Podcasts about Eastern District

Pull up a chair — you're invited. At The Table with Tony and Cedrick is a new podcast for pastors and leaders across EFCA East. Hosted by our district superintendents, Tony Balsamo and Cedrick Brown, this podcast is all about real conversations, shared wisdom, and encouragement for the journey of ministry. Mentioned in this episode: Tony's new book!The Theology YodaEFCA East District Conference This is a podcast from EFCA East — the Eastern District of the Evangelical Free Church of America. Helping leaders live well, lead well and mutliply.

This Day in Legal History: JuneteenthOn this day in legal history, June 19, 1865, Union Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and issued General Order No. 3, announcing that all enslaved people in Texas were free. This day, now known as Juneteenth, marked the effective end of slavery in the United States—coming more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. The delay was due in large part to the limited presence of Union troops in Texas to enforce the proclamation.Granger's announcement informed Texas residents that “all slaves are free,” a declaration that redefined the legal and social landscape of the state and solidified the federal government's authority over the Confederacy's last holdout. While the Emancipation Proclamation had declared freedom for slaves in Confederate states, it did not immediately end slavery everywhere, nor did it provide enforcement mechanisms beyond Union military power. Juneteenth represents the day when emancipation finally reached the furthest corners of the Confederacy through legal and military authority.In the years following, Juneteenth became a symbol of African American freedom and resilience, celebrated with community gatherings, education, and reflection. Texas made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1980, the first state to do so. On June 17, 2021, it became a federal holiday when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law. The legal significance of Juneteenth lies in its embodiment of both the promise and the delay of justice, highlighting the gap between the law's proclamation and its realization.A conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has sued the Michigan Law Review and its affiliated leadership, claiming that its member selection process illegally favors women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ applicants. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the complaint alleges that personal statements and holistic review metrics are evaluated using race and sex preferences, violating both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The group contends that conservative students, especially those associated with the Federalist Society, are excluded from review committees due to their presumed opposition to the practice.FASORP is backed by attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal, led by former Trump official Stephen Miller. The organization has brought similar legal challenges against NYU and Northwestern, and its suit aligns with broader attacks on diversity policies at elite institutions. It seeks an injunction, damages, and court oversight of a revised selection process for the journal, along with a halt to federal funding until changes are made.The group claims violations of Title VI and Title IX, as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Equal Protection Clause. The review's five-part selection process—including essays and grades—has no fixed evaluation formula, which FASORP argues opens the door to discriminatory discretion. Judge Judith E. Levy is assigned to the case.Conservative Group Accuses Michigan Law Review of Selection BiasA federal judge in Texas has struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at protecting the privacy of patients seeking abortions and gender-affirming care. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its authority when it adopted the rule, which barred healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement. The decision halts enforcement of the rule nationwide.Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, argued that HHS lacked explicit congressional approval to implement heightened protections for procedures viewed as politically sensitive. The rule was introduced in 2024 following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade, as part of the Biden administration's efforts to defend reproductive healthcare access.The lawsuit was brought by Texas physician Carmen Purl, represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which claimed the rule misused privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity. Previously, Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked enforcement of the rule against Purl, but this week's decision broadens that to all states.HHS has not responded publicly to the ruling, and a separate legal challenge to the same rule remains active in another Texas federal court. The case underscores ongoing tensions between federal privacy regulations and state-level abortion restrictions in the post-Roe legal environment.US judge invalidates Biden rule protecting privacy for abortions | ReutersXlear, a hygiene product company, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the agency's authority to require “substantiation” for product claims under its false advertising rules. The suit, filed in federal court in Utah, follows the FTC's recent decision to drop a case it had pursued since 2021, which alleged that Xlear falsely advertised its saline nasal spray as a COVID-19 prevention and treatment product.Xlear argues that the FTC is exceeding its legal mandate by demanding scientific backing for advertising claims, stating that the FTC Act does not explicitly authorize such a requirement. The company's legal team is leaning on the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited the deference courts must give to federal agencies when interpreting statutes—a significant departure from the longstanding Chevron doctrine.The company seeks a court ruling that merely making claims without substantiation does not violate FTC rules. Xlear has also criticized the agency for engaging in what it calls “vexatious litigation,” claiming it spent over $3 million defending itself before the FTC abandoned its lawsuit without explanation.The FTC has not yet commented or made a court appearance in this new case. The challenge could set important precedent on the scope of agency power over advertising standards in the wake of the Supreme Court's shift on judicial deference.Lawsuit challenges FTC authority over 'unsubstantiated' advertising claims | ReutersA federal judge in Rhode Island signaled skepticism toward the Trump administration's attempt to tie federal transportation funding to state cooperation with immigration enforcement. During a hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell questioned whether U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy had legal authority to impose immigration-related conditions on grants meant for infrastructure projects. McConnell, an Obama appointee, challenged the relevance of immigration enforcement to the Transportation Department's mission, drawing a parallel to whether the department could also withhold funds based on abortion laws.The case involves 20 Democratic-led states opposing the April 24 directive, which conditions billions in infrastructure grants on compliance with federal immigration law, including cooperation with ICE. The states argue the requirement is unconstitutional, vague, and attempts to coerce state governments into enforcing federal immigration policy without clear legislative authorization.Justice Department lawyers defended the policy as aligned with national safety concerns, but struggled under McConnell's probing. He noted that the administration's broad language and public stance on sanctuary jurisdictions could not be ignored and appeared to support the states' argument that the directive lacks clarity and statutory grounding.The judge is expected to issue a ruling by Friday, before the states' grant application deadline. This lawsuit is part of a broader legal and political battle as Trump pushes sanctuary cities and states to aid in mass deportations.US judge skeptical of Trump plan tying states' transportation funds to immigration | 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

June 13, 2025 ~ Matthew Schnieder, former US Attorney of the Eastern District of Michigan, talks with Chris, Lloyd, and Jamie about the legal conflict between California Governor Gavin Newsom and the US government regarding the attempt to nationalize the California National Guard.

--

--

Pull up a chair — you're invited. At The Table with Tony and Cedrick is a new podcast for pastors and leaders across EFCA East. Hosted by our district superintendents, Tony Balsamo and Cedrick Brown, this podcast is all about real conversations, shared wisdom, and encouragement for the journey of ministry. Each episode brings you: Honest hot takes on life, leadership, and the church.Real questions from leaders across the district.Practical moments to help you live well, lead well, and multiply. Whether you're pastoring a church, planting something new, or leading in the background, this is a space to be encouraged, challenged, and reminded that you're not alone. This is a podcast from EFCA East — the Eastern District of the Evangelical Free Church of America. Helping leaders live well, lead well and mutliply.

​Prominent Houston attorney Tony Buzbee has withdrawn from representing plaintiffs in over a dozen sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). This decision follows a court order from U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, who noted that Buzbee was not admitted to practice in the SDNY and had failed to disclose this information. In response, Buzbee acknowledged his oversight and filed motions to withdraw from 15 federal cases, stating that his admission status had become a "distraction" from the pursuit of justice for his clientsThe issue arose after Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter filed a grievance against Buzbee, alleging unauthorized practice in the SDNY. Buzbee, who is licensed to practice in New York state courts and the Eastern District of New York, indicated that he plans to address the grievance and seek proper admission to the SDNY. In the meantime, he continues to represent clients in related cases in New York state courts and intends to file additional lawsuits in Nevada and California.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Texas' Tony Buzbee off Sean 'Diddy' Combs-related case

#trish #news #livenewsLetitia James faces up to 30 YEARS in federal prison as a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia issues subpoenas in a high-stakes mortgage fraud investigation. The same NY AG who’s spent years targeting Trump may now be in serious legal jeopardy herself.Meanwhile, legal ace Alina Habba is turning up the heat on NJ Democrat Rep. LaMonica McIver, who’s accused of impeding ICE agents — even allegedly body-slamming them during a chaotic scene outside a New Jersey detention facility. Her defense? It’s unbelievable.PLUS — Jill Biden and the mainstream media are in damage-control mode amid growing reports of a coverup over President Biden’s declining mental state. Trump is demanding to know: Was it the autopen signing executive orders? If so — who’s really running the country?

Jonathan Byrne and Andrew Grindrod of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

We are joined by the former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan (and HUGE Detroit Tigers fan) Barbara McQuade to talk about her book "Attack from Within:  How Disinformation is Sabotaging America".  After spending some time talking about the pros and cons of both the Detroit Tigers and Toronto Blue Jays signing Alex Bregman during the offseason, we get down to business and address: Her experience as the former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and some of the high-profile cases she prosecuted during this time. How disinformation is used by politicians to push their agenda and help sway voters.   What we can do as citizens to ensure that we are not a victim of a disinformation campaign.   It was a terrific conversation with Barb and I would encourage everyone to check it out!     

