Podcast appearances and mentions of Bill Gates

Queen Elizabeth's legacy is complicated — not one of villainy, but of restraint taken too far. She wasn't blind to the troubles surrounding her son or the company he kept. Decades on the throne, surrounded by intelligence briefings and advisors, make ignorance impossible. But her instincts, shaped by a lifetime of protecting the monarchy, led her to do what she'd always done: contain the damage, preserve the Crown, and keep the family's troubles behind palace walls. It wasn't malice — it was control. Yet that control, in moments like these, came at the cost of transparency and trust.She wasn't responsible for the crimes of others, but she bore responsibility for how the institution responded. Her silence  was a reflex born of a system that prizes dignity over honesty. And while that may have once seemed noble, the world changed, and silence began to look like complicity. In the end, she'll be remembered as both the monarch who held her nation together through eras of upheaval and the one who held too tightly when truth demanded release. Queen Elizabeth preserved the monarchy — but she also showed us the limits of what silence can protect.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

With the Queen so brazenly showing her support in a public manner for Prince Andrew, royal writers and experts are wondering if she is paying attention to the big picture. With the crown set to pass on to Charles, who is not the most well liked person in the royal family, the royal family as a whole is in for some shaky times and with the queens recent behavior, the question has to be asked, how will it impact the royal family in the future?(commercial at 12:37)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-sticking-prince-andrew-royal-problem-prince-william-charles-1693712

The very idea of commuting Ghislaine Maxwell's sentence is an absolute disgrace — proof that America's justice system has rotted from the inside out. Maxwell wasn't some bystander; she was the architect, recruiter, and enabler of Jeffrey Epstein's child-trafficking empire. Survivors have said she was every bit as monstrous as Epstein, if not worse, and yet she's sitting in a “prison” that feels more like a wellness resort. Now the same establishment that promised transparency with the Epstein files — only to bury the truth under redactions and lies — wants us to believe this predator deserves leniency? It's a slap in the face to every victim who spoke out, every whistleblower who risked their career, and every ordinary person who still believes in the idea of justice.It's the system protecting its own, ensuring Maxwell stays quiet while the real power players keep their names out of the headlines. They'll dress it up as “compassion” or “reform,” but what it really means is: she knows too much, and they can't risk her breaking silence. If they actually let this woman walk, then the message is clear — the powerful are untouchable, and the rest of us are fools for expecting anything different. This isn't justice. It's theater. It's corruption wrapped in civility. And if this country really dares to free her, then it has no right to ever again claim it protects children, truth, or decency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the years following Jeffrey Epstein's death, one of the more disturbing revelations about his compensation fund emerged when a self-identified recruiter — referred to in court documents only as “Jane Doe” — attempted to claim money from it. This woman openly admitted that she had helped Epstein recruit underage girls but simultaneously described herself as a victim, saying she had been sexually abused and trafficked by Epstein for more than a decade. Instead of continuing her federal lawsuit against his estate, she withdrew it and pursued a payout through the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, a fund specifically intended to compensate those exploited by Epstein's network. The move ignited outrage among other victims and their attorneys, who saw it as a grotesque inversion of justice: a recruiter trying to profit from a fund meant to heal the very wounds she helped inflict.The controversy underscored the moral and legal murk that has long surrounded Epstein's empire. His trafficking operation relied on a pyramid-like system in which victims were sometimes coerced into recruiting others, blurring the line between participant and prey. But many advocates argued that this woman's decade-long role as an active recruiter made her claim fundamentally illegitimate. Though her application highlighted the psychological manipulation and coercion Epstein used to control his circle, critics countered that intent doesn't erase culpability. In the end, the episode became another reminder of how Epstein's network corrupted everything it touched — even the very mechanisms meant to deliver justice to his victims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sarah Kellen (also known as Sarah Vickers or Sarah Kensington) is widely described as one of the key assistants to Jeffrey Epstein during the 2000s — a role in which she allegedly managed and coordinated many of the logistical and operational elements of Epstein's sex-trafficking network. Court records, witness statements, and investigative reporting claim that Kellen was responsible for arranging “massages” (in many cases euphemisms for sexual encounters), scheduling flights on Epstein's private jets, keeping contact lists of girls, and effectively acting as a gatekeeper for victims who were transported to various propertiesDespite her deep involvement, Kellen has never faced criminal charges. Federal judges and prosecutors have described her as a “knowing participant” and a “criminally responsible” figure in Epstein's network, yet she remains free — claiming she was also a victim of Epstein's control. Many survivors reject that narrative, arguing that she had full agency and willingly helped enable the abuse of minors. Her story underscores a broader truth about the Epstein case: that key facilitators, assistants, and coordinators — often women — operated the machinery of exploitation with precision, and most have evaded accountability under the guise of victimhood.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

