Judicial institution with authority to resolve legal disputes
POPULARITY
Categories
381 episodes with courts
250 episodes with courts
387 episodes with courts
108 episodes with courts
122 episodes with courts
29 episodes with courts
58 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
30 episodes with courts
36 episodes with courts
117 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
53 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
63 episodes with courts
12 episodes with courts
14 episodes with courts
17 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
86 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
23 episodes with courts
29 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
21 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
28 episodes with courts
17 episodes with courts
30 episodes with courts
270 episodes with courts
5 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
8 episodes with courts
6 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
Prince Andrew was not covered by Jeffrey Epstein's 2007–2008 federal Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), a point that has repeatedly been misunderstood or deliberately obscured. Legal experts have emphasized that the NPA applied narrowly to Epstein himself and, at most, to unnamed U.S.-based co-conspirators under specific jurisdictional limits tied to the Southern District of Florida. Prince Andrew, a British national with alleged conduct occurring outside that jurisdiction—including in the United Kingdom, New York, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—fell entirely outside the agreement's scope. Courts later made clear that the NPA did not grant immunity to foreign nationals, did not bind other federal districts, and did not preempt civil or criminal exposure beyond the deal's precise terms.That legal reality became especially clear during Virginia Giuffre's civil case against Prince Andrew, where judges rejected arguments that Epstein's plea deal insulated Andrew from liability. The settlement Andrew ultimately reached was not a function of legal protection under the NPA, but rather a strategic move to avoid sworn testimony, discovery, and the risk of trial. Attorneys and legal analysts have noted that Andrew's long period of effective insulation stemmed from political deference, diplomatic sensitivity, and institutional hesitation—not from any binding legal shield in Epstein's agreement. In short, Andrew was never legally protected by the Epstein NPA; he was protected by silence, delay, and power, none of which carried the force of law.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
This holiday season, we wish you peace, joy, and a new Supreme Court. In Part 1 of our discussion, we pulled the mask off originalism and called it what it is: the Southern Strategy of our courts, a legal laundering scheme for white terrorism. In Part 2, we discuss how to take our courts back from GOP extremism to protect our Constitution–before it rips apart our country. To hear this week's full bonus show, subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit and support our independent journalism. According to legal scholar Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, the answer is finally taking the Constitution at its word. The Constitution was built on principles from Enlightenment ideas that fueled the American Revolution: human equality, self-government, and the radical notion that legitimacy flows from the people, not from tradition or bloodlines. We fought a Civil War to finally live up to those ideals. In the Reconstruction era, through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments , the Constitution was fundamentally transformed into a document meant to support a multiracial democracy, one that promised equal protection, due process, and citizenship not tied to race. Taking back the Supreme Court means delegitimizing originalism and replacing it with a constitutional vision aligned with democracy itself. A Constitution that works for everyone. A Court that understands its job is not to drag us backward, but to help the country finally live up to its founding promises. Join our community of listeners and get bonus shows, Q&A sessions, invites to exclusive events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, ad free listening, group chats with other listeners, ways to shape the show, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!
All we want for Christmas is a new Supreme Court. Here to tell us how we get there is legal scholar Madiba Dennie, author of The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back. What's "originalism"? It's white supremacy's answer to the Civil Rights Movement, every bit as sneaky and immoral as Republican operative Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy," which mobilized racist voters through racist dog whistles instead of open slurs. Originalism sounds fancy by design, but it's pure fascist gaslighting, now wielded by the trash MAGA majority on the Supreme Court. Gaslit Nation's holiday gift to our listeners this year is to remind you of an inconvenient fact the media ignores: Donald Trump came to power in 2016 with the Kremlin's very illegal help, as documented in both the Mueller Report and the bipartisan U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election. That makes him an illegitimate president, which means his extreme Supreme Court picks should be impeached. More on that in part two of our discussion, coming Thursday. Thank you to everyone who joined our holiday party on Monday. As requested, the link to the Outreach Committee for listeners interested in discussing ways to reach current or former MAGA cult members and help guide them back toward the light is available in the show notes on Patreon. Join our community of listeners and get bonus shows, Q&A sessions, invites to exclusive events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, ad free listening, group chats with other listeners, ways to shape the show, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
On a Christmas Eve edition of The Daily Herold, Jon Herold delivers a wide-ranging, candid stream covering Supreme Court limits on National Guard deployments, presidential authority, the Insurrection Act, and the growing tension between the executive and judiciary. Jon digs into free speech hypocrisy, foreign and domestic censorship, H1B visa rulings, Epstein file confusion, fraud and abuse at the state level, and the illusion of economic stability amid massive government spending. With unscripted rants, live chat interaction, and sharp commentary on accountability, immigration, Ukraine, and institutional rot, this episode reflects on where the system is failing, why exposure matters, and what comes next as the country heads into Christmas.
12-03-2025 Hessam Parzivand Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/trump-sweats-courts-decision-on-texas-redistricting/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
It's well-documented that our courts system is in crisis but following an investigation, The Standard can reveal that magistrates are sitting in secret to allow utility companies to break into people's homes, granting warrants based on applications they have never seen.Back in late 2022, energy firms and courts were rocked by scandal when it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of warrants – including for the homes of some of Britain's poorest people – were being “waved through” by magistrates.The government promised a clean-up and new court process, but a year-long probe by The Standard has uncovered disturbing practices - and the Chief Magistrate is investigating the concerns. The Standard's Courts Correspondent Tristan Kirk is here with the latest. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In 2025, tech policy felt like everything happened everywhere at once. Google lost two antitrust cases but avoided a breakup. Meta won its case entirely. The SEC went from suing crypto companies to dropping every major enforcement action. Net neutrality died—again—this time probably for good. TikTok got banned, then unbanned, then re-banned, then saved by executive order—five times. Chinese hackers compromised 200 companies through our telecom networks. And Congress finally actually passed a law protecting kids online—The Take it Down Act, to be precise.It was a year in many ways defined by tensions and contradictions. Courts stripped power from federal agencies just as the new administration tried to bring those agencies under tighter presidential control. The administration took some actions to be tough on China, while other measures appeared to let our chief adversary off the hook. States rushed to fill the vacuum on AI and privacy while the White House has threatened to preempt them. Platforms loosened content moderation in the US while facing record fines in Europe. And Washington declared it wanted to win the AI race—while local communities debated whether they even wanted data centers in their backyards.So what were the biggest tech and telecom policy stories of 2025? Which developments will have staying power, and which were little more than sound and fury? What should we be watching heading into 2026? And did anyone actually win this year—or did everyone just survive?To unpack all this, Evan is joined by Luke Hogg, Director of Technology Policy at FAI, and Josh Levine, Research Fellow at FAI.
