Podcasts about Fifth Amendment

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (07/10/2025): 3:05pm- While speaking with the press, President Trump reacted to Senator Jose Padilla's (D-CA) proposed bill which would prevent ICE agents from wearing masks and concealing their personal identity. There have been several recent attacks on ICE facilities—including one attack in McAllen, Texas involving a man with an assault rifle. Despite these violent attacks, Democrats continue to unjustly demonize ICE agents. 3:30pm- According to a report from Fox News Digital, the Department of Justice is criminally investigating former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey for potential false statements to Congress related to the disproven Trump campaign/Russia collusion narrative. While appearing on MSNBC with Nicolle Wallace, Brennan claimed the investigation into him was “weaponizing intelligence and justice.” In addition to espousing falsehoods about the 2016 election, Brennan has notably lied about civilian casualties that resulted from Obama Administration drone strikes and about the CIA illegally accessing the computers of U.S. Senate staffers. 4:00pm- Salena Zito—Award Winning Political Reporter—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her new book, “Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America's Heartland.” Nearly one year later, she recounts what it was like standing just feet from the stage in Butler, Pennsylvania when shots rang out. She recalls her daughter telling her: “I wanted it to be fireworks. I didn't want to think we were literally sitting ducks and being fired at.” You can find the book here: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/salena-zito/butler/9781546009146/. 4:30pm- Corey DeAngelis— Senior Fellow at the American Culture Project & Author of the book, “The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to the United Federation of Teachers endorsing Zoran Mamdani for Mayor of New York City, explaining: “They locked arms with the socialist candidate.” He also reveals that despite opposing school choice, Mamdani attended a private school that costs $66K per year for kindergarten! 5:05pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) moments from corporate media: major media outlets are refusing to cover far-left attacks against ICE agents in Texas and CNN data suggests Americans aren't afraid of climate change (despite progressive fear mongering). 5:30pm- A California woman says her home was mistakenly listed as the return address for a Chinese car seat seller on Amazon—and consequently, her home has been flooded with unwanted returns! PLUS, why can't Livyy Dunn live in Babe Ruth's $1.6 million condo? 5:45pm- On Wednesday, former White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor invoked the Fifth Amendment while testifying before the House Oversight Committee about President Joe Biden's cognitive health. 6:05pm- Susan Crabtree—RealClearPolitics National Political Correspondent & Author of the book, “Fools Gold: The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us All”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her latest report: “Key supervisors who signed off on the Butler security plan and two who were on the final walkthroughs before the…rally were never disciplined but instead received BIG PROMOTIONS.” 6:30pm- Jimmy Failla—Host of “Fox News Saturday with Jimmy Failla” & “Fox Across America”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. Is Jimmy concerned about having a socialist mayor? No way! The breadlines might help him lose weight! Failla will be performing at SoulJoel's in Montgomery County, PA on August 9th. You can find information about tickets here: https://radio.foxnews.com/fox-news-talk/fox-across-america-with-jimmy-failla/.

1. Allegations Regarding President Joe Biden's Health and Fitness for Office The first story centers on claims of a cover-up concerning President Biden's mental and physical health. It highlights a House Oversight Committee investigation, led by Representative James Comer, into whether Biden was mentally fit to serve. A key figure in the investigation is Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden’s former White House physician, who invoked the Fifth Amendment during questioning. Questions posed to Dr. O'Connor included whether he was ever told to lie about Biden’s health or believed Biden was unfit for office. He declined to answer both. The use of the White House autopen (a device used to sign documents) is cited as suspicious, with claims that Biden may not have been aware of what was being signed. The narrative suggests this could invalidate certain executive actions if Biden was incapacitated. 2. Threats Against Donald Trump and National Security Concerns The second story shifts to alleged Iranian threats against former President Donald Trump and other American figures. It references fatwas (Islamic legal rulings) calling for violence, reportedly issued by Iranian clerics. The organization United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is calling for sanctions against individuals and entities involved. There are concerns about Iranian sleeper cells potentially operating within the U.S., possibly entering through asylum loopholes or border security gaps. The commentary warns of the national security risks posed by these individuals, including the potential for future terrorist attacks. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #maga #presidenttrump #47 #the47morningupdate #donaldtrump #trump #news #trumpnews #Benferguson #breaking #breakingnews #morningupdateYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, WJNO's Brian Mudd fills in for Mark. Will we finally see accountability for James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper? CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred Brennan and Comey to the FBI for potential criminal prosecution. Accountability is important to prevent future misconduct, but if there were a trial, it would occur in Washington, D.C. As John Durham learned, there was no way to get an honest D.C. jury. Also, former White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and remained silent during a House Oversight Committee interview, refusing to answer questions, including whether he was asked to lie about President Biden's health or if he believed Biden was unfit for duty. O'Connor's refusal to answer seems to show that he was in on the cover-up. Later, during the Biden administration, 59% of jobs (7.9 million) went to U.S.-born workers, while 41% (5.5 million) went to foreign-born workers, including many illegal immigrants. In the first five months of the Trump administration in 2025, 985,000 jobs were added, with a net decline of 735,000 foreign-born workers, resulting in 1.7 million more U.S.-born workers employed. This suggests U.S.-born workers are filling jobs previously held by immigrants, with significant self-deportation likely contributing, as deportations are minimal. Finally, President Trump is the second most efficient U.S. president, behind only FDR, for rapidly advancing his second-term agenda. In roughly 170 days, he signed 170 executive orders, 44 memoranda, 71 proclamations, and five laws, including the One Big Beautiful Bill. Despite a narrow congressional majority, he made the Tax Cut and Jobs Act permanent and introduced 27 tax code changes, retroactive to January 1, 2025, saving taxpayers money through deductions. His speed and success are historically remarkable. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:05pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) moments from corporate media: major media outlets are refusing to cover far-left attacks against ICE agents in Texas and CNN data suggests Americans aren't afraid of climate change (despite progressive fear mongering). 5:30pm- A California woman says her home was mistakenly listed as the return address for a Chinese car seat seller on Amazon—and consequently, her home has been flooded with unwanted returns! PLUS, why can't Livyy Dunn live in Babe Ruth's $1.6 million condo? 5:45pm- On Wednesday, former White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor invoked the Fifth Amendment while testifying before the House Oversight Committee about President Joe Biden's cognitive health.

Today's Headlines: At least three people were killed in New Mexico after monsoon rains triggered flash floods in areas already vulnerable from past wildfires. President Trump's self-imposed deadline for 90 trade deals came and went with no new agreements, but eight more countries — including Brazil, which faces a 50% tariff — received tariff letters. Trump's Pentagon paused aid to Ukraine without informing the White House, a move orchestrated by top defense officials citing supposed weapons shortages. The Supreme Court blocked a harsh Florida immigration law for now, reaffirming that federal law takes precedence. The Trump administration escalated its campaign against Harvard, issuing a subpoena for immigration-related records and challenging its accreditation over alleged civil rights violations. Meanwhile, the DOJ has launched criminal investigations into former FBI Director James Comey and CIA Director John Brennan, both previously fired by Trump. Dr. Kevin O'Connor, Biden's former White House physician, was subpoenaed and refused to say if he had misrepresented Biden's health while in office. Measles cases in the U.S. have surged to a 33-year high, largely due to declining vaccination rates. And finally, Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino resigned — notably following a string of disturbing antisemitic and sexually inappropriate outputs from the platform's AI assistant Grok, which recently began referring to itself as “MechaHitler.” Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Flash flooding that killed 3 leaves New Mexico village heartbroken, anxious as cleanup begins AP News: A look at the countries that received Trump's tariff letters WSJ: Stock Market Today: Dow Edges Higher; Trump Threatens More Tariffs — Live Updates AP News: Trump caught off guard by Pentagon's abrupt move to pause Ukraine weapons deliveries, AP sources say NYT: Supreme Court Won't Revive Aggressive Florida Immigration Law WSJ: Trump Administration Attacks Harvard's Accreditation FOX News: John Brennan, James Comey being investigated by FBI: DOJ sources Axios: Biden's doctor invokes Fifth Amendment in House probe of ex-president's health Axios: U.S. measles cases hit 33-year high, CDC says Wired: Linda Yaccarino Tried to Tame X. Now She's Out as CEO  Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Jim and Greg on Thursday's 3 Martini Lunch as they discuss the suspension of numerous Secret Service figures following the Trump shooting, former White House physician Kevin O'Connor refusing to testify to Congress about Joe Biden's health, and the bizarre sequence of events that led Kamala Harris to pick Tim Walz as her running mate.First, they welcome the news that six Secret Service personnel (both supervisors and line-level agents) were suspended after the attempted assassination of President Trump last summer in Butler, Pennsylvania. There have also been significant technological advancements, including drones and better communication with local law enforcement helping to secure events. Jim thinks these are good steps and suspects Trump is satisfied with the fallout.Next, they shake their heads as Dr. O'Connor invokes doctor-patient confidentiality and his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination for refusing to answer lawmakers' questions about Joe Biden's true cognitive and physical condition while serving as president. O'Connor declared Biden fully fit to serve as president as late as February 2024.Finally, they get a kick out of the bizarre reasons Kamala Harris ruled out Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate and the equally odd conclusions they reached for choosing Tim Walz. Walz was not only a terrible choice, but it created more doubt about Kamala's ability to be president.Please visit our great sponsors:Manage your workplace stress with Better Help. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLUpgrade your skincare routine with Caldera Lab and see the difference.  Visit https://CalderaLab.com/3ML and use code 3ML at checkout for 20% off your first order.

-Rob Carson dives into revelations about President Biden's health, highlighting his doctor pleading the Fifth Amendment when questioned about Biden's mental fitness and potential medical falsification. -The Secret Service suspends six agents over failures during the attempted assassination of Trump, as Carson points to systemic lapses and accuses political opponents of enabling the attack. Today's podcast is sponsored by : BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit!CB DISTILLERY : Get healthy sleep with 25% off your first order at http://CBDistillery.com and use promo code CARSON To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to promote local economic development as part of a comprehensive municipal development plan. Kelo […]

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

In June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to promote local economic development as part of a comprehensive municipal development plan. Kelo was certainly a landmark decision and, twenty years later, its impact is still felt and merits further consideration. Join our panel as it discusses Kelo’s legacy, the nature of “public use,” and the judiciary’s current and future relationship with eminent domain.Featuring:Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law CenterWesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLPTim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University--To register, click the link above.

