Podcast appearances and mentions of Bill Clinton

Does having an affair make you a bad employee? Asking for a friend. Meet the CEO who fired two employees when she found out they were cheating on their spouses. She says if you can't be trusted at home, you can't be trusted at work. Is she right? Plus, everyone's talking about the Epstein/Trump emails again and we want Amelia to answer the question: What's all this about Bill Clinton, or maybe a horse? And, it's only a matter of time before one of your friends starts gushing to you about their new love interest and you find out... they're not human. Please step into the world of AI 'companions', where Clare Stephens is worried that we'll lose sight of our humanity and Holly's wondering if they could take a load off. Also, what time do you have dinner? And, what Justin Trudeau's ex has to say (and sing) about his new relationship with Katy Perry. Support independent women's media What To Listen To Next: Listen to our latest episode: Squirting, Dawn Culture & The Most Motivating Word Listen: Letters To Juliet & 'The One' Question Everyone Is Asking Listen: The 'Australia Effect' & Meghan and Harry's Curious Party Edit Listen: A Very Bad Decision & An Imploding Friendship Group Listen: Kim Kardashian's Zero-Star Strategy Listen: The Great Influencer Exodus & The Sex We Never Talk About Listen: Every Single Thing We Have In Our Handbags Connect your subscription to Apple Podcasts Discover more Mamamia Podcasts here including the very latest episode of Parenting Out Loud, the parenting podcast for people who don't listen to... parenting podcasts. Watch Mamamia Out Loud: Mamamia Out Loud on YouTube Outlouders, we're casting for Season 2 of Mamamia's This Is Why We Fight podcast and we'd love to hear your stories. Apply here. What to read: "Chatfishing" is the new texting hack getting people more dates. There's just one problem. It was the 'affair' that broke the internet. Nobody saw Astronomer's next move coming. Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau just hard-launched their relationship. Document linking famous associates of sex offender Jeffery Epstein revealed. The death of the family dinner table. THE END BITS: Check out our merch at MamamiaOutLoud.com GET IN TOUCH: Feedback? We’re listening. Send us an email at outloud@mamamia.com.au Share your story, feedback, or dilemma! Send us a voice message. Join our Facebook group Mamamia Outlouders to talk about the show. Follow us on Instagram @mamamiaoutloud and on Tiktok @mamamiaoutloudBecome a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

EP.608In this thought provoking episode, the hosts engage in a candid and wide ranging conversation exploring the complexities of prayer, politics, and power. They delve into the personal and spiritual dimensions of prayer, examining its role beyond faith as a practice of intention and meditation. The discussion then shifts to pressing political controversies, including the latest revelations from the Epstein files and their broader implications for leadership and accountability. Alongside reflections on societal challenges from global protests to media influence the hosts share personal anecdotes and cultural insights that bring depth and humor to the dialogue. With an open, respectful approach to diverse beliefs and a commitment to uncovering truth, this episode invites listeners to question, reflect, and engage with the complexities shaping our world today.

Presa internațională continuă să comenteze situația de pe scena politică americană, după ce, vineri, Departamentul de Justiție a declarat că va îndeplini cererea președintelui Donald Trump de a investiga legăturile infractorului sexual  Jeffrey Epstein cu fostul președinte democrat Bill Clinton și cu compania JP Morgan. Totul, după ce o comisie a Congresului a publicat mii de documente care au ridicat noi semne de întrebare cu privire la relația lui Trump cu Epstein, observă comentatorii. „Departamentul de Justiție va investiga legăturile lui Epstein, dar nu cu Trump”, sintetizează The New York Times. „Când numeroase e-mailuri ale lui Jeffrey Epstein au fost publicate săptămâna aceasta, numele lui Donald J. Trump era peste tot. Totuși, vineri, când el a cerut ca Departamentul de Justiție să investigheze o listă de figuri influente menționate în aceste e-mailuri, propriul său nume a lipsit”. Ziarul remarcă și faptul că secretara pentru justiție, Pam Bondi s-a conformat solicitării, ”chiar dacă, cu doar patru luni mai devreme, același Departament de Justiție declarase oficial că nimic din dosarele Epstein nu justifica investigații suplimentare”. Potrivit Reuters, ”Trump încearcă să mute atenția de la relația sa cu infractorul sexual condamnat. Scandalul Epstein a fost un ghimpe politic în coasta lui Trump timp de luni de zile, parțial pentru că a amplificat teoriile conspirației despre Epstein în fața propriilor susținători. Aceasta este doar cea mai recentă dintr-o serie de solicitări ale lui Trump către organismele federale de a-i urmări pe presupușii săi dușmani politici”. Citeste si”E-mailurile Epstein” îl pun pe Donald Trump într-o situație dificilă The Washington Post relatează că „Trump a evidențiat trei persoane: Bill Clinton, fostul secretar al Trezoreriei Lawrence H. Summers, și Reid Hoffman, fondatorul LinkedIn și un donator important al Partidului Democrat. Toți au avut relații cu Epstein de ani de zile”, subliniază cotidianul american, citat ce Courrier International. National Review amintește că „În timpul președinției lui Clinton, Epstein a vizitat Casa Albă în mai multe rânduri, iar înregistrările de zbor arată că fostul președinte a călătorit cu avionul său privat de 26 de ori în timpul relației lor, care s-a încheiat în jurul anului 2003. (...) Numele lui Clinton a fost menționat și în procedurile judiciare anterioare dar nu au fost formulate acuzații credibile împotriva lui”, observă revista. ”Trump a sugerat în campania electorală de anul trecut că va încerca să deschidă dosarele Epstein”, amintește National Public Radio. ”Dar el a schimbat cursul în ultimele luni, dând vina pe democrați și prezentând problema drept o farsă”. Vorbind despre proiectul de lege privind declasificarea dosarului Epstein, care va fi supus la vot în această săptămână în Camera Reprezentanților, The Intercept afirmă că ”totul se va putea transforma într-o problemă structurală”:    ”Pe de o parte, Trump se confruntă cu un electorat care își dorește în mod covârșitor să fie publicate toate înregistrările și care crede deja că administrația ascunde ce e mai rău. Pe de altă parte, se confruntă cu un Congres care, pentru prima dată, se îndreaptă către o coaliție formată din democrați progresiști ​​și republicani libertarieni. Dacă proiectul de lege trece de Senat și Trump îl semnează, pierde complet controlul asupra documentelor - și a discursului”.  