With Montana Speaker of the House, Brandon Ler The post New Courts, Climate, Education Hurdles for Montana Legislators first appeared on Voices of Montana.
Avec Albéric de Serrant et Jules Badarany
Elon Musk just won back his Tesla pay package in a massive Delaware Supreme Court ruling on December 19, 2025. What was originally a $56 billion compensation plan is now worth $140 BILLION at today's Tesla stock prices - making it the largest pay package in corporate history.KEY POINTS COVERED:Delaware Supreme Court ruling explained (December 19, 2025)How the pay package went from $56B to $140BThe 2018 shareholder vote and what Elon had to achieveWhy Judge McCormick voided it in 2024How Elon moved Tesla from Delaware to Texas in responseWhat this means for Tesla shareholders and corporate governanceThe upcoming $1 trillion pay package for 2025-2035THE FULL STORY:In 2018, Tesla shareholders approved an unprecedented pay package for Elon Musk - no salary, no bonuses, just pure performance-based stock options. The catch? Musk had to grow Tesla from a $50 billion company to $650 billion while hitting ambitious revenue and profitability targets.Most people thought it was impossible. Musk hit EVERY SINGLE milestone. Tesla grew to $1.4 trillion.But in January 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick voided the entire package, calling it an "unfathomable sum" and ruling that the board failed to prove fairness to shareholders.Elon was furious. He moved Tesla's incorporation to Texas. Tesla shareholders voted to approve the package AGAIN. Judge McCormick still said no.Today, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed that decision, stating the lower court went too far in canceling compensation that Musk actually earned and that shareholders voted for twice.At current Tesla stock prices, the 303 million stock options are now worth approximately $140 billion, making this the largest executive compensation package in history.WHAT THIS MEANS:This ruling sets a major precedent for performance-based executive compensation and corporate governance. It affirms that when a CEO delivers extraordinary results and shareholders approve the compensation, courts should be cautious about overriding those decisions.For Tesla specifically, this also clears the path for Musk's 2025 pay package, which could be worth up to $1 trillion over the next decade and would increase his voting control from 13% to around 25%.CONTEXT FOR INVESTORS:This case matters beyond just Elon and Tesla. It affects how every public company thinks about executive compensation, shareholder rights, and the power of Delaware courts in corporate governance.Whether you think $140 billion is justified or insane, the legal question is now settled: Musk earned it by hitting every target, and shareholders approved it twice.#ElonMusk #Tesla #StockMarket #CorporateGovernance #DelawareSupremeCourtDISCLAIMER: This video is for educational and entertainment purposes only. Nothing in this video should be considered financial or legal advice. All information is based on publicly available court documents and news reports. Always do your own research.
What happens when a custody dispute turns into a fight over whether a child is being harmed by religion—and the courts are forced to weigh in? This week, we dig into a disturbing custody case that forces an uncomfortable question into the open: should religion get special protection when kids are the ones paying the price? We also cover the Mormon Church's latest branding hypocrisy as it pressures independent podcasts to stop using the word "Mormon," a Utah high school administrator delivering a religiously loaded pep talk that shames struggling students, and a World Cup Pride match in Seattle that sends Iran and Egypt into predictable outrage. Plus: Florida and Texas label a Muslim civil rights group a "terrorist organization," the Catholic Church is forced into a $230 million abuse settlement, and new Pew data reveals that religion's long decline in the U.S. may have temporarily stalled.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I assess the political reaction to a pair of terrible mass shootings in Australia and Rhode Island. We also cover two separate federal appeals court rulings that came down this week, each upholding the federal gun ban for illegal immigrants.
Decatur Township on the southwest side of Marion County has become the newest fight over a data center in Indiana. Six former men's basketball players at IU Indianapolis are suing the university, alleging physical and emotional abuse by fired coach Paul Corsaro. Candidates for the 2026 Indiana Secretary of State race are already pooling campaign donations. An Indiana group wants the state to take a closer look at preemption laws. Indiana's home energy rebate program is off to a slow start. Northwest Indiana leaders are welcoming the Chicago Bears' announcement that they're willing to look at the Region for a new stadium site. Want to go deeper on the stories you hear on WFYI News Now? Visit wfyi.org/news and follow us on social media to get comprehensive analysis and local news daily. Subscribe to WFYI News Now wherever you get your podcasts. WFYI News Now is produced by Zach Bundy, with support from News Director Sarah Neal-Estes.
The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Many Americans now accept federal overreach as normal, even when it violates constitutional limits. Courts assert powers they were never granted, while citizens grow dependent on unlawful federal incentives. This national complacency mirrors Stockholm syndrome, raising a troubling question: can a people remain free if they no longer defend the boundaries meant to restrain power...