In this episode of the Heart of Rural America podcast, host Amanda Radke discusses the importance of private property rights, particularly in the context of recent legislative victories in South Dakota. She highlights the grassroots activism that led to the passing of HB 1052, which protects landowners from eminent domain abuses related to carbon sequestration projects. The conversation also delves into the implications of the Fifth Amendment and urges listeners to engage in their communities to safeguard their freedoms and property rights.TakeawaysThe episode emphasizes the significance of Independence Day and its connection to property rights.Amanda Radke celebrates a recent legislative victory in South Dakota regarding property rights.Grassroots activism played a crucial role in the legislative changes in South Dakota.The importance of the Fifth Amendment in protecting private property rights is discussed.The Kelo case is highlighted as a pivotal moment in the interpretation of eminent domain.Listeners are encouraged to engage in local governance to protect their rights.The episode calls for vigilance against government overreach in property matters.Radke shares personal experiences of activism against corporate interests.The need for community involvement in political processes is stressed.The episode concludes with a celebration of American values and the importance of standing up for freedoms.Order Amanda's book "Faith Family Freedom"Presented by Bid on Beef | CK6 Consulting | CK6 Source | Real Tuff Livestock Equipment | Redmond RealSalt | By-O-Reg+ | Dirt Road RadioSave on Redmond Real Salt with code RADKE at https://shop.redmondagriculture.com/Check out Amanda's agricultural children's books here: https://amandaradke.com/collections/amandas-books

Nothing makes a business owner's stomach drop and blood pressure rise quite like being served a subpoena that seeks documents or testimony. Corporate and commercial attorneys need their clients to confidently reach out for informed guidance at these stressful times. In this episode, Vadim Glozman explores some of the pitfalls you can help your clients avoid.Vadim Glozman is Principal Attorney of Glozman Law in Chicago. He is the presenter of the IICLE® on-demand resource, Navigating Involvement with the Federal Legal System in Criminal Cases, available now at IICLE.com.IICLE® is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit based in Springfield, Illinois. We produce a wide range of practice guidance for Illinois attorneys and other legal professionals in all areas of law with the generous contributions of time and expertise from volunteer attorneys, judges, and other legal professionals.