(MP3 embedded in the PDF filed on the bankruptcy docket as docket number 407)including update on the bankruptcy auction bidding

What's at stake when nonprofits and democracy are under attack? How can organizations respond effectively to threats against their tax status and Constitutional rights? In this illuminating conversation, Rusty speaks with Mike Zamore, National Director of Policy and Government Affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about the unprecedented challenges facing nonprofits in today's political climate.Mike Zamore draws from his 22 years of Capitol Hill experience and current ACLU leadership to explain how nonprofits are essential to America's constitutional framework of checks and balances. He details recent fights against attempts to weaponize government power against nonprofits, including legislation that would have allowed stripping organizations of tax-exempt status without due process. The conversation highlights parallels between threats to individual liberties and threats to nonprofit First Amendment freedoms.The discussion concludes with practical advice for nonprofits in red states and red districts to effectively engage with Republican representatives regarding the upcoming tax reconciliation bill that could adversely affect the sector. Zamore emphasizes the importance of solidarity, encouraging nonprofits to stand together against intimidation tactics, and that reminding us that maintaining collective courage is crucial for preserving both Constitutional rights and the ability to serve communities.This episode was recorded the morning of May 9, 2025, before the House Ways and Means Committee revealed the language in their portion of the proposed tax bill, which includes re-introduction of H.R. 9495. Click here for resources on new tax bill.Resources referenced in the episode:ACLUA Call to Action for Red State Nonprofits on the FTP blog"Meet the Man Who Wants to Tax Most of the Nonprofit World" by Ben Gose"‘Five Alarm Fire': How New Tax Law Could Decimate Nonprofits — and What Can Be Done" by Steve TaylorFilibustered!: How to Fix the Broken Senate and Save America, co-authored by Senator Jeff Merkley and Mike Zamore"How Will We Know When We Have Lost Our Democracy?"Harvard statement "Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University" and lawsuit against the governmentStatement of Solidarity with Harvard UniversityFTP Podcast Episode “Dr. King, AmeriCorps, & Nonprofit Work - with Michael Smith, AmeriCorps”“AmeriCorps members who respond to disasters and help nonprofits are let go in DOGE cuts”Guest Bio:Mike Zamore is the National Director of Policy & Government Affairs at the ACLU, where he leads efforts to harness the organization's vast expertise, 4 million members and supporters, paid staff in every state, and electoral work to shape federal, state, and local policy.Mike is a 22-year veteran of Capitol Hill, and spent over 14 years as the Chief of Staff to Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat first elected in 2008. As Merkley's top aide, Mike managed a 50+ person staff and $4 million budget, counseled the Senator on legislative and political strategy, represented the Senator to various constituencies, and led two successful re-elections. Prior to joining Senator Merkley, Mike was the Policy Director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, where he assisted the 2008 Senate candidates develop their positions on the issues. Mike earlier served as Policy Advisor to Representative Patrick Kennedy and spearheaded Kennedy's legislative agenda, including mental health parity legislation that became law in 2008, and spoke frequently on health systems reform. Earlier in his career, he spent several years working on business development projects in the early days of post-Soviet Russia and clerked for Judge Allyne R. Ross on the Eastern District of New York.Mike is an adjunct faculty member at American University's Washington College of Law. He graduated from Brown University and Harvard Law School, lives in Washington, DC with his wife and two sons.

It’s happening. The grand lury investigation into Letitia James and her alleged mortgage fraud has officially begun. Today, Trish Regan reports that subpoenas have been issued by the Eastern District of Virginia in the case targeting Leticia James’ real estate dealings. If convicted of trying to defraud the federal government, Tish James could face up to 30 years in federal prison, reports Trish Regan. The media isn’t covering the story but, that should come as no surprise. They refused to cover Biden’s decline. One reporter, Jake Tapper from CNN, is acknowledging that in a new book being released today. Isn’t that rich? Trish Regan slams Jake Tapper accusing him of being part of the very problem he’s now trying to ‘expose’. Those stories and more in today’s Trish Regan Show — Join Trish LIVE! Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks: ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join

On April 17, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law through the monopolization of digital advertisement. Google’s “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” said the Court. This is the second case in which the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has scored a win against Google, the first having come in August 2024 and relating to Google’s monopoly of “general search.” Google has vowed that they will appeal both cases. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss the case and its possible future effects.Featuring:Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedomJoel Thayer, President, Digital Progress InstituteModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

This is the official audio recording of the bankruptcy court hearing held in the 23andMe chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on May 6. 2025. The hearing audio is available on PACER and on the free case docket, as are other filings docketed in the 23andMe bankruptcy proceedings. https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe/Home-DocketInfo

This is the official audio recording of the bankruptcy court hearing held in the 23andMe chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 29. 2025. The hearing audio is available on PACER and on the free case docket, as are other filings docketed in the 23andMe bankruptcy proceedings. https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe/Home-DocketInfo

Barb McQuade is the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.  For a transcript of Barb's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In episode four of NAWL's Bridging Divides series, NAWL's Executive Director, Karen Richardson, engages in a compelling conversation with Anne Li of Crowell & Moring LLP and Ella Spottswood of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. They discuss their recent victory in a significant reproductive rights case in Missouri. Listen as our guests share their firsthand experiences and insights from working on the case, and explore the potential nationwide impact on reproductive rights. Tune in to learn more about the case and find out how you can support the organizations making a difference. Get involved with Planned Parenthood.If you are interested in partnering with Planned Parenthood as pro bono counsel, please reach out to Cecilia DosSantos, cecilia.dossantos@ppfa.org. Eleanor (Ella) Spottswood is a senior staff attorney in the litigation department at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, where she advocates to protect and expand reproductive freedoms nationwide. She recently won a preliminary injunction that allowed abortion access to resume in Missouri for the first time since Dobbs. Prior to working for Planned Parenthood, Ms. Spottswood served as the Solicitor General for Vermont, focusing on appeals and constitutional litigation. She also served for six years as the Chair of the Vermont Judicial Nominating Board.Ms. Spottswood graduated with high honors from Harvard University and earned her law degree from New York University School of Law, where she served on the board of the Law Review. After law school, she clerked on the Vermont Supreme Court and for Judge Berle Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Anne Li is co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences and Patents groups. She is a first-chair trial lawyer in intellectual property who focuses on biotech, pharma, life sciences, and medical device industries. She has successfully represented clients using outside-the-box strategies, both in and out of the courtroom. Her goal is always to reach a good business resolution, but when that is not possible, she zealously uses litigation as a tool to get the best outcome for her clients. She represents clients whose groundbreaking products and services raise complex legal questions at the nexus of collaborators and competitors, including those times when one shifts to the other. She has successfully represented companies in bet-the-company litigations, often scoring key wins long before trial, resulting in favorable settlements. Companies rely on Anne to help them navigate the intersection of intellectual property and business because she provides in-house counsel with patent, unfair competition, and trade secret advice that is practical and actionable. She takes time to learn a client's business—from biotech startups to multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and everything in between—so she can help them develop bespoke strategies that work for their unique situations. Clients also appreciate Anne's ability to match legal strategies with their risk tolerance and business objectives. Her approach is informed by her commitment to developing long-standing relationships with in-house counsel and her knowledge of the industry and related technologies. Furthering Anne's commitment to creating a strong and wide-reaching network across industries and the bar, Anne serves on the Executive Committee of the William C. Conner Inn of Court and is active in the NY Intellectual Property Law Association. She is also a member of Crowell's Pro Bono Committee. 

The chaos at the Pentagon is getting worse as more and more news stories about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth continue to pour out. And now, the staffers he fired (that he also hired) for allegedly leaking are coming after him. They're eating their own–and the mayhem is expanding quickly and overwhelming Hegseth and The Building. What happens next? Will Trump fire him? Who could replace him? Who's watching our nukes?!?! It's another wild week in America–and time for another walk and talk. And this week, Paul is back in New York City. And spring has finally sprung in the Big Apple. And the political chaos here continues to grow like tulips in the sunshine.  It's also home to some of the worst mayors anyone has ever seen. From the epic failure that was DeBlasio to the now disgraced Giuliani, to the criminally corrupt and incompetent Eric Adams, the city that never sleeps also seems to be the city that can never catch a break when it comes to good leadership. And with Trump constantly focused on it, what happens in NYC impacts the world now more than ever.  And this fall, there's a massive off-cycle election to determine who takes if from here.  And this week, we've got a candidate for Mayor that wants to end the chaos. And wants to do it differently: as an independent. But you've probably never heard of him until now.  Jim Walden (@JimForNYC) is a former prosecutor for the Eastern District of New York and a first time candidate. He's prosecuted mob bosses, corrupt governments, institutions and defended Chris Krebs when Trump came after him. He's a centrist who is offering solutions to problems from the middle. He's got a bold centrist view and a political affiliation that make his visit to this show timely, important and unique. And he shares his vision for the future, why he's an independent, what he thinks of Democrat Eric Adams running as an independent, what he'll do on crime, prices, immigration, Trump and more.  It's the first conversation for 2025 in our annual “Meet The Independent Candidates” series. And it's one you don't want to miss. From open primaries to  the city's regulation of helicopter traffic after a terrible recent crash, it's a candid and serious conversation with a candidate that deserves more attention. Because Jim Walden is what a lot of people say they want their politicians to sound like. Reasonable, rational, centrist. But he's also new and inexperienced. And he's joining us to face some hard questions from the best independent show in America.  It's a refreshing dose of independence and inspiration you probably need after all of the other crazy news of the last week. And we cover all of that too. Because if it's related to National Security and veterans, we've got you covered. From Hegseth and his growing crisis of confidence to Rubio abandoning his duty — and Ukraine, the hits keep coming. And your host Paul Rieckhoff has you covered.  Welcome to Independent Americans. Welcome to Episode 330. Be sure to check it out on our YouTube page here. -Get extra content, connect with guests, attend exclusive events, get merch discounts and support this critical show that speaks truth to power by joining our IA community on Patreon.  -NEW! Watch the video version of the entire podcast here. -Find us on social media and www.IndependentAmericans.us. Where you can also get some very cool IA merch in time for Easter, Mother's Day or Father's Day.  -Check out Jim Walden's website.  Ways to listen: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0F1lzdRbTB0XYen8kyEqXe Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/independent-americans-with-paul-rieckhoff/id1457899667 Ways to watch: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@independentamericans Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/IndependentAmericansUS/ Social channels: X/Twitter: https://x.com/indy_americans BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/indyamericans.bsky.social Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndependentAmericansUS/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

audio from docket number 289, April 22 2025 23andMe second day bankruptcy court hearing