This Day in Legal History: Trump ImpeachedOn December 18, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump, marking the third presidential impeachment in American history. The impeachment followed a months-long investigation centered on Trump's dealings with Ukraine. House Democrats alleged that the president abused the powers of his office by pressuring a foreign government to investigate a political rival. A second article charged Trump with obstruction of Congress for directing executive branch officials not to comply with House subpoenas. The votes largely split along party lines, reflecting deep political polarization.Impeachment itself did not remove Trump from office, but instead formally accused him of constitutional wrongdoing. Under the Constitution, the House holds the sole power of impeachment, functioning similarly to a grand jury. Once impeached, the process shifted to the Senate, which is responsible for conducting a trial. Chief Justice John Roberts later presided over the Senate proceedings, as required when a president is tried. The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump in February 2020, falling short of the two-thirds vote needed for conviction. Despite the acquittal, the impeachment reinforced Congress's oversight authority over the executive branch. The episode also highlighted ongoing debates about the limits of presidential power and the role of impeachment as a constitutional check.A federal appeals court in Washington reversed an earlier ruling that would have allowed the Trump administration to move forward with mass firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Sitting as a full bench, the court blocked plans to cut as much as 90% of the agency's workforce and agreed to rehear the administration's appeal of a lower court order that had paused efforts to dismantle the bureau. As a result, the administration remains temporarily barred from gutting the agency while litigation continues. The legal fight has stretched on for months, during which the CFPB has been largely sidelined. Congress originally created the CFPB after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices by banks, lenders, and other financial companies. Its mission includes enforcing federal consumer financial laws and preventing the kinds of predatory conduct that helped trigger the financial collapse. Supporters of the agency, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, praised the ruling as necessary to shield families from financial harm.Critics within the Trump administration have argued the CFPB is politically motivated (as protecting consumers from predatory financial practices is political, apparently) and should be eliminated, though they have also claimed in court that some version of the agency would remain. Complicating matters further, the CFPB faces a funding dispute over whether it can draw money from the Federal Reserve, raising concerns that it could run out of operating funds.US appeals court tosses decision allowing Trump mass firings at consumer bureau | ReutersFull DC Circuit Will Review Trump's Bid to Dismantle CFPB (2)A group of leading medical organizations asked a federal judge to allow their lawsuit challenging vaccine policy changes under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to move forward. The groups argue that recent actions by Kennedy and the Department of Health and Human Services will reduce vaccination rates and endanger public health. They point to a directive removing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and children without advance notice or explanation. The lawsuit also challenges Kennedy's decision to dismiss 17 experts from a CDC advisory panel and replace them with members more aligned with his views. That reconstituted panel later voted to scale back broad vaccine recommendations, including limiting COVID-19 shots to shared decision-making with doctors and eliminating universal recommendations for certain childhood vaccines.The plaintiffs claim the panel was unlawfully reshaped in violation of federal law requiring advisory committees to be balanced and free from improper influence. Government lawyers argue the medical groups lack standing because the CDC's guidance merely advises consultation with doctors and does not directly harm them. The plaintiffs counter that they have been injured by having to divert resources to help doctors navigate confusing and abrupt policy shifts. The judge indicated skepticism toward the government's standing argument, particularly in light of statements suggesting doctors could face liability for deviating from CDC guidance. A ruling on whether the case can proceed is expected before a scheduled January hearing.US medical groups urge judge to allow challenge to Kennedy-backed vaccine policies to proceed | ReutersA federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., to remain in place while legal challenges continue. A three-judge panel said the administration was likely to succeed in defending the deployment, temporarily blocking a lower court order that would have ended it. The ruling gives Trump an interim victory as he claims broad authority to use troops for domestic law enforcement. The deployment began earlier in the year and expanded after two Guard members were shot near the White House. The judges emphasized that Washington, D.C.'s unique status—because it is not a state—strengthens presidential authority there. District officials who sued to stop the deployment said the decision is preliminary and does not resolve the underlying legal questions. The White House praised the ruling as confirmation of the president's lawful powers and credited the deployment with improving public safety. The case comes amid broader disputes over Trump's efforts to deploy troops in several major cities despite objections from local and state leaders. Lower courts have generally been skeptical of those efforts, rejecting claims that protests against federal immigration enforcement qualify as rebellions. The Supreme Court is widely expected to weigh in on the scope of presidential power in this area.US appeals court says Trump's National Guard deployment in DC may continue | ReutersTrump's DC Troop Deployment Gets Extension From US Appeals CourtA federal judge allowed President Donald Trump to continue work on a proposed White House ballroom, rejecting an emergency request from preservation advocates to immediately halt the project. The judge ruled that the National Trust failed to show imminent, irreparable harm that would justify stopping construction at this early stage. However, he cautioned that the government may be required to reverse certain underground work if it ends up locking in a specific design. The project involves replacing the demolished East Wing with a large ballroom that would be significantly bigger than prior White House renovations. Trump has described the ballroom as a privately funded project and recently increased its estimated cost. Preservationists argue the administration moved forward without required public input and bypassed federal planning and design review processes. The government countered that the design is still in flux and that above-ground construction will not begin for several months. Relying on those representations, the judge found no immediate risk of irreversible aesthetic damage. He scheduled another hearing to reconsider whether the project should be paused as the lawsuit continues. For now, construction may proceed while the court reviews whether the administration complied with historic preservation and planning laws.Judge allows Trump's ballroom project to proceed for now | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Many Americans now accept federal overreach as normal, even when it violates constitutional limits. Courts assert powers they were never granted, while citizens grow dependent on unlawful federal incentives. This national complacency mirrors Stockholm syndrome, raising a troubling question: can a people remain free if they no longer defend the boundaries meant to restrain power...
Bombshell FBI emails expose doubts about the Mar-a-Lago raid, while shockwaves ripple through the conservative movement over Trump's oil tanker blockade, mass federal layoffs, and a devastating betrayal from inside his own White House. Tara connects the dots between weaponized justice, real national security threats, and why Susie Wiles' Vanity Fair interview may have done more damage than Democrats ever could.
Shocking new FBI emails expose internal pushback against the Mar-a-Lago raid — and confirm what many feared: there may never have been probable cause. In this episode, Tara breaks down how a single anonymous source, DOJ overreach, and weaponized justice nearly rewrote the Constitution. Plus, why Senate Republicans blocking Trump's nominees are playing with fire — and how Susie Wiles' betrayal fits into the bigger picture.