“To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.”—Adam KucharskiMy conversation with Professor Kucharski on what constitutes certainty and proof in science (and other domains), with emphasis on many of the learnings from Covid. Given the politicization of science and A.I.'s deepfakes and power for blurring of truth, it's hard to think of a topic more important right now.Audio file (Ground Truths can also be downloaded on Apple Podcasts and Spotify)Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am really delighted to welcome Adam Kucharski, who is the author of a new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. He's a distinguished mathematician, by the way, the first mathematician we've had on Ground Truths and a person who I had the real privilege of getting to know a bit through the Covid pandemic. So welcome, Adam.Adam Kucharski (00:28):Thanks for having me.Eric Topol (00:30):Yeah, I mean, I think just to let everybody know, you're a Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and also noteworthy you won the Adams Prize, which is one of the most impressive recognitions in the field of mathematics. This is the book, it's a winner, Proof and there's so much to talk about. So Adam, maybe what I'd start off is the quote in the book that captivates in the beginning, “life is full of situations that can reveal remarkably large gaps in our understanding of what is true and why it's true. This is a book about those gaps.” So what was the motivation when you undertook this very big endeavor?Adam Kucharski (01:17):I think a lot of it comes to the work I do at my day job where we have to deal with a lot of evidence under pressure, particularly if you work in outbreaks or emerging health concerns. And often it really pushes the limits, our methodology and how we converge on what's true subject to potential revision in the future. I think particularly having a background in math's, I think you kind of grow up with this idea that you can get to these concrete, almost immovable truths and then even just looking through the history, realizing that often isn't the case, that there's these kind of very human dynamics that play out around them. And it's something I think that everyone in science can reflect on that sometimes what convinces us doesn't convince other people, and particularly when you have that kind of urgency of time pressure, working out how to navigate that.Eric Topol (02:05):Yeah. Well, I mean I think these times of course have really gotten us to appreciate, particularly during Covid, the importance of understanding uncertainty. And I think one of the ways that we can dispel what people assume they know is the famous Monty Hall, which you get into a bit in the book. So I think everybody here is familiar with that show, Let's Make a Deal and maybe you can just take us through what happens with one of the doors are unveiled and how that changes the mathematics.Adam Kucharski (02:50):Yeah, sure. So I think it is a problem that's been around for a while and it's based on this game show. So you've got three doors that are closed. Behind two of the doors there is a goat and behind one of the doors is a luxury car. So obviously, you want to win the car. The host asks you to pick a door, so you point to one, maybe door number two, then the host who knows what's behind the doors opens another door to reveal a goat and then ask you, do you want to change your mind? Do you want to switch doors? And a lot of the, I think intuition people have, and certainly when I first came across this problem many years ago is well, you've got two doors left, right? You've picked one, there's another one, it's 50-50. And even some quite well-respected mathematicians.Adam Kucharski (03:27):People like Paul Erdős who was really published more papers than almost anyone else, that was their initial gut reaction. But if you work through all of the combinations, if you pick this door and then the host does this, and you switch or not switch and work through all of those options. You actually double your chances if you switch versus sticking with the door. So something that's counterintuitive, but I think one of the things that really struck me and even over the years trying to explain it is convincing myself of the answer, which was when I first came across it as a teenager, I did quite quickly is very different to convincing someone else. And even actually Paul Erdős, one of his colleagues showed him what I call proof by exhaustion. So go through every combination and that didn't really convince him. So then he started to simulate and said, well, let's do a computer simulation of the game a hundred thousand times. And again, switching was this optimal strategy, but Erdős wasn't really convinced because I accept that this is the case, but I'm not really satisfied with it. And I think that encapsulates for a lot of people, their experience of proof and evidence. It's a fact and you have to take it as given, but there's actually quite a big bridge often to really understanding why it's true and feeling convinced by it.Eric Topol (04:41):Yeah, I think it's a fabulous example because I think everyone would naturally assume it's 50-50 and it isn't. And I think that gets us to the topic at hand. What I love, there's many things I love about this book. One is that you don't just get into science and medicine, but you cut across all the domains, law, mathematics, AI. So it's a very comprehensive sweep of everything about proof and truth, and it couldn't come at a better time as we'll get into. Maybe just starting off with math, the term I love mathematical monsters. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?Adam Kucharski (05:25):Yeah, this was a fascinating situation that emerged in the late 19th century where a lot of math's, certainly in Europe had been derived from geometry because a lot of the ancient Greek influence on how we shaped things and then Newton and his work on rates of change and calculus, it was really the natural world that provided a lot of inspiration, these kind of tangible objects, tangible movements. And as mathematicians started to build out the theory around rates of change and how we tackle these kinds of situations, they sometimes took that intuition a bit too seriously. And there was some theorems that they said were intuitively obvious, some of these French mathematicians. And so, one for example is this idea of you how things change smoothly over time and how you do those calculations. But what happened was some mathematicians came along and showed that when you have things that can be infinitely small, that intuition didn't necessarily hold in the same way.Adam Kucharski (06:26):And they came up with these examples that broke a lot of these theorems and a lot of the establishments at the time called these things monsters. They called them these aberrations against common sense and this idea that if Newton had known about them, he never would've done all of his discovery because they're just nuisances and we just need to get rid of them. And there's this real tension at the core of mathematics in the late 1800s where some people just wanted to disregard this and say, look, it works for most of the time, that's good enough. And then others really weren't happy with this quite vague logic. They wanted to put it on much sturdier ground. And what was remarkable actually is if you trace this then into the 20th century, a lot of these monsters and these particularly in some cases functions which could almost move constantly, this constant motion rather than our intuitive concept of movement as something that's smooth, if you drop an apple, it accelerates at a very smooth rate, would become foundational in our understanding of things like probability, Einstein's work on atomic theory. A lot of these concepts where geometry breaks down would be really important in relativity. So actually, these things that we thought were monsters actually were all around us all the time, and science couldn't advance without them. So I think it's just this remarkable example of this tension within a field that supposedly concrete and the things that were going to be shunned actually turn out to be quite important.Eric Topol (07:53):It's great how you convey how nature isn't so neat and tidy and things like Brownian motion, understanding that, I mean, just so many things that I think fit into that general category. In the legal, we won't get into too much because that's not so much the audience of Ground Truths, but the classic things about innocent and until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, I mean these are obviously really important parts of that overall sense of proof and truth. We're going to get into one thing I'm fascinated about related to that subsequently and then in science. So before we get into the different types of proof, obviously the pandemic is still fresh in our minds and we're an endemic with Covid now, and there are so many things we got wrong along the way of uncertainty and didn't convey that science isn't always evolving search for what is the truth. There's plenty no shortage of uncertainty at any moment. So can you recap some of the, you did so much work during the pandemic and obviously some of it's in the book. What were some of the major things that you took out of proof and truth from the pandemic?Adam Kucharski (09:14):I think it was almost this story of two hearts because on the one hand, science was the thing that got us where we are today. The reason that so much normality could resume and so much risk was reduced was development of vaccines and the understanding of treatments and the understanding of variants as they came to their characteristics. So it was kind of this amazing opportunity to see this happen faster than it ever happened in history. And I think ever in science, it certainly shifted a lot of my thinking about what's possible and even how we should think about these kinds of problems. But also on the other hand, I think where people might have been more familiar with seeing science progress a bit more slowly and reach consensus around some of these health issues, having that emerge very rapidly can present challenges even we found with some of the work we did on Alpha and then the Delta variants, and it was the early quantification of these.Adam Kucharski (10:08):So really the big question is, is this thing more transmissible? Because at the time countries were thinking about control measures, thinking about relaxing things, and you've got this just enormous social economic health decision-making based around essentially is it a lot more spreadable or is it not? And you only had these fragments of evidence. So I think for me, that was really an illustration of the sharp end. And I think what we ended up doing with some of those was rather than arguing over a precise number, something like Delta, instead we kind of looked at, well, what's the range that matters? So in the sense of arguing over whether it's 40% or 50% or 30% more transmissible is perhaps less important than being, it's substantially more transmissible and it's going to start going up. Is it going to go up extremely fast or just very fast?Adam Kucharski (10:59):That's still a very useful conclusion. I think what often created some of the more challenges, I think the things that on reflection people looking back pick up on are where there was probably overstated certainty. We saw that around some of the airborne spread, for example, stated as a fact by in some cases some organizations, I think in some situations as well, governments had a constraint and presented it as scientific. So the UK, for example, would say testing isn't useful. And what was happening at the time was there wasn't enough tests. So it was more a case of they can't test at that volume. But I think blowing between what the science was saying and what the decision-making, and I think also one thing we found in the UK was we made a lot of the epidemiological evidence available. I think that was really, I think something that was important.Adam Kucharski (11:51):I found it a lot easier to communicate if talking to the media to be able to say, look, this is the paper that's out, this is what it means, this is the evidence. I always found it quite uncomfortable having to communicate things where you knew there were reports behind the scenes, but you couldn't actually articulate. But I think what that did is it created this impression that particularly epidemiology was driving the decision-making a lot more than it perhaps was in reality because so much of that was being made public and a lot more of the evidence around education or economics was being done behind the scenes. I think that created this kind of asymmetry in public perception about how that was feeding in. And so, I think there was always that, and it happens, it is really hard as well as a scientist when you've got journalists asking you how to run the country to work out those steps of am I describing the evidence behind what we're seeing? Am I describing the evidence about different interventions or am I proposing to some extent my value system on what we do? And I think all of that in very intense times can be very easy to get blurred together in public communication. I think we saw a few examples of that where things were being the follow the science on policy type angle where actually once you get into what you're prioritizing within a society, quite rightly, you've got other things beyond just the epidemiology driving that.Eric Topol (13:09):Yeah, I mean that term that you just use follow the science is such an important term because it tells us about the dynamic aspect. It isn't just a snapshot, it's constantly being revised. But during the pandemic we had things like the six-foot rule that was never supported by data, but yet still today, if I walk around my hospital and there's still the footprints of the six-foot rule and not paying attention to the fact that this was airborne and took years before some of these things were accepted. The flatten the curve stuff with lockdowns, which I never was supportive of that, but perhaps at the worst point, the idea that hospitals would get overrun was an issue, but it got carried away with school shutdowns for prolonged periods and in some parts of the world, especially very stringent lockdowns. But anyway, we learned a lot.Eric Topol (14:10):But perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that people's expectations about science is that it's absolute and somehow you have this truth that's not there. I mean, it's getting revised. It's kind of on the job training, it's on this case on the pandemic revision. But very interesting. And that gets us to, I think the next topic, which I think is a fundamental part of the book distributed throughout the book, which is the different types of proof in biomedicine and of course across all these domains. And so, you take us through things like randomized trials, p-values, 95 percent confidence intervals, counterfactuals, causation and correlation, peer review, the works, which is great because a lot of people have misconceptions of these things. So for example, randomized trials, which is the temple of the randomized trials, they're not as great as a lot of people think, yes, they can help us establish cause and effect, but they're skewed because of the people who come into the trial. So they may not at all be a representative sample. What are your thoughts about over deference to randomized trials?Adam Kucharski (15:31):Yeah, I think that the story of how we rank evidence in medicines a fascinating one. I mean even just how long it took for people to think about these elements of randomization. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do when we have evidence here in medicine or science is prevent ourselves from confusing randomness for a signal. I mean, that's fundamentally, we don't want to mistake something, we think it's going on and it's not. And the challenge, particularly with any intervention is you only get to see one version of reality. You can't give someone a drug, follow them, rewind history, not give them the drug and then follow them again. So one of the things that essentially randomization allows us to do is, if you have two groups, one that's been randomized, one that hasn't on average, the difference in outcomes between those groups is going to be down to the treatment effect.Adam Kucharski (16:20):So it doesn't necessarily mean in reality that'd be the case, but on average that's the expectation that you'd have. And it's kind of interesting actually that the first modern randomized control trial (RCT) in medicine in 1947, this is for TB and streptomycin. The randomization element actually, it wasn't so much statistical as behavioral, that if you have people coming to hospital, you could to some extent just say, we'll just alternate. We're not going to randomize. We're just going to first patient we'll say is a control, second patient a treatment. But what they found in a lot of previous studies was doctors have bias. Maybe that patient looks a little bit ill or that one maybe is on borderline for eligibility. And often you got these quite striking imbalances when you allowed it for human judgment. So it was really about shielding against those behavioral elements. But I think there's a few situations, it's a really powerful tool for a lot of these questions, but as you mentioned, one is this issue of you have the population you study on and then perhaps in reality how that translates elsewhere.Adam Kucharski (17:17):And we see, I mean things like flu vaccines are a good example, which are very dependent on immunity and evolution and what goes on in different populations. Sometimes you've had a result on a vaccine in one place and then the effectiveness doesn't translate in the same way to somewhere else. I think the other really important thing to bear in mind is, as I said, it's the averaging that you're getting an average effect between two different groups. And I think we see certainly a lot of development around things like personalized medicine where actually you're much more interested in the outcome for the individual. And so, what a trial can give you evidence is on average across a group, this is the effect that I can expect this intervention to have. But we've now seen more of the emergence things like N=1 studies where you can actually over the same individual, particularly for chronic conditions, look at those kind of interventions.Adam Kucharski (18:05):And also there's just these extreme examples where you're ethically not going to run a trial, there's never been a trial of whether it's a good idea to have intensive care units in hospitals or there's a lot of these kind of historical treatments which are just so overwhelmingly effective that we're not going to run trial. So almost this hierarchy over time, you can see it getting shifted because actually you do have these situations where other forms of evidence can get you either closer to what you need or just more feasibly an answer where it's just not ethical or practical to do an RCT.Eric Topol (18:37):And that brings us to the natural experiments I just wrote about recently, the one with shingles, which there's two big natural experiments to suggest that shingles vaccine might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, an added benefit beyond the shingles that was not anticipated. Your thoughts about natural experiments, because here you're getting a much different type of population assessment, again, not at the individual level, but not necessarily restricted by some potentially skewed enrollment criteria.Adam Kucharski (19:14):I think this is as emerged as a really valuable tool. It's kind of interesting, in the book you're talking to economists like Josh Angrist, that a lot of these ideas emerge in epidemiology, but I think were really then taken up by economists, particularly as they wanted to add more credibility to a lot of these policy questions. And ultimately, it comes down to this issue that for a lot of problems, we can't necessarily intervene and randomize, but there might be a situation that's done it to some extent for us, so the classic example is the Vietnam draft where it was kind of random birthdays with drawn out of lottery. And so, there's been a lot of studies subsequently about the effect of serving in the military on different subsequent lifetime outcomes because broadly those people have been randomized. It was for a different reason. But you've got that element of randomization driving that.Adam Kucharski (20:02):And so again, with some of the recent shingles data and other studies, you might have a situation for example, where there's been an intervention that's somewhat arbitrary in terms of time. It's a cutoff on a birth date, for example. And under certain assumptions you could think, well, actually there's no real reason for the person on this day and this day to be fundamentally different. I mean, perhaps there might be effects of cohorts if it's school years or this sort of thing. But generally, this isn't the same as having people who are very, very different ages and very different characteristics. It's just nature, or in this case, just a policy intervention for a different reason has given you that randomization, which allows you or pseudo randomization, which allows you to then look at something about the effect of an intervention that you wouldn't as reliably if you were just digging into the data of yes, no who's received a vaccine.Eric Topol (20:52):Yeah, no, I think it's really valuable. And now I think increasingly given priority, if you can find these natural experiments and they're not always so abundant to use to extrapolate from, but when they are, they're phenomenal. The causation correlation is so big. The issue there, I mean Judea Pearl's, the Book of Why, and you give so many great examples throughout the book in Proof. I wonder if you could comment that on that a bit more because this is where associations are confused somehow or other with a direct effect. And we unfortunately make these jumps all too frequently. Perhaps it's the most common problem that's occurring in the way we interpret medical research data.Adam Kucharski (21:52):Yeah, I think it's an issue that I think a lot of people get drilled into in their training just because a correlation between things doesn't mean that that thing causes this thing. But it really struck me as I talked to people, researching the book, in practice in research, there's actually a bit more to it in how it's played out. So first of all, if there's a correlation between things, it doesn't tell you much generally that's useful for intervention. If two things are correlated, it doesn't mean that changing that thing's going to have an effect on that thing. There might be something that's influencing both of them. If you have more ice cream sales, it will lead to more heat stroke cases. It doesn't mean that changing ice cream sales is going to have that effect, but it does allow you to make predictions potentially because if you can identify consistent patterns, you can say, okay, if this thing going up, I'm going to make a prediction that this thing's going up.Adam Kucharski (22:37):So one thing I found quite striking, actually talking to research in different fields is how many fields choose to focus on prediction because it kind of avoids having to deal with this cause and effect problem. And even in fields like psychology, it was kind of interesting that there's a lot of focus on predicting things like relationship outcomes, but actually for people, you don't want a prediction about your relationship. You want to know, well, how can I do something about it? You don't just want someone to sell you your relationship's going to go downhill. So there's almost part of the challenge is people just got stuck on prediction because it's an easier field of work, whereas actually some of those problems will involve intervention. I think the other thing that really stood out for me is in epidemiology and a lot of other fields, rightly, people are very cautious to not get that mixed up.Adam Kucharski (23:24):They don't want to mix up correlations or associations with causation, but you've kind of got this weird situation where a lot of papers go out of their way to not use causal language and say it's an association, it's just an association. It's just an association. You can't say anything about causality. And then the end of the paper, they'll say, well, we should think about introducing more of this thing or restricting this thing. So really the whole paper and its purpose is framed around a causal intervention, but it's extremely careful throughout the paper to not frame it as a causal claim. So I think we almost by skirting that too much, we actually avoid the problems that people sometimes care about. And I think a lot of the nice work that's been going on in causal inference is trying to get people to confront this more head on rather than say, okay, you can just stay in this prediction world and that's fine. And then just later maybe make a policy suggestion off the back of it.Eric Topol (24:20):Yeah, I think this is cause and effect is a very alluring concept to support proof as you so nicely go through in the book. But of course, one of the things that we use to help us is the biological mechanism. So here you have, let's say for example, you're trying to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the request is, well, we want two trials, randomized trials, independent. We want to have p-values that are significant, and we want to know the biological mechanism ideally with the dose response of the drug. But there are many drugs as you review that have no biological mechanism established. And even when the tobacco problems were mounting, the actual mechanism of how tobacco use caused cancer wasn't known. So how important is the biological mechanism, especially now that we're well into the AI world where explainability is demanded. And so, we don't know the mechanism, but we also don't know the mechanism and lots of things in medicine too, like anesthetics and even things as simple as aspirin, how it works and many others. So how do we deal with this quest for the biological mechanism?Adam Kucharski (25:42):I think that's a really good point. It shows almost a lot of the transition I think we're going through currently. I think particularly for things like smoking cancer where it's very hard to run a trial. You can't make people randomly take up smoking. Having those additional pieces of evidence, whether it's an analogy with a similar carcinogen, whether it's a biological mechanism, can help almost give you more supports for that argument that there's a cause and effect going on. But I think what I found quite striking, and I realized actually that it's something that had kind of bothered me a bit and I'd be interested to hear whether it bothers you, but with the emergence of AI, it's almost a bit of the loss of scientific satisfaction. I think you grow up with learning about how the world works and why this is doing what it's doing.Adam Kucharski (26:26):And I talked for example of some of the people involved with AlphaFold and some of the subsequent work in installing those predictions about structures. And they'd almost made peace with it, which I found interesting because I think they started off being a bit uncomfortable with like, yeah, you've got these remarkable AI models making these predictions, but we don't understand still biologically what's happening here. But I think they're just settled in saying, well, biology is really complex on some of these problems, and if we can have a tool that can give us this extremely valuable information, maybe that's okay. And it was just interesting that they'd really kind of gone through that kind process, which I think a lot of people are still grappling with and that almost that discomfort of using AI and what's going to convince you that that's a useful reliable prediction whether it's something like predicting protein folding or getting in a self-driving car. What's the evidence you need to convince you that's reliable?Eric Topol (27:26):Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because when Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize, the point I made was maybe there should be an asterisk with AI because they don't know how it works. I mean, they had all the rich data from the protein data bank, and they got the transformer model to do it for 200 million protein structure prediction, but they still to this day don't fully understand how the model really was working. So it reinforces what you're just saying. And of course, it cuts across so many types of AI. It's just that we tend to hold different standards in medicine not realizing that there's lots of lack of explainability for routine medical treatments today. Now one of the things that I found fascinating in your book, because there's different levels of proof, different types of proof, but solid logical systems.Eric Topol (28:26):And on page 60 of the book, especially pertinent to the US right now, there is a bit about Kurt Gödel and what he did there was he basically, there was a question about dictatorship in the US could it ever occur? And Gödel says, “oh, yes, I can prove it.” And he's using the constitution itself to prove it, which I found fascinating because of course we're seeing that emerge right now. Can you give us a little bit more about this, because this is fascinating about the Fifth Amendment, and I mean I never thought that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship to emerge.Adam Kucharski (29:23):And this was a fascinating story, Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest logical minds of the 20th century and did a lot of work, particularly in the early 20th century around system of rules, particularly things like mathematics and whether they can ever be really fully satisfying. So particularly in mathematics, he showed that there were this problem that is very hard to have a set of rules for something like arithmetic that was both complete and covered every situation, but also had no contradictions. And I think a lot of countries, if you go back, things like Napoleonic code and these attempts to almost write down every possible legal situation that could be imaginable, always just ascended into either they needed amendments or they had contradictions. I think Gödel's work really summed it up, and there's a story, this is in the late forties when he had his citizenship interview and Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern went along as witnesses for him.Adam Kucharski (30:17):And it's always told as kind of a lighthearted story as this logical mind, this academic just saying something silly in front of the judge. And actually, to my own admission, I've in the past given talks and mentioned it in this slightly kind of lighthearted way, but for the book I got talking to a few people who'd taken it more seriously. I realized actually he's this extremely logically focused mind at the time, and maybe there should have been something more to it. And people who have kind of dug more into possibilities was saying, well, what could he have spotted that bothered him? And a lot of his work that he did about consistency in mass was around particularly self-referential statements. So if I say this sentence is false, it's self-referential and if it is false, then it's true, but if it's true, then it's false and you get this kind of weird self-referential contradictions.Adam Kucharski (31:13):And so, one of the theories about Gödel was that in the Constitution, it wasn't that there was a kind of rule for someone can become a dictator, but rather people can use the mechanisms within the Constitution to make it easier to make further amendments. And he kind of downward cycle of amendment that he had seen happening in Europe and the run up to the war, and again, because this is never fully documented exactly what he thought, but it's one of the theories that it wouldn't just be outright that it would just be this cycle process of weakening and weakening and weakening and making it easier to add. And actually, when I wrote that, it was all the earlier bits of the book that I drafted, I did sort of debate whether including it I thought, is this actually just a bit in the weeds of American history? And here we are. Yeah, it's remarkable.Eric Topol (32:00):Yeah, yeah. No, I mean I found, it struck me when I was reading this because here back in 1947, there was somebody predicting that this could happen based on some, if you want to call it loopholes if you will, or the ability to change things, even though you would've thought otherwise that there wasn't any possible capability for that to happen. Now, one of the things I thought was a bit contradictory is two parts here. One is from Angus Deaton, he wrote, “Gold standard thinking is magical thinking.” And then the other is what you basically are concluding in many respects. “To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.” So here you have on the one hand your search for the truth, proof, which I think that little paragraph says it all. In many respects, it sums up somewhat to the work that you review here and on the other you have this Nobel laureate saying, you don't have to go to extremes here. The enemy of good is perfect, perhaps. I mean, how do you reconcile this sense that you shouldn't go so far? Don't search for absolute perfection of proof.Adam Kucharski (33:58):Yeah, I think that encapsulates a lot of what the book is about, is that search for certainty and how far do you have to go. I think one of the things, there's a lot of interesting discussion, some fascinating papers around at what point do you use these studies? What are their flaws? But I think one of the things that does stand out is across fields, across science, medicine, even if you going to cover law, AI, having these kind of cookie cutter, this is the definitive way of doing it. And if you just follow this simple rule, if you do your p-value, you'll get there and you'll be fine. And I think that's where a lot of the danger is. And I think that's what we've seen over time. Certain science people chasing certain targets and all the behaviors that come around that or in certain situations disregarding valuable evidence because you've got this kind of gold standard and nothing else will do.Adam Kucharski (34:56):And I think particularly in a crisis, it's very dangerous to have that because you might have a low level of evidence that demands a certain action and you almost bias yourself towards inaction if you have these kind of very simple thresholds. So I think for me, across all of these stories and across the whole book, I mean William Gosset who did a lot of pioneering work on statistical experiments at Guinness in the early 20th century, he had this nice question he sort of framed is, how much do we lose? And if we're thinking about the problems, there's always more studies we can do, there's always more confidence we can have, but whether it's a patient we want to treat or crisis we need to deal with, we need to work out actually getting that level of proof that's really appropriate for where we are currently.Eric Topol (35:49):I think exceptionally important that there's this kind of spectrum or continuum in following science and search for truth and that distinction, I think really nails it. Now, one of the things that's unique in the book is you don't just go through all the different types of how you would get to proof, but you also talk about how the evidence is acted on. And for example, you quote, “they spent a lot of time misinforming themselves.” This is the whole idea of taking data and torturing it or using it, dredging it however way you want to support either conspiracy theories or alternative facts. Basically, manipulating sometimes even emasculating what evidence and data we have. And one of the sentences, or I guess this is from Sir Francis Bacon, “truth is a daughter of time”, but the added part is not authority. So here we have our president here that repeats things that are wrong, fabricated or wrong, and he keeps repeating to the point that people believe it's true. But on the other hand, you could say truth is a daughter of time because you like to not accept any truth immediately. You like to see it get replicated and further supported, backed up. So in that one sentence, truth is a daughter of time not authority, there's the whole ball of wax here. Can you take us through that? Because I just think that people don't understand that truth being tested over time, but also manipulated by its repetition. This is a part of the big problem that we live in right now.Adam Kucharski (37:51):And I think it's something that writing the book and actually just reflecting on it subsequently has made me think about a lot in just how people approach these kinds of problems. I think that there's an idea that conspiracy theorists are just lazy and have maybe just fallen for a random thing, but talking to people, you really think about these things a lot more in the field. And actually, the more I've ended up engaging with people who believe things that are just outright unevidenced around vaccines, around health issues, they often have this mountain of papers and data to hand and a lot of it, often they will be peer reviewed papers. It won't necessarily be supporting the point that they think it's supports.Adam Kucharski (38:35):But it's not something that you can just say everything you're saying is false, that there's actually often a lot of things that have been put together and it's just that leap to that conclusion. I think you also see a lot of scientific language borrowed. So I gave a talker early this year and it got posted on YouTube. It had conspiracy theories it, and there was a lot of conspiracy theory supporters who piled in the comments and one of the points they made is skepticism is good. It's the kind of law society, take no one's word for it, you need this. We are the ones that are kind of doing science and people who just assume that science is settled are in the wrong. And again, you also mentioned that repetition. There's this phenomenon, it's the illusory truth problem that if you repeatedly tell someone someone's something's false, it'll increase their belief in it even if it's something quite outrageous.Adam Kucharski (39:27):And that mimics that scientific repetition because people kind of say, okay, well if I've heard it again and again, it's almost like if you tweak these as mini experiments, I'm just accumulating evidence that this thing is true. So it made me think a lot about how you've got essentially a lot of mimicry of the scientific method, amount of data and how you present it and this kind of skepticism being good, but I think a lot of it comes down to as well as just looking at theological flaws, but also ability to be wrong in not actually seeking out things that confirm. I think all of us, it's something that I've certainly tried to do a lot working on emergencies, and one of the scientific advisory groups that I worked on almost it became a catchphrase whenever someone presented something, they finished by saying, tell me why I'm wrong.Adam Kucharski (40:14):And if you've got a variant that's more transmissible, I don't want to be right about that really. And it is something that is quite hard to do and I found it is particularly for something that's quite high pressure, trying to get a policymaker or someone to write even just non-publicly by themselves, write down what you think's going to happen or write down what would convince you that you are wrong about something. I think particularly on contentious issues where someone's got perhaps a lot of public persona wrapped up in something that's really hard to do, but I think it's those kind of elements that distinguish between getting sucked into a conspiracy theory and really seeking out evidence that supports it and trying to just get your theory stronger and stronger and actually seeking out things that might overturn your belief about the world. And it's often those things that we don't want overturned. I think those are the views that we all have politically or in other ways, and that's often where the problems lie.Eric Topol (41:11):Yeah, I think this is perhaps one of, if not the most essential part here is that to try to deal with the different views. We have biases as you emphasized throughout, but if you can use these different types of proof to have a sound discussion, conversation, refutation whereby you don't summarily dismiss another view which may be skewed and maybe spurious or just absolutely wrong, maybe fabricated whatever, but did you can engage and say, here's why these are my proof points, or this is why there's some extent of certainty you can have regarding this view of the data. I think this is so fundamental because unfortunately as we saw during the pandemic, the strident minority, which were the anti-science, anti-vaxxers, they were summarily dismissed as being kooks and adopting conspiracy theories without the right engagement and the right debates. And I think this might've helped along the way, no less the fact that a lot of scientists didn't really want to engage in the first place and adopt this methodical proof that you've advocated in the book so many different ways to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Now, we've covered a lot here, Adam. Have I missed some central parts of the book and the effort because it's really quite extraordinary. I know it's your third book, but it's certainly a standout and it certainly it's a standout not just for your books, but books on this topic.Adam Kucharski (43:13):Thanks. And it's much appreciated. It was not an easy book to write. I think at times, I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic and I think a core thing, your last point speaks to that. I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else. I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say the evidence is clear or the science has proved this. But even on something like the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during Covid and we waited up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine. And I think it's just finding what is convincing. Is it having more studies from other countries? Is it understanding more about the biology? Is it understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals? And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from? Because ultimately having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.Eric Topol (44:24):Yeah. Well, look, you've inculcated my mind with this book, Adam, called Proof. Anytime I think of the word proof, I'm going to be thinking about you. So thank you. Thanks for taking the time to have a conversation about your book, your work, and I know we're going to count on you for the astute mathematics and analysis of outbreaks in the future, which we will see unfortunately. We are seeing now, in fact already in this country with measles and whatnot. So thank you and we'll continue to follow your great work.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading this Ground Truths podcast/post.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.I'm also appreciative for your subscribing to Ground Truths. All content —its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access. I'm fortunate to get help from my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio/video tech support to pull these podcasts together for Scripps Research.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years.A bit of an update on SUPER AGERSMy book has been selected as a Next Big Idea Club winner for Season 26 by Adam Grant, Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. This club has spotlighted the most groundbreaking nonfiction books for over a decade. As a winning title, my book will be shipped to thousands of thoughtful readers like you, featured alongside a reading guide, a "Book Bite," Next Big Idea Podcast episode as well as a live virtual Q&A with me in the club's vibrant online community. If you're interested in joining the club, here's a promo code SEASON26 for 20% off at the website. SUPER AGERS reached #3 for all books on Amazon this week. This was in part related to the segment on the book on the TODAY SHOW which you can see here. Also at Amazon there is a remarkable sale on the hardcover book for $10.l0 at the moment for up to 4 copies. Not sure how long it will last or what prompted it.The journalist Paul von Zielbauer has a Substack “Aging With Strength” and did an extensive interview with me on the biology of aging and how we can prevent the major age-related diseases. Here's the link. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Imagine being awakened from a sound sleep by a group of armed men bashing in your door. Come to find out, it's the FBI. Oh yeah, and they have the wrong house. After the trauma, not to mention the damage to your house, at the very least you can sue for a redress of these grievances, right? That is the question before the Supreme Court in the case Martin v. United States.

