Podcast appearances and mentions of Bill Clinton

David Rothkopf joins Joanna Coles and Nell Scovell in their third installment of Inside Trump's Women for a revealing and often hilarious look at the women orbiting Donald Trump and the strange power dynamics inside his White House. From Natalie Harp's extraordinary devotion and Margo Martin's constant presence at Trump's side to Karoline Leavitt, Laura Loomer, and the formidable Susie Wiles, the trio traces the history of presidential “work wives” from JFK and Bill Clinton to the present day, asking what happens when professional loyalty, personal access, and raw power begin to blur. Rothkopf brings his own White House experience to the conversation, exposing the loneliness, paranoia, favoritism, and need for constant affirmation that can thrive inside the presidential bubble—and why the women closest to Trump may reveal more about his inner circle than anyone else. #ad Use code BEAST at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/beast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From there Hawk lays out the political reality. Even with 52 or 53 Senate seats, Democrats would be far short of the Republican votes needed for conviction, and a Republican-controlled Senate might decline to hold a trial at all. He notes how Mitch McConnell pointed to the courts after January 6th, and how impeachments historically boost a president's poll numbers, as they did for Bill Clinton and for Trump twice before. Weighing it out, Hawk points to an open 2028 White House, a Senate GOP already tired of Trump after the primary losses of John Cornyn, Bill Cassidy, and Thom Tillis, and his own mixed feelings. He explains why he leans toward moving on rather than grinding Congress to a halt, while acknowledging the constitutional argument for using the remedy the founders provided. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

It's Quack Month and Mrs. Pearlmania is taking a look at the hypnotist behind TrimSpa. "It's TrimSpa Baby!" Made famous by the infomercial staring Anna Nicole Smith. It's a very strange journey that takes us from Grokepedia to Syndey Swenney, Cheers, Pokemon and much more. JOIN OUR PATREON COMMUNITY -

Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, is one of today's leading voices addressing issues of income inequality.  Reich served in three presidential administrations, and recently retired from teaching at UC Berkeley's School of Public Policy after nearly 20 years.  His classes were among the most popular on campus, and the end of his teaching career inspired the documentary “The Last Class”.  Reich publishes extensively on social media and is the author of more than 20 books including his 2025 memoir, “Coming Up Short”. On July 23, 2025, Reich spoke with Monika Bauerlein, the CEO of the Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit multimedia news organization that houses Mother Jones magazine and the radio show and podcast Reveal. 

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Bill Clinton's February 27, 2026 testimony before the House Oversight Committee finally forced him to answer under oath about a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that had generated questions for decades, but the proceeding hardly delivered the kind of exhaustive accounting the public had been promised. Clinton insisted that he had “done nothing wrong,” knew nothing about Epstein's abuse and never witnessed anything that caused him concern, effectively asking lawmakers to accept that his repeated contact with Epstein, travel aboard Epstein's aircraft and proximity to Ghislaine Maxwell never exposed him to anything suspicious. That explanation deserved considerably more scrutiny than it received. Clinton had not volunteered for the deposition either. He resisted the committee's subpoena, failed to appear for a scheduled January 13 deposition and only agreed to testify after a bipartisan contempt resolution advanced against him. Yet when he finally appeared, even some lawmakers who had spent months demanding answers quickly described him as cooperative and candid. The central problem remained unresolved: Clinton's defense depended heavily on what he claimed not to have seen, not to have known and not to remember, while the documentary record established that his association with Epstein was substantial enough to demand far more than a polite acceptance of those denials.The congressional process itself also exposed the weaknesses that have plagued nearly every official examination of Epstein's network. Rather than methodically reconstructing Clinton's relationship with Epstein against flight records, photographs, visitor records, witness accounts and contemporaneous communications, the deposition became entangled in the same partisan warfare that repeatedly consumes the Epstein investigation. Republicans emphasized Clinton while Democrats complained that Donald Trump had not been subpoenaed, and Chairman James Comer immediately used Clinton's answers to make political claims about Trump rather than keeping the focus exclusively on Epstein and the unanswered questions surrounding Clinton himself. Clinton's testimony therefore produced another familiar outcome: a powerful person denied knowledge of Epstein's crimes, lawmakers divided themselves into political camps, and very little was done to independently test how plausible those denials actually were. Clinton's appearance was historically significant because Congress compelled a former president to testify, but significance should not be confused with accountability. After years of questions about one of the most prominent men in Epstein's orbit, the public was still largely left with Clinton's version of events and a congressional process that appeared more interested in scoring partisan points than aggressively determining whether that version could withstand sustained scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of running "socialism for the rich" and enriching himself in office — so Larry O'Connor asks the question nobody in media ever puts to her. Bill Clinton was making $35,000 a year as governor of Arkansas and the couple left the White House in debt. So where did Hillary Clinton's fortune actually come from? Plus her claim that the Founders would be "appalled" and George Washington "heartsick" — from the party that tore their statues down. Raise your hand as a Social Security voter: https://AARP.org/SocialSecurityVoterBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gaius and Germanicus: Germanicus attributes these failures to a psychological myth of omnipotence that has "suckled" every post-Cold War president: George H.W. Bush dipping a toe into Somalia, Bill Clinton's cruise missile war on Serbia, Barack Obama's targeted killings, Donald Trump mesmerized by unlimited power despite "mature" advisers, and Joe Biden's "feckless adventure" in Ukraine, sputtering that the US was the "greatest nation with the biggest military of all time." The failed campaign to defeat Russia should have been the alarm bell; instead the establishment stayed blind, and the current president—driven by instant gratification and poll rises, as in the first-term Miami meeting with Xi Jinping where he launched cruise missiles at a Syrian airport while serving chocolate cake—has proven American power "evanescent," "brittle," and "superficial." The hosts then catalog the petty feuds with "subkings" that Rome would have discouraged: the aggressive feud with Canada and Mark Carney despite a century of shared history; threats to invade Greenland, prompting the Danes to enlarge their army; disparaging loyal South Korea while courting Kim Jong-un, a "fratricidal cretin" whose flattery Germanicus calls "creepy"; threatening to throw steadfast Oman "into the ocean"; and destroying the bridge built by Giorgia Meloni, the EU's effective "Trump whisperer." Rather than championing an end to Europe's migration crisis, the president has backed the Sultan of Morocco over Ceuta and Melilla, inciting one of the continent's worst flashpoints—conduct Germanicus reads not as dementia but as narcissism grown into "incipient and growing megalomania," in sharp contrast with the implicit rules of the "divine Augustus," whose disregarding heirs Caligula and Nero did not last long. (2)

Watch all our RYAN D videos here    • Ryan D  Ryan D on X   / ryliberty    Ryan's store https://anti-neocon.myshopify.com/Ryan on Substack: https://www.ryandawson.org/Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andrew to Epstein's Baby Farms - John Sweeney    • Who Is Ghislaine Maxwell? From Prince Andr...  Epstein's Niece Exposes ALL    • Epstein's Niece Exposes ALL From Bill Clin...  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/vD3SGWpnfyMWatch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Video  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...#jamesBlunt #HaydenPanettiere#podcast #truecrime #news  #usa #youtube  #people #uk #princeandrew #royal #royalfamily #TRUMP #musk