For years, Queen Elizabeth II acted as Prince Andrew's unwavering shield against the fallout of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Even as allegations mounted, she reportedly resisted internal and external pressure to sideline her son, allowing him to retain royal privileges, honors, and public duties long after the public tide had turned. Her personal loyalty was said to eclipse political and institutional logic—Andrew remained a fixture at Balmoral and Windsor, even as palace staff urged the Queen to distance herself. Royal insiders and biographers have described her as deeply maternal in her defense of him, believing he was being unfairly vilified and refusing to entertain discussions about exile or disownment. This protective stance allowed Andrew to delay accountability for years while the rest of the royal household absorbed the reputational damage.But by early 2022, under overwhelming public and institutional pressure, even the Queen's protection could no longer hold back the storm. She reluctantly approved the removal of Andrew's military titles, royal patronages, and the use of his HRH style—a move seen as both a last resort and a symbolic cutting of ties to preserve the monarchy. Still, until her death later that year, she continued to privately support him, hosting him at Balmoral and reportedly helping fund parts of his legal settlement with Virginia Giuffre. It was the ultimate act of maternal loyalty—protecting her son from disgrace even as the monarchy fought to survive the wreckage his scandals had created.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Survivors' attorneys, most notably Gloria Allred, led repeated public appeals asking Prince Andrew to cooperate with U.S. authorities investigating Jeffrey Epstein. Allred even organized a school‑bus demonstration outside Buckingham Palace, urging the Duke of York to “talk to the FBI” and give a sworn deposition. She bluntly stated that if he “has done nothing wrong then just talk to the FBI,” and if he had, “it's time to confess and tell us what that is”Despite these appeals, Prince Andrew never agreed to be interviewed by FBI or U.S. prosecutors. In January 2020, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman confirmed that Andrew had provided zero cooperation with the federal investigation, despite earlier public claims of willingness to assist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comhttps://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1632627/prince-andrew-ghislaine-Maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-virginia-giuffre

Now that that the civil proceedings are moving forward against Andrew, we hop in the time machine and head back to 2019 to a time before Andrew was being held accountable. A time when Andrew thought his name and his breeding would protect him. As we know now, he was wrong. (Commercial at 10:30)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/could-prince-andrew-testify-in-jeffrey-epstein-case-2019-12

Public trust in vaccines is collapsing even among doctors, Barack Obama's legacy of "hope" is being re-examined against his record, and Bill Gates' latest climate pivot raises new questions about power, profit, and control — three stories exposing how trust in our leaders is breaking down across every front. Go to https://TryFum.com/RUSSELLBRAND or scan the QR code and use code RUSSELLBRAND to get your free FÜM Topper when you order your Journey Pack today!

Jeffrey Epstein's alleged connections to intelligence agencies remain one of the most enduring and controversial aspects of his story. Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta famously told investigators that he was instructed to back off Epstein's original prosecution because Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” a remark that fueled speculation that the financier's crimes were protected for reasons beyond money or influence. Over the years, Epstein cultivated close ties with figures tied to intelligence and geopolitics—hosting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at his Manhattan mansion, meeting with former CIA Director William Burns, and maintaining relationships with high-level financiers and scientists who had security clearance. His vast network, offshore structures, and inexplicable access to classified-adjacent individuals led many to theorize that Epstein operated as an asset—either for the U.S., Israel, or both—leveraging sexual blackmail to secure leverage over powerful men.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

State legislators in New Mexico have proposed the establishment of a “truth commission” to investigate what occurred at Epstein's sprawling desert property, known as Zorro Ranch, located approximately 35 miles south of Santa Fe. The public proposal, led by State Rep. Andrea Romero (D-Santa Fe) and cosponsored by Rep. Marianna Anaya (D-Albuquerque), sought a preliminary budget of about $2.5 million and would include a bipartisan oversight body with subpoena power. The aim: to reconstruct what officials knew (or didn't know), how possible crimes (including alleged sex-trafficking activities) were reported or suppressed, and how New Mexico might prevent similar abuse in the future. Survivors of Epstein's abuse have alleged trafficking extended to Zorro Ranch, yet there remains no full public account of what happened.Despite these serious allegations and investigations, Epstein never faced prosecution in New Mexico, though the Attorney General's office interviewed potential victims in 2019 and later examined financial institutions linked to Epstein's operations. The 2023 probe of financial services led to agreements involving $17 million tied to human-trafficking prevention. The proposed truth commission would therefore not simply revisit past crimes but also examine systemic failures in regulation, criminal investigation, and oversight—especially given New Mexico laws and policy may have allowed Epstein to avoid local sex-offender registration that he faced elsewhere. The initiative still needs approval when the legislature meets, and full findings are expected to take at least two years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:New Mexico lawmakers propose 'truth commission' on Epstein, alleged sex abuse at his former Santa Fe County ranch | Local News | santafenewmexican.com

The newly released correspondence reveals Maxwell gushing that life at Bryan is “much, much happier,” describing the kitchen as “clean,” the staff as “polite,” and boasting she “haven't seen a single fight, drug deal, passed-out person or naked inmate running around”—in her words, “I feel like I have dropped through Alice in Wonderland's looking-glass.” In stark contrast, she painted her old facility, Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee, as so unsanitary that “possums falling from ceilings… frying on ovens” mingled with the food served. The tone is one of relief mingled with smugness, and it raises profound questions about how a person convicted of aiding a vast sex-trafficking scheme is enjoying conditions so clearly characterized as unusually comfortable.But the emails don't just stop at praise—they touch off a firestorm of claims from fellow inmates and corrections experts that Maxwell is receiving “VIP treatment.” Leaks argue that she gets meals delivered to her dorm, late-night showers when others are asleep, access to the warden for legal help, and in one alarming twist, some inmates say they were threatened or transferred for speaking out about her. Experts say such privileges are unheard-of for someone with Maxwell's conviction and sentence, suggesting she's been moved to a “country club” style prison camp despite federal rules that restrict sex-offender convicts from such facilities. The implications are explosive: favor or influence, justice subverted, and a system that seems to bow for big names while normal inmates rot under far harsher rules.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell praises cushy prison for cleanliness, lack of possums falling from ceiling