This Day in Legal History: Georgia v. McCollumOn June 18, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), holding that criminal defendants cannot use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race. This decision extended the logic of Batson v. Kentucky—which barred prosecutors from racially discriminatory jury strikes—to defense attorneys, ensuring both sides are bound by the Equal Protection Clause. The case involved white defendants in Georgia who sought to remove Black jurors, prompting the state to challenge the defense's strikes as racially biased.The Court, in a 7–2 opinion written by Justice Blackmun, reasoned that racial discrimination in jury selection, regardless of the source, undermines public confidence in the justice system and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. It emphasized that the courtroom is not a private forum and that all participants—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges—must adhere to constitutional principles.Importantly, the decision addressed the state action requirement, acknowledging that while defense attorneys are not state actors in the traditional sense, their participation in the jury selection process is conducted under judicial supervision and is thus attributable to the state. This broadened the scope of equal protection enforcement in criminal proceedings.The ruling was a major step toward eradicating racial bias in the judicial process, reinforcing that justice must not only be impartial but also be perceived as such. By holding defense attorneys to the same standard as prosecutors, the Court ensured that the integrity of jury selection is preserved across the board. The decision also highlighted the evolving understanding of the judiciary's role in preventing systemic discrimination, even in adversarial settings.Georgia v. McCollum remains a critical precedent in both constitutional law and criminal procedure, illustrating the Court's commitment to fairness in one of the most fundamental aspects of the legal system—trial by jury.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick expanded a prior injunction, blocking the Trump administration's passport policy that restricted transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals from obtaining passports reflecting their gender identity. Kobick found that the State Department's revised policy—mandating passports list only “biological” sex at birth—likely violated the Fifth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and reflecting irrational bias.Initially, the injunction applied only to six plaintiffs, but Kobick's ruling now grants class-action status, halting enforcement of the policy nationwide. The policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump after returning to office in January 2025, directing all federal agencies to recognize only two sexes and abandon the gender marker flexibility introduced under the Biden administration in 2022.The ruling marks a legal setback for the administration's effort to reimpose binary sex classifications across federal documents. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, called it a critical win for transgender rights. The White House condemned the ruling as judicial overreach. The broader case remains ongoing.US judge blocks Trump passport policy targeting transgender people | ReutersEducational toy company Learning Resources petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its challenge to President Donald Trump's tariffs before lower court appeals conclude. The company argues that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs is unconstitutional and economically damaging, citing a May 29 district court ruling that found the tariffs illegal. That decision, however, is currently stayed pending appeal.Learning Resources' CEO, Rick Woldenberg, warned that delaying Supreme Court review could cost American businesses up to $150 billion due to ongoing tariff-related costs. He described the tariffs as a hidden tax and accused the government of forcing importers to act as involuntary tax collectors.Two federal courts have already ruled against Trump's interpretation of IEEPA, a law historically used for targeted sanctions, not general trade policy. The administration defends the tariffs as a legal response to national emergencies like trade imbalances and drug trafficking, though critics say the justification is legally thin and economically harmful.While rare, the Supreme Court has expedited cases of national significance in the past, such as Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. A key appeals court hearing on Trump's tariff authority is scheduled for July 31.Small business seeks early Supreme Court review of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal judge has also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a new Department of Defense policy that would cap indirect cost reimbursements to universities at 15%. The move came in response to a lawsuit filed by 12 research institutions—including MIT and Johns Hopkins—as well as major academic associations. These groups argued that the cap violated existing federal regulations and congressional intent.The Department of Defense had framed the policy as a cost-saving measure, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claiming it could save up to $900 million annually. However, universities rely on indirect cost reimbursements to fund infrastructure, staff, and equipment that support research across multiple projects—not just the ones directly funded.The ruling by Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, mirrors earlier judicial blocks of similar funding cuts proposed by the NIH and Department of Energy. A hearing is scheduled for July 2 to determine whether a longer-term injunction should be issued. The case highlights growing legal resistance to the administration's broader push to reduce federal spending on scientific research.US judge blocks Defense Department from slashing federal research funding | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors in a 6–3 decision that sets a national precedent and effectively greenlights similar restrictions in over 20 states. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the law neither classifies based on sex nor targets transgender status, and thus only required rational basis review—not heightened constitutional scrutiny. The Court accepted Tennessee's framing of the law as neutral and medically cautious, not discriminatory, citing European health policy shifts and purported uncertainty around gender-affirming care as justification.Critics, including the Court's liberal bloc, argued the law does in fact discriminate based on sex and gender identity by banning medical treatment only when it aims to affirm a transgender identity. Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, emphasized that the law's language and application plainly hinge on a minor's “sex as assigned at birth,” drawing troubling parallels to older jurisprudence that permitted covert forms of discrimination under the guise of neutrality.The ruling marks a major rollback of legal protections for transgender youth, ignoring years of precedent that increasingly recognized transgender identity as a constitutionally protected status. By lowering the scrutiny threshold and deferring to legislative “uncertainty,” the Court provided a road map for states to restrict gender-affirming care through general, non-explicitly discriminatory language. The majority's refusal to engage with medical consensus or the real-world impact on transgender youth reveals a troubling judicial posture: one that values legislative deference over individual rights, even when the stakes include physical and psychological harm to a vulnerable group.Supreme Court Upholds Curbs on Treatment for Transgender Minors This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Fifth Amendment says that the government must pay just compensation when it takes private property for public use, a command that, regrettably, is often treated as a mere suggestion. On this episode, we take a look at a variety of gambits and flim-flammeries that let the government take property without paying for it. Click here for episode transcript. Agins v. Tiburon First English v. County of Los Angeles

