Podcasts about Clintons

On this episode of the Anthony On Air Podcast, we lead with Marjorie Taylor Greene's sudden resignation and what it means for the growing political chaos tied to the Epstein files, dig into the tragic case surrounding Anna Kepner and the confirmed cause of her death aboard a Carnival cruise, and break down whether the Clintons can successfully avoid a subpoena as the House Oversight Committee intensifies its Epstein investigation. It's a collision of politics, tragedy, and elite accountability, all unfolding in real time.We also tee up something massive for our next show: the long-awaited release of our definitive Top 500 Comedians list, years in the making and guaranteed to spark outrage, debate, and group chats collapsing in on themselves. Plus, we lighten the mood with another round of an AOA game on this episode, because if the news is going to be dark, we might as well make it entertaining.#MTGResigns #AnnaKepner #EpsteinFilesGet more AoA and become a member to get exclusive access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOfx0OFE-uMTmJXGPpP7elQ/joinGet Erin C's book here: https://amzn.to/3ITDoO7Get Merch here - https://bit.ly/AnthonyMerchSubscribe to the Anthony On Air Podcast here:Facebook - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirFBYouTube - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirYTApple Podcast - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirAppleSpotify - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirSpotTwitter - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirTwitterInstagram - https://bit.ly/AntOnAirInstaTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@anthonyonairpodDiscord - https://discord.gg/78V469aV22Get more at https://www.AnthonyOnAir.com

-Rob turns up the heat on the Clintons “dodging subpoenas” with a parody song so catchy you'll be humming it all weekend. -Guest Christian Toto from "Hollywood in Toto" bravely reviews Disney's Moana remake and wonders if late-night TV has officially flatlined. Today's podcast is sponsored by :QUINCE : Seasonal clothing and home accessories at discounted prices! Visit http://Quince.com/Newsmax for FREE SHIPPING and 365 day returns… BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! WEBROOT : Live a better digital life with Webroot Total Protection. Rob Carson Show listeners get 60% off at http://webroot.com/Newsmax  To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we break down Congress's decision to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton for sworn depositions in the escalating Epstein investigation. We explore the timing, political stakes, and how upcoming document releases could shape what their testimony reveals.Get the top 40+ AI Models for $20 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Legislative Action and Presidential Approval The U.S. House voted 427–1 to release Epstein-related documents, followed by unanimous Senate approval. President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, requiring the DOJ to release unclassified records and declassify materials where possible within 30 days. Trump publicly celebrated the signing, calling prior criticism a “Democratic hoax” and asserting his administration has nothing to hide. Political Backfire Narrative Democrats initially demanded the release to harm Trump politically, assuming the files would implicate him. The documents expose Democratic ties to Epstein, calling it “one of the biggest political backfires in modern history.” Democratic Figures Named Mentions Bill and Hillary Clinton, alleging they risk legal exposure and have ignored subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee. Other names include Stacey Plaskett, Hakeem Jeffries, Bill Richardson, Larry Summers, George Mitchell, and others. Notes that Epstein donated 89% of his political contributions to Democratic and progressive causes between 1990 and 2018. Legal and Investigative Angle Suggests the DOJ is examining Epstein’s connections to high-profile Democrats. References subpoenas issued to the Clintons and eight other individuals. Raises the possibility of contempt charges similar to those faced by Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for ignoring congressional subpoenas. Flight Records and Media Coverage Points to flight logs showing Bill Clinton traveled on Epstein’s plane multiple times in the early 2000s. Criticizes media and Democratic leaders for alleged hypocrisy and lack of transparency. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz 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 X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

House and Senate pass bill to release Epstein files, sending it to President Trump's desk, James Comer vows to give Clintons Bannon treatment if they defy subpoenas, Tim Burchett And Michael Whatley join the show. Check Out Our Partners: Fatty15: https://fatty15.com/BENNY Patriot Mobile: Go to https://www.PatriotMobile.com/Benny and get A FREE MONTH Helix Sleep: Go to https://www.helixsleep.com/benny for 27% off sitewide.. Advantage Gold: Call 800-900-8000 now for your FREE protection kit. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump has officially signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Dem Rep Stacey Plaskett is now defending her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. James Comer threatens legal action against the Clintons if they defy subpoenas. Larry Summers abruptly resigned from the board of Open AI after Epstein emails surfaced. Dem Rep Cherfilus indicted for stealing millions in FEMA funds. Jim Banks wants to make it easier to prosecute employers who hire illegals. CAIR has been caught giving $1k checks to college students involved with pro-hamas demonstrations.    Join UNGOVERNED on LFA TV every MONDAY - FRIDAY from 10am to 11am EASTERN!    www.FarashMedia.com www.LFATV.us www.OFPFarms.com www.OldGloryBank.com www.SLNT.com/SHAWN www.CaptainSchiddys.com 

Today, Drew exposes Democrats' newest act of open treason: urging military leaders to ignore or defy orders from the current Trump administration — the same soft-coup mindset behind Milley's secret China backchannel.Meanwhile, the Clintons still walk free after defying subpoenas, destroying evidence, and obstructing investigations — crimes that would put any Republican in cuffs.We break down Marjorie Taylor Greene's Liz Cheney turn, how every Republican who betrays Trump ends up irrelevant, and how the establishment is running an “America First” psy-op to fracture and replace MAGA.Finally, we hit the latest on the Epstein operation: the media's sudden outrage is Epstein Hoax 2.0 — a smokescreen to protect elites and weaponize the scandal against Trump while ignoring the real network behind Epstein and Maxwell. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit drewallen.substack.com/subscribe

On today's show, LIVE! https://zeno.fm/radio/thunderous-radio/ 4:30 pm CT, 5:30 PM ET: Epstein Files Again: In fight for Epstein Files, Democrats throw Joe Biden and Bill Clinton under the bus - 'Swamp protects itself' as Repubs shield Epstein-texting Dem Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett after she secretly took directions in real time from Epstein, allegedly to save Cory Mills' hide - Nancy Mace to force censure vote against fellow House Republican - Bill and Hillary Clinton refuse to appear before Congress for depositions on Jeffrey Epstein - we'll examine. Defending The Faith: State's discrimination against Christian preschools under court challenge - 'Peaceful religious gatherings': one state's anti-Christian ideology spreads, city harasses pastors - Chicago sued for discriminating against Christian teachers - Religious groups declare transgenderism 'holy,' confirming God makes mistakes man can fix - we'll analyze. Plus, Your Government At Work: Lawfare insider says Obama team refused to allow prosecution of Hillary Clinton, DOJ prevented counts over her 'gross negligence' in email scandal - Poll says majority of Democrats have favorable view of socialism. And, study says no labor shortage as millions of working-age Americans still not in workforce. http://www.spreaker.com/show/christian-talk-that-rocks https://christiantalkthatrocks.net or http://christiantalkthatrocks.com #BillClinton #EpsteinFiles #Plaskett #NancyMace #HillaryClinton #DOJ #socialism #ChristianGatherings #Christianteachers #Chicago #Colorado