Ultra National SecurityCensorship under the guise of National Security has plagued my life fromearliest childhood to date.When my pedophile father was caught sending child pornography of methrough the US mail in 1960, he was granted immunity from prosecution foragreeing to sell me into CIA MK Ultra mind control. National Security wasinvoked on the case and my father went free while I was sold into slavery.CIA targets sexually abused children for MK Ultra servitude due to theirheightened suggestibility from trauma. The pedophile agenda is a mindcontrol agenda. My father's immunity from prosecution in 1960 shows howlong our Justice system has been corrupted to allow for the proliferation ofpedophilia for so called “Reasons of National Security”!Research for yourself Project Paperclip when we imported Nazi scientistsand their formula for MK Ultra mind control into the US. Knowledge is ourdefense against mind control so the National Security Act was enacted in1947 to ensure secrecy while the CIA formed the same year to impose itworldwide.National Security is threatening the security of human evolution by allowingfor the proliferation of pedophilia and child sex trafficking/harvesting.When Mark Phillips rescued Kelly and me out of the Washington DC MKUltra swamp in 1988, over $3 million was confiscated from his bankaccounts with no due process for so-called “Reasons of National Security”.My named abusers then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and USSenator Byrd said they “took Mark's life savings for saving a life”. Mark'sfriends in Intelligence, including then US Customs Director WilliamVonRaab fought for return of his savings until they reportedly disappearedunder US Attorney General Janet Reno.Mark was working the highest levels of Intelligence mind sciences topreserve the sanctity of free thought when he found birthright informationon mind brain function-our defense against mind control and healing fromtrauma-buried under National Security. Mark knew this knowledge is ourdefense against mind control, yet was bound by laws of sedition fromreleasing it. Mark reminded Kelly and me of our birthright to heal fromwithin, which we used to deprogram our traumatic past through journalingby hand. Since it was my experience to heal with these methods and I amnot bound by laws of sedition, I released them in PTSD: Time to Heal.The FBI/CPS child trafficking catch-net operation I witnessed beingstructured by US Senator Byrd, who was my “owner” in MK Ultra since Iwas 13 yrs old and subsequently Kelly's “owner”, was the very system mydaughter was thrust into. Love for Kelly and outrage for her direincarceration compelled me to speak out on MK Ultra mind control andhealing from it. I spoke before the Tennessee Legislature April 13, 1992resulting in a Bill being passed in Kelly's name that was ultimatelyoverridden by National Security.March 17, 1993 National Security was invoked in open court in mydaughter Kelly's case by Judge Andrew Shookhoff in Nashville, Tennessee.Kelly's medical kidnapping by CPS in 1990 resulted in her being heldpolitical prisoner by Tn. Department of Human Services aka ChildProtective Services 1990-1998. My ‘legal' battle for Kelly's freedom in acorrupted court system resulted in Judge Shookhoff stating in open court“laws do not apply in this case for Reasons of National Security.”My 1995 testimony for US Congress was censored under National Securityby then President Bill Clinton due to overwhelming evidence against him,Hillary, and numerous other perpeTraitors of their globalist slave societyagenda Bush Sr. termed New World Order aka Agenda 2030. Concernedmembers of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who wereoutraged at the National Security censorship, had my testimony printed inbook form TRANCE Formation of America, and hand distributed it to allmembers of Congress, key agencies, and the Presidency. Despite thiseffort, National Security remains on my testimony to date.1947 National Security Act is threatening the security of our nation bycovering up crimes against humanity including MK Ultra and by allowingperpeTraitors to remain free.

The national debt hit 40 trillion dollars as of yesterday in the United States, and what can we do to fix that? Stay away from Apple and Google News due to how biased they can be. Senator Jon Ossoff may have gone way too far, attacking Donald Trump's aide, Natalie Harp. Mark dives into deeper details about the character of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. ICE has detained the captain of the boat that capsized in NYC harbor, killing a mother and infant, and it turns out that the captain was an illegal alien.  Mark takes your calls!  Mark interviews economist Steve Moore. Steve breaks down the latest news on what the 40 trillion debt number for the USA means. The guys try to understand why Dr. Anthony Fauci keeps getting praised after his whole controversy over how he handled COVID-19 in 2020. Steve and Mark dove into how Bill Clinton allegedly balanced the budget. 

Steve breaks down the latest news on what the 40 trillion debt number for the USA means. The guys try to understand why Dr. Anthony Fauci keeps getting praised after his whole controversy over how he handled COVID-19 in 2020. Steve and Mark dove into how Bill Clinton allegedly balanced the budget. 

Joe reacts to the economic fallout of NYC Mayor Mamdani's second home tax proposal, which is sending major businesses packing for Texas and Miami. He shifts focus to Florida's primary results, dissecting "socialist" Angie Nixon's controversial drag show comments, and exposes the questionable math and legality of LA Mayor Karen Bass's campaign match program. Joe also critiques South Carolina Senate hopeful Darlene Graham's viral foreign policy blunder, analyzes Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear's "big tent" defense of progressive platforms, and compares Iran's geopolitical stall tactics to boxer Tony Tucker surviving Mike Tyson. Finally, the show honors Bill Clinton's 80th birthday with a classic SNL throwback, features Mike Pence's take on political extremes during the "Cat's Corner" segment and closes with WNBA talk about WNBA "villains" Caitlin Clark and Sophie Cunningham.

On today's podcast, Chris Cillizz and Matt discuss:— Sen. Jon Ossoff's comment about Trump and Natalie Harp (the “human printer”), the viral speculation, her unusual rise, the fawning notes, and why her role as gatekeeper of information is more consequential than pure personal gossip.— The debt is out of control. Why doesn't anybody care???— The Florida primary results, including Alex Vindman's surprise loss and what it says about the limits of NeverTrump celebrity candidates, the rise of DSA energy in Dem primaries, and the need for more than just anti-Trump messaging.— Darlene Graham's South China Sea / national-security gaffe in the South Carolina Senate runoff and how timing plus pre-existing doubts can turn a moment into a real problem.— Bill Clinton turning 80, his complicated legacy, how his scandals and the political response helped shape later norms around character.— And MUCH more!Subscribe to Matt Lewis on Substack: https://mattklewis.substack.com/Support Matt Lewis at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattlewisFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/MattLewisDCTwitter: https://twitter.com/mattklewisInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattlewisreels/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVhSMpjOzydlnxm5TDcYn0A– Who is Matt Lewis? –Matt K. Lewis is a political commentator and the author of Filthy Rich Politicians.Buy Matt's books: FILTHY RICH POLITICIANS: https://www.amazon.com/Filthy-Rich-Politicians-Creatures-Ruling-Class/dp/1546004416TOO DUMB TO FAIL: https://www.amazon.com/Too-Dumb-Fail-Revolution-Conservative/dp/0316383937Copyright © 2026, BBL & BWL, LLC

Actor and author Susan Huckle was raised in a highly religious home filled with conspiracy theories. She has written a book about her childhood and her journey into rationalism.VIDEO of this conversationBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/thethinkingatheist--3270347/support.

Met vandaag: Hoe blijf je onder de radar in Nederland, zoals 'Lucky'? | Gas en olie uit Libië | Bill Clinton wordt 80 jaar, Michiel Vos ontmoette hem | Jonge Denker Eveline Groot over het patriarchaat | 5v12: Youri Mulder geeft Joey Veerman een lesje Duits | Presentatie: Wilfried de Jong

