter Sea Captain, Film Production Manager, Professor of Writing Montclair State University, Attorney and family advocate @CUNY Law; NYC First Responder/NYC Firefighter, Child and Adult Special Needs Activist, Property Manager, Chefs, Self Help Advocates, therapists and so many more talented and insightful women and men.Jackie has worked in the broadcasting industry for over four decades. She has interviewed many fascinating people including musicians, celebrities, authors, activists, entrepreneurs, politicians and more.A big thank you goes to Ricky Soto, NYC based Graphic Designer, who created the logo for "Should Have Listened To My Mother".MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SHLTMM PODCAST:Link to website and show notes: https://shltmm.simplecast.com/ and https://www.jackietantillo.com/Or more demos of what's to come at https://soundcloud.com/jackie-tantillo Listen wherever you find podcasts: https://www.facebook.com/ShouldHaveListenedToMyMotherhttps://www.facebook.com/jackietantilloInstagram:https://www.instagram.com/shouldhavelistenedtomymother/https://www.instagram.com/jackietantillo7/LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackie-tantillo/YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ShouldHaveListenedToMyMother

The rules and regulations around immigration and the workplace have fluctuated drastically under the current administration, and many are at a loss. Our friends over at Brightmine just released new research showing nearly half (46%) of U.S. adults lack confidence in employers' ability to handle immigration enforcement in a way that protects employees and follows the law. Even fewer say their employer has provided training on how to respond to situations like raids (17%) or communicated formal response plans (14%). Joining us on today's episode of the HR Works Podcast is Taylor Lewellyn, Attorney and Legal editor for Brightmine, to discuss how HR leaders can better prepare for the changing immigration landscape.

“Someone in your office is stealing from you. They may not be stealing money and putting it into their own pocket, but they’re stealing time. They’re giving away work for free.” – RJon Robins, author of Profit First for Lawyers Many law firm owners focus on generating new business, increasing billable hours, and growing revenue. But bringing business into the firm is only part of what makes a law firm profitable. Have the Hard Conversations In this episode, Jose Luis Perdomo, Fractional CFO at How To Manage a Small Law Firm, discusses one of the most common threats to profitability: unpaid invoices and growing accounts receivable balances. Drawing from a Chapter 14 clip by RJon Robins from Profit First for Lawyers, Jose Luis explores why outstanding balances create more than a cash flow problem. They impact: Attorney and staff accountability Client expectations The long-term financial health of the firm And because collections conversations can feel uncomfortable, overdue balances are often allowed to linger while additional work continues to be performed. But every unpaid invoice that lingers as an accounts receivable balance represents labor, overhead, and resources that have already been invested. A best practice is to develop healthy collections practices long before an invoice becomes overdue. When collections become an afterthought, profitability suffers. Creating a Healthy Sustainable Business Every unpaid invoice tells a story. Often, that story begins long before work begins. Clear communication, well-defined expectations, replenishment policies, and accountability systems all play a role in the final outcome. The goal is not simply to collect money that is already owed. The goal is to build systems that make timely payment the natural outcome. That prevents “free work” from becoming a common practice in your firm and collection problems before they occur. This leads to stronger cash flow, healthier profit margins, and a more sustainable business that can help even more people. Mentioned Law Firm Diagnostic by How To Manage a Small Law Firm Business Plan worksheet G.A.S. Calls resource Chapter 14: For When You Really Take Profits Seriously Connect Subscribe to the Profit First for Lawyers podcast Watch episodes on YouTube And most importantly, order your copy of Profit First for Lawyers today!

ABC's Jonathan Karl filmed himself sticking his hand into Trump's newly restored Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and ripping the blue lining off the bottom — and Trump named him directly in a True Social post warning of a 10-year prison sentence. Judge Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for D.C., said anyone caught vandalizing the pool will be prosecuted. Meanwhile Whoopi Goldberg insisted there was "no proof" on The View seconds after the footage aired, a 3-time Olympian was arrested, and Debbie Dingell claimed pool algae was "all anybody talked about" in Michigan. Larry O'Connor breaks down the pro-algae meltdown. For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial 580-308-0975 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go https://askchapter.org/oconnor *Paid Partnership* SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcom Chapter: Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options.Become a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How do we get rid of nuclear weapons around the world? We talked to Valley attorney and former GoDaddy Chief Counsel about her solution.