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe people of the UK now see that the generosity of welfare makes it that people do not support themselves. The Fed is right on schedule, they are using the shutdown and lack of data to create the narrative of no rate cut in Dec. GDP is now off the charts. Trump says the Fed does nothing, translation we do not need it. The economy is about to shift. Trump played the D's, they tried to set him up using the Epstein files, the tried to divide the movement, it backfired. Trump needed the D's to push the files narrative, optics are important so he could start the real investigation, most likely the document will implicate the D's on some level but not what people expect. The D's are now planning the color revolution, they are telling the military to disobey the Commander in Chief, remember your oath. Trump has the leverage, this leads to panic.   Economy https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1991138641087955359?s=20 https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1991200888480797001?s=20   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Stephen Miller Reveals Shocking Statistic- 40% of Rent-Controlled Housing in NYC Occupied is By Foreign Born Population (Video) White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller   shared a shocking statistic regarding rent-controlled housing in New York City. Miller shared, “40% of the population of rent-controlled housing in New York City are foreign-born.” “Think about that.” “In one of the largest Metropolitan areas in the world, 40% of rent-controlled properties are being lived in by people who weren't even born in the country. What kind of system is this?” “We bring in people from foreign countries, and then we pay to lower the cost of their housing while people who were born have to pay higher prices?” “So President Trump is reducing net migration, that is what's going to ultimately, along with all these other steps, deregulation, historic tax cuts, is going to bring down the cost of housing.” Watch: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1991166902354268474?s=20  advanced chips for AI here in the US. All of this started with President Trump wanting to re-industrialize the US. His tariffs were a pressing agent in making this possible." 3. “We are manufacturing in America because of President Trump.” Nvidia reports earnings in less than 6 hours. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1991141379838255220?s=20 https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1991168211942019257?s=20 https://twitter.com/RealEJAntoni/status/1991163760195567968?s=20 https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1991195608615367120?s=20 TAKE A LISTEN https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/1991179870907379944?s=20 returning to the United States in record amounts. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/joma_gc/status/1990866006714266065?s=20  always move the goalpost by making up unsubstantiated nonsense. Protecting their grift is their top priority. Plaskett Delivers Jaw-Dropping Explanation of Why She Texted Jeffrey Epstein During Congressional Hearing Democrat Del. Stacey Plaskett (VI-At Large) continued her whirlwind public tour in which she's tried to convince anyone who will listen that texting sex predator Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing is totally normal. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1990901876276027581?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1990901876276027581%7Ctwgr%5Eac2f6a2c78cd6d4359fa04dfc99c2d4a4b998c16%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F11%2F19%2Fplaskett-delivers-jaw-dropping-explanation-of-why-she-texted-jeffrey-epstein-during-congressional-hearing-n2196340 First, it's not exactly common for members of Congress to wantonly text with constituents mid-hearing. Second, referring to Epstein as little more than a "constituent" is like referring to Bill Cosby as just a "Pudding Pop salesman" while neglecting his other obvious history. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1991175194908782619?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1991175194908782619%7Ctwgr%5Eac2f6a2c78cd6d4359fa04dfc99c2d4a4b998c16%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F11%2F19%2Fplaskett-delivers-jaw-dropping-explanation-of-why-she-texted-jeffrey-epstein-during-congressional-hearing-n2196340 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1991167379791917155?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1991167379791917155%7Ctwgr%5Eac2f6a2c78cd6d4359fa04dfc99c2d4a4b998c16%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2025%2F11%2F19%2Fplaskett-delivers-jaw-dropping-explanation-of-why-she-texted-jeffrey-epstein-during-congressional-hearing-n2196340 Source: redstate.com https://twitter.com/RealSLokhova/status/1990992088872190189?s=20   of impeaching the President. Vote to Censure Democrat Stacey Plaskett over Epstein Relationship Fails The vote to censure Virgin Islands delegate Stacey Plaskett (D) for her relationship with sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein failed in the House on Tuesday night, with three Republicans siding with Democrats.   https://twitter.com/RepLuna/status/1991138953211097540?s=20   Source: breitbart.com Rep. Jasmine Crockett's Effort to Smear Republicans Over Epstein Donations Blows Up in Her Face When Conservative Journalist Unearths the Damning Truth (VIDEO) Crockett took to the House floor and accused the GOP of a double standard by asserting without evidence that the likes of Mitt Romney, Lee Zeldin, John McCain, and George W. Bush had once taken money from Epstein. https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1990889556774903965?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1990889556774903965%7Ctwgr%5Efa2c16edf43fdb59f07185608efa8c11f7864c0d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Frep-jasmine-crocketts-effort-smear-republicans-epstein-donations%2F   https://twitter.com/LeeMZeldin/status/1990993148244312175?s=20 https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/1990996259721588838?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1990996259721588838%7Ctwgr%5Efa2c16edf43fdb59f07185608efa8c11f7864c0d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F11%2Frep-jasmine-crocketts-effort-smear-republicans-epstein-donations%2F   Here's a better look:   Jeffrey Epsteins middle initial is E for Edward Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1991142109324185937?s=20 https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1991183118502686819?s=20   Epstein coached Summers on a romance in 2018. Summers was married at the time. The men exchanged a trove of messages between 2013 and 2019, according to the emails. "The university is conducting a review of information concerning individuals at Harvard included in the newly released Jeffrey Epstein documents to evaluate what actions may be warranted," Harvard said in a statement. Video: nalgene_queen / tt. SHOCKER: Numerous Members of Bill Clinton's Administration Were Visitors at Epstein's Island Bill Clinton's Administration was infested with creeps who reportedly visited Epstein Island. President Trump is right.  It is time to investigate the Clintons and the entire Democrat Party for their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.    We reported in 2019 that investigative reporter Conchita Sarnoff, the author of “Trafficking” on the Jeffrey Epstein case, joined Shannon Bream and said Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane 27 times and ALMOST EVERY TIME that Clinton was on the plane there were underage girls on the plane. Sarnoff also said Bill Clinton was lying about his flights with Jeffrey Epstein. The Clintons were also regular visitors at Epstein's ranch in New Mexico. Al Gore We also learned in 2019 after a release of files from the first Epstein case that one woman claimed Al Gore was at Epstein's Island. A woman who claims she was a sex slave for billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein says she met former vice president Al Gore, according to documents unsealed on Friday. The documents were made public Friday after a U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision to make public more than 2,000 pages of court filings in a since-settled 2015 defamation case brought by Virginia Roberts against Epstein confidant and aide Ghislaine Maxwell. Larry Summers We uncovered in 2019 that Larry Summers, the creepy former President of Harvard and President Clinton's Secretary of Treasury, flew numerous times on Jeffrey Epstein's jet and even flew to Epstein's so called ‘Orgy Island'.   Source: joehoft.com https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1990869778764910819?s=20 https://twitter.com/RealSLokhova/status/1991114085724033393?s=20  squeaky clean. Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman and co visited the island, plus possible financial ties to Epstein. So they devised an op to make it look like Pres Trump is compromised when he is not. Now Dems are going down. Senate Passes Epstein “Shiny Thing” Bill,