Behind every successful digital transformation is a human story. In this episode of Unveiled: GovCon Stories, we explore how innovation in government contracting goes far beyond technology—it starts with people, culture, and the willingness to adapt in the face of constant change. As competition intensifies across GovCon, small businesses that rethink how they operate—not just what they deliver—are shaping the future of federal modernization.Our guests pull back the curtain on how they've built a people-centered approach to innovation, blending change management, process discipline, and emerging technology to drive meaningful transformation across government and industry. From embedding innovation into organizational culture, to making change repeatable through frameworks and systems, to leveraging learning and collaboration as a strategic advantage, this conversation offers practical insights for leaders navigating growth, uncertainty, and modernization in GovCon.Guest Bio:Angie Sanders Angie is a seasoned change management and communications professional with over 15 years of experience across public and private sectors. She has led digital transformations and IT modernization initiatives for organizations like the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. With a strong background in strategic communications, project management, and training development, Angie excels in guiding organizations through complex changes, ensuring successful outcomes by aligning leadership and engaging teams. Angie holds certifications as a Prosci Change Management Practitioner, Project Management Professional (PMP), and Certified ScrumMaster.Omari SandersWith extensive expertise in leading large-scale projects for both government and commercial clients, Omari has successfully developed web-based solutions, implemented cloud platforms, and driven digital transformation initiatives. His proficiency in software architecture, database design, and user interface development has been pivotal in delivering high-impact solutions. As COO, Omari ensures operational excellence, overseeing strategic initiatives that streamline processes and enhance organizational efficiency. He holds certifications in AWS Cloud, Google Cloud Architecture, and Change Management.Call(s) to Action:Help spread the word about Unveiled: GovCon Stories: https://shows.acast.com/unveiled-govcon-storiesDo you want to be a guest or recommend a topic that you would like to learn or hear about on the podcast? Let us know through our guest feedback and registration form.Links:CMGT Federal: https://www.cmgtfederal.com/Sponsors:The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests, and do not reflect the views or endorsements of our sponsors.Withum – Diamond Sponsor!Withum is a forward-thinking, technology-driven advisory and accounting firm, helping clients to be in a position of strength in today's complex business environment. Go to Withum's website to learn more about how they can help your business! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Full Episode - Trump Is Exhibiting 25th Amendment Behavior + How To Get Money Out Of Politics For Good Chuck Todd takes a hard look at Donald Trump’s increasingly egregious behavior and the growing questions surrounding his cognitive fitness for the presidency, sparked by a recent post that crossed a line even for many on the right. He asks what would happen if any other public figure behaved this way, why similar concerns about Biden’s decline were openly discussed while Trump’s are often brushed aside, and whether the country is getting a straight story about the former president’s health. With no clear guardrails, no apparent filters, and staff either unable or unwilling to intervene, the episode raises uncomfortable but urgent questions about judgment, accountability, and risk. Then, Jeff Clements, CEO of American Promise joins Chuck for a deep dive into one of the most consequential—and misunderstood—threats to American democracy: money in politics. Clements argues that today’s campaign finance dysfunction isn’t a failure of legislation but a court-created crisis, tracing how Supreme Court rulings turned money into speech, opened massive loopholes, and shifted lawmaking power from Congress to the judiciary. From McCain-Feingold to super PACs, the conversation unpacks why courts have repeatedly blocked reform efforts and why the problem isn’t free speech itself, but the unchecked amplification that allows wealth to drown out everyone else. The discussion turns to whether a constitutional amendment is the only viable path forward, how such an amendment could reclaim authority from the courts, and what it would take to build support across 38 states. Drawing parallels to the Gilded Age and the founders’ obsession with corruption, Clements explains why Americans broadly understand the system is broken—even if it’s hard to make campaign finance a voting issue. In a moment of democratic crisis, he makes the case that meaningful reform is still possible, and that restoring political equality could become a rare point of unity in a deeply polarized era. Finally, Chuck gives his ToddCast Top 5 book recommendations for political junkies and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:45 Money in politics has gotten out of control 03:45 North Carolina senate race will likely cost a billion dollars 04:30 One outside group can spend more than both campaigns combined 05:00 An amendment is the only way get campaign finance past judiciary 05:45 The judiciary has legislated campaign finance from the bench 07:30 Does the latest outrage over Trump’s Reiner tweet mean anything? 08:30 Trump’s post was a bridge too far for even some on the right 09:00 If any of us posted that, it would cost us jobs, relationships & more 10:30 At what point is Trump’s behavior 25th amendment type alarming? 11:15 Either his staff said something & he ignored it, or nobody said anything 12:15 Biden’s mental decline was apparent 14:00 Judging Trump’s mental decline is harder due to erratic behavior 17:15 It’s possible Trump feared one of his supporters murdered Reiner 18:00 Having a president with no filter should concern every American 19:15 You have to wonder if Trump is all there, all the time 21:00 We aren’t getting a straight story about Trump’s health 22:30 Concerns people on the right had about Biden, are happening w/Trump 23:45 Trump’s behavior is bad for the country & the Republican party 25:00 Voters will punish the GOP if they feel Trump’s decline was covered up 26:45 This story is only going to get worse as time goes on 28:30 New polling out on voters opinions & thoughts on corruption 29:15 What voters think corruption actually means 32:15 The voters are more sophisticated on corruption than politicians are 33:30 Large majorities thought government serves the rich & businesses 35:00 There’s an appetite for government & democracy reform 36:15 Majority of independents saw corruption in both Trump & Biden admins 37:30 Framing issues through lens of corruption could resonate 38:45 Connecting affordability to corruption could be very effective 46:00 Jeff Clements joins the Chuck ToddCast 47:15 Constitutional amendment the only way to get money out of politics? 48:30 Campaign finance problems are a “court created crisis” 50:00 The Supreme Court created all the campaign finance loopholes 50:45 If money wasn’t speech, is McCain-Feingold good legislation? 51:30 Money will always “find a way” in politics 54:45 Courts have stood in the way of campaign finance reform 55:15 How to word an amendment to take this power away from judiciary 59:00 Is there a first amendment argument against amplification? 1:00:00 Money in politics isn’t a free speech issue, it’s an amplification issue 1:04:30 Maine had a $5000 limit on PACs, was knocked down by courts 1:05:15 Courts ruled that money can’t corrupt when it’s clear they can 1:06:45 Court could rule that limits apply to PACs & campaigns, or rule no limits 1:07:45 The court has created many contradictions in campaign finance 1:08:45 A court ruling won’t fix the problem, an amendment would 1:09:15 Most campaign finance law has been written by judiciary 1:11:00 It’s difficult to make campaign finance a voting issue 1:13:15 The American people understand that the system is corrupted 1:17:15 There are many similarities between the Gilded Age & now 1:18:45 We’ll should see see several amendments in the next decade 1:20:15 Need 38 states for amendment, what’s the biggest hurdle? 1:21:30 A states rights argument would be very persuasive to legislatures 1:23:00 Free speech doesn’t mean you get to drown out everyone else 1:26:00 Money equaling speech has made money equal power 1:29:00 The founders were obsessed with corruption, led to the revolution 1:30:00 Limiting campaign finance is perceived to help the left over the right 1:33:15 Could a presidential candidate galvanize the debate? 