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google Drive

In July 2007, Prince Andrew attended a lavish party in Saint-Tropez hosted by Anglo-French billionaire Tony Murray alongside his daughter Princess Beatrice (then around 18–19 years old). At the event, he was seen socializing closely with Canadian model and singer Pascale Bourbeau—photos reportedly show the Duke with his hand on her rear, and the pair in a “nose-to-nose” pose. The article highlights that while his daughter was present at the same event, Andrew appeared absorbed in the party atmosphere with younger women.Witnesses at the gathering described it as part of a wild streak for the Prince, who was divorced, in his late 40s and apparently embracing an attention-seeking social life. One observer said: “These were really crazy years for Andrew… He was clearly having a full-blown midlife crisis.” According to the report, Andrew and Bourbeau left the party by boat with other women while Beatrice departed separately. The article casts the episode as another illustration of the Duke's controversial nightlife and social conduct in the years before his later public scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew, Duke of York's so-called “Pizza Express alibi” during his 2019 interview about the Virginia Giuffre/Jeffrey Epstein scandal has become one of the most ridiculed moments of his public defence. In the sit-down with Emily Maitlis for the BBC's Newsnight, he stated that on the night Giuffre alleges sexual contact—with her claim involving dancing and sweating at a London nightclub—he was instead at a children's birthday party at a Pizza Express in Woking with his daughter, and then at home.He doubled down by offering another unlikely defence: that due to an “overdose of adrenaline” during his service in the Falklands War he was now incapable of sweating, which in his view invalidated Giuffre's description of him “profusely sweating”.   The combination of the chain-restaurant birthday party in Woking and the medical-condition claim struck many as tone-deaf and implausible, contributing heavily to the backlash and the erosion of his credibility in the wider scandal.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The state of New Mexico's handling of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes remains one of the most glaring examples of governmental negligence in recent memory. Despite Epstein owning the massive Zorro Ranch property near Stanley, where multiple survivors alleged they were trafficked and abused, state authorities failed to bring a single charge against him. Even after Epstein's 2008 Florida conviction, he was not required to register as a sex offender in New Mexico due to a technicality in the state's laws and the lack of proactive enforcement by local officials. Investigations launched by the New Mexico Attorney General's Office were sluggish, underfunded, and seemingly designed to avoid confrontation with the powerful interests connected to Epstein. The inaction effectively allowed one of the most notorious predators in modern history to operate with impunity on New Mexico soil.Now, amid mounting public anger and renewed scrutiny, New Mexico lawmakers are attempting to atone through the creation of a “truth commission” — a bipartisan investigative body designed to examine how the state's institutions failed. The commission would probe how Epstein was able to buy land, operate businesses, and allegedly abuse victims with no oversight. Its goal is to uncover which officials knew about Epstein's activities, why red flags were ignored, and how state systems can be reformed to prevent such catastrophic negligence in the future. Supporters describe it as a long-overdue reckoning with the failures of law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and political leadership, though critics warn that it may amount to little more than symbolic damage control unless it carries real investigative authority and public transparency.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When Alex Acosta sat before Congress to explain himself, what unfolded was less an act of accountability and more a masterclass in bureaucratic self-preservation. He painted the 2008 Epstein plea deal as a “strategic compromise,” claiming a federal trial might have been too risky because victims were “unreliable” and evidence was “thin.” In reality, federal prosecutors had a mountain of corroborating witness statements, corroborative travel logs, and sworn victim testimony—yet Acosta gave Epstein the deal of the century. The so-called non-prosecution agreement wasn't justice; it was a backroom surrender, executed in secrecy, without even notifying the victims. When pressed on this, Acosta spun excuses about legal precedent and “jurisdictional confusion,” never once admitting the obvious: his office protected a rich, politically connected predator at the expense of dozens of trafficked girls.Even more damning was Acosta's insistence that he acted out of pragmatism, not pressure. He denied that anyone “higher up” told him to back off—even though he once told reporters that he'd been informed Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Under oath, he downplayed that statement, twisting it into bureaucratic double-speak. He even claimed the deal achieved “some level of justice” because Epstein registered as a sex offender—a hollow justification that only exposed how insulated from reality he remains. Acosta never showed remorse for the irreparable damage caused by his cowardice. His congressional testimony reeked of moral rot, the same rot that let a billionaire pedophile walk free while survivors were left to pick up the pieces.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Acosta Transcript.pdf - Google DriveBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Last year, tech billionaire Mike Lynch was given a second chance at life when he was acquitted of criminal fraud charges. But while celebrating with friends and family aboard his yacht, a freak storm arose. Lynch, his daughter, and five others were tragically killed. This week, deliberations begin over how much compensation his estate owes to the company he defrauded. Payments which could lead to bankruptcy.This podcast was brought to you thanks to the support of readers of The Times and The Sunday Times. Subscribe today: http://thetimes.com/thestoryGuest: Katie Prescott, technology business editor, The Times.Host: Manveen Rana. Producer: Micaela Arneson. Further listening: The tragedy of Mike Lynch and the sunken yacht Clips: Danny in the Valley, BBC, LeadersIn, Black Thunder / YouTube, Charlie Rose. Photo: Getty Images.Get in touch: thestory@thetimes.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:01:59 - Le vrai ou faux - La COP30 s'ouvre lundi au Brésil à Belém. Dans ce contexte de lutte contre le réchauffement climatique, Bill Gates est accusé d'être devenu climatosceptique. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