 President Trump hosts Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House and secures an additional $400 billion in investment, bringing the total to one trillion dollars. Trump surprises MbS with a new designation at a black tie White House dinner. Rep Tim Burchett unplugged after republicans help sink the censure of Stacey Plaskett. And the push by UK and US health agencies to hide the alarming number of excess deaths post Covid 19 vaccine. Rep James Comer promises to give the Clintons the Bannon Treatment if they defy his congressional subpoena.

 As the House Votes with only one no (Rep Clay Higgins) to release the Epstein case files, the Clintons refuse to appear before Congress to discuss their relationship with the disgraced pedophile. But no one is above the law...  Rep Jim Jordan breaks down the Trump Derangement that too many democrats have hitched their political identities to as Rep Ralph Norman moves for a House vote to censure Rep Stacey Plaskett for texting with Epstein during Michael Cohen's testimony. The censure vote failed, Rep Anna Paulina Luna says, because of swampy back room deals.

Baddesley Clinton looks calm today, but the families who lived there left behind a long trail of drama. This episode follows the Clintons, the fiery Bromes, and the Catholic Ferrers through murder, duels, hidden priest holes, and the Jesuit network that operated out of the house during Elizabeth I's reign. It's a full narrative journey through 500 years of secrets inside one Warwickshire manor. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr. Jerome Corsi breaks down major developments shaking the political, cultural, and economic landscape — from the Senate's sudden move on the Epstein files, to shocking violence in America's cities, to global economic warning signs, and the ideological collapse spreading across Western institutions.This episode exposes how elites, activists, and globalist structures continue manipulating narratives while dangerous cultural myths, DEI extremism, and uncontrolled crime erode the foundation of Western society.

While host Ellin Bessner is on vacation, we're bringing you an episode from the archives of our show. This episode originally aired February 13, 2023. More than five years have passed since the still-unsolved murders of philanthropists Barry and Honey Sherman in their Toronto home. Despite a $35-million reward for clues to solve their killing, the case remains a mystery. Conspiracy theories abound over who did it and why, with fingers being pointed at the Clintons, Big Pharma, the Sherman children, a cousin or even the Mossad. Police haven't released any clues in more than a year. But interest is about to heat up again as two major Canadian news outlets give the story the true-crime treatment, each releasing podcasts about the Shermans—this same month. The two shows take very different approaches. One is hosted by Kevin Donovan, the Toronto Star reporter who broke most of the Sherman case and wrote a book about it; the other, produced by the CBC, is hosted by Jewish journalist Kathleen Goldhar. She has produced previous hit shows about a romance scammer and the cult that ensnared two Bronfman sisters. Today, both podcasters join The CJN Daily to explain why they have been pursuing the case for years and whether either of their competing shows actually provide closure to the unsolved mystery. What we talked about:. Learn why the Toronto police  released this video  of a person of interest Hear Kevin Donovan on  The CJN Daily  talk about his book  The Billionaire Murders , which the new podcast is based on Read about  the philanthropic legacy  of the Shermans Credits Host and writer: Ellin Bessner ( @ebessner ) Production team: Zachary Kauffman (senior producer), Andrea Varsany (producer), Michael Fraiman (executive producer) Music: Bret Higgins Support our show Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to North Star (Not sure how? Click here )

John Fawcett breaks down today's top stories, including a federal court's ruling against Texas' new congressional map, citing concerns over race-based gerrymandering, and the Clintons' refusal to testify regarding their connections to Jeffrey Epstein.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Candace Owens is at it again — calling us “deep state soldiers” and making wild claims about TPUSA! But that's not all… Trump dominates the Impact Summit, making big pledges to Americans, and new Epstein-Plaskett texts have just been revealed. In this episode, we break down:Candace Owens' shocking accusations and what they really meanTrump's standout moments at the Impact SummitExplosive Epstein texts between House DemocratsCrazy stories, hot takes, and what you won't hear on mainstream mediaSUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Whatever Fall throws at you, make sure you're prepared—visit https://ReadyWise.com/ and use code CHICKS10 for 10% off your order today!Get the best tips on your dog's health with naturopathic Dr. Black's new book, A Natural Path to Pet Health. Visit https://RuffGreens.com/bookLock in 30% off sitewide with code CHICKS and save on the wireless Chef iQ Sense meat thermometer—perfect cooking every time! Visit https://Chefiq.comGet 25% off your entire order of Cowboy Colostrum. Visit https://CowboyColostrum.com with code CHICKS at checkout! Please support our show by letting them know we sent you after your purchase.Register now for the free Webinar on November 20th, schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio Review, and subscribe to Zach's Daily Market Recap at https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.com

K100 w/ Konnan & Disco is presented to you by FanDuel Sportsbook! Quickest deposits & withdrawals, plus betting available on all sports in the US & worldwide! Support K100 & check out the best in the game, FanDuel! Check out our Patreon site at Konnan.me and Patreon.com/Konnan for extra audio, exclusive video, listener roundtable discussion shows, watch-a-longs, call in shows with Konnan and DI, plus so much more! Get Interactive on Twitter @Konnan5150 @TheRealDisco  @TheCCNetwork1 @K100Konnan @TheHughezy @HarryRuiz @HugoSavinovich @RoyLucier Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@KeepinIt100OFFICIAL @K100Konnan on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram! Rugiet's 3-in-1 formula gets you ready in just 15 mins on avg & effects can last up to 36 hrs. Stay confident, present, & in control in the bedroom! Connect at rugiet.com/k100 to see if Rugiet Ready's right for you. You can use code K100 to get 15% off! To get the best discount off your NordVPN plan - go to http://nordvpn.com/k100 ! get 4 extra months on the 2-year plan. There's no risk with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee! Check out LegacySupps.com and use the code K100 for 10% off of their fat burner, pre workout, testosterone supplement, and sleep aid! Brought to you by friend of the show, Nick Aldis! Plus they now carry Women's supplements, brought to you by Mickie James! Get 15% off the exciting & innovative products at Manscaped.com by using our code K100! Smell good, stay groomed, & support Konnan, Disco, & Joe! That's a win for everyone! TheAeonMan.com brings you high quality Superfood Protein, world class New Zealand Deer Antler Velvet extract for natural testosterone, & supplements to eradicate joint pain & more for all of your health & needs! Use code WELCOME15 for 15% off! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Friday Emergency Broadcast: MAGA Civil War Erupts Over Epstein Hysteria, Trump Demands Investigation Of Clintons For Their Deep Connections To Epstein! 