A federal judge has ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online advertising technology, which could lead to significant changes within the company. The ruling, made by Judge Leone Branchima of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, found that Google unlawfully built dominance in the ad tech market, impacting tools used by publishers and the software facilitating advertising transactions. This decision is part of a broader regulatory effort to rein in the power of major tech companies, with the Justice Department also targeting Apple and Amazon for similar practices. Google, which holds an 87% market share in ad selling technology, plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that its ad tools are beneficial for publishers.The implications of this ruling extend beyond Google itself, as it directly affects the marketing and customer acquisition strategies of IT service providers (MSPs) that rely on Google's advertising infrastructure. The court's decision could trigger a lengthy appeals process, and any operational changes may take years to implement. However, the ruling marks a significant moment for Google, indicating that its business practices may soon face substantial scrutiny and potential restructuring.In addition to the Google ruling, the podcast discusses various new tools and technologies aimed at enhancing cybersecurity and compliance for MSPs. Notable announcements include Google's launch of a new security platform called Google Unified Security, which integrates various security features into a single solution, and HPE Aruba Networking Central's expanded cloud features for managed service providers. These developments highlight the increasing focus on integrated AI-enhanced and compliance-ready security solutions, emphasizing the need for MSPs to align these tools with real client needs rather than simply adopting them as product features.The episode also explores Apple's innovative approach to artificial intelligence, which prioritizes user privacy by utilizing synthetic datasets for training AI models. This method allows Apple to refine its AI outputs while keeping user data on the device, aligning with privacy regulations. The podcast concludes by addressing the evolving landscape of IT service delivery, urging providers to reconsider outdated technologies and prepare for the integration of AI in their operations, while also emphasizing the importance of security and compliance in this transition. Four things to know today 00:00 Google Loses in Court— And That Could Matter for How MSPs Market Themselves03:39 AI, Compliance, and a Lot of New Toys—But Are These the Tools Your Clients Actually Need?06:34 Can Privacy-First AI Win? Apple's New Approach Dares to Be Different08:23 Old Tech Out, Smart AI In: What MSPs Need to Rethink Before It's Too Late  Supported by:  https://www.huntress.com/mspradio/ https://cometbackup.com/?utm_source=mspradio&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=sponsorship   Join Dave April 22nd to learn about Marketing in the AI Era.  Signup here:  https://hubs.la/Q03dwWqg0 All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

Jonathan Byrne and Jackie Tarlton of the Eastern District of North Carolina Federal Public Defender Office discuss recent Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court news.

April 17, 2025 ~ A federal judge's ruling has found probable cause that the Trump administration is in criminal contempt for violating court orders related to planes leaving for El Salvador. Lloyd and Jamie talk with Matthew Schneider, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, about this marking a notable escalation in the ongoing legal battles between the judiciary and the executive branch.

This Day in Legal History: Rush-Bagot TreatyOn April 16, 1818, the United States Senate ratified the Rush-Bagot Treaty, a landmark agreement with Great Britain that fundamentally reshaped security along the U.S.-Canada border. Negotiated in the aftermath of the War of 1812, the treaty aimed to de-escalate military tensions between the two nations by significantly limiting naval armaments on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Specifically, it allowed each country to maintain only a single military vessel on Lakes Ontario and Champlain and two vessels on the upper Great Lakes, each restricted in size and armament. The treaty marked a mutual commitment to demilitarization and ushered in a new era of diplomacy.The negotiations were spearheaded by Acting U.S. Secretary of State Richard Rush and British Minister to the U.S., Charles Bagot. Though initially framed as an exchange of diplomatic notes rather than a formal treaty, it was nonetheless submitted to the Senate for ratification, reflecting its constitutional significance. The Rush-Bagot Treaty laid the groundwork for what would become the world's longest undefended border. It also set a precedent for the peaceful resolution of border disputes through legal and diplomatic means rather than military force.While tensions between the two nations would persist in other areas, the Great Lakes remained largely free of armed conflict, validating the treaty's long-term effectiveness. Over time, the agreement became a model of arms control and remains in effect today, albeit with amendments reflecting evolving security concerns. Its ratification on this day helped steer U.S.-British relations toward lasting peace and cooperation, especially in North America. The treaty's enduring legacy is a testament to the power of legal frameworks in shaping geopolitical stability.The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Maine, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the state over transgender athletes' participation in girls' and women's sports. The suit alleges that Maine is violating Title IX by permitting transgender female athletes to compete on girls' teams, citing recent examples from high school track events. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the action days after the administration attempted to cut off Maine's federal school funding and school lunch programs.This legal move follows a standoff between President Trump and Maine Governor Janet Mills, who rebuffed Trump's executive order banning transgender athletes from female sports. Mills told Trump, “We're going to follow the law, sir. We'll see you in court.” The administration's Title IX-based complaint argues that allowing transgender participation undermines fairness and safety, though no specific safety threats are detailed—of course.The Department of Education had already announced the suspension of $250 million in K-12 education funding for Maine, while the Department of Agriculture sought to freeze school lunch support. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the USDA's actions after Maine sued the federal government. Maine's Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Forster, pushed back, arguing that Title IX does not prohibit schools from including transgender girls in girls' sports and criticized the federal government's lack of legal precedent.US to take legal action against Maine over Trump executive order on transgender athletes | ReutersSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he will block President Trump's nominations of Jay Clayton and Joe Nocella to serve as U.S. attorneys in New York's Southern and Eastern Districts, respectively. Schumer's refusal to return the customary “blue slip” signals his opposition and sets up a potential clash over the Senate tradition that gives home-state senators influence over federal prosecutor and judge appointments. He cited concerns that Trump intends to politicize the Justice Department, accusing him of seeking to weaponize law enforcement against political enemies.Clayton, a former SEC chair, was nominated to oversee the Southern District, which includes Manhattan and is often referred to as the nation's "Wall Street watchdog." Nocella, a state judge, was tapped for the Eastern District, covering Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island. Schumer's move could provoke Republicans to eliminate the blue slip practice for U.S. attorney nominations, as they previously did for circuit court judges.While Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley had earlier indicated he planned to preserve the blue slip process for U.S. attorney picks, growing political tensions may lead to changes. The debate echoes earlier pressure on Democrats to bypass blue slips during the Biden administration for nominees in states with GOP senators. Meanwhile, other Democratic senators, like Adam Schiff, are also using procedural holds to delay nominees they find objectionable, such as Ed Martin, who previously defended January 6 participants.Schumer to Block Jay Clayton as Top US Prosecutor in ManhattanPresident Donald Trump's threat to revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status has sparked broader concerns about the politicization of the IRS and a potential crackdown on nonprofits. His warning followed Harvard's refusal to meet administration demands tied to federal funding, prompting a freeze of over $2.2 billion in grants. Other universities like Columbia, Cornell, and Princeton also saw funding halted, amid GOP claims that schools are failing to curb antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Hamas war.Critics see Trump's move as an attempt to use federal tax authority to punish political opponents. Legal scholars warn that using the IRS in this way echoes past abuses, such as those during Nixon's presidency. Some nonprofits have already started removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) language from websites to avoid scrutiny, with lawyers reporting a spike in “DEI audits.” Though the IRS hasn't yet changed its enforcement patterns, reduced staffing could make it more susceptible to politicized influence.A recent executive order from Trump targeting “illegal DEI” efforts has heightened fear among nonprofits that their programs, especially those aimed at underrepresented communities, could be labeled discriminatory. Meanwhile, conservative activist Edward Blum has asked the IRS to investigate several foundations for offering race-specific grants, hoping to set a precedent against such practices. Legal experts say programs must be evaluated based on whether they exclude other races, which would likely violate federal law.Trump's Harvard Threat Raises Specter of IRS Nonprofit CrackdownIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that proposals to exempt college athletes' name, image, and likeness (NIL) income from state taxes undermine one of tax policy's core principles: horizontal equity. That principle holds that taxpayers with similar incomes should be taxed similarly—something these NIL exemptions blatantly violate. While some student-athletes now earn six or seven figures, their peers working long hours in campus jobs continue to pay tax on modest earnings. Exempting high-income athletes while taxing low-wage student workers creates a two-tiered system that rewards fame and marketability, not need or effort.These exemptions aren't rooted in sound tax design—they're political moves, often motivated by the desire to curry favor with voters who are fans of college sports. But when states exempt wealthy student-athletes, they're making a value judgment: that celebrity deserves more support than everyday work. Even in states where lower-income students may owe no tax, the policy distinction is stark—exempting income to prevent poverty is not the same as exempting it to boost a football program.Rather than distorting the tax code to chase athletic prestige, I propose a fairer alternative: a progressive income exemption available to all full-time students, tied to the cost of their tuition. If a student pays $12,000 in tuition, they could exempt that amount from tax—regardless of whether their income comes from NIL deals, a job in the library, or a work-study program. This model keeps relief targeted to those bearing educational costs while avoiding regressive giveaways to already well-compensated students. The tax code should reflect fairness and support for all students—not just the most marketable ones.Student NIL Tax Breaks Would Put Splashy Recruits Above Fairness 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