This Day in Legal History: Clinton Testifies Before the Grand JuryOn August 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first sitting president to testify before a grand jury as the subject of its investigation. He gave his testimony via closed-circuit television from the White House to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's grand jury, concerning his relationship with a White House intern—and that same evening, he addressed the nation to admit he had misled the public about it.The legal machinery that brought a president to that moment is worth understanding. It began, improbably, with a civil lawsuit: Paula Jones's sexual-harassment suit, which produced the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Clinton v. Jones holding that a sitting president is not immune from civil litigation over unofficial conduct and can be deposed while in office. That deposition, and the questions in it, are what put Clinton's statements under oath—and when those statements collided with what Starr's investigation uncovered, the independent counsel built a case around perjury and obstruction of justice. Clinton, carefully, insisted his earlier answers had been “legally accurate,” a phrase that became emblematic of the entire episode.The significance of August 17, 1998 is layered. It led directly to Clinton's impeachment by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction—only the second presidential impeachment in American history—and his acquittal by the Senate. But its deeper legal legacies are the ones that still echo: Clinton v. Jones established that the presidency is not a shield against civil accountability for private conduct, a principle you can hear resonating in today's fights over presidential immunity, and the whole saga became a national seminar on perjury, executive privilege, and the limits of the independent-counsel model, which Congress let expire the following year. It's a fitting anniversary for a day when the relationship between political power and prosecutorial judgment is, once again, at the center of the news.Opening statements begin today in Las Vegas in the murder trial of Duane “Keffe D” Davis, nearly thirty years after the 1996 killing of rapper Tupac Shakur. Davis, 63, is charged with murder with a deadly weapon with intent to promote a criminal gang. He has pleaded not guilty and faces life in prison if convicted.A sixteen-person jury has been selected, and prosecutors are expected to call roughly forty witnesses. The witness list includes Suge Knight, who was driving the car in which Shakur was shot, and Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo, who responded to the shooting as a Las Vegas police sergeant in 1996.Prosecutors say Davis was the “shot caller” behind a quickly assembled plan to retaliate after Shakur and members of his entourage beat Davis's nephew at the MGM Grand earlier that evening. The government's theory places the killing within a larger conflict involving rival street gangs.The obvious problem for prosecutors is time. Trying a murder case three decades after the crime means dealing with faded memories, unavailable witnesses, and physical evidence that may have been lost or degraded. What eventually revived the case, however, was Davis himself.Over the years, Davis publicly discussed his involvement in Shakur's killing in interviews and in a memoir. Those statements now form an important part of the prosecution's case. They also give the defense an obvious line of attack: statements made years later for publicity, money, or street credibility are not necessarily reliable accounts of what actually happened.That makes Davis's own words one of the most important legal issues to watch. Prosecutors do not merely have to show that he repeatedly claimed involvement; they have to persuade jurors that those claims, considered alongside the remaining evidence, prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial is therefore as much about the reliability of decades-old admissions as it is about solving one of the most famous unsolved murders in American popular culture.Tupac shooting trial begins with opening statements | ReutersWashington Post · PBS NewsHourAttorney General Todd Blanche is publicly backing U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro after President Trump criticized her office for dropping a vandalism prosecution involving the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, Blanche said he “absolutely” supports Pirro, the top federal prosecutor in Washington. The comments came after Trump criticized her decision to abandon the prosecution of former Olympian David Hearn and others accused of damaging the Reflecting Pool.The case grew out of a roughly $15 million renovation project that the administration pushed to complete before July 4. After an algae bloom appeared and portions of the pool's lining began peeling, Pirro's office brought vandalism charges. Prosecutors later dropped the case after concluding that the damage resulted from problems with the renovation rather than deliberate sabotage.Trump was not happy with that conclusion. He publicly called on Pirro to revisit what he described as her “hastily made decision,” and the White House reportedly asked the Justice Department to consider whether additional charges were available.Blanche is now defending the prosecutor's decision. He said it was unfair to judge Pirro based on a single case when her office had made its decision based on the evidence available to prosecutors.The legal principle here is prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have substantial authority to decide whether the available evidence justifies bringing or continuing criminal charges, and those decisions are supposed to turn on the law and evidence rather than the political preferences of the president. That principle takes on additional importance because Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal lawyer, faced questions during his confirmation about whether he could operate the Justice Department independently.There is an important qualification. Blanche also said Trump supports Pirro, despite the president's public criticism of her handling of this case. Still, an attorney general publicly defending a prosecutor's evidence-based decision against presidential criticism is a meaningful test of how much independence federal prosecutors will have when their charging decisions conflict with the White House.US Attorney General Blanche publicly backs Pirro after Trump criticism over Reflecting Pool | Reuters · US NewsAOLA federal judge has cleared the way for the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 1,100 Somalis living in the United States.U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston lifted a pause she had imposed in March on the Department of Homeland Security's termination of Somalia's TPS designation. The change largely reflects what has happened at the Supreme Court since Burroughs entered that earlier order.Temporary Protected Status allows people from designated countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to remain and work legally in the United States for a limited period. The protection does not itself provide permanent immigration status, and the executive branch periodically decides whether conditions in a particular country continue to justify the designation.The administration maintains that conditions in Somalia have improved enough to end TPS. Opponents point to continuing violence in the country, including fighting involving al-Shabaab militants, as evidence that returning people to Somalia remains dangerous.Four Somali plaintiffs and advocacy organizations also argued that the administration's decision was motivated by racial discrimination, citing President Trump's previous comments about Somalis. Burroughs rejected that discrimination claim at this stage, although the broader litigation continues.The most important legal development, though, happened above the district court. In June, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to terminate similar protections involving people from Haiti and Syria. Burroughs concluded that the Supreme Court's intervention changed the legal landscape and limited her ability to continue blocking the Somali termination.That illustrates how a Supreme Court ruling can affect considerably more than the people immediately involved in a particular case. Once the Court signaled that the executive branch has broad authority to terminate TPS designations, lower courts confronting similar challenges had less room to intervene. For the roughly 1,100 Somalis affected here, that means a temporary immigration protection that allowed them to remain legally in the United States can now be withdrawn while the underlying legal fight continues.US judge clears way for Trump to end Somalis' deportation protections | ReutersUS News · Fox News This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

His argument on precedent is the interesting part. Republicans subpoenaed Hunter Biden, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, which he reads as settling the question of whether presidential family members and former first ladies can be called. He says there is no question they want to talk to her, and that if she wants justice for survivors she should work with them. That reading rests on her own April statement, delivered from a White House podium, reportedly without clearing it with the president or his staff, calling on Congress to act. Hawk's point is that House Democrats noticed, and that the position she took is the opposite of what nearly every Republican and every member of the cabinet has said. Todd Blanche's expansion of executive privilege would not reach this. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Adrienne Elrod is a political strategist, government affairs expert and communicator with over 25 years of experience working on Capitol Hill, the executive branch and advising corporate, political and non-profit organizations. She most recently served as Sr. Advisor and Sr Spokesperson to Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. She held this same position for President Biden's re-election campaign. A veteran of the Biden Administration, she served as Director of External and Government Affairs for the CHIPS Program Office. During the 2020 general election, she served as a top aide to Biden's general election campaign. A native of Arkansas, she began her political career in President Bill Clinton's Administration, serving in both the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. On the 2016 presidential campaign, she served as Hillary for America's Director of Strategic Communications. She was a senior communications aide to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. She's also a frequent contributor to NBC News and MS NOW. Adrienne and I discuss the democrats' establishment vs progressive/DSA rift and It's impact on the November midterms. We also discuss the possible reasons behind White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's sudden announcement that she'll be leaving her job at month's end. But first, The Back Room gang discusses how significant the subject of Israel may be on the campaign trail these next 2 1/2 months. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

SPONSORS: 1) SHOPIFY: Build your own business with a free trial at https://shopify.com/julian 2) GHOSTBED: Get an extra 10% off sitewide at https://GhostBed.com/julian with promo code JULIAN. Some exclusions apply; see site for details. JOIN PATREON FOR EARLY UNCENSORED EPISODE RELEASES: https://www.patreon.com/JulianDorey CLIPPERS DISCORD: https://discord.gg/8QmWEKJ3BT (***TIMESTAMPS in Description Below) ~ Mariana van Zeller is an Emmy-Winning Journalist & YouTuber. She has had shows on many channels, including National Geographic. MARIANA's LINKS - YT: https://www.youtube.com/marianavanzeller - IG: https://www.instagram.com/marianavz/?hl=en FOLLOW JULIAN DOREY IG: https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey/ X: https://x.com/juliandorey JULIAN YT CHANNELS - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Clips YT: https://www.youtube.com/@juliandoreyclips - SUBSCRIBE to Julian Dorey Daily YT: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDoreyDaily - SUBSCRIBE to Best of JDP: https://www.youtube.com/@bestofJDP ****TIMESTAMPS**** 00:00 - Mariana in Niger, Gold Trafficking Funds Terrorists 00:11:32 - Trapped Nine Days, Escaping by G5 at Night 00:21:51 - Broken Systems, Not Broken PEOPLE 00:31:52 - Blondie, CJNG & Arms Dealers Selling Both Sides 00:41:05 - Sinaloa, Chinese Precursors & the Fentanyl Boom 00:50:41 - Inside an Explosive Fentanyl Lab 01:00:54 - Portugal's Decriminalization & Florida's Pain Clinics 01:10:53 - American Pain, the George Brothers & the DEA 01:21:39 - Insys, the Sacklers & Two-Tiered Justice 01:30:26 - Cartel Presence in Small Town Georgia 01:41:21 - Predator Hunters, Context & Trafficking in America 01:52:01 - CJNG Scam Empire & "Super Scam Me" 02:03:43 - Damascus, Selling Carpets & Fighters Bound for Iraq 02:12:56 - "Too Soon to Give Voice to the Enemy" 02:23:01 - The Amazon Diamond Mine & Federal Police 02:31:41 - North Korea, Bill Clinton & Becoming a Mother 02:42:03 - Ping Pong Diplomacy & Why Access Is Everything 02:54:28 - Black Market Organs, King Coyote & the Death Train 03:03:31 - Ukraine Surrogacy & Myanmar Pig Butchering 03:13:58 - Epstein, Impunity & "It's Inequality" 03:19:18 - Mariana's Work CREDITS: - Host, Editor & Producer: Julian Dorey - COO, Producer & Editor: Alessi Allaman - https://www.youtube.com/@UCyLKzv5fKxGmVQg3cMJJzyQ - In-Studio Producer: Joey Deef Julian Dorey Podcast Episode 462 - Mariana van Zeller Music by Artlist.io Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What would health care look like if nurses had the power to shape the systems they work in? In this episode, Dr. Beverly Malone, President and CEO of the National League for Nursing, discusses why nurses must be recognized not simply as health care workers, but as healers, leaders, educators, and system shapers. She explains how nursing's unique combination of scientific expertise, empathy, advocacy, and whole-person care gives nurses a critical perspective on what patients and health care systems need. Dr. Malone calls on health care organizations to invest in nurses by providing career pathways, supporting well-being, fostering inclusion, and ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making, arguing that the future of health care depends on listening to and empowering the nurses already at the center of care. Tune in for an inspiring conversation about the power nurses already hold, and what health care systems can do to listen to, support, and empower them to lead!  About Dr. Beverly Malone: Dr. Beverly Malone is President and CEO of the National League for Nursing. A nurse, educator, clinician, and global health care leader, she has held senior leadership roles in the United States and the United Kingdom, including serving as Federal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health under President Bill Clinton and as General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing in the UK. Her work has focused on nursing education, leadership, diversity and equity, evidence-based practice, and advancing nurses' roles in shaping health care systems. Things You'll Learn: Nurses are healers whose work combines science, skill, empathy, trust, and hope. Nurses exercise leadership every day by coordinating complex systems around patient care. Health care organizations must replace gratitude alone with meaningful structural support for nurses. Nurses need a seat at decision-making tables because their frontline perspective can reveal what systems miss. Nursing education and clinical practice must collaborate to prepare and support nurses throughout their careers. Cultures of belonging and well-being are essential to retaining nurses and delivering quality care. Empowered nurses can help lead health care toward prevention, health promotion, and more coordinated care. Resources: Connect with and follow Dr. Beverly Malone on LinkedIn. Follow the National League for Nursing on LinkedIn and explore their website!