Long time no hear! Frischer als Thomas Gottschalk begibt sich der Bill Clinton der deutschen Podcastszene endlich wieder ans Mikrophon, um für euch einmal festzulegen, was man so schauen sollte. 0:00:00 Vorgespräch Was War (Kids, Konzerte, (K)lego) 0:23:56 Now You See Me - Now You Don´t 0:35:39 The Long Walk - Todesmarsch 0:43:29 Pluribus 0:54:56 Materialists - Was Liebe Wert Ist 0:59:58 Shorts 1:08:51 Bonus: Die Werwölfe von Düsterwald Folge direkt herunterladen Intro/Outro: Graduated Engineer Soundbett: Paweł Feszczuk - Chillowanie Bomby Folgt uns auch bei Instagram und lasst doch gerne bei eurem Podcatcher eine positive Bewertung für uns da.

Lyall kicks things off fighting seasonal depression, getting into rainy-day comfort movies, and what it's like doing stand-up alongside the same comics he watched on TV as a teenager. He breaks down the passing of Coach John Beam, the wild rumor about Donald Trump allegedly giving Bill Clinton a blowjob (complete with impressions of how it might have gone down), and why Oakland's gun violence feels so normalized to people from the Town.From there, Lyall dives into Rory's resurfaced racist tweet, Klay vs. Pat Bev, actual thunder cracking in the middle of the episode, Pusha T refusing to change diapers, and—because priorities matter—Lyall's full Thanksgiving menu.Another chaotic, honest, and unfiltered week of Let's Unpack That.

EPSTEIN EMERGENCY PODCAST. An email from Mark Epstein alleges there are photos of Donald Trump "Blowing Bubba" and the internet has exploded at the concept Trump may have given Bill Clinton that sloppy toppy. We dive into what's true, false, and most importantly fun.

We have been replaying interviews with documentarian Barak Goodman, who has created an array of superb films for the PBS series AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, which unfortunately has been cancelled by PBS because of federal budget cuts. This conversation from 2012 concerns Goodman's two-part documentary "Clinton," which chronicles the fascinating story and complicated legacy of President Bill Clinton.

Submitted by an anonymous contributor Theme Song by Totally Unicorn See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's episode of the Unnatural Selection Podcast, we discuss: Jeffrey Epstein emails: Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and more. BREAKING: Oversight Dems have received new emails from Jeffrey Epstein's estate that raise serious questions about Donald Trump and his knowledge of Epstein's horrific crimes. Vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein files set to go ahead as US government shutdown ends. Jeffrey Epstein emails suggest Donald Trump knew about his sexual abuse. Donald Trump's Approval Rating 'In a Free Fall' for Weeks: Nate Silver. US Senate votes in favour of bill to end federal government shutdown. Date set for Alan Jones's court hearing with up to 139 witnesses expected to be involved in Crown's case. Liberal Party formally abandons net zero by 2050 climate target. The Unnatural Selection podcast is produced by Jorge Tsipos, Adam Direen and Tom Heath. Visit the Unnatural Selection website at www.UnnaturalShow.com for stuff and things. The views expressed are those of the hosts and their guests and do not reflect those of any other entities. Unnatural Selection is a show made for comedic purposes and should not be taken seriously by anyone. Twitter: @JorgeTsipos @UnnaturalShow Instagram: @JorgeTsipos @UnnaturalShow Threads: @tom.heath @JorgeTsipos @UnnaturalShow