1:33:45 The president & governors have no constitutional role in the process 1:36:00 The goal is to leave a well-informed electorate & building support 1:37:15 Are there any super wealthy donors who support these reforms? 1:39:15 This is a crisis for our democracy but could create an opportunity 1:41:00 Chuck’s thoughts on interview with Jeff Clements 1:42:30 ToddCast Top 5 books for your reading list 1:43:00 #5 The Drift by Kevin Hassett 1:46:30 #4 Mark Twain by Ron Chernow 1:48:30 #3 The Barn by Wright Thompson 1:50:00 #2 107 Days by Kamala Harris 1:52:30 #1 Fateful Hours by Volker Ullrich 1:55:00 Ask Chuck 1:55:15 Appreciation for the quick reaction videos/pods 1:58:15 Omission of “Citizen Kang” from Simpsons time machine segment 2:00:00 Could a Democrat win the Florida senate race? 2:04:00 Why don’t reporters challenge Trump to his face about his behavior? 2:10:45 Why haven’t Democrats leaned into breaking up big monopolies? 2:15:45 How has interview prep changed from MTP to now?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Jeff Clements,CEO of American Promise joins Chuck Todd for a deep dive into one of the most consequential—and misunderstood—threats to American democracy: money in politics. Clements argues that today’s campaign finance dysfunction isn’t a failure of legislation but a court-created crisis, tracing how Supreme Court rulings turned money into speech, opened massive loopholes, and shifted lawmaking power from Congress to the judiciary. From McCain-Feingold to super PACs, the conversation unpacks why courts have repeatedly blocked reform efforts and why the problem isn’t free speech itself, but the unchecked amplification that allows wealth to drown out everyone else. The discussion turns to whether a constitutional amendment is the only viable path forward, how such an amendment could reclaim authority from the courts, and what it would take to build support across 38 states. Drawing parallels to the Gilded Age and the founders’ obsession with corruption, Clements explains why Americans broadly understand the system is broken—even if it’s hard to make campaign finance a voting issue. In a moment of democratic crisis, he makes the case that meaningful reform is still possible, and that restoring political equality could become a rare point of unity in a deeply polarized era. Get your wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quince. Don't wait! Go to https://Quince.com/CHUCK for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too! Go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Jeff Clements joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:15 Constitutional amendment the only way to get money out of politics? 02:30 Campaign finance problems are a “court created crisis” 04:00 The Supreme Court created all the campaign finance loopholes 04:45 If money wasn’t speech, is McCain-Feingold good legislation? 05:30 Money will always “find a way” in politics 08:45 Courts have stood in the way of campaign finance reform 09:15 How to word an amendment to take this power away from judiciary 13:00 Is there a first amendment argument against amplification? 14:00 Money in politics isn’t a free speech issue, it’s an amplification issue 18:30 Maine had a $5000 limit on PACs, was knocked down by courts 19:15 Courts ruled that money can’t corrupt when it’s clear they can 20:45 Court could rule that limits apply to PACs & campaigns, or rule no limits 21:45 The court has created many contradictions in campaign finance 22:45 A court ruling won’t fix the problem, an amendment would 23:15 Most campaign finance law has been written by judiciary 25:00 It’s difficult to make campaign finance a voting issue 27:15 The American people understand that the system is corrupted 31:15 There are many similarities between the Gilded Age & now 32:45 We’ll should see see several amendments in the next decade 34:15 Need 38 states for amendment, what’s the biggest hurdle? 35:30 A states rights argument would be very persuasive to legislatures 37:00 Free speech doesn’t mean you get to drown out everyone else 40:00 Money equaling speech has made money equal power 43:00 The founders were obsessed with corruption, led to the revolution 44:00 Limiting campaign finance is perceived to help the left over the right 47:15 Could a presidential candidate galvanize the debate? 47:45 The president & governors have no constitutional role in the process 50:00 The goal is to leave a well-informed electorate & building support 51:15 Are there any super wealthy donors who support these reforms? 53:15 This is a crisis for our democracy but could create an opportunitySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Patriotically Correct Radio Show with Stew Peters | #PCRadio
The American people are being brutally gaslit about the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk while his widow Erica and Turning Point USA scramble to bury the truth and protect their massive Zionist donor cash flow. Jimmy Dore joins Stew to rip apart the endless anomalies, the sealed courtroom farce, the crocodile tears, and the deep Mossad infiltration These Zionist fake pastors like Greg Locke are finally getting dragged into the light, with insiders blowing the whistle on their spiritual abuse, financial scams, and total betrayal of Jesus Christ. We're tearing down these anti-Christ operations one by one, exposing the crooks who bow to Israel.
This is a huge and news-making show. Recorded just before Kelly's pivotal meeting with Hegseth in Washington. When Donald Trump used the power of the presidency to call for Senator Mark Kelly's execution, he crossed a dangerous new line—and sent a chilling message to millions of veterans and every American who dares to speak out. In this all–new episode, Independent Americans host and Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff sits down with the Arizona Senator, Navy combat pilot and astronaut for a raw, unfiltered, and urgent conversation about retribution, free speech, and the future of American democracy. Just hours before his first face-to-face meeting with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth since Hegseth and Trump launched an unprecedented military investigation into Kelly. Senator Kelly explains why Trump's move is not just an attack on him, but on every retired service member who might now think twice before speaking his/her mind. He breaks down how Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are trying to weaponize the Uniform Code of Military Justice against political opponents, and why he refuses to be silenced—even if that means facing a “kangaroo court” in uniform. Rieckhoff presses Kelly on the looming risk of a new war with Venezuela, what Trump might do while Congress is out of session, and why the administration still hasn't offered any clear legal or strategic justification for putting American troops in harm's way. Kelly connects the dots between Trump's past calls to kill the families of terrorists, shoot protesters in the legs, and “just kill people,” and the dangerous culture now spreading inside the Pentagon. This is a critical, behind-the-scenes briefing with the Senator on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees who is directly in Trump's crosshairs—and who is still showing up to hold this White House to account. It's also a powerful message to every independent, veteran, military family, and engaged citizen about courage, oversight, and what it really means to stay vigilant in this moment. Because every episode of Independent Americans with Paul Rieckhoff breaks down the most important news stories--and offers light to contrast the heat of other politics and news shows. It's independent content for independent Americans. In these trying times especially, Independent Americans is your trusted place for independent news, politics, inspiration and hope. The podcast that helps you stay ahead of the curve--and stay vigilant. -WATCH video of this episode on YouTube now. -Learn more about Paul's work to elect a new generation of independent leaders with Independent Veterans of America. -Join the movement. Hook into our exclusive Patreon community of Independent Americans. Get extra content, connect with guests, meet other Independent Americans, attend events, get merch discounts, and support this show that speaks truth to power. -Check the hashtag #LookForTheHelpers. And share yours. -Find us on social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us. -And get cool IA and Righteous hats, t-shirts and other merch now in time for the holidays. -Check out other Righteous podcasts like The Firefighters Podcast with Rob Serra, Uncle Montel - The OG of Weed