Erick argues that precedent matters, tracing how Democrats spent decades using lawsuits and court settlements (California's Proposition 8, the state's refusal to defend it, Bill Clinton's illegal immigration consent decree, and Anthony Kennedy's Obergefell ruling) to bind future governments, and how the Trump Justice Department has now learned the same trick by declining to appeal […]

For over 30 years, Making Contact has been bringing you grassroots voices and context, to better understand the world and the people who are struggling to make it better. As Pacifica radio takes over production of the show, media critic and Making Contact co-founder Norman Solomon joins us this week, to understand the crucial role of independent media, and how we've navigated change—from the Bill Clinton era, to the second term of Donald Trump. Featuring: Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and Making Contact co-founder Archival audio: Bill Clinton, President of the United States; Deborah Toller, political economy analyst; Naomi Perez, former American Apparel employee; Roberto Surro, professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at USC; Elie Mystal, Justice Correspondent at The Nation   Credits: * Host: Mark Maxwell * Reporters: Andrew Stelzer, Phillip Babich, Julie Light, Reese Erlich, Patrick Burke, Lucy Kang, Rami Almeghari * Executive Director: Ace Estwick * Staff Producer: Dan Pavlish * Engineer: Mark Maxwell * Editor: Jessica Partnow

Text the show! What if changing nothing but the political name attached to a fact could change whether you believe it?Turns out, researchers have tested exactly that—and the results aren't particularly flattering to either side.This Wacky Wednesday starts with a strange reaction to a previous Common Sense episode: government and academic wildfire research being dismissed as a “Trump talking point.” From there, Chad follows the same mechanism through decades of American politics.Xavier Becerra blames Trump talking points when confronted with reporting about migrant children. Hillary Clinton invokes a “vast right-wing conspiracy”—while Bill Clinton still had an affair. The COVID lab-leak question gets branded a conspiracy before the evidence is settled. Caveats disappear from the Hunter Biden laptop story. And political-science experiments show Americans changing their views when the exact same policy gets a different politician's name attached to it. Then the bill arrives for both sides.California's own auditors raise questions about billions in homelessness spending. The GAO documents enormous improper federal payments across administrations. And after years of Republicans championing forest management, federal fuel-treatment acreage falls under Trump—because reality doesn't particularly care which team claimed an issue first. The problem isn't disagreement.It's allowing the label to answer the question before we've examined what's inside the package.But is it true?IN THIS EPISODE

On today's show, we learn that a researcher at the University of Arkansas has found that AI chatbots are showing up in our lives in unseen and unexpected ways. Plus, we hear that Sawyer Ray of Fayetteville now holds an elected position never achieved by Bill Clinton, Tom Cotton or Mike Huckabee. We also visit the Newport Jazz Festival.

//The Wire//1700Z August 11, 2026// //ROUTINE// //BLUF: DETAILS EMERGE REGARDING LAST MONTH'S SECURITY INCIDENT INVOLVING AIR FORCE ONE. MULTIPLE OIL SPILLS CONTINUE TO SPREAD AROUND PERSIAN GULF AND ARABIAN SEA.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Middle East: Overnight the targeting of merchant shipping continued, with both Iranian and American strikes on commercial vessels. Iran struck an oil tanker sometime over the past 24 hours, which resulted in an oil spill which washed up on the shores of Qeshm island this morning. In the Gulf of Oman, the United States struck a different merchant vessel for violating the American blockade.Analyst Comment: Similarly, a separate oil spill has continued to expand in Omani waters, after unclear circumstances (i.e. some sort of attack) led to an explosion onboard the M/T CAROLINE BEZENGI two months ago. Since that time, this vessel has been adrift until she ran aground in an Omani nature preserve. This morning Oman announced that the subsequent oil spill now covers roughly 150 square miles.Red Sea/HOA: The Houthis struck another vessel in the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait last night.Analyst Comment: Locals claim this vessel was the M/V TIHAMAH a smaller regional containership that the Houthis had suspected of carrying out weapons shipments from Saudi Arabia, to the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. If this is true, this would not be surprising, but every ship that gets struck in this Strait increases apprehension among commercial shipping companies.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: Overnight, more details were released regarding the security incident affecting Air Force One during President Trump's visit to Turkey last month. At the time, a brief scandal emerged after President Trump switched from the newer Air Force One to the older airframe, due to an unidentified security incident of some kind. More specifically, the threat involved the newer Air Force One airframe allegedly not having sufficient missile defense systems, due to having been pressed into service too quickly for the appropriate countermeasures to be installed.However yesterday, more of the truth came out. President Trump actually pulled a double-switch. Instead of boarding the older legacy Air Force One, the Secret Service used a catering van to covertly move the President to an Air Force C-32A (one of the administrative backups that frequently accompanies AF1). From there, both aircraft flew to the United Kingdom (with President Trump's actual aircraft flying completely blacked out and not emitting any radio signals), where the President transitioned back to the newer Air Force 1 airframe for the trip back to the United States.Many people who are not familiar with the world of counterterrorism may think this is a super cool, James Bond-like operation that fooled those pesky journalists. However, this incident proves that a clear and present danger to the President existed, and was significant enough to warrant extreme measures. At the time, the White House claimed that the switch to a different plane was conducted out of an abundance of caution. Now, we find out that he was actually secretly switched to a third plane, and smuggled into that plane in a catering van. From the perspective of executive security, placing the principle in unorthodox situations like this to ensure security is a last-ditch method...a tactic that is utilized when the danger isreal enough to outweigh any inconvenience to the protectee. The Secret Service resorting to cramming the President in the back of a catering van is a tactic that has been used in the past, but only under extreme circumstances. Bill Clinton allegedly used this trick top avoid the press during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and Joe Biden was also suspected of having used this tactic when he had trouble climbing the AF1 staircase a few years ago. As it stands, President Trump's use of this technique is one of the first public uses for security reasons. Perhaps the most entertaining aspect to the story is that President Trump left the media on the plane that was threatened with being shot down. Most of these journalists, even in retrospect, don't seem to realize that they were they were bait.More broadly, this incident is yet another peek behind the curtain regarding the shocking levels of security that President Trump is now surrounded by. A few days ago President Trump was spotted playing golf mere feet away from an Avenger Surface-to-Air Missile defense system, which had been set up near the fairway of Trump's golf course in Bedminster while the President played a few rounds. Similarly, a few months ago, the President quietly began having Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft holding station near him at all times, just in case enemy fighter jets or cruise missiles enter the airspace.To be sure, this security is very likely necessary, but therein lies the problem: If the President now requires a SAM system to be parked mere feet away from him during an ad hoc trip that only takes a few hours...this is indicative of how serious the threats are within the homeland. Even the notoriously paranoid Vladimir Putin, who got his start in the KGB and who's bedroom in the Kremlin has been targeted (so far unsuccessfully) by Ukrainian drones, doesn't travel around with an AWACS aircraft at all times. This is also very unlikely to be a case of President Trump himself being scared, and fortifying his surroundings as his predecessor did. President Trump is not a military man, and he would not have known to ask for a SAM system, and it's highly unlikely that Trump even knows that an AWACS follows him around everywhere now.Unfortunately, all of these extremely substantial security practices are probably not an overreaction, but likely a response to legitimate and very specific threats. What's more, the security practices that we visibly observe are not the countermeasures that would be effective against the standard lone-wolf terrorist or the standard variety of screeching lunatic who might want to target the President. These countermeasures are only for countering nationstate-level threats. In Turkey, for instance, the only entities that could have targeted President Trump's plane are national-level actors. Similarly, the use of an Avenger SAM system implies that the threat might be so quick to materialize, that the standard Combat Air Patrol that is mere minutes away...might not be fast enough of a response. If any other President had been observed chipping the ball onto the green with a SAM system parked in the rough just off the fairway...the American people would be panic buying cases of water and digging a bunker in their back yard by now.But because a level of tension that surpasses the height of the Cold War has become normalized, the general population barely notices. As long as Netflix works and Doritos are on store shelves, the fact that the United States government has rapidly increased steps to prepare for major, nationstate-level attacks within the homeland will continue to go unnoticed by most.Analyst: S2A1 Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground NomadNet: 5fa68c88be727a0e1a250a75e5e79269 Disclaimer: No LLMs were used in the writing of this report. //END REPORT//