President Trump turns his vitriol again toward his political enemies and orders the Justice Department to launch an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's ties to some high-profile figures, including Bill Clinton. Plus, new developments in the Georgia racketeering case, which just got a second wind, and still has the President as a defendant.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Washington Roundtable discusses the trove of Jeffrey Epstein correspondence released by Congress this week, the fractures it has caused in the Republican Party, and the potential political ramifications for President Trump. Their guest is the investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, who has spent decades reporting on major scandals in American politics, including the affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and Russian interference in the 2016 election. The panel considers the factors that made other scandals in the past, such as Watergate, break through the public consciousness and change the course of Presidencies. This week's reading: “The Epstein Scandal Is Now a Chronic Disease of the Trump Presidency,” by Susan B. Glasser “Did Democrats Win the Shutdown After All?,” by Jon Allsop “Socialism, But Make It Trump,” by John Cassidy “Governments and Billionaires Retreat Ahead of COP30 Climate Talks,” by Elizabeth Kolbert “Laura Loomer's Endless Payback,” by Antonia Hitchens “J. B. Pritzker Sounds the Alarm,” by Peter Slevin  Tune in wherever you get your podcasts.Please help us improve New Yorker podcasts by filling out our listener survey: https://panel2058.na2.panelpulse.com/c/a/661hs4tSRdw2yB2dvjFyyw Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Watch all our Kirby videos here https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPT_cCpNMvT7_mLeI1VIlNk3uHWSICLAU  Kirby ON YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/kirbysommers   Kirby's links: Website:  https://kirbysommers.com   X: https://twitter.com/LandlordLinks   Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/kirbysommers   KIRBYS Substack: https://kirbysommers.substack.com/  Welcome author, journalist, and historian Kirby Sommers back for an exciting follow up show. Ms Sommers is an activist and a survivor. Published works include investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, the Franklin scandal, crime, and espionage. Author of the memoir Billionaire's Woman. Watch another podcast with Kirby: https://youtube.com/live/LiKvBKq54Mc  Watch Kirby's latest 1+ hour update https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5wodh_fKBw&t=1047s  Watch the new info video on Kirby's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RJNvCmVpmM&t=5s UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary https://youtu.be/6zCOix1iTvg ADOPTED KID'S CA HORROR STORY & BOYS TOWN! PASTOR Eddie https://youtube.com/live/vD3SGWpnfyM Watch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0  KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdIWUZIkxEU&t=3535s BOOK LINKS: Who Killed Epstein? Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton by Shaun Attwood   UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B093QK1GS1   USA: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093QK1GS1   Worldwide: https://books2read.com/u/bQjGQD  All of Shaun's books on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Shaun-Attwood/author/B0042NT0CU? All of Shaun's books on Amazon USA: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Shaun-Attwood/author/B0042NT0CU?ccs_id=601ed49b-a7d2-4682-8c04-f7b40a2217ef —————————— Shaun Attwood's social media:  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@shaunattwood1?  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shaunattwood/?hl=en  Twitter: https://twitter.com/shaunattwood  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shaunattwood1/  Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/shaunattwood  Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ShaunAttwood:a #podcast #truecrime #news  #usa #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royal #royalfamily

We dive deep into all the controversy surrounding the release of Jeffrey Epstein's emails this week, and conservatives rushing to say "well, actually, it's not pedophilia, it's ephebophilia." We also dive into the wildest rumor, involving Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. We assess the lyrics of the new Megadeth song, learn about personal security services and Rob shares a story about how he almost got a fourth butt cheek.Watch the episode on Youtube for free. Join our Patreon and get a bonus episode each month, and other behind-the-scenes goodies. More info here.Follow us on: Twitch, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and our Discord Chat. Also don't forget about our Spotify playlist. We also have merch if you're into that kind of sharing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of the Anthony On Air Podcast, we dig into the 20,000 newly released Jeffrey Epstein documents, including the latest email bombshells involving both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, fresh claims about who knew what, and the political fallout already shaking Washington. We'll break down everything the committee uncovered, every new name in the files, and why this massive Epstein document dump is shaping the news cycle all over again.Then we swing into Hollywood chaos with the list of major movies Eddie Murphy turned down, a post-mortem on Sidney Sweeney's last three box-office flops, and what industry analysts think this means for big-budget casting. We also break down America's new income survey and why the numbers don't match how broke everyone feels. That leads into the big economic topic of the night: ChatGPT and the job market, including the now-viral data showing job openings plummeting right when AI tools exploded.On the home-front side of the simulation, we talk about my wife's shoe rack and the glitch in the matrix that proved life is not real. And because it's the season, we give you the complete list of every major Christmas movie and where each one is streaming this year. Finally, we wrap with a brand-new AOA game with Erin C.#Epstein #Bubba #BillClintonGet more AoA and become a member to get exclusive access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOfx0OFE-uMTmJXGPpP7elQ/joinGet Erin C's book here: https://amzn.to/3ITDoO7Get Merch here - https://bit.ly/AnthonyMerchSubscribe to the Anthony On Air Podcast here:Facebook - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirFBYouTube - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirYTApple Podcast - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirAppleSpotify - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirSpotTwitter - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirTwitterInstagram - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirInstaTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@anthonyonairpodDiscord - https://discord.gg/78V469aV22Get more at https://www.AnthonyOnAir.com

Aumenta la tensión entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela después de que se confirmara el lanzamiento de la operación 'Lanza del Sur' que combate el narcotráfico en el sur del continente. En Venezuela se han movilizado miles de uniformados hacia las costas.En otras noticias: Continúan las protestas en Broadview contra los operativos de inmigración. Más de 20 personas fueron detenidas y 4 agentes resultaron heridos.Más de 20 trabajadores agrícolas fueron detenidos en una redada masiva en Immokalee, Florida.A petición del presidente Donald Trump la fiscal Pam Bondi abrió una investigación sobre los vínculos del pederasta Jeffrey Epstein con figuras como el ex presidente Bill Clinton y el ex rector de Harvard Larry Summers.El presidente Trump firmó una orden ejecutiva que reduce los aranceles de varios productos, entre ellos la carne de res y el café. 

11425 Indigenous Resistance in Belem, Bondi Investigates Bill Clinton, Starbucks Red Cup Strike, Trump Faces Affordability Crisis by The News with Paul DeRienzo

11-14-25 - Guad Squares - William Shatner - Bill Clinton - Trump - Michael Caine And Morgan Freeman - 70s Detective Brady - Arnold - Macho Man Randy SavageSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

11-14-25- Was The Shatner Fall In Slow Motion For John And Shatner Broke News That New Epstein Files Rumor Is That Trump Blew Bill ClintonSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump Tells DOJ to Investigate Epstein Ties to Bill Clinton, Larry Summers & Reid Hoffman, As FBI Wages Shadow War on MAGA