New Epstein FIles expose Clintons, reveal conspiracy against Trump, Trump signs bill to reopen government, Viva Frei and AG Ken Paxton join the show. Pre Born: Go to https://www.preborn.com/benny to help save a baby American Financing: Save with https://www.americanfinancing.net/benny NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers. Call 888-528-1219 or americanfinancing.net/Benny, for details about credit costs and terms Christian Care: https://www.medishare.com/benny ZIP-RECRUITER: Try ZipRecruiter for FREE https://www.ziprecruiter.com/benny Blackout Coffee: http://www.blackoutcoffee.com/benny and use coupon code BENNY for 20% OFF your first order Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

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

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

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's New Studio! Clay debuts his new studio, complete with a treadmill that he'll be walking on during the show to try stay in shape. He jokes that he might have to change his background though because it resembles a penis. Clay and Buck argue that the shutdown was a strategic move by Democrats to sow chaos and emotional unrest ahead of the elections but ultimately backfired. The hosts emphasize that the disruption to air travel—delayed flights, unpaid air traffic controllers, and public frustration—was a tipping point that forced Democrats to retreat. President Donald Trump’s response to the shutdown is spotlighted, including his call for bonuses for air traffic controllers who continued working and criticism of those who took time off. The show frames this as a leadership moment, contrasting Trump’s decisive stance with what they describe as Democrat disarray. Clay and Buck also dive into the internal conflict within the Democratic Party, noting that eight Democrat senators broke ranks, leading to what they call a “civil war” within the party. Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders are both criticized, with Sanders accused of using emotional manipulation and class warfare rhetoric to rally support. The show mocks the Democrats’ messaging around “Trumpism” and their failure to deliver tangible results from the shutdown. Most Hated Industry in America Clay and Buck argue that the Affordable Care Act has led to skyrocketing premiums, reduced quality of care, and a broken system that benefits insurance companies more than patients. The discussion includes commentary on SNAP benefits, obesity-related healthcare costs, and the lack of price transparency in medical services. The hosts call for market-driven reforms and accuse Democrats of subsidizing the most hated industry in America—health insurance. Healthcare Realities A major segment focuses on healthcare policy and the future of Obamacare, with in-depth criticism of how Democrats have handled healthcare reform. The hosts argue that the Affordable Care Act has empowered insurance companies and failed to deliver meaningful improvements, potentially setting the stage for a push toward a single-payer system. A retired healthcare executive calls in to offer a free-market solution, emphasizing the need to reduce government control and restore physician autonomy. In a cultural pivot, the show covers President Trump’s surprise appearance at an NFL game, where he flew over in Air Force One and joined the Fox Sports broadcast booth. Trump’s commentary on football, his high school playing days, and interactions with players like Drew Brees are discussed as emblematic of his growing cultural acceptance. The hosts highlight how athletes, including the Detroit Lions, celebrated Trump with the now-viral “Trump dance,” signaling a shift in how young men and sports figures view the president. Leftwing Bitchiness Reflections on the end of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, with Clay and Buck criticizing Democrats for what they describe as a performative and damaging political stunt. The hosts argue that the shutdown achieved little beyond public frustration and economic disruption. The conversation shifts to pop culture as Kim Kardashian’s repeated attempts to pass the California bar exam are discussed. While acknowledging her billionaire status, the hosts commend her persistence and ambition, contrasting it with what they perceive as a lack of humility and gratitude from former First Lady Michelle Obama. A significant portion of the hour is dedicated to a critical examination of Michelle Obama’s public statements, her Princeton thesis, and her perceived victimhood narrative. The hosts argue that the Obama family received unprecedented media grace and support, especially compared to other presidential families, including the Bushes, Clintons, and the current First Family under President Donald Trump. 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.