An American Olympic canoeist just got arrested for allegedly vandalizing the historic Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool! Pat Gray breaks down the shocking details: David Hearn, a U.S. Olympian, is accused of jumping into the newly renovated reflecting pool and causing damage. President Trump is calling it out, exposing how vandals are destroying these national treasures. This isn't just random vandalism — it's another disturbing example of Trump derangement syndrome fueling attacks on American history, patriotism, and everything that makes this country great. While conservatives fight to protect our monuments and heritage, the radical Left continues its unhinged assault. But that's not all — this episode is loaded: Tulsi Gabbard drops bombshell facts on Dr. Fauci. Strait of Hormuz chaos update: open, close, open (the latest Middle East madness). Trump on Israel + his “I'm the boss” moment at the G7 meeting. "Toy Story 5" record-breaking box office domination.  Minor league team York Revolution refuses to wear gay Pride jerseys. Comment below RIGHT NOW: Is this Olympic athlete's alleged vandalism an outright attack on America? YES or NO? Should we be cracking down much harder on monument vandals? And who is really to blame for the destruction of our national symbols? If you love unfiltered truth, America First values, and watching Pat destroy the radical Left's nonsense, smash that LIKE button, SUBSCRIBE, and turn on notifications so you never miss an episode. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:13 BREAKING NEWS: Keir Starmer Resigning 02:18 New Pat Gray BINGO! Sheet 08:03 Is the Strait of Hormuz Open or Not?! 08:58 When will the Conflict in Iran End? 10:39 Trey Yingst Update on the Iranian Conflict 13:44 Lindsey Graham on What Happens Next 15:00 Chris Wright on the Strait of Hormuz Traffic 16:15 Price of Gas/Oil 19:10 Pat is Still Waiting for his House to be Remodeled 20:31 Trump Talking about Israel 21:51 Trump Explains his "I'm the Boss" Quote 23:07 Iranian Delegation "Wander Off" 25:26 JD Vance on Conflict in the Middle-East 26:57 Words from Iran's Foreign Ministry 31:48 Fat Five 44:11 Pat is Annoyed at the Obama Presidential Center 49:22 Soccer Tournament Update 51:31 Jeanine Pirro on White House Reflecting Pool 56:22 Tulsi Gabbard on Anthony Fauci 1:01:40 Nick Shirley with U.S. Attorney on Fauci Pardon 1:08:37 Freedom Across the Globe! 1:10:17 Toy Story 5 Box Office 1:12:05 Pride Month has Flown By for Pat Gray 1:12:37 Baseball Team Refusing to Wear LGBTQ+ Jerseys 1:17:48 Eddie Scarry on Gays Going Too Far 1:22:30 Biggest Property Tax Revolt? 1:28:41 Stephen Miller on State of Democrat Party 1:30:23 Harry Enten on Socialists in the Democrat Party Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What an attorney who reviews NIL deals sees in the contracts, and what college athletes may be signing away.Philip Sheng is an attorney at Venable LLP, a national firm of roughly 900 lawyers, where he works in the intellectual property group and the sports law practice. His focus is college NIL, the right of publicity, and college eligibility. Venable also advised Taylor Swift through her fight to control her music and re-record her catalog. Sheng notes that was the firm's matter rather than his own, but the throughline is the same question he now works on in college sports: who owns a person's name, image, and likeness, and what they give up when they sign.This is the on-the-ground legal view of NIL. For the full breakdown of how the system works, start with The NIL Hub, NIL Rules in 2026, and NIL Pros and Cons. This episode is narrower. It is what a practicing attorney sees inside the deals themselves.Eric Kasimov talks with Sheng about NIL as both a legal and an athlete-centered issue. They get into whether NIL is really athlete compensation, intellectual property, or both, and why the issue was known as the right of publicity long before college sports made it a household term. Sheng has lived the landscape from several sides. He played tennis at Stanford, competed as an ATP-ranked professional, and now has children navigating college athletics, including Division I basketball and tennis.TopicsNIL as intellectual property and the right of publicityThe College Sports Commission and how it reviews NIL dealsThe Nebraska and PlayFly case, and why the contracts were the problemWhy even a small NIL deal needs its rights language reviewedHow brands can work with role players, not only star athletesRoster cuts in non-revenue sports like tennis and swimmingHigh school NIL, state-by-state rules, and protecting minorsSports betting, college students, and the value of staying in schoolChapters in This Episode00:00 Philip Sheng's background in law, tennis, and college sports00:36 Venable LLP, intellectual property, NIL, and sports law02:11 NIL as right of publicity03:15 Stanford, conference realignment, and athlete travel04:13 The burden on student-athletes06:29 What college sports used to be for07:00 Money, transfers, and the changing athlete experience09:20 NIL checks, taxes, and athlete education09:36 Bad agents and why guidance matters12:25 Has NIL gone too far?13:00 Congress, courts, media, fans, and pressure to change16:11 Money, rosters, and the college experience19:05 What the College Sports Commission does20:00 Fair market value, valid business purpose, and NIL deal review20:55 Nebraska, PlayFly, and unclear NIL contracts22:39 Why the Nebraska case was not just bad paperwork23:40 Why other schools are watching25:00 Lawyers, arbitration costs, and legal representation26:18 Sheng's view of the CSC and NCAA enforcement28:46 College football playoff expansion and media money31:00 What happens if schools sell marquee games differently32:43 Why championships still matter34:50 Sheng's work with non-revenue sports and NIL contracts36:08 Why brands should look beyond star athletes38:47 Are NIL contracts becoming standardized?39:45 Why athletes need contract review40:38 Rights, music, Taylor Swift, and long-term ownership42:02 College tennis, roster cuts, and non-revenue sports44:29 International athletes and college tennis47:25 Similar issues in soccer and goalkeeper recruiting48:00 High school NIL and state-by-state rules49:37 Youth sports, money, and family pressure50:29 Sports betting, college students, and addiction risk52:00 Athlete data, betting markets, and protection54:00 The cost and value of college55:00 Why athletes should not discount the college experience57:25 Athletic fees, non-athletes, and campus tension58:57 Burnout, injuries, and changing paths59:28 Where to find Philip ShengAbout Philip ShengPhilip Sheng is an attorney at Venable LLP, where he works in the firm's intellectual property group and sports law practice. His work includes NIL, the right of publicity, college eligibility, NCAA eligibility, and athlete-related legal issues. He has practiced law for 15 years.He is also a former Stanford tennis player and a former ATP-ranked professional. That background gives him a view of college sports from both sides, as a former athlete and as an attorney working in NIL and intellectual property. He also brings a parent's perspective, with children competing in Division I basketball and tennis. The combination shapes how he thinks about NIL, athlete contracts, non-revenue sports, and the value of the college experience.Connect with Philip Sheng:X | LinkedIn | Venable LLPConnect with Eric and SportsEpreneur:LinkedIn | X | SportsEpreneur on LinkedIn | SportsEpreneur on XRelated SportsEpreneur NIL ContentThe NIL HubNIL Pros and Cons | The College Game Is Changed ForeverWhat the Protect College Sports Act Reveals About Athlete RepresentationDid You Know You're Paying for College Sports?