New survey of Americans finds seven in 10 say raising children is now unaffordable; Trump Administration prepares to lower tariffs on some food items such as coffee & fruit, and announces a new trade deal with Switzerland; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) visits a food bank in Chicago as federal food aid money through the SNAP program is now restarted with the federal government reopened; We will also hear from Sen. Durbin and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) on FY26 funding & health care debates and votes to be completed in the next few months; President Donald Trump calls for the investigation of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with former President Bill Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, wall street firm JP Morgan Chase and others, as Epstein emails mentioning Donald Trump are released this week and the House will vote next week on whether to release all the Epstein files; Gov. Wes Moore (D-MN) talks about what Democrats can learn from President Trump's campaigning and governing style; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth personally hangs a new plaque at a Pentagon entrance that reads "Department of War". Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Darkow - PoliticalCartoons.com On this week's show... The federal government shutdown is over for now, but the debate on healthcare rages on. Michigan Democrats, led by Senators Peters and Slotkin, have harsh words for the 7 Democrats who voted with Republicans to end the 41-day shutdown without any guaranteed continuation of healthcare insurance subsidies. The Republican bill includes a potential onetime $500,000 or more bonus for 8 Senators investigated as part of the January 6 insurrection (Lindsey Graham says he'll sue for millions!) The White House calls the newly released Epstein emails part of a Democratic Party hoax – that there's nothing there – but Trump is doing all he can to keep the files secret, and redirect the story to investigations of retirees like Bill Clinton and Larry Summers. The U.S. House will vote on a full release of all the files in early December. Donald Trump basically admits widespread law-breaking by his reelection team, issuing federal pardons to 71 of his minions – even though they haven't been federally charged. And the pardons don't save folks like Giuliani and Meadows from possible state criminal charges. The looming increases in health insurance premiums has convinced four companies to pull out of the Michigan market.  Former Congressman Mike Rogers thought he had a free ride to the GOP nomination for U.S. Senator, but there's a new candidate who could make the next 9 months a lot more difficult for him. Former Michigan Republican Party co-chair Bernadette Smith starts with more than a little support from the party's MAGA base.  Rogers is now saying the 2024 election was stolen from him but providing no proof.  And there's the story of two presidential grandkids extending family traditions: JFK's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, extends the family tradition by running for Congress in New York … in a district that includes Trump Tower. Donald Trump's granddaughter, Kai, is extending a different family tradition: she's playing golf, making her LPGA debut as an invited golfer in the LPGA Annika Tournament. Sadly, after the 2nd round she was dead last (18 over par) and missed the cut

Not long before today's show begins, President Trump orders an investigation into ties between the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and a host of people and institutions, including Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, and JP Morgan Chase. Will his strategy help deflect scrutiny of his ties to Epstein?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump issued a new executive order today modifying the scope of the reciprocal tariff. Under the order, certain agricultural products—including beef, bananas, and coffee—will no longer be subject to the sweeping tariffs implemented earlier this year. The White House also announced a new trade deal with Switzerland, with Swiss companies agreeing to invest 200 billion dollars in the United States in exchange for a reduced 15 percent tariff rate.President Trump is directing the Department of Justice to prove Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with a number of high-profile figures, including former President Bill Clinton. The request comes two days after House Democrats released previously unseen emails from Epstein's estate—the latest development in what the White House calls the manufactured Epstein hoax.The 2023 Georgia racketeering indictment case against President Trump and several others who challenged the 2020 election has been taken over by a new prosecutor. Peter Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia, announced Friday that he will be replacing Fani Willis on the case.

11-14-25 - Guad Squares - William Shatner - Bill Clinton - Trump - Michael Caine And Morgan Freeman - 70s Detective Brady - Arnold - Macho Man Randy SavageSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

11-14-25- Was The Shatner Fall In Slow Motion For John And Shatner Broke News That New Epstein Files Rumor Is That Trump Blew Bill ClintonSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Supremo forma maioria para tornar Eduardo Bolsonaro réu por atuação nos EUA. E Trump pede investigação sobre elo entre Bill Clinton e Epstein. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

US President Donald Trump has been responding today to the latest trove of emails by Jeffrey Epstein with a Truth Social post calling it “THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN HOAX”. He has asked the FBI, Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into those Epstein reportedly had a relationship with. This includes, as listed in Trump's social media post: “Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions”.For more on this, Jonathan Healy is joined by BBC News' North American Correspondent, Anthony Zurcher.Image: Reuters

President Trump says he will ask the Justice Department to investigate ties between Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, J.P. Morgan and others.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

pWotD Episode 3117: Jeffrey Epstein Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 183,957 views on Thursday, 13 November 2025 our article of the day is Jeffrey Epstein.Jeffrey Edward Epstein (January 20, 1953 – August 10, 2019) was an American financier and child sex offender. Born and raised in New York City, Epstein began his professional career as a teacher at the Dalton School. After his dismissal from the school in 1976, he entered the banking and finance sector, working at Bear Stearns in various roles before starting his own firm. Epstein cultivated an elite social circle and procured many women and children whom he and his associates sexually abused.In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein after a parent reported that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter. Federal officials identified 36 girls, some as young as 14 years old, whom Epstein had allegedly sexually abused. Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring a child for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute. He was convicted of only these two crimes as part of a controversial plea deal agreed by the US Department of Justice's Alex Acosta, and served almost 13 months in custody but with extensive work release.Epstein was arrested again on July 6, 2019, on federal charges for the sex trafficking of minors in Florida and New York. He died in his jail cell on August 10, 2019. The medical examiner ruled that his death was a suicide by hanging. Epstein's lawyers have disputed the ruling, and there has been significant public skepticism about the true cause of his death, resulting in numerous conspiracy theories. In July 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released CCTV footage to support the conclusion that Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell. When the Department of Justice released the footage, approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds of it was missing, and the video was found to have been modified despite the FBI's claim that it was raw.Since Epstein's death precluded the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against him, a judge dismissed all criminal charges on August 29, 2019. Epstein had a decades-long association with the British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who recruited young girls for him, leading to her 2021 conviction on US federal charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy for helping him procure girls, including a 14-year-old, for child sexual abuse and prostitution.According to The New York Times, Epstein made much of his fortune by providing tax and estate services to billionaires. He was also a renowned social networker, whose vast network included business people, royalty, politicians and academics. His friendships with public figures including Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton have attracted significant controversy. Documents released by the House Democratic Caucus in September 2025 show that he maintained connections with Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Steve Bannon.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 02:22 UTC on Friday, 14 November 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Jeffrey Epstein on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Justin.