and B Dorm. Independent Americans is powered by veteran-owned and led Righteous Media. Spotify • Apple Podcasts • Amazon Podcasts Ways to watch: YouTube • Instagram X/Twitter • BlueSky • Facebook Ways to listen:Social channels: Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This is a huge and news-making show. Recorded just before Kelly's pivotal meeting with Hegseth in Washington. When Donald Trump used the power of the presidency to call for Senator Mark Kelly's execution, he crossed a dangerous new line—and sent a chilling message to millions of veterans and every American who dares to speak out. In this all–new episode, Independent Americans host and Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff sits down with the Arizona Senator, Navy combat pilot and astronaut for a raw, unfiltered, and urgent conversation about retribution, free speech, and the future of American democracy. Just hours before his first face-to-face meeting with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth since Hegseth and Trump launched an unprecedented military investigation into Kelly. Senator Kelly explains why Trump's move is not just an attack on him, but on every retired service member who might now think twice before speaking his/her mind. He breaks down how Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are trying to weaponize the Uniform Code of Military Justice against political opponents, and why he refuses to be silenced—even if that means facing a “kangaroo court” in uniform. Rieckhoff presses Kelly on the looming risk of a new war with Venezuela, what Trump might do while Congress is out of session, and why the administration still hasn't offered any clear legal or strategic justification for putting American troops in harm's way. Kelly connects the dots between Trump's past calls to kill the families of terrorists, shoot protesters in the legs, and “just kill people,” and the dangerous culture now spreading inside the Pentagon. This is a critical, behind-the-scenes briefing with the Senator on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees who is directly in Trump's crosshairs—and who is still showing up to hold this White House to account. It's also a powerful message to every independent, veteran, military family, and engaged citizen about courage, oversight, and what it really means to stay vigilant in this moment. Because every episode of Independent Americans with Paul Rieckhoff breaks down the most important news stories--and offers light to contrast the heat of other politics and news shows. It's independent content for independent Americans. In these trying times especially, Independent Americans is your trusted place for independent news, politics, inspiration and hope. The podcast that helps you stay ahead of the curve--and stay vigilant. -WATCH video of this episode on YouTube now. -Learn more about Paul's work to elect a new generation of independent leaders with Independent Veterans of America. -Join the movement. Hook into our exclusive Patreon community of Independent Americans. Get extra content, connect with guests, meet other Independent Americans, attend events, get merch discounts, and support this show that speaks truth to power. -Check the hashtag #LookForTheHelpers. And share yours. -Find us on social media or www.IndependentAmericans.us. -And get cool IA and Righteous hats, t-shirts and other merch now in time for the holidays. -Check out other Righteous podcasts like The Firefighters Podcast with Rob Serra, Uncle Montel - The OG of Weed and B Dorm. Independent Americans is powered by veteran-owned and led Righteous Media. Spotify • Apple Podcasts • Amazon Podcasts Ways to watch: YouTube • Instagram X/Twitter • BlueSky • Facebook Ways to listen:Social channels: Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney–client and work product protection in her lawsuit with Virginia Roberts Giuffre sought to shield a wide range of documents and communications from disclosure during discovery. Maxwell argued that certain materials requested by Giuffre were protected because they reflected legal strategy, attorney communications, or preparations made in anticipation of litigation. Her filing emphasized that forcing disclosure would unfairly expose her defense strategy and violate long-standing legal privileges designed to protect confidential legal consultation. Maxwell's attorneys framed the motion as a necessary safeguard against what they characterized as overbroad and invasive discovery demands. They contended that without these protections, defendants in high-profile civil litigation would be placed at a systemic disadvantage. The motion leaned heavily on precedent affirming the sanctity of attorney–client privilege and work product doctrine. Maxwell's team positioned the issue as procedural rather than substantive, arguing it was about legal fairness, not hiding facts. The filing attempted to narrow what Giuffre could access while preserving Maxwell's litigation posture.In response, the dispute highlighted broader tensions in the case over transparency versus privilege. Giuffre's side argued that Maxwell was using privilege claims too expansively to block relevant evidence, particularly materials that could shed light on Epstein's operations and Maxwell's role within them. The motion became part of a recurring pattern in the litigation, where Maxwell sought to limit discovery that could expose damaging details under the guise of legal protection. Courts were asked to balance legitimate privilege against the need for factual development in a case involving serious allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. The issue underscored how privilege claims can function as both a shield for legal strategy and a barrier to accountability. Ultimately, the motion reflected Maxwell's broader legal strategy of tightly controlling information flow. It also reinforced the adversarial nature of the lawsuit, where discovery itself became a central battleground. The fight over work product was less about isolated documents and more about how much of Maxwell's conduct would be subject to scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney–client and work product protection in her lawsuit with Virginia Roberts Giuffre sought to shield a wide range of documents and communications from disclosure during discovery. Maxwell argued that certain materials requested by Giuffre were protected because they reflected legal strategy, attorney communications, or preparations made in anticipation of litigation. Her filing emphasized that forcing disclosure would unfairly expose her defense strategy and violate long-standing legal privileges designed to protect confidential legal consultation. Maxwell's attorneys framed the motion as a necessary safeguard against what they characterized as overbroad and invasive discovery demands. They contended that without these protections, defendants in high-profile civil litigation would be placed at a systemic disadvantage. The motion leaned heavily on precedent affirming the sanctity of attorney–client privilege and work product doctrine. Maxwell's team positioned the issue as procedural rather than substantive, arguing it was about legal fairness, not hiding facts. The filing attempted to narrow what Giuffre could access while preserving Maxwell's litigation posture.In response, the dispute highlighted broader tensions in the case over transparency versus privilege. Giuffre's side argued that Maxwell was using privilege claims too expansively to block relevant evidence, particularly materials that could shed light on Epstein's operations and Maxwell's role within them. The motion became part of a recurring pattern in the litigation, where Maxwell sought to limit discovery that could expose damaging details under the guise of legal protection. Courts were asked to balance legitimate privilege against the need for factual development in a case involving serious allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. The issue underscored how privilege claims can function as both a shield for legal strategy and a barrier to accountability. Ultimately, the motion reflected Maxwell's broader legal strategy of tightly controlling information flow. It also reinforced the adversarial nature of the lawsuit, where discovery itself became a central battleground. The fight over work product was less about isolated documents and more about how much of Maxwell's conduct would be subject to scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Sod's Country Farms was raising 65,000 chickens when a fire burned down the poultry house. After a detailed investigation, the cause of the fire was undetermined. To further complicate matters, Sod's Country Farms didn't even own the chickens themselves, but raised them