Russian officials and experts often voice the view that the United States was hell-bent on undermining, even destroying Russia during the turbulent period of the Soviet breakup 30 years ago. The primary U.S. goal, in this telling, was to expand NATO to Russia's borders to isolate and threaten the Russian state. Former NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller, drawing from the historical record and her own professional experience, refutes this notion. Gottemoeller argues that, to the contrary, successive American presidents were convinced that deep cooperation with Russia is essential to international security and stability. This conviction was born during the George H.W. Bush administration and took definitive shape during the administration of Bill Clinton, when he and his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin agreed to develop technological cooperation that would be useful to both countries.  While today is starkly different from the 1990s, Gottemoeller's new book Security Through Cooperation takes the lessons learned and considers what it would take—when Russia exits its horrific adventure in Ukraine and atones for the damage it has done—to resume cooperation for the sake of global security. Join Rose Gottemoeller to hear about the issues raised in her book as well as her thoughts on the future of NATO, and her analysis of the Iran war.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch all of our Hamamoto videos here:    • Professor Hamamoto  Hamamoto on YouTube:    / @professorhamamoto  Prof. Darrell Hamamoto, who is an American writer, academic, and specialist in U.S. media and ethnic studies.Professors Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/share/hZajgC...UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary    • UNTOUCHABLE - Jimmy Savile documentary by ...  ADOPTED KID'S CA HORROR STORY & BOYS TOWN! PASTOR Eddie https://youtube.com/live/vD3SGWpnfyMWatch Used By ELITES From Age 6 - Survivor Kelly Patterson https://youtube.com/live/nkKkIfLkRx0KELLY'S 2 HOUR VIDEO ON VIRGINIA    • Video  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...Follow P Diddys latest:   • P Diddy  #jayz #beyonce #hollywood #countrymusic #nashville #pdiddy #puffdaddy #truecrime #news #youtubenews #podcast #livestream #youtube #thepope #vatican #church 