AI Daily News Rundown November 15 2025:Tune in at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ai-daily-news-rundown-anthropic-disrupts-ai-orchestrated/id1684415169?i=1000736811381Welcome to AI Unraveled, Your daily briefing on the real world business impact of AI

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing the newly-revealed Jeffrey Epstein emails and the left trying to implicate Trump, the truth about what Epstein said about Trump on Michael Wolff audio recordings, new details about a 2019 PR strategy session with Jeffrey Epstein, Steve Bannon, Michael Wolff and former Obama admin lawyer Kathy Ruemmler, what was reported publicly and what Megyn heard personally on the audio recording she heard, and more. Then Maureen Callahan, host of "The Nerve," joins to discuss the way the new Epstein emails implicate Bill Clinton, former Obama officials, and many more public figures in power, Harry and Meghan's appearance at Kris Jenner's birthday party, pictures of their attendance deleted from the Kardashians' Instagrams, what's really happening between the Harry and Meghan after their “trauma bonding,” the very telling World Series video, Gayle King's ego and cluelessness as she may be losing her CBS gig, Michelle Obama's obsession with talking about race and smug narcissism, and more. Subscribe to Maureen's show The Nerve:Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nerve-with-maureen-callahan/id1808684702Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4kR07GQGQAJaMNtLc9Cg2oYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thenerveshow?sub_confirmation=1 Landman on Paramount+: Don't miss the hit series everyone is talking about - Landman. New Season streaming November 16th, only on Paramount+BeeKeeper's Naturals: Get exclusive early access to their Black Friday Sale with 30% off sitewide at https://BeekeepersNaturals.com/MEGYNTax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/MEGYNto speak with a strategist for FREE todayHerald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: 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.

Today we are bringing you stories from a slightly different side of true crime: stories about people who live by deception. Individuals who don't just tell lies but become someone else entirely. From Audiochuck and Campside Media, this is Chameleon. Each week, host and journalist Josh Dean unravels a new case that pushes the limits of human deception. Stories of imposters, shapeshifters, and master con artists who have turned illusion into a way of life.The first episode dives into the unbelievable story of Rafaello Follieri, the charming con artist who fooled everyone from Hollywood to high society. He swept a famous actress off her feet, claimed ties to powerful politicians, and convinced investors he was on a mission to save the Catholic Church's finances.Chameleon is a psychological deep dive into the human capacity for deceit, and it will make you question how well we really know the people around us. Find episode two, "The Kid Who Couldn't Stop Playing Cop," wherever you listen to podcasts. https://chameleon.simplecast.com/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today we are bringing you stories from a slightly different side of true crime: stories about people who live by deception. Individuals who don't just tell lies but become someone else entirely. From Audiochuck and Campside Media, this is Chameleon. Each week, host and journalist Josh Dean unravels a new case that pushes the limits of human deception. Stories of imposters, shapeshifters, and master con artists who have turned illusion into a way of life.The first episode dives into the unbelievable story of Rafaello Follieri, the charming con artist who fooled everyone from Hollywood to high society. He swept a famous actress off her feet, claimed ties to powerful politicians, and convinced investors he was on a mission to save the Catholic Church's finances.Chameleon is a psychological deep dive into the human capacity for deceit, and it will make you question how well we really know the people around us. Find episode two, "The Kid Who Couldn't Stop Playing Cop," wherever you listen to podcasts. https://chameleon.simplecast.com/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

He dated a Hollywood princess and claimed to be the Vatican's man in America. But Raffaello Follieri wasn't all he appeared to be. He convinced some of the world's richest people to hand over millions — before it all came crashing down. How did a charming Italian from a small town in Puglia rise to the top? Now, following deportation, is he rising again?Chameleon is a production of Campside Media and Audiochuck.Follow Chameleon on Instagram @chameleonpod Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, Kelli and Troy are taking it all the way back to 2009 — a time when Lady Gaga ruled the charts, the Black Eyed Peas were everywhere, and celebrity gossip was at its peak. From blinds about Bill Clinton to Hollywood gossip involving Beyoncé, John Corbett, Kevin Connolly, Mindy Kaling, and more — it's a true time capsule of late 2000s chaos. Get more content on our Patreon! - patreon.com/Beyondtheblinds --use code BEYOND for 40% off!! --- Nov 19 - Washington, D.C. (Arlington, VA) - https://www.x1entertainment.com/beyondtheblinds-washingtondc Nov 23 - Brooklyn, NY - https://www.x1entertainment.com/beyondtheblinds-brooklyn ---Sponsors--- Bilt! Earn points on rent and around your neighborhood, wherever you call home, by going to joinbilt.com/blinds ! ASPCA Pet Health Insurance! To explore coverage, visit ASPCApetinsurance.com/BLINDS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