People like Prince Andrew live by a rule book that the rest of us don't even get to see. When ordinary people get accused of wrongdoing, they face real consequences — investigations, charges, public humiliation, the works. But when it's a royal, the system suddenly becomes very delicate, very cautious, and very secretive. Doors that slam shut for everyone else magically open for them. Andrew, for instance, managed to dodge law enforcement interviews, avoid depositions for years, and settle a major sexual abuse lawsuit without ever admitting guilt. Every step of the way, his titles, connections, and family name served as a kind of diplomatic armor — the privilege of being born above accountability.That's the true “Rule Book for Royals”: deny everything, hide behind tradition, and let the palace machinery manage the damage. The same institutions that claim moral leadership close ranks to protect their own, wrapping scandal in ceremony and silence. For men like Andrew, shame isn't career-ending — it's just an image problem to be managed by courtiers, PR consultants, and lawyers on retainer. The royal playbook isn't about justice or truth; it's about preservation. And as long as the crown still glitters, the rule book that governs them will always have different laws — and fewer consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

According to a former housekeeper at Epstein's New Mexico property (Zorro Ranch), during a stay by Prince Andrew at the ranch, he was allegedly accompanied by a “beautiful young and brilliant” woman — described as a neurosurgeon — whose role, the housekeeper claims, was to “keep him company.” The woman reportedly asked for herbal teas intended to make Andrew “more horny,” as the housekeeper recounted. The Sun reported that the woman was “given” to Andrew by Epstein for the duration of his visit.The story places Andrew at the ranch in a self-contained guest house, ostensibly unsupervised by Epstein, during which this woman allegedly stayed with him for three days, according to the housekeeper's testimony. The implication drawn is that Epstein orchestrated not just the location but the company and context for Andrew's stay. While the claim remains unverified in terms of independent evidence and has not been substantiated by publicly available official records, the tabloid narrative highlights how far the web of associations around Epstein extended — and how the involvement of high-profile individuals like Andrew continues to generate new, sensational allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Prince Andrew's first major “cancellation” unfolded in November 2019 after his infamous BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. The interview was meant to clear his name regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein, but it instead became a public relations catastrophe. Andrew's demeanor — unapologetic, defensive, and tone-deaf — provoked massive backlash across Britain and beyond. Within days, the Duke of York announced he would be stepping back from public duties “for the foreseeable future,” admitting that his relationship with Epstein had become “a major disruption” to the work of the royal family. The Queen approved his withdrawal, and charities and corporate sponsors swiftly severed ties, effectively exiling him from public life.In the weeks following, more than 230 charities and organisations either dropped him as patron or distanced themselves. Buckingham Palace quietly confirmed he would no longer represent the Crown in any official capacity, marking the first time in modern royal history that a senior royal was effectively removed due to scandal rather than abdication or illness. The event became known as Andrew's first “cancellation” — a total collapse of public and institutional support triggered by his disastrous defense of an indefensible friendship. It also set the tone for the years of isolation, legal scrutiny, and humiliation that would follow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In regard to Epstein's death, Kuvin has expressed strong skepticism that it was a straightforward suicide. He notes that in his mediations with Epstein the financier never displayed the mindset of someone considering ending his own life — Epstein was “overly self-confident” and apparently believed he would beat the system. In one interview he said the “evidence is circumstantial but overwhelming” that Epstein did not die by his own hand, pointing to protocol failures in the jail (absent cellmate, sleeping guards, camera failures) and Epstein's attitude as major red flags.On the question of Prince Andrew's connection to Epstein, Kuvin has been openly critical. He argues that the Prince's denials and limited admissions do not erase the years of association with Epstein and others in that orbit. He has labelled Andrew's 2019 interview and other statements as “despicable” for failing to fully acknowledge the breadth of the friendship and what it meant for victims, and has said that until Andrew transparently cooperates with U.S. authorities, his avoidance only reinforces the perception of guilt.Finally, on Epstein's estate, Kuvin has called attention to the rights of victims and the need for full transparency in how that estate is being managed. He has pointed out that he represents multiple claimants against the estate and lauded the establishment of the victims' compensation program as a “huge victory” for survivors. He has also underscored that the estate remains a critical vehicle not just for compensation, but for uncovering the scope of Epstein's network and financial dealings — something he says is far from finished.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

After her sentencing, Ghislaine Maxwell immediately began pushing for special treatment, arguing that her imprisonment should be served in the United Kingdom rather than in the U.S. federal system. Her legal team claimed she was being unfairly treated compared to other inmates and that she should be allowed to serve her time closer to her family. Maxwell cited her British citizenship, her alleged “difficult” prison conditions, and her supposed lack of fair treatment throughout the trial as grounds for leniency. In effect, she was attempting to frame herself as a victim of the system — not an enabler of Epstein's crimes — while using diplomatic channels and her powerful connections to petition for a transfer under international prisoner-exchange agreements.She also sought a drastically reduced sentence, claiming she was being punished for Epstein's sins and that her role was exaggerated. Maxwell's lawyers argued that her upbringing, reputation loss, and media scrutiny should be taken into account, painting her as a scapegoat for a man who could no longer be tried. This push for leniency and relocation was seen by victims' advocates as a continuation of the entitlement that defined her life — a refusal to accept accountability or face the same justice as ordinary offenders. Rather than remorse, her response after sentencing reflected the same privilege and arrogance that had protected her and Epstein for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The internal investigation by Victoria's Secret's parent company, L Brands, was launched after the resurfacing of longstanding ties between billionaire founder Les Wexner and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In July 2019 the board retained outside counsel to determine what role, if any, Epstein had within the company—despite L Brands stating that Epstein was “never employed by nor served as an authorized representative of the company.”The inquiry aimed to clarify whether Epstein's influence extended beyond his position as Wexner's personal money manager, including allegations that he posed as a talent scout for Victoria's Secret and might have leveraged access to young models. Former employees and journalists raised concerns that Epstein misrepresented his role, and that red flags from the 1990s went unaddressed.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A Newsweek poll conducted in mid-2020 revealed that a majority of Britons believed Prince Andrew should face extradition to the United States for questioning over his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. According to the survey, 59 percent of respondents said the Duke of York should be sent to the U.S. if requested by authorities, while 52 percent said he should also be stripped of his remaining royal titles. The poll reflected widespread public anger following Andrew's disastrous 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, in which his attempts to distance himself from Epstein backfired and intensified scrutiny over his conduct and associations.The findings underscored the severe reputational damage Andrew's scandal inflicted on the British monarchy, highlighting the growing public demand for accountability. Despite his insistence on cooperating with law enforcement “when required,” U.S. prosecutors at the time accused him of failing to respond to official requests for an interview, deepening frustration both in America and the U.K. The poll's results were seen as a clear signal that the public's patience had run out, with a majority viewing him as a liability to the royal family rather than a protected institution of it.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