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

2 - Now acclaimed author, Scott Presler is here this afternoon.How does he feel now that the book is out? How has his voting registration fight become a national story as he continues to argue with John Thune over the SAVE Act? What does Scott think about the “union-type” Democrats voting against school choice? How can we get Republicans to pounce on this issue? When will Scott be launching a national campaign? What is Scott's new nickname for Bob Brooks? 215 - Dom's Money Melody! 235 - Attorney George Bocchetto joins us today. What is the future of the slavery placards displayed in Old City? How would he describe the decision from the court? Does George think the President was properly briefed on the ramifications on this issue? What is next as far as legal proceedings in this case? Any updates on the Frank Rizzo statue? Is Larry Krasner heading for a “public spanking”? 250 - The Lightning Round!

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

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

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

This week on The Necessary Conversation, Chad (who just turned 50!

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

Megyn Kelly is joined by Bryan Freedman, founder of Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley, to discuss the full settlement agreement between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively revealed exclusively on The Megyn Kelly Show, what the agreement actually says, why the agreement makes it clear it's time to move on from this entire case, Justin Baldoni's reaction to Blake Lively agreeing to settle the case before trial, how much Blake Lively will actually get for legal fees, what Baldoni does next, and more. Then Glenn Greenwald, host of “System Update” on Substack, joins to discuss the reported details of the new deal between President Trump and Iran, what we're learning about the actual terms of the agreement, why Trump was eager to end the conflict and why the neocons are furious, the huge success of the UFC event at the White House, the left's meltdown over the patriotic display compared to the woke events at the White House during Biden, why Ellen Page's comments about masculinity represent a step backwards for gay rights, the bizarre anti-Trump celebrity event featuring terrible musical performances, out-of-touch comments from celebrities like Julia Roberts, celebrities trying to draft off the Knicks' success, Jennifer Lopez's thirsty social media celebration, Hank Azaria complaining about his free MSG tickets, the inspiring performance of Jalen Brunson, and more.   Freedman- https://lftcllp.com/ Greenwald- https://greenwald.substack.com/   Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com The Wellness Company: Don't let a sudden illness derail your summer—secure your peace of mind and save $45 on a Medical Emergency Kit today by visiting https://UrgentCareKit.com/MK and using promo code MK. ARMRA: go to https://tryarmra.com/MEGYNto get 30% off your first subscription order     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.