People seem to forget about Bill Clinton and Hour O Rage on News Radio KKOBSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Watch all of our Steeples videos here:    • Matthew Steeples  Matthew Steeples on YT:    / @mjs2781  Matthew Steeples' links: Steeple Times: http://thesteepletimes.com Twitter:   / m_steeples  AND   / steepletimes  Watch Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andrew to Epstein's Baby Farm - John Sweeney - Podcast    • Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andr...  WATCH King Charles' Mentor Lord Mountbatten Exposed Andrew Lownie Podcast 780    • King Charles' Mentor Lord Mountbatten Expo...  Watch full EPSTEIN Was INTELLIGENCE! Ari Ben Menashe podcast:    • EPSTEIN Was ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE! Ari Ben ...  UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy S documentary    • UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary by ...  ADOPTED KID'S CA HORROR STORY & BOYS TOWN! PASTOR Eddie https://youtube.com/live/vD3SGWpnfyM Watch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0 KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Video  Watch all of Shaun's True Crime podcasts:    • Shaun Attwood's True Crime Podcast  Watch all of Shaun's Attwood Unleashed episodes:    • Attwood Unleashed  BOOK LINKS: Who Killed Epstein? Prince Andrew or Bill Clinton by Shaun Attwood UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B093QK1GS1 USA: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093QK1GS1 Worldwide: https://books2read.com/u/bQjGQD All of Shaun's books on Amazon UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Shaun... All of Shaun's books on Amazon USA: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Shaun-A... —————————— Shaun Attwood's social media: TikTok:   / shaunattwood1  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shaunattwoo... Twitter:   / shaunattwood  Facebook:   / shaunattwood1  Patreon:   / shaunattwood  Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ShaunAttwood:a #podcast #truecrime #news  #usa #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royal #royalfamily

In one of the most shocking episodes yet, Brad Zerbo and Zak Paine dive into the dark depths of global corruption, uncovering the chilling story of the “Sarajevo Safari” — where wealthy elites allegedly paid to hunt civilians for sport during the Kosovo War. The conversation expands to organ trafficking rings, the Clinton Foundation whistleblowers, and newly revealed details from Jeffrey Epstein's leaked emails, including questionable ties to Obama's White House counsel and Epstein's abrupt break with Bill Clinton. Brad and Zak expose how the media works overtime to bury these stories while connecting threads between political power players, war crimes, and international cover-ups. With their signature blend of curiosity and dark humor, they walk through the disturbing realities hiding behind world events, and what it means when the truth finally starts to surface.

On this episode of the Anthony On Air Podcast, we break down the House Oversight Committee's newly leaked Jeffrey Epstein emails naming Donald Trump, including explosive claims that he “knew about the girls” and spent hours with one of the alleged victims, plus the White House scrambling to dismiss it all as a partisan smear while Republicans dump tens of thousands more Epstein documents into the spotlight. We also dig into the separate tranche of Epstein emails with an ex-Obama lawyer who says he stopped talking to Bill Clinton over a broken promise and describes Clinton as nearly psychopathic, and we cover Sean “Diddy” Combs getting his prison release date pushed back after alleged rule violations behind bars.From there, we look at how Trump is reportedly leaning on Lauren Boebert and other Republicans to back away from Epstein-related moves, even as a growing bloc of GOP lawmakers breaks ranks and signals they're ready to vote with Democrats to force more of the Epstein files into the open. We'll walk through who's defecting, what's actually in these email exchanges, how the Epstein scandal is now colliding with 2025 election politics, and why the Trump, Clinton, and Diddy storylines are all intersecting in the same deeply cursed news cycle.#EpsteinFiles #DonaldTrump #DiddyGet more AoA and become a member to get exclusive access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOfx0OFE-uMTmJXGPpP7elQ/joinGet Erin C's book here: https://amzn.to/3ITDoO7Get Merch here - https://bit.ly/AnthonyMerchSubscribe to the Anthony On Air Podcast here:Facebook - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirFBYouTube - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirYTApple Podcast - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirAppleSpotify - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirSpotTwitter - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirTwitterInstagram - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirInstaTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@anthonyonairpodDiscord - https://discord.gg/78V469aV22Get more at https://www.AnthonyOnAir.com

After conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September 2025, President Trump spoke at a memorial service at a stadium in Arizona: In that private moment, on his dying day, we find everything we need to know about who Charlie Kirk truly was. He was a missionary with a noble spirit and a great, great purpose. He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry, Erika. Commenting and consoling after a shooting or domestic attack has been a ritual for every president since the early 1990s. What have presidents said each time they occurred? How has presidential rhetoric changed over the past four decades? And when do Presidents use political language — and when do they use spiritural and religious language — in their remarks? Find out in the latest episode of C-SPAN's podcast "Extreme Mortman" — as we hear every president from Bill Clinton through Donald Trump speak about shootings, domestic attacks, and the people who died. And for context and explanation, we're joined by a special guest: presidential historian Dr. Tevi Troy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TRENDING - We break down the newly released Epstein emails that detail a mysterious falling out with Bill Clinton, repeated mentions of Donald Trump, and a stunning claim that Epstein “gave” Trump his ex-girlfriend. These revelations are raising new questions about Epstein's private communications and his connections to political figures.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