Ralph welcomes Robert Reich (professor of Public Policy and former Secretary of Labor) to discuss his "Pledge to Make America Affordable Again." Then, Ralph speaks to Derek Shearer (former economic policy adviser and US Ambassador to Finland) about his recent work, "A Bold Economic Program for America."Robert Reich is Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, including as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Mr Reich has written eighteen books, including The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, The Common Good, Supercapitalism, and Coming up Short: A Memoir of My America. He is co-founder of Inequality Media, co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute, and co-founding editor of The American Prospect.Democrats have an opportunity now to talk to the working class about—and not just the working class, the middle class too—about prices, about affordability in ways that are terribly important and meaningful and that really could get prices down or at least stop the onslaught of inflation. And also that are very, very consistent with what we believe as Democrats, as progressives, as people who want to see the nation move back toward its pursuit of social justice.Robert ReichYou can bet that the right, the apologists for wealth in this country are going to say, “Oh, no, no, no, don't do that because wealthy people will leave the country!” I mean, what they always do reflexively is say, “If you do that, we'll leave.” And I say in California the same thing I would say about a national wealth tax—if they want to leave, let them leave. But they're not going to leave because there are so many advantages to staying in California in terms of: this is where a lot of the high tech talent actually is. This is where the infrastructure for high tech is already. The climate, as I talk to you, I'm looking at a beautiful day out here. You know, who wants to leave California? And if you are a billionaire, and you are just so intent on leaving California because of this one very, very minor tax, then frankly, goodbye.Robert ReichI am a believer, though, in the common sense of the American people. Now, if that makes me naive, if that makes me gullible, so be it. But I think at the end of the line, the bottom line here is that the American people will make a decision starting with the midterm elections coming up in just 96 days (something like that). And those elections are going to be critical in terms of trying to constrain Trump and the people, the sycophants and lapdogs behind him and Hegseth and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and all these people who are ripping the social contract to shreds. And I think that the one way that (this brings us back to my pledge, my affordability pledge for Democrats), I think one way the Democrats can be sure to get the House back and maybe even possibly the Senate in 96, 97 days, is to pledge to make America affordable again. And using these 10 particular steps that are widely, widely supported.Robert ReichDerek Shearer served as the US Ambassador to Finland from 1994 to 1997. Previously, he worked in government at the national, state, and local levels, including the founding board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank in 1978 and Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs in 1993. He is emeritus Chevalier Professor of Diplomacy and World Affairs at Occidental College and Diplomat in Residence at Occidental for 2025-26. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Ambassador Shearer was a senior policy adviser to Bill Clinton and helped to write the campaign's economic program, Putting People First. He has continued this policy work by co-authoring the comprehensive proposal A Bold Economic Program for America and exploring its political path forward in his recent article, Planning for the Day After Trump.The point of our program is not that it should be endorsed in its entirety. It's almost meant to be a discussion document to show what is possible—that this can be done. It doesn't require some dramatic change in the way the government operates. It just demands a change in priorities and some new lawsDerek ShearerYou can't get to those issues until you are actually in the government. And if we don't win back the House and at least have a shot at winning back the Senate, talking about these issues while Trump and the MAGA Republican Party controls the government (and might continue to control it), makes us feel good, but it doesn't change anything. What I've learned about the so-called leaders of the party is you don't really expect them to lead. They will follow when they see where the voters are going. And they'll also follow when they see if there is a Presidential candidate who takes off on these kinds of issues…I don't expect the leadership to lead on these issues. So I don't rail against them. Because what I'm doing (and I'm doing it with a lot of different people out there, including a lot of young people) is trying to find good candidates, provide them with economic ideas to run on, and then hope that we win back the House and that these kinds of then-elected officials who share our viewpoint become the Democratic Party. I mean, that's how you do these things. If we don't win these elections, then we're just kind of crying in the wilderness.Derek ShearerLet's Start the RevolutionTools for Displacing the Corporate State and Building a Country that Works for the PeopleIn his latest eye-opening exploration, political maverick Ralph Nader dissects the astonishing twists and turns of the 2020 presidential election, a race that left the nation on the edge of its seat. Although Joe Biden clinched victory with a substantial popular vote lead, Nader unveils the precarious nature of the outcome, where a mere 100,000 votes in key swing states could have catapulted Donald Trump back to the presidency. Get your copy here.News 8/7/26* This week, a new wave of Democratic primaries were held, most notably in the state of Michigan. In the closely watched Senate primary, which came down to a two-way race, Bernie Sanders-backed progressive Dr. Abdul El-Sayed emerged triumphant. Some have played up the fact that his opponent, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, overperformed relative to her polling in an attempt to downplay the significance of El-Sayed's victory. Yet, this narrative ignores the fact that Stevens enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Establishment and AIPAC, which gave her an 12-to-1 spending advantage according to Axios, and that she ran misleading ads that made it seem as though former President Barack Obama had endorsed her campaign. Viewed in this light, it is clear just how impressive El-Sayed's victory – statewide, in a must-win swing state for Democrats – is. El-Sayed will now face off against former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in the general election.* In Detroit, the left scored another major win with the victory of Donavan McKinney. McKinney, a DSA member and Michigan state representative, won his primary race against incumbent Congressman Shri Thanedar in Michigan's 13th congressional district, the Detroit Free Press reports. Thanedar, a millionaire businessman, was a DSA member but left over disagreements over Israel. Thanedar fought hard to keep this seat, which he won in 2022, and was supported by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries despite many members of the Congressional Black Caucus supporting McKinney. Given that this is a heavily Democratic district, McKinney is essentially guaranteed a seat in the next Congress, bringing the number of DSA-backed House Members to an unprecedented high of seven. Moreover, between McKinney and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the city of Detroit will now enjoy all DSA representation in Congress.* In Michigan's seventh congressional district, progressive climate activist and co-founder of the Sunrise Movement William Lawrence pulled out a win in his primary as well. NBC notes that Lawrence defeated his two more moderate opponents, retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam and former Ambassador to Slovakia Bridget Brink, in part by aggressively criticizing the construction of new AI data centers. Some have alleged that Lawrence received support from Republicans using dark money to boost his campaign because they believe him to be an easier candidate to defeat in the general election. However, the Hillary Clinton campaign's “pied piper” strategy to boost Donald Trump in 2016 proves that this is ever a risky strategy. Michigan's seventh district is seen as a critical battleground seat. Donald Trump won the district by just one single percentage point in 2024.* In more data center news from the Midwest, Hell Gate reports former New York City Mayor Eric Adams was in “Wisconsin Rapids—population 18,654—trying to convince residents that they should allow a real estate developer to build a data center in the heart of their town.” In a video of his pitch, the townspeople can be seen heckling, booing and shouting down the former Mayor, with attendees saying “You belong in prison!” and “You're here to steal our water!” Community activist Kaitlyn Federwitz is quoted in this piece saying “Our whole town does not want him here at all,” adding “We want our resources to be properly safeguarded, our farmers to be protected, our waterways protected.” The Wisconsin Rapids economy had been largely dependent on a local mill, which closed its doors in 2020; Federwitz spoke to this, arguing that “When the mill closed, we lost 900 jobs. We're aware we need jobs and industry in our city.” However, she added that the people of Wisconsin Rapids are “not willing to accept that a data center is the answer to that problem.”