In The Last Word, Greg Belfrage gives his final thoughts on the news of the day including the East Wing demolished, the price of the new ballroom, the Clintons time in the white house, the Cuomo Mamdani debate, and more...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Översiktsserien fortsätter. Det kommer handla om splittrat demokraterna, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hälsovårdsreform, Medicare & Medicaid, Hillarys task force, taktiska misstag, lobbying, 1342 sidor långt förslag, Clintons största misslyckande och utebliven välfärdsreform. Bild: Hillary Clinton presenterar hennes arbetsgrupps förslag på hälsovårdsreform 1993. Källa: WikipediaPrenumerera: Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Betyg: Ge gärna podden betyg på iTunes!Följ podden: Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret), Instagram (@stjarnbaneret)Kontakt: stjarnbaneret@gmail.comLitteratur översikt USA:s historia- Liberty, Equality, Power: A history of the American People, John Murrin, Paul Johnson, James McPherson, m.fl.- Give me liberty: An American history, Eric Foner- America: A concise History, James Henretta, Rebecka Edwards, Robert Self- Inventing America: A history of the United States, Pauline Maier, Merrit Roe Smith, m.fl.- Nation of Nations: A narrative history of the American republic, James West Davidson, Mark Lytle, m.fl.- The American Pageant, David Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas Bailey- Making America: A history of the United States, Carol Berking, Robert Cherney, m.fl.- America: A narrative history, George Brown Tindall, David Emory Shi- The American Promise: A history of the United States, James Roark, Maichael Johnson, m.fl. - The American People: Creating a nation and a society, Gary Nash, John Howe, m.fl.- Of the People: A history of the United States, James Oaks, Michael McGerr, m.fl.- The enduring vision: A history of the American People, Paul Boyer, Clifford Clark, m.fl.Litteratur för denna era:- Deadlock and disillusionment, Gary Reichard- The age of Reagan, Sean Wilenz- The American Century, LaFeber, Polenberg, Woloch. - American Dreams: The United States since 1945, H. Brands- Recent America: The United States since 1945, Dewey Grantham- Restless Giant, James Patterson Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for October 16, 2025. 0:30 We take a look at Hillary Clinton. She is calling on Americans to “push back on Trump’s power grabs” and join the so-called No Kings protest. The irony isn’t lost on us — no one has acted more like political royalty than the Clintons themselves. From renting out the Lincoln Bedroom to treating the presidency like a family heirloom, Hillary’s long been the face America’s “political aristocracy.” 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. Governor Jeff Landry today called for a special session of the Louisiana Legislature. Classes at Bossier Parish Community College were canceled today after police conducted a manhunt for a suspect on campus. New Orleans' Mayor Elect, Helena Moreno has formed a new committee to search for the city's next Chief Administrative Officer. 12:30 Get Brain Reward from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:30 We ask the American Mamas about the return of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. We recall how the brand went “woke” in 2021, pivoting from its iconic Angels to a lineup meant to highlight achievement and diversity—fronted by Megan Rapinoe. Now, with the 2025 show bringing back the supermodel aesthetic, it looks like Victoria’s Secret has rediscovered what made it a cultural powerhouse: celebrating classic femininity, beauty, and confidence. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 We welcome back filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza to discuss his latest project, The Dragon’s Prophecy—a sweeping new film that blends biblical prophecy, archaeology, and modern geopolitics. Based on Jonathan Cahn’s book of the same name, D’Souza’s film explores the spiritual and historical forces shaping the Middle East, drawing striking parallels between ancient battles and contemporary conflicts. 32:30 Get Prodovite from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 33:30 We react to a viral comment from sports radio personality Craig Carton, who declared that “nobody cares about women’s basketball.” His claim sparks a spirited back-and-forth—are fans really invested in the WNBA, or just in breakout stars like Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese? 36:30 Capitalism is a Bright Spot. It's such a Bright Spot, that the best place to live as a socialist is in a capitalist country. Capitalism's defining strength is freedom of choice—including the freedom to live by socialist ideals if you so choose. From the Uber driver who owns their own car to the entrepreneur building a shared company, capitalism makes voluntary socialism possible—without government force. 40:30 10 high schools in California are forfeiting their girls volleyball games. Why? One team has a male player who left one promising female athlete with a career-ending concussion. These schools are not saying why they are forfeiting. The only thing that they're telling the other team is, "Whoa!" 42:30 And we finish off with some words of wisdom about socialism. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The decision to delay Bill and Hillary Clinton's depositions in the congressional probe into Jeffrey Epstein has reignited public skepticism over whether powerful political figures will ever face genuine accountability. Bill Clinton's long-documented ties to Epstein — including flights on the financier's private jet and appearances in visitor logs — have made him a central figure of interest in the investigation. Yet, despite repeated assurances of transparency, the Clintons remain insulated behind legal maneuvering and procedural delays. Critics argue that such postponements underscore how the justice system bends for the well-connected, turning what should be a fact-finding process into a slow-motion exercise in political optics.The congressional inquiry, billed as a serious attempt to unravel Epstein's political network, is increasingly viewed as a performance rather than a pursuit of truth. While survivors and the public wait for substantive action, the Clintons' ability to delay testimony reinforces a familiar pattern — one where power shields itself from consequence. Observers say that unless Congress moves past symbolic gestures and compels full cooperation from all involved, the Epstein probe risks joining a long list of high-profile investigations that end not in justice, but in frustration and doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton delay depositions in House Oversight panel's Jeffrey Epstein probeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The decision to delay Bill and Hillary Clinton's depositions in the congressional probe into Jeffrey Epstein has reignited public skepticism over whether powerful political figures will ever face genuine accountability. Bill Clinton's long-documented ties to Epstein — including flights on the financier's private jet and appearances in visitor logs — have made him a central figure of interest in the investigation. Yet, despite repeated assurances of transparency, the Clintons remain insulated behind legal maneuvering and procedural delays. Critics argue that such postponements underscore how the justice system bends for the well-connected, turning what should be a fact-finding process into a slow-motion exercise in political optics.The congressional inquiry, billed as a serious attempt to unravel Epstein's political network, is increasingly viewed as a performance rather than a pursuit of truth. While survivors and the public wait for substantive action, the Clintons' ability to delay testimony reinforces a familiar pattern — one where power shields itself from consequence. Observers say that unless Congress moves past symbolic gestures and compels full cooperation from all involved, the Epstein probe risks joining a long list of high-profile investigations that end not in justice, but in frustration and doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton delay depositions in House Oversight panel's Jeffrey Epstein probe

Doug Band, once Bill Clinton's closest aide and political gatekeeper, worked alongside the former president for nearly two decades. He co-founded the Clinton Global Initiative and later launched the advisory firm Teneo, which connected major corporate clients with powerful political figures. Band was instrumental in managing Clinton's post-White House image, philanthropy, and network of donors. But over time, he became disillusioned with the Clintons, eventually distancing himself after a falling-out with both Bill and Chelsea. His later comments shed new light on Clinton's long-denied ties to Jeffrey Epstein, raising questions about how close Clinton's circle really was to the disgraced financier.In a 2020 Vanity Fair profile, Band claimed that Clinton had indeed visited Epstein's private island, Little St. James, in January 2003—a claim the former president has repeatedly denied. Band also said Clinton took multiple flights on Epstein's private jet, which flight logs confirm, though Clinton's team insists those trips were tied to Clinton Foundation work. Band's assertions carried weight because of his insider access, but they also came years after his break from the Clintons, leading some to question whether personal bitterness played a role. Still, the details he shared reignited scrutiny of Clinton's Epstein connections, particularly given that Band himself was part of the inner machinery that once managed both men's overlapping worlds of power, money, and influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The decision to delay Bill and Hillary Clinton's depositions in the congressional probe into Jeffrey Epstein has reignited public skepticism over whether powerful political figures will ever face genuine accountability. Bill Clinton's long-documented ties to Epstein — including flights on the financier's private jet and appearances in visitor logs — have made him a central figure of interest in the investigation. Yet, despite repeated assurances of transparency, the Clintons remain insulated behind legal maneuvering and procedural delays. Critics argue that such postponements underscore how the justice system bends for the well-connected, turning what should be a fact-finding process into a slow-motion exercise in political optics.The congressional inquiry, billed as a serious attempt to unravel Epstein's political network, is increasingly viewed as a performance rather than a pursuit of truth. While survivors and the public wait for substantive action, the Clintons' ability to delay testimony reinforces a familiar pattern — one where power shields itself from consequence. Observers say that unless Congress moves past symbolic gestures and compels full cooperation from all involved, the Epstein probe risks joining a long list of high-profile investigations that end not in justice, but in frustration and doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton delay depositions in House Oversight panel's Jeffrey Epstein probeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Host Faust Checho exposes how Bill Clinton's rise from Arkansas governor to president completed the Bush–Clinton blueprint: turning the Boys on the Tracks cover-up, Whitewater, Waco, and the Oklahoma City bombing into milestones in the creation of America's modern security state.This is Part 5, the finale of Faust's explosive series exposing how the Bush–Clinton machine evolved from covert wars to total domestic control.As the Bush–Clinton dynasty tightened its grip, Arkansas became the prototype for covert power — a proving ground where autopsies were altered, investigators silenced, and scandals rebranded as reform. In this explosive finale of the Bush-Clinton corruption series, Faust traces how scandal in Saline County evolved into the Clinton Body Count, how REX 84 and Operation Night Train foreshadowed a domestic war machine, and how policies like the 1994 Crime Bill, NAFTA, and the Telecommunications Act transformed America into the surveillance state we live in today. From Mena to the Rose Law Firm, from Haiti to Kosovo, the same networks of money, drugs, and blackmail that fueled Iran-Contra were refined under Bill Clinton — and exported worldwide.Topics in this episode include:

Översiktsserien fortsätter. Det kommer handla om Clinton som person, guvernör i Arkansas, nya demokraterna, comeback-kid, Clintons utmaningar, nannygate, tveksamma nomineringar, homosexuella i armén och en budgetseger. Bild: Bill Clinton svärs in på sin presidentinstallation 1993 med frun Hillary och dotter Chelsea på varsin sida. Källa: WikipediaPrenumerera: Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Betyg: Ge gärna podden betyg på iTunes!Följ podden: Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret), Instagram (@stjarnbaneret)Kontakt: stjarnbaneret@gmail.comLitteratur översikt USA:s historia- Liberty, Equality, Power: A history of the American People, John Murrin, Paul Johnson, James McPherson, m.fl.- Give me liberty: An American history, Eric Foner- America: A concise History, James Henretta, Rebecka Edwards, Robert Self- Inventing America: A history of the United States, Pauline Maier, Merrit Roe Smith, m.fl.- Nation of Nations: A narrative history of the American republic, James West Davidson, Mark Lytle, m.fl.- The American Pageant, David Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas Bailey- Making America: A history of the United States, Carol Berking, Robert Cherney, m.fl.- America: A narrative history, George Brown Tindall, David Emory Shi- The American Promise: A history of the United States, James Roark, Maichael Johnson, m.fl. - The American People: Creating a nation and a society, Gary Nash, John Howe, m.fl.- Of the People: A history of the United States, James Oaks, Michael McGerr, m.fl.- The enduring vision: A history of the American People, Paul Boyer, Clifford Clark, m.fl.Litteratur för denna era:- Deadlock and disillusionment, Gary Reichard- The age of Reagan, Sean Wilenz- The American Century, LaFeber, Polenberg, Woloch. - American Dreams: The United States since 1945, H. Brands- Recent America: The United States since 1945, Dewey Grantham- Restless Giant, James Patterson Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Doug Band, once Bill Clinton's closest aide and political gatekeeper, worked alongside the former president for nearly two decades. He co-founded the Clinton Global Initiative and later launched the advisory firm Teneo, which connected major corporate clients with powerful political figures. Band was instrumental in managing Clinton's post-White House image, philanthropy, and network of donors. But over time, he became disillusioned with the Clintons, eventually distancing himself after a falling-out with both Bill and Chelsea. His later comments shed new light on Clinton's long-denied ties to Jeffrey Epstein, raising questions about how close Clinton's circle really was to the disgraced financier.In a 2020 Vanity Fair profile, Band claimed that Clinton had indeed visited Epstein's private island, Little St. James, in January 2003—a claim the former president has repeatedly denied. Band also said Clinton took multiple flights on Epstein's private jet, which flight logs confirm, though Clinton's team insists those trips were tied to Clinton Foundation work. Band's assertions carried weight because of his insider access, but they also came years after his break from the Clintons, leading some to question whether personal bitterness played a role. Still, the details he shared reignited scrutiny of Clinton's Epstein connections, particularly given that Band himself was part of the inner machinery that once managed both men's overlapping worlds of power, money, and influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Doug Band, once Bill Clinton's closest aide and political gatekeeper, worked alongside the former president for nearly two decades. He co-founded the Clinton Global Initiative and later launched the advisory firm Teneo, which connected major corporate clients with powerful political figures. Band was instrumental in managing Clinton's post-White House image, philanthropy, and network of donors. But over time, he became disillusioned with the Clintons, eventually distancing himself after a falling-out with both Bill and Chelsea. His later comments shed new light on Clinton's long-denied ties to Jeffrey Epstein, raising questions about how close Clinton's circle really was to the disgraced financier.In a 2020 Vanity Fair profile, Band claimed that Clinton had indeed visited Epstein's private island, Little St. James, in January 2003—a claim the former president has repeatedly denied. Band also said Clinton took multiple flights on Epstein's private jet, which flight logs confirm, though Clinton's team insists those trips were tied to Clinton Foundation work. Band's assertions carried weight because of his insider access, but they also came years after his break from the Clintons, leading some to question whether personal bitterness played a role. Still, the details he shared reignited scrutiny of Clinton's Epstein connections, particularly given that Band himself was part of the inner machinery that once managed both men's overlapping worlds of power, money, and influence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Clinton family's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has been one of the most scrutinized and damaging associations to emerge from the scandal, exposing a troubling web of proximity, power, and privilege. Bill Clinton's documented flights aboard Epstein's private jet—the so-called “Lolita Express”—numbered more than two dozen, with flight logs showing trips to Europe, Asia, and Africa, sometimes without his Secret Service detail. While Clinton has insisted these trips were tied to philanthropic work through the Clinton Foundation, the sheer frequency and secrecy surrounding certain flights raise glaring red flags. Adding to this is Clinton's presence at Epstein's Little St. James island and his connection to Ghislaine Maxwell, who attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010—long after Epstein's first conviction. These details collectively paint a picture not of incidental overlap, but of deliberate and sustained association with a man whose reputation as a predator was already widely known.Defenders of the Clintons argue that Epstein, like many wealthy figures, sought to ingratiate himself with power players and that Clinton's interactions were primarily transactional or charity-driven. Yet this explanation does little to erase the optics of a former U.S. president and his inner circle maintaining close contact with a convicted sex offender. Even if Clinton was never directly implicated in Epstein's crimes, his repeated willingness to leverage Epstein's resources—and the willingness of his family to include figures like Maxwell in intimate social functions—suggests either staggering negligence or a calculated gamble that the association would remain buried. For a political dynasty built on the currency of influence, the Epstein connection remains a gaping vulnerability, one that feeds into broader skepticism about how elites shield themselves while victims are left behind.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The Clinton family's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has been one of the most scrutinized and damaging associations to emerge from the scandal, exposing a troubling web of proximity, power, and privilege. Bill Clinton's documented flights aboard Epstein's private jet—the so-called “Lolita Express”—numbered more than two dozen, with flight logs showing trips to Europe, Asia, and Africa, sometimes without his Secret Service detail. While Clinton has insisted these trips were tied to philanthropic work through the Clinton Foundation, the sheer frequency and secrecy surrounding certain flights raise glaring red flags. Adding to this is Clinton's presence at Epstein's Little St. James island and his connection to Ghislaine Maxwell, who attended Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010—long after Epstein's first conviction. These details collectively paint a picture not of incidental overlap, but of deliberate and sustained association with a man whose reputation as a predator was already widely known.Defenders of the Clintons argue that Epstein, like many wealthy figures, sought to ingratiate himself with power players and that Clinton's interactions were primarily transactional or charity-driven. Yet this explanation does little to erase the optics of a former U.S. president and his inner circle maintaining close contact with a convicted sex offender. Even if Clinton was never directly implicated in Epstein's crimes, his repeated willingness to leverage Epstein's resources—and the willingness of his family to include figures like Maxwell in intimate social functions—suggests either staggering negligence or a calculated gamble that the association would remain buried. For a political dynasty built on the currency of influence, the Epstein connection remains a gaping vulnerability, one that feeds into broader skepticism about how elites shield themselves while victims are left behind.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Brad Zerbo and Zak “RedPill78” Paine unpack a bombshell undercover report from O'Keefe Media Group, where DOJ investigator Glenn Prager allegedly confirms Epstein's ties to the CIA and Mossad. The conversation digs into Prager's claims that Bill Clinton appeared in Epstein's flight logs tied to assaults, while Trump never was—though Trump may be protecting others by holding back full disclosure. The hosts explore witness payoffs, buried investigations, and how the infamous “Epstein list” may have been destroyed to shield the Clintons. From DOJ denials and James O'Keefe's follow-up call to Prager, to speculation about narrative control and intel drops, Brad and Zak piece together the latest in a saga of corruption and cover-ups. The episode broadens into Trump's UN speech, Russia as a “paper tiger,” and the Deep State's games on the world stage, blending current events, whistleblower drama, and cultural breakdowns into one of Altered State's most charged episodes yet.