GET YOUR WAV WATCH HERE: https://buy.wavwatch.com/WAM Use Code WAM to save $100 and purchase amazing healing frequency technology! GET HEIRLOOM SEEDS & NON GMO SURVIVAL FOOD HERE: https://heavensharvest.com/ USE Code WAM to save 5% plus free shipping! BUY GOLD HERE: https://firstnationalbullion.com/schedule-consult/ Avoid CBDCs! Get Your SUPER-SUPPLIMENTS HERE: https://vni.life/wam Use Code WAM15 & Save 15%! Life changing formulas you can't find anywhere else! HELP SUPPORT US AS WE DOCUMENT HISTORY HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/help-keep-wam-alive/# Josh Sigurdson reports on the release of the new Epstein Files by House Democrats in an attempt to target President Trump in the scandal. For years, Democrats claimed Epstein was some far right fantasy. Now they're suddenly jumping on the band wagon of demanding the release of the files due to Trump's strange attempt to avoid any talk of Epstein. The latest files implicate President Trump, showing emails where Epstein spoke of Trump spending time with his girls often at Mar A Lago. The emails also include Ghislaine Maxwell and strangely anti-Trump author Michael Wolff who famously wrote 'Fire And Fury.' Wolff advises Jeffrey Epstein to essentially blackmail Trump as he was running in 2015 saying that Epstein should let Trump "hang himself" and if Trump wins, "you could save him, generating a debt." If this isn't blackmail, then what is? Trump's administration previously denied Epstein was a blackmail agent. Clearly however based on thousands of documents of evidence, he was. Even in 2019, Michael Wolff spoke with Epstein about claims Trump made about the Epstein ring claiming he had banned him from Mar A Lago in which Epstein responded to Wolff saying he was never a member and that Trump was lying. Virginia Giuffre to be clear backed Trump's claims, saying that while he was friendly with Epstein, he was never with her or any of the girls. Though she had contradicted herself on this many times. She recently detailed in her posthumous book that a well known Prime Minister seriously abused her. It is clear by her past testimonies that she was speaking of Ehud Barak, the Israeli Prime Minister. It appeared that Epstein was controlled by him according to Giuffre. This is where the story becomes more clear. Epstein was a Mossad asset. All evidence points to this which explains why Trump is so nervous about exposing him. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats can actually release the Epstein Files because Israel holds them alongside the tapes. It's blackmail. Israel will feed each side some information here and there to keep people sitting on their hands and attacking one political side or the other but they won't just release their bargaining tool. Bill Clinton and Trump both appear very implicated in some way. Those that argue whataboutisms can't possibly actually care about the children who were abused and continue to be. We need justice for them. Stop playing politics with such an important issue. Just because you agree with one side of the paradigm or the other doesn't make them innocent of these horrible atrocities. This release is just part of the latest psyop. We must demand justice for the children and stop falling for the political games surrounding Epstein. Stay tuned for more from WAM! Get local, healthy, pasture raised meat delivered to your door here: https://wildpastures.com/promos/save-20-for-life/bonus15?oid=6&affid=321 USE THE LINK & get 20% off for life and $15 off your first box! DITCH YOUR DOCTOR! https://www.livelongerformula.com/wam Get a natural health practitioner and work with Christian Yordanov! Mention WAM and get a FREE masterclass! You will ALSO get a FREE metabolic function assessment! GET YOUR APRICOT SEEDS at the life-saving Richardson Nutritional Center HERE: https://rncstore.com/r?id=bg8qc1 Use code JOSH to save money! SIGN UP FOR HOMESTEADING COURSES NOW: https://freedomfarmers.com/link/17150/ Get Prepared & Start The Move Towards Real Independence With Curtis Stone's Courses! GET YOUR FREEDOM KELLY KETTLE KIT HERE: https://patriotprepared.com/shop/freedom-kettle/ Use Code WAM and enjoy many solutions for the outdoors in the face of the impending reset! PayPal: ancientwonderstelevision@gmail.com FIND OUR CoinTree page here: https://cointr.ee/joshsigurdson PURCHASE MERECHANDISE HERE: https://world-alternative-media.creator-spring.com/ JOIN US on SubscribeStar here: https://www.subscribestar.com/world-alternative-media For subscriber only content! Pledge here! Just a dollar a month can help us alive! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2652072&ty=h&u=2652072 BITCOIN ADDRESS: 18d1WEnYYhBRgZVbeyLr6UfiJhrQygcgNU World Alternative Media 2025