What's the correct legal path—and the proper venue—for someone facing deportation to challenge their removal in court?  On this week's Insider episode, Joyce Vance is joined by former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barb McQuade and Lawfare editor-in-chief Ben Wittes, while Preet is out. In an excerpt from the show, they break down the Supreme Court order vacating a lower court decision that froze the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.   In the full episode, Joyce, Barb, and Ben discuss:  – The legal arguments that might support President Donald Trump's claim that he could serve a third term as president; and – Other legal challenges stemming from the Trump administration's deportations, including one case where officials admit they erroneously deported a Maryland man. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. To become a member of CAFE Insider head to cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is the official audio recording of the hearing conducted by the US Bankruptcy Court in the 23andMe bankruptcy proceedings on March 26, 2025 and is available for download as an MP3 that is contained in the PDF filed on the Bankruptcy Court docket as docket number 79.Given the massive public interest in the 23 and Me bankruptcy case due to #privacy concerns and other issues, a free docket and more information about the 23andMe bankruptcy proceedings are available through this link: https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe/Home-DocketInfo

Andrew Weissmann is the co-host of the popular podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNBC. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for it, as well as The New York Times, The Atlantic, & The Washington Post. From 2017-2019 Andrew served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation , was a New York Times bestseller. He is also a Professor of Practice at New York University and teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure. He also served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from 2002-2005 he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals in connection with the company's collapse. And he was also a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division and prosecuted numerous members of the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families, including the bosses of the Colombo and Genovese families. Join us for this super-insightful chat about the current status of the mounting lawsuits filed against the Trump Administration. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Today's guest is Peter Moskos, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He spent two years as a police officer in Baltimore. I asked him to come on and talk about his new book, Back from the Brink, Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop. It's one of my favorite books I've read this year (and it was one of my three book recommendations on Ezra Klein's show last week).Peter spoke with hundreds of police officers and NYC officials to understand and describe exactly how the city's leaders in the early 1990s managed to drive down crime so successfully.We discussed:* How bad did things get in the 1970s?* Why did processing an arrest take so long?* What did Bill Bratton and other key leaders do differently?* How did police get rid of the squeegee men?I've included my reading list at the bottom of this piece. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits.Subscribe for one new interview a week.Peter, how would you describe yourself?I would say I'm a criminologist: my background is sociology, but I am not in the sociology department. I'm not so big on theory, and sociology has a lot of theory. I was a grad student at Harvard in sociology and worked as a police officer [in Baltimore] and that became my dissertation and first book, Cop in the Hood. I've somewhat banked my career on those 20 months in the police department.Not a lot of sociologists spend a couple of years working a police beat.It's generally frowned upon, both for methodological reasons and issues of bias. But there is also an ideological opposition in a lot of academia to policing. It's seen as going to the dark side and something to be condemned, not understood.Sociologists said crime can't go down unless we fix society first. It's caused by poverty, racism, unemployment, and social and economic factors — they're called the root causes. But they don't seem to have a great impact on crime, as important as they are. When I'm in grad school, murders dropped 30-40% in New York City. At the same time, Mayor Giuliani is slashing social spending, and poverty is increasing. The whole academic field is just wrong. I thought it an interesting field to get into.We're going to talk about your new book, which is called Back from the Brink, Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop. I had a blast reading it. Tell me about the process of writing it.A lot of this is oral history, basically. But supposedly people don't like buying books that are called oral histories. It is told entirely from the perspective of police officers who were on the job at the time. I would not pretend I talked to everyone, because there were 30,000+ cops around, but I spoke to many cops and to all the major players involved in the 1990s crime drop in New York City.I was born in the ‘90s, and I had no idea about a crazy statistic you cite: 25% of the entire national crime decline was attributable to New York City's crime decline.In one year, yeah. One of the things people say to diminish the role of policing is that the crime drop happened everywhere — and it did end up happening almost everywhere. But I think that is partly because what happened in New York City was a lot of hard work, but it wasn't that complicated. It was very easy to propagate, and people came to New York to find out what was going on. You could see results, literally in a matter of months.It happened first in New York City. Really, it happened first in the subways and that's interesting, because if crime goes down in the subways [which, at the time, fell under the separate New York City Transit Police] and not in the rest of the city, you say, “What is going on in the subways that is unique?” It was the exact same strategies and leadership that later transformed the NYPD [New York Police Department].Set the scene: What was the state of crime and disorder in New York in the ‘70s and into the ‘80s?Long story short, it was bad. Crime in New York was a big problem from the late ‘60s up to the mid ‘90s, and the ‘70s is when the people who became the leaders started their careers. So these were defining moments. The city was almost bankrupt in 1975 and laid off 5,000 cops; 3,000 for a long period of time. That was arguably the nadir. It scarred the police department and the city.Eventually, the city got its finances in order and came to the realization that “we've got a big crime problem too.” That crime problem really came to a head with crack cocaine. Robberies peaked in New York City in 1980. There were above 100,000 robberies in 1981, and those are just reported robberies. A lot of people get robbed and just say, “It's not worth it to report,” or, “I'm going to work,” or, “Cops aren't going to do anything.” The number of robberies and car thefts was amazingly high. The trauma, the impact on the city and on urban space, and people's perception of fear, all comes from that. If you're afraid of crime, it's high up on the hierarchy of needs.To some extent, those lessons have been lost or forgotten. Last year there were 16,600 [robberies], which is a huge increase from a few years ago, but we're still talking an 85% reduction compared to the worst years. It supposedly wasn't possible. What I wanted to get into in Back from the Brink was the actual mechanisms of the crime drop. I did about fifty formal interviews and hundreds of informal interviews building the story. By and large, people were telling the same story.In 1975, the city almost goes bankrupt. It's cutting costs everywhere, and it lays off more than 5,000 cops, about 20% of the force, in one day. There's not a new police academy class until 1979, four years later. Talk to me about where the NYPD was at that time.They were retrenched, and the cops were demoralized because “This is how the city treats us?” The actual process of laying off the cops itself was just brutal: they went to work, and were told once they got to work that they were no longer cops. “Give me your badge, give me your gun."The city also was dealing with crime, disorder, and racial unrest. The police department was worried about corruption, which was a legacy of the Knapp Commission [which investigated NYPD corruption] and [Frank] Serpico [a whistleblowing officer]. It's an old police adage, that if you don't work, you can't get in trouble. That became very much the standard way of doing things. Keep your head low, stay out of trouble, and you'll collect your paycheck and go home.You talk about the blackout in 1977, when much of the city lost power and you have widespread looting and arson. 13,000 off-duty cops get called in during the emergency, and only about 5,000 show up, which is a remarkable sign of the state of morale.The person in my book who's talking about that is Louis Anemone. He showed up because his neighbor and friend and partner was there, and he's got to help him. It was very much an in-the-foxholes experience. I contrast that with the more recent blackout, in which the city went and had a big block party instead. That is reflective of the change that happened in the city.In the mid-80s you get the crack cocaine epidemic. Talk to me about how police respond.From a political perspective, that era coincided with David Dinkins as [New York City's first black] mayor. He was universally disliked, to put it mildly, by white and black police officers alike. He was seen as hands off. He was elected in part to improve racial relations in New York City, to mitigate racial strife, but in Crown Heights and Washington Heights, there were riots, and racial relations got worse. He failed at the level he was supposed to be good at. Crime and quality of life were the major issues in that election.Dinkins's approach to the violence is centered around what they called “community policing.” Will you describe how Dinkins and political leaders in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s thought about policing?This is under Ben Ward, the [NYPD] Commissioner at the time. The mayor appoints the police commissioner — and the buck does stop with the mayor — but the mayor is not actively involved in day-to-day operations. That part does go down to the police department.Community policing was seen as an attempt to improve relations between the police and the community. The real goal was to lessen racial strife and unrest between black (and to a lesser extent Hispanic) communities and the NYPD. Going back to the ‘60s, New York had been rocked by continued unrest in neighborhoods like Central Harlem, East New York, and Bushwick. Community policing was seen as saying that police are partly to blame, and we want to improve relations. Some of it was an attempt to get the community more involved in crime fighting.It's tough. It involves a certain rosy view of the community, but that part of the community isn't causing the problems. It avoids the fact there are people who are actively criming and are willing to hurt people who get in their way. Community policing doesn't really address the active criminal element, that is a small part of any community, including high-crime communities.Arrests increased drastically during this era, more than in the ‘90s with broken windows policing. If the idea is to have fewer arrests, it didn't happen in the ‘80s. Some good came out of it, because it did encourage cops to be a bit more active and cops are incentivized by overtime. Arrests were so incredibly time-consuming, which kind of defeated the purpose of community policing. If you made an arrest in that era, there was a good chance you might spend literally 24 hours processing the arrest.Will you describe what goes into that 24 hours?From my experience policing in Baltimore, I knew arrests were time-consuming and paperwork redundant, but I could process a simple arrest in an hour or two. Even a complicated one that involved juveniles and guns and drugs, we're talking six to eight hours.In the ‘80s, Bob Davin, [in the] Transit Police, would say they'd make an arrest, process at the local precinct, search him in front of a desk officer, print him, and then they would have to get a radio car off patrol to drive you down to central booking at 100 Centre Street [New York City Criminal Court]. Then they would fingerprint him. They didn't have the live scan fingerprints machine, it was all ink. It had to be faxed up to Albany and the FBI to see if it hit on any warrant federally and for positive identification of the person. Sometimes it took 12 hours to have the prints come back and the perp would be remanded until that time. Then you'd have to wait for the prosecutor to get their act together and to review all the paperwork. You couldn't consider bail unless the prints came back either positive or negative and then you would have that initial arraignment and the cop could then go home. There are a lot of moving parts, and they moved at a glacial pace.The system often doesn't work 24/7. A lot of this has changed, but some of it was having to wait until 9 am for people to show up to go to work, because it's not a single system. The courts, the jails, and policing all march to their own drummer, and that created a level of inefficiency.So much of the nitty-gritty of what cops actually do is boring, behind-the-scenes stuff: How do we speed up the paperwork? Can we group prisoners together? Can we do some of this at the police station instead of taking it downtown? Is all of this necessary? Can we cooperate with the various prosecutors? There are five different prosecutors in New York City, one for each borough.There's not a great incentive to streamline this. Cops enjoyed the overtime. That's one of the reasons they would make arrests. So during this time, if a cop makes an arrest for drug dealing, that cop is gone and no cop was there to replace him. If it's a minor arrest, there's a good chance in the long run charges will be dropped anyway. And you're taking cops off the street. In that sense, it's lose-lose. But, you have to think, “What's the alternative?”Bob Davin is a fascinating guy. There's a famous picture from 1981 by Martha Cooper of two cops on a subway train. It's graffitied up and they're in their leather jackets and look like cops from the ‘70s. Martha Cooper graciously gave me permission to use the picture, but she said, "You have to indemnify me because I don't have a release form. I don't know who the cops are." I said, "Martha, I do know who the cop is, because he's in my book and he loves the picture.” Bob Davin is the cop on the right.Davin says that things started to get more efficient. They had hub sites in the late ‘80s or ‘90s, so precincts in the north of Manhattan could bring their prisoners there, and you wouldn't have to take a car out of service to go back to Central Booking and deal with traffic. They started collecting prisoners and bringing them en masse on a small school bus, and that would cut into overtime. Then moving to electronic scan fingerprints drastically saves time waiting for those to come back.These improvements were made, but some of them involve collective bargaining with unions, to limit overtime and arrests that are made for the pure purpose of overtime. You want cops making arrests for the right reason and not simply to make money. But boy, there was a lot of money made in arrests.In 1991, you have the infamous Crown Heights riot in Brooklyn. Racial tensions kick off. It's a nightmare for the mayor, there's this sense that he has lost control. The following year, you have this infamous police protest at City Hall where it becomes clear the relationship between the cops and the mayor has