for a vendor. They want to know if the property loss of the animals is covered-- and what policy would be most appropriate. Notable Timestamps [ 00:00 ] - A poultry house fire destroys 65,000 chickens, but the insured doesn't own the birds. [ 03:30 ] - Contract Growing is common in agriculture, with farmers raising animals owned by vendors. [ 05:20 ] - Under the ISO BOP, animals are generally excluded, but exceptions exist for animals owned by others and "boarded" by the insured. [ 07:00 ] - Courts may rely on dictionary definitions when policy terms like "boarded" are undefined. [ 09:00 ] - Adjusters should review the contract for risk transfer provisions, insurance requirements, and other-insurance clauses to understand responsibilities and potential overlap. [ 11:30 ] - Standard BOP coverage can fall short for farming operations. Specialized farm policies are designed to address poultry risks more directly through scheduling and declaration-based coverage. [ 13:30 ] - Declarations pages matter in agricultural losses. How buildings, poultry locations, and coverage types are defined can determine whether coverage applies or is excluded. [ 15:30 ] - Valuing large-scale poultry losses is complex, involving age, weight, market timing, pricing data, and delay to market, often guided by specific policy language on cash market value. [ 17:15 ] - Brennan summarizes the key points above. Your PLRB Resources Annotation: BP191 - Animals - https://members.plrb.org/documents/bp191-animals Podcast Episode: Don't Count Your Chicken Coops Before They're Insured - https://members.plrb.org/education/courses/dont-count-your-chicken-coops-before-theyre-insured Listeners can email education@plrb.org for help navigating resources, requesting new content, or getting tailored curriculum support. Employees of member companies also have access to a searchable legal database, hundreds of hours of video trainings, building code materials, weather data, and even the ability to have your coverage questions answered by our team of attorneys (https://www.plrb.org/ask-plrb/) at no additional charge to you or your company. Subscribe to this Podcast Your Podcast App - Please subscribe and rate us on your favorite podcast app YouTube - Please like and subscribe at @plrb LinkedIN - Please follow at "Property and Liability Resource Bureau" Send us your Scenario! Please reach out to us at 630-509-8704 with your scenario! This could be your "adjuster story" sharing a situation from your claims experience, or a burning question you would like the team to answer. In any case, please omit any personal information as we will anonymize your story before we share. Just reach out to scenario@plrb.org. Legal Information The views and opinions expressed in this resource are those of the individual speaker and not necessarily those of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), its membership, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. The information, ideas, and opinions are presented as information only and not as legal advice or offers of representation. Individual policy language and state laws vary, and listeners should rely on guidance from their companies and counsel as appropriate. Music: "Piece of Future" by Keyframe_Audio. Pixabay. Pixabay License. Font: Metropolis by Chris Simpson. SIL OFL 1.1. Icons: FontAwesome (SIL OFL 1.1) and Noun Project (royalty-free licenses purchased via subscription). Sound Effects: Pixabay (Pixabay License) and Freesound.org (CC0).
Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney–client and work product protection in her lawsuit with Virginia Roberts Giuffre sought to shield a wide range of documents and communications from disclosure during discovery. Maxwell argued that certain materials requested by Giuffre were protected because they reflected legal strategy, attorney communications, or preparations made in anticipation of litigation. Her filing emphasized that forcing disclosure would unfairly expose her defense strategy and violate long-standing legal privileges designed to protect confidential legal consultation. Maxwell's attorneys framed the motion as a necessary safeguard against what they characterized as overbroad and invasive discovery demands. They contended that without these protections, defendants in high-profile civil litigation would be placed at a systemic disadvantage. The motion leaned heavily on precedent affirming the sanctity of attorney–client privilege and work product doctrine. Maxwell's team positioned the issue as procedural rather than substantive, arguing it was about legal fairness, not hiding facts. The filing attempted to narrow what Giuffre could access while preserving Maxwell's litigation posture.In response, the dispute highlighted broader tensions in the case over transparency versus privilege. Giuffre's side argued that Maxwell was using privilege claims too expansively to block relevant evidence, particularly materials that could shed light on Epstein's operations and Maxwell's role within them. The motion became part of a recurring pattern in the litigation, where Maxwell sought to limit discovery that could expose damaging details under the guise of legal protection. Courts were asked to balance legitimate privilege against the need for factual development in a case involving serious allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. The issue underscored how privilege claims can function as both a shield for legal strategy and a barrier to accountability. Ultimately, the motion reflected Maxwell's broader legal strategy of tightly controlling information flow. It also reinforced the adversarial nature of the lawsuit, where discovery itself became a central battleground. The fight over work product was less about isolated documents and more about how much of Maxwell's conduct would be subject to scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for attorney–client and work product protection in her lawsuit with Virginia Roberts Giuffre sought to shield a wide range of documents and communications from disclosure during discovery. Maxwell argued that certain materials requested by Giuffre were protected because they reflected legal strategy, attorney communications, or preparations made in anticipation of litigation. Her filing emphasized that forcing disclosure would unfairly expose her defense strategy and violate long-standing legal privileges designed to protect confidential legal consultation. Maxwell's attorneys framed the motion as a necessary safeguard against what they characterized as overbroad and invasive discovery demands. They contended that without these protections, defendants in high-profile civil litigation would be placed at a systemic disadvantage. The motion leaned heavily on precedent affirming the sanctity of attorney–client privilege and work product doctrine. Maxwell's team positioned the issue as procedural rather than substantive, arguing it was about legal fairness, not hiding facts. The filing attempted to narrow what Giuffre could access while preserving Maxwell's litigation posture.In response, the dispute highlighted broader tensions in the case over transparency versus privilege. Giuffre's side argued that Maxwell was using privilege claims too expansively to block relevant evidence, particularly materials that could shed light on Epstein's operations and Maxwell's role within them. The motion became part of a recurring pattern in the litigation, where Maxwell sought to limit discovery that could expose damaging details under the guise of legal protection. Courts were asked to balance legitimate privilege against the need for factual development in a case involving serious allegations of sexual abuse and trafficking. The issue underscored how privilege claims can function as both a shield for legal strategy and a barrier to accountability. Ultimately, the motion reflected Maxwell's broader legal strategy of tightly controlling information flow. It also reinforced the adversarial nature of the lawsuit, where discovery itself became a central battleground. The fight over work product was less about isolated documents and more about how much of Maxwell's conduct would be subject to scrutiny.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Aughie and Nia explore some of the local and state government traditions of celebrating the holiday season.
Tracy Nickels Aguayo is a South Dakota native and author of Dancing Wheat and The Dance Continues, heartfelt novels inspired by her rural upbringing and deep family roots. A former legal professional and current Clerk of Courts, she now splits her time between writing, promoting her patent-pending office product, and embracing life's journey with humor, […] The post Ep.116 – Tracy Nickels Aguayo appeared first on Mark Matteson.
SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. PEACE TALKS: Want Jordan's advice on how to navigate relationships amid the polarizing political climate? SUBMIT YOUR DILEMMA HERE. Email me Jordan GOOD NEWS story: jordan@unbiasednetwork.com Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Trump Introduces $12B Aid Package for Farmers; Here's Why and What It's Intended to Help With (2:16) Multiple Federal Judges Order Unsealing of Secret Grand Jury Materials from Epstein and Maxwell Prosecutions (9:12) Ex-FBI Agents Sue Patel, Bondi, and DOJ After They Were Fired for Kneeling During 2020 Protest (~17:14) Quick Hitters: Fed Cuts Rates, CBP Proposes Social Media Vetting for Tourists, State Department Changes Official Font, Trump Administration Opens Applications for New Gold Card, Mamdani Sparks Debate After Appointing Convict Turned Social Justice Activist, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Announces Governor Run (~20:48) Rumor Has It: Did Trump Remove MLK Day and Juneteenth from List National Park Free Admission Days? (~24:18) Critical Thinking Segment (~27:49) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Inside the chaos of the Department of Justice under Biden, deep-state interference, and Republican leadership roadblocks: ⚖️ Civil Rights Division collapse — 75% of attorneys quit, leaving Trump unable to prosecute
Send #BTGWITHRANGEL your questions, thoughts, or reviews!Join Judge Rangel with Anissa Resendez and Ron Mata of the Bexar County Dispute Resolution Center as they discuss free mediation services.For more information on the Bexar County Dispute Resolution Center, visit bexar.org.Support the show
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Welcome, my devilish fiends! In 1730, the trial of Catherine Cadiere exploded into one of the most notorious scandals of 18th-century France. What began as a confession between a young woman and her Jesuit director spiraled into accusations of seduction, manipulation, and demonic influence. Courts, clergy, and entire communities were suddenly forced to choose sides as the case blurred the line between spiritual guidance and exploitation. In this episode, we trace how a private relationship became a public fury. ****************Sources & Further Reading:The Case of Mrs. Mary Catharine Cadière, Against Father John-Baptist Girard. London, 1732 — English translation of Catherine's memorial to the Parlement of Aix.Mita Choudhury, The Wanton Jesuit and the Wayward Saint: Sex, Religion, and Politics in 18th-Century France. Penn State Press, 2015.J. T. Kuznicki, “Sorcery and Publicity: The Cadière–Girard Scandal of 1730–1731,” French History, Vol. 21, 2007.Stéphane Lamotte, “Le Père Girard et la Cadière dans la tourmente des pièces satiriques,” Dix-huitième siècle, Vol. 39, 2007.Natalia L. Zorrilla, “Mysticism and Seduction: The Affair Cadière–Girard and the Triumph of Rationality in Thérèse Philosophe,” Çedille. Revista de Estudios Franceses, Vol. 12, 2016.****************Leave Us a 5* Rating, it really helps the show!Apple Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beauty-unlocked-the-podcast/id1522636282Spotify Podcast:https://open.spotify.com/show/37MLxC8eRob1D0ZcgcCorA****************Follow Us on Social Media & Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!YouTube:@beautyunlockedspodcasthourTikTok:tiktok.com/@beautyunlockedthepod****************Music & SFX Attribution:Epidemic Sound"Return of Light" by Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen"Crypta" by Jo Wandrini"Paranormal Activities" by Jon BjorkRadio Glitch, Static Chops, Stuttering, Noise 02Find the perfect track on Epidemic Sound for your content and take it to the next level! See what the hype is all about!
Rachel Maddow looks at a variety of legal tactics and pressure campaigns that are having success against the Trump administration's overreach in immigration enforcement and the Justice Department's vendetta prosecutions. Where people push back, Trump loses, or sometimes doesn't even try to fight, and the more Americans learn that lesson, the stronger the opposition Trump faces.Rachel Maddow explains that as Donald Trump's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gives increasing credence and authority to crackpots, the authority and reputation of American medical expertise is suffering such extreme degradation that science-minded state officials are establishing new fact-based health alliances to advise the public on matters like vaccinations. Former CDC chief Dr. Richard Besser joins to discuss the crisis at the CDC under Trump and Kennedy."Iceblock" app developer Joshua Aaron joins to discuss his lawsuit to unblock his app, a community-based ICE raid tracker, from Apple's app store. Want more of Rachel? Check out the "Rachel Maddow Presents" feed to listen to all of her chart-topping original podcasts.To listen to all of your favorite MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
OA1214 - As the end of 2025 approaches, we are finding real cause for hope in how federal courts have been handling the Trump administration's unprecedented assault on the rule of law. In the first of what will be at least two parts, Matt and Thomas speedrun through just a few of the many wins--both big and small--that we have seen in a wide range of categories. Just Security's Litigation Tracker Farewell Messages by Recent DOJ Alumni “The Unraveling of the Justice Department,” Emily Bazelon, The New York Times (11/16/25) Docket for J.G.G. v. Trump (Alien Enemies Act and related contempt litigation) Judge William Young's decision in AAUP v. Rubio (9/30/25) Injunction blocking Trump asylum EO in RAICES v. Noem (7/2/25) Injunction blocking ICE from enforcement in certain churches in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting v. Noem (2/24/25) Injunction in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRSblocking IRS from sharing taxpayer information with ICE (11/21/25) Injunction in Rhode Island v. Trump blocking EO which would have dismantled the Institute for Museums and Libraries and several other federal agencies (11/21/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
I answer your questions on the year's political lessons, the struggles of young men and handling heat on the show.The end-of-year Ask Me Anything episode has become a tradition on the show. So as 2025 comes to a close, I'm joined by Claire Gordon, the show's executive producer, to answer your questions about an eventful year — how my thinking on the Trump administration has evolved, how well the Democratic Party has played its chips, what I think it means to be a Democrat right now, whether “Abundance” is centrist, how politicians might address adriftness of young people, how I've handled the criticism the show has received and how many packets of Splenda I consume in a day.Note: This conversation was recorded on Tuesday, Dec. 2, and does not reflect more recent developments in Congress's review of the Sept. 2 boat attack.Mentioned:“Don't Believe Him” by Ezra Klein“The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab” by Ezra Klein“What if Trump Just Ignores the Courts?” by Ezra Klein“The Republican Party's NPC Problem — and Ours” by Ezra Klein“Abundance and the Left" by Ezra Klein“The Emergency Is Here” by Ezra Klein“Stop Acting Like This Is Normal” by Ezra Klein“What Were Democrats Thinking?” by Ezra Klein“The Goon Squad” by Daniel KolitzDragonriders of Pern Series by Anne McCaffrey and Todd J. McCaffreyThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.
Veteran legal journalist Reynolds Holding, author of "Better Judgment: How Three Judges Are Bringing Justice Back to the Courts," and U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, one of the judges featured in his book, sit down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff to discuss the role of district judges in our justice system. They also discuss the attacks those judges are enduring today from the Department of Justice, the White House, Congress, and even members of the U.S. Supreme Court.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