Send us a textFor decades the one thing that never seemed to change in Washington D.C. was constant presence of David Gergen. He was an aid to Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He was a political analyst for PBS and CNN. David Gergen seemed as permanent a fixture as the Washington Monument in Washington D.C. He wrote to extraordinary books Eyewitness to Power, and Hearts Tinged by Fire, which came out when he was 80 years old. I became a fan during the 1990s when he was a commentator alongside Mark Shields at PBS. they were an extraordinary pairing because they were reasonable despite being from opposite political backgrounds, and having decidedly partisan resumes' with the exception Gergen's time with Bill Clinton. David Gergen passed away earlier in 2025, and it marked the end of an era in politics. This episode we try to capture some of his moments, from debating Ari Fleischer, to promoting his books, or talking about the Presidents for whom he served over his long career. We will also take you back to 1992, just after Governor Bill Clinton finished his Democratic Nomination acceptance speech, as we tune in to some giants in political commentary summing up their thoughts on that monumental evening, Jim Lehrer, Robert McNeil, Mark Shields and David Gergen on PBS.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The mainstream media — the so-called “legacy press” — has largely allowed the Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton orbit around the Jeffrey Epstein scandal with minimal sustained scrutiny. While Epstein's connections to many high-profile individuals were widely reported, coverage of the Clintons' historical ties has often been muted or treated as a peripheral footnote rather than a subject of rigorous investigative follow-up. Critics argue that the media has repeatedly accepted the Clintons' declarations of limited knowledge or involvement without pushing deeply into overlapping timelines, travel logs, or guest lists of Epstein's circle — even though flight logs and other documents show Clinton Sr.'s travel on Epstein's plane and social interaction with Epstein's network.At the same time, the legacy outlets have given disproportionate attention to other public figures in the Epstein saga, fueling the perception that the Clintons receive a pass. When journalists do report on Clinton-Epstein links, the framing often emphasizes the Clinton office's denials and wishes to move on rather than pressing for transparency or access to documents. Meanwhile the narrative stays centered on sensational aspects of Epstein's life — his island, jets, “client list” theories — rather than systematic media investigations into elite protection networks. The net effect is that many readers see the Clintons' ties treated as one line in a much larger story, not as a major thread demanding scrutiny, which contributes to perceptions of selective accountability and media bias.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks down a major development: The Clintons and their foundation are now under renewed investigation — including allegations of global influence-peddling and misuse of charitable funds. As Dr. Corsi notes, his research long predicted this moment, and now the legal spotlight is finally turning toward the Clinton network. CN 11 12He also reviews the potential legal exposure facing former Obama intelligence leaders like Brennan and Clapper, in connection with the Russiagate operation and related misconduct. Dr. Corsi shares how his past books — including Partners in Crime & Coup d'État — are being vindicated as the facts emerge. CN 11 12On the streets, Antifa erupted in Berkeley, disrupting a Turning Point USA event as masked agitators clashed with security amid violent scenes. Dr. Corsi explains how this domestic extremism continues to threaten civil society. CN 11 12Meanwhile, a $100M corruption scandal has erupted in Ukraine, where investigators are probing financial ties linked to Zelensky's network and business associates. As Ukraine struggles with scandal and military setbacks, Russia continues advancing across Donbass — with the war approaching a likely endgame. CN 11 12Back home, rumors grow about a draft Executive Order requiring citizenship verification and voter ID for federal elections. Dr. Corsi discusses how this could reshape the 2026 political landscape — and why opponents are already panicking. CN 11 12Plus:✅ Chaos and miscalculation surrounding the recent shutdown deal✅ U.S. drug-interdiction successes despite foreign reluctance to cooperate✅ Gold surges above $4,100/oz as global instability accelerates✅ DOJ leadership signals shifting momentumDr. Corsi also provides a personal update and reflects on the importance of perseverance, faith, and national repentance in this troubled moment for America. CN 11 12

Doug Sosnik is a policy and political expert who has closely advised President Bill Clinton and multiple U.S. Senators, governors, Fortune 100 corporations, foundations and universities. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, the world's most powerful people all seem to suffer from a highly selective strain of amnesia. Presidents, princes, professors, and billionaires who once took his calls, rode his planes, and cashed his checks suddenly can't recall how they knew him or why. Bill Clinton can't quite remember how many times he flew on Epstein's jet. Prince Andrew claims he doesn't remember that infamous photo with Virginia Giuffre. Les Wexner “doesn't recall” signing over his mansion. Ehud Barak “barely knew the man.” Even Alan Dershowitz, who was practically Epstein's legal shadow, insists any contact was purely academic. It's like the entire upper crust of global power suddenly developed synchronized memory loss the moment the cameras turned on.This “collective amnesia” isn't accidental—it's a survival mechanism. The same people who built and benefited from Epstein's network now pretend they barely knew the guy who managed their money, funded their projects, and connected them to each other. Their stories always change, their timelines blur, and their denials sound like rehearsed lines from the same crisis-management manual. When it comes to Epstein, the elite don't just forget—they professionally unremember.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

1. Criticism of Gavin Newsom The hosts mock California Governor Gavin Newsom for allegedly misrepresenting his upbringing as impoverished. They highlight his privileged background, connections to the Getty family, and early business ventures. Newsom is portrayed as part of a broader trend of wealthy leftists promoting socialism while living in luxury. 2. Democratic Party and Radicalism The episode argues that the Democratic Party has shifted radically left, embracing socialism and Marxism. Figures like Comrade Mamdani are cited as examples of extreme ideology within the party. The hosts lament the lack of moderate Democrats willing to challenge the radical wing, referencing Bill Maher as a rare voice of reason. 3. Bill Maher’s Commentary Maher is quoted warning Democrats about the dangers of aligning with far-left candidates like Mamdani. He calls for a “Sister Souljah moment,” referencing Bill Clinton’s strategic distancing from radical elements during his campaign. 4. Human Rights in Nigeria Senator Cruz discusses Christian persecution in Nigeria, citing over 50,000 murders since 2009. He criticizes the Nigerian government for corruption and complicity in violence. Proposes sanctions and leveraging U.S. aid to pressure Nigeria into protecting human rights. 5. Recognition of Somaliland The guest, born in Somalia, advocates for U.S. recognition of Somaliland as an independent nation. Somaliland is praised for its democratic governance, stability, and alignment with U.S. values. The argument is framed as a strategic move to counter instability in the Horn of Africa. 6. Bill Gates and Climate Change The hosts poke fun at Bill Gates for allegedly reversing his stance on climate change alarmism. Gates is quoted saying the “doomsday view” is wrong and that other global issues deserve more attention. The episode criticizes climate policies, solar energy failures, and the hypocrisy of elites using private jets. 7. Fracking and U.S. Emissions The hosts credit George Mitchell, a Texas oilman, with pioneering fracking and reducing U.S. carbon emissions. They argue that natural gas has helped the U.S. lead in emission reductions, while China remains the top polluter. Go to BackyardButchers.com and enter promo code “VERDICT”, that’s V-E-R-D-I-C-T, for up to 30% off, 2 free 10-ounce ribeyes, and free shipping when you subscribe. http://www.backyardbutchers.com/Verdict Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.