totally evaporated. How does all that play into the mayoral race between Dinkins and Giuliani?It was unintentional, but a lot of the blame for Crown Heights falls on the police department. The part of the story that is better known is that there was a procession for a Hasidic rabbi that was led by a police car. He would go to his wife's grave, and he got a little three-car motorcade. At some point, the police look at this and go "Why are we doing this? We're going to change it." The man who made the deal said ‘I"m retiring in a couple weeks, can we just leave it till then? Because I gave him my word." They're like, "Alright, whatever."This motor car procession is then involved in a car crash, and a young child named Gavin Cato is killed, and another girl is severely injured. The volunteer, Jewish-run ambulance shows up and decides they don't have the equipment: they call for a professional city ambulance. Once that ambulance is on the way, they take the mildly-injured Jewish people to the hospital. The rumor starts that the Jewish ambulance abandoned the black children to die.This isn't the first incident. There's long been strife over property and who the landlord is. But this was the spark that set off riots. A young Jewish man was randomly attacked on the street and was killed.As an aside, he also shouldn't have died, but at the hospital they missed internal bleeding.Meanwhile, the police department has no real leadership at the time. One chief is going to retire, another is on vacation, a third doesn't know what he's doing, and basically everyone is afraid to do anything. So police do nothing. They pull back, and you have three days of very anti-Semitic riots. Crowds chanting "Kill the Jews" and marching on the Lubavitch Hasidic Headquarters. Al Sharpton shows up. The riots are blamed on Dinkins, which is partly fair, but a lot of that's on the NYPD. Finally, the mayor and the police commissioner go to see what's going on and they get attacked. It's the only time in New York City history that there's ever been an emergency call from the police commissioner's car. People are throwing rocks at it.It took three days to realise this, but that's when they say “We have to do something here,” and they gather a group of officers who later become many of Bratton's main chiefs at the time [Bill Bratton was Commissioner of the NYPD from 1994-1996, under Giuliani]: Mike Julian, Louis Anemone, Ray Kelly, and [John] Timoney. They end the unrest in a day. They allow people to march, they get the police department to set rules. It still goes on for a bit, but no one gets hurt after that, and that's it.It was a huge, national story at the time, but a lot of the details were not covered. Reporters were taken from their car and beaten and stripped. The significance was downplayed at the time, especially by the New York Times, I would say.That's followed by the Washington Heights riots, which is a different story. A drug dealer was shot and killed by cops. There were rumors, which were proven to be false, that he was executed and unarmed. Then there were three days of rioting there. It wasn't quite as severe, but 53 cops were hurt, 120 stores were set on fire, and Mayor Dinkins paid for the victim's family to go to the Dominican Republic for the funeral. The police perspective again was, “You're picking the wrong side here.”Then there's the so-called Police Riot at City Hall. Nominally, it was about the CCRB, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, and setting up an accountability mechanism to control cops. But really it was just an anti-Dinkins protest. It was drunken and unruly. The cops stormed the steps of City Hall. I have the account of one of the cops who was on the top of those steps looking at this mob of cops storming to him, and he's getting worried he's going to be killed in a crush. There were racist chants from off-duty cops in the crowd. It did not reflect well on police officers. But it showed this hatred of David Dinkins, who was seen as siding with criminals and being anti-police. The irony is that Dinkins is the one who ends up hiring all the cops that Giuliani gets credit for.In the “Safe Streets, Safe City” program?Yes. That was because a white tourist, Brian Watkins, was killed in a subway station protecting his parents who were getting robbed. That led to the famous headline [in the New York Post] of “Dave, do something! Crime-ravaged city cries out for help.” He, with City Council President Peter Vallone, Sr., drafted and pushed through this massive hiring of police officers, “Safe Streets, Safe City.”The hiring wasn't fast-tracked. It might be because Dinkins's people didn't really want more cops. But it was a Dinkins push that got a massive hiring of cops. When the first huge class of police officers graduated, Bill Bratton was there and not David Dinkins.Some interviewees in your book talk about how there's physically not enough room in the police academies at this time, so they have to run classes 24/7. You cycle cohorts in and out of the same classroom, because there are too many new cops for the facilities.You have thousands of cops going through it at once. Everyone describes it as quite a chaotic scene. But it would have been hard to do what the NYPD did without those cops. Ray Kelly, who was police commissioner under Dinkins at the end [from 1992 to 1994] before he became police commissioner for 12 years under Bloomberg [from 2002 to 2013] probably could have done something with those cops too, but he never had the chance, because the mayoral leadership at the time was much more limiting in what they wanted cops to do.Crime starts declining slowly in the first few years of the ‘90s under Dinkins, and then in ‘93 Giuliani wins a squeaker of a mayoral election against Dinkins.One of the major issues was the then-notorious “squeegee men” of New York City. These were guys who would go to cars stopped at bridges and tunnel entrances and would rub a squeegee over the windshield asking for money. It was unpleasant, intimidating, and unwanted, and it was seen as one of those things that were just inevitable. Like graffiti on the subway in the ‘80s. Nothing we can do about it because these poor people don't have jobs or housing or whatever.The irony is that Bratton and Giuliani were happy to take credit for that, and it was an issue in the mayoral campaign, but it was solved under David Dinkins and Ray Kelly and Mike Julian with the help of George Kelling [who, with James Wilson, came up with broken windows theory]. But they never got credit for it. One wonders if, had they done that just a few months earlier, it would have shifted the entire campaign and we'd have a different course of history in New York City.It's a great example of a couple of things that several people in your book talk about. One is that disorder is often caused by a very small set of individuals. There's only like 70 squeegee men, yet everybody sees them, because they're posted up at the main tunnel and bridge entrances to Manhattan. And getting them off the streets solves the problem entirely.Another emphasis in the book is how perceptions of crime are central. You quote Jack Maple, the father of Compstat, as saying, “A murder on the subway counts as a multiple murder up on the street, because everybody feels like that's their subway.” The particular locations of crimes really affect public perception.Absolutely. Perception is reality for a lot of these things, because most people aren't victimized by crime. But when people perceive that no one is in control they feel less safe. It's not that this perception is false, it just might not be directly related to an actual criminal act.The other thing I try to show is that it's not just saying, “We've got to get rid of squeegee men. How do you do it?” They had tried before, but this is why you need smart cops and good leadership, because it's a problem-solving technique, and the way to get rid of graffiti is different to the way you get rid of squeegee men.This book is in opposition to those who just say, “We can't police our way out of this problem.” No, we can. We can't police our way out of every problem. But if you define the problem as, we don't want people at intersections with squeegees, of course we can police our way out of the problem, using legal constitutional tools. You need the political will. And then the hard work starts, because you have to figure out how to actually do it.Will you describe how they tackle the squeegee men problem?Mike Julian was behind it. They hired George Kelling, who's known for broken windows. They said, “These people are here to make money. So to just go there and make a few arrests isn't going to solve the problem.” First of all, he had to figure out what legal authority [to use], and he used Traffic Reg 44 [which prohibits pedestrians from soliciting vehicle occupants]. He talked to Norm Siegel of the NYCLU [New York Civil Liberties Union] about this, who did not want this crackdown to happen. But Norman said, “Okay, this is the law, I can't fight that one. You're doing it legally. It's all in the books.” And So that took away that opposition.But the relentless part of it is key. First they filmed people. Then, when it came to enforcement, they warned people. Then they cited people, and anybody that was left they arrested. They did not have to arrest many people, because the key is they did this every four hours. It was that that changed behavior, because even a simple arrest isn't going to necessarily deter someone if it's a productive way to make money. But being out there every four hours for a couple of weeks or months was enough to get people to do something else. What that something else is, we still don't know, but we solved the squeegee problem.So in 93, Giuliani is elected by something like 50,000 votes overall. Just as an aside, in Prince of the City, Fred Siegel describes something I had no idea about. There's a Puerto Rican Democratic Councilman who flips and supports Giuliani. Mayor Eric Adams, who at the time was the head of a nonprofit for black men in law enforcement, calls him a race traitor for doing that and for being married to a white woman. There was a remarkable level of racial vitriol in that race that I totally missed.10 years ago when I started this, I asked if I could interview then-Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams, and he said yes, and the interview kept getting rescheduled, and I said, “Eh, I don't need him.” It's a regret of mine. I should have pursued that, but coulda, woulda, shoulda.Giuliani is elected, and he campaigns very explicitly on a reducing crime and disorder platform. And he hires Bill Bratton. Tell me about Bratton coming on board as NYPD commissioner.Bratton grew up in Boston, was a police officer there, became head of the New York City Transit Police when that was a separate police department. Right before he becomes NYPD Commissioner, he's back in Boston, as the Chief of Police there, and there is a movement among certain people to get Bratton the NYC job. They succeed in that, and Bratton is a very confident man. He very much took a broken windows approach and said, “We are going to focus on crime.” He has a right-hand man by the name of Jack Maple who he knows from the Transit Police. Maple is just a lieutenant in transit, and Bratton makes him the de facto number two man in the police department.Jack Maple passed away in 2001 and I didn't know what I was going to do, because it's hard to interview a man who's no longer alive. Chris Mitchell co-wrote Jack Maple's autobiography called Crime Fighter and he graciously gave me all the micro-cassettes of the original interviews he conducted with Maple around 1998. Everyone has a Jack Maple story. He's probably the most important character in Back from the Brink.Jack Maple comes in, no one really knows who he is, no one respects him because he was just a lieutenant in Transit. He goes around and asks a basic question — this is 1994 — he says, “How many people were shot in New York City in 1993?” And nobody knows. That is the state of crime-fighting in New York City before this era. There might have been 7,000 people shot in New York City in 1990 and we just don't know, even to this day.One citation from your book: in 1993, an average of 16 people were shot every day. Which is just remarkable.And remember, shootings have been declining for two or three years before that! But nobody knew, because they weren't keeping track of shootings, because it's not one of the FBI Uniform Crime Report [which tracks crime data nationally] index crimes. But wouldn't you be curious? It took Jack Maple to be curious, so he made people count, and it was findable, but you had to go through every aggravated assault and see if a gun was involved. You had to go through every murder from the previous year and see if it was a shooting. He did this. So we only have shooting data in New York City going back to 1993. It's just a simple process of caring.The super-short version of Back from the Brink is it was a change in mission statement: “We're going to care about crime.” Because they hadn't before. They cared about corruption, racial unrest, brutality, and scandal. They cared about the clearance rate for robbery a bit. You were supposed to make three arrests for every ten robberies. It didn't matter so much that you were stopping a pattern or arresting the right person, as long as you had three arrests for every ten reported crimes, that was fine.This is a story about people who cared. They're from this city — Bratton wasn't, but most of the rest are. They understood the trauma of violence and the fact that people with families were afraid to go outside, and nobody in the power structure seemed to care. So they made the NYPD care about this. Suddenly, the mid-level police executives, the precinct commanders, had to care. and the meetings weren't about keeping overtime down, instead they were about ”What are you doing to stop this shooting?”Tell listeners a little bit more about Jack Maple, because he's a remarkable character, and folks may not know what a kook he was.I think he was a little less kooky than he liked to present. His public persona was wearing a snazzy cat and spats and dressing like a fictional cartoon detective from his own mind, but he's a working-class guy from Queens who becomes a transit cop.When Bratton takes over, he writes a letter up the chain of command saying this is what we should do. Bratton read it and said, “This guy is smart.” Listening to 80 hours of Jack Maple, everyone correctly says he was a smart guy, but he had a very working-class demeanor and took to the elite lifestyle. He loved hanging out and getting fancy drinks at the Plaza Hotel. He was the idea man of the NYPD. Everyone has a Jack Maple imitation. “You're talking to the Jackster,” he'd say. He had smart people working under him who were supportive of this. But it was very much trying to figure out as they went along, because the city doesn't stop nor does it sleep.He was a bulls***er, but he's the one who came up with the basic outline of the strategy of crime reduction in New York City. He famously wrote it on a napkin at Elaine's, and it said, “First, we need to gather accurate and timely intelligence.” And that was, in essence, CompStat. “Then, we need to deploy our cops to where they need to be.” That was a big thing. He found out that cops weren't working: specialized units weren't working weekends and nights when the actual crime was happening. They had their excuses, but basically they wanted a cushy schedule. He changed that. Then, of course, you have to figure out what you're doing, what the effective tactics are. Then, constant follow up and assessment.You can't give up. You can't say “Problem solved.” A lot of people say it wasn't so much if your plan didn't work, you just needed a Plan B. It was the idea that throwing your hands in the air and saying, “What are you going to do?” that became notoriously unacceptable under Chief Anemone's stern demeanor at CompStat. These were not pleasant meetings. Those are the meetings that both propagated policies that work