During the civil lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre against Prince Andrew, the Duke's legal team was widely mocked for appearing to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of credible character witnesses. Instead of producing anyone with real moral weight or first-hand knowledge to vouch for him, Andrew's defense relied on weak, contradictory claims — including his infamous “I don't sweat” explanation and statements attempting to discredit Giuffre's recollection of events. His lawyers even sought broad discovery into Giuffre's past finances, social life, and mental health, a tactic viewed by many as desperate and irrelevant. The strategy looked less like a robust defense and more like an attempt to sling mud in the absence of evidence or credible allies willing to stand beside him.Observers noted that the Duke's inability to produce legitimate witnesses spoke volumes about his crumbling credibility and isolation. Instead of respected public figures, his legal team leaned on peripheral associates and technical arguments that only underscored how far he had fallen from royal grace. Even the court pressed for testimony from Giuffre's husband and psychologist — a clear sign that Andrew's side had failed to offer anyone of substance. By the time the case was heading toward trial, the optics were catastrophic: a once-powerful prince reduced to scavenging for defenders while the walls of public opinion and legal scrutiny closed in around him.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the year following his explosive Prince Andrew interview for the BBC's Newsnight, the prince transformed from a high-profile member of the royal family into a sidelined figure engulfed in scandal. His candid, but tone-deaf attempts at damage control—claiming a rigid alibi, failing to show sympathy to his alleged victims, and denying memory of key meetings—prompted the palace to strip him of official roles, revoke his security detail, remove his Buckingham Palace office and effectively erase him from public royal duties.During this time he also publicly offered to cooperate with investigators into Jeffrey Epstein's alleged trafficking network, but again fell short—US authorities declared he'd given “zero cooperation” to the FBI. Meanwhile his and his ex-wife's financial troubles mounted, with income streams drying up and assets such as their Swiss ski-chalet contract falling into dispute. All the while the queen reportedly kept contact, yet in public he became the visible face of the monarchy's worst PR nightmare.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Översiktsserien fortsätter. Det kommer handla om globaliseringen, ekonomisk boom, frihandelsavtalet NAFTA, IT-utvecklingen, ekonomiska klyftor, Bill Gates, WTO protesterna i Seattle 1999, en landsbygds om halkar efter och flyttströmmar till solbältet. Bild: Protester mot WTO-mötet i Seattle 1999. Källa: WikipediaPrenumerera: Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Betyg: Ge gärna podden betyg på iTunes!Följ podden: Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret), Instagram (@stjarnbaneret)Kontakt: stjarnbaneret@gmail.comLitteratur översikt USA:s historia- Liberty, Equality, Power: A history of the American People, John Murrin, Paul Johnson, James McPherson, m.fl.- Give me liberty: An American history, Eric Foner- America: A concise History, James Henretta, Rebecka Edwards, Robert Self- Inventing America: A history of the United States, Pauline Maier, Merrit Roe Smith, m.fl.- Nation of Nations: A narrative history of the American republic, James West Davidson, Mark Lytle, m.fl.- The American Pageant, David Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas Bailey- Making America: A history of the United States, Carol Berking, Robert Cherney, m.fl.- America: A narrative history, George Brown Tindall, David Emory Shi- The American Promise: A history of the United States, James Roark, Maichael Johnson, m.fl. - The American People: Creating a nation and a society, Gary Nash, John Howe, m.fl.- Of the People: A history of the United States, James Oaks, Michael McGerr, m.fl.- The enduring vision: A history of the American People, Paul Boyer, Clifford Clark, m.fl.Litteratur för denna era:- Deadlock and disillusionment, Gary Reichard- The age of Reagan, Sean Wilenz- The American Century, LaFeber, Polenberg, Woloch. - American Dreams: The United States since 1945, H. Brands- Recent America: The United States since 1945, Dewey Grantham- Restless Giant, James Patterson Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Prince Andrew's first major “cancellation” unfolded in November 2019 after his infamous BBC Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. The interview was meant to clear his name regarding his association with Jeffrey Epstein, but it instead became a public relations catastrophe. Andrew's demeanor — unapologetic, defensive, and tone-deaf — provoked massive backlash across Britain and beyond. Within days, the Duke of York announced he would be stepping back from public duties “for the foreseeable future,” admitting that his relationship with Epstein had become “a major disruption” to the work of the royal family. The Queen approved his withdrawal, and charities and corporate sponsors swiftly severed ties, effectively exiling him from public life.In the weeks following, more than 230 charities and organisations either dropped him as patron or distanced themselves. Buckingham Palace quietly confirmed he would no longer represent the Crown in any official capacity, marking the first time in modern royal history that a senior royal was effectively removed due to scandal rather than abdication or illness. The event became known as Andrew's first “cancellation” — a total collapse of public and institutional support triggered by his disastrous defense of an indefensible friendship. It also set the tone for the years of isolation, legal scrutiny, and humiliation that would follow.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