This Day in Legal History:  Miranda v. ArizonaOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | ReutersA federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump's order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer's ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | ReutersIn a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump's favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden's entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.The Court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court's current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.This week's closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era's leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.Albinoni's style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week's featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni's refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni's authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni's bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7. 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

Send us a textFrom behind federal prison walls, Chuckie Taylor delivers a powerful and meticulously detailed account of what he describes as one of America's most troubling miscarriages of justice. With scholarly precision, Taylor breaks down the legal irregularities, political motivations, and constitutional violations that led to his unprecedented 97-year sentence in America's first-ever torture case.Taylor's petition begins by unveiling startling political connections: his prosecution was allegedly pushed by former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf through her relationship with President George W. Bush, evidenced by Laura Bush's attendance at Sirleaf's inauguration. The timing strategically coincided with mounting international pressure on the US to prosecute under its anti-torture statute following controversies surrounding enhanced interrogation techniques after 9/11.The most compelling aspect of Taylor's argument centers on a fundamental legal contradiction. The anti-torture statute (18 USC 2340) specifically targets "public officials acting under color of law." Taylor explains this created an irreconcilable conflict: his indictment was built on his status as a US citizen, yet to qualify as a "public official" under the statute, he would have needed to be a Liberian citizen. This contradiction, he argues, represents an unconstitutional application that violated his Fifth Amendment rights.Through court document citations and transcript references that listeners can independently verify, Taylor methodically deconstructs his trial. He reveals how the judge imposed restrictive protective orders that made defense investigation in post-war Liberia nearly impossible. Perhaps most disturbing are allegations that prosecutors shared defense witness lists with Liberian authorities, resulting in threats and violence against witnesses' families. Meanwhile, prosecution witnesses received substantial payments—$5,000 each, equivalent to three years' salary in Liberia.Taylor's voice carries the weight of someone who has spent years studying law from inside prison walls, determined to understand how the system failed him. His petition isn't just a plea for personal justice, but a warning about how media manipulation, political convenience, and prosecutorial overreach can combine to deprive anyone of liberty. Without clemency or pardon intervention, Taylor states plainly, "I will die in prison."Support the showFollow our IG & Twitter for live updates @LFTGRadio

Send us a textYour constitutional rights aren't just words on paper—they're your shield when facing the criminal justice system. This essential legal corner breaks down how the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination and offers straightforward advice that could save your freedom.The critical message is unmistakable: when dealing with law enforcement, the only information you should provide is your name, address, and date of birth. After that, just say these magic words: "I want a lawyer." Nothing else should leave your mouth, regardless of the situation. Even if they're questioning you about your own grandmother, your response remains the same. Law enforcement officers are trained to extract and twist information in ways most people don't anticipate, making even innocent explanations potentially damaging.Many believe they can talk their way out of trouble or outsmart investigators, but this dangerous misconception has landed countless people in deeper legal troubles. Your right to counsel is triggered by those four simple words, legally requiring officers to stop questioning. If you're innocent, your lawyer can communicate that innocence through proper channels without the risk of your words being manipulated against you.Beyond knowing your rights during an encounter, proactive legal preparation is crucial. Rather than spending disposable income solely on material items, consider retaining a lawyer before trouble arises. Many attorneys offer payment plans that make representation more accessible than commonly believed. Build a relationship with a legal advocate who'll defend you passionately if the need ever arises—it's an investment in your freedom that far outweighs any luxury purchase.Remember: when the handcuffs go on, your lips stay shut. Your biggest potential snitch is often yourself. Know your rights, invoke them properly, and secure legal representation before you need it.Support the showFollow our IG & Twitter for live updates @LFTGRadio