Jimmy Kimmel, like most of the loud mouths who know little to nothing about Jeffrey Epstein, thinks it's a good idea to bring Jeffrey Epstein and his crimes up and frame those crimes and the years of abuse as a conspiracy theory, all in order to try and score "points" against someone he doesn't like. Meanwhile, what exactly has Kimmel done to bring light to the situation? Has he ever invited any of the survivors on his show? Has he ever questioned his pals the Clintons for their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? You all know the answers to those questions. In this episode, we take a look at Kimmel's latest comments about Jeffrey Epstein and how he attempted to label Aaron Rodgers as a conspiracy theorist for bringing it up. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jimmy Kimmel takes aim at Aaron Rodgers over his comments on Jeffrey Epstein and UFOs | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Wikipedia isn't just an online encyclopedia—it's the backbone of the internet. From Google search results to AI training models, it shapes the information billions of people see every single day. But what if the platform has been hijacked by hidden agendas, activist editors, and dark networks working behind the scenes? SPONSORS: Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://link.outskill.com/ANDREWS2  Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  Start your MyHeritage journey now with a 14-day free trial using my link: https://bit.ly/AndrewGoldMyHeritage Go to https://TryFum.com/HERETICS  and use code HERETICS to get your free FÜM Topper when you order your Journey Pack today!  In this explosive interview, journalist and author Ashley Rindsberg exposes the shocking truth about how Wikipedia really works—and why it's far more dangerous than you think. We discuss how powerful figures can manipulate narratives, how controversial topics from grooming gangs to Kyle Rittenhouse get rewritten, why certain murders are buried, and how anyone who challenges the system—whether it's Charlie Kirk, Elon Musk, or even independent journalists—gets targeted. Ashley reveals how Wikipedia editors attack reputations, censor stories that don't fit the narrative, and even transform encyclopedic entries into propaganda tools. We dig into the billion-dollar industry of paid Wikipedia editing, the war against outlets like the Daily Mail, and the frightening way this information monopoly is now feeding artificial intelligence systems that will shape the future. If you've ever trusted Wikipedia—or relied on Google—you need to hear this conversation. #Wikipedia #FreeSpeech #Heretics  Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters: 0:00 Ashley Rindsberg Highlights 1:10 Wikipedia Can Ruin Our Lives 3:10 The Clintons Did THIS 6:10 Charlie Kirk's Wikipedia 8:10 George Floyd, Iryna Zarutska & Charlie Kirk 11:10 Andrew Can't Get A Wikipedia Page 12:10 The Truth About The Dark Agencies! 14:35 The Daily Mail Is Wiki's Enemy 18:00 Iryna Zarutska: What Really Happened 20:10 This is Malicious! 23:00 Konstantin Kisin's Point About Charlie Kirk 24:10 What The Left Really Care About 26:10 Kyle Rittenhouse Hypocrisy 29:40 Grooming Gangs - They Blamed Us! 34:10 Maniacs In Charge 37:00 Greta Thunberg A Proven Liar 38:40 Reddit & Bluesky Madness 41:10 Elon Musk & Sam Altman 44:10 Woke Football Players 47:10 How We Can Push Back Against This 49:30 Alternatives to Wikipedia 50:40 A Heretic Ashley Rindsberg Admires Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Democrat Party cannot get out of its own way. Jesse Kelly breaks down their financial and social struggles with reaction from Auron MacIntyre and Miranda Devine. You'll also hear from Peter Scwheizer on a shocking story involving the FBI and the Clintons. I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV | 8-28-25 Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/JESSEKELLY and use code JESSEKELLY to get our exclusive discount of up to 40% off. Pure Talk: Go to https://www.puretalk.com/JESSETV to make the switch Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for lifeFollow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShowSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