and held officers accountable. There was some humiliation going on, so CompStat was feared.Lots of folks hear CompStat and think about better tracking of crime locations and incidents. But as you flesh out, the meat on the bones of CompStat was this relentless follow-up. You'd have these weekly meetings early in the morning with all the precinct heads. There were relentless asks from the bosses, “What's going on in your district or in your precinct? Can you explain why this is happening? What are you doing to get these numbers down?” And follow-ups the following week or month. It was constant.CompStat is often thought of as high-tech computer stuff. It wasn't. There was nothing that couldn't have been done with old overhead projectors. It's just that no one had done it before. Billy Gorta says it's a glorified accountability system at a time when nobody knew anything about computers. Everyone now has access to crime maps on a computer. It was about actually gathering accurate, timely data.Bratton was very concerned that these numbers had to be right. It was getting everyone in the same room and saying, “This is what our focus is going to be now.” And getting people to care about crime victims, especially when those crime victims might be unsympathetic because of their demeanor, criminal activity, or a long arrest record. “We're going to care about every shooting, we're going to care about every murder.”Part of it was cracking down on illegal guns. There were hundreds of tactics. The federal prosecutors also played a key role. It was getting this cooperation. Once it started working and Giuliani made it a major part of claiming success as mayor, suddenly everyone wanted to be part of this, and you had other city agencies trying to figure it out. So it was a very positive feedback loop, once it was seen as a success.When Bratton came on the job, he said, “I'm going to bring down crime 15%.” No police commissioner had ever said that before. In the history of policing before 1994, no police commissioner ever promised a double-digit reduction in crime or even talked about it. People said “That's crazy.” It was done, and then year after year. That's the type of confidence that they had. They were surprised it worked as well as it did, but they all had the sense that there's a new captain on this ship, and we're trying new things. It was an age of ideas and experiment.And it was a very short time.That's the other thing that surprised me. Giuliani fired Bratton in the middle of ‘96.It's remarkable. Bratton comes in ‘94, and August 1994 is where you see crime drop off a cliff. You have this massive beginning of the reduction that continues.That inflection point is important for historical knowledge. I don't address alternatives that other people have proposed [to explain the fall in crime] — For example, the reduction in lead [in gasoline, paint, and water pipes] or legalized abortion with Roe v. Wade [proposed by Stephen Dubner].Reasonable people can differ. Back from the Brink focuses on the police part of the equation. Today, almost nobody, except for a few academics, says that police had nothing to do with the crime drop. That August inflection is key, because there is nothing in a lagged time analysis going back 20 years that is going to say that is the magic month where things happened. Yet if you look at what happened in CompStat, that's the month they started getting individual officer data, and noticing that most cops made zero arrests, and said, “Let's get them in the game as well.” And that seemed to be the key; that's when crime fell off the table. The meetings started in April, I believe, but August is really when the massive crime drop began.To your point about the confidence that crime could be driven down double digits year over year, there's a great quote you have from Jack Maple, where he says to a fellow cop, “This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel. As long as we have absolute control, we can absolutely drive this number into the floor.”One detail I enjoyed was that Jack Maple, when he was a transit cop, would camp out under a big refrigerator box with little holes cut out for eyes and sit on the subway platform waiting for crooks.For people who are interested in Jack Maple, it is worth reading his autobiography, Crime Fighter. Mike Daly wrote New York's Finest, which uses the same tapes that I had access to, and he is much more focused on that. He's actually the godfather of Jack Maple's son, who is currently a New York City police officer. But Maple and co were confident, and it turned out they were right.As well as having changes in tactics and approach and accountability across the NYPD, you also have a series of specific location cleanups. You have a specific initiative focused on the Port Authority, which is a cesspool at the time, an initiative in Times Square, the Bryant Park cleanup, and then Giuliani also focuses on organized crime on the Fulton Fish Market, and this open-air market in Harlem.I was struck that there was both this general accountability push in the NYPD through CompStat, and a relentless focus on cleaning up individual places that were hubs of disorder.I'm not certain the crime drop would have happened without reclamation of public spaces and business improvement districts. Bryant Park's a fascinating story because Dan Biederman, who heads the Corporation, said, “People just thought it was like a lost cause, this park can't be saved. The city is in a spiral of decline.” He uses Jane Jacobs' “eyes on the street” theory and then George Kelling and James Q. Wilson's broken windows theory. The park has money — not city money, but from local property owners — and it reopens in 1991 to great acclaim and is still a fabulous place to be. It showed for the first time that public space was worth saving and could be saved. New York City at the time needed that lesson. It's interesting that today, Bryant Park has no permanent police presence and less crime. Back in the ‘80s, Bryant Park had an active police presence and a lot more crime.The first class I ever taught when I started at John Jay College in 2004, I was talking about broken windows. A student in the class named Jeff Marshall, who is in my book, told me about Operation Alternatives at the Port Authority. He had been a Port Authority police officer at the time, and I had not heard of this. People are just unaware of this part of history. It very much has lessons for today, because in policing often there's nothing new under the sun. It's just repackaged, dusted off, and done again. The issue was, how do we make the Port Authority safe for passengers? How do we both help and get rid of people living in the bus terminal? It's a semi-public space, so it makes it difficult. There was a social services element about it, that was Operational Alternatives. A lot of people took advantage of that and got help. But the flip side was, you don't have to take services, but you can't stay here.I interviewed the manager of the bus terminal. He was so proud of what he did. He's a bureaucrat, a high-ranking one, but a port authority manager. He came from the George Washington Bridge, which he loved. And he wonders, what the hell am I going to do with this bus terminal? But the Port Authority cared, because they're a huge organization and that's the only thing with their name on it — They also control JFK Airport and bridges and tunnels and all the airports, but people call the bus terminal Port Authority.They gave him almost unlimited money and power and said, “Fix it please, do what you've got to do,” and he did. It was environmental design, giving police overtime so they'd be part of this, a big part of it was having a social service element so it wasn't just kicking people out with nowhere to go.Some of it was also setting up rules. This also helped Bratton in the subway, because this happened at the same time. The court ruled that you can enforce certain rules in the semi-public spaces. It was not clear until this moment whether it was constitutional or not. To be specific, you have a constitutional right to beg on the street, but you do not have a constitutional right to beg on the subway. That came down to a court decision. Had that not happened, I don't know if in the long run the crime drop would have happened.That court decision comes down to the specific point that it's not a free-speech right on the subway to panhandle, because people can't leave, because you've got them trapped in that space.You can't cross the street to get away from it. But it also recognized that it wasn't pure begging, that there was a gray area between aggressive begging and extortion and robbery.You note that in the early 1990s, one-third of subway commuters said they consciously avoided certain stations because of safety, and two thirds felt coerced to give money by aggressive panhandling.The folks in your book talk a lot about the 80/20 rule applying all over the place. That something like 20% of the people you catch are committing 80% of the crimes.There's a similar dynamic that you talk about on the subways, both in the book and in your commentary over the past couple years about disorder in New York. You say approximately 2,000 people with serious mental illness are at risk for street homelessness, and these people cycle through the cities, streets, subways, jails, and hospitals.What lessons from the ‘90s can be applied today for both helping those people and stopping them being a threat to others?Before the ‘80s and Reagan budget cuts there had been a psychiatric system that could help people. That largely got defunded. [Deinstitutionalization began in New York State earlier, in the 1960s.] We did not solve the problem of mental health or homelessness in the ‘90s, but we solved the problem of behavior. George Kelling [of broken windows theory] emphasized this repeatedly, and people would ignore it. We are not criminalizing homelessness or poverty. We're focusing on behavior that we are trying to change. People who willfully ignore that distinction almost assume that poor people are naturally disorderly or criminal, or that all homeless people are twitching and threatening other people. Even people with mental illness can behave in a public space.Times have changed a bit. I think there are different drugs now that make things arguably a bit worse. I am not a mental health expert, but we do need more involuntary commitment, not just for our sake, but for theirs, people who need help. I pass people daily, often the same person, basically decomposing on a subway stop in the cold. They are offered help by social services, and they say no. They should not be allowed to make that choice because they're literally dying on the street in front of us. Basic humanity demands that we be a little more aggressive in forcing people who are not making rational decisions, because now you have to be an imminent threat to yourself or others. That standard does need to change. But there also need to be mental health beds available for people in this condition.I don't know what the solution is to homelessness or mental health. But I do know the solution to public disorder on the subway and that's, regardless of your mental state or housing status, enforcing legal, constitutional rules, policing behavior. It does not involve locking everybody up. It involves drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It's amazing how much people will comply with those rules.That presents the idea that someone's in charge, it's not a free-for-all. You get that virtuous loop, which New York had achieved in 2014–2016, when crime was at an all-time low in the city. Then the politicians decided public order wasn't worth preserving anymore. These are political choices.I had a similar version of this conversation with a friend who was shocked that there were zero murders on the subway in 2017 and that that number was stable: you had one or two a year for several years in the mid-2010s.It was five or fewer a year from 1997 to 2019, and often one or two. Then you have zero in 2017. There were [ten in 2022]. It coincides perfectly with an order from [Mayor] de Blasio's office and the homeless czar [Director of Homeless Services Steven] Banks [which] told police to stop enforcing subway rules against loitering. The subways became — once again — a de facto homeless shelter. Getting rule-violating homeless people out of the subway in the late ‘80s was such a difficult and major accomplishment at the time, and to be fair it's not as bad as it was.The alternative was that homeless outreach was supposed to offer people services. When they decline, which 95% of people do, you're to leave them be. I would argue again, I don't think that's a more humane stance to take. But it's not just about them, it's about subway riders.There's one story that I think was relevant for you to tell. You were attacked this fall on a subway platform by a guy threatening to kill you. It turns out he's had a number of run-ins with the criminal justice system. Can you tell us where that guy is now?I believe he's in prison now. The only reason I know who it is is because I said, one day I'm going to see his picture in the New York Post because he's going to hurt somebody. Am I 100 percent certain it's Michael Blount who attacked me? No, but I'm willing to call him out by name because I believe it is. He was out of prison for raping a child, and he slashed his ex-girlfriend and pushed her on the subway tracks. And then was on the lam for a while. I look at him and the shape of his face, his height, age, build, complexion, and I go, that's got to be him.I wasn't hurt, but he gave me a sucker punch trying to knock me out and then chased me a bit threatening to kill me, and I believe he wanted to. It's the only time I ever was confronted by a person who I really believe wanted to kill me, and this includes policing in the Eastern District in Baltimore. It was an attempted misdemeanor assault in the long run. But I knew it wasn't about me. It was him. I assume he's going to stay in prison longer for what he did to his ex-girlfriend. But I never thought it would happen to me. I was lucky the punch didn't connect.Peter Moskos's new book is Back from the Brink, Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop.My reading listEssays:Johnny Hirschauer's reporting, including “A Failed 'Solution' to 'America's Mental Health Crisis',“ “Return to the Roots,” and “The Last Institutions.” “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson. ​“It's Time to Talk About America's Disorder Problem,” Charles Lehman.Books:Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America, Jill Leovy.​Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York, and the Genius of American Life, Fred Siegel.​ Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District, Peter Moskos.​Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic, Sam Quinones.​Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Barb McQuade is the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.  For a transcript of Barb's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a textPlease join co-hosts Joe Whitley and Nina Marino for an insightful discussion with our distinguished guest, Karen Popp. Karen, a partner at Sidley Austin, is a highly regarded and well-known leader in the field of white collar defense, internal investigations, crisis management, and compliance. Before joining Sidley, Karen served as Associate White House Counsel to the President of the United States, where she advised President Clinton and the White House staff on congressional and grand jury investigations and domestic policy issues. Prior to joining the White House, Karen served in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice where she advised Attorney General Janet Reno and the Department, the White House and other agencies of the executive branch on a wide range of legal matters. Before moving to Washington, D.C., Karen was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. Karen is also the co-founder and global chair of the Women's White Collar Defense Association (WWCDA).