* In more news from the midwest, United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain has published a new op-ed in Newsweek contending that “Democrats Must Pick a Side: Billionaires or Working-Class.” Fain cited numerous examples of Democrats in powers betraying their working class supporters, from NAFTA to modern governors like Abigail Spanberger of Virginia vetoing collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers. He criticized Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in particular for vetoing “nine bills restoring pensions, lowering health care costs, and restoring bargaining rights for public-sector workers,” after “Michigan Democrats fought an 18-month legal battle to force the bills to the governor's desk.” He claims that “When the courts finally ordered [the bills] delivered, Whitmer vetoed all nine the same day—without so much as a phone call to legislative leaders or the unions that helped elect her.” He ends this piece with a call for “every elected official and candidate to…[reject] corporate PAC money,” and “adopt a platform that addresses the needs of working-class people.” This clear-eyed, laser focus on the working class is what has put Fain into conversation for a 2028 presidential run by some on the populist left, particularly if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ultimately declines to run. A recent article in POLITICO quotes Bhaskar Sunkara, the 2020 Sanders surrogate and former vice chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, saying “If he's willing to run, [Fain] might be the best candidate for the left…Since he's progressive but very much says his egalitarian value system comes from his Christianity, [he] can speak in a moral language that can reach more independents than other candidates, and I think it would set a good precedent for labor.”* For the DSA left, all eyes now turn to Wisconsin, where Francesca Hong's campaign for the gubernatorial nomination continues to pick up steam. Just this week, per Wis Politics, Hong picked up the endorsement of the SEIU Wisconsin Healthcare and Service Workers. In their endorsement statement, SEIU Wisconsin called Hong “a longtime advocate and fighter for the working class,” who is “committed to building back strong labor protections by overturning Act 10 and so-called ‘Right-to-Work' laws, expanding Badgercare, and abolishing poverty wages in Wisconsin.” The union added that Hong's “support for a $20 minimum wage, adopting family-centered policies such as paid family leave and affordable child care, and enacting much-needed regulations on corporate monopolies make her the clear choice for all Wisconsinites, not just the wealthy.” Hong currently leads in the polls, despite the sitting Democratic Governor's attempts to boost her primary rival, David Crowley. Both Hong and Crowley have racked up labor support, though Crowley decidedly leads among the building trades and firefighter unions.* In St. Louis, the left experienced its biggest setback this cycle, with former Congresswoman Cori Bush losing her comeback bid against Congressman Wesley Bell by a large margin. Bush was ousted in 2024 as part of “a broader strategy by AIPAC to unseat Israel's sharpest critics in Congress, including the ‘Squad,' which Bush was a part of,” per the Missouri Independent. This piece notes that AIPAC spent over $8 million to oust Bush in that cycle and outside groups spent $7.2 million on Bell's behalf this year. Bell's official campaign outspent Bush's by a margin well over 10 to 1. Bush is the first candidate backed by National DSA to lose their race in 2026, which, while disappointing in this case, is a stunning testament to the track record of the group.* In a totally different part of the country, this week Julian Beaudion, the Democratic nominee for Senate in South Dakota, dropped out of the race. Beaudion cited personal hardships for himself and his family in his statement of withdrawal citing a recent house fire. However, many see this as an acknowledgement that the independent candidate in this race, veteran and former park ranger Brian Bengs, has a better chance of defeating incumbent Republican Senator Mike Rounds in a head-to-head matchup. This dynamic has been playing out in other states; Democratic Senate candidates have dropped out to clear the way for independents in Nebraska and Idaho already and there is immense pressure on the Democratic nominee in Montana to do the same. For his part, Beaudion will not endorse either candidate in South Dakota, according to KELOLAND News, but South Dakota Searchlight reports the South Dakota Democratic Party will not replace Beaudion on the ballot, giving the greenlight for Democrats to coalesce around Bengs in the general election.* In another primary election story, Lehigh Valley Public Media is out with a story on the strange dynamic emerging in Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district. According to this story, this race – between incumbent Republican Ryan Mackenzie and his Democratic challenger Bob Brooks, who seems to have done the impossible by getting Bernie Sanders and Josh Shapiro on the same side in a primary – has been upended by the entry of one Andrew Tupone. Mr. Tupone, a former Republican candidate, is running on the Green Party ballot line and claims to have “joined the Green Party this spring, drawn by its environmental policies on water conservancy and opposition to data centers, after growing disillusioned with both major parties.” Yet, apparently, “Green Party leaders warned in a statement this month that a wave of candidates may be posing as party members across the state.” Chris Robinson, a Green party spokesman, claims that “The party hasn't endorsed any congressional candidates in Pennsylvania and has never heard from Tupone.” Robinson adds that he “looked at [Tupone's] Facebook page, and he seems like he's a nice Republican.” According to LVPM, “a third-party candidate wouldn't need to move the needle much,” to influence the outcome of the election, noting that the current Congressman defeated the Democratic incumbent, Rep. Susan Wild by just 1 percentage point, in 2024, while “Tim Silfies, the last third-party congressional candidate to appear on a Lehigh Valley ballot, earned 8,011 votes, or 3 percent of the vote, in 2018.”* Finally, in more third party news, POLITICO reports several leading figures on the anti-MAGA right – including Congressman Thomas Massie, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, and commentator Tucker Carlson – convened last weekend to “[sow] the seeds for a future third-party political organization…aimed at undercutting the Republican establishment.” This gang of three, joined by former Trump national security official Joe Kent, are particularly incensed by the president's intervention in Iran, with Greene writing “We said no more foreign wars and we meant it and supported Donald Trump because he made that promise. But he's betrayed us all.” This group is reportedly mulling a right-wing, third-party presidential campaign in 2028. While Carlson has declined to launch a presidential bid in the past, despite urging from within his circle, a sprawling new “10-point vision for America” he debuted during a recent stream implies that he is increasingly interested in articulating an alternative vision of right-wing politics from those espoused by Trump. This manifesto, as reported by Axios, includes everything from declassifying records on the JFK assasination and 9/11 to enforcing universal sobriety to “halting immigration until the effects of AI become clearer.” We will be watching closely to see if this effort moves forward or peters out as has been the pattern with other recent third party attempts.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In a recent essay, President George W. Bush hails George Washington's decision to leave the presidency after two terms, ensuring America would not become a monarchy. “[His] humility in giving up power willingly remains among the most consequential decisions and important examples in American politics.” Bush's essay is part of the In Pursuit project, a new bipartisan civic initiative tied to the 250th anniversary of the United States. In Pursuit brings together an extraordinary roster of contributors, including reflections by Barack Obama on Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton on Theodore Roosevelt. “Presidents are powerful proxies for each of the distinct time periods that have made up our first 250 years, and as everyday citizens first and foremost who take on extraordinary responsibilities, they are also the preeminent way for us all to reflect on what leadership in our democracy is really all about,” said In Pursuit CEO Colleen Shogan, the 11th archivist of the United States. But it's not just presidents. First Ladies Laura Bush, Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are included, as are Chief Justice John Roberts and leading historians—each to distill one enduring lesson for future generations. In Pursuit is a project of More Perfect, a bipartisan alliance of 37 presidential centers and more than 100 civic organizations. Join us for a conversation about In Pursuit with Shogan as well as Pulitzer Prize-winning Stanford historian Jack Rakove and UC Berkeley political scientist Eric Schickler. They'll discuss what this project reveals about the future of American democracy and qualities of leadership, character and governance that have shaped the republic across 250 years.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The story of neoliberal capitalism's emergence in the United States typically begins with Ronald Reagan. By contrast, recent scholarship has emphasized the bipartisan nature of the rise of free market politics. Revisiting the history of mid-century liberalism, historians have shown how significant aspects of the New Deal relied on private sector actors and facilitated, as opposed to constrained, market activity. Moving forward in time, they have shown how New Democrats like Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) further repositioned the party in the late 20th century, moving away from its traditional support for social welfare and labor and towards pro-market solutions in response to economic and political stagnation during the 1970s and 1980s. Black Democrats, when they appear, are frequently portrayed as critics of the party's realignment and neoliberalism more broadly. That is a mistake, according to Danielle Wiggins. In this episode, Wiggins reveals Black liberals as some of the original New Democrats and assesses their role as key architects in constructing neoliberal capitalism at local and national scales.