People like Prince Andrew live by a rule book that the rest of us don't even get to see. When ordinary people get accused of wrongdoing, they face real consequences — investigations, charges, public humiliation, the works. But when it's a royal, the system suddenly becomes very delicate, very cautious, and very secretive. Doors that slam shut for everyone else magically open for them. Andrew, for instance, managed to dodge law enforcement interviews, avoid depositions for years, and settle a major sexual abuse lawsuit without ever admitting guilt. Every step of the way, his titles, connections, and family name served as a kind of diplomatic armor — the privilege of being born above accountability.That's the true “Rule Book for Royals”: deny everything, hide behind tradition, and let the palace machinery manage the damage. The same institutions that claim moral leadership close ranks to protect their own, wrapping scandal in ceremony and silence. For men like Andrew, shame isn't career-ending — it's just an image problem to be managed by courtiers, PR consultants, and lawyers on retainer. The royal playbook isn't about justice or truth; it's about preservation. And as long as the crown still glitters, the rule book that governs them will always have different laws — and fewer consequences.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In regard to Epstein's death, Kuvin has expressed strong skepticism that it was a straightforward suicide. He notes that in his mediations with Epstein the financier never displayed the mindset of someone considering ending his own life — Epstein was “overly self-confident” and apparently believed he would beat the system. In one interview he said the “evidence is circumstantial but overwhelming” that Epstein did not die by his own hand, pointing to protocol failures in the jail (absent cellmate, sleeping guards, camera failures) and Epstein's attitude as major red flags.On the question of Prince Andrew's connection to Epstein, Kuvin has been openly critical. He argues that the Prince's denials and limited admissions do not erase the years of association with Epstein and others in that orbit. He has labelled Andrew's 2019 interview and other statements as “despicable” for failing to fully acknowledge the breadth of the friendship and what it meant for victims, and has said that until Andrew transparently cooperates with U.S. authorities, his avoidance only reinforces the perception of guilt.Finally, on Epstein's estate, Kuvin has called attention to the rights of victims and the need for full transparency in how that estate is being managed. He has pointed out that he represents multiple claimants against the estate and lauded the establishment of the victims' compensation program as a “huge victory” for survivors. He has also underscored that the estate remains a critical vehicle not just for compensation, but for uncovering the scope of Epstein's network and financial dealings — something he says is far from finished.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

After her sentencing, Ghislaine Maxwell immediately began pushing for special treatment, arguing that her imprisonment should be served in the United Kingdom rather than in the U.S. federal system. Her legal team claimed she was being unfairly treated compared to other inmates and that she should be allowed to serve her time closer to her family. Maxwell cited her British citizenship, her alleged “difficult” prison conditions, and her supposed lack of fair treatment throughout the trial as grounds for leniency. In effect, she was attempting to frame herself as a victim of the system — not an enabler of Epstein's crimes — while using diplomatic channels and her powerful connections to petition for a transfer under international prisoner-exchange agreements.She also sought a drastically reduced sentence, claiming she was being punished for Epstein's sins and that her role was exaggerated. Maxwell's lawyers argued that her upbringing, reputation loss, and media scrutiny should be taken into account, painting her as a scapegoat for a man who could no longer be tried. This push for leniency and relocation was seen by victims' advocates as a continuation of the entitlement that defined her life — a refusal to accept accountability or face the same justice as ordinary offenders. Rather than remorse, her response after sentencing reflected the same privilege and arrogance that had protected her and Epstein for years.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Recently, Bill Gates very publicly pivoted on climate change, rejecting “doomsday” predictions and calling for a more pragmatic, human-centered approach.Is that a sign that the era of climate alarmism is coming to a close?That's what I wanted to find out when I sat down with Michael Shellenberger, author of “Apocalypse Never” and founder of Public.news and the nonprofit Environmental Progress.From rising sea levels to surging forest fires to dying polar bears to disappearing coral reefs, much of what we've been told about climate change is not true, he says.The rising sea level narrative, for example, rests entirely on computer models that were manipulated to produce the desired outcome, Shellenberger says.“It's clear that the activist scientists were manipulating models to show an acceleration in sea level rise when the only long-term, reliable source of data, which is called tide gauge data ... shows no acceleration from the 1850s on,” he says.How is data cherry-picked or skewed to create misleading narratives when it comes to climate change? What's behind the sudden embrace of nuclear energy—after it had been demonized for decades? How might it be related to the global AI race?Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

A special program from Rio de Janeiro as Brazil prepares to host the COP30 climate summit. Christiane talks to Britain's Prince William about the Earthshot prize, which rewards five innovators for finding climate solutions, and she asks him about changes in the British monarchy.  The former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres speaks about finding optimism amid the dire climate forecast and tells Christiane why she thinks Bill Gates's latest memo on global warming is misguided. Then, a little inspiration from above as NASA's first female space shuttle pilot Eileen Collins discusses the new documentary about her extraordinary life “Spacewoman”. From Christiane's archive, a return to Brazil's last time hosting a major climate gathering in 1992. When the Earth Summit saw then-Senator Al Gore tell Christiane that the world needed American climate leadership. And finally, some words of wisdom from David Attenborough as he releases his latest nature documentary.    Air date: November 8, 2025   Guests: Prince William Christiana Figueres  Eileen Collins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs Ventura

When Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee came around, the royal family found themselves in a delicate balancing act—celebrating a historic reign while quietly dreading the public backlash that could come with Prince Andrew's appearance. The disgraced Duke of York, already stripped of most royal duties due to his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, had become a walking PR disaster. Behind the scenes, senior royals reportedly lobbied to keep him out of sight, fearing that his mere presence could taint the jubilee's legacy and draw unwanted attention to the monarchy's most embarrassing scandal. For a family obsessed with optics and tradition, Andrew's status as both son and scandal was an impossible contradiction.When Andrew ultimately appeared—albeit briefly—the backlash was swift and severe. His participation in the ceremony, including accompanying his mother to certain events, was seen by many as a tone-deaf attempt at rehabilitation. The public outcry confirmed what palace aides already knew: any association between the jubilee and Andrew risked overshadowing the Queen's milestone. In the aftermath, he was quietly pushed back into the shadows once again, his return to public life short-lived. What should have been a moment of unity and celebration became a reminder of just how fractured and cautious the House of Windsor had become under the shadow of his disgrace.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In late 2021, Prince Andrew's legal team pinned their hopes on what they called a “secret document” — a 2009 settlement agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre — to try to have her civil lawsuit against him dismissed. The document, kept sealed for years, revealed that Giuffre had accepted a $500,000 payment from Epstein and had agreed to release “any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant” from liability. Andrew's lawyers seized on that vague phrasing, arguing that it protected him as one of those unnamed individuals. For a brief moment, it looked like a technicality that might give him an escape hatch.But when the agreement was unsealed in January 2022, it turned out to be far weaker than Andrew had claimed. The contract didn't name him directly, and the judge ruled that the language was too broad and ambiguous to apply. The “secret document” that his team had touted as a silver bullet quickly turned into another embarrassment, underscoring just how desperate his legal strategy had become. The court rejected his motion to dismiss, allowing the lawsuit to move forward and forcing the prince closer to an eventual settlement. What he thought would save him only served to remind the world that even royalty can't hide behind vague legal loopholes forever.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In late May 2022, Justin Welby, then the Church of England's Archbishop of Canterbury, was asked during an interview about Prince Andrew and the public reaction to him. Welby said that “forgiveness really does matter” and that “we have become a very, very unforgiving society,” adding that there is a “difference between consequences and forgiveness.” He noted that regarding Prince Andrew, “we all have to step back a bit. He's seeking to make amends and I think that's a very good thing.” At the same time, he acknowledged that issues of alleged abuse are “intensely personal and private for so many,” which means no one can dictate how others should respond.Following a backlash, Welby's office clarified that his comments on forgiveness were not intended to apply specifically to Prince Andrew, but rather were a broader comment about the kind of more “open and forgiving society” he hoped for around the time of the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. The statement emphasised that while consequences remain important, forgiveness is also part of Christian understanding of justice, mercy and reconciliation — but it explicitly did not amount to a call for the public to re-embrace the prince or dismiss accountability.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs Ventura

Clayton Howard, a former male escort and frequent participant in Diddy's private sex parties known as “freak-offs,” has filed a lawsuit accusing both Sean “Diddy” Combs and Cassie Ventura of sex trafficking, coercion, and abuse. According to his claims, he was recruited to perform sex acts under the guise of high-end parties, only to find himself drugged, manipulated, and transported across state lines for increasingly degrading and violent encounters. He alleges that Diddy exercised complete control over the events, orchestrating who did what and with whom, often while recording the acts without consent. Howard describes a world of intimidation, where refusal meant exile, and participation meant surrendering autonomy and dignity.What makes his allegations even more explosive is his assertion that Cassie wasn't just a victim of Diddy's abuse—but an active participant in his exploitation. He accuses her of knowingly infecting him with an STD, coercing him into sexual acts, demanding he masturbate for hours while she filmed him, and ultimately pressuring him into an abortion. Howard paints a picture of Cassie as someone who embraced the power dynamic created by Diddy, allegedly using it to dominate and humiliate others in turn. His lawsuit portrays the entire environment as a sadistic, hierarchical structure of abuse where both Diddy and Cassie held power and used it to break down and control those beneath them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Howard v Combs Ventura

Prince Andrew, Duke of York attempted a comeback into public royal life after formally stepping back in 2019, but the efforts were swiftly frozen by the senior royal family amid mounting scandal. After his disastrous BBC interview and the civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre in 2022, Andrew quietly hoped to rehabilitate his reputation and re-emerge at low-key royal events. Instead, in October 2025 the palace confirmed he would no longer use his Duke of York title or royal honours — a decision reportedly made in close consultation with his brother King Charles III and his son Prince William, Prince of Wales, who both viewed Andrew's presence as a continuing distraction to the monarchy.Despite murmurs of a comeback strategy — appearances at charitable events, discreet patronage involvement — the monarchy drew a hard line. Andrew's titles, honours and privileged residence at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle were revoked or set for removal, signalling that any revival would not be sanctioned. Charles' decision to strip Andrew of his official capacity not only ended the comeback effort but demonstrated the institution's priority: preserving its integrity over personal loyalty. Analysts say the move cements an irreversible cut-off and makes any future public role for Andrew extremely unlikely.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