Curious about a career in law enforcement? Tune in to this episode of Full Circle, where we explored "The Path to Becoming a US Marshal" with the incredible Lasha R. Boyden, the Acting U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of California. Ms. Boyden shared her personal journey, insights into the various departments within the Marshal's office, and tips for those interested in serving in this prestigious role. Learn about the educational and other requirements, special skills needed, and why a career in high-level law enforcement might be the perfect fit for you. Discover what it takes to protect and serve at the highest level!

It's Monday, March 24th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Four Eritrean Christian leaders languishing in prison For more than 20 years, four courageous Christian pastors have been unjustly detained in Eritrea, Africa without charges, reports International Christian Concern. Their crime? Practicing their faith and serving their communities. Pastor Haile Naizghe, a former senior accountant with World Vision, dedicated his life to spiritual care. Dr. Kiflu Gebremeskel, a mathematics lecturer with a Ph.D. from the United States, committed to education and faith. Pastor Meron Gebreselasie is an anesthetist who provided critical medical care to his neighbors. Pastor Kidane Weldou, a secondary school biology teacher, inspired many. These men were arrested in the early 2000s for their leadership in local churches. Instead of fostering their invaluable contributions to Eritrean society, they remain imprisoned under appalling conditions, without access to critical medical care.  Hebrews 13:3 says, "Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them." Dr. Gebremeskel has high blood pressure, and is in poor health. And Pastor Nayzgi has severe skin problems and has been suffering for a long time. Sign a petition created by International Christian Concern to demand accountability from the Eritrean government. Click a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. According to Open Doors, Eritrea, Africa is the sixth worst country worldwide for the persecution of Christians. Trump revokes security clearances for Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden In a memo published late Friday night, President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to remove the security clearances for former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Joe Biden, and other former high-ranking Democrats and their Republican allies who fought vigorously to prevent Trump from being re-elected in 2024, reports LifeSiteNews.com. Trump wrote, “I have determined that it is no longer in the national interest for the following individuals to access classified information.” Two others denied access are two former Republican U.S. House members, Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who served on the disreputable January 6 Committee. Top Biden prosecutor found dead at 43 after indicting 4 Russians Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Jessica Aber, who was found dead at the age of 43 by Virginia authorities on Saturday, was at the helm of high-profile investigations into intelligence leaks, allegations of war crimes against Russian-linked individuals, and people suspected of providing sensitive U.S. technology to Moscow before she stepped down at the start of the year, reports Newsweek. In late 2023, Aber was also involved in an indictment against four Russia-affiliated individuals charged with torture, inhuman treatment, and unlawful confinement of a U.S. national in Ukraine after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In a news release Saturday, the Alexandria Police Department confirmed Aber's death without noting the cause. Boxer George Foreman, a devout Christian, dead at 76 Former heavyweight boxing champion George Foreman, known as much for his gregarious personality as his vicious right hook, died Friday, reports ABC News. He was 76 years old. A two-time heavyweight champion, he also won gold at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics against Russian boxer Ionas Chepulis. ANNOUNCER: “The fight will continue at the count of nine. Chepulis looks in very bad shape. George is going after the Russian. The referee warns George for holding and hitting. “Foreman throwing bombs in there. Ripping punches by George Foreman. He's all over the Russian. Chepulis looks all through. George pouring it on, and the referee stops the fight in the second round. It's all over. George Foreman wins the gold medal. “There's George holding up the American flag in the center of the ring before thousands of impressed spectators and millions more of television viewers. An inspiring ending to Olympic boxing at the Mexico City 19th Olympiad.” Appearing on 100 Huntley Street in April 2013, Foreman shared his testimony, on how God got his attention in a near death experience which he chronicled in his spiritual autobiography entitled, God In My Corner. FOREMAN: “I never could lose that thought: ‘You're gonna die. You're gonna die.' And in a dirty old dressing room, when I had all these wonderful homes, I was about to die. “I heard a voice within me say, ‘You believe in God. Why are you scared to die?' And I was afraid. I was scared. And I realized it was God talking with me. I didn't believe in religion. I thought that was for -- you got to be a sissy. Everybody who had taken up religion in those days had lost a wife or a husband or a boxing match, and they were carrying their Bibles as a baby. “I tried to make a deal in that dressing room. I said, ‘I can still box and give money to charity and for cancer.' And I heard a voice say, ‘I don't want your money. I want you!' And I remember tears. The first time I heard anyone turn down money, number one. Jesus Christ is coming alive in me. That's what happened to me in that dressing room.” In his post-boxing career, Foreman later saw success pitching the now-omnipresent countertop grill that bears his name. FOREMAN: “The George Foreman Grilling Machine is very special. Everyone should have one. Number one because this grill has something no other grill has: slants. You put your food in and the grease rolls down.” Unbelievably, he sold 100 million Foreman Grills, earning $5 million a month at one point. Idaho enacts law protecting conscience rights for medical professionals Idaho has enacted a new law designed to protect healthcare providers from having to perform or participate in procedures, like abortions or transgender surgeries, that violate their deeply held beliefs, reports The Christian Post. Last Wednesday, Idaho's Republican Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 59, also known as the Medical Ethics Defense Act. Samaritan's Purse needs volunteers and money to help storm victims And finally, as The Worldview reported on March 18th, severe weather took the lives of 42 Americans and left 100,000 without power across seven states. Samaritan's Purse said it's sending volunteers to assist with recovery efforts in Missouri and Oklahoma after powerful storms, fueled by heavy winds, ripped through the two states, reports The Christian Post. John Schultz, a Samaritan's Purse staffer, asked for help in Southeastern Missouri. SCHULTZ: “The wind is still continuing to rage after these storms that caused nearly 100 tornadoes across this whole region over the past weekend. So many homeowners have lost a lot here. “We need additional help from volunteers to come out and serve the homeowners in Jesus' name right here in Poplar Bluff, and north of here in Piedmont, Missouri.” If you would like to volunteer your help or send money to help the victims of the storms in the name of Jesus, click a special link through our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. 1 John 3:17 asks, “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need,  but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, March 24th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