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must plaintiffs prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.The Supreme Court ruled that the FSIA itself provides the sole basis for asserting personal jurisdiction over foreign states and their instrumentalities, without the need to establish "minimum contacts" under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court emphasized that the FSIA's provisions govern the extent to which foreign states can be sued in U.S. courts, and that the statute's specific rules supersede general constitutional principles regarding personal jurisdiction.This decision clarifies that when a foreign state or its agency is subject to suit under the FSIA, the standard for personal jurisdiction is determined by the FSIA's provisions, not by the constitutional "minimum contacts" test typically applied in domestic cases.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this episode of Tiny Pulpit Talks, Rev. T.J. Fitzgerald sits down with Dallas-based immigration attorney Jiroko Lopez for a conversation about what it really means to seek legal status in the United States. Rev. T.J. and Jiroko unpack the myths, the fear, and the staggering complexity of immigration law in this country. They talk about red cards, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the rights of undocumented people. They discuss how to prepare your family if you're living without status including how to build a safety plan, create a power of attorney, and gather the documents that could make all the difference in a crisis. But more than that, this is a conversation about humanity. About the fear parents live with every time they drop their kids at school. About the quiet heroism of people working without protection, paying into systems they may never benefit from. About hope, and heartbreak, and stubborn love. Jiroko brings her frontline experience in Dallas immigration courts, where policy meets real lives—families, children, and workers trying to navigate a system that often feels stacked against them. Together, they lift up voices too often silenced and share what communities can do, even when the law feels immovable. About Jiroko Lopez - Jiroko Lopez is a partner at Lopez & Freshwater, PLLC, an immigration law firm based in Richardson, Texas. Her passion for immigration law began during her undergraduate studies at Southern Methodist University (SMU), where she was hired to interview immigrants in the Dallas–Fort Worth area as part of an anthropological study. Through these interviews, she witnessed firsthand the inequality and poor working conditions many immigrants faced—an experience that inspired her to pursue a legal career focused on immigrant advocacy. After earning her law degree from SMU, Ms. Lopez began her career with Catholic Charities Legal Services. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, she led the legal orientation program for custodians of unaccompanied children. One year after, she co-founded her own firm and has since represented hundreds of clients before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Dallas Immigration Court. In addition to her private practice, Ms. Lopez volunteers with the SMU Criminal Clinic, screening non-citizens for potential immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Her firm also holds one of the few contracts from the Mexican Government for External Legal Assistance, providing legal aid to victims of domestic violence and violent crime. In collaboration with the Mexican Consulate in Dallas, she has helped organize free legal clinics offering immigration consultations, power of attorney services, and human trafficking screenings for the local community. Ms. Lopez has been recognized as one of D Magazine's Best Immigration Attorneys every year since 2017. She remains committed to community outreach, regularly delivering “Know Your Rights” and immigration presentations throughout the DFW area, including at Genesis Women's Shelter, local schools, places of worship, and other community organizations.

As Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial progresses, reports indicate that several high-profile celebrities are seeking legal counsel to avoid potential subpoenas. TMZ founder Harvey Levin revealed to Fox News Digital that some celebrities are concerned about being called to testify and have "lawyered up" in an effort to prevent this. While specific names have not been disclosed, the trial has already seen testimonies from notable figures such as Cassie Ventura and Kid Cudi. Additionally, other celebrities, including Michael B. Jordan, Usher, and Jennifer Lopez, have been mentioned during proceedings, though none have been accused of wrongdoing.The apprehension among celebrities stems from the prosecution's strategy of presenting a comprehensive narrative of Combs' alleged misconduct, which includes testimonies about his behavior in various social settings. Legal experts suggest that potential witnesses may invoke their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination if called to the stand. The trial, which began on May 12, is expected to continue for several more weeks, with the prosecution aiming to establish a pattern of coercion and abuse. As the case unfolds, the involvement of additional celebrities, whether as witnesses or through mentions in testimonies, remains a possibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Celebrities reportedly fear testifying in Sean 'Diddy' Combs case | Fox News

As Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial progresses, reports indicate that several high-profile celebrities are seeking legal counsel to avoid potential subpoenas. TMZ founder Harvey Levin revealed to Fox News Digital that some celebrities are concerned about being called to testify and have "lawyered up" in an effort to prevent this. While specific names have not been disclosed, the trial has already seen testimonies from notable figures such as Cassie Ventura and Kid Cudi. Additionally, other celebrities, including Michael B. Jordan, Usher, and Jennifer Lopez, have been mentioned during proceedings, though none have been accused of wrongdoing.The apprehension among celebrities stems from the prosecution's strategy of presenting a comprehensive narrative of Combs' alleged misconduct, which includes testimonies about his behavior in various social settings. Legal experts suggest that potential witnesses may invoke their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination if called to the stand. The trial, which began on May 12, is expected to continue for several more weeks, with the prosecution aiming to establish a pattern of coercion and abuse. As the case unfolds, the involvement of additional celebrities, whether as witnesses or through mentions in testimonies, remains a possibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Celebrities reportedly fear testifying in Sean 'Diddy' Combs case | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial progresses, reports indicate that several high-profile celebrities are seeking legal counsel to avoid potential subpoenas. TMZ founder Harvey Levin revealed to Fox News Digital that some celebrities are concerned about being called to testify and have "lawyered up" in an effort to prevent this. While specific names have not been disclosed, the trial has already seen testimonies from notable figures such as Cassie Ventura and Kid Cudi. Additionally, other celebrities, including Michael B. Jordan, Usher, and Jennifer Lopez, have been mentioned during proceedings, though none have been accused of wrongdoing.The apprehension among celebrities stems from the prosecution's strategy of presenting a comprehensive narrative of Combs' alleged misconduct, which includes testimonies about his behavior in various social settings. Legal experts suggest that potential witnesses may invoke their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination if called to the stand. The trial, which began on May 12, is expected to continue for several more weeks, with the prosecution aiming to establish a pattern of coercion and abuse. As the case unfolds, the involvement of additional celebrities, whether as witnesses or through mentions in testimonies, remains a possibility.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Celebrities reportedly fear testifying in Sean 'Diddy' Combs case | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Ben Meiselas & Michael Popok head the top rated Legal AF podcast and tonight debate: The Supreme Court's rulings against the Trump Administration and its assault on Due Process and the Fifth Amendment and how the Court is fighting back; whether the Court will allow Trump to continue to play "catch me if you can" with his policies, or off a new oral argument put an end to it and give lower court judges the tools they need to stop Trump; Trump ruining American's perfect credit score and its impact on everyone's pocketbook, Trump going after a former FBI director to distract from a failed overseas trip, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Uplift: Elevate your workspace and energize your year with Uplift Desk. Go to https://upliftdesk.com/legalaf for a special offer exclusive to our audience. Sundays for Dogs: Get 40% off your first order of Sundays. Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/LEGALAF or use code LEGALAF at checkout. Three Day Blinds: For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to https://3DayBlinds.com/LEGALAF Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com and use code LEGALAF to get 30% OFF your order! Check Out The Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com/ Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.This conversation delves into the essential aspects of trial rights, double jeopardy, due process, and post-conviction review, providing a comprehensive overview of key legal doctrines. It emphasizes the importance of the Sixth Amendment in ensuring fair trials, the complexities surrounding double jeopardy, the implications of the 14th Amendment on due process and equal protection, the right to counsel, and the intricacies of post-conviction remedies like habeas corpus.TakeawaysTrial rights are crucial for ensuring fairness in the legal process.The Sixth Amendment provides essential protections for defendants.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same crime.The Blockburger test determines if two offenses are the same for double jeopardy.The dual sovereignty doctrine allows both state and federal prosecutions.Due process under the 14th Amendment ensures fairness in sentencing.The right to counsel extends beyond just the trial stage.Ineffective assistance of counsel can be challenged under Strickland.Habeas corpus allows for post-conviction challenges to legality of detention.AEDPA imposes strict limits on federal habeas petitions.Sound Bites"You can't systematically exclude groups.""Crawford changed the whole framework.""The key test is the Blockburger test."

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform

Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This lecture outlines criminal procedure, focusing on the stages from initial arrest through the pretrial process. It explains the constitutional standards for seizing an individual, differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and discusses Terry stops and arrest warrants. The text then details pretrial steps, including initial appearances, bail, grand jury proceedings, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and pretrial motions. Finally, it examines key constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (including Miranda rights) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at crucial stages, highlighting their interactions and exceptions.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, focusing on the critical pretrial phase and the interactions between law enforcement and individuals. It covers essential topics such as the definitions of seizures and arrests, the importance of constitutional amendments, the process of initial appearances and bail decisions, charging procedures, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, the right to a speedy trial, and the implications of Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The discussion aims to equip listeners with a solid understanding of these foundational legal concepts, essential for both exams and practical application in the field.TakeawaysUnderstanding the core principles of criminal procedure is essential.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.Reasonable suspicion is required for brief investigatory stops.Probable cause is necessary for full custodial arrests.Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless arrests in emergencies.The initial appearance before a judge must happen promptly after arrest.Bail decisions balance the need for public safety and the defendant's rights.Plea bargaining is a common outcome in the criminal justice system.Pretrial motions can challenge the prosecution's case before trial.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Sound Bites"This is your essential guide to criminal procedure.""Reasonable suspicion lets them stop and ask questions briefly.""The key is the urgency, the impracticability of waiting.""The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial."criminal procedure, law enforcement, constitutional amendments, arrests, pretrial phase, Miranda rights, speedy trial, evidence suppression, plea bargaining, legal rights

This lecture covers lawful arrests, pretrial procedures, and confession/interrogation law, building on Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Key topics include constitutional standards for stops, frisks (reasonable suspicion), and arrests (probable cause); pretrial steps from initial appearance to plea negotiations; and Fifth/Sixth Amendment safeguards concerning Miranda warnings, waiver, invocation, and right to counsel at critical stages. A seizure occurs when a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave, distinguishing temporary stops (reasonable suspicion, limited pat-down) from custodial arrests (probable cause, full procedures). The Terry stop allows brief stops and pat-downs based on articulable suspicion of criminal activity and a reasonable belief of being armed and dangerous, limited to weapon discovery. Arrests generally require a warrant based on probable cause from a neutral magistrate, with exceptions for exigent circumstances (fleeing suspect, public safety). Warrantless felony arrests in public are permitted with objective probable cause, respecting the individual's dignity and avoiding excessive force. The pretrial process begins with an initial appearance (charges, counsel, release). Bail is considered under the Eighth Amendment (no excessive bail), balancing offense seriousness, criminal history, and community risk, potentially involving release on recognizance, bonds, or preventive detention. Federal felony cases often require a grand jury indictment (probable cause), while other jurisdictions use prosecutorial information and preliminary hearings as a screen against unfounded prosecutions. Prosecutors have broad charging discretion and utilize plea bargaining (guilty plea for reduced charge/sentence) which raises concerns about coercion and unequal power. Pretrial motions, especially to suppress illegally obtained evidence (Fourth Amendment challenges), are crucial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation (Miranda warnings: right to silence, use of statements, right to counsel, appointed counsel if indigent), requiring knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waivers based on totality of circumstances. Invoking the right to counsel or silence requires ceasing interrogation. Exceptions to Miranda include public safety and non-custodial questioning (voluntariness still applies). The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel at critical stages after formal charges (indictment, arraignment, etc.), such as plea discussions, lineups, and hearings, requiring knowing and intelligent waivers. Massiah prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from an indicted defendant without counsel. Elstad allows subsequent admissible statements after defective initial Miranda warnings if later warnings are proper and waiver is valid. Edwards' "bright line" rule requires ceasing interrogation upon invoking Miranda counsel until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication. The lecture concludes by summarizing these themes, leading to discussions on trial, sentencing, and post-conviction in the next session.