LightSpeed VT: https://www.lightspeedvt.com/ Dropping Bombs Podcast: https://www.droppingbombs.com/ In this riveting Part 2 finale, Roger Stone opens up to Brad Lea about surviving a rigged trial, Deep State plots, and his spiritual awakening that changed everything. Convicted of lying about the Russian collusion hoax (now proven false by DNI Tulsi Gabbard's declassifications showing Obama and Clinton's roles), Stone details suppressed evidence, gag orders, and fears of dying in prison. He exposes Epstein's "butler's list," Trump's clean break, and chilling laptop rumors amid DOJ's recent Capitol Hill file drops (mostly recycled, with calls for full release from Rep. Ro Khanna and Trump signals).  Stone predicts Tulsi Gabbard as America's first woman president (she hasn't ruled out 2028), Clintons' potential indictments (amid subpoenas and ethics complaints on Hillary's Russia role), Obama's third-term puppetry, and government UFO secrets. Plus, insights on marijuana deregulation, lobbying corruption, and voter smarts in 2025's evolving media landscape.Missed Part 1? Watch the Deep State origins and JFK bombshells:

Patrick Bet-David sits down with Trump biographer Michael Wolff for a revealing conversation as Wolff exposes Jeffrey Epstein's gossip network, Trump's private intel and inner circle, and the long list of powerful enemies Trump has made along the way.------

Michael Wolff shares Jeffrey Epstein's detailed accounts of his falling out with Donald Trump over a Palm Beach real estate deal, his views on the Clintons, and how Ghislaine Maxwell distanced herself after 2004. Wolff explains the shifting alliances that defined Epstein's powerful network.

Megyn Kelly is joined by John Solomon, founder of "Just The News,"  to discuss new documents exposing how top DOJ and FBI officials shut down probes into Hillary and Bill Clinton and Hunter Biden, what we're learning about how one top official said to "shut it down," how the same agencies later turned their focus on Trump, reports of multiple grand juries investigating alleged conspiracy involving the Clintons, Bidens, and figures in the Obama administration, the key dates in the timeline involving possible corruption, and more. Then Stu Burguiere, host of BlazeTV's Stu Does America, joins to discuss the shocking story of a DOJ employee who threw a Subway sandwich at a federal officer, the felony charges now filed, the resistance against Trump's administration from inside, Hunter Biden's refusal to apologize to Melania Trump over his Epstein claim and dropping a f-bomb instead, the possible billion-dollar defamation lawsuit, Trump's push to de-woke the Smithsonian museum, the backlash over attempting to end the racial focus, why the left is losing control of the historical and cultural conversation, Jussie Smollett's latest comeback attempt through a new Netflix documentary, his renewed claim that the hate crime hoax was real, why the media is still giving him a platform, and more. Solomon- https://justthenews.com/Burguiere- https://www.youtube.com/StuDoesAmerica Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Just Thrive: Visit https://justthrivehealth.com/discount/Megyn and use code MEGYN to save 20% sitewideBirch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldCHEF iQ: Visit https://CHEFIQ.com and use code MK for 15% off sitewide. Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright joins to discuss the current status of America's power grids and the energy crisis that would have occurred had Kamala Harris been elected president. Glenn and Stu discuss President Trump's efforts to allow nuclear power plants to be constructed to help with America's growing power needs. Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer joins to discuss the bombshell FBI timeline released that exposes the political interference in the Clinton corruption probe. Glenn shares the terrifying story of an elderly woman who admitted she prefers the company of an AI chatbot over her own daughter. Have we lost our humanity? Glenn discusses the loss of humanity as AI bots become more mainstream. Glenn's chief researcher, Jason Buttrill, joins to dive further into the revelations of the latest FBI document declassification that proves the FBI helped cover up the Clinton Foundation scandal. First Lady Melania Trump has threatened to file a one billion dollar lawsuit against Hunter Biden for defamatory statements, after Biden claimed Epstein introduced Melanie to President Trump. “Breaking the Law” author Alex Morrow joins to discuss whether those who exploited the legal system against President Trump will ever be held accountable.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight's rundown: Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Tuesday, August, 5, 2025. Stand Up for Your Country.  Talking Points Memo Bill breaks down the ongoing Russian collusion fraud case, explaining how it's a revenge move and pointing out who the main targets are. The Clintons, along with former Attorneys General and FBI directors, have been subpoenaed to provide testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Alex Marlow, editor-in-chief of Breitbart News and host of the Alex Marlow Show podcast, weighs in on who funded the cases against Donald Trump and which organizations are involved. Who President Trump is sending to Russia for 'last chance' Ukraine ceasefire talks. Trump continues to threaten India with heavy tariffs over its Russian oil purchases. Final Thought: What Bill said about Elizabeth Warren during his NewsNation appearance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Check out our sponsors: ✅  Patriot Mobile - https://patriotmobile.com/partners/chad ✅ Allied Oil - https://alliedoilfield.com/ Episode Description: In this explosive episode, Chad breaks down the shocking news of subpoenas targeting the Clintons and top Democrats in the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein investigation. What secrets are they hiding, and who's pulling the strings?  Plus, Chad unravels whispers of a clandestine plot to take down Obama and Hillary—conspiracy or truth? Expect bold takes, sharp wit, and unfiltered commentary as Chad fearlessly tackles the headlines shaking up the political landscape. Don't miss this hard-hitting discussion that's sure to spark debate! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump tours the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation site, using the over-budget project and high interest rates to ratchet up pressure on Chair Jerome Powell ahead of next week's rate decision. The House Oversight Committee votes to subpoena the Clintons, former FBI and DOJ leaders, and compel the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Wrestling icon and Trump ally Hulk Hogan dies at 71, remembered as a cultural legend, political firebrand, and the patriotic face of '80s Hulkamania.CHEF iQ: Visit https://CHEFIQ.com and use code MK for 15% off during our FLASH SALERiverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order. 

Hunter Biden's Interview Behavior Described as erratic, vulgar, and unhinged. Frequently uses profanity and makes controversial statements. Criticizes Democrats like George Clooney, James Carville, and Nancy Pelosi. Criticism of the Democratic Party Accuses the party of racism and exploiting both African Americans and undocumented immigrants. Claims Democrats view immigrants as modern-day slaves, only useful for menial labor. Joe Biden’s Mental Health Hunter allegedly admits Joe Biden took Ambien before a 2024 debate, contributing to his poor performance. Suggests a cover-up involving Biden’s physician and the White House. Drug Commentary Hunter discusses the chemical differences between crack and powdered cocaine. The speaker sarcastically refers to him as a “crack expert” and mocks his past drug use. Conspiracy and Power Struggles Claims a “coup” within the Democratic Party forced Joe Biden out of the 2024 race. Names figures like Pelosi, Schumer, the Obamas, and the Clintons as orchestrators. Foreign Policy and Immigration Hunter is quoted as saying he would threaten to invade El Salvador to return deported immigrants. This is used to portray him as unstable and dangerous. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #maga #presidenttrump #47 #the47morningupdate #donaldtrump #trump #news #trumpnews #Benferguson #breaking #breakingnews #morningupdateYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.