​Prominent Houston attorney Tony Buzbee has withdrawn from representing plaintiffs in over a dozen sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). This decision follows a court order from U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, who noted that Buzbee was not admitted to practice in the SDNY and had failed to disclose this information. In response, Buzbee acknowledged his oversight and filed motions to withdraw from 15 federal cases, stating that his admission status had become a "distraction" from the pursuit of justice for his clientsThe issue arose after Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter filed a grievance against Buzbee, alleging unauthorized practice in the SDNY. Buzbee, who is licensed to practice in New York state courts and the Eastern District of New York, indicated that he plans to address the grievance and seek proper admission to the SDNY. In the meantime, he continues to represent clients in related cases in New York state courts and intends to file additional lawsuits in Nevada and California.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Texas' Tony Buzbee off Sean 'Diddy' Combs-related case

​Prominent Houston attorney Tony Buzbee has withdrawn from representing plaintiffs in over a dozen sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean "Diddy" Combs in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). This decision follows a court order from U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams, who noted that Buzbee was not admitted to practice in the SDNY and had failed to disclose this information. In response, Buzbee acknowledged his oversight and filed motions to withdraw from 15 federal cases, stating that his admission status had become a "distraction" from the pursuit of justice for his clientsThe issue arose after Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter filed a grievance against Buzbee, alleging unauthorized practice in the SDNY. Buzbee, who is licensed to practice in New York state courts and the Eastern District of New York, indicated that he plans to address the grievance and seek proper admission to the SDNY. In the meantime, he continues to represent clients in related cases in New York state courts and intends to file additional lawsuits in Nevada and California.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Texas' Tony Buzbee off Sean 'Diddy' Combs-related caseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Morse code transcription: vvv vvv Civil Service told by government to slash running costs by 15 Ex US attorney for Eastern District of Virginia Jessica Aber found dead Fraud experts brought in over student loan allegations Rachel Reeves confirms accepting free Sabrina Carpenter tickets Oxfam staff shocked as Bible donated in Chelmsford sells for 56k Turkish President Erdogans main rival Ekrem Imamoglu jailed A deal in the desert US and Ukraine meet ahead of Russia ceasefire talks Radio 1 DJ and presenter Andy Peebles dies aged 76 Million Dollar Secret, and The Sims rival InZoi Whats coming up this week Princess Beatrice describes daughters premature birth as humbling

Police are investigating after the former Attorney General for the Eastern District of Virginia was found dead this weekend. The 43-year-old was appointed by former President Biden.Police have made two arrests after a shooting in Las Cruces, New Mexico killed three people Friday night and injured 15 more. Details on what police say started the altercation.With the next round of tariffs on the horizon, what's the likely impact here and abroad? Two economists join us to discuss.A crew of NASA astronauts is safety back home. Details on their return to life on Earth, plus the warm welcome they got from a small village in India—and even the local sea life.And spring is in full bloom, but so is allergy season. We'll hear from a family nurse practitioner on the best ways to get through the season without constantly fighting the sniffles.

In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not "firearms" and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection.George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA's registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.The district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana denied both motions. Peterson appealed and the Fifth Circuit heard argument on December 4, 2024. On February 6, 2025, it issued a decision affirming the lower courts denial.Join us as we discuss this interesting case and its potential impact in the realm of firearms regulation.Featuring:Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association(Moderator) Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Presidents have long pursued policy prerogatives through the Department of Justice, but traditionally, there's been a clear division between those and the Justice Department's enforcement decisions. On March 5, 2025, the NYU Law Forum and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted an all-star panel of experts who have served in senior positions at the White House and in the Department of Justice to assess the degree to which the division between the President and the Justice Department has now changed. Among the topics they discussed are: What is the origin of and reason for the Justice Department's measure of independence? How has this independence worked given the Justice Department's mix of political and career employees, and how is the current administration observing those lines?  The expert panel consisted of Vanita Gupta, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School of Law and the former Associate Attorney General of the United States; Lisa Monaco, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the Reiss Center on Law and Security and the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States; and Breon Peace, the former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  Trevor Morrison, a former Associate White House Counsel, the Dean Emeritus, Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security, moderated the discussion.  Show Notes: Vanita GuptaLisa MonacoTrevor Morrison (Bluesky)Breon PeaceJust Security's coverage of the Department of JusticeJust Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Barb McQuade is the former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.  For a transcript of Barb's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In his second term in office, President Donald Trump has already taken sweeping measures on immigration, the environment, the U.S. military, and the structure of the federal government.With so many executive orders, policy changes, and novel actions, it's easy to wonder, “What just happened?” In this podcast mini-series we help to answer exactly that question. On each episode of “What Just Happened,” we'll talk with leading experts, from former government officials to professors – the people who understand how government works from the inside and have studied the issues for years. They will explain the legal background and implications of how the Trump administration's actions affect how the U.S. government operates in Washington, across the country, and around the world. This is not a political podcast. We are explaining the meaning and consequences of policy changes that may not be immediately apparent. Any opinions expressed are those of the speaker.Today, we are looking at a relatively narrow example of the Trump administration's broad policies of eliminating federal jobs and eliminating what it considers to be DEI efforts from federal agencies. Specifically, we will talk about a small number of seasoned intelligence officers who were fired because one of their duties involved agency DEI efforts. They have sought an injunction against their termination in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia. After a brief administrative stay, a federal judge denied their application for a temporary restraining order while the case proceeds.  Our guest today is the fired officers' attorney, Kevin Carroll. Kevin is a partner at the Fluet law firm in Northern Virginia. Kevin is a retired Army Colonel and a former CIA case officer. He also served as a senior counsel to Republican congressman Peter King of New York and a political appointee in the first Trump administration, and later as a surrogate for the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign. Show Notes: David Aaron (LinkedIn – X – Bluesky)Kevin Carroll (LinkedIn)Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)