In a letter addressed to Judge Arun Subramanian, attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs responded to the government's renewed effort to block the defense from introducing evidence or testimony about consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals who are not identified as victims in the case. The government had filed a motion in limine on April 28, 2025, seeking to exclude this category of evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. However, Combs' legal team contends that the government's latest filing offers no new legal grounds or substantive arguments that weren't already addressed in earlier briefs and hearings.The defense urged the court to uphold its prior decision, made during a hearing on April 25, in which the judge acknowledged the defense had presented a valid legal foundation for introducing such evidence. Citing the transcript of that hearing, where the court stated the defense "has articulated a basis for the admission of this evidence," the letter reinforces the argument that these consensual encounters may be relevant to establish context, rebut specific claims, or support the credibility of the defense's narrative. Accordingly, Combs' attorneys asked the court to deny the government's renewed motion and allow the previously approved evidence to be presented at trial.In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, federal prosecutors responded to Sean Combs' April 28, 2025, claim that introducing racketeering acts at trial which were not specifically presented to the grand jury would violate his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury. Combs' defense argued that attempting to try him on unindicted acts would amount to an unconstitutional expansion of the charges, undermining the foundational requirement that federal felony charges originate from a grand jury indictment.The government firmly rejected this argument, stating that there has been no constitutional violation and that Combs' claim lacks legal merit. Prosecutors maintain that the defendant is being tried on charges properly returned by a grand jury, and that additional racketeering acts, even if not individually enumerated in the indictment, can still be introduced at trial as part of the overarching RICO conspiracy. They urged the court to dismiss the defense's position and allow the trial to proceed without limiting the scope of evidence supporting the racketeering charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.310.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.306.0.pdf

We begin by discussing all the ASTRO NEWS YOU CAN USE from this past week, how it's played out, & what's on the horizon as we make our way through this month's lunar cycle which began with the Taurus New Moon square to the Mars/Pluto opposition on April 27.Since Venus's entrance into Aries April 30 (until June 6), we've seen some “let them eat cake” resistance to consumer prices heating up due to pending tariff wars begun by the U.S. Government. And the Venus/Neptune conjunction in Aries May 2 illustrated a likewise laissez faire attitude toward the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment by President Donald Trump who, when asked on Meet The Press if he agreed “that citizens and noncitizens in the United States were entitled to due process,” was less than comforting.“I don't know,” Mr. Trump replied. “I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.” This as we waxed toward the first quarter monthly lunar “crisis in action” square of the Leo Moon to the Taurus Sun May 4, illustrating the vague nonchalance yet recalcitrance of a stubborn leader (Taurus Sun) to take responsibility for the due process rights of individuals (Leo Moon) under U.S. law. Keep in mind that our short-term monthly mission since April 27's Taurus New Moon has been to plant seeds that reflect our more present-day values--as opposed to old, outdated, no longer applicable ones, like say, that trickle-down economics is the way to go, lol. Or, that corporate & billionaire money & power are more important than individual peoples' health & well-being. You know, stuff like that… However, the major point of this month's lunation is that once we discover (or rediscover) our soul's true, lasting values, we may have to fight for them, as per the Mars opposite Pluto signature at the Taurus New Moon.Meanwhile Pluto's station retrograde on May 4 (until October 14) provides us all the perfect opportunity to dig deeply into our psyches to better discover our soul's true, lasting values. In doing so, we discover our shadow sides and bring them out into the light to be forever vanquished. The end result is that of greater personal empowerment, yeah!We look too at the upcoming entrance of Mercury into Taurus on May 10, & the already anticipated slowdown of both travel & trade. Ports on the West Coast are already reporting fewer ships docking there from places like China, a redux of the pandemic era's import shortages from only a few short years ago. Likewise, tourism to America and spending on travel within America, is down and forecast to stay that way for the foreseeable future.As we wax toward the May 12 Scorpio Full Moon which conjoins Juno, the archetypal symbol of partnership, & opposes the Taurus Sun, Uranus, & goddess of health Hygeia, we've already seen a few surprising firsts. On April 8—after a surprisingly quick conclave in Rome that lasted less than two full days—the first American-born Pope was chosen to lead the world's 1.4 billion Catholics. In addition to being the first American to become pope, Pope Leo XIV is also the first member of the Augustinian Order, a Catholic religious order founded in 1244. He attended St. Augustine Seminary near Holland, Michigan, and spent much of his career as a missionary in Peru.“Peace be with you,” Pope Leo XIV greeted his new followers, & we await to see if this is, indeed, going to be true, as he will be tasked with confronting difficult decisions about the church's direction, including the issue of greater inclusion.In addition, the inclusion of Hygeia in this lunar equation, partnered with Uranus in the sign of the physical body (read: Taurus) may signal a rapid change in the world's health situation. Think of the starving children in Gaza (& other places deprived of food & medical care due to war and the now defunct services from USAID), & how U.S. farmers' crops rot in silos due to increased tariffs on importing nations. Then there's the fact that Mercury square Pluto at this lunation brings a measure of obsessiveness to the U.S. House of Representatives' struggle still to come up with a governmental budget reconciliation bill by Memorial Day that doesn't throw 77 million people off of Medicaid—especially in GOP districts. And that's just so corporate billionaires can reduce their taxes under a proposed extension of President Trump's 2017 corporate tax reduction due to expire by end 2025. And that's not even mentioning financial cuts already made to Veteran's benefits & potential cuts to Medicare, Social Security, etc., & the loss of medical benefits of laid off or fired federal workers under unelected billionaire Elon Musk's DOGE. We discuss the sticking point of state & local tax caps (read: reducing family's tax deductions) bandied about in the House now, too…There's also the implications of transiting Jupiter in Gemini's pending mutable square to the transiting Virgo South Node & Pisces North Node as all things Jupiter-related have made their way into the news recently. Law, higher education, foreign travel (read: immigration), media, & religion—of which the new first time American Pope's election is but one subject under Jupiter's domain—are all prominent now, especially between May 15-28 as both the Mean & True Nodes are squared exact by Jupiter during this period. Keep in mind, too, that more surprises are ahead--not only at the Scorpio Full Moon opposite the Sun & Uranus in Taurus May 12—but between now and the Sun's exact conjunction to Uranus on May 17.

Mayancela Guaman, et. al v. Bondi, No. 24-1295 (1st Cir. Apr. 28, 2025)mixed motive Ecuadorian women; BIA de novo review of nexus; Matter of M-R-M-S-; indigenous political parties; fear of Preside Correa; DHS burden to establish changed country conditions; Ecuador Ibarra v. Bondi, No. 22-1560 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025)good moral character catch-all provision at INA § 101(f); fraud; use of false identity; counsel's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination  Baptista v. Bondi, No. 23-2237 (4th Cir. May 1, 2025)Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 20; unarmed assault with intent to rob or steal; fraud not theft; INA § 101(a)(43)(G) theft; definition of attempt; INA § 101(a)(43)(U) aggravated felony; larceny; steal; overt actSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Stephanie talks about Trump - when asked about due process for migrants in a TV interview, he said he didn't know whether he had to uphold the Fifth Amendment. He also said a U.S. invasion of Canada was "highly unlikely" though "something could happen with Greenland". Guest - Cliff Schecter.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In a new interview with MSNBC's Kristen Welker, President Donald Trump raised eyebrows — and constitutional alarms. When asked if undocumented immigrants deserve due process, Trump responded, "I don't know" — not yes or no, but "I don't know." That's the Fifth Amendment he's talking about. He also refused to commit to following a unanimous Supreme Court ruling. When pressed about possibly seeking a third term — despite the Constitution's clear two-term limit — Trump again said, "I don't know." On the economy, Trump brushed off rising prices caused by his tariffs, saying, "I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs — that's 11 years old — needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls." And while Americans face higher costs at the pump and the grocery store, he claims we're doing great — and that a short-term recession is fine. This isn't just about policy — it's about power. When a president casually questions the rule of law, due process and term limits, we should all be paying attention. Related Articles: Judge to Trump: You Can't Wage War on Migrants Trump's Federal Job Purge Faces Major Legal Showdown Are Tariffs the New Trump Tax? Here's What You Should Know One Hundred Days, One Nation on Edge Trump to PBS & NPR: No Tax Dollars for 'Woke News' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Los Angeles RiotsOn April 29, 1992, the Los Angeles riots erupted following the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, an African American motorist. The brutal 1991 beating had been captured on video and widely broadcast, leading to public outrage. However, when a largely white jury in suburban Simi Valley found the officers not guilty of assault and use of excessive force, it sparked immediate and widespread unrest. Over six days, riots, looting, arson, and violence resulted in more than 60 deaths, thousands of injuries, and nearly $1 billion in property damage. The events prompted a national conversation about police accountability, racial injustice, and the legal standards for the use of force.Legally, the case led to significant developments: the U.S. Department of Justice later brought federal civil rights charges against the officers, resulting in two convictions. The riots also accelerated efforts to reform policing practices, sparked lawsuits, and influenced federal legislation concerning police oversight. The King case remains one of the most prominent examples in American legal history where video evidence, jury perception, and civil rights law collided in dramatic fashion.On Monday, U.S. law firm Jenner & Block is asking a federal judge to permanently block an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that penalizes the firm for its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor involved in the Russia investigation. Trump's order, issued on March 25, aims to restrict Jenner's access to federal facilities and terminate government contracts held by its clients. Jenner argues the order violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Republican appointee, in Washington. Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — have also sued to block similar executive orders. So far, judges have temporarily halted major parts of Trump's orders in these cases. The broader context involves Trump's pressure campaign against law firms he views as politically opposed. Meanwhile, other major firms have pledged significant pro bono support to White House causes to avoid being targeted. Jenner is also suing the administration over its actions concerning transgender rights and agency funding freezes.US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to compile a list within 30 days of cities and states that are not complying with federal immigration laws. The move escalates Trump's ongoing battle against so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This follows a federal judge's recent decision blocking the administration from withholding funds from these jurisdictions. Trump officials highlighted a sharp drop in illegal border crossings since he took office, though deportations have fallen compared to Biden's administration. ICE detention centers are over capacity, leading the government to prepare facilities like Fort Bliss and to continue using Guantanamo Bay for migrant detention. Separately, controversy arose after a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly helping a defendant avoid immigration authorities, an action defended by the Trump administration. Despite divided public opinion, Trump's immigration policies maintain relatively strong approval ratings compared to his handling of other issues.Trump to sign order requiring list of sanctuary cities, states, official says | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that if Congress wants professional sports to be more equitable, accountable, and less reliant on taxpayer subsidies, it should rethink a looming tax change that would punish the Atlanta Braves—the only MLB team subject to full public oversight. A new cap on salary deductions for public companies under Section 162(m) is set to take effect in 2027, and while not aimed directly at sports teams, it would hit the Braves with an estimated $19 million annual tax hike. Meanwhile, billionaire-owned private teams would continue enjoying deduction benefits without similar transparency obligations.I explain that public ownership brings clear benefits: the Braves are required to file audited financials, face investor scrutiny on major spending decisions, and have less flexibility to threaten cities with relocation demands. Unlike private ownership groups that can easily pressure municipalities for stadium subsidies, publicly traded teams must answer to broader stakeholder interests. Moreover, public teams can raise capital through stock or bonds instead of leaning on taxpayers.Rather than penalizing the only team operating under these conditions, Congress should create incentives—like a targeted entertainment industry carveout—to encourage more public ownership. The goal isn't to give special treatment to the Braves, but to promote a model that favors transparency, accountability, and financial independence from taxpayers. Letting the current tax rule stand would send the wrong message: rewarding secrecy while punishing openness—and that's bad policy not just for baseball, but for public trust. 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