When the U.S. Department of Justice filed a formal Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request with the U.K. Home Office in 2020 to question Prince Andrew as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's network, the Duke's legal team immediately went on the defensive. They issued a statement claiming Andrew had “on at least three occasions offered his assistance” and accused U.S. prosecutors of violating confidentiality rules by publicly asserting that he had not cooperated. His lawyers framed the MLA request as unnecessary “political theater,” implying that the DOJ's statements were meant to pressure the Duke through media embarrassment rather than legitimate procedure. The legal team presented Andrew as a willing witness, not a suspect — arguing that any suggestion he was stonewalling the investigation was both “false” and “misleading.”However, U.S. officials directly contradicted those assertions, saying that Andrew had “zero cooperation” despite repeated outreach. The Southern District of New York prosecutors maintained that Andrew's team refused to schedule interviews or provide substantive assistance. Legal experts in both the U.S. and U.K. noted that while an MLA request could theoretically compel cooperation through formal channels, it was diplomatically sensitive and rarely used against a member of the Royal Family. The optics were terrible: while the Duke's lawyers publicly insisted on transparency, his continued silence and refusal to appear under oath only deepened perceptions that he was hiding behind privilege and procedure to avoid accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

2+ hours of unhinged truth bombs with Opie, Ron the Waiter & first-time guest Tony P. From a mid-show dog-shit emergency to RFK Jr. sprinting from the Oval Office, nothing is off-limits.THE RUNDOWNDog drops a deuce → Tony P vanishes for cleanupU.S. bread, milk & Skittles banned in Europe (yoga-mat chemical, pus, titanium dioxide)Breakfast cereal → ADHD epidemic; Tony P: “Lucky Charms gave me B-cups”Chicken so fake it needs artificial chicken flavor in labsHormones in poultry → girls hit puberty 5 years early3D-printed burgers, Bill Gates' lab meat banned overseasOreos that survive blowtorches; McDonald's burgers that never rotFarm salmon swimming in penicillin & mercuryEpic NYC bagel orders: everything toasted, capers pressed, lox thickKids can't strike matches but 3D-print fidgetsTony P to Trump in Atlantic City: “Go f*ck yourself, give me my money”RFK Jr. bolts when guy collapses near Trump (“two uncles down, any commotion = exit”)

Filmed live before a studio audience, Del Bigtree and Jefferey Jaxen break down Bill Gates' shocking reversal on climate change — signaling that the global narrative may finally be unraveling. Then, a new American Heart Association study reveals alarming data on the COVID vaccine's impact on the heart — a discovery that could mark the final blow for mRNA technology. Plus, an unprecedented in-studio panel brings together Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Pierre Kory, and Dr. Suzanne Humphries — three medical truth-tellers confronting the biggest questions of our time: Are we witnessing the collapse of a system built on misinformation? Or the rebirth of true science and transparency?Watch this powerful new episode of The HighWire, where the truth always comes straight from the heart.Guests: Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Andrew WakefieldBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

John and Maria will discuss implications of New York City electing a socialist and Muslim as mayor. Nigeria is named Country of Particular Concern, and Sudan now is garnering attention as well. And Bill Gates is singing a different tune on climate change.   Recommendations Old School Podcast with Shilo Brooks and Bari Weiss  Summit Ministries  Segment 1 – Election Results and Christian Persecution  Election Results  The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington  True Believer by Eric Hoffer  Christian Persecution in Nigeria and Sudan  Marco Rubio's X post  Foreign Policy: The Fall of El Fasher Marks Another Dark Turn in Sudan's Civil War Segment 2 – Courts on Counseling and Bill Gates Changes Tune on Climate Change  Courts on Counseling and Chiles  Alliance Defending Freedom: Wyatt Bury v. City of Kansas City  SCOTUS Blog: What can we learn from the Supreme Court's first round of oral arguments? Bill Gates Changes Tune on Climate Change  Gates Notes: Three tough truths about climate Comments from Listeners   ______________________  Watch Truth Rising, now available at truthrising.com/colson.  

Ahead of the United Nations 30th annual climate conference, Bill Gates released a memo that, you could say, surprised a lot of people. That's because in this memo he seemingly changed his position on climate change, acknowledging that there is no “doomsday” risk from global warming.Now, the memo is long (it's over 5,000 words) and it's filled with data, graphs, charts, and anecdotes—laying out the argument that climate change is not going to lead to the end of civilization, that measuring temperatures isn't the best measure of progress on the issue, and that thirdly, the money being spent on climate related issues would be better allocated towards improving human health and prosperity.

Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish political scientist, author, and president of the Copenhagen Consensus. A former Greenpeace member turned pragmatic environmentalist, he argues that fighting poverty and improving global well-being should take priority over extreme climate policies. His latest book, Best Things First, continues his mission to make the world's resources work smarter—not louder. Follow him on X: @BjornLomborgIN THE NEWS: Donald Trump shocks New York voters by urging them to back Andrew Cuomo over Zohran Mamdani — and even to ditch Curtis Sliwa in the NYC election. Plus, the founders of Hooters launch a “Re-Hooterization” campaign, bringing back the chain's original, skimpy uniforms. Also making headlines: Singer Tish Hyman claims she was kicked out of Gold's Gym after complaining about a man in the women's locker room. And finally, aspiring lawyer Kim Kardashian admits she's using ChatGPT to prep for her law exams — as former L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa confesses he failed the bar exam four times.Get it on.Subscribe to The Adam Carolla Show on Substack: https://adamcarolla.substack.com/FOR MORE WITH BJORN LOMBORG:TWITTER: @bjornlomborgFOR MORE WITH JASON “MAYHEM” MILLER: INSTAGRAM & TWITTER: @mayhemmillerWEBSITE: www.mayhemnow.comLIVE SHOWS: November 6 - Boston, MANovember 7 - Buffalo, NYNovember 8 - Duluth, GANovember 15 - Los Angeles, CAThank you for supporting our sponsors:CovePure.com/ADAMHydrow.com and use code ADAMForThePeople.com/Adamoreillyauto.com/ADAMPluto.tvRosettastone.com/ADAMSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.