What does it really take to go from broke to becoming a self-made millionaire by the age of 27?In this episode of The Raygacy Show, I sit down with internationally renowned entrepreneur, investor, speaker, mentor, and bestselling author John Lee.Over the last two decades, John has built multiple seven-figure businesses, generated wealth through multiple streams of income, invested in high-growth technology and Web 3.0 companies, and helped entrepreneurs, CEOs, professional athletes, and celebrities scale their businesses and grow their wealth.We dive deep into:

On this episode, we acknowledge Clara's 26th birthday, the young woman who designed the artwork for this podcast as well as some comments about previous episodes from our audience, some of whom gave us an earful once again about the use of the "r" word and it isn't woke to be offended by this "ugly" terminology. In addition, we will cover the following topics:1) A few anecdotes about ships crashing as well as some ingenious ship designs that Stu observed sitting on a bench in Red Hook, Brooklyn, home to IKEA. Of course, the ship was designed by an Italian.2) An Italian crypto millionaire, Michael Valentino Teofrasto Carturan, was kidnapped and tortured in a Soho Townhouse by other crypto bros, John Woeltz and William Duplesse, who wanted him to give up his passcodes for his crypto accounts. This story is a reflection of some of the shady characters involved in crypto, most notably the Trump family.3) The tragic death of a promising 18-year-old woman, Ava Moore, in a boating accident where two illegal Venezuelan immigrants crashed into her Kayak with a jet ski in a Texas lake and caused her fatal head injury.4) Trump's pardons of tax cheats and fraudsters, Paul Walczak and reality stars Todd and Julie Christy. It is truly appalling how Trump has abused his right to pardon in exchange for cash or fealty. His antics are so unethical he makes the rapist Bill Clinton look like a boy scout and clearly reinforced the need to consider means to limit the President's right to pardon.We welcome comments on our podcasts, which can be left on our website or any other platform you may be tuning in on.Connect with David & Stu: Email David & Stu: davidandstuunhinged@gmail.com and share your comments, concerns, and questions.We encourage all to visit our website (https://www.rageworksnetwork.com/show/david-stu-unhinged/) and please leave comments for our consideration.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, it's particularly annoying that numerous national political figures refuse to discuss the significant and growing Islamist threat in the United States. Islamism is the greatest cultural threat we face. What is the ruling class is doing to stop Islamists from entering the country? Are we reviewing the status of those already here who promote radical views? Conservatives need to take over at the local level and reject mosque expansions, which isn't about restricting religious freedom but defending it against Islamist intolerance of religious diversity. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the women's rights groups? It seems with the rise of Islamists and the abuse of women, they've all but disappeared. No marches.  No press conferences. No congressional testimony. Where are they? Later, capitalism is responsible for America's core modern advantages—electricity, clean running water, automobiles, abundant varied food, and the most successful prosperous society in history—because it generates the broad middle class and wealth that make government programs possible. Communist or socialist systems produce starvation, repression, and no real opportunity for the poor to rise, while people flee them for American freedom and capitalism rather than the reverse. America's middle class is the wealthiest, best-fed, clothed, and housed on earth precisely because of capitalist opportunity, mobility, and innovation, not government. Afterward, a New York Post article reports that an Iranian revolution could erupt any day as protest leaders seek arms amid executions, economic collapse, and a war lasting more than five months. It is urgent to arm the Iranian people, provide them support, air cover, and satellite intelligence on enemy locations before it is too late. The Iranian regime fears its own citizens more than any external enemy and is at war with them.  Finally, Rep Byron Donalds calls in and stressed that the SAVE America Act must pass. Senators are still operating as if it were 1996 under Bill Clinton, calling Democrats true radicals who would eliminate the filibuster if they gained control. Donalds argued Republicans should abolish the filibuster now to pass the SAVE America Act and President Trump's proven border security measures, then advance sound energy policy including nuclear infrastructure for affordable power, along with other reforms such as healthcare. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lanny Davis joins Brian Nichols to reveal why as Bill Clinton's lawyer, he now agrees with libertarians on government surveillance and why America's privacy crisis is happening right now.This isn't a gotcha. Davis was Special Counsel to President Clinton, legal advisor to Michael Cohen, and the only Democrat George W. Bush put on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - the panel that watched the government's surveillance programs from the inside. The invitation came from Karl Rove himself.So what makes a lifelong Democrat go straight to George Orwell's 1984? Flock cameras. License plate readers. Every car in America logged and shared between departments. Davis looked at all of it and said the quiet part out loud... "the bigger government is, the more I feel shared wisdom with libertarians."His new book, Finding the Third Way, tackles the civility crisis head-on. He and Joe Lieberman once asked 535 members of Congress and 50 governors to sign a civility pledge - three signed. Davis names his own party's labeling problem, pulls a Harry Truman warning from 1948, and makes the case that Democrats and libertarians agree on more than either side admits.And then Brian does the thing we do... the scorecard. Three things Lanny got right. Three where he lost me. One of them pointed straight at our own side. One standard.CHAPTERS:0:00 The Guest Nobody Expected0:06 "Who Are You, Zelig?"1:53 The Resignation That Wasn't2:34 The Karl Rove Phone Call5:31 Inside the Spy Room7:21 The Guardrails Are Slipping8:16 The Empty Oversight Board10:00 Cameras on Every Corner11:26 "Big Brother Is Watching You"12:24 Only 3 Out of 585 Said Yes15:32 The Socialist Label Trap17:49 Truman's Warning to Democrats20:38 Why Voters Snapped24:14 "The Heck With Your Civility"26:02 The Empathy Problem29:52 Lanny's Curveball Close33:11 The ScorecardGUEST LINKSGet the book: ⁠https://lannyjdavis.com⁠Purple Nation column: ⁠https://www.realclearpolitics.com⁠SUPPORT THE SHOWCardio Miracle - 15% off: ⁠https://cardiomiracle.com/TBNS⁠ (code TBNS)Website: ⁠https://briannicholsshow.com⁠Email: ⁠brian@briannicholsshow.com⁠Socials: @BNicholsLibertyNew episodes every Thursday.Educated. Enlightened. Informed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Chrisley Confessions 2.0, Julie's out of town, so the one and only Nanny Faye is stepping in to co-host — and folks, she brings it. Todd and Nanny Faye get into everything from her tanning-bed-and-butter beauty routine growing up, to why she's officially retired from volunteering unless there's a paycheck involved, to her "happy place" up at the casino.Then things get spicy fast. Nanny swears up and down she's not talking about sex on this podcast... and then talks about sex on this podcast, including the infamous story of Todd's dad finding out about her sealed grand jury business through the newspaper, mid-biscuit-making. Todd grills her on giving her phone number to strangers, letting people she barely knows into her house, and whether she's ever been a woman "of the streets." Nanny holds her ground on all of it.They also dig into the Judge Ross scandal in full detail — courtroom rumors, Fox News coverage, and Nanny's very firm opinion on what should happen to her — plus a walk down memory lane to the day the whole family found out about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Nanny opens up about growing up dirt poor, picking cotton and milking cows before school, and why she never once felt like she was missing out.To close it out, Todd launches a new recurring segment — the Todd Takedown — running real fan questions past Nanny live, covering everything from her favorite casino game to whether she really loves her grandsons more than her granddaughters.Thank you to our sponsors for supporting the show!- Boll & Branch: Get 15% OFF your first order, plus free shipping, when you use code CONFESSIONS at https://www.BollAndBranch.com/confessions!- GoodGirlRX: Visit https://www.goodgirlrx.com and use code Confessions15 to get 15% OFF at checkout!FOLLOW US ON SOCIALS:Todd Chrisley:Insta: (https://www.instagram.com/toddchrisley)Facebook: (https://www.facebook.com/toddchrisley)Julie Chrisley:Instagram: (https://www.instagram.com/juliechrisley)Facebook: (https://www.facebook.com/JulieChrisley)Chrisley Confessions 2.0:Instagram: (https://www.instagram.com/chrisleyconfessions2.0)TikTok: (https://www.tiktok.com/@chrisleyconfessions2.0)YouTube: (https://www.youtube.com/@ChrisleyConfessions)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton talk about how the Democratic Party is experiencing a demographic and ideological divide. They argued that the party’s most vocal socialist activists are disproportionately white, college-educated, and affluent, while many Black and Hispanic voters hold more practical and transactional political priorities centered on issues such as healthcare, affordability, public safety, and economic opportunity. The discussion explored whether the far left is merely influencing the party or has become an increasingly mainstream force within Democratic politics. The hosts tied this debate to broader national issues including immigration policy, open borders, Israel, transgender politics, and the rise of democratic socialism. They also briefly noted Arizona’s primary election and discussed its significance in the national political landscape, particularly regarding the future of Governor Katie Hobbs. Clay and Buck devoted considerable attention to the potential safety benefits of autonomous driving technology. They discussed the approximately 40,000 annual traffic fatalities in the United States and suggested that self-driving systems could dramatically reduce accidents caused by human error, particularly among young drivers. The hosts compared the coming transportation revolution to the transition from horses to automobiles in the early twentieth century, arguing that autonomous vehicles could become one of the most transformative technological developments of modern times. They also discussed how self-driving technology could eventually reduce teenage driving fatalities, improve traffic flow, lower insurance costs, and improve overall road safety. The conversation then expanded into a broader discussion about why Democrats lost recent elections and who may lead the party in the future. Clay argued that today’s Democratic Party has moved substantially leftward compared to the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or even Barack Obama. The hosts suggested that Democratic leaders continue to misdiagnose voter dissatisfaction by blaming messaging failures instead of addressing policy positions that many voters reject. They debated possible future Democratic presidential contenders, including Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, while emphasizing that they see the Democratic leadership vacuum as one of the most intriguing political stories heading toward the next presidential election cycle. An extensive interview with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who discussed a number of major economic and policy initiatives. Bessent highlighted the administration’s “Trump Accounts” program, which provides investment opportunities for young Americans and newborn children. He explained how government-seeded investment accounts, combined with family contributions and private-sector philanthropy, could potentially grow into significant financial assets over time. The discussion focused on wealth building, financial literacy, investment growth, family savings strategies, and long-term economic opportunity for American children. Bessent also provided an update on the U.S. economy, discussing inflation, energy prices, tax relief measures, and working-family economic policies. He argued that inflation pressures caused during the Biden administration continue to affect household budgets but maintained that underlying economic conditions remain strong. He highlighted tax policies including no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime pay, Social Security tax relief, and deductions tied to American-made vehicles. The secretary emphasized that many of these benefits are targeted toward middle-class and working-class Americans. Foreign policy and national security were another major theme of the interview. Bessent discussed efforts to track, freeze, and recover assets connected to Iran’s ruling regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He described ongoing investigations into Iranian financial networks, frozen cryptocurrency wallets, luxury properties, and what he characterized as widespread corruption among Iranian leadership. The secretary argued that economic sanctions and financial pressure complement military actions against Iran and are designed to weaken the regime while preserving assets for the Iranian people. The conversation also touched on government efficiency, fraud prevention, and taxpayer protection. Bessent explained how enhanced coordination between federal payment systems and anti-fraud databases has helped the Treasury Department identify and block payments being sent to individuals who were deceased. He described efforts to modernize federal systems and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending programs, claiming that hundreds of millions of dollars in improper payments could ultimately be prevented. South Carolina politics briefly entered the discussion when Clay asked Bessent about the late Senator Lindsey Graham and speculation surrounding Graham’s sister as a potential candidate. Bessent praised Graham’s service, commented on the competitive Republican primary developing in South Carolina, and reiterated that he intends to remain focused on his current role as Treasury Secretary rather than pursuing elected office. The interview concluded with a lighthearted exchange about President Donald Trump’s late-night phone calls and work habits. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Josh Holmes, Michael Duncan, and John Ashbrook, hosts of the Ruthless podcast, to discuss new reporting on Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson, allegations about his treatment of female colleagues, new accusations of yelling at female politicians, whether Troy Jackson will defeat Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, wild comments from Maine Senate candidate “Ashley Webb” about gender identity and "mucus," Bill and Hillary Clinton's awkward vacation appearance, Bill Clinton's "MAGA-adjacent" hat sparking speculation about his feelings on Trump, why Biden's team is still trying to block the release of the Hur audio, new information we're learning about the arrest of Sunny Hostin's son for trespassing, Hostin's hypocrisy when it comes to the law and accountability, questions about what her son was doing "running" in that sketchy area, Tom Brady's thirst for attention and post-retirement persona, his strange "feud" with Logan Paul, how Brady is hurting his legacy and whether his divorce is part of the reason for this behavior, former CNN host Brooke Baldwin writing and talking about all the guys she's sleeping with, her "therapized" awakening, and more.   More from Ruthless: https://www.ruthlesspodcast.com/   Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold ARMRA: go to https://tryarmra.com/MEGYNto get 30% off your first subscription order Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Lindsey Olin Graham (July 9, 1955 – July 11, 2026) was an American politician, attorney, and Air Force officer who represented South Carolina in the U.S. Senate from 2003 until his death in 2026. He was one of the most influential Republican senators of his era, particularly on national security, judicial nominations, and foreign policy. Early Life Graham was born in Central, South Carolina, where his parents owned a restaurant, pool hall, and liquor store. He became the first member of his family to attend college, earning both a bachelor's degree and a law degree from the University of South Carolina. While in school, he suffered the loss of both parents within about 15 months and took responsibility for helping raise his younger sister. Military Service After law school, Graham joined the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, serving as a military lawyer. He served on active duty from 1982 to 1989, including assignments in Germany, and later continued in the South Carolina Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. During his military career he reached the rank of Colonel and retired in 2015 after 33 years of service. Entry into Politics Graham began his political career in the South Carolina House of Representatives, serving from 1993 to 1995. In 1994, he won election to the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina's 3rd Congressional District, becoming the first Republican elected from that district since Reconstruction. During his time in the House, he gained national attention as one of the House managers who prosecuted the impeachment case against President Bill Clinton in 1999. U.S. Senate Career Graham was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2002 and took office in January 2003. He won reelection in 2008, 2014, and 2020. Throughout his Senate career he served on several powerful committees, including Judiciary, Appropriations, Budget, and Environment and Public Works. He also chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee and later the Senate Budget Committee. Key Political Positions Graham became known for: Strong support for a robust U.S. military and interventionist foreign policy. Advocacy for American support of allies such as Ukraine and Israel. Leadership on judicial confirmations, including helping advance the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Relationship with Donald Trump One of the most notable aspects of Graham's career was his evolving relationship with Donald Trump. During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, Graham strongly criticized Trump, but after Trump's election, however, Graham became one of his closest allies in Congress and frequently advised him on foreign-policy and judicial matters. Legacy His supporters remember him as a skilled legislator, military veteran, and influential voice on national security. Critics often challenged his changing political alliances and hawkish foreign-policy positions. Nevertheless, he remained one of the most recognizable and consequential Republican senators of the early 21st century 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.