In this episode, host Corey Nathan shares a candid reflection about a recent encounter where he was right on the facts and the law—but completely wrong in how he presented them. Yet if we're honest with ourselves about when we make mistakes, it's a good opportunity to learn, reminding us that how we communicate is just as important as what we communicate. What You'll Learn: Why being right on the law isn't enough in a conversation How righteous anger can derail productive dialogue Why due process matters for everyone—especially those who aren't guilty of crimes Tools for engaging in hard conversations with empathy and curiosity How the Constitution and Judeo-Christian values intersect in public discourse Episode Highlights: [00:02:00] Corey introduces the story and the key lesson he learned [00:05:00] Breakdown of the Alien Enemies Act and a real legal case [00:06:45] A stranger challenges Corey at a restaurant [00:07:30] Corey "goes Jersey" and loses his cool [00:13:00] What due process really protects and why it matters [00:16:00] How Isaac Saul, David Brooks, and Mónica Guzmán inspired a better way to respond [00:18:00] Reading the First and Fifth Amendments to ground the conversation Featured Quotes: "I was completely right on the facts, but I was completely wrong on the delivery." — Corey Nathan "Due process is there for the innocent just as much as the guilty—even more so for the innocent." — Corey Nathan "Ask at least three questions before making your point." — inspired by Isaac Saul

Was It A Mistake For Defense To Introduce 'Autism' Into Kohberger Case, Attorney Eric Faddis Examines On this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, Tony delves into the controversial decision by Bryan Kohberger's defense to introduce an alleged autism diagnosis into his death penalty trial. Does claiming autism help or harm Kohberger's defense strategy? Tony breaks down the potential implications, questioning whether the defense can substantiate this claim with actual medical evidence or if it's merely a tactic to mitigate sentencing. Could this revelation inadvertently strengthen the prosecution's case by underscoring issues with empathy and social detachment? Tony also explores the unusual scenario unfolding around Kohberger's family potentially testifying in court. With reports indicating some family members might be barred from viewing the trial until after their testimony, Tony discusses the rare and sensitive situation of family members possibly speaking against one of their own. What rights do they have, and could invoking the Fifth Amendment have unintended consequences for Kohberger's case? Tony examines the legal strategies at play and how family testimonies might sway jury perceptions. Lastly, Tony discusses the critical evidentiary decision facing the judge about admitting Kohberger's notorious shower selfie into evidence. Originally intended to corroborate a surviving roommate's identification based on "bushy eyebrows," Tony considers whether this evidence, evocative of notorious historical figures, could significantly impact juror opinions. Tune in as Tony Brueski navigates these complex issues, breaking down legal arguments, courtroom strategies, and the psychological elements that could shape the outcome of this high-profile trial. Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Was It A Mistake For Defense To Introduce 'Autism' Into Kohberger Case, Attorney Eric Faddis Examines On this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, Tony delves into the controversial decision by Bryan Kohberger's defense to introduce an alleged autism diagnosis into his death penalty trial. Does claiming autism help or harm Kohberger's defense strategy? Tony breaks down the potential implications, questioning whether the defense can substantiate this claim with actual medical evidence or if it's merely a tactic to mitigate sentencing. Could this revelation inadvertently strengthen the prosecution's case by underscoring issues with empathy and social detachment? Tony also explores the unusual scenario unfolding around Kohberger's family potentially testifying in court. With reports indicating some family members might be barred from viewing the trial until after their testimony, Tony discusses the rare and sensitive situation of family members possibly speaking against one of their own. What rights do they have, and could invoking the Fifth Amendment have unintended consequences for Kohberger's case? Tony examines the legal strategies at play and how family testimonies might sway jury perceptions. Lastly, Tony discusses the critical evidentiary decision facing the judge about admitting Kohberger's notorious shower selfie into evidence. Originally intended to corroborate a surviving roommate's identification based on "bushy eyebrows," Tony considers whether this evidence, evocative of notorious historical figures, could significantly impact juror opinions. Tune in as Tony Brueski navigates these complex issues, breaking down legal arguments, courtroom strategies, and the psychological elements that could shape the outcome of this high-profile trial. Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read was back in court on April 16th, 2025 to resolve outstanding issues. Jury selection was completed on April 15th with 18 jurors. Opening Statements will begin on Tuesday, April 22nd after the Boston Marathon holiday weekend. The court most likely had planned for a four-day weekend, and lawyers preferred not to start opening statements before such a break. The court is also slightly ahead of schedule.Alan Jackson and Hank Brennan will be conducting Opening Statements. The Commonwealth plans to use Karen Read's media interviews against her. The Defense's strategy is to use Internal Affairs Investigations Against state troopers and Former Trooper Proctor.There are still outstanding disputes regarding ARCCA experts and discovery obligations. The Prosecution is arguing that the Defense has not provided sufficient discovery on ARCCA witnesses, while the Defense claims they were responding to late disclosures from the Prosecution.The Motion to Sequester Aidan Kearney was brought up to see whether he will be excluded from the media pool due to being on the Commonwealth's witness list and potential Fifth Amendment issues. It was decided that he would not be excluded from the courtroom except for specific witness testimonies. I'll be providing daily Case Briefs of each day in court.Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/VvwM5fC6Zr8RESOURCESKaren Read Mistrial - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRJ_QZ5NeikThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Trump v. J.G.G., lifting a pair of temporary orders from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg blocking the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting alleged noncitizen gang members. In an unsigned majority opinion, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on President Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to foreign-born gang members but specified that “the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings,” provided their challenges are brought in the jurisdiction where they are detained.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Karen Read's Lawyers Take the Fight to the Supreme Court Jurors say she was not guilty—so why is Karen Read being retried for murder? With jury selection now underway for Karen Read's second trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, her legal team is throwing a Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument? That retrying her on charges the jury allegedly already agreed she didn't commit violates her Fifth Amendment rights—specifically, protection against double jeopardy. It's a bold move, considering the original trial ended in a mistrial, not an acquittal. But here's where it gets messy: According to Read's attorneys, the jury didn't just stall out completely—they allegedly reached unanimous agreement that she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most serious: second-degree murder. The jury just never announced it in court. And that technicality could change everything. The defense says this silent consensus should still count as an acquittal. But because no formal verdict was read, Massachusetts courts have already ruled that her retrial is fair game. So now, her lawyers are asking the highest court in the land to intervene. The case stems from Read's 2022 arrest after O'Keefe's body was found in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Prosecutors say Read, allegedly drunk, hit him with her SUV and drove away, leaving him to die in the cold. She was initially charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. Later, the charge was bumped up to second-degree murder. Read has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her defense team argues she's a scapegoat—framed by others connected to the case. During her first trial in 2024, jurors started deliberating on June 25. For nearly a week, they sent notes to the judge saying they were deadlocked. On July 1, with no end in sight, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial. No verdict was read. No charges were resolved. Or so it seemed. That's when the jurors started talking. The next day, Juror A reached out to Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and said the panel had unanimously agreed she wasn't guilty of the murder charge. Then came Jurors B, C, and D, sharing similar statements—one even leaving a voicemail for prosecutors saying, “It was not guilty on second degree.” Texts from Juror B added, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.” So why does this matter? Because if true, it means a jury had decided she wasn't guilty of murder—and according to the Constitution, once you've been acquitted, the government doesn't get a second swing. But here, since no one ever said it out loud in court, the legal system treats it like it never happened. The defense argues that's a dangerous technicality. They say the judge should've asked the jury whether they had reached a verdict on any specific counts before sending them home. Without that, the system is effectively ignoring what the jury allegedly decided behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court agrees with Read's team, the second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene charges could be dropped. She'd still face manslaughter, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to a potential life sentence. In the meantime, jury selection for her second trial has begun, and, no surprise, dozens of potential jurors already have opinions about the case. Karen Read's name has become a lightning rod in Boston—part true crime obsession, part courtroom soap opera, and part public debate over police, power, and justice. But behind the noise is a very real constitutional question: If a jury says you're not guilty, but doesn't say it in the “right” way, can the state still come after you again? We're about to find out. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #SupremeCourtAppeal Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's Lawyers Take the Fight to the Supreme Court Jurors say she was not guilty—so why is Karen Read being retried for murder? With jury selection now underway for Karen Read's second trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, her legal team is throwing a Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument? That retrying her on charges the jury allegedly already agreed she didn't commit violates her Fifth Amendment rights—specifically, protection against double jeopardy. It's a bold move, considering the original trial ended in a mistrial, not an acquittal. But here's where it gets messy: According to Read's attorneys, the jury didn't just stall out completely—they allegedly reached unanimous agreement that she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most serious: second-degree murder. The jury just never announced it in court. And that technicality could change everything. The defense says this silent consensus should still count as an acquittal. But because no formal verdict was read, Massachusetts courts have already ruled that her retrial is fair game. So now, her lawyers are asking the highest court in the land to intervene. The case stems from Read's 2022 arrest after O'Keefe's body was found in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Prosecutors say Read, allegedly drunk, hit him with her SUV and drove away, leaving him to die in the cold. She was initially charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. Later, the charge was bumped up to second-degree murder. Read has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her defense team argues she's a scapegoat—framed by others connected to the case. During her first trial in 2024, jurors started deliberating on June 25. For nearly a week, they sent notes to the judge saying they were deadlocked. On July 1, with no end in sight, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial. No verdict was read. No charges were resolved. Or so it seemed. That's when the jurors started talking. The next day, Juror A reached out to Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and said the panel had unanimously agreed she wasn't guilty of the murder charge. Then came Jurors B, C, and D, sharing similar statements—one even leaving a voicemail for prosecutors saying, “It was not guilty on second degree.” Texts from Juror B added, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.” So why does this matter? Because if true, it means a jury had decided she wasn't guilty of murder—and according to the Constitution, once you've been acquitted, the government doesn't get a second swing. But here, since no one ever said it out loud in court, the legal system treats it like it never happened. The defense argues that's a dangerous technicality. They say the judge should've asked the jury whether they had reached a verdict on any specific counts before sending them home. Without that, the system is effectively ignoring what the jury allegedly decided behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court agrees with Read's team, the second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene charges could be dropped. She'd still face manslaughter, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to a potential life sentence. In the meantime, jury selection for her second trial has begun, and, no surprise, dozens of potential jurors already have opinions about the case. Karen Read's name has become a lightning rod in Boston—part true crime obsession, part courtroom soap opera, and part public debate over police, power, and justice. But behind the noise is a very real constitutional question: If a jury says you're not guilty, but doesn't say it in the “right” way, can the state still come after you again? We're about to find out. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #SupremeCourtAppeal Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment. You have the right to remain silent when you're being questioned in police custody, thanks to the Fifth's protection against self-incrimination. But most people end up talking to police anyway. Why? Today on Throughline's We the People: the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, and how hard it can be to use it.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy